Tag: posts

Roman Catholic Diocese Part I: The End of the South Bay “Superprecedent”

Shortly after midnight on Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court decided Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. This decision ushered in the new Roberts Court. The 5-4 Court ruled unconstitutional New York’s occupancy limits on houses of worship. Justice Barrett cast the deciding vote. I have now finished reading the per curiam opinion, Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent, Justice Breyer’s dissent, and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. I plan to write several posts discussing various aspects of the decision.

Here, I will begin with an ending. Chief Justice Robert’s South Bay concurrence is no longer a super-precedent. Really, it was never even a precedent in the first place. Yet, courts had cited it 114 times in the past six months. But Diocese will likely be the last citation. Courts can no longer look to the Chief’s opinion as the definitive statement for pandemic cases. I’m sure some will try. And there are five votes to reject those efforts.

In South Bay, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that that the Supreme Court should not grant an injunction pending appeal unless the “‘the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear’ and, even then, ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.'” The Diocese per curiam provided a more traditional, and easier-to-satisfy test:

The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest.

“Likely to prevail” is a lot easier to satisfy than “indisputably clear” right to a remedy. Really, South Bay was never designed for the lower courts to apply. It was always a standard for a Supreme Court injunction pending appeal. But lower courts reflexively cited that standard.

The dissenters mourn the passing of the Chief’s South Bay concurrence–even though they didn’t join it. Indeed, Justice Breyer uses the pronoun “we” to refer to a solo concurrence he did not join.

Relevant precedent suggests the same. We have previously recognized that courts must grant elected officials “broad” discretion when they “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring) (slip op., at 2) (alteration omitted).

Likewise, Justice Sotomayor treated South Bay and Calvary Chapel as predents. The latter consisted of an unsigned order without any analysis.

South Bay and Calvary Chapel provided a clear and workable rule to state officials seeking to control the spread of COVID–19: They may restrict attendance at houses of worship so long as comparable secular institutions face restrictions that are at least equally as strict.

The majority did not formally discard South Bay. But it has now been buried at sea. And Justice Gorsuch fills the concurrence’s shoes with cement. Neil came to brawl here.

Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease. Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.). At that time, COVID had been with us, in earnest, for just three months. Now, as we round out 2020 and face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow, that rationale has expired according to its own terms. Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free ExerciseClause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain.

I don’t think the majority formally repudiates South Bay. Indeed, the Court distinguishes New York’s orders from the California order. But going forward, Diocese will be the controlling standard. And, when a COVID case reaches the Court on certiorari, I suspect the Chief will join the conservatives.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3m85VSH
via IFTTT

Roman Catholic Diocese Part I: The End of the South Bay “Superprecedent”

Shortly after midnight on Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court decided Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. This decision ushered in the new Roberts Court. The 5-4 Court ruled unconstitutional New York’s occupancy limits on houses of worship. Justice Barrett cast the deciding vote. I have now finished reading the per curiam opinion, Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent, Justice Breyer’s dissent, and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. I plan to write several posts discussing various aspects of the decision.

Here, I will begin with an ending. Chief Justice Robert’s South Bay concurrence is no longer a super-precedent. Really, it was never even a precedent in the first place. Yet, courts had cited it 114 times in the past six months. But Diocese will likely be the last citation. Courts can no longer look to the Chief’s opinion as the definitive statement for pandemic cases. I’m sure some will try. And there are five votes to reject those efforts.

In South Bay, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that that the Supreme Court should not grant an injunction pending appeal unless the “‘the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear’ and, even then, ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.'” The Diocese per curiam provided a more traditional, and easier-to-satisfy test:

The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest.

“Likely to prevail” is a lot easier to satisfy than “indisputably clear” right to a remedy. Really, South Bay was never designed for the lower courts to apply. It was always a standard for a Supreme Court injunction pending appeal. But lower courts reflexively cited that standard.

The dissenters mourn the passing of the Chief’s South Bay concurrence–even though they didn’t join it. Indeed, Justice Breyer uses the pronoun “we” to refer to a solo concurrence he did not join.

Relevant precedent suggests the same. We have previously recognized that courts must grant elected officials “broad” discretion when they “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring) (slip op., at 2) (alteration omitted).

Likewise, Justice Sotomayor treated South Bay and Calvary Chapel as predents. The latter consisted of an unsigned order without any analysis.

South Bay and Calvary Chapel provided a clear and workable rule to state officials seeking to control the spread of COVID–19: They may restrict attendance at houses of worship so long as comparable secular institutions face restrictions that are at least equally as strict.

The majority did not formally discard South Bay. But it has now been buried at sea. And Justice Gorsuch fills the concurrence’s shoes with cement. Neil came to brawl here.

Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease. Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.). At that time, COVID had been with us, in earnest, for just three months. Now, as we round out 2020 and face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow, that rationale has expired according to its own terms. Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free ExerciseClause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain.

I don’t think the majority formally repudiates South Bay. Indeed, the Court distinguishes New York’s orders from the California order. But going forward, Diocese will be the controlling standard. And, when a COVID case reaches the Court on certiorari, I suspect the Chief will join the conservatives.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3m85VSH
via IFTTT

Roman Catholic Diocese Part I: The End of the South Bay “Superprecedent”

Shortly after midnight on Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court decided Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. This decision ushered in the new Roberts Court. The 5-4 Court ruled unconstitutional New York’s occupancy limits on houses of worship. Justice Barrett cast the deciding vote. I have now finished reading the per curiam opinion, Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent, Justice Breyer’s dissent, and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. I plan to write several posts discussing various aspects of the decision.

Here, I will begin with an ending. Chief Justice Robert’s South Bay concurrence is no longer a super-precedent. Really, it was never even a precedent in the first place. Yet, courts had cited it 114 times in the past six months. But Diocese will likely be the last citation. Courts can no longer look to the Chief’s opinion as the definitive statement for pandemic cases. I’m sure some will try. And there are five votes to reject those efforts.

In South Bay, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that that the Supreme Court should not grant an injunction pending appeal unless the “‘the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear’ and, even then, ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.'” The Diocese per curiam provided a more traditional, and easier-to-satisfy test:

The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest.

“Likely to prevail” is a lot easier to satisfy than “indisputably clear” right to a remedy. Really, South Bay was never designed for the lower courts to apply. It was always a standard for a Supreme Court injunction pending appeal. But lower courts reflexively cited that standard.

The dissenters mourn the passing of the Chief’s South Bay concurrence–even though they didn’t join it. Indeed, Justice Breyer uses the pronoun “we” to refer to a solo concurrence he did not join.

Relevant precedent suggests the same. We have previously recognized that courts must grant elected officials “broad” discretion when they “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring) (slip op., at 2) (alteration omitted).

Likewise, Justice Sotomayor treated South Bay and Calvary Chapel as predents. The latter consisted of an unsigned order without any analysis.

South Bay and Calvary Chapel provided a clear and workable rule to state officials seeking to control the spread of COVID–19: They may restrict attendance at houses of worship so long as comparable secular institutions face restrictions that are at least equally as strict.

The majority did not formally discard South Bay. But it has now been buried at sea. And Justice Gorsuch fills the concurrence’s shoes with cement. Neil came to brawl here.

Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease. Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.). At that time, COVID had been with us, in earnest, for just three months. Now, as we round out 2020 and face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow, that rationale has expired according to its own terms. Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free ExerciseClause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain.

I don’t think the majority formally repudiates South Bay. Indeed, the Court distinguishes New York’s orders from the California order. But going forward, Diocese will be the controlling standard. And, when a COVID case reaches the Court on certiorari, I suspect the Chief will join the conservatives.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3m85VSH
via IFTTT

On Thanksgiving 2020, the New Roberts Court has Arrived

On May 29, 2020, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a brief concurring opinion in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. This thinly reasoned statement soon became a super precedent. At this point, the Chief was at the apogee of his power. What a difference five months makes. Moments ago, the Supreme Court decided Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. By a 5-4 vote, the Court issued an injunction against New York’s restrictions on houses of worship. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a solo dissent. He seemed to agree that the Petitioners would prevail on the merits, but would not have granted the injunction for other reasons.

For the past week, I wondered whether Roberts would pivot to the right to control the majority, or stick to his guns in dissent. Here, he did not flinch. I think this voting pattern will become far more pronounced over this term, and in future terms. Mark your calendars. On Thanksgiving, 2020, the New Roberts Court has arrived.

I will have much more to say about the merits of the decision in subsequent blog posts.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2V424du
via IFTTT

On Thanksgiving 2020, the New Roberts Court has Arrived

On May 29, 2020, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a brief concurring opinion in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. This thinly reasoned statement soon became a super precedent. At this point, the Chief was at the apogee of his power. What a difference five months makes. Moments ago, the Supreme Court decided Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. By a 5-4 vote, the Court issued an injunction against New York’s restrictions on houses of worship. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a solo dissent. He seemed to agree that the Petitioners would prevail on the merits, but would not have granted the injunction for other reasons.

For the past week, I wondered whether Roberts would pivot to the right to control the majority, or stick to his guns in dissent. Here, he did not flinch. I think this voting pattern will become far more pronounced over this term, and in future terms. Mark your calendars. On Thanksgiving, 2020, the New Roberts Court has arrived.

I will have much more to say about the merits of the decision in subsequent blog posts.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2V424du
via IFTTT

An Inmate Firefighter Might Be Deported After California Handed Him Over to ICE

Bounchan Keola

Time is ticking for a California inmate facing deportation despite his service battling the state’s wildfires this year.

Last week, The Guardian reported Bounchan Keola’s story, which began with him fleeing Laos—a country he does not remember—with his family at a young age. Currently 39 and a legal resident of the U.S., Keola was sent to prison during his teens after being convicted of second-degree attempted murder in a gang-related shooting. Though Keola’s actions as a teenager were devastating, he’s acknowledged the pain he caused and has spent his time behind bars trying to reform.

Keola found his chance to give back to his community this year when California was ravaged by deadly fires: He was trained to be an inmate firefighter. But while fighting the Zogg Fire in early October, Keola was suddenly injured by a falling tree. He suffered a traumatic neck injury, which required him to be airlifted to a hospital.

With only a few weeks left on his sentence, Keola believed that he’d remain in the hospital until his release date. Instead, he was given a neck brace, returned to prison, and placed in isolation.

Then the state turned him over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Earlier this year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that would allow inmates who served as firefighters a chance to become professional firefighters after completing their sentences. This was done after years of criticism about the state’s licensing law, which barred former offenders from continuing in the field after their release.

While the governor’s actions once gave Keola hope, Newsom is now being criticized by Keola’s supporters for continuing the state’s policy of transferring prisoners like Keola to ICE custody following the completion of their sentences. And despite repeated requests to end the practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, Newsom has wordlessly carried on.

Anoop Prasad, Keola’s representation and senior staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus (ALC), is among the voices condemning the state’s continued partnership with ICE. On Twitter, Prasad declared that Newsom either needed to either discontinue the ICE transfers “or stop pretending to be a champion for immigrant and refugee communities.”

Prasad and ALC have also used social media to highlight Kao Saelee, another former inmate who was reported to ICE upon completion of his sentence. And like Keola, Saelee fought wildfires while incarcerated.

While Newsom’s response, or lack thereof, has greatly disappointed Keola’s supporters, he’s proven in the past that former inmates like Keola can be spared from such a fate. In 2019, ALC actually commended Newsom for pardoning Kang Hen and Hay Hov, two Cambodian refugees who faced the threat of deportation after serving time for past crimes.

As Keola’s fate hangs in the balance, he faces another obstacle. Keola’s family is of Khmu descent and fled to the U.S. after the Vietnam War. The Laotian government, however, does not recognize the citizenship of the ethnic minority. It is unclear whether Laos would accept him at all and what would happen to Keola if ICE continues with deportation regardless of the other government. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2J8R3oJ
via IFTTT

An Inmate Firefighter Might Be Deported After California Handed Him Over to ICE

Bounchan Keola

Time is ticking for a California inmate facing deportation despite his service battling the state’s wildfires this year.

Last week, The Guardian reported Bounchan Keola’s story, which began with him fleeing Laos—a country he does not remember—with his family at a young age. Currently 39 and a legal resident of the U.S., Keola was sent to prison during his teens after being convicted of second-degree attempted murder in a gang-related shooting. Though Keola’s actions as a teenager were devastating, he’s acknowledged the pain he caused and has spent his time behind bars trying to reform.

Keola found his chance to give back to his community this year when California was ravaged by deadly fires: He was trained to be an inmate firefighter. But while fighting the Zogg Fire in early October, Keola was suddenly injured by a falling tree. He suffered a traumatic neck injury, which required him to be airlifted to a hospital.

With only a few weeks left on his sentence, Keola believed that he’d remain in the hospital until his release date. Instead, he was given a neck brace, returned to prison, and placed in isolation.

Then the state turned him over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Earlier this year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that would allow inmates who served as firefighters a chance to become professional firefighters after completing their sentences. This was done after years of criticism about the state’s licensing law, which barred former offenders from continuing in the field after their release.

While the governor’s actions once gave Keola hope, Newsom is now being criticized by Keola’s supporters for continuing the state’s policy of transferring prisoners like Keola to ICE custody following the completion of their sentences. And despite repeated requests to end the practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, Newsom has wordlessly carried on.

Anoop Prasad, Keola’s representation and senior staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus (ALC), is among the voices condemning the state’s continued partnership with ICE. On Twitter, Prasad declared that Newsom either needed to either discontinue the ICE transfers “or stop pretending to be a champion for immigrant and refugee communities.”

Prasad and ALC have also used social media to highlight Kao Saelee, another former inmate who was reported to ICE upon completion of his sentence. And like Keola, Saelee fought wildfires while incarcerated.

While Newsom’s response, or lack thereof, has greatly disappointed Keola’s supporters, he’s proven in the past that former inmates like Keola can be spared from such a fate. In 2019, ALC actually commended Newsom for pardoning Kang Hen and Hay Hov, two Cambodian refugees who faced the threat of deportation after serving time for past crimes.

As Keola’s fate hangs in the balance, he faces another obstacle. Keola’s family is of Khmu descent and fled to the U.S. after the Vietnam War. The Laotian government, however, does not recognize the citizenship of the ethnic minority. It is unclear whether Laos would accept him at all and what would happen to Keola if ICE continues with deportation regardless of the other government. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2J8R3oJ
via IFTTT

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock Urged People Not To Travel for Thanksgiving Shortly Before Boarding His Flight

reason-hancock

“Do as I say, not as I do” is increasingly the motto of politicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Witness Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, who urged residents of his city to stay home and not travel during Thanksgiving shortly before boarding a flight to visit family for the holiday.

“Pass the potatoes, not COVID,” said Hancock today in a tweet that advised people to host virtual gatherings instead of in-person dinners and to “avoid travel, if you can.”

That tweet was posted about half an hour before Hancock was set to fly to Houston, according to Denver-area NBC affiliate 9News. The mayor’s ultimate destination, they reported, is Mississippi, where he will link up with his daughter and wife for Thanksgiving.

The mayor’s office said in a statement to 9News that this small gathering of immediate family is in lieu of a larger gathering of all the Hancock clan.

“As he has shared, the Mayor is not hosting his traditional large family dinner this year, but instead traveling alone to join his wife and daughter where the three of them will celebrate Thanksgiving at her residence instead of having them travel back to Denver,” the mayor’s office said.

Hancock had sent an email to city staff last week urging them not to travel during the holiday and touting his own family’s example of “cancelling our traditional gathering of our extended family.”

On Friday, Denver public health authorities, at the behest of Colorado’s state government, issued additional pandemic restrictions that include the shuttering of indoor dining at restaurants, a 10 percent capacity cap at gyms, and a 25 percent capacity cap at houses of worship.

Hancock’s travels put him in the company of other politicians who’ve skirted the very pandemic precautions they have urged, and often required, ordinary people and businesses to comply with.

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to Delaware to attend a celebration of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory, despite issuing health orders requiring D.C. residents to travel only for essential business, and to quarantine for 14 days when returning from high-risk states (which would include Delaware.)

Bowser has defended her Delaware trip by arguing that it involved government business and therefore counted as essential travel.

Perhaps the worst COVID-19 hypocrite is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who attended a birthday party at a swanky Napa Valley restaurant in violation of his own COVID-19 limits on gatherings. Rising case numbers in California are prompting the closure of indoor dining in most of the state under the four-tiered reopening schedule crafted by Newsom and state public health officials.

This kind of hypocrisy on the part of politicians isn’t just infuriating. It also does damage to public health, as Reason‘s Jacob Sullum argued last week.

“Arbitrary, ill-conceived COVID-19 restrictions are bound to provoke resistance and resentment, compounding the fatigue that undermines compliance with more sensible safeguards,” wrote Sullum in a column about Newsom’s night out. “That problem can only be magnified when the people telling us what to do follow a different set of rules.”

Leading by example is one way that politicians could voluntarily encourage safe behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, lessening the need for coercive restrictions. Increasingly, it appears our leaders are not up to that task.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3q15eNg
via IFTTT

Masks Have Helped To Blunt the COVID-19 Pandemic in Kansas

kansascovid

While masks are not a panacea for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, there is mounting evidence that they are a useful tool for slowing community transmission of the disease. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) took advantage of a natural experiment in Kansas, producing an analysis of mask efficacy after some counties enacted a mask mandate and others did not.

On July 2, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly issued an executive order requiring people to wear face coverings when entering any indoor public space, visiting health care facilities, or using public transportation. State law, however, authorizes counties to issue public health orders that are less stringent than statewide executive orders. Many counties opted out of Kelly’s mask mandate.

During the period of the CDC study, 24 counties adopted a mask mandate whereas 81 counties did not. The researchers then compared what happened to the COVID-19 incidence trends in counties with and without mandates. They reported that in early June, a month before Kelly’s order, the daily average COVID-19 incidence rate in counties that would eventually adopt a mask mandate was three cases per 100,000. In counties that ultimately chose not to mandate masks, the daily incidence rate was four per 100,000.

By early July, in the week just after Kelly’s mask order, the COVID-19 incidence rate had risen to 17 cases per 100,000 in the counties that would ultimately adopt the mandate—a 467 percent increase from early June. In the counties that would not adopt the mask order, there had been a 50 percent increase, for an incidence rate of six cases per 100,000.

By mid-August, the 7-day rolling average COVID-19 incidence had decreased by 6 percent to 16 cases per 100,000 in mandated counties. In non-mandated counties, it had increased by 100 percent to 12 cases per 100,000.

“After implementation of mask mandates in 24 Kansas counties, the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed,” noted the researchers. “Although rates were considerably higher in mandated counties than in non-mandated counties by the executive order, rates in mandated counties declined markedly after July 3, compared with those in non-mandated counties. Kansas counties that had mask mandates in place appear to have mitigated the transmission of COVID-19, whereas counties that did not have mask mandates continued to experience increases in cases.”

The Kansas jurisdictions with the greatest increases in COVID-19 cases were the ones that moved most quickly to require people to wear facial coverings while in indoor public spaces. It appears that those communities learned hard lessons early, ones that other Kansas localities are only now beginning to understand. Since August—as COVID-19 cases have risen steeply in the Sunflower State—the number of counties adopting mask mandates has now more than doubled to 50.

However, the current statewide COVID-19 daily incidence rate of 96 cases per 100,000 people three months after the study’s cutoff date clearly shows that wearing facial coverings alone does not stop the transmission of the virus.

Setting aside authoritarian concerns over mandates, the data from the study indicate that wearing facial coverings will help mitigate the transmission of the disease. This could prove especially useful as more people crowd together indoors with the onset of cold winter weather. Despite the pandemic fatigue that we are all suffering, the CDC researchers remind us that “community-level mitigation strategies emphasizing use of masks, physical distancing, staying at home when ill, and enhanced hygiene practices can help reduce the transmission of [the COVID-19 virus].”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KvZ7QD
via IFTTT

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock Urged People Not To Travel for Thanksgiving Shortly Before Boarding His Flight

reason-hancock

“Do as I say, not as I do” is increasingly the motto of politicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Witness Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, who urged residents of his city to stay home and not travel during Thanksgiving shortly before boarding a flight to visit family for the holiday.

“Pass the potatoes, not COVID,” said Hancock today in a tweet that advised people to host virtual gatherings instead of in-person dinners and to “avoid travel, if you can.”

That tweet was posted about half an hour before Hancock was set to fly to Houston, according to Denver-area NBC affiliate 9News. The mayor’s ultimate destination, they reported, is Mississippi, where he will link up with his daughter and wife for Thanksgiving.

The mayor’s office said in a statement to 9News that this small gathering of immediate family is in lieu of a larger gathering of all the Hancock clan.

“As he has shared, the Mayor is not hosting his traditional large family dinner this year, but instead traveling alone to join his wife and daughter where the three of them will celebrate Thanksgiving at her residence instead of having them travel back to Denver,” the mayor’s office said.

Hancock had sent an email to city staff last week urging them not to travel during the holiday and touting his own family’s example of “cancelling our traditional gathering of our extended family.”

On Friday, Denver public health authorities, at the behest of Colorado’s state government, issued additional pandemic restrictions that include the shuttering of indoor dining at restaurants, a 10 percent capacity cap at gyms, and a 25 percent capacity cap at houses of worship.

Hancock’s travels put him in the company of other politicians who’ve skirted the very pandemic precautions they have urged, and often required, ordinary people and businesses to comply with.

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to Delaware to attend a celebration of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory, despite issuing health orders requiring D.C. residents to travel only for essential business, and to quarantine for 14 days when returning from high-risk states (which would include Delaware.)

Bowser has defended her Delaware trip by arguing that it involved government business and therefore counted as essential travel.

Perhaps the worst COVID-19 hypocrite is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who attended a birthday party at a swanky Napa Valley restaurant in violation of his own COVID-19 limits on gatherings. Rising case numbers in California are prompting the closure of indoor dining in most of the state under the four-tiered reopening schedule crafted by Newsom and state public health officials.

This kind of hypocrisy on the part of politicians isn’t just infuriating. It also does damage to public health, as Reason‘s Jacob Sullum argued last week.

“Arbitrary, ill-conceived COVID-19 restrictions are bound to provoke resistance and resentment, compounding the fatigue that undermines compliance with more sensible safeguards,” wrote Sullum in a column about Newsom’s night out. “That problem can only be magnified when the people telling us what to do follow a different set of rules.”

Leading by example is one way that politicians could voluntarily encourage safe behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, lessening the need for coercive restrictions. Increasingly, it appears our leaders are not up to that task.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3q15eNg
via IFTTT