If Sha’Carri Richardson Can Get High and Still Outrun Everybody, She Should Be Allowed To Do It


iosphotos241364

Sha’Carri Richardson ran 100 meters faster than any other woman at the U.S. Olympic trials, but she won’t be able to compete in the event at the Olympic Games in Tokyo after testing positive for marijuana.

There are so, so many things wrong with this. The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which officially announced Richardson’s month-long suspension on Friday, should be ashamed for how they’ve handled the situation. More importantly, they should change their policies to ensure more athletes aren’t subjected to an unnecessary punishment for using a substance that is obviously not going to provide a competitive edge.

And while the situation seems fairly absurd on its face, it actually gets worse the deeper you go.

Start with the fact that the USADA doesn’t actually classify tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive chemical found in cannabis, as a performance-enhancing drug. But the USADA—whose sole purpose, ostensibly, is to ensure the integrity of athletic events—tests athletes for THC anyway because it regards marijuana as “a ‘Substance of Abuse’ because it is frequently used in society outside the context of sport.”

In the statement announcing Richardson’s suspension, the USADA acknowledged that “Richardson’s…use of cannabis occurred out of competition and was unrelated to sport performance.”

In other words, Richardson’s positive test had no bearing on the fact that she out-raced every other American woman at the Olympic trials—which were held in Eugene, Oregon, where marijuana is legal. Richardson engaged in legal activity that did not bestow upon her an unfair competitive advantage…and yet she’s been suspended anyway.

Yes, the USOC and the USADA are private organizations that can set whatever rules they want. And, yes, Richardson should have been aware of those rules and known she would be drug tested. None of that changes the fact that the rules are beyond stupid.

And not just stupid, but enforced with more than a touch of creepy paternalism. Take a look at the statement released by Travis T. Tygart, CEO of the USADA, in which he described Richardson’s suspension as “heartbreaking” before going on to say that “hopefully, her acceptance of responsibility and apology will be an important example to us all that we can successfully overcome our regrettable decisions, despite the costly consequences of this one to her.”

Okay, dad. Richardson is a 21-year-old woman who already took responsibility for her actions, not a child who needs a public reprimand for engaging in completely legal behavior. Yes, Tygart is just doing his job and applying the rules to the situation—but spare us the moralizing.

In an interview with NBC on Wednesday, Richardson admitted to using marijuana to cope with the emotional stress caused by the unexpected death of her mother last month—a death she learned about from a reporter. “It sent me into a state of emotional panic,” she said. Even world-class athletes, it turns out, are human.

But here’s where things get even more ridiculous for the USADA. If Richardson had learned of her mother’s death and emotionally coped by getting drunk instead of high, she’d still be allowed to compete in the Olympics. These rules governing what athletes do outside of competition (when there is no competitive advantage to be gained) are indefensible.

Richardson’s suspension drew widespread condemnation on social media Friday. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) tweeted their opposition to the USADA’s ruling. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D–N.Y.) said the incident showed why “we need to get rid of archaic rules” regarding marijuana.

Jen Psaki, the White House’s press secretary, called Richardson “an inspiring woman” on Friday but indicated that the Biden administration would not intervene. “This was an independent decision made by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and not a decision that would be made by the U.S. government, as is appropriate, and we will certainly leave them the space and room to make their decisions about anti-doping policies that need to be implemented,” she said, according to Politico.

“Banning Sha’Carri Richardson from the Olympic 100-meter race is an absurd act of injustice. It should outrage every American who believes in common sense, compassion, and fairness,” Matthew Schweich, deputy director at the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for legalization, said in a statement. “Like millions of other Americans, Sha’Carri Richardson is an adult who used cannabis in a state where it is legal. She should have the right to use cannabis without the fear that it could severely impact her athletic career and deprive her of once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.”

There’s still a chance that Richardson and her iconic hair could be a part of the 4×100 team relay race at the Olympics. That’s because the event is scheduled for August 6, after her 30-day suspension ends.

“If I’m allowed to receive that blessing, then I’m grateful for it, but if not right now, then I’m just going to focus on myself,” Richardson said during her interview with NBC on Wednesday—arguably demonstrating more maturity than the supposed authorities have throughout this whole mess.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hrGo5O
via IFTTT

Stocks Storm To 7th Straight Record High, First Time Since 1997, After Goldilocks Jobs Report

Stocks Storm To 7th Straight Record High, First Time Since 1997, After Goldilocks Jobs Report

In our preview of today’s jobs report we said it would be hot but not too hot, and that’s precisely what happened when the BLS reported that June’s payrolls data was strong (850K) but not too strong (wages eased, unemployment rose).

And as Bloomberg recaps in its intraday wrap, namely that “stocks climbed on speculation the economy is recovering at a pace that won’t make the Federal Reserve imminently take away the liquidity punch bowl that has helped push the market to a record”, we can conclude that today’s jobs report was goldilocks: “just right” to propel virtually all risk assets – including stocks, treasuries, gold and oil – higher, while the dollar tumbled as all those recent shorts who decided to close their positions and go long the greenback in recent weeks, were again stopped out.

Speaking of stocks, the S&P 500 rose for a seventh consecutive day, its longest winning stretch since last August when SoftBank was ramping stocks courtesy of a marketwide gamma squeeze…

… and one which has pushed it to seven consecutive record highs, for the first time seen since 1997!

Which of course, is remarkable considering the panicked freakout we observed in the immediate aftermath of the June FOMC when risk assets tumbled as the Fed previewed not one but two rate hikes in 2023. To think all that was needed to “fix” this sentiment was for Joe Biden to meet with Powell and Yellen…

…. sending stocks non-stop higher for the next two weeks.

Helping the low-volume was the latest plunge in the VIX, which tumbled to just above 14, the lowest level since the covid crisis…

… before rising modestly. And if Goldman is right in pointing out that stocks are entering the best 2-week period of the year …

… then we have much more downside in the VIX to go.

With the Nasdaq rising 1%, obviously rates did not surge after today’s payrolls report, and sure enough after a few kneejerk moves lower and higher, 10Y yields proceeded to drift to session lows with the bond market gradually agreeing with BofA’s view that the US economy is heading for stagflation in the second half.

This was the result of declining real rates while breakevens remains stubbornly high around 2.34%

We doubt stocks will get the memo any time soon.

In other news, cryptos were generally flat on the day, with bitcoin trading just around $33,000 while ethereum was caught in a range between $2000 and $2100…

… even as the dollar tumbled thanks to the “goldilocks” jobs report.

Meanwhile, gold benefited from the dollar plunge, rising to the highest level since mid-June although it has a long way to go before reclaiming its pre-FOMC levels.

Finally, despite the chaos in today’s OPEC+ meeting where UAE has emerged as a vocal objector to a deal that sees only modest increases in output, oil recovered much of of its earlier losses and was last trading just shy of the highest level since 2018.

At some point the Fed will need to stop oil’s ascent or as we noted earlier, the unstoppable oil surge could be a nail in the coffin for stocks.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/02/2021 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hL7pkT Tyler Durden

Nothing More Than A ‘Trophy Kill’: Trump CFO Does Perp Walk Over Corporate Perks

Nothing More Than A ‘Trophy Kill’: Trump CFO Does Perp Walk Over Corporate Perks

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“It’s not about politics.” 

That statement from prosecutor Carey Dunne had to be repeatedly stressed after Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.  and New York Attorney General Letitia James paraded triumphantly in front of hundreds of cameras to charge the Trump Organization and its finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, 73, with a 15-count indictment for failing to pay taxes on corporate perks. It had to be repeated because it was demonstrably untrue. This is not to say that Dunne is lying. He is prosecuting what are violations that are real crimes if proven. Rather, it is not true that this case would have been investigated without the strong political interests.  

James ran for Attorney General on the pledge to get Trump and his associates.  The excitement around the courthouse itself had the feel of a thrill kill as the heavily Democratic city celebrated the arrest of someone close to Trump.

I admittedly view these cases through the lens of a longtime criminal defense attorney but few recognized the obvious problem of a big hunt and small game.  It is not that Weisselberg himself is small game, he was a close associate at the top of this company. The charges are small game when these prosecutors pledged to pursue Trump and alleged major crimes. However, the charges are based on violations that are ubiquitous among corporate executives and rarely the subject of such a major prosecution. 

If prosecuting untaxed perks was really a focus of these offices, they would have to frog march half of Manhattan to the hoosegow.

Nevertheless, the New York Times declared “the charges represent a major milestone for Mr. Vance, a Democrat who twice beat Mr. Trump at the U.S. Supreme Court in a battle to obtain the former president’s tax records.” Indeed, this effort has been going on for years and I also supported Vance’s right to gain such tax records. I stated repeatedly that I believed that the Trump arguments against turning over such records to Congress and prosecutors were unsupportable from a legal basis.

However, one can recognize that major victory in obtaining Trump’s taxes without inflating the significance of this indictment of his former CFO. The piling on of charges is clearly designed to get Weisselberg to flip against Trump. Standing alone, the case is hardly impressive.  These are tax reporting violations that go back to 2005 and had nothing to do with Trump’s presidency.  This was not Russian collusion or Ukrainian coercion to hush money payments to strippers. It was a failure to tell the IRS that Weisselberg was using cars and apartments paid for by the Trump organizations as well as other benefits.

That did not stop the “bag and brag” quality of the event held at the courthouse. People and many news outlets celebrated that a Trump associate was being handcuffed for anything. However, as a trophy kill, this is hardly enough to mount let alone brag out.

Moreover, the failure to pay taxes on benefits is usually a matter addressed civilly not criminally. If the prosecutors can prove the alleged effort to conceal the benefits, that certainly makes the matter more serious but this is not a big game charge eve if this is a major figure in the Trump company. It is of course possible that there are major criminal charges coming and that this is just the first small salvo. However, it would be difficult to nail Trump on such tax allegations over perks without showing knowledge and involvement in the tax omissions.

The prosecutors have alleged that as much as $1.76 million in benefits should have been taxes since 2005. Putting aside the common inflation of such valuations by prosecutors, that is a lot of money. It is result of adding everything from cars to apartments to wifi to holiday gift accounts.  I expect some of these should have been taxed, but reading the indictment leaves one wondering how many executives fail to include car and other benefits as income, particularly going back to 2005.

I have made an analogy to Major League Baseball cracking down on substances on the hats and arms of pitchers. Pitchers knew that it was illegal but saw this as a common practice. Umpires did not monitor or punish pitchers for adding substances for better adhesions. As I said yesterday, this is obviously far more serious as an act. This is an alleged crime and a lot of money, particularly the payment of tuition which are hard and reliable figures. However, the question is whether this is a common practice has been the focus of major investigations let alone major criminal cases in the past. It also raises the question of selective prosecution.

Weisselberg is charged with a scheme to defraud, conspiracy, four counts of criminal tax fraud and other crimes. However, the major charge is grand larceny in the second degree which can result in a sentence for as must as 15 years but it is extremely unlikely that a sentence would be long, let alone reach such levels.  This is a first offender, elderly businessman who did not claim perks for taxes.  It does not make him Mother Teresa but it also does not make him John Gotti.

Here is the indictment: Weisselberg indictment

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/02/2021 – 15:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hsXyzO Tyler Durden

More Than 72 Million Americans Are Living Paycheck To Paycheck

More Than 72 Million Americans Are Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Imagine you lost your job tomorrow. How long would you be able to sustain your current lifestyle? A week? A month? A year?

As we await Friday’s labor market update, Finder has just published the results of a recent survey attempting to gauge the financial stability of the average American in the post-pandemic era.

More than 2K adults to were interviewed to try and ascertain how long they could survive without income. It turns out that approximately 72.4MM employed Americans – 28.4% of the population – believe they wouldn’t be able to last for more than a month without a payday.

Another 24% said they expected to be able to live comfortably between two months and six months. That means an estimated 133.6MM working Americans (52.3% of the population) can live off their savings for six months or less before going broke.

On the other end of the spectrum, roughly 8.7MM employed Americans (or 3.4% of the population) say they don’t need to rely on a rainy day fund since they have employment insurance which will compensate them should they lose their job.

Amusingly, men appear to be less effective savers than women. Some 32.4MM women (26.7% of American women) say their savings would stretch at most a month, compared to 40MM men (29.9% of American men) who admit to the same. Of those people, 9.7MM women (8% of American women) say their savings wouldn’t even stretch a week, compared to 15.5MM men (11.6% of American men) who admit to the same.

A majority of employed Americans over the age of 18 say their savings would last six months at most. About 70.7MM men (52.8% of American men) and 62.8MM women (51.8% of American women) fear they’d be in dire straits within six months of losing their livelihood.

Unsurprisingly, younger people tend to have less of a savings buffer – but the gap between the generations isn’t as wide as it probably should be.

While increasing one’s income is perhaps the best route to building a more robust nest egg, Finder offered some suggestions for people looking to maximize their savings.

1. Create a budget and stick to it

Look at your monthly income against all of your monthly expenses. Add to them expenses you pay once or twice a year to avoid a surprise when they creep up. After you know where your money is going, you can allot specific amounts to different categories and effectively track your spending.

2. Start an emergency fund

The goal is getting to a point where you’ve saved enough money to cover expenses for a month, and then six months and then ultimately a safer nine months. Consider setting up automatic deposits from your checking into savings for a set-it-and-forget-it nest egg.

3. Put money where it’s difficult to access

To reduce the temptation of tapping into your savings, consider tucking away your automatic deposits into an online bank account or somewhere other than your main bank. Look for an account without a debit card for insurance against easy indulging.

4. Pay off or consolidate your debts

Use any leftover cash from your budget to chip away at your debts. Many people claim success with the snowball, avalanche and other methods of paying down debt. Compare 0% APR balance transfer credit cards or debt consolidation loans to save on interest and simplify your bills.

5. Take up a side hustle

  • You may be able to turn extra time into extra money by:
  • Driving for Uber or Lyft
  • Putting your skills towards freelancing
  • Selling your stuff online
  • Doing odd jobs
  • Renting out your apartment on AirBnb
  • Participating in paid surveys

6. Invest in your future.

If the company you work for offers a 401(k) or investment alternative, sign up for the opportunity to passively save for retirement — especially if there’s a company match. Start small with 4% and increase your contribution with future salary increases.

7. Shop around for stronger deals

Compare cheap car insurance rates to see if you’re paying too much in monthly premiums. See if you can keep your grocery budget under a set amount by sticking to buying what’s on sale. If you get creative, you may find you’re squirreling away enough extra cash to get ahead of the paycheck-to-paycheck cycle.

8. Teach your kids strong financial literacy.

Start early by teaching your children healthy financial habits to set them up for success, helping them avoid the paycheck-to-paycheck cycle altogether. There are plenty of debit cards for kids designed to teach them finances, and some are even free.

* * *

Source: Finder

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/02/2021 – 15:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qM42ya Tyler Durden

Fed Chair Powell Met With Coinbase CEO Just Before Bitcoin’s Massive Plunge

Fed Chair Powell Met With Coinbase CEO Just Before Bitcoin’s Massive Plunge

Earlier today we made the observation that after the brief post-FOMC freakout, stocks have risen for two weeks straight, making new all time highs virtually every day, and all that was necessary for this ramp higher was for Joe Biden to meet with Powell, Yellen and Gensler the morning of Monday, June 26. What happened next is familiar to all.

But it’s not just stocks where one can find the impact of Powell’s not so invisible finger. According to the just released May calendar notes for the Fed chair, on Tuesday, May 11 at 11:15am, Powell met – in person – with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong (less than a month after the company went public on April 12, along with Republican Paul Ryan.

This meeting was followed the very next day with former CFTC commissioner and current head of the Digital Dollar project, Chris Giancarlo.

What we find remarkable is that May 11 is the day when bitcoin began its plunge, tumbling from $57K to just $33K less than a week later.

And while the drop has been largely attributed to Musk’s tweet just a few hours later, on May 12, that Tesla would no longer accept bitcoin for car purchases, citing environmental concerns, one wonder just what Powell told the Coinbase CEO one day before the biggest drop in bitcoin since the onset of the “great winter” in December 2017.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/02/2021 – 15:06

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jzo5OJ Tyler Durden

Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court’s Most Conservative Justice, Trashes Qualified Immunity Again


sfphotosfour936746

Clarence Thomas is no liberal hero. The associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is the most conservative member atop the highest rung of the American judiciary. And he has once again railed against qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it almost comically difficult to hold government officials accountable for misconduct when they violate your rights.

“As I have noted before, our qualified immunity jurisprudence stands on shaky ground,” he wrote today.

On the congressional level, that rallying cry has primarily been championed by Democrats, tied to police reform legislation that Republicans have resisted. Among the state actors recently protected by qualified immunity: two cops who tased a suicidal man they knew was covered in gasoline, causing him to burst into flames; a cop who led a bungled SWAT raid that saw an innocent 78-year-old’s home damaged with flash-bang grenades; a cop who shot a 15-year-old on his way to school; a cop who shot a 10-year-old while aiming at a nonthreatening dog.

The legal doctrine prohibits victims from suing government actors for misconduct unless their exact behavior has been deemed unconstitutional somewhere in a preexisting court ruling. If not, then victims are out of luck, even when the court admits that the state violated their rights. In all the above cases, the plaintiffs were not given the privilege of bringing their cases before a jury.

Last year, Thomas expressed his skepticism toward qualified immunity in Baxter v. Braceya case that saw two cops unleash a police dog on a man who had already surrendered. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case, with Thomas as the lone dissenter.

But qualified immunity doesn’t only protect police. It protects government officials in general, something that Thomas honed in on today as he protested the Court’s refusal to hear a different case: Hoggard v. Rhodes, a lawsuit surrounding a student who had her First Amendment rights violated by Arkansas State University. The administrators received qualified immunity, and thus will not be held accountable.

“The one-size-fits-all doctrine is also an odd fit for many cases because the same test applies to officers who exercise a wide range of responsibilities and functions,” said Thomas. “Why should university officers, who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies, receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting? We have never offered a satisfactory explanation to this question.”

In fall of 2017, Ashlyn Hoggard set up a table in front of the student union to recruit peers for a new chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group that focuses on student organizing. Administrators phoned the police, who shut Hoggard’s operation down and threatened to punish her for violating the student code of conduct. University policy required permission to speak anywhere on college grounds and carved out “speech zones”—totaling 1 percent of campus—where such activity was allowed. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that Hoggard’s First Amendment rights were violated. But in the same breath, they granted the administrators qualified immunity. Without a near-identical court precedent already on the books—one that mirrored the facts of Hoggard’s case—the university employees couldn’t have known what they were doing was illegal, the court said.

“Public university officials shouldn’t get to hide behind qualified immunity when they blatantly violate their students’ First Amendment rights,” says Chris Schandevel, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and one of Hoggard’s attorneys. “As Justice Thomas correctly noted, university officials have plenty of time to review their policies and consider the constitutionality of their actions. We’re disappointed the Court chose not hear this case, but we are hopeful the Court will heed Justice Thomas’s recommendation and take up the doctrine of qualified immunity in the future.”

It was, after all, the Supreme Court that legislated the legal principle into existence. Current civil rights law explicitly permits victims of government abuse to seek recourse for damages, but the high court concocted qualified immunity in direct contention with that, first in Pierson v. Ray (1967) and then in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).

Yet while the Supreme Court made this mess, it has declined to consider an avalanche of cases that would have potentially reshaped the doctrine. Some recent petitions refused by the justices: a case that saw a cop kill a man who’d been sleeping his car; a case that saw two cops assault and arrest a man for standing outside of his own house; and a case that saw two cops allegedly steal $225,000 during the execution of a search warrant. They all received qualified immunity.

“We have ‘substitute[d] our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress’ by conjuring up blanket immunity,” noted Thomas, “and then failed to justify our enacted policy.”

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

Goldman: We Are Entering The Best 2-Week Seasonal Period Of The Year For Stocks

Goldman: We Are Entering The Best 2-Week Seasonal Period Of The Year For Stocks

Pulling its best “Lester Burnham masturbating in the bathroom” impression, earlier today Bank of America warned that “it’s all downhill from here” when its CIO Michael Hartnett looked at the second half of the year and warned that as the US moves from inflation to stagflation and from QE to QT, the “combo of rising Rates, Regulation, Redistribution (3Rs) & peak Positioning, Policy, Profits (3Ps)” assures low/negative returns in the second half (see here). In short, the party is over.

Well, Goldman disagrees, and in an a note from the tactical flow desk the bank has listed several reasons why the party is just getting started.

Putting the immediate past in context, Goldman writes that “the S&P 500 has seen 33 new all-time highs this year or 1 new ATH for every 3.73x trading days. Going back to 1928, only 1995 would annualize at a faster pace, 1 ATH per 3.27x trading days. And 53 new S&P 500 all-time highs since March 2020.”

But more to the point, unlike BofA which believes the stellar H1 will be followed by a stagflationary H2, Goldman thinks equities will come out of the gates strong in July, and then slow down at the end of month after options expiry: “Positioning is un-streched as we rally higher, we think investors will have FOMO to start the month.”

Claiming that a “strong 1H, typically means strong 2H“, Goldman seeks to ease some of its more nervous clients and notes that we are now entering the best two-week seasonal period of the year. Specifically the high point of this seasonal chart since 1928, is July 1st to July 16th.

Don’t believe in technical mumbo-jumbo? Here are the rest of Goldman’s tactical reasons why traders should be balls to the wall long stocks right now.

  1. 401K Quarterly Money flows – July money flows are the biggest in Q3 as advisors rebalance investor client portfolios.+15bps of AUM of new money comes into the market in July, +$30B worth of inflows on ~$21 Trillion of assets. RIA’s are on the hook for running too low equity exposure and “waiting for a dip to buy”.
  2. Sentiment and Positioning – GS Research Sentiment Indicator declined week over week and sentiment is very un-stretched. Heading into last week, GS SI was the lowest level in 55 weeks. This is also consistent with GS PB team, HF fundamental L/S Gross Leverage ranks in the 31st percentile.
  3. S&P Index Gamma – Until recently, dealer long gamma(~$5.5B) is at 2-year highs but a significant portion of this gamma has just rolled off This means that the market can move more freely to the upside (or downside) after Wedensday’s close. This has prevented a material break out higher as dealers would need to sell futures into a rally. If there is a chase to the upside from here, its potential for spot up and vol up with dealers less long gamma.
  4. Buybacks – the blackout window ends on 7/23/21 and opens 7/26/21 (~40% of companies will be in the openwindow). However the de-facto start to the open window is following JPM earnings / big bank reports on 7/13/21.Corporates remain the largest source of demand for 2H and bank demand may pick up mid-July (when overall money flows slow).
  5. 1H 2021 fund flows scoreboard – YTD, Money Markets +$116B inflows + Global Bonds +$276B inflows vs. GlobalEquities +$575 inflows…. or said another way, the $3 Trillion wedge only declined by –$183B ytd. The cash position and bond position is still too high for advisors to send on their quarterly statement given the record ATH stock run.
  6. Flow of funds winner of 1H – Households own 38% of the US equity market, the largest owner of the equity has become the largest trader. Tracking Friday weekly call options really just became a thing in 2021. 3 out of the top 15 call option volume days on record, going back to 1992 (7200 observations) happened since Memorial day 2021.

Finally, here is a snapshot of how Goldman’s bubble baskets are doing: GS Yolo +83% YTD, most short +53%, Bitcoin equities +39%, Retail Favorites +23%, High Vol +22%.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/02/2021 – 14:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2URl3Ld Tyler Durden

Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court’s Most Conservative Justice, Trashes Qualified Immunity Again


sfphotosfour936746

Clarence Thomas is no liberal hero. The associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is the most conservative member atop the highest rung of the American judiciary. And he has once again railed against qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it almost comically difficult to hold government officials accountable for misconduct when they violate your rights.

“As I have noted before, our qualified immunity jurisprudence stands on shaky ground,” he wrote today.

On the congressional level, that rallying cry has primarily been championed by Democrats, tied to police reform legislation that Republicans have resisted. Among the state actors recently protected by qualified immunity: two cops who tased a suicidal man they knew was covered in gasoline, causing him to burst into flames; a cop who led a bungled SWAT raid that saw an innocent 78-year-old’s home damaged with flash-bang grenades; a cop who shot a 15-year-old on his way to school; a cop who shot a 10-year-old while aiming at a nonthreatening dog.

The legal doctrine prohibits victims from suing government actors for misconduct unless their exact behavior has been deemed unconstitutional somewhere in a preexisting court ruling. If not, then victims are out of luck, even when the court admits that the state violated their rights. In all the above cases, the plaintiffs were not given the privilege of bringing their cases before a jury.

Last year, Thomas expressed his skepticism toward qualified immunity in Baxter v. Braceya case that saw two cops unleash a police dog on a man who had already surrendered. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case, with Thomas as the lone dissenter.

But qualified immunity doesn’t only protect police. It protects government officials in general, something that Thomas honed in on today as he protested the Court’s refusal to hear a different case: Hoggard v. Rhodes, a lawsuit surrounding a student who had her First Amendment rights violated by Arkansas State University. The administrators received qualified immunity, and thus will not be held accountable.

“The one-size-fits-all doctrine is also an odd fit for many cases because the same test applies to officers who exercise a wide range of responsibilities and functions,” said Thomas. “Why should university officers, who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies, receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting? We have never offered a satisfactory explanation to this question.”

In fall of 2017, Ashlyn Hoggard set up a table in front of the student union to recruit peers for a new chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group that focuses on student organizing. Administrators phoned the police, who shut Hoggard’s operation down and threatened to punish her for violating the student code of conduct. University policy required permission to speak anywhere on college grounds and carved out “speech zones”—totaling 1 percent of campus—where such activity was allowed. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that Hoggard’s First Amendment rights were violated. But in the same breath, they granted the administrators qualified immunity. Without a near-identical court precedent already on the books—one that mirrored the facts of Hoggard’s case—the university employees couldn’t have known what they were doing was illegal, the court said.

“Public university officials shouldn’t get to hide behind qualified immunity when they blatantly violate their students’ First Amendment rights,” says Chris Schandevel, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and one of Hoggard’s attorneys. “As Justice Thomas correctly noted, university officials have plenty of time to review their policies and consider the constitutionality of their actions. We’re disappointed the Court chose not hear this case, but we are hopeful the Court will heed Justice Thomas’s recommendation and take up the doctrine of qualified immunity in the future.”

It was, after all, the Supreme Court that legislated the legal principle into existence. Current civil rights law explicitly permits victims of government abuse to seek recourse for damages, but the high court concocted qualified immunity in direct contention with that, first in Pierson v. Ray (1967) and then in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).

Yet while the Supreme Court made this mess, it has declined to consider an avalanche of cases that would have potentially reshaped the doctrine. Some recent petitions refused by the justices: a case that saw a cop kill a man who’d been sleeping his car; a case that saw two cops assault and arrest a man for standing outside of his own house; and a case that saw two cops allegedly steal $225,000 during the execution of a search warrant. They all received qualified immunity.

“We have ‘substitute[d] our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress’ by conjuring up blanket immunity,” noted Thomas, “and then failed to justify our enacted policy.”

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

The CDC Rightly Contradicts the WHO’s Absurdly Cautious Mask Advice for Vaccinated People


Rochelle-Walensky-5-22-21-d-Newscom

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this week rightly defended the CDC’s advice that fully vaccinated people do not need to wear face masks as a safeguard against COVID-19 in most situations. The World Health Organization (WHO), by contrast, says people should continue to cover their faces in public, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated.

“People cannot feel safe just because they had the two doses,” Mariangela Simao, the WHO’s assistant director-general for access to medicines and health products, told reporters last Friday. “Vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission. People need to continue to use masks consistently.”

The WHO’s position is that any risk of infection, no matter how tiny, justifies continued mask use. But as Walensky notes, vaccines are highly effective at preventing mild cases and asymptomatic infection as well as severe cases and deaths. In the rare cases where vaccinated people are infected, the viral load tends to be low, meaning they are less likely to transmit COVID-19. And the evidence indicates that vaccines provide similar protection against newer, more contagious variants of the virus.

Vaccinated people are “really quite protected from the variants that we have circulating here in the United States,” Walensky said on NBC’s Today show. “We know that the WHO has to make guidelines and provide information to the world. Right now, we know as we look across the globe that less than 15 percent of people around the world have been vaccinated, and many of those people have only received one dose of a two-dose vaccine. There are places around the world that are surging, and so as the WHO makes those recommendations, they do so in that context.”

In the United States, by comparison, two-thirds of the adult population is at least partly vaccinated, and 58 percent is fully vaccinated, according to data collected by The New York Times. The seven-day average of daily new cases, per Worldometer’s numbers, has fallen by 95 percent since mid-January, from more than 255,000 to fewer than 14,000. The seven-day average of daily deaths, 254 as of yesterday, is down 93 percent.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is nevertheless aping the WHO’s advice. “To be extra safe,” it says, “it is strongly recommended that you wear masks indoors in public places when you don’t know everyone’s vaccination status regardless of your vaccination status.” In a press release on Monday, the department cited “increase[d] circulation of the highly transmissible Delta variant” as the reason it “strongly recommends everyone, regardless of vaccination status, wear masks indoors in public places as a precautionary measure.”

The health department concedes that “fully vaccinated people appear to be well protected from infections with Delta variants,” although “people with only one vaccine dose of Pfizer or Moderna are not as well-protected.” It notes that “the smaller number of COVID-19 infections identified in people who are fully vaccinated have been mild illnesses.”

In Los Angeles County, according to the health department’s numbers, 68 percent of residents 16 or older and 87 percent of residents 65 or older, who face the highest risk of severe illness and death, have been at least partly vaccinated. The full vaccination rates are 59 percent and 76 percent, respectively. Newly identified cases and daily deaths in L.A. County have fallen precipitously since January. Statewide, the seven-day average of daily new cases is down 97 percent since mid-January, and the seven-day average of daily deaths, 32 as of yesterday, has fallen by 94 percent.

While you can always be “extra safe,” there is a cost to every precaution, and vaccinated Californians might reasonably conclude that the inconvenience and discomfort of wearing face masks is not worth the theoretical benefit. The risk that a vaccinated person will be infected was already very low, and it becomes steadily lower as the number of carriers dwindles and the number of vaccinated people rises. The risk that a vaccinated person who defies the odds by becoming infected will transmit the virus to others is likewise low and falling.

Even the CDC says vaccinated people should continue to wear masks when it is legally required. Federal regulation of transportation is the most conspicuous example. But those rules make as much sense as L.A. County’s dubious advice—even less in the context of air travel, where the risk of virus transmission has always been low, even when no one was vaccinated. Thanks to the high ventilation standards on commercial aircraft, an airplane is probably the safest indoor environment that most people commonly encounter. The number of COVID-19 cases tied to air travel was tiny even at the height of the pandemic. Since verifying vaccination is perfectly feasible, there is no rational reason for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to continue requiring that vaccinated passengers wear masks.

That rule, which the TSA recently extended until mid-September, is supported by the unions representing pilots and flight attendants. “We understand that masks are a way we keep ourselves and each other safe,” says Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, “and we’re grateful policymakers are backing us up.” If Nelson and her colleagues are vaccinated, their fear of infection is irrational. And if they are not vaccinated, they have some explaining to do, given their eagerness to foist their scientifically dubious notion of safety on others. Airlines tell passengers the mask requirement is for their own protection, which is nonsense, while simultaneously warning them that disobedience will invite stern consequences.

The unions counterintuitively argue that the TSA rule helps prevent onboard conflict. To the contrary, the indiscriminate face mask requirement continues to provoke arguments, which occasionally turn violent, and quiet resentment among many other passengers who keep their objections to themselves lest they be accused of breaking the law by defying the TSA’s arbitrary edict. “The Federal Aviation Administration has documented more than 3,000 reports of unruly passengers on flights so far this year,” the Times reports, “and 2,350 of those cases have been tied to mask-wearing disputes.”

Seemingly oblivious to its own role in making passengers “unruly,” the TSA is moving decisively to address the problem. Last week it announced “the commencement of Crew Member Self-Defense (CMSD) training,” which had been interrupted by COVID-19 restrictions. “With unruly passenger incidents on the rise,” the TSA said, it “remains committed to equip flight crews with another tool to keep our skies safe.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dC10XV
via IFTTT

The CDC Rightly Contradicts the WHO’s Absurdly Cautious Mask Advice for Vaccinated People


Rochelle-Walensky-5-22-21-d-Newscom

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this week rightly defended the CDC’s advice that fully vaccinated people do not need to wear face masks as a safeguard against COVID-19 in most situations. The World Health Organization (WHO), by contrast, says people should continue to cover their faces in public, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated.

“People cannot feel safe just because they had the two doses,” Mariangela Simao, the WHO’s assistant director-general for access to medicines and health products, told reporters last Friday. “Vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission. People need to continue to use masks consistently.”

The WHO’s position is that any risk of infection, no matter how tiny, justifies continued mask use. But as Walensky notes, vaccines are highly effective at preventing mild cases and asymptomatic infection as well as severe cases and deaths. In the rare cases where vaccinated people are infected, the viral load tends to be low, meaning they are less likely to transmit COVID-19. And the evidence indicates that vaccines provide similar protection against newer, more contagious variants of the virus.

Vaccinated people are “really quite protected from the variants that we have circulating here in the United States,” Walensky said on NBC’s Today show. “We know that the WHO has to make guidelines and provide information to the world. Right now, we know as we look across the globe that less than 15 percent of people around the world have been vaccinated, and many of those people have only received one dose of a two-dose vaccine. There are places around the world that are surging, and so as the WHO makes those recommendations, they do so in that context.”

In the United States, by comparison, two-thirds of the adult population is at least partly vaccinated, and 58 percent is fully vaccinated, according to data collected by The New York Times. The seven-day average of daily new cases, per Worldometer’s numbers, has fallen by 95 percent since mid-January, from more than 255,000 to fewer than 14,000. The seven-day average of daily deaths, 254 as of yesterday, is down 93 percent.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is nevertheless aping the WHO’s advice. “To be extra safe,” it says, “it is strongly recommended that you wear masks indoors in public places when you don’t know everyone’s vaccination status regardless of your vaccination status.” In a press release on Monday, the department cited “increase[d] circulation of the highly transmissible Delta variant” as the reason it “strongly recommends everyone, regardless of vaccination status, wear masks indoors in public places as a precautionary measure.”

The health department concedes that “fully vaccinated people appear to be well protected from infections with Delta variants,” although “people with only one vaccine dose of Pfizer or Moderna are not as well-protected.” It notes that “the smaller number of COVID-19 infections identified in people who are fully vaccinated have been mild illnesses.”

In Los Angeles County, according to the health department’s numbers, 68 percent of residents 16 or older and 87 percent of residents 65 or older, who face the highest risk of severe illness and death, have been at least partly vaccinated. The full vaccination rates are 59 percent and 76 percent, respectively. Newly identified cases and daily deaths in L.A. County have fallen precipitously since January. Statewide, the seven-day average of daily new cases is down 97 percent since mid-January, and the seven-day average of daily deaths, 32 as of yesterday, has fallen by 94 percent.

While you can always be “extra safe,” there is a cost to every precaution, and vaccinated Californians might reasonably conclude that the inconvenience and discomfort of wearing face masks is not worth the theoretical benefit. The risk that a vaccinated person will be infected was already very low, and it becomes steadily lower as the number of carriers dwindles and the number of vaccinated people rises. The risk that a vaccinated person who defies the odds by becoming infected will transmit the virus to others is likewise low and falling.

Even the CDC says vaccinated people should continue to wear masks when it is legally required. Federal regulation of transportation is the most conspicuous example. But those rules make as much sense as L.A. County’s dubious advice—even less in the context of air travel, where the risk of virus transmission has always been low, even when no one was vaccinated. Thanks to the high ventilation standards on commercial aircraft, an airplane is probably the safest indoor environment that most people commonly encounter. The number of COVID-19 cases tied to air travel was tiny even at the height of the pandemic. Since verifying vaccination is perfectly feasible, there is no rational reason for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to continue requiring that vaccinated passengers wear masks.

That rule, which the TSA recently extended until mid-September, is supported by the unions representing pilots and flight attendants. “We understand that masks are a way we keep ourselves and each other safe,” says Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, “and we’re grateful policymakers are backing us up.” If Nelson and her colleagues are vaccinated, their fear of infection is irrational. And if they are not vaccinated, they have some explaining to do, given their eagerness to foist their scientifically dubious notion of safety on others. Airlines tell passengers the mask requirement is for their own protection, which is nonsense, while simultaneously warning them that disobedience will invite stern consequences.

The unions counterintuitively argue that the TSA rule helps prevent onboard conflict. To the contrary, the indiscriminate face mask requirement continues to provoke arguments, which occasionally turn violent, and quiet resentment among many other passengers who keep their objections to themselves lest they be accused of breaking the law by defying the TSA’s arbitrary edict. “The Federal Aviation Administration has documented more than 3,000 reports of unruly passengers on flights so far this year,” the Times reports, “and 2,350 of those cases have been tied to mask-wearing disputes.”

Seemingly oblivious to its own role in making passengers “unruly,” the TSA is moving decisively to address the problem. Last week it announced “the commencement of Crew Member Self-Defense (CMSD) training,” which had been interrupted by COVID-19 restrictions. “With unruly passenger incidents on the rise,” the TSA said, it “remains committed to equip flight crews with another tool to keep our skies safe.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dC10XV
via IFTTT