Texas Power Demand To Hit Record High Amid Sweltering Summer Heat
Texans are cranking up their air conditions this week as high temperatures across the state are forecasted to exceed triple digits and could strain the state’s power grid. Last week, Houston-based energy firm Criterion Research warned of the incoming surge in power demand.
According to Reuters, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Texas’ main grid operator, expects power demand to reach 75,195 megawatts (MW) on Tuesday, which would surpass August 2019 levels marking a record high.
“ERCOT weather-adjusted loads have been increasing rapidly since mid-2021,” said Morris Greenberg, senior North American power analysis manager at S&P Global Commodity Insights.
As soon as Tuesday, average high temperatures across the state could reach the upper 90s Fahrenheit and breach 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas. Bloomberg forecasts show high temperatures could surge between 100-106 Fahrenheit through mid-month — scorching hot weather will lead to businesses and residents boosting cooling demand.
The problem for Texans isn’t just the threat of power blackouts from a strained power grid this summer but soaring energy bills due to the rising cost of power generation.
The average price-per-kilowatt hour of electricity for Texas residents has increased 70 percent year-over-year from June 2021, according to The Dallas Morning News’ Mitchell Sherman, who compared new rates offered by state power providers in 2022 to those consumers were offered in 2021. According to Power to Choose, a site through which Texas consumers can compare power plans, Lone Star State residents signing new contracts in June 2022 are paying 18.48 cents per kilowatt hour—10.5 cents more than the averaged rate they were paying in June, 2021 (7.98 cents). — Houston Chronicle
Power bills for businesses and residents could be a “real sticker shock,” AARP Texas Associate State Director Tim Morstad told Sherman. Rising power bills are primarily due to the soaring price of natural gas. About 45% of Texas’ grid is powered by natgas.
ERCOT has said with wind and solar plants boosting power resources, it has enough 91,392 MW of capacity, though when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, the grid could experience energy shortfalls.
Texans should be prepared for grid strain and soaring electricity bills. Power grids in the westernmost states warned last month that power-generating capacity might struggle to keep up with demand amid threats of heat waves this summer, resulting in possible rolling blackouts.
High inflation and risks of power blackouts sound like many Americans this summer will be experiencing what it’s like to live in a third-world country.
On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff Maud Maron, a career public defender at Defendant The Legal Aid Society (“LAS”), penned an op-ed in the New York Post entitled “Racial Obsessions Make it Impossible for NYC Schools to Treat Parents, Kids As People” (the “Op-Ed”). Speaking simultaneously in her capacities as a mother, public defender, elected public school council member, and then-candidate for New York City Council, Plaintiff recounted in the Op-Ed her experience at an anti-bias training run by the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”).
She decried what she perceived as DOE’s endorsement of the “chilling doctrine called anti-racism,” which she asserted “insists on defining everyone by race, invites discrimination[,] and divides all thought and behavior along a racial axis.” Responding to the Op-Ed, the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid (“BALA”), a caucus of Defendant Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (“ALAA,” or the “Union,” and together with LAS, “Defendants”), issued a public statement denouncing Plaintiff’s “racist” views and characterizing her “as a classic example of what 21st century racism looks like.” LAS followed with its own statement, which similarly rebuked Plaintiff’s “racist perspective” and questioned the ability of any public defender to “effectively and fully” engage in public interest work if they do not embrace an anti-racist mandate….
The court considered Plaintiff’s Title VII claim “that the public statements issued by LAS and BALA criticized Plaintiff and her ability to work as a public defender because of her race”:
[T]he LAS Statement … expressly [ties] white attorneys’—specifically Plaintiff’s—ability to do the work of a public defender to whether they accept the anti-racist credo and assume the attendant responsibilities. Poignantly, the LAS Statement imposes additional obligations on white public defenders “merely because” they are white:
To be anti-racist, to dismantle racism here at LAS, and in every organization, we must all recognize that white supremacy drives every policy and law, every opportunity and every advantage. For those of us who are white, it is a recognition that power and privilege has been granted merely because we are white. While you have dedicated your life to public interest, you cannot do this work effectively and fully unless and until you face that reality and own that you are part of the problem. You cannot stop there, you must actively work to dismantle the systems that lend you privilege and oppress BIPOC people. To push against the deep work needed to change and be threatened by the conversation, is the exact definition of white fragility…. White people have a duty to no longer be silent and a responsibility to confront these systems of oppression and to shun all forms of white supremacy in our society, in our workplaces, and within our hearts and minds.
Espousing a similar view, the BALA Statement doubted Plaintiff’s “commitment to zealous representation of poor people of color,” in part because she falls into the category of “white practitioners [who believe] that being public defenders preclude[s] them from being racist.” BALA characterized Plaintiff as “one of many charlatans who took this job not out of a desire to make a difference, but for purposes of self-imaging,” and made clear that public defenders “cannot oppose anti-racism and effectively represent Black and Brown people.”
The context and content of Defendants’ statements, including in particular LAS’s stated expectation that white public defenders must shoulder additional responsibilities based solely on their race, convinces the Court that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the statements were motivated, at least in part, by her race. That these statements also rebuke Plaintiff for the views she articulated in the Op-Ed does not strip the statements of their racial overtones….
Given Defendants’ avowed disappointment that Plaintiff was a white person who failed to accept that her race and job title obligated her to adhere to their understanding of anti-racism—as expressed in explicit racial lines in their statements—the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the BALA and LAS Statements were motivated, at least in part, by her race.
But the court concluded that the defendants’ actions, even if based on plaintiff’s race, weren’t sufficient to create a hostile work environment for her (her objection here was just to the statements, not to any tangible employment action, such as firing or demotion):
To adequately plead a claim against an employer for hostile work environment under Title VII, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” This test has both objective and subjective elements: “the conduct complained of must be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the work environment to be abusive.” …
“As a general rule, incidents must be more than ‘episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.'” “Isolated acts, unless very serious, do not meet the threshold of severity or pervasiveness,” although “even a single act can meet the threshold if, by itself, it can and does work a transformation of the plaintiff’s workplace.” … “[E]xcessive criticism and rudeness do not constitute a hostile work environment.” …
The court began by concluding that two other incidents that plaintiff pointed to didn’t contribute to a hostile environment, and then rejected the claim that the BALA and LAS statements sufficed to create such an environment:
Plaintiff contends that LAS worked a transformation of her workplace when it issued a public statement calling into question her ability to perform her responsibilities as a public defender. Plaintiff posits that following the publication of the LAS Statement, her clients—a majority of whom are individuals of color—cannot be expected to trust that she will provide them adequate representation when her employer has publicly disavowed her ability to do so….
As critical of Plaintiff as the LAS Statement is, it uses no racial epithets, reveals no personally sensitive or private information, and levies no salacious allegations, any of which would enhance the statement’s severity for the purpose of the Title VII analysis.
To be sure, the content of the statement makes clear that LAS harbors doubts concerning Plaintiff’s ability to represent individuals of color as a public defender, and the Court has already determined that LAS’s decision to release this statement was motivated in part by Plaintiff’s race. While the Court views the statement as sufficiently implicating Plaintiff’s race to bring it within the ambit of the federal civil rights laws, the statement is more than just a missive targeting Plaintiff. It stakes out LAS’s stance on an issue of public importance; articulates the organization’s mission vis-à-vis the constituencies it works to support; calls on the organization as a whole for failing to realize this mission; and commits the organization to doing more to address issues of systemic racism in the future. Even accepting Plaintiff’s characterization that the statement constituted an unfair attack and mischaracterized her views, it does not meet the requisite standard for a Title VII hostile work environment claim….
[T]he fact that Plaintiff injected herself into the public discourse on a matter of public importance implicating race, and identified herself as a public defender in doing so, provides important context to LAS’s decision to release the statement in the first place. In other words, the statements were not gratuitous, out-of-the blue, racialized attacks on Plaintiff, but rather represented LAS’s attempt to distance itself from the position articulated in the Op-Ed….
The Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not alleged a hostile work environment under Title VII is not intended to trivialize the harsh criticism that Plaintiff encountered during the 24-hour period in July 2020 when BALA and LAS released the statements at issue. But harsh criticism, even that Plaintiff alleges was unwarranted, does not itself make out a claim for hostile work environment. Here, the totality of the circumstances—namely, the fact that the statements were in response to a highly politicized Op-Ed authored by Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was on sabbatical campaigning for City Council at the time the statements were issued, and that LAS sought to stake out a broader position on a matter of public policy, beyond merely criticizing Plaintiff—counsel against finding that LAS’s retweet of the BALA Statement and publication of its own statement rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness to state a hostile work environment under Title VII….
Plaintiff also claimed that LAS constructively discharged her, arguing that “[w]here an employer proclaims to the world that you are not capable of performing your job because you are a white woman who holds beliefs the employer opposes white employees from having, it is so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.” But the court rejected that. First,
Fatal to Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim is her failure to allege that she has actually resigned from LAS. Instead, by Plaintiff’s own allegations, she remains on sabbatical with an open offer to return to LAS.
And beyond that,
Even if Plaintiff had alleged her resignation from LAS, her allegations would still fail to state a claim for constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is generally “regarded as an aggravated case of hostile work environment.” “Here, because plaintiff has not stated a hostile work environment claim … a fortiori [she] has not stated a claim for constructive discharge.”
Plaintiff’s argument that a reasonable person might not want to return to a workplace following the release of a statement such as that released by LAS is well taken by the Court. But, letting a constructive discharge claim survive on these allegations runs the risk of diminishing the applicable standard, which is saved for cases in which “the abusive working environment became so intolerable that [plaintiff’s] resignation qualified as a fitting response.” As described above, the circumstances of this case convince the Court that Plaintiff was not exposed to a hostile environment, especially given the fact that she was on sabbatical doing work unconnected to her role as a public defender at the time the statements at issue were released. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim for constructive discharge.
In Matt Walsh’s Daily Wire documentary What is a Woman?, academics defend their advocacy for radical gender ideology with at least one admitting to having encouraged chemical castration.
Michelle Forcier, assistant dean of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, abruptly ended the interview after Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh stated that one drug used in sex reassignment surgery doubles to castrate sex offenders.
Walsh was referring to Lupron, a testosterone suppressant. Lupron is often used to cure endometrial or prostate cancer but is also castrate predators.
Now, it is also known for aiding the transition from a woman to a man.
“You know what, I’m not sure we should continue with this interview because it seems like it’s going in a particular direction,” Forcier said.
She then accused Walsh of using “malignant” language by referring to hormone suppressants as “drugs.” According to Forcier, such rhetoric is “harmful” to transgender children.
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog: “If I see a chicken laying eggs and I say that is a female chicken laying eggs, did I assign female or am I just observing a physical reality?”
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 2, 2022
Forcier is also a pediatrician.
Additionally, University of Tennessee Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Patrick Grzanka told Walsh that asking for a definition of “woman” is “essentialist.”
“It’s a really simple answer,” Grzanka said. “It’s someone who identifies as a woman.”
Grzanka refused Walsh’s challenge to define the term without using it in the sentence.
According to Grzanka, gender and sex are conflated terms, and each person is entitled to his or her own “truth.”
Walsh countered the latter, stating that there is only one, objective truth. Grazanka told Walsh that his understanding of the term “truth” made him uncomfortable and was transphobic. Like Forcier, Grzanka threatened to end the interview if Walsh continued to use it.
“I’m really uncomfortable with that language,” he said.
Marci Bowers, a transgender surgeon who specializes in “gender affirmation surgery,” told Walsh that being a woman is a collection of “physical attributes.”
According to Bowers, a woman is defined by the “gendered clues” that are displayed to the world.
From @MattWalshBlog’s #WhatIsAWoman: this trans surgeon, Marci Bowers, admits to performing a vaginoplasty on a 16-year-old boy attempting to become a woman (that’s a surgery where Bowers uses skin from the boy’s genitals to craft faux female parts).
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) June 1, 2022
Bowers gave a lecture as a visiting professor for Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in October 2020 about Gender Affirming Surgery.
Bowers is the first transgender person to conduct “transgender surgery.” He has 32 years of experience and boasts of completing “2250 primary [male to female] Vaginoplasties and 3900 Gender Affirming Surgeries overall.”
The sole voice of reason among the academics came from Miriam Grossman.
Grossman is a former psychiatrist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and told Walsh that identifying as an opposite gender does change the person’s identity.
“I am rooted in reality and science,” she explained. She then confirmed Walsh’s position that there is only “one” reality.
Dr. Miriam Grossman talks to Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog about the dangers of puberty blockers.
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 2, 2022
What is a Woman?features Walsh as he traveled across the country to seek the answer to the film’s eponymous question.
However, Walsh was consistently shut down by gender activists when he scrutinized their logic.
California Representative Mark Takano walked out of the room mid-interview after refusing to engage with Walsh.
“Turn off the cameras,” he demanded.
When Walsh called out his signature question as Takano left the room, a staffer responded that he was “not gonna find out.”
The documentary also includes heartfelt testimony from victims of radical gender theory.
Walsh sat down with a former teammate of University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas who spoke under the condition of anonymity.
The swimmer explained how the university actively censored any complaint raised about Thomas being allowed to compete as a woman.
“There was a lot of things you couldn’t talk about that were very concerning- like [the] locker room situation,” she said. “If you even brought up concerns about it, you were transphobic. If you even bring up the fact that Lia swimming might not be fair, you were immediately shut down [with] being called a ‘hateful person’ or ‘transphobic.'”
Walsh also spoke with a Canadian father who was jailed after fighting the court system to stop his daughter from being injected with gender-affirming hormones. The father lost the case and his daughter was allowed to proceed with the transition to male.
The father has been released but is unable to leave British Columbia.
What is a Woman? premiered on Wednesday.
The documentary delicately mixes humor and seriousness that keeps the reader engaged as Walsh one-by-one undermines every argument presented by radical gender activists.
Walsh covered a spectrum of milestones in the gender debate, most notably the Loudon County, Virginia, investigation that accused the public school system of covering up a sexual assault in the girl’s bathroom after a male was allowed to use it.
Walsh engages in man-on-the-street style sleuthing to uncover the opinion of everyday Americans in New York, California, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C.
No matter the location, people had difficulty defining a woman.
What is a Woman? is a question Campus Reform has asked students, as well.
Ahead of a Matt Walsh appearance at Georgia Tech, Campus Reform challenged students to answer his famous inquisition.
“It’s whatever the person defines themself as because there is no set standard because nobody is the same as another person,” one student said. “There’s a whole bunch of different ways you can define a woman.”
Another guessed that it is “a very personal question” that “depends on the person.”
Campus Reform Correspondent Jaden Heard, however, had better luck at Auburn University by asking students to instead define a man.
“A biological male,” one student simply said.
Campus Reform has contacted every individual mentioned in this article for comment and will update accordingly.
Daily Briefing: Is It a Bear-Market Bounce or a New Bull Run?
The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and the Nasdaq Composite were all well in the green deep into Monday’s trading session. “An oversold bounce is underway for the major indices in welcome relief from the downside momentum that characterized the preceding 7-8 weeks,” notes Katie Stockton, founder and managing partner at Fairlead Strategies. “We are viewing the oversold bounce as likely to present a selling opportunity.” Stockton joins Real Vision’s Maggie Lake to talk about technical analysis and her bullish short-term and bearish long-term views on stocks. We also hear from Imran Lakha about Bitcoin, Ethereum, and recent price action in the crypto market. Want to submit questions? Drop them right here on the Exchange: https://rvtv.io/3aybn0d. Watch the full conversation featuring Imran Lakha and Ash Bennington here: https://rvtv.io/3auYlR8.
Cash-Strapped Sri Lanka Turns To Russia To Quench Thirst For Oil
A broke and extremely cash-strapped Sri Lanka has turned to Russia for cheap oil, as much of the western world shuns Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine while savvy eastern nations such as India and China take advantage of a bifurcated oil market to buy as much crude as they can at a price that is roughly $30 below spot.
Trapped in the worst economic crisis in its history, the South Asian country said last weekend that it would pay $72 million for 90,000 tons of Russian crude ordered via a Dubai-based company and docked at Colombo for weeks, the Nikkei reported. Sri Lanka’s first purchase of Russian oil since the outbreak of the war in Europe gave a new lease of life to a refinery in Sapugaskanda, just outside the commercial capital, which had been shut since March.
It also highlighted how the country’s woes have given Russia an opening. Sri Lanka has already kicked off discussions with Moscow about directly importing crude oil, although it is unclear where the funds for such shipments would come from (spoiler alert: China). Russia has yet to announce any credit line for its South Asian customer.
Sri Lanka needs $554 million to import oil for the month of June alone, according to Power and Energy Minister Kanchana Wijesekera.
Experts say that while Sri Lanka’s move to take Russian oil may raise eyebrows, the country has little room to be choosy about its trade partners as it suffers from a severe fuel shortage, daily power cuts and surging living costs. Furthermore, Russian oil continues to be traded at a steep discount to global prices.
Sure enough, Sergi Lanau, deputy chief economist at the Washington-based Institute of International Finance (IIF), said the decision to turn to Russia is mostly based on finding low prices in a desperate situation. “I do not think the government has much bandwidth at the moment to strategize on the geopolitical front,” he told Nikkei Asia.
George I. H. Cooke, a former diplomat in Sri Lanka’s foreign service, agreed the country is in a “tricky situation” and has no choice but to accept assistance from anyone willing to help.
Cooke also noted that ties with Russia are nothing new. “Sri Lanka has had a long-standing relationship with Russia going back to 1957 and this relationship has strengthened over years,” he said. “That aside, we also need to understand that Sri Lanka is facing a very big crisis and as a result of that, we cannot be picking and choosing who we are willing to deal with.”
Incidentally, the two countries are marking their 65th anniversary of relations this year. As of 2020, Sri Lanka and Russia’s bilateral trade stood at $391 million with Sri Lanka exporting products such as tea, knitted gloves and lingerie, while Russia exported mostly wheat, iron and asbestos.
In March this year, Sri Lanka was among the few countries to abstain from voting on a United Nations resolution condemning Russia for its war on Ukraine. Alan Keenan, senior consultant at the International Crisis Group, said that the U.S. and European Union and other governments working to isolate Russia will no doubt be displeased about the new dealings. But given their own strong desire to prevent a complete economic and social collapse in Sri Lanka, it seems unlikely that there will be any serious repercussions.
“The Sri Lankan government has long maintained close ties with Russia,” Keenan noted. “In the final years of the civil war [in Sri Lanka] and in the years following, Russia has offered important military and political support, including on the U.N. Security Council and Human Rights Council, where it helped protect Sri Lanka from accountability for its military’s brutal and criminal tactics. With both countries in crisis, it is unlikely this will change now.”
From today’s order granting review in Barris v. Stroud Township:
The issue, as rephrased, is:
Whether an ordinance that limits target shooting to two non-residential zoning districts, and thus does not provide for shooting ranges at all private residences, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
In addressing this issue, the parties are directed to discuss in their briefs the following subsidiary matters: (1) whether this Court should adopt the two-step framework for addressing Second Amendment challenges utilized by the lower court; (2) whether the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), also implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; (3) whether such a corresponding right, if it exists, must extend to one’s own home; and (4) the level of scrutiny courts should apply when reviewing enactments that burden individuals’ ability to maintain firearms proficiency.
The lower court had allowed plaintiff’s Second Amendment challenge to go forward; note that plaintiff wants to set up a range on his “4.66-acre tract of land,” not (say) in a studio apartment:
The Ordinance imposes a burden on the Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use by essentially imposing an outright ban on target shooting everywhere in the Township except two specific zoning districts. The Township did not meet its burden under the intermediate scrutiny standard to justify such an outright ban on personal shooting ranges at one’s residence, because it did not establish that the Ordinance “does not burden more conduct than is reasonably necessary.”
In reaching our conclusion, we do not discount the importance of regulating target shooting in a residential environment and the important policy reasons for the Ordinance, nor are we holding that every person needs to have the ability to have a personal shooting range on his property. To the contrary, a municipality clearly may regulate such activity. This Court has recognized that Second Amendment rights are “not unlimited” and “may be restricted in the exercise of police power for the good order of society and [the] protection of citizens.” Yet, as we have previously held:
It must be remembered … that the police power delegated by the state is not infinite and unlimited. The action taken thereunder must be reasonable, it must relate to the object it purports to carry out, and it must not invade the fundamental liberties of the citizens. It must also be remembered that even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when goals can be otherwise more easily achieved.
Thus, our decision does not in any way prohibit the Township from enacting an ordinance targeted to protecting the public, provided that it satisfies the intermediate scrutiny test as described above. As we have repeatedly stated throughout this opinion, there must “be a reasonable fit between [the] asserted interest and the challenged [ordinance], such that the [ordinance] does not burden more conduct than is reasonably necessary.”
For instance, the Township may determine that the goal of protecting the public could be met by imposing requirements on personal shooting ranges, such as a minimum lot size, setback requirements, safety requirements (e.g., targets and backstops be built and used according to certain standards), and requirements on the configuration or positioning of a shooting range on the property to account for distances between buildings or other obstacles beyond the target. The ordinance could require that the Township or law enforcement inspect the personal shooting range and approve it annually to ensure that the safety requirements are being met.
If the Township chooses to enact a new ordinance that imposes reasonable limitations in the forms described above, it is entirely possible that the ordinance could pass the intermediate scrutiny test. In order to do so, however, the Township must balance the constitutional rights of individuals to maintain proficiency in firearm use through firearm-related activity on their properties with the Township’s important goals of keeping the general public safe.
The opinion below was written by then-Judge Kevin Brobson, joined by Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, with a dissent by Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter. Judge Brobson has since been elevated to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but the order granting review states that now-Justice Brobson “did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter,” so presumably he won’t participate in the hearing on the merits.
From today’s order granting review in Barris v. Stroud Township:
The issue, as rephrased, is:
Whether an ordinance that limits target shooting to two non-residential zoning districts, and thus does not provide for shooting ranges at all private residences, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
In addressing this issue, the parties are directed to discuss in their briefs the following subsidiary matters: (1) whether this Court should adopt the two-step framework for addressing Second Amendment challenges utilized by the lower court; (2) whether the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), also implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; (3) whether such a corresponding right, if it exists, must extend to one’s own home; and (4) the level of scrutiny courts should apply when reviewing enactments that burden individuals’ ability to maintain firearms proficiency.
The lower court had allowed plaintiff’s Second Amendment challenge to go forward; note that plaintiff wants to set up a range on his “4.66-acre tract of land,” not (say) in a studio apartment:
The Ordinance imposes a burden on the Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use by essentially imposing an outright ban on target shooting everywhere in the Township except two specific zoning districts. The Township did not meet its burden under the intermediate scrutiny standard to justify such an outright ban on personal shooting ranges at one’s residence, because it did not establish that the Ordinance “does not burden more conduct than is reasonably necessary.”
In reaching our conclusion, we do not discount the importance of regulating target shooting in a residential environment and the important policy reasons for the Ordinance, nor are we holding that every person needs to have the ability to have a personal shooting range on his property. To the contrary, a municipality clearly may regulate such activity. This Court has recognized that Second Amendment rights are “not unlimited” and “may be restricted in the exercise of police power for the good order of society and [the] protection of citizens.” Yet, as we have previously held:
It must be remembered … that the police power delegated by the state is not infinite and unlimited. The action taken thereunder must be reasonable, it must relate to the object it purports to carry out, and it must not invade the fundamental liberties of the citizens. It must also be remembered that even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when goals can be otherwise more easily achieved.
Thus, our decision does not in any way prohibit the Township from enacting an ordinance targeted to protecting the public, provided that it satisfies the intermediate scrutiny test as described above. As we have repeatedly stated throughout this opinion, there must “be a reasonable fit between [the] asserted interest and the challenged [ordinance], such that the [ordinance] does not burden more conduct than is reasonably necessary.”
For instance, the Township may determine that the goal of protecting the public could be met by imposing requirements on personal shooting ranges, such as a minimum lot size, setback requirements, safety requirements (e.g., targets and backstops be built and used according to certain standards), and requirements on the configuration or positioning of a shooting range on the property to account for distances between buildings or other obstacles beyond the target. The ordinance could require that the Township or law enforcement inspect the personal shooting range and approve it annually to ensure that the safety requirements are being met.
If the Township chooses to enact a new ordinance that imposes reasonable limitations in the forms described above, it is entirely possible that the ordinance could pass the intermediate scrutiny test. In order to do so, however, the Township must balance the constitutional rights of individuals to maintain proficiency in firearm use through firearm-related activity on their properties with the Township’s important goals of keeping the general public safe.
The opinion below was written by then-Judge Kevin Brobson, joined by Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, with a dissent by Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter. Judge Brobson has since been elevated to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but the order granting review states that now-Justice Brobson “did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter,” so presumably he won’t participate in the hearing on the merits.
Oil Bulls Emboldened By EU Sanctions And China Easing Lockdowns
By John Kemp, senior market analyst at Reuters
Portfolio investors have begun to turn bullish again towards petroleum as impending EU sanctions on Russia’s exports and easing lockdowns in China outweigh fears of a possible recession in Europe and North America.
Hedge funds and other money managers purchased the equivalent of 32 million barrels in the six most important futures and options contracts in the week to May 31, according to exchange and regulatory data. Funds have been net buyers in two of the last three weeks, increasing their position by a total of 83 million barrels (15%) since May 10, the fastest comparable increase for four months.
The latest week saw purchases across the board in Brent (+13 million barrels), NYMEX and ICE WTI (+7 million), European gas oil (+5 million), U.S. diesel (+3 million) and U.S. gasoline (+3 million).
The combined position of 631 million barrels remains moderate, in only the 53rd percentile for all weeks since 2013…
… but the ratio of long to short positions, at 6.54:1, displays a strongly bullish bias, in the 83rd percentile.
On the supply side, the EU has approved a sixth sanctions package, phasing out most purchases of Russian crude and products, including distillates, by the end of 2022 or early 2023, which is likely to intensify shortages of both.
On the demand side, China has eased the lockdown imposed on Shanghai, and the government’s zero-COVID strategy is being tempered by the need to support the economy, likely boosting consumption of crude and distillates.
Those bullish signals more than offset continued fears of a business cycle slowdown or an outright recession in Europe and North America.
In the United States, the most recent economic data shows growth has decelerated after last year’s exceptional post-epidemic rebound but still has considerable momentum, which will keep oil consumption high in the short term.
Fund managers increased their position in middle distillates such as diesel and gas oil by 8 million barrels, the fastest increase for 17 weeks.
Distillate inventories have continued to fall on the U.S. East Coast, reflecting the acute shortage throughout the North Atlantic basin caused by sanctions and cyclically high levels of manufacturing and freight activity.
With China’s distillate consumption likely to increase as the government boosts domestic growth, while EU sanctions hit Russia’s distillate exports especially hard, this part of the market is set to tighten even further.
WaPo Suspends David Weigel After Sexist Retweet Caused Public Spat
The Washington Post has suspended reporter David Weigel for one month without pay for retweeting a sexist joke, CNN reported on Monday.
Weigel retweeted a joke which read: “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”
This did not sit well with fellow WaPo employee Felicia Sonmez (who claimed in a now-dismissed lawsuit that she faced job discrimination after going public with her claim to have been sexually assaulted).
Sonmez tweeted an image of Weigel’s retweet, saying “Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!”
Weigel’s retweet drew a response from the Post‘s chief spokeswoman, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who said: “Editors have made clear to the staff that the tweet was reprehensible and demeaning language or actions like that will not be tolerated.”
WaPo chief spox @kriscoratti issues statement on @daveweigel‘s retweet of a sexist joke, which he has since apologized for: “Editors have made clear to the staff that the tweet was reprehensible and demeaning language or actions like that will not be tolerated.”
Will Dave receive an email from *his* boss that reads “Please stop. You’re hurting the institution by doing this,” like Felicia Sonmez did when she tweeted about credible rape allegations against a beloved athlete? https://t.co/fd3Jer3aZ3
One should prefer any job to being imprisoned inside a newsroom where older editors are petrified and terrorized by the prospect of bad faith bigotry/misogyny accusations being weaponized at any moment by unwell, vindictive millennials, and thus constantly indulge their neuroses.
In this week’s Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie scrutinize Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ style of conservatism and touch on President Joe Biden’s upcoming visit with the House of Saud.
1:28: DeSantis and his approach to governance
30:36: Weekly Listener Question:You guys occasionally talk about the Libertarian Party, and you might be aware of the recent convention which saw power go to one faction that many describe as quite alienating. This has led to many of the traditional libertarians leaving the party altogether. My question for you all is do you think that the Libertarian Party is necessary for facilitating more libertarian representation in politics? If not, how do you see libertarian ideals grow in the traditional duopoly?
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today’s sponsor:
We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. AMCN providers are called upon to transport more than 100,000 patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon gift card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.
