Month: July 2022

Maryland Governor Orders State Police to Drop “Good and Substantial Reason” Requirement for Carry Licenses

Governor Larry Hogan’s statement:

Over the course of my administration, I have consistently supported the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, while enacting responsible and commont sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision in New York law pertaining to handgun permitting that is virtually indistinguishable from Maryland law. In light of the ruling and to ensure compliance with the Constitution, I am directing the Maryland State Police to immediately suspend utilization of the “good and substantial reason” standard when reviewing applications for Wear and Carry Permits. It would be unconstitutional to continue enforcing this provision in state law. There is no impact on other permitting requirements and protocols.

Today’s action is in line with actions taken in other states in response to the recent ruling.

You can see the similar reactions from California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; for New York’s legislative reaction, see here; haven’t seen any official statements yet from Hawaii or D.C. (which I think had been required to go shall-issue by a D.C. Circuit decision).

The post Maryland Governor Orders State Police to Drop "Good and Substantial Reason" Requirement for Carry Licenses appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/X3eCGLB
via IFTTT

As Oil Tumbles, Saudis Hike Asian Prices Near Record To Meet Soaring Demand

As Oil Tumbles, Saudis Hike Asian Prices Near Record To Meet Soaring Demand

With oil tumbling almost 10% this morning, one would think that a major oil consuming country has suddenly gone dark, plunging into a deep depression.

The answer, as so often happens, is just the opposite, and in fact on Tuesday Saudi Arabia raised next month’s oil prices for its biggest market of Asia to match all time highs, amid signs that underlying demand is soaring despite what one would concludes are growing recessionary concerns if only merely looked at the price of oil.

As shown in the chart below, oil giant Saudi Aramco raised its key Arab Light crude grade for Asian customers by $2.80/bbl from July to $9.30 above the regional benchmark, just 5 cents shy of a record high!

The Saudis also lifted the prices of all other grades for Asia in August, with Extra Light at a record premium. Aramco announced smaller increases in the prices of Extra Light, Arab Light, and Medium to both the Mediterranean region and northwest Europe. All prices for the U.S. market remain the same as last month’s, Bloomberg reported.

The market viewed the price increase as a sign that the world’s top crude oil exporter expects robust demand this summer despite growing fears of a recession that could sink demand.

The Saudi price spike takes place as Russia’s seaborne crude exports in the seven days to July 1 rebounded from the previous week’s plunge, but shipments to Asia are slipping, even as flows are diverted to the country’s Black Sea terminal to cut the voyage distance to India. As a reminder, we noted over the weekend that Russia is now exporting more than it did before the Ukraine war courtesy of soaring India and China imports.

Aggregate crude flows from Russian ports were up week-on-week by 23%, recovering most of the volume lost over the previous seven days during a brief halt in shipments from the Baltic port of Primorsk. Still, cargoes bound for Asia — a crucial market where China and India have stepped in to prop up Russian exports others have shunned in response to its invasion of Ukraine — were down by more than 15% on both a weekly and four-week average basis from the highs seen at the end of May.

Overall, Russia’s seaborne shipments returned to 3.67 million b/d, broadly in line with the plateau level achieved since the start of April.  

In other words, with Russian supply to Asia suffering a modest hiccup, it was Saudi Arabia’s turn to step up and it did so at a near record price, a price which China incidentally had no problem paying because half a world away, a bunch of CTAs dumped oil because some other CTA dumped oil before them and the momentum-chasers all piled on, for which Beijing is very grateful.

 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/05/2022 – 12:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/MJjueqr Tyler Durden

The Social Media Mob vs. the Novel


Kat Rosenfield next to a book that is on fire

Alberto Gullaba Jr. is a first-generation college grad from a working-class background, who was set to publish his debut novel when his publisher made an eleventh-hour discovery that could have only happened in the age of remote work: Though the book featured a black protagonist, Gullaba himself is Filipino.

“And the agent said, wait a minute, we thought you were black,” recounts novelist and culture writer Kat Rosenfield. “And everything fell apart from there.” After his agent’s discovery, not only was Gullaba asked to make changes, but the publisher also hired a black “sensitivity reader” to give the book a careful read. Though authors rarely talk about this process publicly, sensitivity reading is a growing phenomenon among publishers and writers fearful of social media mobs.

Rosenfield has firsthand experience with the process: She was once brought in to read the novel of a male author to verify that he had accurately portrayed the female experience.

“I had to imagine myself in the position of a much more sensitive, much more easily offended person, the kind of person who reads a book looking for something to get mad at,” she says.

“It’s sort of ironic that the idea behind sensitivity reading is that if you don’t share certain identity characteristics with your characters, that it’s morally wrong, essentially, to try to imagine their interior lives.”

Rosenfield wrote about this phenomenon in “Sensitivity Readers Are the New Literary Gatekeepers,” which appears in the August/September 2022 issue of Reason magazine.

Photo Credit: Lex Villena; Oleschwander | Dreamstime.com

Music Credits: “Heirloom” by Jakub Pietras via Artlist; “Cycle” by Lane King via Artlist; “Seeking Truth” by The David Roy Collective; “Open Your Eyes” by Alon Peretz via Artlist; “Tempus Fugit” by Francesco D’Andrea via Artlist; “The Dawn of a New Era” by Brander via Artlist

Written and narrated by Natalie Dowzicky; edited by Danielle Thompson.

The post The Social Media Mob vs. the Novel appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/IBKi4tN
via IFTTT

Canada’s Health Minister: “You Will Never Be Fully-Vaxxed”

Canada’s Health Minister: “You Will Never Be Fully-Vaxxed”

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

This is the new ‘right way’ to think about vaccinations…

Despite increasingly compelling data and peer reviewed studies coming out detailing the harms and side-effects of vaccinations, Canada’s Liberal-Socialist coalition government is doubling down on vaccinations, and appear ready move the goalposts on what constitutes vaccine compliance.

As reported via Blacklocks Reporter (@mindingottawa on Twitter),

Canadians will be required to get a Covid shot every nine months for the foreseeable future, says Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos. Previous definitions of “fully vaccinated” made no sense, he told reporters.

“Nine months is very clear and will help people understand why ‘up to date’ is the right way to think about vaccination now,” said Duclos.

“‘Fully vaccinated’ makes no sense now. It’s about ‘up to date.’  So am I up to date in my vaccination? Have I received a vaccination in the last nine months?”

Duclos previously called for the provinces to make vaccinations mandatory and when asked by reporters if mandates would return this fall, he replied “We must continue to fight against Covid.”

Canada seems to be one of the few countries outside Communist China who is frantically clinging to the COVID narrative, relentlessly pushing largely ineffective  (and arguably dangerous) vaccines on an increasingly fed up population.

The Trudeau regime is increasingly unpopular, a recent Angus Reid poll finding those who “strongly support” the government falling into single digits. The largest single category was “strongly disapprove” at 41%,

Reeling with numerous scandals, corruption and gaffes,  Justin Trudeau holds power solely through the merger of his party with the  Canada’s Socialist NDP, headed by millionaire Jagmeet Singh.

The deal ostensibly keeps him in office until 2025. Singh is also on the ropes, frequently being jeered in public even among his base constituency in Brampton, Ontario. His brother lost his seat in the recent Ontario election, and Sing himself was run out of a campaign stop by enraged Sikhs who called him “a sell out”.

Time For Your Plan B

Most agnostic and object political observers agree: should the Liberal-Socialist Party make it to 2025, they will be mercilessly deposed on par with the 1993 electoral bloodbath.  When Canadians had had enough of Brian Mulroney (he bailed before the election, leaving Kim Campbell holding the bag) and the Conservatives were blown out so badly they lost their party status: going from 156 seats in Parliament, to just 2.

Both the Liberals and NDPs face similar prospects by Canadians who are sick and tired of being called “fringe” and “racists”, fed up with being gaslit by a smug, out-of-touch, government subsidized media, and well  beyond done with this COVID business.

But until that happens, this clown show can do a lot of damage – mandatory vaccinations being just the beginning.

The economy is headed for a depression because our Finance Minister is an economically illiterate ideologue. We should be an energy super-power but instead this fully Woke government is demonizing our oil and gas industry and probably driving the West right out of confederation. Then they’re ramming through internet censorship bills that would make the CCP proud.

If you haven’t decided your line in the sand, it’s time to do that. I know mine.

And then get to work putting your Plan B in motion:

Start working on a second passport, setting up businesses, revenue streams and assets outside of Canada. Everybody knows I’m a huge Bitcoin fan, so holding a portion of your wealth in BTC keeps it out of the reach of these plundering tyrants.

If the government is going to move the goalposts, then the rest of us have to move the playing field. In this coming era of decentralization, the antidote to government overreach is extreme Sovereign Individualism.

*  *  *

Stay in the loop on setting up your Plan B and the coming monetary regime change by joining the Bombthrower mailing list.  Wherever you are on the path to being a Sovereign Individual, Bombthrower can help you navigate the terrain. (Gettr, Twitter, Telegram)

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/05/2022 – 11:44

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Q1ZWYUu Tyler Durden

The Social Media Mob vs. the Novel


Kat Rosenfield next to a book that is on fire

Alberto Gullaba Jr. is a first-generation college grad from a working-class background, who was set to publish his debut novel when his publisher made an eleventh-hour discovery that could have only happened in the age of remote work: Though the book featured a black protagonist, Gullaba himself is Filipino.

“And the agent said, wait a minute, we thought you were black,” recounts novelist and culture writer Kat Rosenfield. “And everything fell apart from there.” After his agent’s discovery, not only was Gullaba asked to make changes, but the publisher also hired a black “sensitivity reader” to give the book a careful read. Though authors rarely talk about this process publicly, sensitivity reading is a growing phenomenon among publishers and writers fearful of social media mobs.

Rosenfield has firsthand experience with the process: She was once brought in to read the novel of a male author to verify that he had accurately portrayed the female experience.

“I had to imagine myself in the position of a much more sensitive, much more easily offended person, the kind of person who reads a book looking for something to get mad at,” she says.

“It’s sort of ironic that the idea behind sensitivity reading is that if you don’t share certain identity characteristics with your characters, that it’s morally wrong, essentially, to try to imagine their interior lives.”

Rosenfield wrote about this phenomenon in “Sensitivity Readers Are the New Literary Gatekeepers,” which appears in the August/September 2022 issue of Reason magazine.

Photo Credit: Lex Villena; Oleschwander | Dreamstime.com

Music Credits: “Heirloom” by Jakub Pietras via Artlist; “Cycle” by Lane King via Artlist; “Seeking Truth” by The David Roy Collective; “Open Your Eyes” by Alon Peretz via Artlist; “Tempus Fugit” by Francesco D’Andrea via Artlist; “The Dawn of a New Era” by Brander via Artlist

Written and narrated by Natalie Dowzicky; edited by Danielle Thompson.

The post The Social Media Mob vs. the Novel appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/IBKi4tN
via IFTTT

Justice Gorsuch Cancels Woodrow Wilson

As a general matter, conservatives oppose cancel culture. They will defend to the hilt most historical figures who do not meet modern progressive standards. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison must be saved. But there is one President that conservatives, as well as liberals, are happy to destroy: Woodrow Wilson.

The first footnote of Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in West Virginia v. EPA opens fire on Wilson:

It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” The Federalist No. 11 (A. Hamilton). From time to time, some have questioned that assessment. [FN1]

[FN1] For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that “popular sovereignty” “embarrasse[d]” the Nation because it made it harder to achieve “executive expertness.” In Wilson’s eyes, the mass of the people were “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups, defending “[t]he white men of the South” for “rid[ding] themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant [African-Americans].” He likewise denounced immigrants “from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland,” who possessed “neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.” To Wilson, our Republic “tr[ied] to do too much by vote.”

Gorsuch hits every note. Wilson rejected Hamilton. Wilson hated black people. Wilson hated Italians. (I bet Wilson supported the Blaine Amendment and the Sullivan Act.) Wilson hated democracy. But Wilson loved bureaucrats.

Was Woodrow Wilson at all relevant to the major questions doctrine, or the Clean Air Act. Of course not. But we should never pass an opportunity to dump on the former Princeton President.

Indeed, Justice Gorsuch links Justice Kagan’s dissent with Wilson.

In places, the dissent seems to suggest that we should not be unduly “‘concerned'” with the Constitution’s assignment of the legislative power to Congress. Echoing Woodrow Wilson, the dissent seems to think “a modern Nation” cannot afford such sentiments. But recently, our dissenting colleagues acknowledged that the Constitution assigns “all legislative Powers” to Congress and “bar[s their] further delegation.” Gundy (plurality opinion of KAGAN, J.).

Fighting words.

More recently, Judge Andy Oldham opened up on Wilson in Cochran v. SEC:

Wilson and Landis fundamentally disagreed with the Founders’ vision. Wilson and Landis thought the accumulation of all powers into one set of hands was—far from a vice—a virtue. And they wanted those all-powerful hands connected to an administrative agency, far away from the three branches of government the Founders worked so hard to create, separate, and balance. And most of all, Wilson and Landis wanted power as far away from democracy and universal suffrage as possible. . . . .

Notwithstanding his reassurance that German political principles could be Americanized, Wilson elsewhere made clear that he would scrap the Constitution if he could. One of his most notable departures from the Constitution was his distaste for democracy and popular sovereignty—especially after the document was amended to allow for an increasingly diverse electorate.

#CancelWoodrow.

The post Justice Gorsuch Cancels Woodrow Wilson appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/tSWoinz
via IFTTT

Sheriff Isn’t County Employee, so County May Release Report Investigating Him

From Essick v. County of Sonoma, decided last Wednesday by the California Court of Appeal (Justice Jon Streeter, joined by Presiding Justice Stuart Pollak and Superior Court Judge Tara Desautels):

Following the submission to the County of Sonoma … of a harassment complaint against Mark Essick, the elected sheriff of the County, an independent investigator, Ms. Amy Oppenheimer, conducted an inquiry and prepared a written report. A local newspaper requested that the County release the complaint, the report, and various related documents … pursuant to the California Public Records Act …. Sheriff Essick … [argues, among other things, that] (1) the Oppenheimer Report should be classified as confidential under an exemption to the CPRA, either as a “peace officer[ ]” “personnel record[ ]” or because it constitutes a “report[ ] or findings” relating to a complaint by a member of the public against a peace officer …. We disagree ….

The court released a redacted version of the opinion, though it said an unredacted version will be sealed within a month; the redacted facts are so heavily redacted that I’m omitting them here, and focusing on the legal analysis:

[California law makes confidential] the “personnel records of peace officers” and “information obtained from these records.” “Personnel records” means anything in a file maintained under the officer’s name “by his or her employing agency” that relates to a variety of subjects in which an officer may have a privacy interest, including, as pertinent here, the officer’s “advancement, appraisal, or discipline” or “[c]omplaints, or investigations of complaints” concerning the performance of his or her duty….

To support [his argument] …, Sheriff Essick must demonstrate that the County is his employer. We conclude he has not met that burden.

That the County has chosen to pay its elected officials is immaterial to its relationship to Sheriff Essick. The county sheriff is a public official elected by Sonoma County voters, and as such, is ultimately responsible to them—not to the Board of Supervisors or anyone else in county government. Not only does the Board of Supervisors lack power to hire the county sheriff, it lacks power to fire the person in that office as well…..

Nor does the Board of Supervisors have disciplinary power over the county sheriff…. Rather, a county board has “oversight responsibility” as to an elected sheriff but lacks power to direct how he or she performs official duties….

We are not persuaded that the Oppenheimer Report is “discipline” from which the Sheriff might appeal. The Oppenheimer Report has no consequence for Sheriff Essick’s duties, tenure, compensation, or benefits. If criticism of the conduct of elected officials were “discipline” subject to a full array of due process rights for determining truth and accuracy, our democracy would function rather differently than it does. Any statements from members of the Board of Supervisors approving or disapproving Sheriff Essick’s conduct, individually or collectively, are expressions of the Supervisors’ own free speech rights and do not amount to discipline. The truth and accuracy of such statements must be open to testing in the public square. Indeed, the fact we are dealing with what may fairly be characterized as political speech among elected officials toward one another underscores the importance of reading the CPRA in favor of disclosure….

A central role of the Board of Supervisors, like any other legislative body, is to investigate the conduct of executive officials and thereby shine a light on matters that the voters of the County may wish to know. Here, the voters of the County have ultimate authority over the county sheriff, and they are entitled to be informed as to that person’s strengths, as well as weaknesses, successes and failures—including the person’s ability to model traits of civility and respect for others that may be expected in an official who should embody those values for the public….

The post Sheriff Isn't County Employee, so County May Release Report Investigating Him appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/AL2cZ0H
via IFTTT

Justice Gorsuch Cancels Woodrow Wilson

As a general matter, conservatives oppose cancel culture. They will defend to the hilt most historical figures who do not meet modern progressive standards. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison must be saved. But there is one President that conservatives, as well as liberals, are happy to destroy: Woodrow Wilson.

The first footnote of Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in West Virginia v. EPA opens fire on Wilson:

It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” The Federalist No. 11 (A. Hamilton). From time to time, some have questioned that assessment. [FN1]

[FN1] For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that “popular sovereignty” “embarrasse[d]” the Nation because it made it harder to achieve “executive expertness.” In Wilson’s eyes, the mass of the people were “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups, defending “[t]he white men of the South” for “rid[ding] themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant [African-Americans].” He likewise denounced immigrants “from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland,” who possessed “neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.” To Wilson, our Republic “tr[ied] to do too much by vote.”

Gorsuch hits every note. Wilson rejected Hamilton. Wilson hated black people. Wilson hated Italians. (I bet Wilson supported the Blaine Amendment and the Sullivan Act.) Wilson hated democracy. But Wilson loved bureaucrats.

Was Woodrow Wilson at all relevant to the major questions doctrine, or the Clean Air Act. Of course not. But we should never pass an opportunity to dump on the former Princeton President.

Indeed, Justice Gorsuch links Justice Kagan’s dissent with Wilson.

In places, the dissent seems to suggest that we should not be unduly “‘concerned'” with the Constitution’s assignment of the legislative power to Congress. Echoing Woodrow Wilson, the dissent seems to think “a modern Nation” cannot afford such sentiments. But recently, our dissenting colleagues acknowledged that the Constitution assigns “all legislative Powers” to Congress and “bar[s their] further delegation.” Gundy (plurality opinion of KAGAN, J.).

Fighting words.

More recently, Judge Andy Oldham opened up on Wilson in Cochran v. SEC:

Wilson and Landis fundamentally disagreed with the Founders’ vision. Wilson and Landis thought the accumulation of all powers into one set of hands was—far from a vice—a virtue. And they wanted those all-powerful hands connected to an administrative agency, far away from the three branches of government the Founders worked so hard to create, separate, and balance. And most of all, Wilson and Landis wanted power as far away from democracy and universal suffrage as possible. . . . .

Notwithstanding his reassurance that German political principles could be Americanized, Wilson elsewhere made clear that he would scrap the Constitution if he could. One of his most notable departures from the Constitution was his distaste for democracy and popular sovereignty—especially after the document was amended to allow for an increasingly diverse electorate.

#CancelWoodrow.

The post Justice Gorsuch Cancels Woodrow Wilson appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/tSWoinz
via IFTTT

Brittney Griner Urges Biden For Release: “Terrified” She’ll Stay In Russian Prison “Forever”

Brittney Griner Urges Biden For Release: “Terrified” She’ll Stay In Russian Prison “Forever”

WNBA star Brittney Griner, who has been detained in Russia since before the war (she was arrested at a Moscow airport Feb.17 for allegedly having cannabis oil on her possession), says she’s “terrified” that she’ll remain in Russian confinement “forever”. 

She sent a handwritten letter to President Joe Biden in an urgent plea for her release to be secured, expressing fears that her imprisonment could be indefinite:

“(As) I sit here in a Russian prison, alone with my thoughts and without the protection of my wife, family, friends, Olympic jersey, or any accomplishments, I’m terrified I might be here forever,” she wrote, according to a statement released by the communications company representing the Griner family.

AP: WNBA star and two-time Olympic gold medalist Brittney Griner is escorted to a courtroom for a hearing, in Khimki just outside Moscow, Russia, June 27, 2022.

Given the US starting weeks ago changed her status to “wrongfully detained” – the State Department is authorized to pursue her release via country to country hostage negotiations, though few or no details have been given on these proceedings or where things stand.

Much of the letter’s contents have not been revealed and is being kept private upon the request of Griner and her family.

Another published excerpts reads: “On the 4th of July, our family normally honors the service of those men who fought for our freedom, including my father who is a Vietnam War Veteran.” It added: “It hurts thinking about how I usually celebrate this day because freedom means something completely different to me this year.”

“I voted for the first time in 2020 and I voted for you,” another excerpt reads in a direct appeal for Biden to prioritize her release. “I believe in you. I still have so much good to do with my freedom that you can help restore.”

Upon the letter being made known, the White House repeated on Monday that “the Russian Federation is wrongfully detaining Brittney Griner.”

“President Biden has been clear about the need to see all US nationals who are held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad released, including Brittney Griner. The US government continues to work aggressively – using every available means – to bring her home,” National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said. “The President’s team is in regular contact with Brittney’s family and we will continue to work to support her family.”

Meanwhile, Russia has recently again hinted that it could be ready to negotiate a hostage swap for a notorious arms trafficker named Viktor Bout. But the US side has remained quiet on this prospect.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/05/2022 – 11:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/INP6HbS Tyler Durden

Sheriff Isn’t County Employee, so County May Release Report Investigating Him

From Essick v. County of Sonoma, decided last Wednesday by the California Court of Appeal (Justice Jon Streeter, joined by Presiding Justice Stuart Pollak and Superior Court Judge Tara Desautels):

Following the submission to the County of Sonoma … of a harassment complaint against Mark Essick, the elected sheriff of the County, an independent investigator, Ms. Amy Oppenheimer, conducted an inquiry and prepared a written report. A local newspaper requested that the County release the complaint, the report, and various related documents … pursuant to the California Public Records Act …. Sheriff Essick … [argues, among other things, that] (1) the Oppenheimer Report should be classified as confidential under an exemption to the CPRA, either as a “peace officer[ ]” “personnel record[ ]” or because it constitutes a “report[ ] or findings” relating to a complaint by a member of the public against a peace officer …. We disagree ….

The court released a redacted version of the opinion, though it said an unredacted version will be sealed within a month; the redacted facts are so heavily redacted that I’m omitting them here, and focusing on the legal analysis:

[California law makes confidential] the “personnel records of peace officers” and “information obtained from these records.” “Personnel records” means anything in a file maintained under the officer’s name “by his or her employing agency” that relates to a variety of subjects in which an officer may have a privacy interest, including, as pertinent here, the officer’s “advancement, appraisal, or discipline” or “[c]omplaints, or investigations of complaints” concerning the performance of his or her duty….

To support [his argument] …, Sheriff Essick must demonstrate that the County is his employer. We conclude he has not met that burden.

That the County has chosen to pay its elected officials is immaterial to its relationship to Sheriff Essick. The county sheriff is a public official elected by Sonoma County voters, and as such, is ultimately responsible to them—not to the Board of Supervisors or anyone else in county government. Not only does the Board of Supervisors lack power to hire the county sheriff, it lacks power to fire the person in that office as well…..

Nor does the Board of Supervisors have disciplinary power over the county sheriff…. Rather, a county board has “oversight responsibility” as to an elected sheriff but lacks power to direct how he or she performs official duties….

We are not persuaded that the Oppenheimer Report is “discipline” from which the Sheriff might appeal. The Oppenheimer Report has no consequence for Sheriff Essick’s duties, tenure, compensation, or benefits. If criticism of the conduct of elected officials were “discipline” subject to a full array of due process rights for determining truth and accuracy, our democracy would function rather differently than it does. Any statements from members of the Board of Supervisors approving or disapproving Sheriff Essick’s conduct, individually or collectively, are expressions of the Supervisors’ own free speech rights and do not amount to discipline. The truth and accuracy of such statements must be open to testing in the public square. Indeed, the fact we are dealing with what may fairly be characterized as political speech among elected officials toward one another underscores the importance of reading the CPRA in favor of disclosure….

A central role of the Board of Supervisors, like any other legislative body, is to investigate the conduct of executive officials and thereby shine a light on matters that the voters of the County may wish to know. Here, the voters of the County have ultimate authority over the county sheriff, and they are entitled to be informed as to that person’s strengths, as well as weaknesses, successes and failures—including the person’s ability to model traits of civility and respect for others that may be expected in an official who should embody those values for the public….

The post Sheriff Isn't County Employee, so County May Release Report Investigating Him appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/AL2cZ0H
via IFTTT