Trump Administration to Allow Proselytizing in Federal Work Place

WASHINGTON, July 28 (Reuters) - Federal employees may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace, the Trump administration said on Monday, citing religious freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Agency employees may seek to "persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views" in the office, wrote Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. government's human resources agency.

Supervisors can attempt to recruit their employees to their religion, so long as the efforts aren’t “harassing in nature,” according to Kupor's statement. Agencies can't discipline their employees for declining to talk to their coworkers about their religious views.

The statement represents the latest effort of the six-month-old Republican Trump administration to expand the role of religion in the federal workplace.

Read the rest here.

Trump Considering Suspension of Habeus Corpus

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said Friday that the Trump administration is “actively looking at” suspending the writ of habeas corpus — the constitutional right to challenge in court the legality of a person’s detention by the government — for migrants.

Miller’s comment came in response to a White House reporter who asked about President Donald Trump entertaining the idea of suspending the writ to deal with the problem of illegal immigration into the United States.

Asked when that might happen, Miller responded: “The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of invasion.”

“So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” he said.

Read the rest here. 

David French on the persecution (or not) of Christians

This June, I was invited on a friend’s podcast to answer a question I’ve been asked over and over again in the Trump era. Are Christians really persecuted in the United States of America? Millions of my fellow evangelicals believe we are, or they believe we’re one election away from a crackdown. This sense of dread and despair helps tie conservative Christians, people who center their lives on the church and the institutions of the church, to Donald Trump — the man they believe will fight to keep faith alive.

As I told my friend, the short answer is no, not by any meaningful historical definition of persecution. American Christians enjoy an immense amount of liberty and power.

But that’s not the only answer. American history tells the story of two competing factions that possess very different visions of the role of faith in American public life. Both of them torment each other, and both of them have made constitutional mistakes that have triggered deep cultural conflict.

One of the most valuable and humbling experiences in life is to experience an American community as part of the in-group and as part of the out-group. I spent most of my life living in the cultural and political center of American evangelical Christianity, but in the past nine years I’ve been relentlessly pushed to the periphery. The process has been painful. Even so, I’m grateful for my new perspective.

When you’re inside evangelicalism, Christian media is full of stories of Christians under threat — of universities discriminating against Christian student groups, of a Catholic foster care agency denied city contracts because of its stance on marriage or of churches that faced discriminatory treatment during Covid, when secular gatherings were often privileged over religious worship.

Combine those stories with the personal tales of Christians who faced death threats, intimidation and online harassment for their views, and it’s easy to tell a story of American backsliding — a nation that once respected or even revered Christianity now persecutes Christians. If the left is angry at conservatives for seeking the protection of a man like Trump, then it has only itself to blame.

Read the rest here.

Supreme Court punts on a potentially huge sleeper case

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case with potentially major repercussions. The case involves a man convicted decades ago of a fairly trivial non-violent crime that could have allowed for a prison sentence. However, he served no time and has not been in trouble with the law before or since. Current Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, the customary definition of a felony, from ever being able to own or possess a firearm, irrespective of whether the crime was violent or not. He has sued to have his gun rights restored. The US Court of Appeals in a split decision sided with him and the state appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court returned the case in question to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of its recent decision upholding a ban on firearms ownership by someone under a domestic violence restraining order. In that case, the 8-1 decision specifically stated that the government had a legitimate right to disarm people who could be reasonably seen as a threat to others. If that is now the legal standard, then this could have far ranged consequences. 

It is long established in law that convicted felons can be deprived of some of their civil rights. Until fairly recent times most states routinely barred felons from voting, serving on juries or holding elective office. Today, 49 of the 50 states have laws that more or less automatically restore some of those rights. (Virginia is the outlier.)  The conditions vary from state to state, but typically the right to vote is restored after an offender satisfies the terms of their sentence. However, almost all states do not allow for guns to be owned by persons with a criminal record, and the Federal law has been on the books since the late 1960s. 

I don't see how the courts could go down this particular path without upending all of this. Are they going to elevate the right to own a gun above the right to vote etc.? Are they prepared to strike down centuries of legal precedent and affirm basic civil rights for anyone not actually in prison? 

For the most part, the press and media have given only passing attention to this case and seem to be missing entirely its broader ramifications. This could be the legal equivalent to a ticking bomb. 

A Good Presentation on the 5th Amendment

Longtime readers of this blog will know my opinions of Donald Trump. But the one thing you won't read on here is an attack on him for taking the 5th. The 5th amendment exists to protect the innocent. That it ocassionaly also protects the guilty is an unfortunate, but IMO, acceptable trade-off.

Tennessee: Man jailed for posting offensive image

A Tennessee man was arrested Friday for alleged harassment after authorities said he distributed a disrespectful photo of a law enforcement officer's grave on social media.

Joshua Andrew Garton, 28, was arrested on suspicion of harassment and jailed in Dickson County, Tennessee, on $76,000 bond, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said in a statement.

The bureau said Garton recently produced and distributed a doctored photo of two men urinating on the grave of Dickson County sheriff's Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was fatally shot in the line of duty in 2018.

"Just showing my respect to deputy Daniel Baker," text accompanying the image said.

State detectives visited the gravesite and determined the photo did not depict an actual desecration, according to the bureau.

Nashville lawyer Daniel Horwitz, who does not represent Garton, said by email that the arrest appeared to be a violation of the Constitution.

"The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man’s right to post an offensive photo about a police officer," he said. "The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest."

Read the rest here.

Being an obnoxious and ignorant cuss is not a crime in this country. If not already done, Mr. Garton needs to be released PDQ. And no matter how painful it may be, an apology is in order. Having a badge does not give one the right to jail somebody because they hurt your feelings. 

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Bigotry

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

“Religious liberty was never intended to give one religion dominion over other religions, or a veto power over the civil rights and civil liberties of others,” Castro said. “However, today, as in the past, religion is being used as both a weapon and a shield by those seeking to deny others equality.

“In our nation’s past religion has been used to justify slavery and later, Jim Crow laws,” Castro said. “We now see ‘religious liberty’ arguments sneaking their way back into our political and constitutional discourse (just like the concept of ‘state rights’) in an effort to undermine the rights of some Americans.

“This generation of Americans must stand up and speak out to ensure that religion never again be twisted to deny others the full promise of America,” Castro said.

Read the rest here.

Voter Suppression’s New Pretext

IRVINE, Calif. — IT’S the latest fad among state officials looking to make voting harder: We’re not racist, we’re just partisan.

Some background: In June, the Supreme Court struck down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, under which nine states and portions of others had to get federal approval before changing their election laws.

One of those states, Texas, is again in court, facing a Justice Department suit seeking to get the state under federal oversight again. To do so, the Justice Department must prove intentional racial discrimination.

Texas’ defense? It’s discrimination, all right — but it’s on the basis of party, not race, and therefore it’s O.K.

Says Texas: “It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.”

Read the rest here.

A great speech is remembered with a very exclusive party

So today is the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's most famous speech, which I will not quote here out of deference to the copyright, jealously guarded by his family. While conceding the flaws of the messenger, the message was an important one. And I join the vast majority of American's in expressing my gratitude for his courage and eloquence in a great and noble cause. And it is entirely appropriate that the occasion should be commemorated.

To which end there have been a series of events going on all week in Washington, culminating in an endless procession of speeches and orations by some of our country's great luminaries, including three US Presidents.

All of them Democrats.

Come to think of it, I am trying really hard to name any Republicans at any of these events. Now a number of possibilities come to mind. Maybe the two Presidents Bush were unable to make it. Maybe the entire Republican Party really despises Dr. King and they quietly boycotted the event. Maybe there were lots of Republicans there and they just got blacked out by MSNBC and CNN.

Or maybe, none were not invited.

Charity dictates I give some weight to the first few possibilities. But my gut strong suspects the latter. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I will be more than happy to be proven paranoid in my suspicions of racial politics at such an important anniversary.

Senior IRS Official to Take the 5th

A top IRS official scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight committee has notified Congress that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit which handled tax-exempt organizations, won't answer questions about what she knows about the improper screening of conservative groups or about why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress that such targeting was going on, according to a letter from her lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Read the rest here.

That is certainly her absolute right. What's more, given the circumstances I will go so far as to say it is probably a very smart decision from a legal perspective. And of course this must not be held against her... in a court of law. That however does not apply to the workplace. No one should be able to invoke the 5th amendment when asked by their employer if they are a thief and expect to remain employed. Especially if you are employed in a law enforcement capacity.

Ms. Lerner should be immediately dismissed.

Supreme Court limits warrantless blood tests for drunken driving suspects

Police officers generally must try to get a warrant before forcing uncooperative drunken-driving suspects to submit to a blood test, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The natural dissipation of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream does not justify an exception to the general constitutional requirements of a warrant, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority.

She said such emergencies must be determined by the circumstances in a case-by-case examination and rejected the notion that officers face a “now or never” situation in obtaining blood alcohol tests.

“In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so,” Sotomayor wrote.

Read the rest here.

Congressional Abdication and the Rise of the Imperial Presidency

IN MATTERS of foreign policy, Congress, and especially the Senate, was designed as a hedge against the abuses exhibited by overeager European monarchs who for centuries had whimsically entangled their countries in misguided adventures. America would not be such a place. The Constitution would protect our governmental process from the overreach of a single executive who might otherwise succumb to the impulsive temptation to unilaterally risk our country’s blood, treasure and international prestige. Congress was given the power to declare war and appropriate funds, thus eliminating any resemblance to European-style monarchies when it came to the presidential war power.

Importantly and often forgotten these days, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was also carefully drawn to give Congress, not the president, certain powers over the structure and use of the military. True, the president would act as commander in chief, but only in the sense that he would be executing policies shepherded within the boundaries of legislative powers. In some cases his power is narrowed further by the requirement that he obtain the “Advice and Consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. Congress, not the president, would “raise and support Armies,” with the Constitution limiting appropriations for such armies to no more than two years. This was a clear signal that in our new country there would be no standing army to be sent off on foreign adventures at the whim of a pseudomonarch. The United States would not engage in unchecked, perpetual military campaigns.

Congress would also “provide and maintain a Navy,” with no time limit on such appropriations. This distinction between “raising” an army and “maintaining” a navy marked a recognition of the reality that our country would need to protect vital sea-lanes as a matter of commercial and national security, confront acts of piracy—the eighteenth-century equivalent of international terrorism—and act as a deterrent to large-scale war.

Practical circumstances have changed, but basic philosophical principles should not. We reluctantly became a global military power in the aftermath of World War II, despite our initial effort to follow historical patterns and demobilize. NATO was not established until 1949, and the 1950 invasion of South Korea surprised us. In the ensuing decades, the changing nature of modern warfare, the growth of the military-industrial complex and national-security policies in the wake of the Cold War all have contributed to a mammoth defense structure and an atrophied role for Congress that would not have been recognizable when the Constitution was written. And there is little doubt that Dwight D. Eisenhower, who led the vast Allied armies on the battlefields of Europe in World War II and who later as president warned ominously of the growth of what he himself termed the “military-industrial complex,” is now spinning in his tomb.

Perhaps the greatest changes in our defense posture and in the ever-decreasing role of Congress occurred in the years following the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil of September 11, 2001. Powers quickly shifted to the presidency as the call went up for centralized decision making in a traumatized nation where quick, decisive action was considered necessary. It was considered politically dangerous and even unpatriotic to question this shift, lest one be accused of impeding national safety during a time of war. Few dared to question the judgment of military leaders, many of whom were untested and almost all of whom followed the age-old axiom of continually asking for more troops, more money and more authority. Members of Congress fell all over themselves to prove they were behind the troops and behind the wars.

Read the rest here.

Supreme Court hears arguments on gay marriage

A cautious and conflicted Supreme Court on Tuesday took up for the first time a detailed examination of same-sex marriage, and wondered openly about whether it was time for the court to render a judgment.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, considered to be the pivotal vote on the issue, said the court was in “uncharted waters.” He questioned whether it should have accepted the case, which concerns California’s constitutional amendment, approved by voters, that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples.

Read the rest here.

Rand Paul gets his answer

About that filibuster...

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.' The answer to that question is no." 

-Eric Holder Attorney General of the United States
From here.

Paul vows to hold up Brennan’s CIA nomination over drones

Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday that he would “use every procedural option” at his disposal to block the confirmation of White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan to become CIA director if the Obama administration keeps dodging questions about its policy on lethal drone strikes against terrorism suspects, including Americans.

In a letter to Mr. Brennan on Thursday, Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican, said that Mr. Brennan evaded answering a key question about the administration’s drone policy during a confirmation hearing this month before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

During the hearing, Mr. Brennan was asked whether the Obama administration asserts the authority to carry out such lethal drone strikes on U.S. territory.

In written responses filed with the committee later, Mr. Brennan said the administration “has not carried out” such strikes and “has no intention of doing so.”

Read the rest here.

Police shoot and kill naked unarmed college student

A day after a naked student at the University of South Alabama was fatally shot in the chest by a campus security guard, his mother and friends are asking why no other means were used to subdue the 18-year-old.

According to a statement released by the university, an officer heard loud banging on the police station window early Saturday and left his post to investigate. The man banging on the window was Gilbert Thomas Collar, an 18-year-old freshman who had graduated high school the previous spring. He was naked.

Collar was a wrestler whose favorite quotation, according to his Facebook profile, was “Be easy.” His profile photo is of himself, sporting a skinny black tie and light facial hair, his arm wrapped around his mother.

According to the university statement, the officer “was confronted by a muscular, nude man who was acting erratically. The man repeatedly rushed and verbally challenged the officer in a fighting stance.”

The officer allegedly asked Collar to stop, but the young student chased him “in a threatening manner and ignored the officer’s repeated commands.”

That’s when the officer drew his police sidearm and shot Collar once, striking him in the chest.

Collar “got up once more and continued to challenge the officer further before collapsing and expiring,” the report said. The officer has been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.

Collar’s mother told CNN she doesn’t understand why the officer had to shoot her son. Her son, she said, was 5-foot-7 and weighed 135 pounds.

Read the rest here.

Federal court rejects Texas voter ID law

A federal court in Washington on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November, saying it would place an unfair burden on minorities and the poor.

A three-judge U.S. District Court panel ruled that that SB 14, described as the most stringent voter ID law in the country, imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

“Texas, seeking to implement its voter ID law, bears the burden of proof and must therefore show that SB 14 lacks retrogressive effect. But as we have found, everything Texas has submitted as affirmative evidence is unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” the opinion said.

Read the rest here.

St. Paul Cops Raid Wrong House; Brutalize Family

A St. Paul, Minnesota family claims in a lawsuit that police officers who conducted a wrong-door raid on their home shot their dog, and then forced their three handcuffed children to sit near the dead pet while officers ransacked the home. The lawsuit, which names Ramsey County, the Dakota County Drug Task Force, and the DEA, and asks for $30 million in civil rights violations and punitive damages after a wrong-door raid, also claims that the officers kicked the children and deprived one of them of her diabetes medication.

Read the rest here.

Assuming the allegations are true, I think the damages should be awarded from the Police Pension Fund.

Disabled Spectator Arrested for Not Visibly Enjoying Olympic Event

Mark Worsfold, 54, a former soldier and martial arts instructor, was arrested on 28 July for a breach of the peace shortly before the cyclists arrived in Redhouse Park, Leatherhead, where he had sat down on a wall to watch the race. Officers from Surrey police restrained and handcuffed him and took him to Reigate police station, saying his behaviour had "caused concern."

    * * *

Worsfold … claims police questioned him about his demeanour and why he had not been seen to be visibly enjoying the event. Worsfold, who was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 2010, suffers from muscle rigidity that affects his face. He was released after two hours without charge or caution.

Read the rest here.

Words fail me.

Would the Last Civil Right in America Please Remember to Close the Door on Its Way Out?

Q: What do all of the following have in common?

• Prolonged isolation;
• Deprivation of light;
• Exposure to prolonged periods of light and/or darkness;
• Extreme variations in temperature;
• Sleep adjustment;
• Threats of severe physical abuse;
• Death threats;
• Administration of psychotropic drugs;
• Shackling and manacling for hours at a time;
• Use of "stress" positions;
• Noxious fumes that caused pain to eyes and nose;
• Withholding of any mattress, pillow, sheet or blanket;
• Forced grooming;
• Suspension of showers;
• Removal of religious items;
• Constant surveillance;
• Incommunicado detention, including denial of all contact with family and legal counsel for a 21-month period;
• Interference with religious observance; and
• Denial of medical care for serious and potentially life-threatening ailments, including chest pain and difficulty breathing, as well as for treatment of the chronic, extreme pain caused by being forced to endure stress positions, resulting in severe and continuing mental and physical harm, pain, and profound disruption of the senses and personality.

Any guesses?
Time's up!
A: They're all things that government officials could do to an American citizen and still claim later that they didn't know they were "torturing" that citizen, according to a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In fact, they could do all those things to the same citizen and still claim it wasn't clear to them at the time whether it was "torture."
Did you guess right? If so, what is wrong with you?
The legal issue was whether John Yoo should be entitled to "qualified immunity" in a case brought by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen detained as an "enemy combatant." "Qualified immunity" is a doctrine that bars claims against government officials if, at the time they acted, it was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he or she was doing violated the plaintiff's rights." The idea is to try to preserve some freedom of action for officials who have to act in areas where the law may not always be clear. If it applies, no lawsuit.

Read the rest here.