Mediaboss Marketing

Senate Bill 8, the Texas anti-abortion law that went into effect this month, was expressly designed so that state officials could dodge accountability for the state's law in federal court. In a new legal filing, the U.S. Department of Justice has offered a potentially winning strategy for overcoming that legal ruse.

The Texas law seeks to avoid legal accountability for state officials by outsourcing the enforcement of the anti-abortion law to private actors. Under its terms, "any person" may sue "any person whoaids or abets the performance or inducement of abortion" and win a $10,000 bounty plus legal fees if the civil suit is successful. In the state's eyes, this means that no state official needs to answer in federal court since no state official is enforcing the state law.

The Justice Department has offered a different view. In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law "impermissibly regulates the Federal Governmentand poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives." In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

How does the Texas abortion law injure federal sovereignty and interests? For one thing, the state law undermines Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute which says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations. If you have been following the roiling national debate over qualified immunity, you have probably heard of Section 1983 since it is the law under which federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against abusive cops.

There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. What that means is that those parties impacted by the state law are entitled to seek legal recourse in federal court by filing Section 1983 lawsuitsexcept that the Texas law was specifically designed to block those parties from seeking that very recourse.

Forget abortion. Say a progun control state legislature did the same thing. Namely, it passed a law banning handguns but then outsourced the law's enforcement to private gun control activists in an attempt to shield state officials from facing Section 1983 lawsuits over the state's blatant Second Amendment violation. Either way, the state's scheme would be a menace to both constitutional rights that have been clearly recognized by the Supreme Court and to congressionally authorized federal judicial action against those rights violations.

The Texas abortion law also runs afoul of a longstanding rule that says that states may not impose civil or criminal penalties on federal officials for carrying out their federal duties. That rule applies here because the Texas law, as the U.S. motion notes, "purports to prohibit federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their federal obligations to assist in providing access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies." Likewise, the law "purports to impede the Department of Defense's implementation of its statutory obligation to provide such medical services [abortion] to service members."

These are not far-fetched legal arguments. As the federal government's motion points out, "the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the authority of the United States, even without an express statutory cause of action, to seek equitable relief to vindicate various federal interests and constitutional guarantees." Such federal arguments have prevailed before and they may prevail here again.

Link:
The Justice Department May Have Found a Winning Argument Against the Texas Abortion Law - Reason

When I was the Union-Tribunes politics reporter, one of the most alarming things I covered was a discussion two candidates had with a local group that included extremists.

The fact that two congressional candidates, Rep. Darrell Issa and Ammar Campa-Najjar, chose to meet with the group was surprising, given the groups reputation and habit for celebrating violence against racial justice protesters in an online Facebook group. Besides that, Issa made a jarring comment to the group in which he promoted citizen groups taking up arms to defend their communities.

The freedom to enjoy your own life, your own home, to not have your banks or your churches burned down or vandalized is in fact something we cede much of our right to law enforcement, but we dont cede the right, we only cede the responsibility, Issa said. If government fails to meet the obligations youve given them, you take it back.

I found it striking at the time because you dont often hear elected officials promoting potential violence and vigilantism after all, it does run counter to the whole idea of our justice system and the notion of law and order. Beyond that though, it was alarming because that comment came just days after a thwarted plot by self-styled militia members to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and weeks after a teenager drove across state lines to confront racial justice protesters in Kenosha, Wis., where he shot and killed two people and wounded a third.

Issa defended his comment as being based on an accurate reading of the Second Amendment, but experts in extremism cautioned that his interpretation was dangerously close to the insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment being used by unsavory groups to foment a civil war.

In fact, Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University San Bernardino, told me then that such rhetoric emboldens bad actors and provides potential vigilantes a sense of legitimacy.

Bottom line: the insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment the idea that somehow if the government is tyrannical it gives armed citizenry a right to rebellion is, I think, a dangerous one because we actually now have what we didnt have back before, the ability to throw out elected officials through the power of the ballot, not the bullet, said Levin, who wrote a book about armed civilian militias.

That exchange has been on my mind a lot this year.

I thought about it on Jan. 6, when we saw a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol; I thought about it during recent San Diego County Board of Supervisors meetings where we heard anti-mask, anti-vax individuals threaten supervisors and compare them to Nazis, and I thought about it Monday when an Oceanside man was arrested in Washington, D.C., outside of the Democratic National Committee headquarters driving a pickup truck that bore a swastika and carried a machete and bayonet inside.

Ive also found myself thinking about it quite a bit as we head into the final day of voting for Californias gubernatorial recall election.

Im hoping and praying this election will not end with some kind of violent reaction or pushback. I certainly fear it might though, and it continues to be odd how often Im having that fear ahead of an election.

Apparently Im not the only one with that anxiety.

In March, CNN released a poll that showed an increasing number of Americans expect some kind of political violence in response to election results in the coming years, with 71 percent of respondents saying political violence in response to election results is at least somewhat likely, including 34 percent who said it is very likely. Notably, one of the few things Democrats and Republicans agree on today is the notion that some kind of political violence is on the horizon 78 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents describe it as likely.

Although some may feel those numbers are exacerbated by a series of high profile attempts at political violence such as Jan. 6 or the attempted kidnapping of Michigans governor, theres also polling that shows more Americans are getting comfortable justifying the use of violence in the face of political opposition.

In February, a poll by The Survey Center on American Life, a research group connected with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, found that more than 36 percent of Americans agree with the statement: The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of those surveyed completely or somewhat agree with the statement: If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions.

The notion of taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act was more prominent among Republicans, 39 percent, but 17 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents also supported the idea.

These findings follow another Survey Center poll that discovered a growing sense of viewing opposing parties as legitimate threats. About 75 percent of Republicans say Democratic policies pose a clear and present danger, while 64 percent of Democrats say the same about Republican policies. That is a 20 percent and 10 percent uptick from the view Republicans and Democrats had of each other as recently as 2017, respectively.

In a piece for Business Insider describing the groups polls, Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life and a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, raised the alarm about what these attitudes suggest.

In the wake of the Capitol uprising, we have been forced to reckon with the uncomfortable truth that political violence is no longer a theoretical concern, he wrote. If political leaders weaponize concerns about demographic change and undermine trust in democratic institutions, some members of the public may seek to achieve their political goals through non-democratic means including the use of force.

Im not sure where that leaves us. Its all just a deeply disturbing position.

But hope is something you give to yourself during the dark times, so Im just going to hope that cooler heads prevail in the end. I hope every Democrat, Republican and independent is a bit more mindful of the rhetoric we use when we talk about politics. Because whether its Tuesdays election or the election in November 2022, political violence is a reality we should all hope to avoid.

Continued here:
Column: Political violence is a growing fear; let's watch the rhetoric during elections - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Today, the Herndon Town Council will hold a public hearing at 7PM on an ordinance to restrict firearms in certain public places. Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance 21-O-10. If you wish to attend the hearing, you may find information here.

Please click the Take Action button below to contact the Town Council.

The proposed Ordinance 21-O-10 prohibits firearms, ammunition, and components in public buildings, public parks, and on public streets and sidewalks where, or adjacent to where, town-sponsored events are occurring. There are exemptions for concealed handguns by concealed handgun permit holders as well as for firearms, ammunition, and components stored out of sight in locked vehicles lawfully parked in these areas.

Despite these exemptions, individuals who live in an area where a town-sponsored event is occurring will not be able to cross a public right of way to enter or leave their property with any firearm other than a concealed handgun with a permit. In addition, they may find themselves in legal trouble for accidentally leaving something as simple as a shell casing visible in a vehicle parked at one of these public buildings or parks, or leaving it parked in an area prior to a town-sponsored event occurring there.

Nothing in the proposed ordinance requires the town to implement security measures to ensure that armed criminals do not ignore such arbitrary boundaries and enter anyway. It simply says they may implement security measures.

Again, please contact the Town Council and ask them to OPPOSE the proposed Ordinance 21-O-10.

Go here to see the original:
Virginia: Herndon Considering Carry Restrictions - NRA ILA

Press Releases

09/07/2021

(Hartford, CT) Attorney General William Tong today joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general, led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, in filing an amicus brief supporting federal laws restricting the commercial sale of handguns to persons under the age of 21. In the brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the coalition argues that such restrictions protect residents from the harmful effects of gun violence, as well as promote the safe use of firearms.

The coalition filed the brief in Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives, a lawsuit challenging federal statutes and regulations that bar 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers. The plaintiffs argue that such restrictions violate the Second Amendment, and a three-judge panel agreed, holding that the federal laws are unconstitutional. The federal government is now asking the full court to rehear the case.

Connecticut has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, but they only go so far if we dont have similarly strong corresponding federal laws, Attorney General Tong said. Our coalition is urging the court to support the law restricting gun sales to people under the age of 21. Doing so is vital to protect public safety and prevent further senseless and tragic gun violence.In the brief, the coalition explains that the decision is the first to strike down an age-based restriction on the sale or access to firearms and so breaks with the decisions of multiple other federal courts. The coalition argues that age-based restrictions on the sale of firearms are presumptively lawful regulatory measures and that such restrictions are reasonably tailored to the governmental interest in public safety.

More specifically, the coalition argues that the court should rehear the case because:

Joining Raoul and Tong in the brief are the attorneys general of California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Elizabeth Bentonelizabeth.benton@ct.gov

860-808-5318attorney.general@ct.gov

See the article here:
Attorney General Tong Files Amicus Brief in Support of Federal Firearm Regulations - CT.gov

The frighteningly archaic, unworkable and very likely unconstitutional anti-abortion law out of Texas has thrust the issue back into the political foreground, and atop the heaping pile of policy issues President Joe Biden is going to have to address mostly without much help from Congress.

To be blunt, the law is bad for many reasons, and I say this as a conservative who very much dislikes abortion. Back to that in a minute.

But one of the most deleterious effects of the law, which effectively exempts Texas from the nearly 50-year old settled law decided by Roe v. Wade, is that it serves an underwhelming minority of American voters at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

Like nearly everything else in this hyper-partisan climate, the Texas law, and others before it, radically misrepresents the contours and the stakes of an important political issue. If you didnt know better, you might assume this is actually what most people want, or why else would it be a thing. Its simply not the case not even in Texas.

Yes, America is predictably divided on abortion. According to Gallups latest polling, 49% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice, and 47% consider themselves pro-life.

But like on every other issue, what the political conversations about abortion, and increasingly the policies concerning it, leave out, is the middle, where the majority of voters comfortably reside.

Gallup has tracked views on abortion since 1975. They havent changed all that significantly since then. In 2021, 32% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Thats up 11 points since 1975. Today, 48% believe abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. Thats down six points since 1975. The number of people who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances is slightly down, from 22% in 1975 to 19% now.

If only 19% of the country wants to make abortion effectively illegal, and a majority of America believes abortion should be legal with some restrictions, what about in red-state Texas?

There, too, opinions have remained fairly fixed. According to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll this year, only 13% said abortion should never be permitted even fewer than the national poll. Contrastingly, 38% said a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.

That roughly corresponds with 2020 exit polling in Texas, where 30% said abortion should be legal most of the time, and only 15% said it should be illegal without any exceptions.

What all these numbers show quite clearly is that the Texas law is a solution in search of a problem, and a very bad one at that.

While I consider myself pro-life, like many other center-right suburban women, I also accept that Roe v. Wade is settled law. I may find abortion a lamentable option (as do many women who make the difficult decision to obtain one), but if it is the law of the land, I want it to remain legal, safe and rare.

The Texas law effectively makes abortion illegal, dangerously unsafe and impossible. Thats not good for women.

Its also barbarically punitive. Forcing a woman to carry her rapists or fathers baby, as this law does, is cruel and hardly a compassionate way to encourage motherhood.

Finally, empowering vigilante citizens some of whom may believe in Satanic pedophile rings, bamboo ballots and other absurd conspiracy theories endangering Americans to round up women and the people who aid and abet them, seems like the worst idea at the very worst time.

There are far better ways to change hearts and minds on abortion than foisting medieval laws upon women, from offering better economic safety nets for pregnant teens and single and working would-be mothers, to making adoption easier, especially for gay prospective parents.

But why do that when Republicans in the Texas state legislature can invent extreme, unpopular and regressive new laws that clog the courts, congest Congress and needlessly work the country into a frenzy?

Our politics of purity and partisanship favors only the extremes. Whether its immigration or police reform, gun rights or abortion, the people with the loudest voices get most of the attention. Meanwhile, the moderate majority which supports legal abortion with restrictions, supports the Second Amendment but with common-sense gun safety laws, support criminal justice reform but oppose defunding the police, support legal immigration but oppose open borders is left out.

The Texas abortion ban is a dangerous precedent for negating settled law, and a bad way to frame the pro-life argument. But unfortunately, its also just the latest example of Republican extremism designed to please a handful of voters who dont even represent the majority in their own state. In short, no one asked for this, but that doesnt matter anymore.

S.E. Cupp is the host of S.E. Cupp Unfiltered on CNN.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.

See the article here:
Texas, abortion and the forgotten middle | Cupp - Chicago Sun-Times