Mediaboss Marketing

Ive changed my vote.

No, not that vote.

Ive changed my vote for the most reactionary and dangerous member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The distinction no longer belongs to Clarence Thomas. Nor should it be reserved for any of the three conservatives appointed by President Donald TrumpNeil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett.

The honor belongs to Samuel Alito. Hes earned it.

A long-time member of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, Alito has been a featured speaker at several of the groups functions, voicing support for rightwing causes and regressive social values.

Nicknamed in progressive legal circles as Strip-Search Sammy for a dissenting opinion he wrote in 2004 as a Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Washington, D.C., in which he approved of the body search of an innocent ten-year-old girl, Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush in 2005.

Alitos selection was widely opposed by civil rights and civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which warned of his troubling decisions on race, religion, and reproductive rights while sitting on the federal appeals court. In its long and storied history, the ACLU has opposed only three other high-court nomineesWilliam Rehnquist, Robert Bork, and Kavanaugh.

Despite these warnings, the Senate confirmed Alitos appointment in January 2006. Since then, Alito has been everything the ACLU feared, endearing himself to the radical right by writing a series of contentious and controversial majority opinions, including:

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2007, dismissing a pay discrimination lawsuit brought by equality activist Lilly Ledbetter because it was not filed within 180 days. (The decision was effectively overturned by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009, following prodding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010, extending individual gun rights under the Second Amendment to the states.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 2013, holding that American human rights activists had no standing to challenge government surveillance of their communications with persons located abroad.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 2014, exempting closely held corporations with religious objections from Obamacares provisions requiring employers to provide workers with health care insurance coverage of contraceptives.

Glossip v. Gross, 2015, ruling that the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not prohibit statesfrom using asedative in lethal injection protocols that causes severe pain.

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 2018, upholding Ohios vast 2016 purge of voting rolls.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 2018, invoking the First Amendment to prohibit public-sector unions from collecting fees from non-union members to support collective bargaining activities.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 2019, upholding a warrantless blood alcohol sobriety test administered to an unconscious driver.

Hernandez v. Mesa, 2019, declaring that the family of a Mexican teenager shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent while standing in a culvert on the U.S. side of the border could not sue for damages in a U.S. court.

Alitos arch-conservatism has also found its way into his dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court. In 2013, for example, he crafted a breathtakingly homophobic dissent in United States v. Windsor, which struck down key provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And this past July, he and Thomas displayed their fealty to President Trump, penning separate dissents in Trump v. Vance, the landmark 7-2 ruling that held the Constitution does not categorically block state criminal subpoenas issued to a sitting President.

As awful as his official court opinions have been, it is Alitos behavior off the bench that has set him apart from his fellow jurists. In January 2010, shortly after the court issued its Citizens United decision (in which he, of course, concurred), he was infamously caught on national television sneering during Obamas State of the Union address, mouthing the words not true as the President decried the ruling and the effect it wouldand didhave on future elections.

A long-time member of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, Alito has been a featured speaker at several of the groups functions, voicing support for rightwing causes and regressive social values. Although it is not unusual for Supreme Court Justices to participate in bar association meetings or academic conferences, Alito discarded all pretense of judicial impartiality in his most recent Federalist Society appearance in a Zoom webinar speech, delivered on November 12, keynoting the societys prestigious annual national lawyers convention.

Sounding like a Fox News host spouting the familiar and incendiary talking points of conservative victimhood, Alito called the Second Amendment the ultimate second-tier Constitutional right.

In a similar fashion, Alito blasted federal regulatory agencies for churning out huge volumes of regulations that, he insisted, shifted policymaking from elected legislators to an elite group of appointed experts. And he went even further into the nether reaches on the subject of same-sex marriage, charging that you cant say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now its considered bigotry.

But it was on the subject of COVID-19 that Alito reached his apogee. He said the recent restrictions imposed in some states on the size of religious gatherings has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. There was nary a nod to slavery, the internment of Japanese Americans, or segregation.

If Alito were still sitting on a lower court, his unhinged commentary could be grounds for disqualification. Supreme Court Justices, however, are not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They are beyond the reach of sanctions for conflicts of interest or bias. In a very real sense, they are above the law they are tasked with interpreting and upholding. That is what makes them supreme.

Alito understands the awesome power that his lifetime appointment has given him. More than any other member of the high tribunal, he has opted to abuse that power for nakedly partisan ends, making him little more than a political firebrand draped in a black robe.

The rest is here:
Unequal Justice: The Treachery of Samuel Alito - Progressive.org

Everywhere one looks there are warning signs, from labels on cigarette packs warning that smoking causes cancer, to ridiculous labels on thermometers that read, Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito has delivered some serious warnings that too often are ignored by many who believe the freedoms we enjoy are inviolable.

In an address last week to the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Alito touched on several subjects, including COVID, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, free speech, and bullying of the Supreme Court by U.S. senators.

Alito made a case for how each issue contains elements that contribute to a slow erosion of our liberties. On tolerance, preached but not often practiced by the left, Alito said: tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community. When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy. This is not a new revelation, but it bears repeating.

While acknowledging the deaths, hospitalizations and unemployment caused by COVID, Alito warned: The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Now, notice what I am not saying or even implying, I am not diminishing the severity of the viruss threat to public health. Im not saying anything about the legality of COVID restrictions. Nor am I saying anything about whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy. Im a judge, not a policymaker. All that Im saying is this. And I think it is an indisputable statement of fact, we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced, for most of 2020.

Where does this lead? Alito answered when he spoke of the dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than legislation. The vision of early 20th-century progressives and the new dealers of the 1930s was the policymaking would shift from narrow-minded elected legislators, to an elite group of appointed experts, in a word, the policymaking would become more scientific. That dream has been realized to a large extent. Every year administrative agencies acting under broad delegations of authority churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarfs the statutes enacted by the peoples elected representatives. And what have we seen in the pandemic sweeping restrictions imposed for the most part, under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion?

Alito cited a Nevada case that came before the Court: Under that law, if the governor finds that there is, quote, a natural technological or manmade emergency, or disaster of major proportions, the governor can perform and exercise such functions, powers and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population. To say that this provision confers broad discretion would be an understatement.

Restrictions on how we are told to celebrate Thanksgiving would be another example.

On the erosion of religious liberty, he said: It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored, right. As evidence he mentioned how we have moved from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993 to the recent persecution by the Obama administration of The Little Sisters of the Poor for their refusal to include contraceptives in their health insurance. The Catholic nuns prevailed in a 7-2 court ruling, but Alito believes the threat to the free exercise of religion remains all too real.

There is much more in his address that should be read in its entirety. Alitos warnings ring true, but are we listening?

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

The rest is here:
Thomas: Justice Alito and warning signs - Daily Local News

NORWALK Gun owners and non-gun owners alike are taking issue with a new proposal that would ban the weapons on city properties, with some arguing the rule would infringe on their constitutional rights.

According to Common Council Ordinance Committee Chair Lisa Shanahan, the group received over 250 emails prior to its Tuesday meeting with feedback on the committees look at city gun ordinances, which could include a proposed ban from carrying in city buildings.

Despite the outcry over the proposal, Shanahan said the committee is continuing to research and discuss the issue. A vote on the item was tabled after over two hours of comments and discussions.

Over a dozen people both gun owners and non-gun owners spoke at Tuesdays meeting against the proposed ban. Concerns ranged from the potential of the ordinance to make criminals out of legal gun owners to the proposal contradicting the Second Amendment, which protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

This is a huge infringement on the Second Amendment rights, said Norwalk resident Mallory Stevens. Given the current climate, this is an overstep of the government on our personal choices. I havent seen someone whos law-abiding cause a problem. ... Its about keeping our constitutional rights and you guys not infringing on that.

Norwalks ordinance would apparently be allowed by Connecticut state law, which states the issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.

Permitting laws do not distinguish between concealed and open carry.

Several committee members revealed they have gun permits and could be affected by this proposal.

People that have the most to lose are responsible already. Thats why we received so much outcry, said committee member Manny Langella, who added he has a gun permit and grew up hunting. Theres a balance between public safety and a right to carry a legal firearm. Its hard for me to support this change when the police chief has validated theres little to no complaint.

Langella said he was particularly concerned about what penalties would be in put in place for people who violate the potential ordinance. The committee has not settled on this yet, but said they would look at other towns for guidance, though Langella said he was cautious about doing so.

I dont think all towns are created equal, Langella said. This is one of the most difficult things to look to other towns for guidance. Where I grew up, people hunt as a way of living. ... Theres a delicacy we have to look at here. The right thing to do is for us to table this, do more research and go through public comments.

In addition to concerns about penalties, many speakers said they were worried about how the proposal would affect their ability to protect themselves; this was particularly a concern for people of color who said they are concerned about the potential of a bigoted attack.

Norwalk resident Peter Choi, a licensed gun carrier, said he has been attacked verbally for being Asian-American and carries to protect himself.

Verbal harassment can quickly elevate to physical harassment and, as a result, I consider concealed carry critical in maintaining safety of myself and loved ones, he said. I fear this proposal will primarily punish responsible, law-abiding citizens such as myself.

Committee member David Heuvelman said he grew up with guns, but has his doubts that private citizens who carry are trained to adequately respond in a dangerous situation. Heuvelman, who has a gun permit, added he was concerned about how guns can escalate situations in a public setting.

Im a concealed-carry holder and I would never think to carry in a city park, Heuvelman said. It made me stop and think about when I come around the corner and someone perceives my dog as an animal threat, could that potentially spark a situation? ... I want to make sure were doing this the right way and serving everyone.

One speaker Tuesday was in favor of the ordinance, and Ordinance Committee Chair Lisa Shanahan said many more emailed expressing support. She also clarified the ordinance would only affect city buildings, not streets, sidewalks or parking garages. And the discussion will continue after Tuesday night.

We recognize we have further work to do on this ordinance and further research to do, Shanahan said. The intent is to make city premises workplace gun-free zones. We tried to make it as clear as possible what buildings are covered by this. Theres been a lot of misunderstanding and I want to be very clear on what this will and wont address.

Committee member Tom Livingston, who grew up trap shooting, added there are exceptions to the Second Amendment and many legislative bodies, including Congress, do not allow guns where they gather. By creating the ordinance, city buildings such as the library and the senior center, would be covered, he said, and signage would make it so law-abiding citizens would not mistakenly violate the ordinance when entering these places.

He added that he felt it was better to enact such a rule now before there is a problem and its too late.

erin.kayata@hearstmediact.com

Read the rest here:
'A huge infringement': Norwalk to do further research after community feedback on proposed gun ban - CT Insider

This is the final story in a series looking at the creation and development of Derbys STAR bond district.

Developer Rick Worner of National Realty Advisers has had his hand in a number of STAR bond projects not just Derbys.

Worner was involved in one of the first STAR bond projects in the state the Kansas Speedway in Kansas City and currently has his hands in a few in the Wichita area. With Derby, he noted he looks at current national and global trends to help decide what can further be added to the STAR bond district.

For example, Worner mentioned aquariums (which are not actually allowed to be developed as STAR bond projects). If an aquarium opened in London or Atlanta and was drawing hundreds of thousands of people, he said he would dig deeper into its development potential in Derby.

As I find other family friendly attractions that opened somewhere else and are doing extremely well, Worner said, I will think about, hey, is this a right fit for Derby? and if it is Ill take the idea to staff, or sometimes staff and the city council, and say, hey, what do you think of this?

Sometimes those ideas will work for Derby and sometimes they wont. One idea Worner highlighted that did not fit Derby was a wax museum noting those attractions have to be in areas with high foot traffic (i.e., Times Square in New York City, London, etc.). However, when he saw the original Field Stations: Dinosaurs in New Jersey Worner thought it would be perfect in Derby.

While Worner admitted he likes all the ideas he brings before the city, ultimately it lies with staff and the Derby City Council to decide what fits best locally. City Manager Kathy Sexton noted, though, that they have been pretty open to any and all possibilities.

I think its fair to say weve listened to all of them and are open to all of those, Sexton said. A small percentage of them work out, but you also have to be open to listening to ideas and thinking about whats next.

Currently, Worner said he has three general feasibility studies in the works for future attractions. Typically, he said he will study four to five ideas and a couple will come back with numbers that work for Derby with Worner then presenting those ideas to the city.

At the moment, Worner does not have the results back from the current feasibility studies and noted he likely will not present the next potential addition to the STAR bond district until the current attractions are well under construction (or even completed).

Derby pushed for the second amendment to the STAR bond project (the rock climbing facility) this year based on the projected deadline for such projects. That has since changed, though, and Sexton said it is expected to be extended in the next legislative session.

Given that expanding window, Worner said both retail and additional tourist attractions are something he hopes are in the future for Derbys STAR bond district. Just what that is exactly depends a lot on the market and the factors of both local and visitor traffic with growing numbers leading to more development opportunities.

I cant tell you the number of cities that want an Olive Garden that Derby already has, Worner said, but they cant get an Olive Garden because they dont have enough residential population and they dont have enough visitation population.

COVID has thrown development for a loop this year, Worner noted, having cancelled the 2020 International Conference of Shopping Centers. Worner noted he normally goes to that and presents Derbys demographics to a number of restaurant, retail and hotel companies to see if the city would be an ideal location for expansion. The cancellation of such conventions has led to a down year in development.

Long-term ramifications of the pandemic are still uncertain as well, but Worner continues to seek out numerous opportunities to develop the Derby STAR bond district. He said it is important to also remember that is not an overnight process.

Everybody wants a STAR bond district to turn into The Legends in KCK, but what everybody forgets is that took years and years and years. Were still at the early stage of the Derby STAR bond district, Worner said. I continue to look for attractions and development that would build traffic.

Go here to see the original:
Derby STAR bond still in its formative years - The Derby Informer

To the editor:

Joe Bidens Gun Control Policy/Will Biden Take Away Your Guns? That is the name of a YouTube video, wherein the guy has the information from Bidens website right in front of him, and he pragmatically talks about it to explain what each of Bidens gun control points would mean in actuality.

This whole thing with guns and the Second Amendment reminds me of when there was a push to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed, which on the surface sounded good. But in actual interpretation, one thing the ERA would have meant is that women would be required to fight in combat alongside the men, in a war. (And yes, I know, nowadays some women wish to do this). But my point is that even though the ERA didnt pass, the people who wanted it to pass have brought about their desires in other ways. I compare this to what Biden/Harris want to do with our gun rights, and I think the guys reasoning in this video is sound about how we WOULD lose most of our gun rights.

One thing to remember too, is that the lawless will always have the guns that we wont have if Biden/Harris get their way, which would leave us very vulnerable in our homes.

I so appreciated the article by Kate Anderson about the rule of law, which was followed by an article by Debbie Mays about chasing leprechauns, criticizing what Kate had said about gun control however, my guess is that even though Kate worded it as losing our Second Amendment, she probably in actuality meant what the YouTube video explains.

Diana Larsen

Hyrum

Read this article:
More about Biden and the Second Amendment | Letters to the Editor - The Herald Journal