511 lines
69 KiB
HTML
511 lines
69 KiB
HTML
|
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
|||
|
|
<html lang="" xml:lang="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
|
|||
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8"/>
|
|||
|
|
<meta content="pandoc" name="generator"/>
|
|||
|
|
<meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes" name="viewport"/>
|
|||
|
|
<title>09 July, 2022</title>
|
|||
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
|||
|
|
code{white-space: pre-wrap;}
|
|||
|
|
span.smallcaps{font-variant: small-caps;}
|
|||
|
|
span.underline{text-decoration: underline;}
|
|||
|
|
div.column{display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; width: 50%;}
|
|||
|
|
</style>
|
|||
|
|
<title>Daily-Dose</title><meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" name="viewport"/><link href="styles/simple.css" rel="stylesheet"/><link href="../styles/simple.css" rel="stylesheet"/><style>*{overflow-x:hidden;}</style><link href="https://unpkg.com/aos@2.3.1/dist/aos.css" rel="stylesheet"/><script src="https://unpkg.com/aos@2.3.1/dist/aos.js"></script></head>
|
|||
|
|
<body>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-down" id="daily-dose">Daily-Dose</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" data-aos-anchor-placement="top-bottom" id="contents">Contents</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-new-yorker">From New Yorker</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-vox">From Vox</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-the-hindu-sports">From The Hindu: Sports</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-the-hindu-national-news">From The Hindu: National News</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-bbc-europe">From BBC: Europe</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-ars-technica">From Ars Technica</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-new-yorker">From New Yorker</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Ethical Health Care After Roe</strong> - Isaac Chotiner speaks with Louise Perkins King, a surgeon and bioethicist at Harvard and the vice-chair of ethics at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, about how bioethicists think about abortion, how the medical community should approach its own members who are opposed to abortion, and whether it is ever appropriate for medical-care providers to break the law. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ethical-health-care-after-roe">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>How Boris Johnson’s Government Finally Collapsed</strong> - In twenty-four hours, more than three dozen ministers and aides deserted the Prime Minister. On July 7th, he announced his plan to resign. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/boris-johnsons-government-is-collapsing-in-on-itself">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Abortion Is About Freedom, Not Just Privacy</strong> - The right to abortion is an affirmation that women and girls have the right to control their own destiny. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/abortion-is-about-freedom-not-just-privacy">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of Clarence Thomas</strong> - For decades, Thomas has had a deeply pessimistic view of the country, rooted in his reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Supreme Court’s recent opinions, his dystopia is becoming our reality. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-self-fulfilling-prophecies-of-clarence-thomas">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>What Precedents Would Clarence Thomas Overturn Next?</strong> - The constitutional-law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen on a revolution in the Supreme Court. Plus, the comedian Hannah Gadsby denounces comedy, and Patricia Marx tries to relax. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/what-precedents-would-clarence-thomas-overturn-next">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-vox">From Vox</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>The post-legal Supreme Court</strong> -
|
|||
|
|
<figure>
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bzRfF-o22rzwzlk9EEhvn28WVew=/206x0:4207x3001/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/71082670/GettyImages_1241557418a.0.jpg"/>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
An abortion rights activist flies an upside-down American flag, a sign of dire distress, outside of the US Supreme Court during a protest on June 26, two days after the Court overturned <em>Roe v. Wade.</em> | Samuel Corum/AFP via Getty Images
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
What happens if the Court rejects the rule of law?
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="oxmOfi">
|
|||
|
|
The highest Court in the most powerful nation in the world appears to have decided that it only needs to follow the law when it feels like it.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="dLXJvY">
|
|||
|
|
Last December, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that fundamentally alters the Union — giving states <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/14/22832257/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-abortion-guns-assault-weapons">sweeping authority to restrict their residents’ constitutional rights</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DJBhf3">
|
|||
|
|
At least, that’s what happened if you take the Court’s 5-4 decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf"><em>Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson</em></a><em> </em>seriously. <em>Jackson</em> involved Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8, which allowed “any person” who is not employed by the state to sue anyone they suspect of performing an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, and to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/10/22827899/supreme-court-texas-abortion-law-sb8-decision-whole-womans-health">collect a bounty of at least $10,000</a> from that abortion provider. The Court allowed that law to take effect, even though abortion was still considered a constitutional right at the time.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nDuaxb">
|
|||
|
|
If you apply the logic from <em>Jackson</em> more broadly, any state could pass a law <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/14/22832257/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-abortion-guns-assault-weapons">unleashing such litigious bounty hunters upon people who exercise any constitutional right</a>. Perhaps a state wants to make it illegal to own a gun, or maybe it wants to allow bounty hunters to sue any Black family that sends its child to a predominantly white school — and the federal judiciary will simply stand back and let it happen. Realistically, the Court is unlikely to allow these sorts of attacks. But to spite abortion, the conservative majority was willing to open the door to them.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="SCcAH3">
|
|||
|
|
<em>Jackson</em>, moreover, was only the beginning of a Rumspringa of conservative excess led by the Court’s Republican-appointed majority.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BrZnsl">
|
|||
|
|
In its just-completed term, the Supreme Court overruled <em>Roe v. Wade, </em>permitting states to ban abortions without having to resort to SB 8-style chicanery. It also <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch">overruled a seminal 1971 decision</a> prohibiting the government from advancing one religious belief at the expense of others. It all but <a href="https://www.vox.com/23159672/supreme-court-egbert-boule-bivens-law-enforcement-border-patrol-immunity">neutralized another half-century-old precedent</a> permitting federal law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution to be sued. And the Court’s Republican majority dismantled two decisions protecting criminal defendants who were convicted or sentenced without adequate defense counsel, most likely <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez">condemning an innocent man to die in the process</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="MuCzsr">
|
|||
|
|
The Court endangered huge swaths of long-existing gun laws, striking down a New York state law that has been on the books for 109 years. And it did so in an opinion that simultaneously fetishizes the “Second Amendment’s plain text,” while <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-court-new-york-rifle-pistol-clarence-thomas-second-amendment-guns">ignoring the first thirteen words of that amendment</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6EaJRh">
|
|||
|
|
The same Court that attacked <em>Roe </em>as “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text</a>” saw no problem with ignoring half of the text of the Second Amendment.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="UbKYD8">
|
|||
|
|
In what may be the most consequential environmental case in decades, the Court relied on something called the “major questions doctrine” — a fairly new legal doctrine that is never mentioned in the Constitution or in any statute and that was <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/30/23189610/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-major-questions-john-roberts">invented entirely by judges</a> — to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of much of its authority to fight climate change.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ZI1ZuR">
|
|||
|
|
The Court even abandoned any pretense that it must be honest about the facts of the cases it decides, claiming that a public school football coach who <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch">ostentatiously prayed on the 50-yard line after games</a> — while surrounded by players, spectators, and members of the press — was merely engaged in a “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf">short, private, personal prayer</a>.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UvgN6FPZfRpqforQvR4fut2yv24=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23755357/GettyImages_1393643652a.jpg"/> <cite>Win McNamee/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Former Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy takes a knee in front of the US Supreme Court after <em>Kennedy v. Bremerton</em> <em>School District</em> was argued before the Court on April 25.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="hkk2Lr">
|
|||
|
|
It was a singularly alarming Supreme Court term. The Court didn’t simply abandon longstanding legal rules, at times it seemed to abandon the rule of law altogether.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="ag1tCc">
|
|||
|
|
What is “the rule of law”?
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3jigDi">
|
|||
|
|
I make a strong claim in this essay, arguing that the Supreme Court of the United States is no longer deciding many major cases in a way that is recognizably “legal.” So let’s start by establishing a baseline definition of what constitutes the rule of law and what it means for a judge to act consistently with this principle.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="iVdZ5z">
|
|||
|
|
Societies that adhere to the rule of law must apply the same binding rules to all persons and institutions, including the state itself. According to the United Nations, these rules must be “<a href="https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/">publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated</a>,” and the rule of law demands <a href="https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/2004%20report.pdf">“equality before the law,” “legal certainty,” and “avoidance of arbitrariness.” </a>
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="jkpepT">
|
|||
|
|
The late Justice Antonin Scalia offered one of the best explanations of how a judge can act consistently with the rule of law in a <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/rollor.txt.htm">1989 essay</a>. “When, in writing for the majority of the Court, I adopt a general rule,” Scalia explained, “I not only constrain lower courts, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights">I constrain myself as well</a>.” Because “if the next case should have such different facts that my political or policy preferences regarding the outcome are quite the opposite, I will be unable to indulge those preferences.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="dkTYHT">
|
|||
|
|
Scalia’s formulation captures<strong> </strong>the rule of equality before the law. If a judge applies a certain rule to Republicans, they must be comfortable applying it to Democrats as well. If they apply one rule to people who oppose abortion, they must apply the same rule to people who support abortion.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NXEz9y">
|
|||
|
|
Similarly, Scalia’s formulation advances the values of legal certainty and non-arbitrariness. While there are extraordinary circumstances when the Supreme Court should <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/300/379">overrule one of its previous precedents</a>, lawyers and lawmakers should typically be able to look at the Court’s past decisions and be able to predict how the law will apply moving forward. When possible, the Supreme Court should hand down clear legal rules which enhance this predictability and that cannot easily be manipulated to hand down arbitrary decisions that favor some groups over others.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="C2YYNU">
|
|||
|
|
With these principles of equality, clarity, and non-arbitrariness in mind, let’s take a look at some of the Court’s recent decisions.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="IHqHap">
|
|||
|
|
<em>Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson</em> is one of the worst decisions in the Supreme Court’s history
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="dRH6LQ">
|
|||
|
|
There are a handful of Supreme Court decisions that legal scholars refer to as the “<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/12/20858813/steven-mensashi-ethnonationalism-trump-nominee">anti-canon</a>,” decisions that were so poorly reasoned and monstrous in their consequences that they are taught to law students as examples of how judges should never behave. The anti-canon includes cases like the pro-slavery decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393"><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford</em></a> (1857), the segregationist decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/#tab-opinion-1917401"><em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em></a> (1896), the anti-worker decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/"><em>Lochner v. New York</em></a> (1905), and the Japanese-American internment decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/214"><em>Korematsu v. United States</em></a> (1944).
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="V9Acsp">
|
|||
|
|
<em>Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson</em> belongs on this list. It is, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent, so thoroughly inconsistent with the idea that the Constitution binds every state government that it threatens to transform that document into a “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf">solemn mockery</a>.” <em>Jackson </em>introduces an intolerable amount of unpredictability and arbitrariness into US law, transforming the constitutional rights that every American should reasonably be able to rely upon into dust that can be blown away by a sufficiently clever state legislature.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="0TOqTh">
|
|||
|
|
So long as <em>Jackson</em> remains good law, no constitutional right is safe.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HbPzC86URz7WP2btPH2MCvjRJck=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23711778/GettyImages_1241716435.jpg"/> <cite>Shelby Tauber/Bloomberg via Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
The Whole Woman’s Health of Fort Worth clinic in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 3. Whole Woman’s health announced on July 6 they would shutter their four Texas clinics, and are working to reestablish in New Mexico.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HtIJkT">
|
|||
|
|
To understand why <em>Jackson</em> is so troubling and why it threatens literally all constitutional rights, it’s helpful to understand <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/8/31/22650303/supreme-court-abortion-texas-sb8-jackson-roe-wade-greg-abbott">why Texas wrote this law to rely on private bounty hunters</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="JVLmXU">
|
|||
|
|
As a general rule, someone who believes that a state law violates their constitutional rights cannot sue that state directly in federal court. Under the Court’s decision in <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/209/123.html"><em>Ex parte Young</em></a> (1908), however, they may sue the state officer tasked with enforcing an allegedly unconstitutional law. Thus, for example, if a state passed a law requiring state police to blockade abortion clinics, a plaintiff might sue the chief of the state police to block that law.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tYnrTc">
|
|||
|
|
But SB 8, the anti-abortion law at issue in <em>Jackson</em>, attempts to cut state officers out of the enforcement process altogether. SB 8 provides that it “shall be <a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/2021">enforced exclusively through … private civil actions</a>” that can be filed by anyone who is not a state employee.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="yp8lRW">
|
|||
|
|
It should be noted that Texas lawmakers did not actually succeed in writing a law that no Texas state official plays a role in enforcing. The plaintiffs in <em>Jackson</em> <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/8/31/22650303/supreme-court-abortion-texas-sb8-jackson-roe-wade-greg-abbott">sued a Texas state judge</a> who would hear lawsuits brought under SB 8, as well as the clerk of a Texas court charged with moving these cases through the courts. If <em>Young</em> means anything, these plaintiffs should have been allowed to move forward with their federal lawsuit.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7VkEVA">
|
|||
|
|
But Gorsuch’s majority opinion in <em>Jackson</em> holds that these suits against Texas state judges and clerks <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/10/22827899/supreme-court-texas-abortion-law-sb8-decision-whole-womans-health">may not proceed</a>. That means there’s no way to obtain a federal court order halting SB 8.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="R9U8LP">
|
|||
|
|
In fairness, an abortion provider could have conceivably waited until they were sued in Texas state court for violating SB 8, and then argued that SB 8 violates <em>Roe v. Wade</em> in state court. But even if <em>Roe</em> were still good law, this defense is not adequate to protect abortion providers’ rights.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="hFmawB">
|
|||
|
|
That’s because SB 8 doesn’t simply allow any person who is not employed by the state of Texas to sue an alleged abortion provider, it also permits a victorious plaintiff to collect a bounty of at least $10,000 from the provider. There is no upper limit to this bounty, and an alleged abortion provider who successfully defends against an SB 8 lawsuit can still be sued by other individuals hoping to collect the bounty.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Kml5VJ">
|
|||
|
|
Anyone suspected of performing an abortion that violates SB 8 could be hit by hundreds or even thousands of lawsuits. And they would either have to hire an army of lawyers to defend against these lawsuits or risk being ordered to pay a bounty that has no upper limit. Either option risks bankruptcy.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="kxRZXC">
|
|||
|
|
If taken seriously, moreover, <em>Jackson</em> permits states to use an SB 8-like structure to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/14/22832257/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-abortion-guns-assault-weapons">attack any constitutional right</a>. A state might allow private bounty hunters to sue any journalist who publishes a news article that paints a Republican elected official in a negative light, or it might prohibit private citizens from criticizing the state’s governor. Shortly after <em>Jackson</em> was handed down, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to sign a law permitting private bounty hunters to sue anyone who “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/14/22832257/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-abortion-guns-assault-weapons">manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon</a>.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="N7XLSY">
|
|||
|
|
It remains to be seen whether this Court would apply its <em>Jackson</em> decision to a state law attacking the Second Amendment or other constitutional freedoms. But if the Court winds up applying <em>Jackson</em> only to constitutional rights that a majority of its members do not like, that’s an even worse outcome for the rule of law than if it applies <em>Jackson</em>’s anti-constitutional rule to every SB 8-style law that makes it through any state legislature.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Y9j1DT">
|
|||
|
|
The rule of law is the rule of equality; it means that the same rules must apply to liberal litigants as apply to conservatives.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="9CTlGT">
|
|||
|
|
The Supreme Court placed itself at the head of much of the executive branch of government
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="McX0W7">
|
|||
|
|
In its late June decision in <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/30/23189610/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-major-questions-john-roberts"><em>West Virginia v. EPA</em></a><em>, </em>the Court effectively placed itself at the head of multiple executive branch agencies — above President Joe Biden — giving itself veto power over any regulation handed down by these agencies. In doing so, it <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/30/23189610/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-major-questions-john-roberts">fundamentally reshaped the US’s separation of powers</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ROi4sN9Q3flfod6ec3eWsffdV2Y=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23714153/GettyImages_1010282974.jpg"/> <cite>Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
A worker stands in the coal yard at American Electric Power’s coal-fired John E. Amos Power Plant in Winfield, West Virginia, in July 2018.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nnGh7f">
|
|||
|
|
Many federal laws lay out a broad overarching policy, then give an executive branch agency authority to implement that policy through binding regulations. <em>West Virginia</em> concerned a provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires certain power plants to use the “<a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-85-air-pollution-prevention-and-control/subchapter-i-programs-and-activities/part-a-air-quality-and-emission-limitations/section-7411-standards-of-performance-for-new-stationary-sources">best system of emission reduction</a>” that can be achieved with currently available technology, and then tasks the EPA with determining what the “best system” to reduce emissions may be at any given moment.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="k6dpc6">
|
|||
|
|
This way, as technology evolves to allow cleaner energy production, the EPA can issue new regulations requiring the energy industry to adopt these cleaner technologies, without Congress having to pass a whole new law.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Tfup2B">
|
|||
|
|
<em>West Virginia </em>imposed an <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/30/23189610/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-major-questions-john-roberts">arbitrary new limit on EPA’s congressionally given authority</a>, which appears nowhere in the Clean Air Act or in any other federal law. Under <em>West Virginia</em>, the EPA may not use its authority to encourage “generation shifting” — that is, requiring the energy industry to shift from particularly dirty methods of energy production, such as coal, and toward cleaner methods such as solar or natural gas. Instead, the EPA may only use its authority to require existing coal plants to install new devices or otherwise alter how they burn coal to produce energy.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DRGKLI">
|
|||
|
|
To justify its policy judgment that generation shifting is not allowed, the Court’s six Republican appointees relied on something called the “major questions doctrine.” Under this doctrine, the Court explained in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf">2014 opinion</a>, “we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” Thus, if a majority of the Court deems a regulation to be too significant, it will strike it down unless Congress very explicitly authorized that particular regulation.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ps095K">
|
|||
|
|
But the Court has never fully articulated what causes a regulation to be so significant that it runs afoul of this doctrine, and, in any event, the doctrine comes from nowhere.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="M2brwj">
|
|||
|
|
The Constitution does not mention this doctrine. Nor does any federal law. The Court has, in effect, given itself the power to veto any regulation issued by the executive branch of government, even when Congress broadly authorized an executive branch agency to regulate.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="eA0smR">
|
|||
|
|
Until very recently, the justices avoided such encroachments upon the executive’s domain. As the Court explained in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10855858816503634838&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><em>Mistretta v. United States</em></a> (1989), “in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.” Until a few years ago, the Court’s decisions <a href="https://www.vox.com/22276279/supreme-court-war-joe-biden-agency-regulation-administrative-neil-gorsuch-epa-nondelegation">urged judges to defer to federal agencies</a> on nearly all policy-related questions.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="V1Z9IE">
|
|||
|
|
The reasons for this deference were twofold. As the Court explained in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/837"><em>Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council</em></a><em> </em>(1984), agencies typically have much greater expertise in the areas that they regulate than the judiciary. And federal agencies also have far more democratic legitimacy than unelected judges who serve for life. “While agencies are not directly accountable to the people,” the Court said in <em>Chevron</em>, agencies answer to a president who is accountable to the voters. And so “it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xYX6vp">
|
|||
|
|
But now the Court has given itself the power to declare any regulation that it does not like to be a sin against the “major questions doctrine,” and in so doing to veto that regulation. That doesn’t just introduce far too much arbitrariness into federal law. It’s also an extraordinary transfer of power away from an elected branch of government and toward a judiciary staffed by unaccountable judges.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="WQcYzp">
|
|||
|
|
The Court does not behave as though it is bound by legal texts
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qSiZ4D">
|
|||
|
|
The Second Amendment is unusual in that it states explicitly what purpose it is supposed to advance. It provides that “<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/">a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State</a>, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As the Supreme Court held in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174"><em>United States v. Miller</em></a><em> </em>(1939), the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “render possible the effectiveness” of militias, and the amendment must be “interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="s9dkJK">
|
|||
|
|
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held last month, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf"><em>New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen</em></a>, that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” and that gun regulations must be judged according to whether they undercut this atextual purpose.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kIRxmMpn7G3q1tnA3MbcZxKvwsU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23715076/GettyImages_1351083987.jpg"/> <cite>Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for Giffords Law Center</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
People gather in front of the Supreme Court to remember gun violence victims ahead of oral arguments in <em>NYSRPA v. Bruen</em> on November 3, 2021.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="5ryblN">
|
|||
|
|
I don’t think much more needs to be said about <em>Bruen</em> (although if you want to read a longer critique of Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion in this case, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-court-new-york-rifle-pistol-clarence-thomas-second-amendment-guns">I wrote that piece here</a>). The Second Amendment’s text is crystal clear about why that amendment exists. But six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court believe the Second Amendment should have a different purpose. So they decided that the text of the Constitution does not matter. That is the very hallmark of an arbitrary decision.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="A0uQVO">
|
|||
|
|
And it’s not the first time this Court has disregarded legal text to reach a certain end.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KJFpzL">
|
|||
|
|
About a year ago, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf"><em>Brnovich v. DNC</em></a> (2021), the Supreme Court invented a bunch of new limits on the Voting Rights Act — the landmark law prohibiting race discrimination in elections — that <a href="https://www.vox.com/22575435/voting-rights-supreme-court-john-roberts-shelby-county-constitution-brnovich-elena-kagan">appear nowhere in the law’s text</a>. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in <em>Brnovich</em> “mostly inhabits a law-free zone.” No lawyer could have read the text of the Voting Rights Act and predicted the specific limits the Court placed on voting rights in <em>Brnovich</em>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="WJ2lOV">
|
|||
|
|
Similar things could be said about most of the Court’s recent voting rights decisions. In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf"><em>Shelby County v. Holder</em></a> (2013), for example, the Court neutralized a provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires states with a history of racist election practices to “preclear” any new voting rules with federal officials before those practices can take effect. <em>Shelby County </em>rested on a so-called “‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among the States” that <a href="https://www.vox.com/22575435/voting-rights-supreme-court-john-roberts-shelby-county-constitution-brnovich-elena-kagan">appears nowhere in the Constitution</a>,
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BP602C">
|
|||
|
|
Indeed, the Constitution’s text indicates that Congress has broad power to decide how to protect voting rights. Its <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv">15th Amendment</a> provides that states may not deny or abridge the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” and it gives Congress the power “to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fIj5bW">
|
|||
|
|
This year, the Court took similar liberties with voting rights law, handing down at least three “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/8/11/21356913/supreme-court-shadow-docket-jail-asylum-covid-immigrants-sonia-sotomayor-barnes-ahlman">shadow docket</a>” decisions that abridged the right of Black Americans to cast a vote that actually matters. In <a href="https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/21A375-1.pdf"><em>Merrill v. Milligan</em></a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062822zr1_9ol1.pdf"><em>Ardoin v. Robinson</em></a>, the Court reinstated racially gerrymandered maps in Alabama and Louisiana that effectively <a href="https://www.vox.com/23187117/supreme-court-louisiana-racial-gerrymander-ardoin-robinson-congressional-maps">cut Black voters’ electoral power in those states in half</a>. And in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a471_097c.pdf"><em>Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission</em></a>, the Court struck down state legislative maps due to concerns that they may <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/3/23/22993107/supreme-court-wisconsin-race-gerrymander-voting-rights-act-legislature-elections-commission">give too much electoral power to Black voters</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CET4cd">
|
|||
|
|
The Court provided little or no explanation for why it reached these decisions, but the common theme is that a majority of the justices voted to reduce Black electoral power in all three cases. And the Court plans to hear the <em>Merrill</em> case again in October — most likely so that it can <a href="https://www.vox.com/23187117/supreme-court-louisiana-racial-gerrymander-ardoin-robinson-congressional-maps">permanently weaken the Voting Rights Act’s safeguards</a> against racial gerrymandering.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="f0q91X">
|
|||
|
|
The Court claims the power to decide what happened in the past
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="pBizQZ">
|
|||
|
|
One other theme from this recent term is worth mentioning. In three major constitutional cases involving three very different provisions of the Constitution, the Court ruled that judges must look to historical practice when interpreting the nation’s founding document.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3S4MEj">
|
|||
|
|
In the <em>Bruen </em>guns case, the Court held that “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-court-new-york-rifle-pistol-clarence-thomas-second-amendment-guns">consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation</a>” if it wishes to defend a gun law against a Second Amendment challenge. In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf"><em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em></a>, the case overruling <em>Roe</em>, the Court declared that rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution may only be protected by courts if they are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” And, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf"><em>Kennedy v. Bremerton School District</em></a>, the praying coach case, the Court decreed that the provision of the First Amendment requiring separation of church and state “must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GlpUXN">
|
|||
|
|
One glaring problem with this approach to constitutional law is that history is contested, and even expert historians frequently disagree about the right way to interpret historical events. So this new historicism inevitably invites arbitrary and unpredictable decision-making by judges.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="YsxJB2">
|
|||
|
|
In the <em>Bruen </em>case, for example, both Thomas’s majority opinion and Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-court-new-york-rifle-pistol-clarence-thomas-second-amendment-guns">waste a simply mind-numbing amount of ink</a> recounting centuries of gun laws stretching at least as far back as a 1328 law providing that Englishmen may not “ride armed by night nor by day, in Fairs, Markets.” In the end, the six Republican appointees conclude that this multi-century tour of English and American gun laws supports the policy outcome preferred by the Republican Party; and the three Democratic appointees look at the exact same history and conclude that it supports the policy outcome preferred by the Democratic Party.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/mu6P9ev43dhfHzsCQrR50A_S9Fk=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23718404/AP22188655282689.jpg"/> <cite>Rogelio V. Solis/AP</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Anti-abortion supporters and their children sing religious songs as abortion rights supporters wave their signs and shout to be heard above the singing outside the Jackson Women’s Health Organization clinic in Jackson, Mississippi, on July 7.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="IEiQF7">
|
|||
|
|
Similarly, while Alito’s <em>Dobbs</em> opinion concludes that a right to abortion was “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">entirely unknown in American law</a>” before the latter part of the 20th century, the <em>Roe</em> opinion reached the opposite conclusion, concluding that the historical practice was to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113">allow abortions prior to “quickening”</a> — “the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy.” At least some actual historians have argued that <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/02/alitos-anti-roe-argument-wrong-00036174">Alito is wrong and <em>Roe</em> was correct</a> about this point.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Ypv5XU">
|
|||
|
|
In any event, I, like Samuel Alito, am a lawyer and not a historian. I, like Clarence Thomas, do not have a doctorate in history or any formal training in how professional historians resolve historical debates. I do not claim any ability to resolve what people in 1789 might have thought about laws banning assault rifles that didn’t yet exist, or whether the generation that ratified the 14th Amendment would have believed that <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/mifeprex-mifepristone-information">mifepristone</a> should be legal.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="T1kgsA">
|
|||
|
|
I will note, however, that the entire judiciary is staffed by lawyers and not historians, and that judges typically decide cases based on briefs authored by lawyers who are not historians. So the Court’s penchant for turning constitutional cases into debates over history is likely to produce a lot of bad history and a lot of bad law. It’s a bit like demanding that the nation’s public health policy be determined by a panel made up entirely of physicists.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HkkMnY">
|
|||
|
|
And that’s assuming that these amateur historians, now tasked with determining whether the 17th-century jurist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hale_(jurist)">Sir Matthew Hale</a> would have supported a ban on machine guns, are acting in good faith. Which brings us back to the Court’s factually challenged decision in <em>Kennedy</em>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tG766e">
|
|||
|
|
Recall that, in <em>Kennedy</em>, six of the justices couldn’t tell the difference between a “short, private, personal prayer” and a public spectacle even after they were confronted with photographic proof that Coach Kennedy decided to make a public spectacle of himself. If these judges are so loose with the facts of a well-documented event that occurred in 2015, imagine the liberties they may take with truly contested events that occurred nearly 250 years ago.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="OjmnJG">
|
|||
|
|
This Court has no sense of humility
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wc0Dk2">
|
|||
|
|
Not so long ago, the Court had a very good solution to the problem that the meaning of legal texts — not to mention historical events — is often contested even by subject-matter experts operating in good faith.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zUigJ7">
|
|||
|
|
Cases like <em>Mistretta</em> and <em>Chevron</em> counseled judicial deference to federal agencies because it is better for agencies accountable to a democratic president to resolve contested policy questions than to leave these questions to the one unelected branch of government. Other cases, such as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1808251577400430843&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><em>United States v. Carolene Products</em></a> (1938), warned that courts should typically <a href="https://www.vox.com/22662906/supreme-court-conservatives-abortion-constitution-roe-wade">defer to Congress</a> when it was unclear whether the Constitution permits a particular law to stand. The advantage of this approach is that the people can always vote out a Congress that passed a bad law, but if the Court hands down a bad decision, there is often no solution other than a constitutional amendment.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="VzxTS3">
|
|||
|
|
The current Court hasn’t simply abandoned these doctrines of deference, it appears to be replacing them with new doctrines that don’t so much constrain judicial power as require judges to rely on historical sources when striking down laws that those judges don’t like. In cases involving federal agencies, that can mean the new doctrines require judges to use the magic words “major question” whenever they want to veto a regulation.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="8kOvgQ">
|
|||
|
|
And this new era of judicial self-empowerment is only just beginning.
|
|||
|
|
</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>The limitations of Joe Biden’s executive order on abortion</strong> -
|
|||
|
|
<figure>
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="President Biden sits and signs at a desk, while Vice President Kamala Harris, " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/23yq8wUrqitAF1wNa3HpcawDNqU=/334x0:5667x4000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/71071167/1241780024.0.jpg"/>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
President Joe Biden signed an executive order on abortion rights on Friday. | Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
It marks an important first step, though there’s still more the White House could do.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gXhT01">
|
|||
|
|
On Friday, President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/">signed an executive order</a> dedicated to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/white-house-executive-order-abortion/index.html">protecting abortion rights</a>, following <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23185624/biden-abortion-rights-executive-actions">repeated calls from Democratic lawmakers</a> and advocates to do so.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nGLr4A">
|
|||
|
|
The order, which directs several federal agencies to take action on abortion, has been described by some legal experts and activists as an important first step, though it falls short of <a href="https://www.vox.com/23191950/democrats-abortion-rights-biden-roe-wade-dobbs">what many previously called for</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="owSVP2">
|
|||
|
|
“Let’s put it this way: Nothing in his executive order will fundamentally change the everyday lives of poor women in a red state,” Georgetown University health law professor Lawrence Gostin told Vox.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OiNySu">
|
|||
|
|
Biden’s executive order indicates progress: It emphasizes the White House’s support for protecting access to medication abortion, defending access to contraception, and guaranteeing a patient’s right to emergency medical services. It also addresses some of the <a href="https://www.vox.com/23184192/democrats-abortion-roe-dobbs-strategy-vote-midterms-crisis">concerns progressive lawmakers and abortion rights activists</a> had about his initial response and sends a message about how seriously the administration is taking this issue.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="2pDqFQ">
|
|||
|
|
The order fails to include, however, certain measures advocates and Democratic lawmakers have suggested, including an explicit commitment from the Justice Department to get involved in lawsuits that defend a person’s right to medication abortion and the use of Medicaid resources to fund travel for people who need to go across state lines. While both of these efforts would likely face court challenges, they’re also moves that have solid legal footing, according to Gostin, and that could significantly improve access for people living under abortion bans.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1UWua4">
|
|||
|
|
Broadly, Biden’s actions have been welcomed by Democrats, advocates, and legal experts, though there’s an overwhelming sense in his party that he could do more. While Biden is unable on his own to bring back the protections offered by <em>Roe</em> and an executive order is no replacement for legislation, there are further steps he could take to try to preserve abortion access. Jennifer Klein, the head of the White House’s Gender Policy Council, noted in a Friday briefing that the White House is still in the process of exploring other options, including declaring a public health emergency.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="911oFn">
|
|||
|
|
“We are glad to see the White House start to implement a whole of government approach to abortion access,” says Morgan Hopkins, the interim executive director of campaigns and strategies at All Above All, an abortion rights advocacy group. “But this plan, which the White House committed to months ago, is both late and not enough.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="LH3JxW">
|
|||
|
|
What’s in Biden’s executive order on abortion
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ass6Ls">
|
|||
|
|
Biden’s executive order details a couple of different areas where the federal government is trying to protect abortion access.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="rdw88U">
|
|||
|
|
It focuses on a few key issues:
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="a8sj9a">
|
|||
|
|
<strong>Protecting medication abortion access: </strong>Biden is calling on the Department of Health and Human Services to continue to identify ways to preserve access to medication abortion, which the administration has made more available during the pandemic. Last year, the Food and Drug administration approved changes that enabled people to receive a prescription via telemedicine and get abortion medication through the mail. More recently, HHS also emphasized that federal programs are required to provide medication abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when a woman’s health is at risk.
|
|||
|
|
</li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RCj0H6">
|
|||
|
|
The order directs HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra to compile a report within 30 days detailing different options for further guaranteeing this access. Attorney General Merrick Garland has also previously said he opposes state bans on medication abortion, though he did not indicate what actions his department would take in response to these bans.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="8e6cEa">
|
|||
|
|
<strong>Guaranteeing emergency care: </strong>The administration is considering updating guidance for providers and hospitals under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires that patients experiencing a medical emergency are provided stabilizing treatment. This is important because it could provide vital clarification for providers working in states where there are abortion bans, who may be worried about legal ramifications as they are offering medical care.
|
|||
|
|
</li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="UkaCTw">
|
|||
|
|
“Often abortion is the required treatment when a pregnant person’s life or health is in danger, and health care providers must have clear guidance about their legal duties in the face of confusing state abortion bans that impose severe criminal penalties,” says Cynthia Soohoo, a law professor and gender justice expert at the CUNY School of Law. “Without this clear guidance, pregnant people will die.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li id="rjpNye">
|
|||
|
|
<strong>Strengthening contraception access: </strong>The White House is directing HHS to protect access to contraception including emergency contraception and IUDs as some <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control">Republican state lawmakers eye restrictions on birth control</a>. Last week, the agency announced plans to send $3 million in additional funding to different providers to build out family planning services; it also held a meeting with insurance companies about coverage for contraception, which is required of most insurers by the Affordable Care Act.
|
|||
|
|
</li>
|
|||
|
|
<li id="6tYCOa">
|
|||
|
|
<strong>Providing more resources and information: </strong>The White House has committed to offering more information to people about abortion access in different states, a chief demand of activists. Already, the administration has set up a website called <a href="http://www.reproductiverights.gov">www.reproductiverights.gov</a>, though there has been a push for the site to be more robust.
|
|||
|
|
</li>
|
|||
|
|
<li id="9V7wLF">
|
|||
|
|
<strong>Protect patient data: </strong>Concerns have grown in recent weeks that state prosecutors could use things like <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/7/6/23196809/period-apps-roe-dobbs-data-privacy-abortion">period tracking apps and internet search data</a> to try to go after people who pursue abortions. The executive order asks the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency, to weigh efforts that could shield how this data is used. HHS has also <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/cell-phone-hipaa/index.html">released a guide</a> on how to secure personal data when using mobile apps and is in the process of determining if there are other means of making patients’ reproductive health data more secure.
|
|||
|
|
</li>
|
|||
|
|
<li id="TZ0mIH">
|
|||
|
|
<strong>Protecting security of clinics: </strong>The White House has said it’s focused on <a href="https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/06/24/anti-abortion-clinic-protests-are-getting-bigger-and-more-aggressive/">protecting abortion clinics,</a> which have been the site of anti-abortion demonstrations and <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/abortion-providers-face-increasing-threats-doj-backs-rcna29689">faced violent threats</a>. The executive order didn’t specify exactly what these protections would entail.
|
|||
|
|
</li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="NYeHyB">
|
|||
|
|
There’s still more the White House could do
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7JQyKg">
|
|||
|
|
While the executive order is an important first step, it contains a lot of sweeping statements that still need more specifics.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HgG8bJ">
|
|||
|
|
For example, some advocates have said they’re unclear on how the administration will defend medication abortion access and provide financial support for women who need to travel for an abortion. When it comes to access, there are a few routes the White House could take, like committing to lawsuits that contest state abortion bans on the grounds that FDA rules about medication abortion supersede state policies.<strong> </strong>
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vhpgwF">
|
|||
|
|
Such a move would face legal pushback, but there is a precedent for a challenge like this, including a 2014 suit involving an opioid drug in Massachusetts, Drexel University law professor <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/5/6/23060448/biden-white-house-roe-wade-abortion-rights">David Cohen previously told Vox</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="sRvxOj">
|
|||
|
|
Abortion advocates have also called for the administration to consider more “creative” efforts like declaring a public health emergency and establishing abortion clinics on federal lands. The White House has previously said that it was worried providers and patients could be prosecuted by state officials even if clinics were set up on federal lands. Klein noted the White House was still open to a public health emergency, though there are concerns that such a move wouldn’t release much funding.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ZjLq4w">
|
|||
|
|
“I call on the administration to recognize the true emergency we are in. Get creative. Get caught trying. Don’t let norms, or decency, or ‘tradition’ stand in your way,” said Women’s March executive director Rachel O’Leary Carmona in a statement.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7ZcaDl">
|
|||
|
|
In general, there’s still room for the administration to explore options beyond what Biden committed to on Friday. “The executive order seems to be drafted to mitigate harm, which is important, but I fear it is not enough to address the moment we are in,” Soohoo told Vox.
|
|||
|
|
</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>The January 6 committee is holding a series of public hearings</strong> -
|
|||
|
|
<figure>
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/P1y1DBCpcc9AL9OWA2VuHZTRhv4=/392x0:6679x4715/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70960050/1295038535.0.jpg"/>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
On January 6, 2021, as President Joe Biden’s election victory was set to be ratified, thousands of rioters stormed the US Capitol building after a pro-Trump rally in Washington, DC. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
The select congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol will lay out the effort to overturn the 2020 election.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OuL8VZ">
|
|||
|
|
The select congressional committee investigating <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/1/6/22217657/us-capitol-breach-trump-rally-presidential-election">the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol</a> will move into a new, public phase in June as it holds <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/8/23159596/january-6-committee-hearings-how-to-watch">a series of public hearings</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="EB5Mz1">
|
|||
|
|
The committee’s goal over the course of the summer is to lay out the effort to overturn the 2020 election in detail, not just its culmination in the attack on the Capitol but the step-by-step effort by former President Donald Trump to reverse his loss. The legal and political impacts it will have are unclear: Support for Trump among the GOP hasn’t wavered thus far, and the Justice Department, not the committee, is overseeing criminal prosecutions.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="FUsHMb">
|
|||
|
|
The test for many on the Hill is whether the hearings can, at the very least, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/8/23156442/january-6-committee-trump-polarization-fatigue">produce sufficient momentum</a> to ensure passage of reforms they hope would <a href="https://medium.com/gen/all-your-paranoid-questions-about-the-electoral-college-certification-answered-7b636f6af314">prevent efforts</a> to overturn an election from happening again.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uV8h62">
|
|||
|
|
Follow here for all of Vox’s coverage on the latest news, political reaction, analysis, and more.
|
|||
|
|
</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-the-hindu-sports">From The Hindu: Sports</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Vishwanath, Rohit storm into quarterfinals</strong> -</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Saturday Bengaluru races cancelled</strong> -</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Evaldo, Once You Go Black, Ashwa Magadheera, Arthur, Mountain Lion and Winmylove shone</strong> -</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Edgbaston Test racism | Birmingham police arrest man for alleged abuse at Indian fans</strong> - ‘A 32-year-old man has been arrested for a racially aggravated public order offence after reports of racist, abusive behaviour at the Test match in Birmingham’</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Football transfer news | Tottenham signs Lenglet, Jovic leaves Madrid for Fiorentina, and more</strong> - Clement Lenglet became Tottenham’s fifth signing of the summer; Cristiano Ronaldo skips Manchester United pre-season tour</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-the-hindu-national-news">From The Hindu: National News</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>India Meteorological Department announces yellow alert for North Karnataka districts</strong> - A yellow alert has been announced in most of northern Karnataka, in view of the prediction of high rainfall in the next 4-5 days</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Andhra Pradesh: BIE extends date for payment of fee to July 11</strong> - ‘There is no provision for payment of fee with penalty or Tatkal Scheme’</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Thunchanparamba to host Ramayana Month from July 17</strong> - Quiz competition, book fair to be organised</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Allegations on ‘terror links’ | Congress asks BJP to break its silence</strong> - If members of nation's ruling party are involved in such activities, then who is there to protect the people, asks Congress</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>ED files charge sheet against Amnesty India in money laundering case</strong> - The case is based on FIR registered by the CBI for alleged FCRA violation</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-bbc-europe">From BBC: Europe</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Russia-Ukraine war: Moscow politician gets 7 years for denouncing war</strong> - Councillor Alexei Gorinov gets reportedly the first jail term under a law criminalising dissent.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini found not guilty following fraud trial</strong> - Former Fifa president Sepp Blatter and vice-president Michel Platini have been found not guilty following their fraud trial.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Italians wait for rain where longest river runs dry</strong> - Farmers in the north fear for the future as the River Po runs dry in the worst drought in 70 years.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Russia’s McDonald’s replacement runs low on fries</strong> - Some outlets of the new “Tasty and that’s it” chain stop serving fries due to a potato shortage.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Ireland claim historic rugby win over New Zealand</strong> - Ireland emerge victorious from a chaotic game to claim their first win over the All Blacks in New Zealand and level their three-match series.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-ars-technica">From Ars Technica</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Meta removes Facebook account mandate from Quest VR—but is that enough?</strong> - Op-ed: I welcome the removal of FB-VR mandate, but ToS still has me concerned. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1865119">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Yet another omicron subvariant is raising concern as BA.5 sweeps the US</strong> - BA.2.75 is spreading quickly and widely. Three cases detected in US so far. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1865296">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Musk ends bid to buy Twitter [Updated]</strong> - Elon Musk’s buyer’s remorse could be very expensive. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1865085">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Google proposes moving ad business to Alphabet to keep regulators at bay</strong> - But is there any demonstrable difference between Google and parent company Alphabet? - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1865172">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Review: Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Yoga Gen 7 looks good but feels warm</strong> - An elevated design helps the PC stand out despite its tendency to get toasty. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1858062">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>Told my wife I was so stressed that only a blowjob would help.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
She asked me where I was going to find a dick to suck at this time of night.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/B-L-O-C-K-S"> /u/B-L-O-C-K-S </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vuslsj/told_my_wife_i_was_so_stressed_that_only_a/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vuslsj/told_my_wife_i_was_so_stressed_that_only_a/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>Things you can say during sex and at a funeral. I’ll go first….</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Even with all of her health issues, I’m glad grandma was able to come.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Cat_Dad_123"> /u/Cat_Dad_123 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vun96d/things_you_can_say_during_sex_and_at_a_funeral/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vun96d/things_you_can_say_during_sex_and_at_a_funeral/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>An 80 year old man goes in for a physical</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
And the doctor tells him, “You’re in terrific health, you’re healthier than most 40 year olds, what do you contribute your exceptional health to?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
And the man replies“Turkey hunting, every morning I walk in the mountains and go turkey hunting.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Well maybe genetics has something to do with it.” Says the doctor, “How old was your father before he died?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Who said my father was dead?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“You’re 80 years old and your father is still alive?” The doctor says in disbelief.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Yep” replied the man, “He is 100 years old and went turkey hunting with me this morning.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“That’s amazing!” Exclaims the doctor, “But then how old was your Grandpa when he passed?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Who said my grandpa was dead?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
The doctor is shocked and asks, “Your Grandpa is still alive?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Yep, he’s 120. But he couldn’t join us this morning, he had to get ready for his wedding.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Puzzled, the doctor asks, “Why would a 120 year old man want to get married?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
And the man responses, “Who said he wanted to get married?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<hr/>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Coworker told me this one at work. Happy Friday.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Jormungandr8_"> /u/Jormungandr8_ </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vupz7b/an_80_year_old_man_goes_in_for_a_physical/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vupz7b/an_80_year_old_man_goes_in_for_a_physical/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>Me: “Squirting isn’t real, right? It’s just urine, right?”</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Interviewer: “I meant any questions about the job”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/B-L-O-C-K-S"> /u/B-L-O-C-K-S </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vusmdf/me_squirting_isnt_real_right_its_just_urine_right/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vusmdf/me_squirting_isnt_real_right_its_just_urine_right/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>I was on a blind date with this girl…</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
And I told her being funny is the second best way to get a girl into bed She asked “What’s the best way?” I said “a big knife”. She laughed and said “you’re funny”. I said “wise choice”.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/trysomemeth"> /u/trysomemeth </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vu8tt5/i_was_on_a_blind_date_with_this_girl/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/vu8tt5/i_was_on_a_blind_date_with_this_girl/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
<script>AOS.init();</script></body></html>
|