513 lines
64 KiB
HTML
513 lines
64 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>16 January, 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>Prince Andrew’s Very Bad Week</strong> - A ruling in a New York legal case, in which Andrew is accused of sexual abuse, led to the Duke of York being stripped of his military titles. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/prince-andrews-very-bad-week">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Supreme Court’s Vexing Mixed Message on Vaccine Mandates</strong> - Two rulings reveal just how hard-conservative the core of the Court is. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-courts-vexing-mixed-message-on-vaccine-mandates">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Latinx Community and COVID-Disinformation Campaigns</strong> - Researchers debate how best to counter false narratives—and racial stereotypes. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-latinx-community-and-covid-disinformation-campaigns">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Sunday Reading: Honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.</strong> - From the magazine’s archive: a selection of pieces about the significance of Dr. King’s extraordinary work and devotion to principle. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/books/double-take/sunday-reading-honoring-martin-luther-king-jr">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Rival Shows of “Yellowjackets”</strong> - On watching girls—and genres—devour one another. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-television/the-rival-shows-of-yellowjackets">link</a></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-vox">From Vox</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><strong>The Christian right brings a Supreme Court case it actually deserves to win</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/thumbor/ZeTW26Gk9-q39cjkjLZbUSAXx5g=/226x0:2033x1355/1310x983/cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70396064/1236961961.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Flagpoles outside Boston City Hall that often honor various groups — but do not display Christian flags — are the center of the debate in <em>Shurtleff v. Boston</em>. | Lane Turner/Boston Globe via Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The case presents a genuinely difficult free speech dispute.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Uw5Urq">
|
||
The religious right has an extraordinarily high win rate before the current, Republican-dominated Supreme Court, even when it asks for accommodations that <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/4/12/22379689/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-religion-california-tandon-newsom-first-
|
||
amendment">endanger human lives</a>. So there probably isn’t much doubt how the Court will rule in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shurtleff-v-boston/"><em>Shurtleff v. Boston</em></a>, a free speech case brought by a conservative Christian group.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RfrbYQ">
|
||
But unlike several other cases, where this Supreme Court has <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/12/2/21726876/supreme-court-religious-liberty-revolutionary-roman-catholic-
|
||
diocese-cuomo-amy-coney-barrett">scrambled longstanding legal doctrines</a> to hand victories to religious conservatives, the plaintiffs in <em>Shurtleff</em> raise genuinely strong arguments under existing legal precedents. Indeed, the best arguments for these plaintiffs’ position are strong enough that President Joe Biden’s administration filed a brief <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1800/201010/20211122165123662_20-1800tsacUnitedStates.pdf">urging the Court to rule in their favor</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RrQdsg">
|
||
<em>Shurtleff</em> involves three flagpoles that stand outside of Boston’s city hall. One of these flagpoles displays the US flag, with a flag honoring prisoners of war and missing soldiers displayed below it. The second features Massachusetts’s flag. And the third displays the city of Boston’s flag — but only most of the time.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NLNLLx">
|
||
On many occasions, the city will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1800/205184/20211215140356941_20-1800%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf">replace its flag</a> with another honoring an ethnic group, a cultural celebration, a historic event or individual, or some other flag requested by private citizens. At various points, Boston has <a href="https://casetext.com/case/harold-
|
||
shurtleff-camp-constitution-v-city-of-bos">displayed the flags of many nations</a>, including Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Mexico, and Turkey. It’s also displayed an LGBTQ Pride flag, a flag memorializing victims of murder, a flag commemorating the Battle of Bunker Hill, and a flag intended to honor Malcolm X.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uVNjkL">
|
||
But Boston will not display a Christian flag — in particular, a mostly white flag featuring a red cross on a blue background in its corner. And it won’t do so despite the fact that <a href="https://campconstitution.net/mission-statement/">Camp Constitution</a>, a group founded to promote “free enterprise” and “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage,” formally requested that the city display this flag.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qAtLPo">
|
||
The Boston city commissioner who denied this request says he did so because displaying a religious flag could be interpreted as “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1800/205184/20211215140356941_20-1800%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf">an endorsement by the city of a particular religion</a>,” in violation of “separation of church and state or the [C]onstitution.” (In fairness, there are older Supreme Court cases suggesting that the government cannot take actions that could <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/833/endorsement-test">reasonably be perceived as endorsing a religious viewpoint</a>, but those older cases are <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/peace-cross-
|
||
religious-right-supreme-court-fbd678e96079/">out of favor with the current Court</a>. And they are not at issue in <em>Shurtleff.</em>)
|
||
</p>
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/thumbor/5oCuCpLC-s5J9lABGkXSoUkusU4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23164832/485795107.jpg"/> <cite>Gabe Souza/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
A woman holds a Christian flag like the one at issue in the <em>Shurtleff</em> case.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GEdRCc">
|
||
The legal question in <em>Shurtleff </em>turns on who, exactly, is expressing a pro-Christian message when a private group asks the city to display this flag on its own flagpole, and Boston agrees to do so. Is it the city who owns the pole, or the group who requested the flag?
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="AQoCHJ">
|
||
When the government speaks in its own voice, it is allowed to say what it wants without having to worry about whether other viewpoints are excluded. As the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf">Supreme Court put it in 2015</a>, in a line that has tremendous resonance for the nation’s current political divide, “How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fjgwUu">
|
||
Yet, if the government creates a forum where other people are invited to express their own views, then the government is subject to strict safeguards against discrimination. As the Court put it in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-665.pdf"><em>Pleasant Grove City v. Summum</em></a> (2009), once a forum is opened to private speakers, “restrictions based on viewpoint are prohibited.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CRtOq7">
|
||
In any event, determining who is responsible, as a legal matter, for a flag displayed on Boston’s third flagpole is not an easy question.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="9EciwB">
|
||
It’s not entirely clear, under current caselaw, who should win the <em>Shurtleff </em>case
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Hp99LM">
|
||
The First Amendment ordinarily forbids viewpoint discrimination of any kind by the government. A public school could not, for example, provide meeting space to a student Republican organization but not a student Democratic organization, if both groups are otherwise qualified to use that space.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fc2pH2">
|
||
Notably, this bar on viewpoint discrimination is absolute. If the Supreme Court determines that it applies in the <em>Shurtleff</em> case, then Boston would be unable to exclude a Nazi group from flying a flag for as long as the flagpole is available to people with other viewpoints.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OUF8Lk">
|
||
But the bar on viewpoint discrimination does not apply when the government expresses its own opinions in its own voice. As the Supreme Court put it in one case, the government is allowed to express the message “Fight Terrorism” <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf">without having to give equal time to al Qaeda</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fGQ9ZJ">
|
||
In <em>Summum</em>, the Court rejected a demand from a religious group who claimed that, because a Utah city already displayed 15 monuments in a public park, it must also display a 16th monument proclaiming “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-665.pdf">the Seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM</a>.” The Court reasoned that “permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="cDFEJb">
|
||
Then, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf"><em>Walker v. Texas Department of Motor Vehicles</em></a><em> </em>(2015), the Court reached a similar conclusion with respect to license plates. Texas permitted private individuals to design “specialty license plates” that had to be approved by the state. After a pro- Confederate organization designed a plate that incorporated the slaveholding confederation’s battle flag, the Court held that the state could reject this plate design.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="eZw5Ls">
|
||
Both cases looked to three factors to determine whether speech should be attributed to the government or to an individual — and therefore whether the government is allowed to exclude disfavored viewpoints. These include the history of the kind of forum where the speech takes place, whether the government maintained control over that forum, and whether “persons who observe” the speech would reasonably conclude that it comes from the government (These three factors can overlap somewhat, as a court may need to look at the history of a particular forum to determine whether the government maintains control over it.)
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9GazsM">
|
||
But these factors cut in different directions in the <em>Shurtleff</em> case. Historically, between 2005 and 2017, the city considered 284 requests to raise a flag on city hall’s third flagpole, and it <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1800/201010/20211122165123662_20-1800tsacUnitedStates.pdf">approved every single one of these requests</a> before it rejected Camp Constitution’s request to display a Christian flag. That suggests that the flagpole operated more as a public forum that was open to all comers, and less as a place where the city displays carefully curated messages.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="AbNub3">
|
||
On the other hand, the state maintains the land where the flagpole stands. It requires a city employee to be present when a new flag is raised on the flagpole. And it keeps a tight grip on the hand-crank that must be used to raise and lower flags. Boston, in other words, retains control over the flagpole.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fr51yc">
|
||
And, while <em>Summum</em> and <em>Walker</em> asked whether someone who observes a message would reasonably understand that message to come from the government, the answer to that question is likely to depend on the observer.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lkpB12">
|
||
Imagine someone who jogs by Boston City Hall every morning. This observer could see a Brazilian flag one day, a Pride flag the next day, and a flag honoring Malcolm X on the next. If they jogged by one day and saw a Christian flag on the same flagpole, they’d probably believe that the state flies a diversity of flags that don’t necessarily reflect the city’s official views.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1VoShF">
|
||
Now imagine a one-time visitor to Boston who, lacking any context about why a particular flag is being displayed on a city flagpole, observes a Christian flag flying outside of city hall. That observer would reasonably conclude that the city aligns itself with Christianity — potentially to the exclusion of other faiths.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CpemWA">
|
||
All of which is a long way of saying that, under existing law, <em>Shurtleff </em>is a tough case.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="0fdds1">
|
||
Why the Biden administration backed the plaintiffs in this case
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QnAGpJ">
|
||
Although there are plausible arguments that the three factors identified in <em>Summum</em> and <em>Walker</em> cut in either direction, the purpose of those factors is to determine who is actually expressing a particular message — the government or a private citizen. And, as the Biden administration <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1800/201010/20211122165123662_20-1800tsacUnitedStates.pdf">argues in its brief</a>, it’s tough to argue that the contested flagpole is really a place where Bostonians can learn about their government’s views.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zwWyA9">
|
||
The city, the Justice Department notes, “has <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1800/201010/20211122165123662_20-1800tsacUnitedStates.pdf">not exercised any meaningful control over</a>, or selectively chosen among, the flags flown during flag-raising events.” The city neither designs the flags that are displayed, nor asks people requesting that their flag be displayed to alter those flags. Indeed, for a dozen years, the city appears to have rubber-stamped applications to display a flag. In most cases, it approved requests “without seeing the actual flag” that would be displayed.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KG4fRb">
|
||
Boston, in other words, has hardly treated its flagpole as a place where the government displays its own carefully curated messages. It’s treated it much more like a public meeting space that anyone is allowed to use — except, apparently, for Camp Constitution.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="M6c2RK">
|
||
Given this reality, and a majority of the justices’ <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/8/22824027/supreme-court-carson-makin-first-amendment-re">sympathy for religious conservatives</a>, it appears likely that Camp Constitution will prevail in <em>Shurtleff</em>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zUsL3F">
|
||
That said, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a Christian flag will soon fly beside Boston City Hall. Shortly after the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the <em>Shurtleff</em> case, the city made an announcement of its own — “the City of Boston is <a href="https://www.boston.gov/departments/property-management/how-hold-event-near-city-hall">no longer accepting flag-raising applications</a>.” Boston says that it is “re-evaluating the program in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to consider whether the program as currently operated complies with Constitutional requirements.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3GLxSs">
|
||
That’s an understandable decision because, as mentioned above, if the flagpole is subject to the rule against viewpoint discrimination, then this rule is absolute. Not only would Boston be forbidden from excluding religious flags, it would also be forbidden from rejecting swastikas, Confederate flags, or flags endorsing the failed January 6 effort to install former President Donald Trump as an unelected leader.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="MSXFAO">
|
||
This outcome might have been avoided if Boston had maintained more control over its own flagpole — although any exclusion of a conservative Christian group could still run into problems with a conservative Supreme Court. But, under the facts of this particular case, Boston wasn’t even able to convince the Biden administration to take its side.
|
||
</p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>Even Tories are over Boris Johnson’s scandals after “Partygate”</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street on January 12, 2022, in London,
|
||
England." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xYCwNSEH4oiRUyOhonx787kxvtA=/166x0:2818x1989/1310x983/cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70394896/1237673970.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street on January 12, 2022, in London, England. | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s no good, very bad week, explained.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NtDQHD">
|
||
After a week of new revelations about his government’s conduct during the pandemic, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson appears on the verge of losing the support of his party amid dismal poll numbers and public anger.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QVDLj6">
|
||
The latest revelations — that Johnson attended a garden party with some 30 guests at 10 Downing Street in May 2020, and that members of his staff gathered for “<a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-
|
||
wine-time-fridays-25951853">wine-time Fridays</a>” regularly during the pandemic — are just the most recent in a series of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/14/22834664/partygate-boris-johnson-covid-restrictions-christmas">alleged violations of Covid-19 lockdown protocols</a> by Johnson and members of his government.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nX9wY8">
|
||
Johnson apologized this week to members of Parliament (MPs) for flouting lockdown rules, and his administration is already <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/13/sue-gray-head-of-no-10-party-inquiry-is-an-uncompromising-
|
||
operator">facing an inquiry by a top civil servant</a> into several other instances in which Johnson or members of his staff gathered socially, potentially breaking the law.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BBWmIB">
|
||
The latest revelations — including the May 2020 party, which Johnson claimed he thought was a “work event” in the garden of the prime minister’s residence and offices at 10 Downing Street — <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/why-brits-are-so-incredibly-angry-at-
|
||
boris-johnson.html">could prove to be too much</a> for a nation exhausted by nearly two years of lockdowns, especially after those rules prevented many Britons from seeing their loved ones dying of Covid-19, or grieving those losses with family and friends.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bz3ise">
|
||
<a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/14/22834664/partygate-boris-johnson-covid-
|
||
restrictions-christmas">Previous reporting</a> about a December 2020 Christmas party at 10 Downing Street put Johnson in the hot seat last month, and additional alleged violations of the UK’s Covid-19 protocols have only deepened his political jeopardy.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lCB7BG">
|
||
A <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/01/15/four-
|
||
ten-who-voted-conservative-2019-say-boris-
|
||
joh?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=boris_johnson_resign">recent YouGov poll</a> shows that 40 percent of people who voted Conservative to elect Johnson in 2019 now believe he should resign; of the general population, 63 percent believe he should.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="9RbGGz">
|
||
This week’s scandals could push Johnson’s government over the edge
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="VUkukC">
|
||
Apologies this week to Parliament and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/world/europe/boris-johnson-apology-lockdown-parties.html">the queen</a> by Johnson and 10 Downing Street respectively have so far done little to alleviate public anger after nearly two years in a pandemic and the Johnson government’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/world/europe/britain-johnson-
|
||
coronavirus-revolt.html">often confused handling of Covid-19</a>. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/world/europe/britain-covid-restrictions.html">A recent effort</a> by Johnson’s government to stop the spread of the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22846444/omicron-variant-tranmission-risk-covid-
|
||
pandemic">omicron variant</a> — requiring proof of vaccination to enter social gathering spaces like nightclubs — also caused many Conservative lawmakers to distance themselves from him, even before the scandal<strong>-</strong>driven pile-on of recent days, potentially depriving Johnson of the support he’ll need to avoid a vote of no confidence.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt="Protesters hold a banner that reads “Johnson Must Go” on Downing Street in
|
||
London, England." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Zm4NpDslWylXQ2v0f2yIJpsGdLI=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23171713/1364802300.jpg"/> <cite>Guy Smallman/Getty Images</cite></figure></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Protesters on Downing Street in London, England, call for Boris Johnson’s resignation on January 15, 2022.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1AHNri">
|
||
The UK has dealt with whiplash-inducing restrictions, <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns">lockdowns</a>, systems, plans, and tiers as the government has tried to confront the Covid-19 crisis. Much like former president Donald Trump, Johnson has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/world/europe/cummings-johnson-
|
||
covid.html?partner=slack&smid=sl-share">criticized</a> for <a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-
|
||
science-europe-covid-19-pandemic-pandemics-0268552edbae21b55cc1ce2d6d72836d">waiting too long</a> to introduce lockdown measures and overpromising on the nation’s ability to contain the virus. The four UK countries — England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales — all have different rules, and England has recently adopted <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59859923">stricter measures</a> due to the increased transmissibility of the omicron variant and the projected strain on the National Health Service.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="5Cdq9Y">
|
||
Even very public scandals and very public dissatisfaction with Covid-19 fallout might not be enough to topple Johnson, who has survived a series of missteps even before the Covid-19 crisis — including<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/06/boris-
|
||
johnson-accused-corruption-great-exhibition-text-flat-refurb"> allegations of corruption</a> for exchanging political promises to a donor in exchange for money to redecorate his flat and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/10/lies-accusations-boris-johnson-full-list-dishonesty-christmas-
|
||
party">lies</a> about money saved from Brexit funding the NHS.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="dTmSvv">
|
||
However, Conservatives and Johnson himself, are tanking in public opinion polls. A recent <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-
|
||
reports/2022/01/14/boris-johnsons-net-favourability-drops-another-all">YouGov poll</a> found 72 percent of Britons have an unfavorable opinion of Johnson — a far cry from his <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50765773">overwhelming 2019 victory</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div id="5w3WF3">
|
||
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
||
Not far off Corbyn now. Net -52 <a href="https://t.co/X1HqRnGmme">pic.twitter.com/X1HqRnGmme</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
— Matt Goodwin (<span class="citation" data-cites="GoodwinMJ">@GoodwinMJ</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1481990690657742854?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2022</a>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="cnvBvj">
|
||
A <a href="https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1482064968568778759?s=20">recent poll by British pollster Savanta ComRes</a> also showed Labour up 10 points against the Conservative Party, giving Labour its largest projected vote share since 2013. That’s in addition to other ominous signs for Johnson’s Conservative Party: In December elections in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/world/europe/uk-election-tories-boris-
|
||
johnson.html">North Shropshire</a>, England, the Tories lost a seat they had held for a century to a Liberal Democrat politician, Helen Morgan. Her victory was widely seen as a blow to Johnson’s government, particularly after the previous MP, Owen Paterson, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59167783">resigned in November</a> for ethics violations despite Johnson’s attempts to keep him in office.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="xZdDlt">
|
||
What comes next for Johnson’s government?
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="R1KjAj">
|
||
While <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-59958872">10 Downing Street</a> has urged Tory lawmakers to wait for the results of Gray’s investigation before deciding on a vote of no confidence, those results not expected until next week at the earliest. Johnson, however, is already facing calls for his removal, which could come sooner rather than later.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nOrLFd">
|
||
Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross has been at the forefront of calls for Johnson to step down, saying he had a “difficult conversation” with Johnson on Wednesday after the questioning period and Johnson’s apology, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59972859">according to the BBC</a>. Ross indicated that he would formally request a vote of no confidence in Johnson.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ggODFk">
|
||
Other Conservative MPs have also called on Johnson to resign, but a vote of no confidence requires at least 54 members of the party to formally request the vote by sending official letters to a parliamentary group called the 1922 Committee.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="y1MECQ">
|
||
That threshold hasn’t been breached thus far, but as MPs meet with their constituencies this weekend, more could make the request. As the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60003805">BBC’s Lauren Kuenssberg</a> reported Friday, members of Parliament have already received outraged phone calls and emails from people in their districts, calling for Johnson to resign. Given the vocal discontent, “it could all be over on Monday,” one unnamed senior MP told Kuenssberg.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="0ANEWv">
|
||
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/15/boris-johnson-
|
||
mired-in-deceit-and-unable-to-lead-says-keir-starmer">Labour leader Keir Starmer</a>, Johnson’s chief opponent, has also put pressure on Johnson to <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1481238120528060417?s=20">resign</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div id="C9jO2h">
|
||
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
||
“Is [the PM] going to do the decent thing and resign?”<br/><br/>Labour leader Keir Starmer says Boris Johnson is a “pathetic spectacle of a man who ran out of road”<br/><br/>The PM says “I have apologised” for attending No 10 party, “I thought it was a work event”<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PMQs?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PMQs</a> <a href="https://t.co/cXM9HUgeXn">https://t.co/cXM9HUgeXn</a> <a href="https://t.co/Z3x8cXNGIi">pic.twitter.com/Z3x8cXNGIi</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
— BBC News (UK) (<span class="citation" data-cites="BBCNews">@BBCNews</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1481238120528060417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2022</a>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="4vyDcp">
|
||
Should the Tories get the opportunity to hold a vote of no confidence, that doesn’t mean that Johnson is automatically out. In addition to securing 54 letters requesting a vote of no confidence, a majority of the Conservative MPs — <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons">there are 360</a> — would need to vote to find another leader, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/world/europe/boris-johnson-oust.html">according to the New York Times</a>. However, the number of letters requesting a no confidence vote are kept secret until the 54-request threshold is reached.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BLuB28">
|
||
If Johnson is forced out over his handling of the pandemic, he won’t be the first; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/world/europe/cummings-johnson-covid.html">Dominic Cummings</a>, Johnson’s former chief adviser, was fired in November 2020 after disagreeing with Johnson over his handling of the pandemic. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59576697">Allegra Stratton</a>, the former press secretary, resigned in December after video showed her joking about one of the Christmas parties held under lockdown, and former Health Secretary Matt Hancock resigned after <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57625508">video</a> showing him breaking social distancing rules while engaging in an extramarital affair with a colleague surfaced in July.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="K15pJV">
|
||
But Johnson isn’t likely to give up easily, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60003805">the BBC’s Kuenssberg writes</a>, and<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2022/jan/14/how-
|
||
no-10s-alleged-parties-took-place-as-uk-covid-death-toll-rose-interactive"> this is far from the first scandal he has faced</a>. While public outcry is significant, Johnson’s party isn’t yet aligned about what should come next — and no matter the outcome of Gray’s report, getting rid of Johnson may be an uphill battle without a determined effort on the part of his government, one cabinet minister told the BBC, especially since he appears intent on staying put.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RF3owQ">
|
||
“It is very hard to get rid of a leader who doesn’t want to go,” they said.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><strong>The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/thumbor/-Avw0J0Eb3lqhkuu7DfB1Ntqy3k=/15x0:2959x2208/1310x983/cdn.vox-
|
||
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70393293/696327606.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Justice Neil Gorsuch. left, talks with Chief Justice John Roberts on the steps of the Supreme Court following his official investiture at the Supreme Court June 15, 2017, in Washington, DC. | Win McNamee/Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="FNL49w">
|
||
On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of unsigned opinions that appear to be at war with each other.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="yp75mB">
|
||
The first, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf"><em>National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor</em></a>, blocks a Biden administration rule requiring most workers to either get vaccinated against Covid-19 or to routinely be tested for the disease. The second, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf"><em>Biden v. Missouri</em></a><em>, </em>backs a more modest policy requiring most health care workers to get the vaccine.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="yYZaIG">
|
||
There are some things that differentiate the two cases. Beyond the fact that the first rule is broader than the second, the broader rule also relies on a rarely used provision of federal law that is restricted to emergencies, while the latter rule relies on a more general statute.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7bxMtG">
|
||
But the Court gives little attention to substantive differences between the laws authorizing both rules.<strong> </strong>Instead, it applies an <a href="https://www.vox.com/22865247/supreme-
|
||
court-vaccination-covid-omicron-osha-missouri-biden-nfib">entirely judicially created doctrine</a> and other standards in inconsistent ways. The result is<strong> </strong>two opinions that are difficult to reconcile with each other.
|
||
</p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="2RiRwq">
|
||
The <em>NFIB</em> case relies heavily on something known as the “major questions doctrine,” a judicially invented doctrine which the Court says places strict limits on a federal agency’s power to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” As the <em>NFIB</em> opinion notes, the vaccinate-or-test rule at issue in <em>NFIB</em> applies to “84 million Americans” — quite understandably a matter of vast economic significance.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="whAmkB">
|
||
But, if this <a href="https://www.vox.com/22865247/supreme-court-vaccination-covid-omicron-osha-missouri-
|
||
biden-nfib">manufactured doctrine</a> is legitimate, then it’s not at all clear why it doesn’t apply with equal force in both cases. As Justice Clarence Thomas points out in a dissenting opinion in the <em>Missouri</em> case, the more modest health workers’ rule “has effectively mandated vaccination for 10 million healthcare workers.” That’s still an awful lot of Americans!
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9JYpg0">
|
||
What if the Biden administration had pushed out a rule requiring 20 million people to get vaccinated? Or 50 million? The Court does not tell us just how many millions of Americans must be impacted by a rule for it to count as a matter of “vast economic and political significance.” And it’s hard to draw a legally principled distinction between 10 million workers and 84 million.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ivyXfZ">
|
||
Similarly, in <em>NFIB</em>, the Court notes that the agency which created the broad rule at issue in that case is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which, as its name suggests, deals with health threats that arise in the workplace, and Covid-19 is not unique to the workplace. “COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather,” the majority opinion notes.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="THZQ3M">
|
||
But, as the three liberal justices point out in dissent, OSHA regulates threats that exist both inside and outside the workplace all the time, including “risks of fire, faulty electrical installations, and inadequate emergency exits.” It’s not at all clear why Covid-19 is any different. And the only explanation that the majority opinion gives — that a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday,” unlike the donning of fire-safety gear — applies with equal force to both the OSHA rule and the narrow health worker’s rule that the Court refused to block. Doctors’ vaccinations can’t be undone any more than an office worker’s can be.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="JlCyxW">
|
||
The Court, in other words, appears unable to articulate a principled reason why some vaccination rules should stand and others should fall.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Il8rim">
|
||
In the past, when the Court was unable to come up with principled ways to separate good rules from bad ones, it <a href="https://www.vox.com/22865247/supreme-court-vaccination-covid-omicron-osha-missouri-biden-nfib">deferred to the federal agencies that promulgated those rules</a>. The Court reasoned that it is better to have policy decisions made by expert agencies that are accountable to an elected president than to have purely discretionary decisions made by unelected judges with no relevant expertise.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="pCNMXD">
|
||
But the one thing that is apparent from <em>NFIB</em> and <em>Missouri</em> is that this age of deference is over. The opinions suggest that the Court will uphold rules that five of its members think are good ideas, and strike down rules that five of its members think are bad ideas.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="AWqP58">
|
||
The Court is fabricating legal doctrines that appear in neither statute nor Constitution
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="AB5u9v">
|
||
To understand the two vaccination cases, it’s helpful to start with the specific statutory language the Biden administration relied upon when it issued both rules.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="J0htXg">
|
||
In the <em>NFIB</em> case, a federal law that generally requires OSHA to go through an arduous process to approve new workplace regulations also gives the agency the power <a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshact">to devise an “emergency temporary standard.”</a> It can do so to protect workers from “grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” if such a standard is “necessary to protect employees from such danger.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="IPf1cS">
|
||
Meanwhile, in the <em>Missouri </em>case, a different federal law instructs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf">issue rules</a> that it “finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services” in institutions that accept Medicare or Medicaid funding (a category that includes most health providers and pretty much all hospitals and other major providers).
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="cpffG2">
|
||
There are striking similarities between these two statutes. Both use open-ended language, delegating powers that could be wielded in a wide variety of circumstances to protect against a wide variety of health threats. And both also state that the relevant federal agencies should only issue rules that are “necessary” to protect against such threats.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CnV6qX">
|
||
And yet the Court analyzes these two very similar statutes in strikingly different ways.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="kO9cMC">
|
||
As mentioned above, <em>NFIB</em> relies heavily on the so- called major questions doctrine, a <a href="https://www.vox.com/22865247/supreme-court-vaccination-covid-omicron-osha-
|
||
missouri-biden-nfib">judicially created doctrine</a> that is not mentioned in the Constitution or in any other federal law, and that sometimes limits federal agencies’ power to issue especially consequential regulations. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,” the Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf">declares in <em>NFIB</em></a>, quoting from a decision last August that <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf">struck down a moratorium on evictions</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="JJJIUS">
|
||
Historically, this doctrine has been used primarily to help the Court <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/1/7/22871919/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-osha-workplace-cms-medicare-medicaid-
|
||
biden">interpret vague or ambiguous statutes</a> delegating regulatory power to a federal agency. When it is unclear whether a particularly ambitious regulation falls within an agency’s statutory authority, the Court would sometimes err on the side of saying that the regulation is not permitted.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HTJtKf">
|
||
But the issue in <em>NFIB</em> isn’t really that the statute is vague. As the three liberal justices note in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf">co-authored dissent</a>, the six conservative justices in the majority do “not contest that COVID–19 is a ‘new hazard’ and ‘physically harmful agent’; that it poses a ‘grave danger’ to employees; or that a testing and masking or vaccination policy is ‘necessary’ to prevent those harms.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="5yaVHg">
|
||
Rather, the majority appears to believe that, because OSHA is not engaged in an “everyday exercise of federal power,” the Court must look for reasons to strike its actions down. As mentioned above, the <em>NFIB</em> majority justifies doing so by claiming that OSHA’s authority is limited to the workplace, and the threat of Covid-19 “is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="VrXQzh">
|
||
Thus, unlike previous decisions that applied the major questions doctrine only when a statute is vague (that is, if it is unclear whether Congress intended to allow an agency to regulate), <em>NFIB </em>suggests that this doctrine applies to any open-ended statute that gives an agency broad powers. And it applies even if it’s apparent from that statute’s language that Congress intended to give the agency broad, open-ended authority.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="m55xLR">
|
||
That’s a sweeping change. But say we take it at face value, and then look at the decision in <em>Missouri</em>. Under <em>NFIB</em>, the major questions doctrine only applies to matters of “vast economic and political significance.” But the <em>Missouri </em>opinion provides no explanation of why a rule that impacts 10 million workers does not qualify as a question of such significance.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tkxFLT">
|
||
And if the major questions doctrine does apply, then the CMS rule appears to be just as vulnerable to this doctrine as the OSHA rule. If anything, the text of the CMS statute is even more open-ended than the language at issue in <em>NFIB</em>. OSHA’s statute for emergency regulations only permits it to address a “grave danger” and only when that danger arises from a “physically harmful” substance or agent that intrudes upon the workplace. CMS’s statute, by contrast, gives it far more sweeping authority to act in the “interest of the health and safety of individuals” who receive health care in facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid funding.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="T8kACk">
|
||
And yet the major questions doctrine goes unmentioned in the <em>Missouri </em>opinion.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7Z2w0e">
|
||
Similarly, in <em>NFIB</em>, the Court swipes at OSHA’s broad rule because, it claims, “OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind.” But in <em>Missouri, </em>the majority opinion concedes that CMS’s “vaccine mandate goes further than what the Secretary has done in the past to implement infection control,” and it also notes that state governments, not CMS, have historically imposed vaccination requirements on health care workers.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HQl9Op">
|
||
The two opinions cannot even agree on the significance of when the two rules were issued. In <em>NFIB</em>, the fact that there was “a 2-month delay” between when President Joe Biden announced that OSHA would issue a rule and when OSHA actually issued the rule is mentioned as a subtle dig against the administration. But in <em>Missouri</em>, the majority has no problem with a two-month delay.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="IeBCEL">
|
||
The <em>Missouri</em> opinion, in other words, appears to have been drafted by someone who was blissfully unaware of what the Court had to say in <em>NFIB</em>. The two opinions simply cannot be reconciled. They apply completely different legal rules and make no effort to explain why the analysis in one opinion does not apply in the other.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HW8DFr">
|
||
At best, the Court is unable to keep track of what it is doing. At worst, it appears to have started with the result it wanted in both cases, and then worked backward to come up with some kind of reasoning to justify those outcomes.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="kcCRru">
|
||
The Supreme Court wants to be President Biden’s boss
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="iybJzQ">
|
||
In fairness, there is some language in the <em>NFIB</em> opinion that the Biden administration might find comforting. Although the Court rejects OSHA’s broad rule, it does indicate that OSHA could issue a narrower rule in some cases. “Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace,” the Court writes, “targeted regulations are plainly permissible.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="H1rYmF">
|
||
Similarly, <em>NFIB</em> rejects the slash- and-burn approach to curtailing OSHA’s authority that is favored by the <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-
|
||
worst-case-scenario-if-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-is-confirmed-de9ba49faf48/">very most</a> <a href="https://www.vox.com/22820378/trump-biden-supreme-court-judiciary-sabotage">conservative members</a> of the federal bench. The majority opinion concedes that “Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gXUKRl">
|
||
So, small victories: The opinions in <em>NFIB </em>and <em>Missouri</em> suggest that the Court will still permit the Biden administration to govern some of the time. But they also suggest that the Court will exercise a broad veto power over this administration’s regulatory actions.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="5vPiOt">
|
||
As Judge Jane Stranch wrote in a lower court opinion backing the OSHA mandate, the major questions doctrine that the Court relies upon to strike that mandate “is <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/22/22848155/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-osha-cms-covid-
|
||
joe-biden">hardly a model of clarity</a>, and its precise contours — specifically, what constitutes a question concerning deep economic and political significance — remain undefined.” The same can be said about other legal doctrines (such as one known as “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/22/22848155/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-osha-
|
||
cms-covid-joe-biden">nondelegation</a>”) that the Court has also floated as justification to strike down federal regulations in recent cases.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="PqpseP">
|
||
The elevation of these doctrines is dangerous. When courts hand down such vague and open-ended rules, they <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/22/22848155/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-
|
||
osha-cms-covid-joe-biden">effectively transfer power to themselves</a>. As the <em>NFIB</em> and <em>Missouri</em> cases show, doctrines like major questions are hard to apply in a principled way, and very easy to apply selectively. And they can justify striking down nearly any significant rule that a majority of the justices dislike.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Nswsc0">
|
||
The justices, in other words, have set themselves up as the final censors of any regulatory action. The Biden administration may still propose new rules, but those rules are likely to stand only if five justices agree with them.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<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>Gavaskar wants Rishabh Pant to succeed Kohli as Test skipper</strong> - Citing the example of Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, he said sense of responsibility will help Pant flourish</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>The Ashes, 5th Test | England collapse hands Australia dominant 4-0 series win</strong> - England, set a target of 271 for victory, crashed to 124 all in the last session on the third day at Hobart, losing 10 wickets for 56</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>Your legacy as captain will stand for benchmarks you set: Ashwin on Kohli</strong> - Team-mates pay rich tributes to Virat Kohli after he decided to relinquish the Test captaincy</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>Novak Djokovic leaves Australia after losing deportation appeal</strong> - Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison welcomed the Federal Court ruling saying the decision will help “keep our borders strong and keep Australians safe”</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>Kohli’s decision to quit Test captaincy is personal, BCCI respects it: Ganguly</strong> - ‘He will be an important member to take this team to newer heights in the future’</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>Maharashtra to take call on reopening of schools in next 15 days</strong> - Hospitalisations continue to remain low despite case surge, says Health Minister</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>NIA arrests suspect in fake currency smuggling</strong> - The NIA had earlier filed a chargesheet against four accused persons, including Aladu, who was involved in the procurement of fake notes from his Bangladeshi accomplices.</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>India’s Covid vaccination drive completes 1 year, over 156.76 cr doses administered so far</strong> - “India has been able to achieve the milestone of administering over 156 crore doses.”</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>Service doctors of Tamil Nadu plan protest on January 19</strong> - They want the State government to implement a pay band revision</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>SAD leader Majithia booked for ‘violations’ of Covid norms</strong> - The SAD supporters were seen honouring the former Punjab minister with garlands.</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>Novak Djokovic: Tennis star deported after losing Australia visa battle</strong> - The unvaccinated tennis star gets flight out from Melbourne Airport after losing visa challenge.</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>Nino Cerruti: Italian fashion great dies aged 91</strong> - The celebrated designer and businessman once said: “I have always dressed the same person, myself.”</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-Ukraine: US warns of ‘false-flag’ operation</strong> - Russia is plotting to stage acts of provocation to create a pretext to invade Ukraine, a US official says.</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>MH17: Families’ quest for hope years after Ukraine air disaster</strong> - Since flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, victims’ families have been on a difficult journey.</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>Danish spy scandal: Ex-minister accused of state secrets leak</strong> - The case against Claus Hjort Frederiksen comes after an ex-intelligence chief faced similar charges.</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>Logitech Signature M650: A quiet wireless mouse for big, small, or left hands</strong> - A mid-priced, cable-free option strikes the right balance. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1824831">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Pregnant people are still not getting vaccinated against Covid</strong> - Misinformation and muddled public health messaging have failed expectant parents. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1826019">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The weekend’s best deals: HBO Max, new AirPods, Apple Watch Series 7, and more</strong> - Dealmaster also includes Bluetooth speakers, gaming headsets, and the Mac Mini. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1825888">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Backdoor for Windows, macOS, and Linux went undetected until now</strong> - Never-before-seen, cross-platform SysJoker came from an “advanced threat actor.” - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1826079">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The underground network bringing Japan’s arcades to the US</strong> - One writer’s obsession with getting her hands on an obscure anime rhythm game. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1825983">link</a></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><strong>A woman was in bed with her lover when she heard her husband opening the front door</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“Hurry!” she said, “stand in the corner.” She quickly rubbed baby oil all over him and then she dusted him with talcum powder. “Don’t move until I tell you to,” she whispered. “Just pretend you’re a statue.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“What’s this, honey?” the husband inquired as he entered the room.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“Oh, it’s just a statue,” she replied nonchalantly. “The Smiths bought one for their bedroom. I liked it so much, I got one for us too.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
No more was said about the statue, not even later that night when they went to sleep. Around two in the morning the husband got out of bed, went to the kitchen and returned a while later with a sandwich and a glass of milk.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“Here,” he said to the ‘statue’, “eat something. I stood like an idiot at the Smiths’ for three days and nobody offered me as much as a glass of water.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Excellent-Truck-8644"> /u/Excellent- Truck-8644 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s581qh/a_woman_was_in_bed_with_her_lover_when_she_heard/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s581qh/a_woman_was_in_bed_with_her_lover_when_she_heard/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>A jew, a black guy, a gay guy, a blonde, and a Sony surround sound system walk into a bar…</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The bartender looks at the Sony and says ‘We don’t like stereo types here.’
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/FallenCypher25"> /u/FallenCypher25 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s4z2dx/a_jew_a_black_guy_a_gay_guy_a_blonde_and_a_sony/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s4z2dx/a_jew_a_black_guy_a_gay_guy_a_blonde_and_a_sony/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>A sex addict,an alcoholic and a chain smoker go to a hypnotist.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The hypnotist tells all three while under hypnosis that if they ever indulge in their vices again they will die immediately after.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
On the way back from the hypnotist the 3 men are walking by a bar. The alcoholic can’t help himself. He says “fuck it. That guy way full shit. There’s no way one little drink will kill me.” And goes into the bar. The other 2 men; curious to see what happens, wait for him outside.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Minutes later the alcoholic opens the bar door, takes one step onto the sidewalk and drops dead. The other 2 men men are shocked in disbelief.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The 2 men continue down the street. A man walking towards them flicks an almost full cigarette onto the sidewalk as he goes into a store. The chain smoker stops in front of the cigarette and stares at it. The sex addict says to him “don’t do it it man. If you bend over and pick up that smoke we’re both fucking dead”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Alexharper051"> /u/Alexharper051 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s4ye4s/a_sex_addictan_alcoholic_and_a_chain_smoker_go_to/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s4ye4s/a_sex_addictan_alcoholic_and_a_chain_smoker_go_to/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>What do adult cam models and anti-vaxxers have in common?</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Both always end up lying in bed deep-throating a plastic tube.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON
|
||
-->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/PepsiColaMirinda"> /u/PepsiColaMirinda </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s4tpcj/what_do_adult_cam_models_and_antivaxxers_have_in/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s4tpcj/what_do_adult_cam_models_and_antivaxxers_have_in/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>A man comes home from church with two black eyes.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
His wife takes one look at him and exclaims, “how in the world did you get two black eyes at church!?”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“Well” the man answers, “When we stood up to pray, i noticed that the woman in front of me had the back of her dress tucked in to her pantyhoes. I didn’t want to embarrass her by telling her, so i reached forward and pulled it out. She turned around and punched me in the eye!”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“that explains one black eye” said his wife, " so how did you get the other one?"
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“I thought she must have wanted it there so i put it back!”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/theloosestofcannons"> /u/theloosestofcannons </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s535mq/a_man_comes_home_from_church_with_two_black_eyes/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/s535mq/a_man_comes_home_from_church_with_two_black_eyes/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<script>AOS.init();</script></body></html> |