Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Constitutional Law”

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson are Clueless about America

The Supreme Court’s left-wing minority, not its conservative majority, ignores the racial and ethnic reality of modern-day America.

In the Supreme Court’s landmark Harvard, UNC affirmative action case, left-wing Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson argue that because the Court’s conservative majority insists on a colorblind or race neutral legal standard, it is out of touch with modern-day America.

In truth, Sotomayor and Jackson have it exactly backwards. They are the ones who are out of touch with an America that is increasingly multi-racial and multi-ethnic. And they fail to appreciate that it is precisely because of this fact that our law and jurisprudence must, of necessity, be colorblind or race neutral.

Race Matters. First, let’s give the devil her due. Sotomayor and Jackson ague that race matters in America because America has always been stained and marred by racism. Therefore, the law, too, must be cognizant of the importance of race and take race into account.

American society “is not, and has never been, colorblind,” declares Sotomayor.

[Today’s] Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a Constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.

“Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” adds Jackson.

And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.

Sotomayor and Jackson seriously distort and exaggerate the prevalence and significance of racism past and present. Isolated and suspect incidents of alleged racism, for instance, are taken to be emblematic of a “deep-seated legacy of racial subjugation [that] continues to manifest itself in student life” today.

Multi-Racial and Multi-Ethnic America. But the bigger problem is that their understanding of America too simplistic and dated. It is based on a 19th Century vision of a country that no longer exists, and which hasn’t existed for many decades. Their America is, both literally and figuratively, black and white, and not much else.

Sotomayor and Jackson ignore the fact that an increasing number of Americans are neither black nor white. Asian Americans, in fact, are the nation’s fastest-growing demographic group and, not coincidentally, the biggest victims of affirmative action in college admissions.

Not surprisingly, then, the lawsuit against Harvard was spearheaded by Asian Americans, who allege that this august Ivy League institution systematically discriminated against them. Sotomayor and Jackson try to deny this reality and pretend that it doesn’t exist, but the conservative majority found conclusive evidence to the contrary.

The “First Circuit Court,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion, “found that Harvard’s consideration of race has led to an 11.1% decrease in the number of Asian Americans admitted to Harvard…

“Black applicants in the top four academic deciles,” he notes, “are between four and ten times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Asian applicants in those deciles.”

Rigged Admissions. Sadly, this is no accident. The Supreme Court found that Harvard, UNC (and, surely, other elite colleges and universities) are deliberately rigging their admissions processes to discriminate against Asian Americans and to establish quotas for the number of Asian American students.

Yet in their dissenting opinions, Sotomayor and Jackson pretend that Asian Americans are not a significant demographic group and have no real cause for complaint. Jackson mentions Asian Americans a mere three times, once in a footnote, while never pausing to consider or grapple with their victimization through affirmative action.

Sotomayor, meanwhile, says that Asian Americans benefit from affirmative action because although they represent only about 6% of the U.S. population, they now make up more than 20% of Harvard’s admitted class.

This statistic, of course, sidesteps the issue of discrimination and ignores the fact that Asian American applicants to Harvard may be more numerous and better prepared, academically, than members of other demographic groups. So the 20% figure stripped of this necessary context is not very telling or revealing.

‘Diversity‘. Nor is the moniker “diversity,” which has become the justification or rationale used for racial preferences in college admissions.

Justice Neil Gorsuch observes that Harvard, UNC, and other elite colleges and universities exhibit little interest in non-racial markers of diversity. And they employ racial and ethnic classifications that “rest on incoherent stereotypes.”

The racial categories the universities employ in the name of diversity do not begin to reflect the differences that exist within each group.

Instead, they lump together white and Asian students from privileged backgrounds with “Jewish, Irish, Polish, or other ‘white’ ethnic groups whose ancestors faced discrimination” and “descendants of those Japanese-American citizens interned during World War II.”

Reality. Again, Sotomayor and Jackson ignore this demographic reality because, like Harvard, UNC, and other elite colleges and universities, they see an America that is only black and white. They don’t see the America that really exists in the 21st Century: multi-ethnic and multi-racial.

These two far-left justices also ignore the discrimination in college admissions that results from treating Asian Americans, and members of other racial and ethnic groups, as expendable.

“Plainly,” writes Gorsuch, “Harvard and UNC choose to treat some students worse than others in part because of race. To suggest otherwise—or to cling to the fact that the schools do not always say the quiet part aloud—is to deny reality.”

Equal Rights. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, does not deny the reality of racism in American life:

I, of course, agree that our society is not, and has never been, colorblind. People discriminate against one another for a whole host of reasons. But, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the law must disregard all racial distinctions…

Thomas expounds upon this point:

I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination… [However], two discriminatory wrongs cannot make a right…

This vision of meeting social racism with government-imposed racism is thus self-defeating, resulting in a never-ending cycle of victimization…

We must adhere to the promise of equality under the law declared by the Declaration of Independence and codified by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Racial Spoils. Given that America has moved far beyond black and white to include a multitude of races and ethnicities, it is hard to argue with this point. The alternative is a racial spoils system that awards rights, benefits, and privileges based on race and ethnicity, not merit and achievement.

Of course, affirmative action as it is described by Sotomayor and Jackson is benign. It aims not to hurt anyone, but to help African Americans who have been burdened by the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

The problem with their approach is that it ignores the zero-sum nature of college admissions and the existence of other disadvantaged groups, principally but not exclusively Asian Americans, who are denied benefits and opportunity from this reverse discrimination.

Modern-Day Realities. In other words, what might have been feasible (albeit still Constitutionally suspect) in 19th Century America is no longer feasible in the 21st Century, when a myriad of races and ethnicities dot the nation’s demographic landscape.

For this reason, the jurisprudence of Sotomayor and Jackson is woefully out of date and disconnected from modern-day demographic realities. A colorblind or race neutral legal standard is the only kind of legal standard that can work and secure popular legitimacy in our multi-ethnic and multi-racial country.

Feature photo credit: Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor (L) and Ketanji Brown Jackson (R), AP/Getty images, courtesy of NBC News.

Why Pro-Lifers Should Embrace the Far-Left Dobbs Dissent

It provides the rationale for reading into the Constitution a right to life for the unborn.

In its landmark Dobbs v. Jackson decision overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the Constitution “neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion… The Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice.”

That’s the decision of the Court today. However, one of the ironies of history may be that, 25 or 50 years from now, a new Supreme Court might cite the left-wing dissent in Dobbs to find that the Constitution implicitly prohibits abortion as a violation of the the unborn child’s Constitutional right to life, which is protected under the 14th Amendment.

That may sound farfetched, but not if you take the Dobbs dissent seriously—and not if you realize that new currents in conservative jurisprudence—Adrian Vermeule’s common good Constitutionalism, for instance—are moving beyond originalism to achieve a more results-oriented approach to judging.

The ‘Living Constitution.’ In Dobbs, the Court noted that there is no specific or enumerated right to abortion. Nor is there an implicit or unenumerated right to abortion. Why? Because, as the Court points out, abortion is neither “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” nor “essential to this nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.'”

In fact,

until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right…

By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided.

The left-wing Dobbs dissenters don’t dispute these facts. Instead, they argue that the Constitution is a living document that evolves to reflect changing societal norms and expectations.

The Framers (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that the world changes. So they did not define rights by reference to the specific practices existing at the time.

The Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. And over the course of our history, this Court has taken up the Framers’ invitation. It has kept true to the Framers’ principles by applying them in new ways, responsive to new societal understandings and conditions.

The Constitutional Right to Life. Yes, indeed, the world changes! And what if it changes in a  more conservative direction, toward an understanding that the unborn child is a person wholly deserving of Constitutional protections, including that most basic Constitutional protection: the right to life?

What, then, is to stop a more results-oriented Court, with a majority of “common good Constitutionalists,” from finding this right in the Constitution?

After all, as the left-wing Dobbs dissenters observe, rights evolve in their scope and meaning, and the Court has an obligation to apply key Constitutional principles “in new ways [that are] responsive to new societal understandings and conditions.”

Advances in medical science continue to elucidate the humanity of the unborn. And surely, the history of America is one of increasing inclusion and the expansion of rights to previously marginalized members of our community.

Blacks, women, gays, the unborn—all have been recognized as members of the American family worthy of Constitutional and civil rights protection.

The Court has seen to it that Constitutional justice was done for blacks, women, and gays; it has yet to get there for the unborn, but it will in time. And the far-left Dobbs dissenters have shown us the way.

Feature photo credit, courtesy of CNN, (L-R): Far-left Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan have shown exactly how a future Supreme Court can read into the Constitution a new right to life for the unborn.

Most Senate Republicans Whiff on the Constitutionality of Impeaching Trump

For blatantly partisan political reasons, most Republican were willfully wrong about the Constitutionality of impeachment; but in the end, it did not matter: Justice, albeit not conviction, was done.

Senate Republicans eager to condemn Trump without voting to convict him during this, his second impeachment trial, found a convenient if disingenuous way to do so. They seized upon the notion that the impeachment itself is unconstitutional.

I say disingenuous because even if you grant that this is a legitimate point of view, Senate Republicans—and Democrats—are hardly sticklers for a narrow and cramped legalistic reading of their Constitutional authority or the president’s Constitutional authority.

Indeed, since at least the New Deal, the vast majority of elected officials have adopted a wide and expansionary view of their Constitutional authority. Yet, curiously, when it came to Trump’s second impeachment, Senate Republicans suddenly found that the Constitution prohibited them from acting.

The Constitution prohibited them from convicting a president who, plainly and obviously, was guilty of inspiring or provoking a violent attack on Congress and who, plainly and obviously, was guilty of a gross dereliction of duty as that attack transpired.

How politically convenient this was for Senate Republicans eager to find an excuse—any excuse—to shirk their Constitutional duty. Thus 43 of them voted to acquit Trump, while only seven voted to convict.

Plausible Deniability. How is this possible? How could Senate Republicans argue with a straight face that the Constitution prohibited them from impeaching and convicting Trump?

After all, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment.” Article I, Section 3, likewise, gives the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.”

That seems straightforward and unambiguous. Case closed, no? Trump’s impeachment trial is perfectly legitimate and Constitutional.

Well, here’s the rub: when the Senate trial began, Trump already had left office. And the Constitution, some scholars argue, only allows for the impeachment of incumbent officials, not former officials.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) expressed this argument in full-throated fashion shortly after the Senate voted 57-43 Saturday (Feb. 13, 2021) to acquit Trump of “incitement of insurrection.”

McConnell began his remarks by unequivocally condemning Trump in no uncertain terms. In fact, an uninformed reader might think that McConnell is explaining why he voted to convict Trump, but no.

Although, “there is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell said, “we have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”

But of course, Trump was not impeached for what he did as a private citizen; he was impeached because of his conduct as President of the United States. And the Constitution does not specify that only incumbent officials can be impeached. Instead, it clearly allows for the impeachment and conviction of former presidents and former officials.

Impeachment Authority. That is because, as Chuck Cooper observes, one of the Constitutional penalties for an impeached and convicted official is “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States” (Article I, Section 3).

That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction.

The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.”

The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”

Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer.

Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders [emphasis added].

Nonsensical Reading. In short, it is simply nonsensical to suggest that the Constitution does not allow for the impeachment and conviction of former presidents and former officials.

To arrive at such a conclusion, you have to read one provision of the Constitution (Article II, Section 4) legalistically and out of context, while divorcing it from its necessary and obvious relationship to a second provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 3).

As the House impeachment managers pointed out, if McConnell’s nonsensical view of the Senate’s impeachment authority were adopted, it would mean that a president could commit impeachable offenses and then quickly resign to avert impeachment.

It would mean a “January exception” that would allow a president to commit impeachable offenses in his final days or weeks in office safe in the knowledge that Congress lacks sufficient time to impeach and convict him. It is inconceivable that this is what our Founding Fathers intended.

Founding Fathers. And in fact, as Princeton Politics Professor Keith E. Whittington notes:

For the Founders, it would have been obvious that the “power to impeach” included the ability to hold former officials to account.

The impeachment power was imported to America from England, where Parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers. No U.S. state constitution limited impeachments to sitting officers, and some allowed impeachment only of former officers.

In 1781 the Virginia General Assembly subjected Thomas Jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he completed his term as governor.

As the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, put it:

I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.

Historical Precedent. There is, of course, very little case law or precedent governing presidential impeachments. Only three presidents, after all, have been impeached, and Trump’s second impeachment was just the fourth impeachment in our nation’s entire 245-year history.

There is, though, one notable precedent, and that is the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap.

Belknap was impeached for malfeasance while in office, but resigned before the House impeached him. Nonetheless, the Senate asserted jurisdiction over his case and tried him for malfeasance in accordance with the House articles of impeachment.

Jurisdictional Question. The Senate also asserted its jurisdiction over Trump’s case after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) introduced a procedural motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the hearing was unconstitutional because Trump no longer was in office.

McConnell voted for Paul’s procedural motion; but as Quin Hillyer points out: “McConnell was [nonetheless] not duty-bound to vote to acquit Donald Trump if he thought the trial wasn’t constitutionally proper.”

For the purposes of impeachment, Hillyer explains, the Senate acts as a tribunal and thus is analogous to a federal court or judicial body. “Think of it this way,” he writes:

If a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court rules that the court lacks jurisdiction on a certain case, but the whole appeals court en banc decides that jurisdiction is indeed proper and thus sends the case back to the panel to decide on the merits, then, by gosh, the panel must decide on the merits.

Its judgment of jurisdictional constitutionality has been overruled by a higher authority.

Each individual senator is in somewhat the same position as that three-judge panel. His oath to the Constitution includes an oath to respect a higher constitutional authority—and, in this case, the full Senate is a higher constitutional authority than the individual senator is…

In other words, once the whole Senate, acting according to its agreed-upon rules, determines that it does have constitutional jurisdiction, then the individual senators should accept that determination and adjudge the impeachment solely on the merits.

In sum, the constitutional question becomes moot.

Put another way, even if McConnell genuinely believed that the Senate’s trial of Trump was unconstitutional, the entirety of the Senate ruled against him and decided otherwise. Thus that question no longer had any standing or relevance to the Senate’s deliberations.

McConnell’s task, then, was to address the sum and substance of the charges leveled against Trump. It was not his task, or any senator’s task, to revisit a jurisdictional question that the Senate already had decided.

The bottom line: if McConnell and other Senate Republicans wanted to convict Trump, they had more than ample Constitutional authority to do so. The truth is they chose not to convict Trump because they viewed Trump’s conviction as too politically problematic and difficult for them and the Republican Party.

That is, they chose their perceived partisan political priorities over the imperatives of the Constitution while pretending to do the exact opposite. Shame on them. These senators are profiles in cowardice, and their constituents and donors should remember this come election day.

The good news, though, as David Frum notes, is that “a clear American majority—including a sizable part of the Republican Senate caucus—[voted]… to condemn Trump as an outlaw and a seditionist…

The 57 votes against Trump silence any complaint that he was condemned on some partisan basis or by some procedural unfairness. It crushes his truculent lawyers’ claim that the argument against Trump was mere chicanery

The senators who voted to acquit are the ones likely to justify their decision on some strained, narrow, technical ground. The number who truly believed Trump innocent of the charges brought against him is surely smaller than the 43 who voted to acquit.

Statements by senators such as Mitch McConnell and Rob Portman show that their votes did not match their thoughts.

In sum, Donald Trump has been thoroughly discredited. His treasonous and insurrectionary conduct has been catalogued for history and for all to see. His failure to live up to his oath of office to ensure that the laws of the land were fully and faithfully executed has been thoroughly documented.

As a result, Trump is a spent political force in American politics. He won’t win another national or presidential election, as even the Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal editorial board acknowledges.

What remains unclear, though, is whether Trump is a spent political force within the Republican Party. Forty-three GOP Senators seem to think not, and that does not bode well for the party of Lincoln, Coolidge and Reagan.

Time will tell and we will see. Stay tuned.

Feature Photo credit: For better and for worse, GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, both from Kentucky, played instrumental roles in the Republican Party’s posture toward Trump’s second impeachment (courtesy of Donkey Hotey, Forward Kentucky).

COVID19 v. Religious Liberty in America and at the Supreme Court

The Court broke important new ground when it struck down New York’s discriminatory COVID19 public health restrictions. 

The Supreme Court decision striking down COVID19 public health restrictions that discriminate against religious observers in contravention of the First Amendment is important for several reasons which have not been fully remarked upon.

This is in part because of the timing of the Court’s decision. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo was handed down just hours before the start of the Thanksgiving Day holiday and soon was eclipsed by the political drama surrounding the 2020 election.

Moreover, the losers in this case—Cuomo and other Democratic governors indifferent or hostile to the imperatives of religious liberty—have downplayed the importance of the decision.

Cuomo, for instance, said the ruling “doesn’t have any practical effect” because, prior to the Court’s decision, he had removed the restrictions on religious services.

Cass Sunstein, likewise, says “the decision is hardly pathbreaking”; and that “it’s wrong to say the decision shows the sudden ascendancy of a new conservative majority” on the Court.

Really? In truth, as Jacob Sullum observes:

This is the third time that the Court has considered applications for emergency injunctions against pandemic-inspired limits on religious gatherings.

In the two earlier cases, involving restrictions imposed by California and Nevada, the Court said no.

Those decisions were backed by Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented both times.

This time around, the replacement of Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett proved decisive, as the recently confirmed justice sided with Thomas et al. in granting the injunction sought by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, which sued on behalf of the Orthodox synagogues it represents.

In short, contra Sunstein, there is a new conservative or originalist majority on the court, thanks to the arrival of Justice Barrett. And, as Sunstein correctly points out, this new conservative majority “will be highly protective of the rights of religious believers.

“The core of the case,” he explains, “was a claim of discrimination against churches and synagogues…

[Despite the 5-4 decision], everyone on the court agreed that if New York discriminated against houses of worship, its action would have to be struck down, pandemic or no pandemic. That idea breaks no new ground.

Of course, the principle at stake here—religious liberty—breaks no new ground because it is explicitly inscribed into the First Amendment of the Constitution.

But where new ground is broken is in the willingness of the Court, finally, to protect religious liberty against government encroachment during a pandemic or public health emergency.

“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic,” writes Justice Gorsuch, “it cannot become a sabbatical… [The] courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain.”

The four dissenters argued that the Court should refrain from providing injunctive relief to religious observers because Cuomo had since rescinded his discriminatory restrictions against religious ceremonies. But as the majority pointed out:

It is clear that this matter is not moot… Injunctive relief is still called for because the applicants are under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange…

The Governor regularly changes the classification of particular areas without notice. If that occurs again, the reclassification will almost certainly bar individuals in the affected area from attending services before judicial relief can be obtained.

The Court’s decision is important for two other reasons:

Secular Indifference. First, as Ron Brownstein notes in The Atlantic, demographically, America is becoming much less religious and far more secular. The danger, then, is that Americans will become increasingly indifferent to religious liberty and willing to countenance state encroachments on fundamental First Amendment rights.

Of course, this would be unthinkable to earlier generations of Americans who came to this country fleeing religious persecution precisely to enjoy religious liberty. This is significantly less true of recent generations of Americans, who are much more secular in their outlook.

Justice Gorsuch, in fact, warns that, “in far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears… We may not shelter in place,” he writes, “when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.”

That the Court will act to protect religious liberty and the Constitution from an increasingly secular populace for whom religious liberty means very little is no small thing.

Justice Gorsuch. Second, Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion is a ringing defense of religious liberty. This is important because, less than six months ago, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, which many feared might upend religious liberty in America.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Gorsuch discovered that, unbeknownst to the legislators who drafted the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

As David French observed, for religious institutions, the consequences of that ruling are potentially dramatic.

Should Christian colleges and schools be subject to lawsuits for upholding church teachings on human sexuality?

Does this case mean that the law now views Christians as akin to klansmen, and thus brings religious institutions one step closer to losing their tax exemptions?

French did not think so, noting that, in his decision,

Justice Gorsuch goes out of his way to reassure that the guarantee of free exercise of religion “lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.”

…[Moreover], there are a series of cases already on the court’s docket that are likely (based on judicial philosophy and court trends) to [protect religious liberty to a considerable extent].

…Stay tuned!

I, too, was skeptical that Bostock v. Clayton County was a far-reaching defeat for religious liberty. “Don’t be too despairing,” I wrote.

While the result in this case is regrettable and worrisome, all is not lost. This is one case that hinges on one statute. And while its effects will be longstanding and widespread, the damage can be contained by both Congress and the Court in future legislation and in future cases.

Well, the ruling in one such future case is now in, and it is a resounding win for religious liberty, with a ringing concurring opinion authored by the very same justice (Gorsuch) who wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County.

This surely bodes well for religious liberty on the Court and in America.

The bottom line: Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo is a very important decision because it heralds the rise of a new conservative or originalist majority on the Court that will act to protect religious liberty against government encroachment even if doing so is politically unpopular.

And Justice Gorsuch at least sees no necessary contradiction between jurisprudence that protects religious liberty and jurisprudence that protects the rights of gay men and women.

Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: Justice Neil Gorsuch in The Federalist.

What’s Happening: Thur., Nov. 26, 2020, Thanksgiving

The Supreme Court upholds religious liberty against discriminatory COVID restrictions; Trump pardons Gen. Flynn; and new data shows masks are largely useless and the schools should be open.

Studies, Data Show COVID Doesn’t Spread in Schools and Classrooms

The question about transmission is the primary question in schools.

In a study of 35,000 kids in North Carolina, there’s not a single case of transmission from child to adult out of 100 infections.

Insight for Education studied 191 countries, looking at the countries that reopened, and found that it did not drive the pandemic or outbreaks any further.

And Utah, which has the best data on schools, found that any increases or outbreaks were attributed to teens, and that infection was on off-campus congregate settings—namely, the parties, not the classrooms.

So it’s pretty clear the classroom is extremely safe, and the transmission from kids to adults is minimal.

—Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Professor of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

The Story with Martha MacCallum, Fox News, Nov. 20, 2020

The Virtuous Meaning of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has been a time to stop and take stock of the blessings enjoyed by family and community.

As the English settlers overcame the trials they faced that first year in Plymouth, qualities that Americans have come to honor as integral to our national identity were on full display: courage, perseverance, diligence, piety.

These are the virtues that helped to shape the American character.

The Pilgrims displayed another virtue, one they practiced every day and which stood at the heart of the First Thanksgiving. Cicero called it the greatest of the virtues and the parent of all the rest: gratitude.

—Melanie Kirkpatrick, as cited by James Freeman, in the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 25, 2020

Feature Photo Credit: Mike White, Fine Art America.