The Rules Of Reason

The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Locking down the Constitution

Locking Down the Constitution

By Tom Mccaffrey

California governor Gavin Newsom has moved the covid lockdown goalposts for a second time. Per last week’s decree, larger counties in the state must “address inequity in communities such as low-income, Black, Latino, Pacific Islander and essential workers.”

Counties with a population greater than 106,000 must follow an equity metric to ensure that their most disadvantaged neighborhoods don’t lag behind. Counties with less than 106,000 residents must submit a plan that defines their disproportionately affected population and show plans to invest in at least interrupting disease transmission in these populations.

It appears Mr. Newsom does not see a great need to allow Californians to go back to work any time soon. It also appears that he is enjoying his new, dictatorial powers. And, if recent history is any guide, he has little reason to fear that the courts will interfere with his exercise of those powers.

This past May, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found California’s covid-19 restriction that limited indoor church attendance to 25 percent of building capacity or no more than 100 persons to be “consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” The Court’s majority did not issue an opinion, but in a concurrence with the ruling, Chief Justice Roberts argued that, because the restriction did not discriminate against religious organizations but, instead, applied equally or more forcefully to “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances,” it did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

In citing this non-discrimination standard, Justice Roberts was implicity endorsing a principle enunciated in the 1993 case of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. “[I]f the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation … it is invalid …,” said the court in Lukumi. “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.”

In other words, according to this standard, it can be perfectly constitutional for a law (or executive decree, as in the California case) to prohibit religious practice as long as it applies equally to comparable, non-religious organizations. The obvious problem with this standard is that the First Amendment is unequivocal and says nothing whatever about discriminating against religious organizations. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”

But according to the Lukumi standard, it would be perfectly constitutional for a statute to force Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for gay couples as long the law applied equally to non-Christian bakers. (In the recent case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court found in favor of the Christian baker because an examination of the proceeding of the Civil Rights Commission detected animus against the baker’s religiosity. In the absence of this bias, the rule would have been allowed to stand, one presumes.)

Likewise in the case of a rule that required Catholic organizations to provide health care plans that covered the cost of contraception for their lay employees. (The recent case of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which dealt with just such a rule, was decided in favor of the Sisters on technical grounds. Absent these grounds, the rule would have been allowed to stand, one presumes.)

And, indeed, the case of the California church lockdown validates this conclusion. Even the most egregious restriction of religious practice will be ruled Constitutional so long as the restriction does not apply only to religious organizations.

But Justice Roberts’s concurrence in the church lockdown case is noteworthy for another reason. He writes:

When [the politically accountable officials of the states] “undertake … to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985).

In other words, since courts are not competent to adjudicate science, they should defer to legislatures (and administrative bodies) on such matters. Here Roberts is echoing a principle originated by the arch-Progressive, Louis Brandeis, in 1908.

The case was Muller v. Oregon, which involved an Oregon ten-hour law for women workers. Brandeis argued the case for the State of Oregon before the U.S. Supreme Court. A jurist of an earlier era might well have argued that on principle a person ought to be free to contract with another person on any terms that are agreeable to both— regardless of the peculiarities of the case in question. But to Brandeis all that mattered were the facts of the case in question—in Muller the “fact,” among others, that long hours of work are bad for a woman’s health.

Accordingly, in his brief Brandeis devoted just two pages to the legal argument, and an unprecedented one hundred-plus pages to statistics and other facts purporting to show that the Oregon Legislature had acted reasonably in enacting the statute. (It was not even necessary, Brandeis argued elsewhere, that the facts on which legislatures based their enactments be true. All that was needed was that the legislatures could reasonably be understood to have believed the “facts” on which they based their determinations.)

Brandeis did not intend to suggest that courts should go into the business of sifting through the mountains of facts upon which legislatures base their enactments. On the contrary, precisely because courts are not equipped to evaluate great quantities of such facts, he believed,they ought not try; they should leave such matters to the legislatures.

So the “conservative” Chief Justice Roberts has endorsed a legal principle—or, rather, anti-principle—that has been a linchpin of liberal jurisprudence since early in the Progressive era. As Brandeis’s Muller case illustrates, a legal system grounded upon science is antithetical to one grounded upon constitutional principles of law. Muller helped to extinguish an individual’s right to contract freely, a right which was a reality in the U.S. before the Progressive era. A Constitutional right that can be extinguished at will by a legislature on the basis of someone’s version of science or “the facts” is no right at all.

Progressive jurisprudence, much of it relying on such “science” as Brandeis had adduced in Muller, would go on to extinguish a great many of the economic and property rights that had made the U.S. a capitalist and industrial powerhouse. Indeed, it was the “science” of environmentalism that turned America’s industrial heartland into a Rust Belt. One can easily imagine freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms all being extinguished by similar “science.”

To leave the lockdowns in California and other states to science, as Chief Justice Roberts advises, science which in the case of covid-19 has been notoriously uncertain, is virtually to abandon the rule of law in those states. It is to invest their governors with near-dictatorial powers. And it is to divest their citizens of whatever rights their governors see fit to suspend on any given day. These governors have caused enormous economic harm to individuals, families, companies, and the country; they have set a dangerous precedent with their wholesale suspending of constitutional rights; they have enabled a slow-rolling insurrection by Black Lives Matter and the Antifa Brownshirts to come into being; and they will likely throw the coming presidential election into chaos and, perhaps, a constitutional crisis. This is no way to run a free country.

Blogger’s Note: To underscore Tom’s overall thesis, here is an example (one of scores I have found) of how tyranny brutally victimizes violators of lockdown (for mask violations) mandates, or the arbitrary exercise of power in Australia. Watching this sends my BP skyrocketing.  Ausralia cop choking maskless ‘violator” of lockdown Melbourne.

Self-censorhip

No. 2,579

Self-censorship
in the US

by Judith Bergman  •  September 16, 2020 at 5:00 am
The US nominally enshrines the most far-reaching freedom of speech, thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yet the average number of Americans who self-censor is slowly beginning to approximate that of Germany, where… “Nearly two-thirds of citizens are convinced that ‘today one has to be very careful on which topics one expresses oneself’, because there are many unwritten laws about what opinions are acceptable and admissible”.
It is, however, not surprising. American campuses have steered a “leftist” course for decades. The tilt has had familiar consequences: the proliferation on campus of “safe spaces”, trigger warnings, de-platforming of conservative voices and a “cancel culture” aimed at professors and students who do not conform to an on-campus political orthodoxy that has become increasingly totalitarian. 
Most recently, the dean University of Massachusetts Lowell’s School of Nursing, Leslie Neal-Boylan, was fired by the school after writing “Black lives matter, but also everyone’s life matters” in an email to students and faculty.
When citizens stop voicing their concerns in public about current events, policies and ideas out of fear that they will lose their livelihoods and social standing, it is — or should be — a huge problem in a democracy.
A democratic society of fearful citizens who dare not speak about what is on their minds — often important issues of their time — is doomed to succumb to the will of those who bully the hardest and shout the loudest.
 
A recent survey of 2,000 Americans by Cato Institute/YouGov found that 62% of Americans say “the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive”. This is up from 2017, when 58% agreed with this statement. “Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share”.
People who defined themselves as staunch liberals self-censored considerably less:
“Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe”.
And express themselves in relative safety and with blanket immunity from criticism, as The MSM and academia will side with and agree with them.
If truly representative, the numbers are chilling: The US nominally enshrines the most far-reaching freedom of speech, thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yet the average number of Americans who self-censor is slowly beginning to approximate that of Germany, where a survey on self-censorship a year ago concluded:
 
“Nearly two-thirds of citizens are convinced that ‘today one
has to be very careful on which topics one expresses oneself’, because there
are many unwritten laws about what opinions are acceptable and
admissible”.
 
The difference, however, is that Germany has some of the most draconian hate speech laws in Europe. The US does not have any hate speech laws.
“Nearly a third (32%) of employed Americans say they are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known”, according to the Cato survey.
 
“Americans across the political spectrum share these concerns: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates, and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory… Those with the highest levels of education are most concerned. Almost half (44%) of Americans with post‐​graduate degrees say they are worried their careers could be harmed if others discovered their political opinions, compared to 34% of college graduates, 28% of those with some college experience, and 25% of high school graduates”.
 
There is a noticeable difference between highly educated Democrats and highly educated Republicans: “About a quarter of Republicans with high school degrees (27%) or some college (26%) worry their political opinions could harm them at work—but this number increases to 40% among Republican college graduates and 60% of those with post‐​graduate degrees”.
 
The survey also found that younger Americans under 30 were more concerned than older Americans that their political opinions could harm their careers.
That young people especially are afraid to speak their minds — the survey suggests this is because they “have spent more time in America’s universities” — is particularly worrying for the future robustness of American democracy. It is, however, not surprising. American campuses have steered a “leftist” course for decades. The tilt has had familiar consequences: the proliferation on campus of “safe spaces”, trigger warnings, de-platforming of conservative voices and a”cancel culture” aimed at professors and students who do not conform to an on-campus political orthodoxy that has become increasingly totalitarian.
 
A salient quotation is from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, in chapter VIV,  pp. 692-3, Bobbs-Merrill (1962), in which Ellsworth Toohey,  the main, villain explains one method of gaining power over  men:
 
”…The world of the future. The world I want. A world of obedience and unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor. Who’ll have no thought – and so on.  Around the globe.  Since all must agree with all… Not judgment, but public polls…
All must agree with all. Or do not question the majority and the consensus.
 
Toohey, of course, has designs to become a dictator;  he is a totalitarian through and through.
 
Does not Toohey’s description reflect the pandemic world now, the world of masks and social distancing, in which more and more “safe” individuals echo their neighbors’ thoughts about the alleged perils of CODIV-19, or that Trump has not done enough to stem its spread, or that he has encouraged its spread?
 
Do not many people now second guess another masked person’s thoughts on “community” responsibility, and what anyone is doing to “fight” the virus, such as disfiguring themselves to conform? Do not more people judge the virus scare to be a hoax to control them, but defer their public but private judgment for fear of disagreeing with the consensus? Dare they judge?
 
How many people now have the bravery to blame the Communist Chinese government with creating the WUHAN virus?
 
Most recently, the dean of University of Massachusetts Lowell’s School of Nursing, Leslie Neal-Boylan, was fired by the school after writing “Black lives matter, but also everyone’s life matters” in an email to students and faculty.
Cancel culture has moved from campus into American society. The topics no longer acceptable as legitimate subjects of unconditionally free and open public debate keep growing: Race, gender, the merits of Western history and civilization, and climate change currently top the list of taboo subjects.  In addition, there are uncountable words and concepts that are no longer considered legitimate, even names of food products. Those who publicly offer dissenting views on any of these issues risk immediate “cancellation”, especially since the killing of George Floyd and the beginning of the Black Lives Matter protests across the US, as reported by Gatestone. Cato’s poll is more evidence that the chilling effects that these “cancellations” have on people are severe and should not be underestimated.
 
When citizens stop voicing their concerns in public about current events, policies and ideas out of fear that they will lose their livelihoods and social standing, it is — or should be — a huge problem in a democracy. The free exchange of opinions and ideas is the bedrock of free and healthy democracies worthy of their name. How much speech can you shut down — and how many people can you “cancel”– before public discourse is destroyed altogether?
Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
——————————————————————————
Blogger’s note: Text in bold are my asides and comments, not the author’s.  I own the statuette pictured above; it is “  “Sun Child,” by Kurt Tutter,  for Lorenz Hutschen Reuther.  I saved it during the ’89 San Francisco earthquake. 

Social Justice