I’m confused. Is occupying and disrupting the seats of legislations right or wrong? Democratic or undemocratic? Son of the lawyer that I am I’m predisposed to think it’s always wrong and undemocratic. Does it depend on circumstances?
I’m confused. Is occupying and disrupting the seats of legislations right or wrong? Democratic or undemocratic? Son of the lawyer that I am I’m predisposed to think it’s always wrong and undemocratic. Does it depend on circumstances?
We had plenty of protesters break into capitals over covid recently. Did you cover those? Dont remember. Regardless, I think there is a right to protest. Its crosses a line when the protestors enter a capital, but as long as they are just noisy, dont threaten to hurt anyone (or hurt anyone) or destroy property and it is kept short its not really the end of the world. If you are referring to the TN legislators I think what they did was wrong/stupid but hardly rose to the level of expulsion. A body that tolerates the bad behaviors reported in their past can tolerate a couple of minutes of disruption.
Really, all that happened was a few people were affronted. However, a much larger affront to democracy was a single judge overruling evidence and experience to single handedly outlaw a very safe drug that we have lots of experience with and lots of literature. Note that the judge’s primary source of evidence was a blog with anonymous postings by 54 people. That outweighed the studies involving over 100,000 people. Nice take down of decision by former Scalia clerk.
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/mifepristone-and-the-rule-of-law-9c4/comments
Steve
That sounds lie a good rule of thumb. I agree that what the “TN 3” did was wrong and stupid. I also think that the expulsion of two of them at the very least had racial undertones if not outright racist.
However, I find lionizing them as is presently going on in some circles is highly problematic.
On the subject of the judge’s decision on Mifprestone, I have no opinion other than I think it should work its way through the courts. The only question the courts should consider is what is the law rather than what the correct policy is.
I am moderately surprised as you sometimes seem unhappy with over reach of government or its officials. This was an egregiously awful decision based on nothing that would be considered evidence except for grade schoolers and people with an agenda. Counting the number of anonymous posts that use the word “but” at a site that is explicitly anti-abortion is not any kind of evidence. All while ignoring the hundreds of published papers showing safety. Working its way through the courts could take months or years.
With that quality of evidence what’s to stop a judge from ordering basically any medicine banned? Suppose they go after contraceptives? We know that a lot of people are opposed to them based on religious belief. Psychiatric drugs? There are groups that oppose their use. Suppose in the middle of the pandemic someone decided they didnt think we should intubate people. I am sure you remember that controversy. All ti would take is one sympathetic judge. The only evidence they would need is some blog where anonymous people claimed to be nurses or doctors saying bad things about intubation. An incredible amount of power has been invested into these judges with little accountability or control. They can just ignore any norms when it comes evidence.
Steve
I believe in the rule of law. If you don’t like the law, lobby to get it changed.
My view is that a single judge should not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions as a matter of principle.
The problem in reality – like is the case with a lot of partisanship – is that few hold this as an actual principle. Instead many like the injunction power when used against things they don’t like and hate it when used against things they do like.
It’s like Executive authority. When it’s your President, exercises of dubious Executive authority are justified, when it’s not your President, they are terrible.
We are often a nation of narcissists without principles.
I wholeheartedly agree with Andy’s post in it’s entirety.
My question is whether a single judge should have that authority as a matter of law. Perhaps we’ll find out.
I dont think a single judge should but that’s a lesser issue. If a panel of 3 judges made the same decision with the same level of evidence we have a problem.
Steve