Columnist.
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt was recently decided 5-3 by the U.S. Supreme Court. It struck down the Texas legislature's regulations requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as any other Texas ambulatory surgical center and to have their physicians obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The court majority caved in to the abortionists and ignored Texas' reasonable efforts to protect the safety of women choosing abortion. The court thus continued its unrelenting march away from the actual language of the Constitution, creating confusion and uncertainty in its wake. One former justice, Hugo Black, clearly saw the beginnings of this unfortunate journey a half century ago in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Black dissent was uncanny in its prediction of what would happen to a jurisprudence that concocted a new right — the right to privacy — which had no grounding in the Constitution itself.
Millennials are among the most avid supporters of the socialism promoted by Bernie Sanders. What is most remarkable is that there is ample evidence that socialist regimes bring untold economic harm to the very citizens who initially support them. My prior article on socialism in Venezuela discussed price controls and the life-threatening shortages that such controls bring. The other disastrous policy which socialist Venezuela has embraced is inflation of its money supply. Sadly, inflation is like taking a drug, its use requires larger and larger doses to produce the desired effect. Venezuela is now spiraling downward toward a hyper-inflationary overdose.
Many Millennials are finding socialism attractive — at least as presented by Bernie Sanders. This is perplexing because there is ample and dramatic evidence of how a full-fledged socialist state fails its own citizens so miserably. Witness Venezuela. Fifteen years under socialist Hugo Chavez followed by three years under his socialist successor, Nicolas Maduro, have left the economy in shambles and the living standards of Venezuelans falling to a level that can only be described as intolerable. Why and how does this happen in Venezuela or in any other country that embraces the false, deceitful, utopian promises of socialist politicians?
In a highly unusual move, the Supreme Court passed off the case of Zubic v. Burwell like a hot potato. It passed the case to the lower federal appeals courts. The high court, short by one justice due to the death of Antonin Scalia, was unwilling to address head-on the issues on the merits raised by the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious organizations. In fact, the opinion states that no determination is being made about whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is violated by Obamacare regulations which refuse to exempt certain religious entities from providing their employees with mandated contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia the Supreme Court is left with one chief justice and seven associate justices. President Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who was a Clinton appointee and clerked under liberal Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. Even before the nomination, the vacancy produced urgent calls for a replacement to be nominated based on claims that an eight-person court would not be "fully functioning," would "hamstring the judiciary," and would amount to "partisan understaffing." With Obama's nomination of Garland, the clamor for immediate action will increase.
Justice Antonin Scalia's death leaves the Supreme Court without one of its most courageous and colorful conservative legal minds. First, he was a staunch defender of the separation of powers, which, like the American founders, Justice Scalia saw as a bulwark against government tyranny. It made no difference to Scalia which branch's powers were being threatened by the encroachment of another branch. He relied upon the clear language of separation in the Constitution. The founders vested legislative power in Congress (Article I), executive power in the president (Article II), and judicial power in the Supreme Court (Article III). That unequivocal proclamation of separation is found in the first sentences of each article and Justice Scalia refused to allow it to be ignored.
The Obama administration's lack of understanding of the spiritual depth and commitment of private religious charities is shocking. The callousness of the federal effort to compel a noble Catholic religious order — the Little Sisters of the Poor — to forsake its faith commitments shows the depth of the intolerance of the behemoth secular state under President Obama. The story is one of courageousness on the part of the nuns of this religious order. Founded in France in 1839, the Little Sisters of the Poor has spread to many other countries, including the United States, with the charitable goal of giving aid and comfort to the poor. The Sisters take the normal vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but also add hospitality, which they extend to some of the "least of those in our midst."
U.S. labor unions have long been experiencing a decline. In 1954, union membership for both public and private sector employees combined peaked at 28.3 percent. Today only around 11 percent of all workers belong to unions. The overall rate of union membership would be much lower were it not for the public sector — teachers, police officers, other municipal workers — where the rate of union membership is considerably higher at nearly 36 percent. This higher rate among the public sector is why the outcome of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is a major concern for labor leaders.
Abigail Fisher applied for admission to the University of Texas at Austin (UT) as part of the entering class of 2008. Little did she know that being rejected for admission under UT's race-conscious program would bring her before the U.S. Supreme Court, not once, but twice. Fisher v. University of Texas II is scheduled to be heard in the court's new term. The outcome will shape college and university admissions policies nationwide.
The greatest contribution that the Founders made to the well-being of America was the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is appropriate that we talk about this document in a week when the Constitution is lauded. How is it that this document has endured with only a few amendments? The first 10 are usually viewed as part of the original document and two more — the 18th and the 21st — negated each other (prohibition and repeal). Another handful were easily justified: ending of slavery (13th Amendment); eliminating voting restriction based on race or sex (15th and 19th Amendments); limiting the tenure of the president to two terms (22nd Amendment); and providing for presidential succession (25th Amendment). Why has the basic structure of the document stayed intact?
