JUNE 4 AND 5, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


LIKE IT OR LUMP IT, THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE GAY WEDDING CAKE. I’M SURE SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD HAPPILY BAKE THE CAKE, BUT IT’S A VERY BAD PRECEDENT. WE COULD BE BACK TO THE SIGNS ON THE FRONT DOOR OF ESTABLISHMENTS SAYING “WHITES ONLY,” AND FROM THE WAY THE SOCIETAL DRIFT LOOKS RIGHT NOW, VERY QUICKLY.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=844b7296-50a4-11e5-8d53-fa163e2c24a6&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple
Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
Reuters • June 4, 2018

5 PHOTOGRAPHS -- Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood
Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado U.S. September 21, 2017. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

Related Searches
Supreme Court NewsUnited States Supreme CourtSupreme Court JusticesSupreme Court Gambling

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

The baker case became a cultural flashpoint in the United States, underscoring the tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory. The couple's supporters noted that the ruling embraced the importance of gay rights and made it clear that businesses open to the public must serve everyone. The baker's lawyers said the ruling emphasized that the government must respect religious beliefs.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy said the state commission's hostility toward religion "was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

In one exchange at a 2014 hearing before the commission cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."

Kennedy said the commission ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

Republican President Donald Trump's administration, which intervened in the case in support of Phillips, welcomed the ruling. "The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

'MORAL AND RELIGIOUS REASONS'

The decision made it clear that even if the court ultimately rules in a future case that bakers or other businesses that sell creative products such as florists and wedding photographers can avoid punishment under anti-discrimination laws, most businesses open to the public would have no such defense.

Kennedy wrote that any ruling in favor of creative professionals must be "sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

Of the 50 states, 21 including Colorado have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote.

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught.

They filed a successful complaint with the state commission, the first step in the six-year-old legal battle. State courts sided with the couple, prompting Phillips to appeal to the top U.S. court.

"Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," the couple, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

Mullins and Craig said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Phillips and others like him who believe that gay marriage is inconsistent with their Christian beliefs have said they should not be required to effectively endorse the practice.

"Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that," said lawyer Kristen Waggoner of the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Phillips.

Phillips himself was not available for comment.

The litigation, along with similar cases around the country, is part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling.

The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices on Thursday are set to consider whether to hear an appeal filed by a flower shop owner in Washington state who refused to create an arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding based on her Christian beliefs.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)



PRIVACY AS A “GATEKEEPER,” IS A NEW NOTION FOR ME. “IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT PRIVACY ACTS AS A GATEKEEPER TO OTHER RIGHTS.” I HAD NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MUCH BEFORE, THOUGH THE IDEA OF “THE GOVERNMENT” TRACKING OUR OPINIONS IS TRULY SCARY. I DO THINK OF IT, BUT AS “FREEDOM” MORE OFTEN THAN “RIGHTS.” THAT IS PROBABLY A “WHITE” WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT, UNFORTUNATELY. FREEDOM OFTEN MEANS “MY WAY.” THAT’S LAZY THINKING ON MY PART, OF COURSE. I’LL TRY FROM NOW FORWARD TO CORRECT IT.

I DO WONDER IF FACEBOOK HAS ACTUALLY STOPPED ABSOLUTELY ANY USE OF OUR PRIVATE DATA? PROBABLY NOT. THE WHOLE PROCESS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, AND THE OWNERS OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC MIND IN SUCH AN UNDERHANDED WAY, AS THEY DID IN 2016, SHOULD BE FORCED TO FACE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, IF THERE IS SUCH A LAW; AND IF THERE ISN’T, WE SHOULD MAKE ONE. OF COURSE, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE, TO SHIELD THE OWNERS FROM SHARING THE BLAME. OF COURSE, A WIDELY BASED BOYCOTT OF THEM AND THEIR PRODUCTS CAN DO THAT IF THEY ARE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA IS ALREADY OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT I’M NOT SURE FACEBOOK IS FACING ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES, YET. SEE THE INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THIS SUBJECT BELOW.

https://theconversation.com/cambridge-analytica-is-more-than-a-data-breach-its-a-human-rights-problem-96601
Cambridge Analytica is more than a data breach – it’s a human rights problem
June 4, 2018 10.03am EDT

The closure of Cambridge Analytica following the revelations about its use of Facebook data not only points to the need for greater business regulation. It also highlights the importance of thinking more about how people can bring human rights claims in cases like these.

The right to a remedy is often overlooked. That’s at least in part because it’s difficult to understand the extent of the harm caused by incidents like the kind involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Data breaches are fairly common events, so companies can downplay their seriousness. Consumers, for their part, may have started to see such breaches as normal too. The harm is not immediately tangible and therefore can feel less real.

However, in incidents like these, the implications for human rights are serious and pervasive. The harm caused by data breaches is often framed as “just” privacy, as if a breach of privacy is not important. But it’s hard to see how accessing and sharing people’s private thoughts and opinions without meaningful consent isn’t [sic] a very serious act.

It’s also important to remember that privacy acts as a gatekeeper to other rights. Users’ rights to freedom of thought and opinion and assembly and association are put at risk by allowing their private information to be used against them in an effort to influence their views – including their political opinions. This has serious implications for the functioning of democracy.

In these types of situations, the risks to human rights are even greater if data are made accessible or even sold to third parties. Once out there, people’s data could be fed into algorithms to help companies and states make decisions about them. That could be whether or not to grant them a mortgage, provide health insurance or whether a person gets bail when arrested. People’s human rights could be at perpetual risk once their data has been shared, potentially “without them* even knowing it.”

Making a claim

Under international human rights law, people have a right to make a claim when they have an arguable case that their rights have been violated. If successful, the United Nations says they are entitled to a remedy “capable of ending ongoing violations” as well as measures such as apologies, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition in order to ensure that violations don’t happen again.

This means that companies need to offer processes that address the human rights dimensions to a complaint. States also need to ensure that there are bodies, like courts and ombudspersons, available to hear complaints and that victims are supported in bringing a claim, for example, through legal aid.

Cambridge Analytica’s offices have now closed. EPA/Andy Rain

However, the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica incident reveals the significant obstacles people face in claiming their rights. As part of the debate on regulation of technology companies, these obstacles merit more attention and need to be addressed.

Victims can only bring a claim if they know their rights have been put at risk. Facebook reportedly knew of the situation in 2015 and claims that it sought assurances from Cambridge Analytica that the data had been deleted. However, users were only notified once investigative journalists broke the story years later. These delays could in themselves be seen as a human rights issue. States and businesses should be under a clear obligation to promptly notify people if their rights have been potentially affected so that they can bring a claim.

Ending ongoing violations is also tricky in a case like this. If data has been accessed, shared or sold to third parties, deleting the initial data set will not put a stop to its use further along the chain. Tracing the journey of data is difficult, particularly if it has been combined with other data sets. This again highlights the need for regulation to prevent these situations from occurring in the first place.

Ascertaining the data journey and whether, how and what decisions have been made on the basis of the data is critical for assessing the level of harm and compensation that should be awarded. Where the data journey cannot be fully traced –- and therefore deleted – the perpetuation of ongoing harm can continue into the future, potentially without end. Compensation should therefore not only focus on harm that can be identified already but also take into account potential future harm where the data is still out there.

Even if all these issues were addressed, the case of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook highlights the problems of companies closing down. As the chair of the House of Commons Select Committee for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already noted, it’s crucial that the Cambridge Analytica closure does not result in the destruction of data until investigations are complete; otherwise the level of harm and who is accountable will be difficult to determine.


I FEEL COMPELLED TO MENTION A RELATIVELY IGNORANT WORD USE ABOVE; OTHERWISE THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE IN MY VIEW. SO HERE GOES. "WITHOUT THEM* EVEN KNOWING IT.” THE ONLY USE FOR “WITHOUT THEM” IS TO MEAN SOMETHING LIKE “WE WENT SHOPPING WITHOUT THEM.”

THE REASON I LABELED THIS WITH “SIC,” IS BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A DIFFERENT WORD AND MEANING, RATHER THAN A MISSPELLING, THOUGH IT IS COMMONLY CONFUSED AND MISUSED IN ORDINARY SPEECH. THE PROPER WORD TO USE IS THE POSSESSIVE, “THEIR.” IT’S THE SAME AS SAYING “THEIR KNOWLEDGE.” I’LL BET “THE BRITS” DON’T MAKE THIS MISTAKE NEARLY AS OFTEN AS WE DO, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH SCHOOL. SOME OF THE CORRECT ENGLISH PHRASES ARE CUMBERSOME AND/OR POINTLESSLY FINICKY, LIKE STICKING YOUR PINKY OUT WHILE DRINKING YOUR COFFEE OR TEA, AND WE THEREFORE IGNORE THEM, JUST AS WE DROP ALL THOSE “OUR” SPELLINGS AND USE “OR” INSTEAD, SUCH AS IN “NEIGHBOR VS NEIGHBOUR.”

WORSE STILL, SOME OF OUR SOCIALLY FINICKY SPEECH IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT, FOR INSTANCE “AREN’T I?” I HATE THAT BECAUSE IT’S A SOMEWHAT UNEDUCATED PERSON’S WAY OF TRYING TO BE “HOITY TOITY,” WHICH ALWAYS ANNOYS ME ANYWAY; AND IT THEREFORE IS RIDICULOUS AS WELL AS WRONG. IT’S WRONG BECAUSE SUBJECT AND PREDICATE MUST AGREE IN FORM AND NUMBER, OR SO I WAS TAUGHT, AND NOBODY WOULD SAY “ARE I.” THAT'S THE BEST AND SIMPLEST WAY TO TEST A PHRASE LIKE THAT FOR CORRECTNESS. JUST SAY IT OUT LOUD, AND IF IT "SOUNDS WRONG," IT LIKELY IS. SO THEN, BEFORE USING IT IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS, GO TO GOOGLE AND TYPE THE PHRASE IN ON THE SEARCH LINE. ARE IS PLURAL AND I IS SINGULAR. THE REAL PHRASE IS “AM I NOT,” [SHORTENED TO “AIN’T”] AND THAT’S “CUMBERSOME,” SO WE AS AMERICANS AVOID IT. WE ARE STRICTLY TOLD NEVER TO SAY “AIN’T.” DUE TO MY UNDERCLASS BACKGROUND, THOUGH, I DO USE AIN’T TO EMPHASIZE THINGS. I THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M DOING.

THERE IS ONE “BRITISHISM” THAT I USUALLY DON’T SAY, AND THAT IS “ONE” THIS AND “ONE” THAT, WHEN WHAT WE REALLY MEAN IS “I.” TOTAL AVOIDANCE OF THE WORD “I” IS JUST SILLY TO ME, UNLESS THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SELFISHNESS INVOLVED. I SHOULD NEVER TRY TO SPEAK FOR ANOTHER PERSON IN VOICING THEIR OPINION WITHOUT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US. “WE METHODISTS DO TAKE COMMUNION,” FOR INSTANCE, ALTHOUGH I FEEL SURE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME METHODISTS WHO ESCHEW THAT ANCIENT PAGAN CEREMONY. (ON THE OTHER HAND, I LOVE THE WORD “ESCHEW,” SO I USE IT WITH JOY, BECAUSE IT LOOKS AND SOUNDS SO FUNNY TO ME -- A LOT LIKE "ACHOO!")

“ONE” MEANS “TO A MAN,” OR THAT “EVERYBODY” DOES IT, WHEN THE TRUE CASE IS THAT MOST OFTEN THOSE WHO SAY THAT MEAN “EVERYBODY IN OUR SOCIAL CLASS” DOES THIS OR THAT, OR SIMPLY “I” DO IT-- A GOOD HONEST PERSONAL STATEMENT. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. IT’S ONE OF THOSE “HOITY TOITY” SPEECH PATTERNS, THAT DIVIDES “OUR” SOCIAL CLASS FROM “THEIRS.” I DO USE “WE” WHEN I MEAN MORE THAN JUST MYSELF, AND ESPECIALLY IF I REALLY
DO MEAN “EVERYONE.” IT DOESN’T AGREE IN NUMBER OF COURSE, IF I'M REALLY REFERRING ONLY TO MYSELF, BUT IT SOUNDS INCLUSIVE AND BEAUTIFUL, SO IT DOESN’T BOTHER ME.

ALONG THESE SOCIAL CLASS LINES, WHICH WE ALL ARE SOMEWHAT INVOLVED WITH IN THIS COUNTRY, TO SEE A REALLY FUNNY BRITISH COMEDY, WATCH “KEEPING UP APPEARANCES,” ABOUT THIS CLASH OF SOCIAL CLASSES, WHICH DIDN’T START IN THE USA, BUT IN ENGLAND, OR MORE LIKELY BACK IN TRULY ANCIENT TIMES. THAT GREAT TELEVISION COMEDY CAREFULLY AVOIDS ISSUES OF RACE OR RELIGION, SO IT DOESN’T HAVE THAT UGLINESS TO IT, TO THE BEST OF MY MEMORY, AND I CERTAINLY DON’T MISS THAT ELEMENT. AMOS AND ANDY HAS BEEN OVERDONE ALREADY, AND IT WAS ALWAYS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY. IN THIS SHOW, THE WRITERS DO NOT MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, IN OTHER WORDS, SO THAT’S FINE WITH ME. THE LEAD ACTRESS, DAME PATRICIA ROUTLEDGE IS A MAGNIFICENT COMEDIENNE WHO REMINDS ME A GOOD DEAL OF LUCILLE BALL, BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DOING ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS THINGS TO GET A LAUGH, AND DO IT SPECTACULARLY WELL.

TO WATCH IT, GO TO: “KEEPING UP APPEARANCES YOUTUBE.”



THIS NEXT ARTICLE IS ABOUT TRUMP AND THE RULE OF LAW, AND HOW THAT TERM VARIES IN ITS’ INTERPRETATIONS. AS WITH RICHARD NIXON AND KING GEORGE III, THIS IS THE KEY ELEMENT OF WHY TRUMP IS SO UNPOPULAR AMONG LIBERALS AND POPULAR AMONG CONSERVATIVES. HE TENDS STRONGLY TOWARD DOMINANCE OF ONE GROUP OVER ANOTHER, AND OF THE HEAD OF STATE ABOVE ALL OTHERS.

AS THE ARTICLE BELOW PUTS IT, “INDEED, THE WORLD MAY BE WITNESSING LESS AN OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF DEMOCRACY AND MORE A SUBTLE MOVE BY MANY ELECTED LEADERS TO CONCENTRATE POWER IN AUTHORITARIAN WAYS.” TO ME THIS, TO USE ONE OF MY FAVORITE STATEMENTS, IS “A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE,” AND PHRASED MORE POINTEDLY, PERHAPS, “A COUP BY ELECTION.” IT’S CLEAR TO ME THAT TO SOFT-SOAP WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS A MISTAKE BY THE DECENT AMERICANS AND A PASSIVE WEAK-KNEED COLLAPSE OF OUR GROUP BACKBONE. WE HAVE BECOME SO TIMID IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE CAN’T STAND UP TO ANYTHING.

LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT “RULE OF LAW” MEANS, UNFORTUNATELY, IS THE IDEA OF OUTRIGHT AND EVEN GLEEFUL ABUSE OF PEOPLE TO THE POINT OF SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH OF CERTAIN CAREFULLY SELECTED GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO DEFINE THE AMERICAN UNDERCLASS. MAINTAINING OR ALLOWING THE DENIGRATION OF ANY GROUP IS DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE IDEA OF DEMOCRATIC OR FAIR GOVERNMENT, AND THE PRIMARY REASON THAT TRUMP IS LITERALLY HATED.

OUR WORST PROBLEM, WHICH HAS SWOLLEN INTO A VERY LARGE ONE SINCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, IS THAT THE EPITOME OF HUMAN HORROR OF THE 1930S AND 40S IS UPON US AGAIN. A RACIALLY AND CULTURALLY TORN SOCIETY LIKE THIS MAY WELL DESTROY US; AND THE LEADER WE HAVE NOW IS, IN MY VIEW, A WANTON CREATURE. IT’S JUST THE FORMULA FOR ANOTHER RUPTURE OF WHO AND WHAT WE ARE. THE AUTOCRATIC VIEWPOINT IS EQUALLY POPULAR AND UNPOPULAR IN AMERICAN SOCIETY, ACCORDING WHAT GROUP WE BELONG TO.

THE RACIALLY BASED PLACEMENT OF ALL WHITES NO MATTER THEIR TRUE EDUCATION, PERSONAL HONOR OR ECONOMIC STATUS ABOVE ALL PEOPLES WHOSE SKIN HAPPENS TO BE DARKER -- EVEN THOUGH IT’S BY A SMALL DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE IN MANY CASES -- IS SO DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN AMERICAN THOUGHT THAT THOSE OF US WHO HAPPEN TO BE “WHITES,” BUT LIBERAL RATHER THAN CONSERVATIVE, CAN BARELY DISCERN OUR OWN PERSONAL PREJUDICES AGAINST THOSE “OTHERS” AS BEING, IMPORTANTLY, OUR OWN “WHITE PRIVILEGE.” IT’S HARD TO CONVINCE US THAT WE EVEN HAVE “WHITE PRIVILEGE,” IN MANY CASES, OR IN OTHERS, WE SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT IT’S OUR DUE. I HAD NEVER HEARD THE TERM UNTIL ABOUT A YEAR AGO. IT’S HARD TO FIGHT THE PROBLEM WHEN WE ARE A PART OF IT.

PART OF OUR OVERARCHING PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT WE, AS A PEOPLE, TOO RARELY TAKE THE TIME AND ENERGY TO DO SOME EDUCATIONAL READING OR TO THINK DEEPLY ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL. THAT ISN’T JUST OUR THICK SKINS, BUT OUR THICK SKULLS AS WELL. WE INTEND NOT TO LEARN ANYTHING, SO WE CAN’T. FOR INSTANCE, WHY DID I GET A PASS ON THAT TRAFFIC TICKET? WAS THAT REALLY “FAIR,” AND DOES IT MATTER? NOW THE CLINCHER, DO I CARE? I PERSONALLY REALLY DO CARE, AND WE VERY MUCH DO NEED TO MOVE IN ANOTHER PATH.

AS A RESULT, WE TEND TO STAND BACK AND WATCH OR EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THE MISTREATMENT WHEN A PERSON IS SCAPEGOATED OUTRIGHTLY OR SIMPLY TREATED WITH BIAS IN ONE SITUATION OR ANOTHER. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED IN ONE RESTAURANT OR ANOTHER AS LONG AS THEY EAT? WHAT IF THEY DON’T EAT? “IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM.”

THE SAME ARGUMENT MOTIVATES DECISIONS BETWEEN THE WEALTHY AND THE POOR, WITH AN UNDERLYING BELIEF THAT THE INTELLIGENT AND GOOD PEOPLE WILL GET THE MOST MONEY, AND THAT THE VERY WEALTHY ARE SIMPLY DESERVING OF HONOR, WEALTH, POWER, GREAT LIVING CONDITIONS, PLENTY OF EXCELLENT FOOD, ETC. ETC. ETC. THEY ALSO ARE NOT MORALLY BOUND TO SHARE ANY OF THAT WEALTH, AND SHOULDN’T’ BE LEGALLY CONSTRAINED TO DO SO. THAT’S WHY LIBERAL AND SOCIALIST THOUGHT ARE SO THOROUGHLY HATED BY TOO MANY OF THE UPPER-CLASSED PEOPLE AND MOST OF THE WHITES OF ALL FINANCIAL GROUPS.

THIS ARTICLE DELVES INTO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “THE RULE OF LAW” OVER THE “RULE OF PEOPLE;” OR AS THE AUTHOR PUTS IT, TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT THE RULE OF LAW ACTUALLY MEANS. WE LIBERALS WANT THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION TO TREAT PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS WHO ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW; WHEREAS IN TRUMP’S VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE HEAD OF STATE IS LARGELY EXEMPT FROM THE RULE OF LAW, OR SIMPLY PUT, “A STRONG LEADER.” TO ME, THAT JUST MEANS THAT THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY IS EQUAL TREATMENT, AND A HEAD OF STATE WHO IS DEFINITELY NOT A “RULER.” I’LL NEVER FORGET A QUOTATION OF RICHARD NIXON’S BACK IN THE ‘70S WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE “REIGN” OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. THAT USE OF TERMS WAS AS BAD AS CLINTON’S “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES,” AND ALL TOO SIMILAR. AS A LAWYER, THEY BOTH SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. WHAT THE “CONSERVATIVES” DON’T SEEM TO THINK ABOUT (UNTIL ELECTION TIME) IS THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, IF NOT A HUGE ONE, REALLY DESPISE THAT KIND OF THINKING. DONALD TRUMP MAY WIN RIGHT NOW, BUT HE WILL LOSE HUGELY IN 2020, I BELIEVE, IF NOT SOONER.

https://theconversation.com/trump-may-believe-in-the-rule-of-law-just-not-the-one-understood-by-most-american-lawyers-97757
Trump may believe in the rule of law, just not the one understood by most American lawyers
June 5, 2018 9.49am EDT

PHOTOGRAPH – DONALD TRUMP SPEAKING AP

Donald Trump’s June 4 tweet suggesting he could pardon himself in the event that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation brings charges drew outrage among critics, part of mounting and long-standing concern about the president’s disrespect for “the rule of law.”


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

8:35 AM - Jun 4, 2018
84.4K
79.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Many prominent lawmakers, law professors and journalists, among others, see the administration flouting this cornerstone value of American legal politics.

But what is the rule of law?

As a lawyer and political scientist who studies this question in diverse Arab countries and elsewhere, I can affirm that the answer is not obvious. The rule of law means a variety of things within and across countries. And they are not always consistent.

This helps make sense of the fact that Trump and some of his supporters may actually endorse one version of the rule of law. If this is controversial in the U.S., because it’s because [sic] Trump’s version is more dominant in nondemocratic political systems.

Meanings of the rule of law

Like “democracy” or “equality,” the rule of law is a popular ideal, but not always a clear one. For this reason, United Nations officials have tried to define it. Prominent organizations like the World Bank have measured it through basic indices, or complex criteria, such as civil rights, order and security, constraints on government power and absence of corruption.

Yet using an appealing phrase to describe different social phenomena can have real political consequences.

The “rule of law” has at least two broad definitions that exist in obvious tension.

One is a dominant dogma of American political history, as conveyed by Founding Father John Adams’ succinct phrase: “a government of laws, not men.” The idea here is basic. Government leaders, like all citizens, should not be above the law, but rather bound by it. This means, for example, that a U.S. senator who extorts money is no more immune to being charged with this crime than an ordinary American.

A second possible meaning, in tension with the first one but present in democracies nonetheless, is that law ensures that people obey government.

Law over leaders

Let’s first consider the rule of law as John Adams and the U.S. Constitution’s framers defined it.

The U.S. Constitution and courts’ mandate to review specific laws defines the rule of law as a value and set of procedures that provide legal protection to all Americans. The framers of the Constitution stressed in Federalist 78 the need for judges with autonomy from politics who could defend fundamental citizen rights. Equality under the law was popularized as a foundation of the rule of law in the wider English-speaking world by the 19th century.

A carving reads ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

This has not meant that all Americans, in fact, enjoy equal legal resources. Nor has it prevented powerful individuals or groups from using laws to their advantage. Nonetheless, institutions that enforce the idea that legal rules and procedures bind everyone, including leaders, are central to the U.S. and other countries. The expectation that rules will be applied to everyone also underpins contemporary international law.

The rule of law, understood as laws over leaders, takes on added significance in the U.S. Here, a comparatively large proportion of people become lawyers. In turn, many lawyers become bureaucrats and politicians. American leaders with legal training are educated to focus on specific rules, procedures and a close reading of legal texts.

Because of this, many government officials and members of the private and public-interest law firms who rotate in and out of government care about details of legal rules, procedures and transparency. A leader like Trump, whose tweets denigrate the neutrality of American judges, who refuses to submit to the same expectations of his peers or other citizens, who appears to interfere with an important legal inquiry and who argues that he has an absolute right to pardon himself, raises the hackles of other lawyers and politicians.

Many Americans who are trained in the importance of the autonomy of laws will mistrust a leader who seems not to respect such autonomy.

Thus, it was not surprising that as soon as Trump became president, lawyers mobilized against an executive attitude that demeans their sense of the rule of law. As Trump and his legal team make increasingly broad claims about executive power, lawyers continue to object.

Law and order

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer arrests an immigrant in San Clemente, California. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Trump and some supporters appear to embrace a different understanding of the rule of law. The president has in fact stated his dedication to the rule of law. Some argue that his leadership on certain issues, such as enforcing immigration law, has confirmed this commitment. This is not merely a case of alternative media. It underscores the importance of multiple meanings for the rule of law.

Trump seems to view the rule of law as deference to political authority and efficient law enforcement. This includes institutions that execute laws, which might be summarized as “cops, courts and clinks” (jails).

Part of candidate Trump’s appeal was his repeated charge that people in the U.S. who broke the law, particularly undocumented immigrants, were inadequately policed. Since taking office, he has stressed enhancing police power and loyalty to authority, especially his own.

This is hardly a fringe meaning of the rule of law. Efficient enforcement and state order are critical components of a legal system that also embraces citizens’ rights and protections. Yet these two key facets of the rule of law don’t always sit well together.

Strong policing can accompany denial of equal protection to suspected criminals, patterns of brutality and racism. Leaders’ natural interest in strong and efficient law enforcement and citizen loyalty can override their legal accountability.

Different political systems strike different balances with this tension. This helps explain Trump’s fondness for claiming presidential immunity from most criminal prosecution and some conflict-of-interest standards. This, and his impatience with protest and criticism against him, appear to show that the president cares about law as a tool to bolster his authority, rather than to enhance ordinary Americans’ rights.

The world is certainly seeing a trend toward leaders like Egypt’s President Sisi and Turkey’s President Erdogan, who wish to control law, rather than subordinate themselves to it.

Trump, and Americans who consider him a strong leader, likely believe in the rule of law, as they understand it. The controversy among many lawyers is that the level to which the new administration elevates efficiency, enforcement and executive privilege tramples their dominant sense of the rule of law as government by laws, not people.

Growing conflicts between the Trump administration and a range of lawyers, judges and activists stem, in part, from each side invoking real, contestable concepts of the rule of law.

Naturally, even if Trump and some supporters share a genuine belief in the rule of law as enforcement and order, this does not justify acts he may have taken that violate American laws. It should nevertheless serve as a reminder that using complex concepts like the rule of law without context or nuance may make it much harder to understand genuine political disagreements.

Indeed, the world may be witnessing less an outright rejection of democracy and more a subtle move by many elected leaders to concentrate power in authoritarian ways. With Trump’s appreciation of leaders with strong power, and the possibility of a constitutional crisis over the Mueller investigation, it is particularly important to clarify whether Trump’s idea of the rule of law matches up with most Americans’ sense of this important, but slippery, term.



THIS ARTICLE IS LESS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY THAN ABOUT LAW AND ILLEGALITY, AND I BELIEVE IN THIS ONE CASE, MUELLER HAS FOUND ANOTHER SERIOUS SITUATION TO SET ALONGSIDE MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC., AND THAT TO THE DEGREE THAT TRUMP HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, HE WILL BE BLAMED AS WELL.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/muellers-team-accuses-manafort-witness-tampering-010919309--politics.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=dbb2094c-7d9a-37c0-96b9-7f844af62e78&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Mueller's team accuses Paul Manafort of witness tampering
Associated Press
Chad Day and Eric Tucker, Associated Press
Associated Press June 4, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- FILE - In this Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves Federal District Court, in Washington. Prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller are accusing former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of making several attempts to tamper with witnesses in his ongoing criminal cases. Mueller’s team says in a new court filing that Manafort and one of his associates made several attempts to contact two witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony while he was on house arrest earlier this year. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort made several attempts to tamper with witnesses in his ongoing criminal cases, prosecutors said Monday as they asked a federal judge to consider revoking his house arrest.

In a court filing, prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller wrote that Manafort and one of his associates "repeatedly" contacted two witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony. The contacts occurred earlier this year, shortly after a grand jury returned a new indictment against Manafort and while he was confined to his home.

Court documents do not name Manafort's associate, but they refer to him as "Person A" and note the pseudonym is consistent with previous filings in the case. In earlier filings, Person A has referred to Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort associate who prosecutors have said has ties to Russian intelligence.

The two witnesses are also not named in court filings. But prosecutors say they worked with Manafort in organizing a group of former European officials, known as the Hapsburg Group, who promoted Ukrainian interests in Europe as well as the U.S.

According to the court filing, Manafort began messaging and calling one of the witnesses in February shortly after a federal grand jury in Washington returned a superseding indictment against him that included allegations of unregistered lobbying related to the Hapsburg Group.

Manafort messaged and called one of the witnesses the day after his co-defendant and business partner, Rick Gates, pleaded guilty and continued reaching out over the next several days, according to a sworn affidavit filed by an FBI agent in the case.

In one call, the agent wrote, Manafort said he wanted to give the person a "heads-up about Hapsburg." The individual then hung up "because he was concerned about the outreach," according to the affidavit.

On Feb. 26, Manafort sent the person a series of messages through an encrypted application, including a link to a Business Insider story with the headline: "Former European leaders struggle to explain themselves after Mueller claims Paul Manafort paid them to lobby for Ukraine." Another message said, "We should talk. I have made clear that they worked in Europe."

The person told investigators that he interpreted Manafort's efforts to reach him as a way to influence his potential statements. The person believed from his experience that the Hapsburg Group lobbied in the United States and knew that Manafort knew that as well, the agent wrote.

Manafort faces several felony charges in two federal cases. He has pleaded not guilty.

___

Day reported from Alexandria, Virginia.