Court Ruling Protects Absolute Presidential Immunity from Congressional Investigation

The New York Times reports that an appeals court ruling holds that congress cannot sue to force executive branch officials to testify about anything. This ruling appears to provide absolute presidential immunity from any congressional investigation or inquiry. If that is the correct interpretation, and I hope it isn't, congress has no power to force any executive branch employee to answer any questions about anything. If that is the correct interpretation of this case, it constitutes a massive shift in power from congress to the executive branch.

None of the three judges on the case were appointed by the president. The full ruling is here.

The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight. 

In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.  

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.   

Judge Griffith said that Congress had political tools to induce presidents to negotiate and compromise in disputes over oversight demands for information about the government — like withholding appropriations or derailing the president’s legislative agenda — and that courts should not be involved. 

‘The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless,’ he wrote, adding, ‘Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.’” 

The dissenting judge, Judith W. Rogers, wrote this in her dissent:

“Today the court reaches the extraordinary conclusion that the House of Representatives, in the exercise of its “sole Power of Impeachment,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 5, lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena in connection with an investigation into whether to impeach the President. The House comes to the court in light of the President’s blanket and unprecedented order that no member of the Executive Branch shall comply with the subpoena duly issued by an authorized House Committee. Exercising jurisdiction over the Committee’s case is not an instance of judicial encroachment on the prerogatives of another Branch, because subpoena enforcement is a traditional and commonplace function of the federal courts. The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties. I respectfully dissent.” (emphasis added)

This country is in very deep trouble. The imperial presidency, above the law and unaccountable to congress, is rising before our very eyes. Our government is badly broken. It has ceased to function in anything other than broken ways.

SNOWFLAKES

Snowflake
A term for someone that thinks they are unique and special, but really are not. It gained popularity after the movie "Fight Club" from the quote “You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Began being used extensively as a putdown for someone, usually on the political left, who is easily offended or felt they needed a "safe space" away from the harsh realities of the world, but now has morphed into a general putdown for anyone that complains about any subject.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snowflake


Who are the real snowflakes: Liberals or conservatives?
#SnowflakeLibs
30.8%
A festive crown for the winner
#RightWingSnowflakes
69.2%

The Guardian described "snowflake" as "the defining insult of 2016." Originally from "Fight Club," conservatives began using the term to vilify liberals who decry microaggressions while demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings. But lefties have been hurling the insult back, saying right-wingers who make scenes over Starbucks cups are the thin-skinned ones. Do they not see the irony in complaining about their oppression and silencing in the New York Times? Who are the real snowflakes? ❄️️

The Arguments:
https://thetylt.com/politics/snowflakes-liberals-conservatives


Paul Krugman Breaks Down Why Conservatives Are The Real Snowflakes
“All that talk about liberal ‘snowflakes’ is projection,” explained the Nobel Prize-winning economist.
Paul Krugman dismissed as “projection” the oft-touted conservative idea that liberals are delicate “snowflakes” who are easily offended in his latest column for The New York Times.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist noted in the op-ed published on Monday — headlined “The Power Of Petty Personal Rage” — that “rage explosions over seemingly silly things” are actually “extremely common on the right.”

“The point is that demented anger is a significant factor in modern American political life — and overwhelmingly on one side,” Krugman wrote. “If you really want to see people driven wild by tiny perceived slights and insults, you’ll generally find them on the right.”

Krugman cited recent conservative outrage over straws, the Green New Deal and the new “Captain Marvel” movie starring Brie Larson as examples.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/paul-krugman-conservatives-snowflakes_n_5c876028e4b0ed0a0016b3b3?ri18n=true


Understanding Your Conservative SNOWFLAKE Family
Most of your conservative family are SNOWFLAKES!
Once mildly challenged, they will melt like Frosty the Snowman in Miami and walk away (or straight-up leave depending on their maturity level).rstanding Your Conservative SNOWFLAKE Family
https://medium.com/christopher-oldcorn/understanding-your-conservative-snowflake-family-bef4ea564838

The Human Mind, Risk & Statistics

Humans did not evolve to think of risk in terms of statistics. Because of that, most people are bad at assessing risk. Slow moving risks and unremarkable events due to well-known risks are hard to assess. This chart shows relative risks of death from various causes.

Terrorism

Fear of death and injury after a terrorist attack on US soil are grossly overestimated. People estimated there was about a 30% chance of personal involvement in a terrorist attack in the next 12 months.  Emotional reactions of either fear or anger alter risk perception. This is a great example of how emotional responses impairs our ability to think rationally. Lack of sleep makes the irrationality problem worse. Emotion-driven irrationality influences policy and that can make policy more irrational.

According to one analysis, the annual risk of injury from terrorist attack in the US is about 1 in 678,000 and the risk of death is about 1 in 3.8 million.

Flu virus vs terrorists vs coronavirus

Seasonal flu that tends generally starts spreading in the fall and peaks during the winter months. Flu infections can become life-threatening from complications such as pneumonia. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated there were 61,100 flu deaths for the 2017-2018 flu season. The rate of death from flu virus infection is about 0.1%, meaning that about 1 infected person in 1,000 will die. To be rational, people would fear flu far more than terrorists, but most don't. Terrorist attacks are unusual, spectacular and heavily reported in the media. That elicits fear and/or anger and increases or decreases the appearance risk. Citing statistics doesn't seem to change that much.

By comparison, coronavirus appears to be more lethal with an associated rate of death of about 0.4%. That makes it about four times more lethal than influenza.

Infections and spread of flu is limited by annual vaccinations and antivirals that make an infection less severe. At present, there is no drug or vaccine available to treat or prevent Coronavirus infections. Most Coronavirus infections are fairly mild and resolve on their own. The unknown risk about Coronavirus is how many people will be infected. At present, quarantines are used to limit spread of the virus. If the quarantines work reasonably well, flu will pose a greater risk of death than Coronavirus. If the quarantines do not work and the virus spreads freely, it is possible that Coronavirus will turn out to pose a higher death risk.

How the Coronavirus outbreak will turn out cannot be predicted with certainty, but quarantines in the US are likely to work well. Time will tell if that prediction is accurate or not. We will probably have a fairly good feel for the potential risk within the next 3-4 months.

A Quick Primer on What a Woman Needs to Be

I just saw this 3 minute thing and thought that it is relevant. Highly relevant.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B843JEzg2Q7/

Thanks to larrymoutz for pointing this out.

Some things are worth mention.

The Commander-in-Chief Deals With Coronavirus

A 3 minute video the the Washington Post assembled clearly explains why it is reasonable to think the president has the coronavirus issue well in hand. It is because he handed the problem off to the vice president's hands. The VP has a fine record in dealing with public health matters in conformance with the dictates of merciful God and all around righteousness:

"In late 2014, health officials belatedly became aware of an HIV outbreak in Scott County, Indiana. With fewer than 24,000 people, this rural county rarely saw a single new case in a year, according to The New York Times. But by the time government agencies tried to stop the transmission of the virus a few months later, some 215 people had tested positive. 

One man seemed responsible for needlessly letting the situation get out of control: Indiana’s then-Governor Mike Pence. In 2015, when the virus was seeming to rapidly move through networks of people who use intravenous drugs, even the reluctant local sheriff encouraged the governor to authorize a clean-needle exchange, a proven tool to reduce such an outbreak. 

But, as the Times reported when he became Donald Trump’s running mate, “Mr. Pence, a steadfast conservative, was morally opposed to needle exchanges on the grounds that they supported drug abuse.” His opposition was based on an incorrect belief; while research has long shown that needle exchanges do reduce HIV and hepatitis, it has also shown that they do not encourage drug use."

But, as the president says in the video, "There's a very good chance you're not gonna die. .... We're very very ready for this."

Michigan student with lesbian parents stopped by teacher from writing about gay marriage

A Michigan high school teacher would not allow a student with two mothers to write about same-sex marriage for a class assignment.

Destiney McDermitt, 16, a junior at Hill McCloy High School in Montrose, was instructed by an English teacher on Feb. 7 to pick a topic she felt strongly about and argue either for or against it as part of an assignment titled, "Taking a Stand," she and her mother, Angela McDermitt-Jackson, told NBC News on Tuesday.

McDermitt-Jackson said the teacher told her daughter that she could not write about same-sex marriage because the topic might offend someone in the class.

"My daughter actually asked the teacher to ask the class if it would offend anybody," McDermitt-Jackson said, recalling the account of events as told to her by Destiney. "At which point, the teacher told her, 'I don't want to hear about it, I don't want to read about it and I am the one who has to grade it.'"

Destiney then texted her mothers from class and told them what was going on, McDermitt-Jackson said.

"She was upset and offended and she felt it was very inappropriate," McDermitt-Jackson said.

Later that day, McDermitt-Jackson said she and Destiney's other mother, Christine Jackson, went to the school and met with the principal and superintendent.

"They both agreed it was absolutely wrong and was unacceptable," she said.

Administrators took a statement from Destiney and other students in the classroom at the time and vowed to conduct an investigation, McDermitt-Jackson said.

Linden Moore, Montrose Community Schools superintendent, said in a statement on Friday that "the teacher attempted to avoid disruption and controversy by limiting the topics that students could choose for a writing assignment."

"Unfortunately, although well-intentioned, the teacher was too restrictive," the statement said. "We have spoken to the teacher and all of our staff about valuing opinions, beliefs, and rights of all of our students."

The superintendent said this has been "a learning opportunity for everyone involved." Moore did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

McDermitt-Jackson said she is unsatisfied with the school district's response.

"They completely failed not only my daughter, but they failed all of us," she said. "They did not handle this appropriately."

She said she filed a complaint last week with the ACLU of Michigan because she believes her daughter was discriminated against and her right to freedom of speech had been violated.

Ann Mullen, a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Michigan, declined comment Tuesday, saying: "We do not disclose if or when we are contacted by a potential client."

McDermitt-Jackson said she does not believe the teacher, who the district is not naming, "has any business teaching in a public school district."

Destiney has since been switched out of the teacher's class, McDermitt-Jackson said.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/michigan-student-with-lesbian-parents-stopped-by-teacher-from-writing-about-gay-marriage/ar-BB10ofWt?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout