Kudos to Biden and Garland for finally kicking some butt. About time! Also wanted to let you know that the Women's March finally got back to me and is organizing sister events to the Washington DC march on October 2nd. More than 500,000 people have inquired about sister marches. I'm in a meeting with them this evening to get more information and will keep you posted, but the good news is that there may be many people marching for reproductive rights on 10/2 around the country.
Thank you for breaking down the allegations in US v TX so that your non-lawyer readers can understand them. It was great to see Merrick Garland on TV last night speaking forcefully about the DOJ suit against Texas's S B 8.
I missed Garland's t.v. appearance. i will look for it and link to it in Monday's newsletter. i am interested in hearing what he has to say. It is one of the few times he has made a public statement.
Yes, it was the first time I've heard his voice. Garland was either on PBS's The News Hour last night -- or could have been Chris Hayes. We were bopping back and forth between the two -- and tennis. Good luck finding him!
I am so proud of Biden, and I am relieved to see Garland exercising some of the excellent skills for which he was appointed. Thank you for conveying the importance of values messaging. Most of all, it is a time to remember those who lost loved ones on 9/11. If commemoration can’t bring Americans together for a moment, probably nothing can.
A great letter speaks clearly to those of us trying to win voters to our side. Messaging is essential to the effort and your advice and links provide direct and hopefully effective guidance. Have the weekend work cut out.
In this morning's Charlie Sykes' The Bulwark Morning Shots, he includes a quote that I think most appropriate:
“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.” — Justice John Marshall Harlan, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (in which SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that vaccine mandates were constitutional)
I look forward to seeing how the 5 radical right justices address (or don't) the mandates.
I'm amused by Republican officeholders promising to sue over Biden's vaccine mandate for private businesses. The mandate will be required by a federal agency--OSHA. Which stands for Occupational HEALTH and SAFETY Administration. What could be closer to its mission than protecting the health and safety of millions of workers? (Normally, OSHA is mainly noted for slap-on-the-wrist penalties for serious workplace safety transgressions; this will let the agency take an important step to vindicate its existence).
As for the case against Texas, the only thing you left out is that the reactionaries on the Supreme Court are salivating until they get the chance to strike down the right to abortion in the Mississippi case to be argued next month. Will they go whole-hog? After the firestorm they whipped up with their recent decision, perhaps they'll curb their natural inclination treat women as serfs and servants. In any event, until they do rule, the Justice Department is on rock-solid ground.
Hopefully this letter will finally recognize that Merrick Garland is the right man for Attorney General and has been from the beginning. An excellent mind, an able prosecutor and a decent and deliberate person dedicated to restoring the DOJ's reputation. This Garland's complaint not Lawrence Tribe's. Moreover, the actions of the Administration on Covid-19 along with the Texas complaint are the best response to the Bret Stephen's op-ed showing them to be filled with calumnies intended to destroy the President's reputation and stank of the stuff Stephen's helped write for almost 20 years while soiling the democrats as a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. The whole second half of the op-ed piece was an attack on the centerpiece of Biden's budget plan. the kind of stuff the WSJ revels in.
Hi, Tom. I hope you are right about Merrick Garland. But there is much that remains undone, and we are running out of time. But I gave Garland his due for the complaint in US v. Texas.
Garland's complaint is indeed well-written, and Robert's summary is very helpful, but I do have a question for Robert and the other attorneys on this list. This complaint asks for both injunctive and declaratory relief. The latter, a request for Declaratory Judgment or DJ was overlooked in the Supreme Court's recent order where, as I recall, The court said "For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. California v. Texas, 593". It seems that the decision was a response to an application for injunctive relief. Was that application just negligent in not asking for a DJ? I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the concept of a DJ in federal courts in patent law, whereby an entity can ask the court for a DJ that says the entity does not infringe on a patent even before the patent holder sues for patent infringement. So, Federal Courts do issue DJs. Does the Supreme Court do that, or uphold them? If so, this devious Texas law ought to be more straight-forward to deal with through a DJ, which Garland was careful to ask for? What do you think? Of course, that all assumes the majority of justices maintain their individual integrity.
Hi, David. Good questions. As a practical matter, the only relief that mattered in the petition to the Supreme Court was injunctive relief because of the impending implementation of the statute. A request for declaratory relief is a necessary predicate for a permanent injunction, but the Supreme Court wouldn't issue declaratory relief until after a full hearing on the merits. It could, however issue injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending a determination of the constitutionality of the statute.
Ahhh, Thanks, Got it. But at the District Court level, after a full hearing, could a DJ signal that the law is not constitutional and any judgement granted to a vigilante could be overturned. I am totally confused about the way the different courts work, despite the fact that the 14th amendment and the supremacy clause seem straightforward. At this point, it seems the practical issue is the fact that health care providers are being intimidated, at least until there is clarity regarding the legal risks they take. Just looking for a way to get that clarity other than waiting for the years it would take to get this law fully reviewed all the way to the SC.
Kudos to Biden and Garland for finally kicking some butt. About time! Also wanted to let you know that the Women's March finally got back to me and is organizing sister events to the Washington DC march on October 2nd. More than 500,000 people have inquired about sister marches. I'm in a meeting with them this evening to get more information and will keep you posted, but the good news is that there may be many people marching for reproductive rights on 10/2 around the country.
Great! keep me posted.
Thank you for breaking down the allegations in US v TX so that your non-lawyer readers can understand them. It was great to see Merrick Garland on TV last night speaking forcefully about the DOJ suit against Texas's S B 8.
I missed Garland's t.v. appearance. i will look for it and link to it in Monday's newsletter. i am interested in hearing what he has to say. It is one of the few times he has made a public statement.
Yes, it was the first time I've heard his voice. Garland was either on PBS's The News Hour last night -- or could have been Chris Hayes. We were bopping back and forth between the two -- and tennis. Good luck finding him!
Merrick Garland was a student of Laurence Tribe.
I am so proud of Biden, and I am relieved to see Garland exercising some of the excellent skills for which he was appointed. Thank you for conveying the importance of values messaging. Most of all, it is a time to remember those who lost loved ones on 9/11. If commemoration can’t bring Americans together for a moment, probably nothing can.
A great letter speaks clearly to those of us trying to win voters to our side. Messaging is essential to the effort and your advice and links provide direct and hopefully effective guidance. Have the weekend work cut out.
Excellent newsletter, Robert! I agree w/other readers - thank you for so much breaking down the DOJ complaint.
With respect to President Biden's speech yesterday, it was exceptional. It is far past the time to draw the line on those who refuse to get vaccinated or wear a mask for political or "religious" reasons (see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/opinion/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandates.html).
In this morning's Charlie Sykes' The Bulwark Morning Shots, he includes a quote that I think most appropriate:
“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.” — Justice John Marshall Harlan, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (in which SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that vaccine mandates were constitutional)
I look forward to seeing how the 5 radical right justices address (or don't) the mandates.
Thanks for the resources. Very helpful!
Another superb newsletter!
I'm amused by Republican officeholders promising to sue over Biden's vaccine mandate for private businesses. The mandate will be required by a federal agency--OSHA. Which stands for Occupational HEALTH and SAFETY Administration. What could be closer to its mission than protecting the health and safety of millions of workers? (Normally, OSHA is mainly noted for slap-on-the-wrist penalties for serious workplace safety transgressions; this will let the agency take an important step to vindicate its existence).
As for the case against Texas, the only thing you left out is that the reactionaries on the Supreme Court are salivating until they get the chance to strike down the right to abortion in the Mississippi case to be argued next month. Will they go whole-hog? After the firestorm they whipped up with their recent decision, perhaps they'll curb their natural inclination treat women as serfs and servants. In any event, until they do rule, the Justice Department is on rock-solid ground.
Agree, but I think Roe v. Wade is doomed. There was no other reason to grant review in Dobbs.
Hopefully this letter will finally recognize that Merrick Garland is the right man for Attorney General and has been from the beginning. An excellent mind, an able prosecutor and a decent and deliberate person dedicated to restoring the DOJ's reputation. This Garland's complaint not Lawrence Tribe's. Moreover, the actions of the Administration on Covid-19 along with the Texas complaint are the best response to the Bret Stephen's op-ed showing them to be filled with calumnies intended to destroy the President's reputation and stank of the stuff Stephen's helped write for almost 20 years while soiling the democrats as a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. The whole second half of the op-ed piece was an attack on the centerpiece of Biden's budget plan. the kind of stuff the WSJ revels in.
Hi, Tom. I hope you are right about Merrick Garland. But there is much that remains undone, and we are running out of time. But I gave Garland his due for the complaint in US v. Texas.
To the Managing Editor: Sorry to be a grammar-puss, but "hand-ringing" has flown beneath your radar.
Garland's complaint is indeed well-written, and Robert's summary is very helpful, but I do have a question for Robert and the other attorneys on this list. This complaint asks for both injunctive and declaratory relief. The latter, a request for Declaratory Judgment or DJ was overlooked in the Supreme Court's recent order where, as I recall, The court said "For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. California v. Texas, 593". It seems that the decision was a response to an application for injunctive relief. Was that application just negligent in not asking for a DJ? I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the concept of a DJ in federal courts in patent law, whereby an entity can ask the court for a DJ that says the entity does not infringe on a patent even before the patent holder sues for patent infringement. So, Federal Courts do issue DJs. Does the Supreme Court do that, or uphold them? If so, this devious Texas law ought to be more straight-forward to deal with through a DJ, which Garland was careful to ask for? What do you think? Of course, that all assumes the majority of justices maintain their individual integrity.
Hi, David. Good questions. As a practical matter, the only relief that mattered in the petition to the Supreme Court was injunctive relief because of the impending implementation of the statute. A request for declaratory relief is a necessary predicate for a permanent injunction, but the Supreme Court wouldn't issue declaratory relief until after a full hearing on the merits. It could, however issue injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending a determination of the constitutionality of the statute.
Ahhh, Thanks, Got it. But at the District Court level, after a full hearing, could a DJ signal that the law is not constitutional and any judgement granted to a vigilante could be overturned. I am totally confused about the way the different courts work, despite the fact that the 14th amendment and the supremacy clause seem straightforward. At this point, it seems the practical issue is the fact that health care providers are being intimidated, at least until there is clarity regarding the legal risks they take. Just looking for a way to get that clarity other than waiting for the years it would take to get this law fully reviewed all the way to the SC.