How Do Supreme Court Justices Determine Someone's Sincerity?

The Supreme Court justices were asking questions in a  case where a condemned man wants to have his pastor pray for him and touch him while he's dying.  The lower court sided with Texas, so if the Supreme Court had done nothing, he wouldn't have been allowed to have these last contacts with his pastor. 

 The AP story reported by Jessica Gresko said they're asking questions like:

“What’s going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee. He should hold my hand. He should put his hand over my heart. He should be able to put his hand on my head. We’re going to have to go through the whole human anatomy with a series of cases,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Yeah, this claiming religious privilege could get out of hand. This claiming religious privilege could get out of hand.  Why, a baker might refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it goes against his strongly held religious beliefs.  What's the difference between a religious belief and a personal prejudice?  After all, Southerners claimed the Bible supported slavery.  What if people believe that Jews killed Jesus (something I've been told on more than one occasion), do they have the right to impose the death penalty?

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also expressed concerns about what a ruling for the inmate would mean for requests in the future, with Kavanaugh asking whether all states would have to offer equivalent accommodations.

What if, he asked, one state “allows bread and wine in the execution room right before the execution” or allows the minister to “hug the inmate.” Do other states have to do the same?"

I get that this question deals with setting precedents. Why are they so worried about some decency for a dying man? But maybe they should look at all claims to do or not do something based on a religious right. 

"Arguing for Texas, state Solicitor General Judd Stone II also told the justices that Ramirez’s request is just an attempt to delay his execution. Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to agree, asking what the justices should do if they believe Ramirez has “changed his requests a number of times” and “filed last minute complaints” and “if we assume that’s some indication of gaming the system.'”

'He [the prosecutor] also said it’s hard to know how a spiritual adviser might react during that time. That person could faint or stumble and jostle the IV lines, he said. “Anything going wrong here would be catastrophic,” he said.'

Really?  More catastrophic to whom?  Certainly not the person being put to death. 

Think about this.  Five of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholics and one more was raised Catholic.  All but one is strongly anti-abortion, but they have much less problem with the death penalty. It's good they are not bound to the Pope's position on everything.  The AP article says they've been less interested lately in staying executions, except when there's a religious aspect. 

The Court has already defined 'religion' pretty broadly.  From the Free Dictionary Legal Dictionary

"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

This puts a burden on the Justices to determine if a belief is sincere.  That's hard to do in any event, but the Justices never see or hear the actual person whose case is before them.  This is, in fact, moving from interpreting the law to discerning a person's sincerity.   How do you interpret someone's deeply held beliefs in the first place.

? And  for those who belong to established religions how do you determine if someone actually believes the institution's doctrines or not?  Surely we have seen examples of, say, anti-abortion voting politicians who arranged abortions for their pregnant mistresses.  For a dying man, I say, risk being wrong and let him have his last request.  So what if he turns out to be gaming the system?  He's going to die.  

Most Western,  actually most,  countries have abolished the death penalty.  But our conservative Supreme Court justices seem to have no heart.  They're hung up on the myth of all people can be rich if they just put their minds and backs into working hard.  And punishment takes precedence over empathy and kindness.  So, they have to ascertain the difference between a legitimate religious belief or being gamed by a condemned man.  

Why Secrecy At The US Supreme Court?

In a CNN article The secret Supreme Court: Late nights, courtesy votes and the unwritten 6-vote rule  Joan Biskupic,  tells us that the justices have a weekly meeting in secret.

"At their weekly private sessions, the nine decide which pending petitions to take up and, separately, cast votes on cases that already have been argued."

Justice Stephen Breyer is quoted:

"Regarding the general need for confidentiality, Breyer said, 'Transparency is usually a word that means something good, but I would say about the conference, it's important not to have transparency. ... It is very important for people to say what they really think about these cases, and that's what happens. So I worry about changing that and somehow bringing the public into the conference.'" (emphasis added)

 This really needed to be followed up.  Here are some questions I would have wanted to ask in that interview. (I recognize that these things might not come immediately to mind in the interview, but Biscupic is  described by CNN as 

"Joan Biskupic, a full-time CNN legal analyst, has covered the Supreme Court for twenty-five years and is the author of several books on the judiciary."

These are Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments.  They can't be fired for what they say unless it rises to the level of impeachable by the US Senate. 

Justice Breyer, can you give some hypothetical examples of the kinds of things justices say that you think they wouldn't say if these meetings were public?

It's not that their language or behavior is objectionable because you say:

"What happens," Breyer told CNN, "is it's highly professional. People go around the table. They discuss the question in the case ... the chief justice and Justice (Clarence) Thomas and me and so forth around. ... People say what they think. And they say it politely, and they say it professionally."

Are there people outside the court who they feel accountable to and they would feel compelled to hide their real thoughts so these people wouldn't hear them?

If, for example, someone appointed to the court based on the strong support of the Federalist Society.  Do they say things that organization might object too?  If they said those things at these meetings, isn't it likely that other justices also appointed through the efforts of the Federalist Society would let that be known to the Federalist Society?

Is it because they are polite and reasonable to justices that their 'side' dislikes and that would be embarrassing?  

Are there things you might self-censor if this were to be public?  Why?

Is there an issue that what they say might reveal a bias for or against potential litigants at the court? 

Do they tell jokes that might be offensive to some groups in the US population? 

Are there concerns that US Senators who voted for a judge would regret that vote?  So what?  I mean simply, what would be the consequence to the judge?

Are you Ms. Biscupic perhaps too close to the court that you are reluctant to push Breyer beyond some line of appropriateness?  Would a different reporter who didn't have a relationship with the judges feel more comfortable asking such questions?  Or would such a journalist simply not have the access you have?  And would pushing further to ask these sorts of questions jeopardize your access to the justices?  I know nothing about Ms. Biscupic.  I could be totally wrong here.  I do know there have been concerns that the White House press falls into a relationship with the President and his press secretaries that can be jeopardized by asking unacceptable questions.  That's probably true about journalists who cover the court as well.  

Again, these justices have lifetime appointments.  What do they have to hide at this point?  And from whom?  I'd surely like to hear Justice Breyer or other justices answer these questions.  

I'd also note that I have, in the past, studied the concept of privacy in government, quite closely.  Nearly all public officials fear public scrutiny and in this day and age of social media, any ill-advised words could easily be copied out of context and tweeted to the world.  But Congress has adapted to C-Span.  And justices who feel the same concerns about becoming viral sensations would have a better understanding of the concerns that everyone else has.  

I would argue that all groups that are used to being able to talk, unaccountably, in private, resist when that protection is challenged.  

I recall working hard to get the Anchorage Municipal Assembly covered live by the local cable company when they arrived in Anchorage in the mid 1980s.  Assembly members on all political sides voiced concerns that such exposure would change how members debated.  But after a couple of months it quickly became obvious that a) citizens were tuning in and b) that assembly members forgot the cameras were running and didn't really change their behavior.  Recent turmoil at the Assembly was available for all to see first hand and not simply depend on how the media reported it.

So I would hope that journalists who have access to Supreme Court justices do dig deeper and push the judges to voice exactly how and why they would not be candid if the meetings were public.  

Texas Abortion Law Part I: The Law And The Supreme Court Dissents

 I'm trying to pull together points about the new Texas anti-abortion law.  You can see the law itself here.  I'm not going to discuss the issues related to whether women should have access to abortion, whether the religious and other arguments about when life begins or that abortion is murder.  I will assume here that abortion is not murder and the women have the right to end a pregnancy.  I'll only mention this once the hypocrisy of arguing for the right not to wear a mask or not get a vaccine during a pandemic, while arguing that women do not have the right to decide, with their doctors, if they should get an abortion.  

OVERVIEW

• Parts of the new Law
• Parts of the dissents by Supreme Court Justices
• Sotomayor
• Breyer
• Roberts
• My thoughts of steps to be taken to aid women needing an abortion.  [This will be a second post.  There's more than enough in this one already.]

PARTS OF THE NEW TEXAS LAW

Note there are different parts of the law - not clearly indicated that way in the law - that cover different aspects:

• specific details of the prohibition of abortion and conditions
• discussion of previous abortion laws and their continued existence
• manner of prosecution (not by state or governmental officials, but by private citizens)
• damages to be paid for violation of the law, including attorney fees, etc.
• lots of legal posturing to prevent court nullifications of the law (This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.  Certainly laws that opponents of this law might favor are also crafted so they withstand court scrutiny.)
• severability language - that says if one part of the act is ruled unconstitutional, that part will be thrown out but the rest will stand
• long lists of what doctors must report about abortions they perform

I'm just going to give some examples of what the law actually states.  You can go to the link to see the whole statute.  Parts of the statute pasted in without spaces for some lines.  I've tried to fix those, but I may have missed some.   It begins like this:

AN ACT

relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child’s heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTIONA1.AAThis Act shall be known as the Texas Heartbeat

Act.

SECTIONA2.AAThe legislature finds that the State of Texas never repealed, either expressly or by implication, the state statutes enacted before the ruling in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),that prohibit and criminalize abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger.

Note:  They never repealed any of the unconstitutional abortion laws post Roe v. Wade and it appears from other parts of the law (which say this law doesn't not affect other existing abortion statutes) that they're hoping those old laws will come back into effect.

(7)AA"Unborn child" means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

Throughout the bill, the cross out the word "fetus" and replace it with "child."  And here they are saying it is a "child" immediately at fertilization.

Sec.A171.205.AAEXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.

So there is an exception to prevent a medical emergency.  It requires extensive paperwork detailing all the conditions the doctor must consider.  

Sec.A171.208.AACIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR

ABETTING VIOLATION. (a)AAAny person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:

(1)AAperforms or induces an abortion in violation of thischapter;

(2)AAknowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter; or

(3)AAintends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision(1)or(2).

(b)AAIf a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section,thecourtshallaward:

(1)AAinjunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter;

So anything anyone does to help someone abort a fetus with a heart beat is now illegal.  If you drive someone to the clinic (even if you don't know if there is a heart beat or not). If you help pay for the abortion, including insurance companies, you are violating the law.  What I'm trying to find here is clarification of whether helping to get an abortion outside of the state of Texas would also be illegal. I suspect not, because the language is always "in violation of this act" and 'this act' doesn't forbid abortions outside of Texas.  

[UPDATE Sept 3, 2021 2pm:  Constitutional Attorney Lawrence Tribe says, in a Guardian piece,  taking someone out of state would also be a problem:

"Worse still, if women try to escape the state to access abortion services, their families will be on the hook for offering even the smallest aid. If friends or family of a woman hoping to terminate her pregnancy drive her across state lines, or help her organize money for a plane or bus ticket, they could be liable for “aiding and abetting” a now-banned abortion, even if the procedure itself takes place outside Texas."]

S.B.ANo.A8 (2)AAstatutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted; and 

(3)AAcosts and attorney’s fees.

(c)AANotwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief  under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection(b)(2)in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter.

(d)AANotwithstanding Chapter 16, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, or any other law, a person may bring an action under this sectionn ot later than the sixth anniversary of the date the cause of action accrues.

The section above talks about financial penalties.  Note - people can snitch on someone for up to six years after an abortion has been performed.  

(e)AANotwithstanding any other law, the following are not a defense to an action brought under this section:

(1)AAignorance or mistake of law;

(2)AAa defendant’s belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional;

(3)AAa defendant’s reliance on any court decision that has been overruled on  appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision had not been overruled when the defendant engaged in conduct that violates this chapter;

Note that section (3) here says that if a court ruled against the law and then later that was overturned, a doctor who performed an 'illegal' abortion during the time after it the law was suspended and before that suspension was overruled, would be liable.  That means even if there are stays and court cases suspending the law, doctors could be sued if they are later overruled.  EVIL.  

(f-1)AAThe defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense under Subsection (f)(1) or (2) by a preponderance of the evidence.

(g)AAThis section may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth

As I've said, I'm not an attorney, but how can you just declare that this law does not violate the First Amendment.  They seem to be saying that if I tell someone where to get an abortion after a fetal heart beat, it's NOT a violation of the First Amendment to punish me for my speech.  (If they argue that this is because the law saves lives, then how is that different from disinformation about COVID?)

 

SUPREME COURT DISSENTS

I'm just going to give sections of the dissents.  You can see them in their entirety here.  I've bolded some sections I thought particularly noteworthy.

Sotomayor's dissent:

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engi- neered to prohibit women from exercising their constitu- tional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own invention. Ante, at 1. Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and in- flicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent. . ."

The Act is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents. See, e.g., June Medical Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judg- ment) (slip op., at 5) (explaining that “the State may not impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain an abortion” of a “nonviable fetus” (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992); internal quotation marks omitted)). The respondents do not even try to argue otherwise. Nor could they: No federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law.

The Texas Legislature was well aware of this binding precedent. To circumvent it, the Legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the State could not. The Act authorizes any private citizen to file a lawsuit against any person who provides an abortion in violation of the Act, “aids or abets” such an abortion (in- cluding by paying for it) regardless of whether they know the abortion is prohibited under the Act, or even intends to engage in such conduct. §3 (to be codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §171.208). Courts are required to enjoin the defendant from engaging in these actions in the future and to award the private-citizen plaintiff at least $10,000 in “statutory damages” for each forbidden abortion performed or aided by the defendant. Ibid. In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures. 

The Legislature fashioned this scheme because federal constitutional challenges to state laws ordinarily are brought against state officers who are in charge of enforcing the law. See, e.g., Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U. S. 247, 254 (2011) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908)). By prohibiting state officers from enforcing the Act directly and relying instead on citizen bounty hunters, the Legislature sought to make it more complicated for federal courts to enjoin the Act on a statewide basis.

Taken together, the Act is a breathtaking act of defiance—of the Constitution, of this Court’s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas. But over six weeks after the applicants filed suit to prevent the Act from taking effect, a Fifth Circuit panel abruptly stayed all proceedings before the District Court and vacated a preliminary injunction hearing that was scheduled to begin on Monday. The applicants requested emergency relief from this Court, but the Court said nothing. The Act took effect at midnight last night.*

Today, the Court finally tells the Nation that it declined to act because, in short, the State’s gambit worked. The structure of the State’s scheme, the Court reasons, raises “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that counsel against granting the application, ante, at 1, just as the State intended. This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry. Moreover, the District Court held this case justiciable in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion after weeks of briefing and consideration. 2021 WL 3821062, *8–*26 (WD Tex., Aug. 25, 2021). At a minimum, this Court should have stayed implementation of the Act to allow the lower courts to evaluate these issues in the normal course. Ante, at 2 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting). Instead, the Court has re- warded the State’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the Court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the State’s own creation.

The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.

I dissent.

 

 Robert's Dissent

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE BREYERand JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unu- sual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime. . ."

Breyer's dissent

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

The procedural posture of this case leads a majority of this Court to deny the applicants’ request for provisional relief. In my view, however, we should grant that request.

I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN. Texas’s law delegates to private indi- viduals the power to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first stage of pregnancy. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion dur- ing that first stage. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 164 (1973). And a “State cannot delegate . . . a veto power [over the right to obtain an abortion] which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercis- ing during the first trimester of pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 69 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have made clear that “since the State cannot regulate or pro- scribe abortion during the first stage . . . the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person . . . to prevent abortion during that same period.” Ibid. The applicants persuasively argue that Texas’s law does precisely that. . . "

 

Freedom To Kill With Speech - Top 12 Anti-Vaxxers

[Overview:  basically there's

1.  And introduction about how perilous the times are

2.  A list of the Dirty Dozen

3.  Comments here and there about the need to adapt our legal thinking about Free Speech and the internet to be able to stop clear, dangerous, disinformation

4.  Some links to sites that offer suggestions for how to do this - though I can't say that I found anything that has anything close to a magic bullet.  At least you can get the sense that people are working on this.]

The Center for Countering Digital Hate posted a study March 24, 2021 called The Disinformation Dozen.   The first point in the executive summary is:

"1. The Disinformation Dozen are twelve anti-vaxxers who play leading roles in spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccines. They were selected because they have large numbers of followers, produce high volumes of anti-vaccine content or have seen rapid growth of their social media accounts in the last two months."

I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment protections for free speech.  But there comes a point when people say things that do significant damage.  We have libel and slander laws.  We have hate speech laws. All put limits on speech.  

Perilous Times

Right now we are in a battle.  On one side is democracy and the rule of law and knowledge and action based on science. On the other side we have  the rule of power - based on personal opinion, misinformation, religion, playing on people's emotional weak points. 

 The Senate did not impeach Trump after the insurrection. Half the Senators still won't publicly acknowledge that Trump lost the election.  The GOP refuses to take action against treason.  Their  personal power and wealth is more important than the survival of democracy.  Plus the Monied Right have given us a Supreme Court now that may well support moving to an autocratic theocracy.  

US citizens tend to believe their democracy is immortal.  It's not.  It's being severely tested now. What happens in the next few years will change the world for better or worse.  There's no guarantee those on the side of freedom and equality will be the victors in this new civil war.

We must adapt our laws to deal with threats that the internet enables.  I don't have the answers, but I do have the questions.  

 From what I can tell, money is a factor in all of these cases.  Tat a minimum they have lots of followers on social media, so ad revenue is an issue.  And for a number (if not all) of these folks, there are side hustles - video tapes, alternative medicines, etc. - that bring in a lot of money.  Probably speaking engagements add up too.  

I'm guessing that for some, the money is the main draw.  I don't know how many of these people believe what they are saying.  We know that outrageousness generates clicks.  But I'm sure a few of these despicable people have convinced themselves they are speaking the truth.

The spreading of disinformation is a key weapon in the arsenal of autocracy.  

The List

These are the 12 (really 13) people they Center for Digital Hate identified.   The report also has examples of the kinds of post they distribute.  

[All these profiles are from  Center for Countering Digital Hate  a study The Disinformation Dozen. [The pics of the perps didn't transfer over to here and it's more work than I want to do to redo them all, so for the pics I recommend visiting the original source linked two lines up. It also includes examples of their dirty work.]] 

1 Joseph Mercola

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram:Active

Joseph Mercola is a successful anti-vaccine entrepreneur, peddling dietary supplementsand false cures as alternatives to vaccines. Mercola’s combined personal social mediaaccounts have around 3.6 million followers.

2 Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Part Removed

Kennedy is a long-standing anti-vaxxer, and his Children’s Health Defense (CHD) hosts a range of anti-vaccine articles.

Kennedy’s account was banned from Instagram on 8 February, yet his Facebook Page remains active, as does the CHD’s Instagram page.

Kennedy and Children’s Health Defense released a film in mid-March targeting members of the Black and Latino communities with tailored anti-vaccine messages. Facebook and Twitter continue to allow him a platform to promote these false claims.

3 Ty & Charlene Bollinger

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Ty and Charlene Bollinger are anti-vax entrepreneurs who run a network of accounts that market books and DVDs about vaccines, cancer and COVID-19. In 2020 they launched the United Medical Freedom Super PAC ahead of last year’s United States elections.

The Bollingers have promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Gates plans to inject everyone with microchips as part of a vaccination program.

From AP:

“You’re going to love owning the platinum package,” Charlene Bollinger tells viewers, as a picture of a DVD set, booklets and other products flashes on screen. Her husband, Ty, promises a “director’s cut edition,” and over 100 hours of additional footage.

Click the orange button, his wife says, “to join in the fight for health freedom” — or more specifically, to pay $199 to $499 for the Bollingers’ video series, “The Truth About Vaccines 2020.”

The Bollingers are part of an ecosystem of for-profit companies, nonprofit groups, YouTube channels and other social media accounts that stoke fear and distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, resorting to what medical experts say is often misleading and false information.

Wikipedia says he's a former body builder with no medical training.  

4 Sherri Tenpenny

Facebook:Part Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Sherri Tenpenny is an osteopath physician who spreads anti-vaccine sentiment and false claims about the safety and efficacy of masks via her social media channels. While her Facebook account has been removed, her Twitter and Instagram are still intact.

 From Wikipedia:

"Since 2017, Tenpenny and her business partner, Matthew Hunt, have taught a six-week, $623 course titled "Mastering Vaccine Info Boot Camp" designed to "sow seeds of doubt" regarding public health information. During the course, Tenpenny explains her views on the immune system and vaccines, and Hunt instructs participants on how best to use persuasion tactics in conversation to communicate the information.[9]

Tenpenny promotes anti-vaccination videos sold by Ty and Charlene Bollinger and receives a commission whenever her referrals result in a sale,[10] a practice known as affiliate marketing.[11]"

5 Rizza Islam

Facebook: Removed

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Rizza Islam’s anti-vaccine posts aim to spread vaccine hesitancy amongst African Americans. While Facebook removed Rizza Islam’s Facebook Page in February, he continues to post anti-vaccine messages from his Instagram and Twitter accounts. 

From Wikipedia entry on the World Literacy Program of which Rizza Islam was Executive Director.

World Literacy Crusade (WLC) is a non-profit organisation formed in 1992 by the Rev. Alfreddie Johnson to fight illiteracy, and supported by the Church of Scientology.[1][2] The group uses "study technologies" and "drug rehabilitation technologies" developed by L. Ron Hubbard, the Church's founder.[3][4] It has been characterized as a "Scientology front group",[5][6] and has been promoted by celebrity Scientologists such as Isaac Hayes and Anne Archer.[1]

Legal issues

The LA Times reported in 2008 that about 100 protestors gathered outside of the World Literacy Crusade offices after being sold fake low cost housing vouchers for as much as $1500. Officials at WLC admitted to selling the free vouchers, but stated they did not know they were fake.[7] The Compton, Californian offices of the WLC housed a drug detox program using “dry heat sweat therapy”.[8] In 2015 the executive director of WLC, Hanan Islam, Ronnie Steven Islam (AKA Rizza Islam) and her adult children were arrested for Medi-Cal fraud and insurance fraud for billing for this detox program.[9][10]

The Anti-Defamation League cites his anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. 

6 Rashid Buttar

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Rashid Buttar is an osteopath physician and conspiracy theorist known for videos posted to his YouTube channel.

From Wikipedia:  

Rashid Buttar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rashid Buttar

Nationality American

Education Des Moines University

Occupation Physician

Known for Conspiracy theories, 

Anti-vaccine views

Rashid Ali Buttar (born January 20, 1966) is an American osteopathic physician from Charlotte, North Carolina, also known as a conspiracy theory and vaccine hesitancy proponent.[1] He is known for his controversial use of chelation therapy for numerous conditions, including autism and cancer.[2] He has twice been reprimanded by the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners for unprofessional conduct[3][4] and cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for illegal marketing of unapproved and adulterated drugs.[5][6][7]

7 Erin Elizabeth

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Erin Elizabeth, partner to Joseph Mercola, runs Health Nut News, a prominent ‘alternative health’ website with affiliated newsletter and social media accounts.

8 Sayer Ji

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Removed

Instagram: Part Removed

Sayer Ji runs a popular alternative health website, GreenMedInfo.com, and affiliated social media accounts that promote pseudoscience and anti-vaccine misinformation. Despite his GreenMedInfo accounts being removed by Twitter and Instagram, it is still available on Facebook.

An article on GreenMedInfo.com falsely claimed that "The FDA knows that rushed-to- market COVID-19 vaccines may cause a wide range of life-threatening side effects, including death."

From Wikipedia:

"Ji obtained a BA in philosophy from Rutgers University in 1995.[2] He has previously owned an organic food market in Bonita Springs.[3][4]

He is the former editor of the defunct International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine [5] and a member of the advisory board and a former vice-president of the National Health Federation, a lobby group opposing government regulation of alternative health practitioners and supplements retailers.[5][6][7][8]

Ji became popular promoting common alternative medicine beliefs, such as enthusiasm for ancient healing practices and the claim that the appearance of some foods is meant to indicate which organ of the human body they are meant to cure.[5] While he always invited his readers to be suspicious of governments, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies, during the COVID-19 pandemic Ji joined other proponents of alternative medicine in embracing conspiracy theories about allegedly oppressive global organizations.[1][9]

Ji denies being an anti-vaccination activist, but consistently shares false or misleading messages about vaccine safety and efficacy.[10][5][11][12] He is married to Kelly Brogan, another well-known promoter of medical misinformation.[11] He lives in Florida.[8][13]"

9 Kelly Brogan

Facebook: Removed

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Kelly Brogan is the partner of fellow alternative health entrepreneur Sayer Ji. She claimsto practice “holistic psychiatry” and sells a range of books and courses from her website.

10 Christiane Northrup

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Christiane Northrup is an obstetrics and gynecology physician who has embraced alternative medicine and anti-vaccine conspiracies. She has used her social media accounts to spread disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

11 Ben Tapper

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Ben Tapper is a chiropractor with a growing following on social media. He has routinely posted COVID disinformation and spoken out against masking.

Example Violations

12 Kevin Jenkins

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Kevin Jenkins is an anti-vaccine activist with a growing social media presence who has appeared at public events with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Jenkins has called vaccines a“conspiracy” to “wipe out” black people and is a co-founder of the Freedom Airway & Freedom Travel Alliance, a company founded in late 2020 to help its members travel around the world without observing any masking, quarantining, vaccination, or other pandemic control measures.

The report is pushing for Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to shut down their accounts - and some of these folks have many different accounts.  

They succeed because of people like the man below.

[Note:  I've googled the text of this cartoon hoping to identify the cartoonist.  There are many places that have put this up.  But the creator's name I couldn't find.  I thank the creator and I'll add your name if you notify me who you are.  Or take it down if you prefer.]

The idea that constitutional rights can't be abridged comes up against the fact that the exercise of one person's constitutional rights can curtail the constitutional rights of others. Then we have to evaluate which right is more critical.  Letting FB cut people off is not an issue because it's the government, not private companies, that must not abridge people's rights.  Companies may set conditions which apply to all users equally - based on behavior, not inherent traits such as race and gender.  

What can you do?

I don't want to just offer bad news without giving people some ideas of what can be done about it.  People should share such information with policy makers - you can easily email your members of Congress even if you don't have the power to implement these things yourself.  Or you can join or donate to organizations that fight these problems.  Here are a few ideas just to remind you that every problem has ways to mitigate it and people who have taken on this project.  

How to fight lies, tricks,and chaos online -   There are a number of sites that offer individuals steps to prevent receiving misinformation.  This is one of the best I saw.  It also includes when to report to law enforcement.  And it recognizes that this is all complicated and no checklist is fool proof.  This is definitely worth a look.

A guide to anti-misinformation actions around the world - This offers a list, country by country, of measures to stop the spread of misinformation.  Unfortunately, many of the countries are authoritarian regimes that don't offer us much help.  But worth a look to see what other democracies are doing.

MITIGATING MEDICAL MISINFORMATION: A WHOLE-OF-SOCIETY APPROACH TO COUNTERING SPAM, SCAMS, AND HOAXES

"This brief addresses how the public health sector, along with a coalition of civil servants, media workers, technology companies, and civil society organizations, can understand and respond to the problem of medical media manipulation, specifically how it spreads online. Here we present a supplementary research-and-response method in correspondence with the World Health Organization (WHO)’s already suggested framework for dealing with the infodemic, with a focus on media manipulation.2"

How to Slow the Spread of Disinformation: A Guide for Newsrooms - 

Congressional Panel On Internet And Disinformation... Includes Many Who Spread Disinformation Online - This one has a promising title, but it doesn't live up to the promise.  It demonstrates the problem of people writing about complex without really being experts themselves. (Like I'm doing here.)  This person writes very little about what was debated.  He basically pulls out stuff he disagrees with and throws up his hands.  The comments, though, offer a sense of the complexity and conflicts of goals involved in all this.  

How Data Privacy Laws Can Fight Fake News  - This post argues that by protecting personal privacy online, it would be harder for people to be targeted for mis- and disinformation.

That's enough.  People are working on this.  Find them and support them.  

Between Voter Suppression And Supreme Court Activism GOP Is Ripping Apart US Democracy

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is working hard to shine light on Republican actions to thwart democracy through covert operations.  In this previous post "When You Find Hypocrisy In The Daylight, Look For Power In the Shadows" - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse At Barrett Hearings  I offered a video of Whitehouse outlining the goals of the new GOP Supreme Court.  (New referring both to GOP and to Supreme Court.)  He identified 80 cases where there was a 5-4 majority (conservative v. liberal) split in the rulings and identified these four key outcomes:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder to vote for citizens who might vote against their interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

The goal of all of these is to create a Supreme Court that would strengthen power of corporations and the very wealthy.  He also outlined the Federalist Society's 40 year campaign to create this kind of court, including the creation of a legal ideology - Originalism - that would allow justices to reinterpret the Constitution to meet the conservative objectives.  All supported by dark money.

I'd like to call your attention to a New Republic article - The Supreme Court's Total War on Congress - by Simon Lazarus, Robert Litan/July 8, 2021 that argues the Supreme Court has shown in recent cases that it is now at war with Congress and has moved past its powers to interpret whether a law is Constitutional, to simply invalidating laws they don't like.  Here's one brief quote from the article which they say embody their thinking underlying a couple of cases decided in the last week of the Court's session:

 "If we cannot come up with a credible Constitution-based excuse for striking those provisions down, we will simply turn to the power justified two centuries ago by Chief Justice John Marshall as this court’s responsibility to “say what the law is.” We will use that raw power to ignore or rewrite unwanted statutory provisions, to render them ineffectual, or to produce results directly opposite to what they mean."

They are specifically looking at the case which essentially invalidated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and a decision which blocks a California law allowing unions to meet with workers on private property in labor campaigns.  Clearly the Voting Rights case fits the last of Whitehouse's four categories - Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering.  The anti-union case probably fits into the Weaken Regulatory Agencies category, though this was a California State law.  

You'll notice that State's Rights are used when convenient - as in the Voting Rights case - and also ignored when convenient - as in the California case.   

Finally, here's Sheldon Whitehouse again responding to these two recent Supreme Court cases in a Tweet today:

This week’s Scheme speech discusses two decisions just delivered by the Court – Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. FEC and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee – that reflect the patterns and purposes of the Court-capture effort. https://t.co/LgkaE3zYkW

— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) July 13, 2021

 

Watching this video, I had to acknowledge that Whitehouse is a very slow and deliberate speaker.  But the content is is rich in fact and meaning.  For those who find Whitehouse too slow, I offer this comment by cartoonist Jen Sorenson on the recent Voting Rights Act.

I'd note that the two items in the title - Voter Suppression and the Supreme Court - are only two of the GOP efforts to destroy our democracy.  Trying to overturn elections is another.  Violent attacks on opponents is another.  Keeping democracy is going to require extra effort on the part of those who believe in democracy.  Extraordinary effort to get voters to the polls despite the obstacles the GOP is setting up and the Supreme Court is allowing is one option.  

Supreme Court Conservatives Seem Ready To Break NCAA Control Over Student Athlete Pay. Why?

 Background 

If the conservatives on the Supreme Court have been consistent about anything, it's been in support of big business.   Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, at the Amy Barrett confirmation hearings, argued that while everyone focused on abortion and LGBT issues before the court, the real impact of packing of the court with conservative judges was to set up a court that unabashedly sided with big business.  Whitehouse cited 80 cases that were decided by 5-4 rulings along partisan lines.  These cases had four themes important to large corporations:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) to control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder for citizens  to vote for candidates who might vote against big business' interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

*You can see the Whitehouse presentation in the Senate below and I recommend that you listen to it.  Whitehouse puts a lot of puzzle pieces together that help us understand the conservative goals of getting Heritage Foundation trained judges onto the court.  Here's another Whitehouse report on partisan decisions at the Supreme Court which divides the cases a little differently.  

Conservatives Question NCAA Lawyers

So I was surprised to see that in the Supreme Court case National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston**, the conservative judges were asking the NCAA lawyers some tough questions.  After all this is about a large monopolistic organization exploiting student athletes for big money.  It would seem a natural for the Supreme Court's conservatives to be protecting the NCAA.  But no.  From the LA Times:

"Justice Clarence Thomas said it was “odd” that the salaries of college coaches have “ballooned,” but that did not destroy the aura of amateur competition between colleges and universities.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the case showed “colleges with powerhouse football and basketball programs are really exploiting the students that they recruit.” Most athletes work very hard on their sports, have little time for studies and often do not graduate. “They are recruited, used and cast aside,” he said.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he, too, was concerned about the “exploitation of athletes.” This looks like a system “where schools are conspiring with their competitors to pay their workers nothing,” he said, likening the situation to a classic antitrust violation in the business world."

But on further consideration, the NCAA is not exactly a for-profit corporation like Pepsi.  On its home page it tells us:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a membership-driven organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life.

We support learning through sports by integrating athletics and higher education to enrich the college experience of student-athletes. NCAA members – mostly colleges and universities, but also conferences and affiliated groups – work together to create the framework of rules for fair and safe competition.

Those rules are administered by NCAA national office staff, which also organizes national championships and provides other resources to support student-athletes and the schools they attend. The NCAA membership and national office work together to help nearly half a million student-athletes develop their leadership, confidence, discipline and teamwork through college sports.

NCAA Core Values    [bold added]

I've left the link to the Core Values there, because it goes to a page that doesn't really mention core values other than being dedicated to to "the well-being and life-long success of student athletes."  Most of it is about who all the members are.  

Also, notice that their sole emphasis is on the welfare of student athletes.  Absolutely no mention of money.

So Why Are The Conservatives Asking the NCAA Hard Questions  

My initial guess - and that's all it is - stems from one of the themes conservatives keep repeating about how universities and colleges are elite institutions full of socialist professors that indoctrinate students in liberal ideology.  (Of course the only colleges that fit that sort of ideological laboratory stereotype are the far right Christian colleges like Liberty University.]   

The NCAA generated close to a billion dollars just from the NCAA basketball playoffs.  They claim that most of that goes to the colleges and universities  From CBS Sports:

"The NCAA Tournament remains the lifeblood of the association's 1,268 members. It is the primary source of the NCAA's income. That $800 million in annual tournament revenue is 72% of the NCAA's $1.1 billion annual total. Last year, $600 million of that $800 million was scheduled to flow back to the schools.

That revenue fills athletic department coffers, provides operating capital for conference offices and provides funds directly to athletes in need."

But does this money help support universities or even cover the costs of college sports?  Best Colleges says no.

"By any measure, college sports are a big business — but that doesn't mean universities are getting rich off athletics. The reality is that most sports programs operate in the red. If the time comes when colleges have to pay athletes to participate, then the financial picture will change even more dramatically."

Some of the largest college sports programs, the ones that get the most back from the NCAA - see the Best Colleges link above for the top 20 and how much they make - might make a profit.  Or maybe not.  It's not clear.  My quick search for information on this leads me to believe that most of the stories are based on information from the NCAA.  I didn't find any in-depth independent studies. But I also didn't look too hard.

So maybe my hypothesis about the conservatives on the Supreme Court is wrong.  Maybe they're big sports fans and so they have more empathy for college athletes than they do for average employees.  Maybe they see the NCAA not as a corporation (it isn't one) but as a cooperative of universities.  Then my hypothesis may be right.  Or maybe they think the universities make more money from sports than they actually do.  That sports help pay for political science programs and affirmative action scholarships.  

Just raising a possibility.  I really don't know what paying college athletes would mean.  The biggest winners, probably, would be the majority of college athletes who will never go on to be highly paid professional players.  

But it's clear that monopolies concentrate power and concentrated power attracts those who want power.  Breaking things up will bring change and quite probably good change.  When they broke up ATT in 1984, we got a revolution in telephone technology.  (I bet some readers don't even know about ATT being a giant phone monopoly that merely leased black dial up phones to every home.)

And if the Supreme Court finds this monopoly problematic, maybe they'll have to take a fresh look at other concentrations of power.  That would be the best consequence.

* Here's the video of Sen. Whitehouse at the Barrett hearings.  He really does a great job of bringing together a number of threads.  

**Shawne Alston was a running back for West Virginia University.