Democrats Who Stand up to the Mob

America is as politically divided as ever - from the COVID-19 pandemic to police reform, and from rioting and looting to cancel culture.  Americans find themselves in the middle of a fight against radicalism.  The aftermath of George Floyd’s murder has devolved into violence in American cities and the tearing down of memorials of influential Americans. Let’s discuss  Democrats who stand up against these radical behaviors and the near-Marxist principles behind them.

Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D-Atlanta, GA)

Mayor Bottoms took a hard stance against violence in Atlanta following the death of George Floyd.  Bottoms’s message to rioters and looters was to “go home.”  She condemned actions by the rioters.

“You are disgracing our city.  You are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country.”  

Bottoms noted Atlanta’s history of minority business ownership, black mayors, and black police chiefs as signs of progress.  Instead of participating in and condoning violence, Mayor Bottoms encouraged citizens to peacefully protest in the likeness of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to vote in November.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)

Sen. Sinema is known as one of America’s most bipartisan politicians.  In her Maiden Speech, she stated that America needs more politicians that “choose country over party.” 

Sinema has long worked with Republicans and Democrats alike to push Veteran Affairs reform and the safe reopening of America’s economy.  

During President Trump’s 2020 State of the Union Address, Sinema, at times, found herself the only Democrat standing and clapping for American successes within a sea of pouting Senators and Representatives.  

Sinema most recently chose country over party when she openly opposed calls to defund the police, highlighting the need for mental and behavioral health within police departments.  

Representative John Lewis (D-GA05)

The late Rep. John Lewis fought for Civil Rights and racial equality his whole life with dignity and respect.  From protesting Jim Crow Laws in Nashville, TN to his final days in the House, Rep. Lewis never lost his passion for peaceful protest as opposed to violence.  

He encouraged Americans to be “constructive, not destructive.  History has proven time and again that non-violent, peaceful protest is the way to achieve the justice and equality that we all deserve.”

Former President Barack Obama (D-IL)

Many may be surprised to see President Obama on this list.  However, Pres. Obama both condemns violence and cancel culture.  

During the 2015 Baltimore Riots, Pres. Obama condemned rioting as “counterproductive,” and that rioters are “thugs and criminals.”  In fact, hundreds were arrested, and the National Guard was called in to restore order.  

This applies to today’s riots since President Trump is being criticized for taking similar positions and actions. 

Additionally, Pres. Obama stated in 2019, “This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically 'woke' and all that stuff. You should get over that quickly. The world is messy, there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids. And share certain things with you." 

He went on to call out college students for attempting to silence other students using judgement, condemnation, and intimidation.  

Chiefs Renee Hall (Dallas, TX) and Carmen Best (Seattle, WA)

While Chiefs Hall and Best are not publicly known Democrats, they should be included.  They both fight the mob ideology while staying true to public safety.  

Renee Hall faced criticism when she ordered the arrest of 647 protesters in Dallas for blocking a major highway after giving them several warnings.  She defended her decision by saying, “Although peaceful, the protesters broke the law,” and she stated her first priority is to keep Dallas safe, not to make others happy.  

Carmen Best’s police department has faced CHAZ/CHOP and more recently a 50% cut in the SPD budget.  

“I will fiercely advocate that we focus on realistic, rational and responsible solutions – not political gestures or pandering or political posturing.  I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless.”

Best is persistent on keeping police funding,  even fighting off council member Lisa Herbold’s suggestion to fire officers by race.  

Conclusion

Moderate Democrats do not have to compromise their beliefs to pander to the radical wing in order to be successful, and Republicans can co-act with Democrats to work toward a more perfect union.    

Governor Cuomo, Take Responsibility

Governor Cuomo has been lauded by many for his response to  COVID-19. His daily press briefings and overconfidence attracted attention and praise quickly. However, his incompetence in dealing with the virus, and his willingness to blame  everyone but himself for the deaths in his state, shows that he failed New York state.

The evidence is in: Cuomo’s strategy wasn’t as successful as his fans claim. New York’s deaths per million is currently the second highest in the country (behind only New Jersey). One major reason for this is Cuomo’s executive order stating that nursing homes had to accept COVID positive cases. Anywhere from 4,300 to 6,300 recovering COVID patients were put into nursing homes, which caused major outbreaks and a devastating number of deaths. This order was eventually reversed in May, but the damage had been done. Instead of implementing policies to protect the at-risk elderly population, like Governor DeSantis did (he created  COVID specific nursing homes so as not to mix recovering patients with healthy elderly), Governor Cuomo endangered—and ultimately killed—senior citizens. He then refused to take the blame.

After people realized this mistake, Cuomo knew he had to acknowledge it. Instead of taking responsibility and apologizing to the heartbroken families who lost loved ones, he began pointing fingers to everybody but himself. He cited a study by the New York Health Department (meaning it was not independent; it was conducted by his own administration) that claimed the real cause of increased death rates  in nursing homes was infected staff members, not infected patients. However, many experts have pointed out major flaws in the study, including that there is no data on nursing homes that had no cases before the executive order. This means that the study only looked at nursing homes with those known to have positive patients before the executive order and therefore does not look at patients who were forced into nursing homes afterwards. Another issue is the study does not include elderly individuals who were moved and died in the hospital rather than in the nursing home. There are arguments to be made about the extent in which this order had an effect on the death toll, but for Governor Cuomo to claim it is not a major contributing factor is simply avoiding blame.

In recent weeks, there have been major spikes of COVID cases across the country. Even though New York isn’t experiencing the same surge as other states, no state’s death toll—even with this latest wave of cases—has topped New York’s. Some, including Cuomo himself, are claiming New York “beat COVID” because they are not experiencing the same spike as states like Arizona. The spike in cases, however, started around Memorial Day Weekend—at the same time that protests broke out across the country, and people likely got together for cookouts and celebrations. The spikes therefore are not necessarily from states opening up too soon, like Cuomo and Democrats want to claim. Besides—states started reopening two weeks earlier than Memorial Day. This means their spikes should have been sooner, and even states such as California, who never fully opened back up, have seen spikes.

There are, however, concerns that  New York is seeing a rise in cases and deaths. Because of this, Governor Cuomo has begun to pause phases of reopening, often citing “large gatherings” as a major concern, even though he did not stop the large protests in his state.  And yet people are still praising Cuomo, and he’s certainly been throwing himself a victory party. He came out with a poster about New York “beating COVID,” was a guest on Jimmy Fallon’s show laughing about his dating life, and continues to blame President Trump for his own incompetence. Jake Tapper, a CNN host, even critiqued Cuomo’s poster stating, "There are no illustrations, however, of the more than 32,000 dead New Yorkers, the highest death toll by far of any state. No rendering on that poster of the criticism that Governor Cuomo ignored warnings, no depiction of the study that he could have saved thousands of lives had he and Mayor De Blasio acted sooner, no painting of his rescinded order that nursing homes take all infected patients in.” 

Governor Cuomo failed to protect his state and his people, yet he has been praised by many in the media for his leadership. He consistently refuses to take responsibility, and instead blames nursing home workers and the President. It is time for Cuomo to apologize to his people, and for the country to be honest about the disaster over which he presided.

The Sentence Imposed

On July 14, 2020, for the first time in seventeen years, an inmate took his last breath on the bluish-grey gurney at United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute–home to the Federal death row and execution chamber. The same process would occur twice more that week. In the span of merely four days, the Federal Government doubled the number of people it has executed since reinstating capital punishment in 1988, putting Daniel Lewis Lee, Wesley Ira Purkey, and Dustin Lee Honken to death by lethal injection on the 14th, 16th, and 17th of July respectively.

As with most notable events this year, the three executions attracted a great deal of controversy and even outrage. In The New York Times, lawyers Cate Stetson and Ruth Friedman denounced the executions as “shameful” and argued that the executions were part of a “reckless push to bring back the federal death penalty” on account of a lethal injection protocol that supposedly violated the Eighth Amendment. It was because of this protocol that District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan placed a preliminary injunction on all three executions. Others have criticized the executions for failing to represent victims’ interests, being inconsiderate to the family of Lee’s victims, who wished to see him spared, and creating unnecessary political controversy around a topic which was not at the forefront of national conversation.

A closer examination of these reservations reveals serious faults with all of them; the execution protocol utilized in the three executions was by no means untried. On the contrary, multiple states that impose capital sentences have utilized pentobarbital as their drug of choice for years without incident, including Texas, Georgia, and Missouri. Furthermore, the issue of execution protocol has already been considered, as Judge Chutkan issued an injunction which demanded examination of the protocol, an injunction which was lifted six months later in a per curiam decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Taking these facts into consideration, it can hardly be said that the Federal protocol either violated the Eighth Amendment, or was not given proper consideration.

It must also be noted that the three condemned were not rushed to their executions. Alongside the 17 year moratorium on Federal executions, Lee, Purkey and Honken spent 21, 17 and 14 years on death row respectively, enough time for all three to exhaust their appeals. Additionally, the father of Jennifer Long, one of Purkey’s victims, stated after the execution that it had “taken too long” to put him to death. Long was raped and murdered by Purkey, after which her remains were burned and thrown in a septic pond. The grisly acts for which Purkey was sentenced to death are of a similar nature to those of Lee and Honken. Lee was an accomplice to the torture and murder of a family of three in a plot to acquire weapons for a white separatist state, while Honken was sentenced to die for the murders of five people, including a six and ten year old girl, whom he feared would testify against him in a narcotics case. While the relatives of Lee’s victims wanted his sentence commuted, the families of the other two victims supported the executions. Evidently, it appears that the last minute attempts to delay the executions of the three men were more likely to have not been in the interest of the victims’ families - not the executions themselves as some people have claimed.

As for the supposedly political nature of the executions, it is undoubtedly true that capital punishment remains a contested issue. However, as it stands, the death penalty remains on the books as a legitimate punishment that can be handed down by the Federal Government. And, as a legitimate punishment, it is the obligation of the state to take all necessary measures to ensure that it is carried out. Upon issuing the death warrants for the three condemned, Attorney General William Barr stated that the American people “have long instructed that defendants convicted of the most heinous crimes should be subject to a sentence of death” and that the Federal Government has a duty to “to carry forward the sentence imposed.” Regardless of where individuals may stand on the issue of capital punishment, it must be concluded that the three Federal executions were carried out in a manner that was both consistent with the rule of law, the nature of the crimes committed by the offenders, the wishes of the American people and family of the victims, and with the Constitution.

Conservative Ideals Can–and Should–Shape Police Reform

As of late, some United States law enforcement officers have exhibited undeniable incompetency through their harsh interactions with citizens, in large part with the Black community. The tragic loss of these lives at the hands of perhaps ill-trained officers who should be leading our communities—rather than tearing them apart—is inexcusable. Police reform is a necessity that our country yearns for. By recommitting to the conservative principles that undergird this nation, our police forces will be better able to serve and protect American citizens.

First, conservatism promotes respect for our inalienable rights and the Constitution. We Americans champion our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means that the institutions that are meant to protect us and our rights should not compromise them; rather, they should promote them. The police department should emphasize these principles as the foundation for their organization to a greater extent than they do now. Hence, before going on to become an officer, it should be distinctly clear that the potential officer is committed to these principles without question. They should clearly be the paradigm for someone who adheres to the precedent of the Constitution. Put into practice, this would mean that law enforcement officers treat every life with the utmost respect. Our inalienable rights should serve as the conscious foundation by which officers act. A commitment to the Constitution is vital in order for them to truly protect and serve.

Among the other tenets of conservatism is a respect for authority. This includes the respect that ordinary US citizens should have for law enforcement officers, but it also means that officers should respect  the higher ideals that shape our nation. The understanding that officers are not in and of themselves the law is a requisite to being able to serve well as one. This fervent commitment to our Constitution and inalienable rights as a higher authority implies unyielding patriotism. Conservatism promotes American exceptionalism, which when put into practice, would endow officers with the understanding that our country and its people are to be protected above all else. Anything done to harm them should be a last resort in pursuit of self-defense in accordance with the rule of law.

Lastly, an emphasis on tradition will further American patriotism and the commitment towards protecting our country and its principles. Traditional American values at their core, employed in an enlightened 21st century, are necessary in order for a united nation to move forward and do better. This is why a call for police reform, and not complete abolition, is necessary. The system can be reformed in a manner that places value on the Constitution and the ideals that led to our being the first nation to choose itself––the first to choose to endow its people with inalienable rights and a democracy that protects us from our own government. We are a government by the people and for the people, and our police force should be as well.  

I must conclude by assuring readers that this article was not written as a promotion of a partisan, Conservative police force. Instead, it was written to show how tenets of conservative ideology may prove useful when looking at ways to reform the police force. Reaffirming these principles through more pointed reforms will hopefully make for a police force that exudes mutual respect.

Into a Thousand Years of Darkness: Beijing Extends its Iron Grip to Hong Kong

Once a vibrant democracy, and a free, global economy, Hong Kong is on the brink of seeing this progress eviscerated at the hands of the People’s Republic of China. New national security legislation out of Beijing has shattered the city’s hopes for enduring freedom. The first information regarding the new national security law emerged in mid-June 2020, in the midst of a raging worldwide pandemic and ongoing unrest in Hong Kong. Protests had been nearly continuous for the past year, spawned by outrage over a proposed extradition law that would have enabled Hong Kong citizens to be deported to mainland China for trial. China, having been unable to quell the unrest in the city, seemed to have lost patience with the city’s authorities ability to act. 

The new law was quickly moved through China’s rubber-stamp National People’s Congress and imposed on Hong Kong by June 30th. There was no consideration for public concerns, and a complete disregard for Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which is effectively the territory’s constitution. According to the Basic Law, Hong Kong was supposed to be governed under ‘one country, two systems,’ meaning part of China, but democratically governed, until 2047.

The national security law is, at its core, meant to enable the Chinese Communist Party to assert its ultimate control over the once-autonomous city, flouting its treaty commitments. The law sets up a new Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong, with the authority to oversee and direct much of the security apparatus in the city, giving Beijing a direct line of control. The office is not subject to judicial review, and will be immune from Hong Kong law. Most ominously, it is able to take over certain criminal cases deemed beyond the scope of Hong Kong’s judicial system, and will be able to try the cases in mainland China, subject to Chinese, not Hong Kong, law. The office is currently headed by Zheng Yanxiong, a long-time hammer of the Communist Party with experience in crushing dissent, in some cases quite violently.

The new law also gives the chief executive of Hong Kong, currently Carrie Lam, the power to personally appoint judges to preside over particular criminal cases. Given that the chief executive is only allowed to run for and stay in office with the blessing of the Communist Party, this effectively gives Beijing control over important cases tried in Hong Kong, 

A new unit will be set up within the Hong Kong police force that will be focused on enforcing the new law. It can recruit officers from outside Hong Kong, which does not bode well given the reputation of mainland Chinese police forces. It will also be able to surveil any Hong Kong citizen at the behest of the chief executive of Hong Kong. 

The law is framed in the context of four criminal offenses: subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with a foreign entity. While alone these seem like reasonable pillars for any national security legislation, it is the vagueness and the history of China’s application of these terms that is deeply concerning. Subversion and secession includes chanting or holding a sign with the popular slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times,” or publishing an article critical of the Chinese Communist Party, just to list a few. The first arrest made in accordance with the new law was a man flying a flag on his motorcycle with the aforementioned slogan. Terrorism includes the damaging of public transport— a charge which would likely encompass any damage occurring during a protest. Collusion with a foreign entity, a favorite charge of Beijing’s, could extend to testifying before the US Congress. 

So far, public libraries in Hong Kong have already seen books taken from the shelves by the government, and media outlets are becoming increasingly cautious. Many individuals are taking down previous evidence of their support for the protests or the pro-democracy movement for fear that they will bear the consequences. Freedom in Hong Kong is fast eroding.

To combat Beijing’s newest assault on the free world, many Western nations are taking unprecedented action. The US Congress recently passed a bill aimed at sanctioning officials that are involved in the new law, and legislation is under consideration that would give Hong Kong citizens refugee status. President Trump has also officially ended Hong Kong’s special trade status, which could be a significant blow to China’s economy. This comes shortly after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s earlier notification that the city was no longer autonomous enough from Beijing to warrant the special status. The United Kingdom recently declared that the over three million Hong Kong citizens that hold British National passports have the ability to come to the UK for an extended period and receive a path to citizenship. Many other nations are following suit, and while these steps are necessary, they are not sufficient. 

China’s actions in Hong Kong are, alone, a blatant attack on the freedom, dignity, and humanity of every citizen in the once-autonomous city, but these actions do not come in a vacuum. They come against the backdrop of a bloody Chinese attack on Indian troops on India’s northern border that resulted in 20 Indian soldiers dead. They come in the context of over one million Uighur Muslims being placed in concentration camps in Xinjiang, subject to torture and severe mistreatment. They come together with China’s continued military incursions into the South and East China Sea. They come at a time when the Chinese Communist Party is working to have China overtake the US as the world’s dominant superpower within the next few decades.

The people of Hong Kong, indeed the people of China as a whole, deserve to have the rights and freedoms that the free world so often takes for granted. In the torrent of bad news that is the modern news circle, the crimes perpetrated by Beijing must not be drowned out. Until China is called to account for its behavior, its actions, and their consequences, will only worsen.

Coronavirus: The Myths, The Truth, The Data

Coronavirus cases have continued to increase in the United States. The data, however, shows that the mainstream media's narrative that states--particularly red states--are reopening too quickly, and that the United States’s case numbers prove the extreme danger of the virus, is false. Let’s look at the top five states to break down the progression and current state of coronavirus in the U.S.

The five states with the highest total number of cases are New York, California, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey. Three states have Democrat governors (NY, CA, NJ) and two have Republican governors (TX, FL). New York, California, and New Jersey have had mask mandates since before this midsummer surge. Even with a strict lockdown and slow reopening plan, New York has remained the state with the most total cases (Figure 1) and the most total deaths (Figure 2). Similarly, California has had a strict lockdown and has the second highest total number of cases. However, California’s death rate is significantly lower, even though their population is much larger than New York and New Jersey. New Jersey, on the other hand, has the second highest number of deaths, even though they only have the fifth highest number of cases. Although they have had strict lock-down orders, all three blue states have had a significant number of cases. New York and New Jersey have likely not seen this same spike due to developing a form of herd immunity. Although the lack of significant increases gives the perception of having the virus under control, their governors caused thousands of deaths through their horrendous decision making, particularly among the elederly population. California, on the other hand, continues to see spikes in cases but has been able to keep their death rate low. These numbers show that strict lockdown orders and mask mandates are not the determining factors of how fast the virus spreads and how to protect the lives of one’s state.

Texas and Florida have been very different. Considering their populations and looser guidelines, they kept their case numbers low, and more importantly, their number of deaths low, when compared to other states. As of July 13, 23 states had more deaths per million than Florida and 35 states had more deaths per million than Texas. Even though their total cases still have not matched the smaller state of New York, there has been a recent spike in cases in these states. People argue this is due to opening up too early. However, there are many other factors that explain why these numbers are going up and which specific numbers are significant.

• Number of tests. The United States testing has gone up significantly. As of March 23, the United States had completed 238,632 tests. Up until May 18, the United States had completed 11,499,203 tests. As of July 13, the United States now boasts 43,238513 tests. The increased amount of testing drives the numbers up. During the beginning of the pandemic, people were only getting tested if they had significant symptoms; now, states are offering testing to everyone, including asymptomatic individuals. 

• Number of deaths. Because there has been a spike in cases, there will inevitably be a slight increase in deaths, but these increases have been nowhere near the significant increase in cases. In the states with recent spikes, California, Texas, and Florida, it is important to look at the deaths per million population (Figure 3). Even though these three states have had an increase in cases, the number of deaths has remained low. This could be due to the age of those testing positive.  Responsible leadership isn’t just about stopping the virus; it’s also about protecting at-risk demographics and preventing people from dying. Low death rates, even in states with higher infection numbers, show that governors are doing their jobs. 

• Age of those with illness. The governors of New York and New Jersey both passed executive orders that forced nursing homes to admit people with COVID. Governor Desantis of Florida, on the other hand, immediately protected the elderly population. He still has designated separate COVID nursing homes to the elderly residents with COVID  so that all other nursing homes can remain safe. Since this spike, up to 50% of new cases are people under the age of 35. The severity for young people is much lower, and Dr. Birx explained that this age group was particularly encouraged to stay home in the past but now are being encouraged to go get tested. Between the highly congested protests, the reopening of bars, and the increased number of parties being thrown, young people have been exposing themselves much more in the recent weeks.

 “Flattening the curve” meant lowering the case and death count so the health care system did not get overwhelmed. Now that cases are going up, hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID have naturally seen a slight increase but not a significant one. This further proves that the immunocompromised and elderly populations must continue to be protected, but keeping the country closed for young, healthy individuals will lead to a continued increase in abuse, mental health issues, and suicide. Flattening the curve for these at risk populations is key, but it’s not necessarily as important for the young population. Being safe and smart is important to protect others, but the narrative that blames reopening efforts is a false attempt to make COVID-19 a political issue during an election year. Rather, we must confront the facts to see what is effective for the American people’s safety and liberty.

Figure 1. The total number of cases of the top five states biweekly from March 23 to July 13.

Figure 2. The total number of deaths of the five highest case states biweekly from March 23 to July 13.

Figure 3. The deaths per million of the top five states with the largest number of total cases as of July 13.

A Summer of Smashing Statues

In the wake of ongoing protests and riots sparked by the murder of George Floyd, numerous statues and monuments around the country have been targets of vandalism and destruction.

Understandably, most of the controversy has centered around the figures of various Confederate leaders. In Richmond, VA, two statues depicting Jefferson Davis, president of the CSA, and Williams Carter Wickham, a Confederate General, were torn down in early June. In Montgomery, Alabama, a statue of Robert E. Lee, found at a high school of the same name, was toppled. Countless more Confederate statues were destroyed or defaced across the South.

Let’s be very clear: these statues should not adorn our public spaces. They glorify traitors who died to defend the evil practice of slavery. However, their removal should not be at the whim of the mob. Local governments, not angry mobs, need to spearhead the process of removing statues. 

Cities across the country have already taken action. On June 9th, Mayor Lenny Curry (R) of Jacksonville Florida, referenced his decision to remove a prominent Confederate statue and promised that, “…the other [Confederate Memorials] in this city, will be removed as well.” Just a few days earlier, on June 5th, Mayor Sandy Stimpson (R) of Mobile, Alabama released a tweet acknowledging his order to move a statue of Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes from a prominent intersection. 

But, the question of which statutes must be torn down is not as easy as: “If it’s Confederate, let’s tear it down.” These decisions must be made with a certain level of discretion. Monuments that celebrate pro-slavery traitors should be removed from America’s municipal buildings, parks, and schools. But take, for example, the State of Virginia Monument on the battlefields of Gettysburg, topped with an equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee. Here his statue serves as a historical reminder of the man who played a critical role in the battle, for better or for worse, not as a monument glorifying him in the public square. Such statues must be preserved to maintain the history of our nation, lest we forget the bloody battles of the Civil War and the men who fought in them. The context is important.

Further proving the necessity of governmental discretion, the mob’s attacks on statues have broadened beyond Confederate memorials and now target those depicting U.S. presidents, soldiers, and even Saints. A statue of Thomas Jefferson was toppled outside a high school in Portland, OR. In the same city a statue of George Washington was torn down, while another in Chicago’s Washington Park was vandalized. The American Museum of Natural History removed its famous bronze statue of Theodore Roosevelt. In San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, a statue of Ulysses S. Grant was torn down, along with statues of St. Junipero Serra and Francis Scott Key. On July 4th, a statue of Frederick Douglass was destroyed in Albany, NY. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution, found in Philadelphia, was covered in spray paint, and the Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Regiment Memorial in Boston Common was defaced, as was a statue of Abigail Adams. These are just the most prominent examples. Such men and women have made invaluable contributions to the development of our nation and, through statuary, we rightly celebrate their accomplishments, though not deifying them or denying their (sometimes many) failings. 

Though perhaps the most saddening example of this wave of destruction were the attempts to tear down the Emancipation Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington D.C. - a statue paid for by former slaves to memorialize the titular proclamation. Marcia Cole, a reenactor of Charlotte Scott, the first to contribute to the statue’s building, in an interview said, “If you look at the figure, it’s easy to say he’s on his knees, but,” she continues, “if you look closer, you will see that this man is rising. His chains are broken. His back is not bent... His eyes are looking forward. He's looking forward to a future of freedom.”

History is messy, as is art. Neither lends itself to easy, black and white answers, but rather, a scope of varying interpretations. One historian might read a figure favorably, and another unfavorably, just as someone might view the Emancipation Monument as the ascendance of former slaves, or as the glorification of a “white savior.” This gray zone necessitates the discretion of local governments, along with public dialogue and discernment. An ideologically possessed mob, in its rage, disregards the nuance, complexity, and depth surrounding the role and validity of these statues.

A Summer of SCOTUS

Over the last several weeks, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on a number of controversial and high-profile cases. These rulings, and the precedents they establish, have a number of important implications. Here’s a brief overview (and the Review’s analysis) of some of the most important SCOTUS developments of the summer:

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue: 

Background: In 2015, Montana started a school choice program that gave tax-credits to entities that donated money to private, non-profit scholarship organizations. Parents, including the plaintiff, Kendra Espinoza, were subsequently barred from using these scholarships at religiously affiliated schools because of the state’s so-called “Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits “direct or indirect” funding of religiously affiliated educational institutions by the state. 

Outcome: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Espinoza. They argued that it was discrimination to exclude religious schools from a tax-credit program simply because the school is religiously affiliated. 

Analysis: The outcome was hailed as a major victory by religious organizations and school choice advocates. Citing the anti-Catholic history of Blaine Amendments, these groups argued that the outcome would both protect religious liberty and educational freedom. 

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania:

Background: An amendment to the Affordable Care Act stipulated that employer-based insurance policies had to provide coverage for contraception. The Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic religious sisters who operate nursing homes for the elderly poor, argued that the contraceptive mandate violated their Catholic religious beliefs. In 2017, the Trump administration gave the Sisters an exemption from the mandate, but several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey filed lawsuits, claiming the exemption was unconstitutional. 

Outcome: The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Little Sisters. They argued that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury do have the authority to create religious and moral exemptions under the ACA.

Analysis: While this was another victory for religious freedom, it might not be the end of trouble for the Little Sisters—who have been in and out of court for almost a decade, fighting the contraceptive mandate—because the Court’s ruling was relatively narrow. The Court argued that, while the HHS and other bureaucratic agencies can grant exemptions, those exemptions could be repealed by subsequent administrations. Justice Alito argued that the Court should have gone further, applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to mandate exemptions, not just permit them. 

June Medical Services LLC v. Russo:

Background: Louisiana passed a law in 2014 which mandated that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital (i.e., within thirty miles) in case serious medical complications arise during an abortion.

Outcome: The Court issued a plurality opinion in favor of June Medical services, arguing that the Louisiana law was essentially the same as a Texas law that had been previously struck down.

Analysis: The Court’s decision came as a disappointing surprise for many pro-life advocates. One of the biggest questions raised by dissenting Justices remains unanswered— whether doctors and abortion providers have the legal standing required to bring abortion cases. Laws that regulate abortion are often challenged on the grounds that they limit a woman’s right to have an abortion, not on the grounds that doctors somehow have a right to perform abortions. Yet in many cases,including June,doctors and abortion providers,not women who were unable to get abortions, were the plaintiffs. Because the legal question at hand has nothing to do with doctors’ rights, conservative justices argue that there was no legal standing for the case to be brought up.

Bostock v. Clayton County:

Background: In 2016, Gerald Bostock sued his former employer, Clayton County in Georgia, for firing him because of his sexual orientation. He argued that his firing was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The question at hand was whether the language of sex includes sexual orientation. 

Outcome: In a 6-3 decision for Bostock, the Court ruled that the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does make sexuality a protected class. This would make it illegal to fire an individual for their sexual orientation.

Analysis: Many hailed the case’s outcome as a win for LGBT rights. The most fascinating part about the ruling was Justice Gorsuch’s vote. Considered a stalwart originalist and conservative, Gorsuch voted in the majority and authored the opinion. He argued that, because a woman would not get fired for dating or marrying a man, a man can not get fired for dating or marrying a man—otherwise, it would constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. This raised some eyebrows in originalist circles, because it’s highly dubious that this was the original intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, because Congress has not defined sexuality as a protected class, despite having a number of chances to do so, some argue that the Court’s decision took the form of activist legalism.