” But seriously, why are we debating whether Biden’s vaccine mandates are constitutional ? All he has to do is enforce them using private citizen vigilantes who get a bounty for turning in the unvaxxed and according to SCOTUS, the courts’ hands are tied.” Joyce Vance
Please share widely!
I already made that suggestion. Tom said we couldn’t do it.
I disagree with Tom. Hang the anti-vax bastards on their own petard.
I have no clue what you’re talking about.
I will say here and now that attempting to use citizens to spy on other citizens is un-American and is unconstitutional
It is the stuff of the East German Stazi and has no place in a society that makes any pretense of being free.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Sorry Fred, I have to disagree with you on this one.
When terrorists broadcast the obscene video of the Daniel Pearl execution in 2002, some Americans called for similarly broadcast beheadings in response.
I joined others — the mainstream then, I like to think — in the posture that civilized people do not things like that. If America had responded in kind, then there would be no difference between us and the terrorists. That, in turn, would have meant that terrorists achieved their purpose.
Civilized people in a free society do not spy on their neighbors for money. I don’t want to live in a society where that is accepted as normal.
I think that the seditious thugs who put these laws into effect — and the Americans who support them with their financial contributions — should be prosecuted.
Today’s GOP is a criminal enterprise under the definitions of the RICO act. It is also a domestic terrorist organization that promotes insurrection.
Its leaders and contributors — including each and every American who sends money to Donald Trump — should be prosecuted under the laws regulating these illegal activities.
Past support cannot be punished (because of ex post facto constraints). However, financial support for these organizations can be declared criminal today. I hope that will be one outcome of the several investigations that are proceeding with such agonizing slowness.
The toxic and incredibly damaging rhetoric from today’s GOP would instantly STOP the moment that the cash contributions that it is used to generate were made illegal.
These deplorables are intentionally conspiring to end representative Democracy in America — violently if needed. They are domestic terrorists that must be stopped.
In stopping them, we must therefore never adopt their toxic methods and tactics.
With respect. Tom, I have never called for citizen violence in a democracy to achieve a political objective. That’s terrorism and I would never advocate for that.
SCOTUS has ruled that a Texas state law overturning Roe v. Wade national law legalizing abortion is AOK, allowing private citizen vigilantes to collect a $10,000 bounty for ratting out ANYONE who violates that state law; including those who aid those women.
Now, I’m no scholar but somewhere in my study of constitutional law I learned that in a federal system of democracy National law trumps (excuse the pun) state law.
If President Biden’s vaccination mandates citing a public health emergency are legal — and I have no reason to believe they are not — why should it not be OK for any citizen to support said law by helping authorities identify said violators who endanger the public health whether a bounty is offered or not?
I appreciate your courteous reply, sometimes even the best of friends disagree.
Not exactly. The Supreme Court chose not to block the law while its court challenge proceeds. The decision — that I passionately oppose — explicitly states that it does not address the merits or substance of the proposed law.
Because to do so creates ANOTHER financial incentive for Americans to spy on their neighbors.
It is already perfectly legal for anybody to inform legal authorities when they witness something that strikes them as illegal or suspicious — that’s not what I think you’re proposing.
The Texas law provides financial rewards to citizen vigilantes. It explicitly does NOT make them, even temporarily, agents of or acting on behalf of the Texas government. That’s because the crux of their legal argument is that these citizens are acting outside Texas government. If that were not the case, then Roe v. Wade would apply and the new law would be unconstitutional on its face.
Credible journalistic outlets do not pay sources in exchange for stories (that’s a staple of tabloid journalism). That’s because a very long and sordid history shows that such information is very often entirely fabricated or greatly embellished in order to increase its appeal — and presumably its price.
I read your comment to suggest that the same citizen bounty be paid individuals who act outside of government authority to report vaccine and mask violations.
Such payments are what I object to. I absolutely reject the premise that anybody should paid by the government in exchange for information they provide to the government.
Surely we’ve already had enough tabloid government.
Is there a polite way to compare someone to the Stasi? I agree with Tom to the extent of incentivizing snooping, but there a ways and topics where bounties can be made appropriate. For example. there used to be a law allowing people to sue polluters (Maybe there still is.)
Maybe we could redo that law to allow, Texas style, anyone to sue a polluter –as many people who want to.
Where to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate topics? I don’t know. But the idea of promoting private lawsuits to enforce policy should not be automatically dismissed.
At the very least, the next time the Supreme Court considers something cute like they did last summer, they will have to consider that it might get thrown into their face.
The issue isn’t promoting private lawsuits.
The issue is that the government should not create a financial incentive for people to act OUTSIDE of the government to enforce an otherwise unenforceable law.
I don’t care whether the comparison to the Stasi is polite or not, I stand by it.
But in this case it’s bad for the goose, and also bad for the gander.
Or how about this? Pass a law to give anyone the right to sue any plaintiff from one of these Texas lawsuits, with triple damages, ie triple anything the Texas plaintiffs get. Or maybe sue Texas legislators, or their campaign contributors.
The Supreme Court could then either invalidate all these bills, or leave them all in place.
The many lawyers I’ve worked with over the years have unanimously said that anyone can sue anybody for anything. So the right you propose already exists.
The seditionists are choking the courts with what amounts to a Denial-of_Service attack — filing hundreds of frivolous or fraudulent civil actions intended to paralyze effective due process. This goes hand-in-hand with the many state-level actions such as the Texas anti-abortion travesty that similarly clog the appeals courts.
You propose to do the very same thing — literally adopting the same toxic strategy that is already doing so much harm.
I have a different proposal for what the various courts — including the Supreme Court — should do. I think the courts should quickly and definitively rule against all these efforts and then recommend disbarment and similar sanctions against each and every attorney listed as Plaintiff. I think the courts should bring swift and large financial penalties against every litigant who abuses the legal system in this way.
I think the same actions should be taken against any plaintiff who files the kind of action you propose here.
As Fred wrote upthread — “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
“The many lawyers I’ve worked with over the years have unanimously said that anyone can sue anybody for anything. So the right you propose already exists.”
True enough. But what the Texas law did was to tilt the balance against abortion providers by giving the anti-abortion plaintiffs standing, providing for a minimum recovery of $10,000, attorney fees etc.
Until the Supreme Court gets around to declaring this unconstitutional, if it does, there should be some pushback.. Use the same provisions to go after the anti-abortion plaintiffs. I would raise the stakes a little, say a minimum award of $20,000.
All it really would take is some state legislator, somewhere to draft a bill and call a press conference. If the Supreme Court delays or somehow finds an excuse to let the Texas law stand, then we can throw it back in their faces.
PS: Your comparing me to the Stasi is old news, and I had already forgotten. I was referring to your exchange with Fred/
When you propose to employ a tactic used by Stasi, I will say so. As loudly as I can.
Sure, as loudly as you can, as opposed to how you usually say things.
Look, as comforting as it may be to dream of a day when the courts will set things right and punish all our misbehaving opponents, I don’t think that is either a realistic expectation, or the best way to fight political battles in a democracy.
The Texas anti-abortionists are political opponents and we should look for ways to push back politically.
Absolutely, I enthusiastically agree.