DOJ Wants to Suspend Constitutional Rights for Coronavirus Emergency

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.”

…Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

…They also asked Congress to pass a law saying that immigrants who test positive for COVID-19 cannot qualify as asylum seekers.

As coronavirus spreads through the country, activists are calling on politicians in office to release prisoners and immigrants held in detention centers, both of which can be a hotbed of virus activity with so many people in close quarters and limited or non-existent supplies of soap, sanitizer, and protective equipment.

DOJ Wants to Suspend Constitutional Rights for Coronavirus Emergency – Rolling Stone

Unamerican asshats

Why Sanders Isn’t Winning Over Black Voters

Opinion | Why Sanders Isn’t Winning Over Black Voters – The New York Times

Ya gotta love it when an opinion piece starts out by referring to “assumptions” but doesn’t spell out what the assumption is or who holds it. It’s like: grab that glass of wine, reader, because this is going to be seven minutes of your life that you can’t get back.

“But consider a reason Mr. Sanders has done poorly among black voters that few are talking about: People with the most to gain by the numerous programs proposed by Mr. Sanders have also been the most disappointed by politics.”

Oh, for the love of Gaaa-uuughhh……. Really, few people are talking about it? By few, do you everyone who has a byline who has written about it? Because I will grant that they are not the sum total of the population. It might not be the first thing that gets brought up, but it sure as sh*t comes up pretty quick. I mean, where has the good doctor been? And who the eff have they been talking to?

Blah, blah, blah. Widespread and wholesale disenfranchisement is far from the only reason Bernie isn’t catching on in certain populations like older African-Americans.

Missed some opportunities? Is that what the kids on the street are calling a not-poor-super-super-white-guy-blinders-on reaction to #BLM? Dude brought some mayo with him on that one.


Has it been a good week for the royals?

“God speed, guys, but I predict that hearts will harden towards Harry and Meghan over the next few years. Not because they will continue to cost us millions in security, but because they will become emblematic of us, the British, not being able to have nice things. We drove these photogenic rich people away — yes, by tittering at their interest in saving the planet one Learjet flight at a time, but also by being weirdly possessive of their child and creepy to the point of ugh about how many photos we could take of him.” – Harriet Walker, The Times

Has it been a good week for the royals?