Single-payer health care plan falls through in California

(Photo from The Los Angeles Times)

Today, California’s plan to start a single-payer health care plan fell through as bill AB1400 failed to progress through the Assembly. Single-payer health care is a type of universal health care in which a government provides a single health insurance plan for its residents and determines the prices for medical goods and procedures. According to The San Francisco Daily Chronicle, those who opposed the bill and those who supported it had differing views of the bill’s possible economic outcome. Critics believed the bill would be too costly for the state, whereas supporters argued that the bill would lower the cost of health care.

This is not the first time California has failed to pass a single-payer health care bill. The Los Angeles Times reports that two other single-payer health care bills have failed to pass the Assembly in the past five years. According to Vox, Vermont also attempted to pass a single-payer health care bill in 2014, but the bill failed because legislatures were worried about the costs of creating the program. The approximate annual cost for bill AB1400 is between $314 billion and $391 billion, which exceeds Gov. Gavin Newsom’s preferred overall budget for California of $286.4 billion.

Gov. Newsom also proposed a new health care plan which would expand California’s health care program, Medi-Cal. The change would include allowing undocumented immigrants to be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal coverage rather than restricted-scope Medi-Cal coverage. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that this expansion would cost about $870 million dollars this year and more than $2 billion annually.

Health care is an increasingly important topic and its cruciality in our world has been highlighted with the pandemic. According to the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there is a “right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” which suggests that health care is a human right and should be protected by governments. However, the question of how to protect and provide this right has become very politicized in the U.S.

The feasibility of the single-payer health care system seems uncertain, especially if Gov. Newsom does not want to increase California’s budget. Gov. Newsom's idea for expanding the Medi-Cal program seems like a promising option for undocumented immigrants, but doesn’t seem to do much to help other California residents as well. Perhaps another option could be to expand the Medi-Cal program for all California residents, making health care more accessible and treating it more like a human/civil right, while still letting people opt into private medical insurance if they so choose.

Discussion questions:

1. What do you think about single-payer health care? What about Gov. Newsom’s plan?

2. Do you think the bill should have at least been brought to the floor for a vote? Why or why not?

3. How would you propose to change health care? Or would you keep it the same as it is now?

Research links

San Francisco Chronicle article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/We-did-not-have-the-votes-Legislator-kills-16820618.php

Los Angeles Times article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-31/single-payer-healthcare-proposal-fizzles-in-california-assembly

Vox article: https://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin

Legislative Analyst’s Office report: https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4423

UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx

Washington Post video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg2ZUZo2FpU

Vox video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9x4cRWqPPM

Biden's Historic Nomination

 

    This week, word of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement was leaked to the public. The question of who will fill the vacancy continues to stir public interest, while also giving rise to controversy over Biden’s campaign promise to nominate the first ever Black woman onto the court. While Biden is yet to announce a nominee, there has been both resistance and support as well as discord over issues such as supposed affirmative action and the politicization of the Supreme Court. One of Biden’s main goals is to push the nomination through before the potential overturning of power to Republicans in the Senate. While the Supreme Court would remain a conservative majority, successfully replacing Breyer would not only preserve the number of liberal Justices, it would also be a historic moment in our nation’s history.

One of the public’s favorites is nominee Michelle Childs, a Southern Carolina judge who was nominated earlier in the year for the Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit. Childs’ confirmation was postponed due to her being considered for the Supreme Court alongside a handful of other judges. In an ABC News Poll, 73% of participants believed that Biden should consider all potential nominees, not just black women. However, there are still many that demand Biden to follow through on his promise.

Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi was quick to express his opinion, claiming that whoever Biden nominated would be a result of affirmative action: "The irony is that the Supreme Court is at the very same time hearing cases about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota".

At the time of his statement, Wicker was unaware of who Biden had in mind for nominees. Let it be noted that when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, Wicker expressed support at the idea of a woman becoming Justice. Additionally, Senator Dick Durbin pointed out that this is not the first time a President has stated that they are looking for a specific candidate to nominate (in this case women). That being said, it’s clear that Wicker’s speculative claims about the illegitimacy of Biden’s nominee are mostly, if not completely oriented around the factor of race, hinting at the potential presence of racial prejudice in the Senate. 

Several other Senators such as Majority Whip James Clyburn and even Republican Lindsey Graham challenged Wicker’s remarks. While Graham is from Childs’ state and Clyburn lobbied Biden to nominate her, it adds to Childs’ reputability.

Graham: "She has wide support in our state. She's considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She is one of the most decent people I've ever met."

Senator Susan Collins similarly supports Biden’s intentions of carrying out his campaign promise, however, she brings up a good point. Collins claims that by promising to nominate a black woman during his presidential campaign, Biden politicized the Court nomination process which is in opposition to the institution’s image. While other President’s have promised to nominate specific candidates, Biden is the first to do so before he was elected which supports Collins statement. To me, this implies that he was using it as a political leverage to garner more support and votes (especially if you take into account that the majority of Black voters are Democrats). 

As the deadline for the announcement of the Supreme Court nominee nears, debates will continue as supporters and opposition express their views on the process and impact of Biden’s nomination.

1.) Do you think Roger Wicker's claim of affirmative action is valid? Why or why not?

2.) What do you make of the people opposing the nomination of a black woman for Supreme Court? Do you think it's because they genuinely believe it's unfair and that there are more qualified candidates? Or is it something do to with race/racism? 

3.) Based on what we've learned in class about the Supreme Court so far, do you agree that Collins is accurately describing the effects of Biden's nomination on the SCOTUS image? How might this impact future nominations?

4.) What is your personal opinion on nominating a black woman as Justice?

Image: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices-column/2028450001/ 

Sources:

https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-retirement2f9c1f5da824e3b1ef25964205131fff 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/white-house-confirms-south-carolina-judge-under-consideration-supreme-court/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/29/politics/roger-wicker-supreme-court-biden-nominee-affirmative-action/index.html 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/30/politics/lindsey-graham-j-michelle-childs-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/white-house-pushes-back-after-republican-senator-says-supreme-court-pick-will-be-beneficiary-affirmative-action/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/poll-majority-biden-all-nominees-supreme-court.html 

Biden Appoints New FEC Commissioner

        In recent years, the Federal Election Commission’s(FEC) decisions have been caught in gridlock quite often due to the increasing polarization between political parties and ideological differences among members of the governing commission. The gridlock has caused a decline in the FEC’s enforcement of regulations, for example, in 2006, the FEC failed to get a majority in only 4.2 percent of enforcement cases, a sharp contrast to 2016 where the FEC failed to get a majority in 37.5 percent of enforcement cases. The FEC commission is an independent regulatory agency that functions as the “nation’s chief campaign finance watchdog.” The FEC commission consists of six commissioners that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By law, there cannot be more than three commissioners from a single political party, and currently, there is 1 independent(identifies as independent but votes along with the two other democrats), 2 democrats, and 3 republican commissioners. Due to the commission needing four votes to execute and implement an action, the three Republicans out of six commissioners have been able to block any action taken against strengthening regulations, stopping campaign investigations, and rulemaking on issues such as super PAC contributions. The most prominent case regarding the FEC’s enforcements laws came from the ruling of the 2010 Supreme Court case FEC v. Citizens United, which ruled that political campaigns did not have to disclose funds as corporations could donate unlimited amounts of money for independent expenditures.     

        During former President Trump’s term, the FEC did not meet expectations to uphold campaign finance regulations from lack of a majority. Democratic commissioners on the other hand support strict regulation on campaign financing and the disclosure of funds. Recently the Biden administration and Democratic representatives have failed to pass voting rights legislation which would have made FEC’s powers stronger. However, Biden has nominated Dara Lindenbaum, an election law attorney, to replace commissioner Steven T. Walther, the current FEC vice chair, who identifies as an independent. Along with her lengthy resume from serving as associate counsel in the Voting Rights Project to currently working at the Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock firm, Dara Lindenbaum’s appointment to the FEC will uphold the FEC’s member commission requirements(3-3). 

Questions:

What do you think about Biden’s nomination of Dara Lindenbaum?

Should Biden continue to take steps towards enforcing the FEC’s campaign finance laws?

Do you think changes should be made to the structure of the FEC Commission to encourage conclusive resolutions?

Sources:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/21/biden-nominate-new-fec-commissioner/

• https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/biden-nominates-former-stacey-abrams-lawyer-for-campaign-finance-watchdog-527599

• https://www.axios.com/fec-biden-campaign-finance-reform-861530cb-0bca-400b-90a3-db495175ac5b.html

• https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/white-house-considers-stacking-the-fec-6355456/

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been brewing since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Once serving as a key part of the Soviet Union with its agricultural industry and warm water ports on the Black Sea, Ukraine has now become a top producer and exporter of grain, and specifically wheat, for many developing countries. For example, approximately half of the wheat consumed in Lebanon is imported from Ukraine while Yemen, Libya, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh import over 20% of their wheat from Ukraine. Historically, a group of people called the Rus moved their capital to Kyiv, Ukraine’s current capital, in the 9th century, which Putin claims is the reason that Ukraine’s true sovereignty lies with Russia.

In 2014, Russia illegally invaded Crimea, a southern territory of Ukraine on the Black Sea as well as the eastern industrial regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. These regions are considered Russian separatist regions backed by Moscow with over 50% of the population claiming Russian as their native language, according to a 2001 census (Most recent census). Other former Soviet republics also have pro-Russian separatist regions that Moscow uses to expand their influence and evade sanctions. The ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine has already killed over 14,000 people and stands to be even bloodier if Putin decides to invade the entirety of Ukraine.

Over the past several months, Russia has mobilized an estimated 100,000 troops along with significant heavy weaponry stationed on the Ukrainian border. In December of 2021, Russia gave a list of demands to the US and claimed that they were necessary to prevent a large-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia requested that NATO’s eastern expansion be stopped, military infrastructure such as bases and missiles be limited to their current state, an end to military assistance for Ukraine, and a ban on missiles in Europe. In the past, Western policymakers have argued that Ukraine is not a NATO member and Russia does not have an official say on the military aid that the West sends to Ukraine. However, the current threat of military action has forced the West to reconsider the situation. Although these demands don’t resemble a complete ultimatum for a full-scale invasion, tensions have grown steadily over the past few weeks as diplomatic meetings have failed to de-escalate the situation. To make matters worse, US officials have also said that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could happen within the next month or two.

Both the US and the UK also have intelligence that Russia is seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine.

With both sides under immense pressure to achieve their goals, but also seeking to avoid the largest conventional war since WWII, America’s response along with that of its NATO allies will be paramount. For Putin, the continued democratization of Ukraine would be both a possible symbol of freedom for Russians from his autocratic rule as well as a symbol of victory for the West. Should Ukraine become more Westernized and possibly join NATO someday, it would be viewed as a major security issue and threat to its power and influence. Meanwhile, the US and Europe have the goal of preventing the escalation of the conflict while also maintaining the strength of NATO and the stability of the region.

The question is, how should the West handle the situation? Germany, France, and Britain, Europe’s three biggest powers, are currently divided on how to proceed, leaving other countries on the various sides and the US with uncertainty on how to act. Just like the US, these European nations are reeling from domestic challenges with British leadership under fire for violation of lockdown protocols, France in an election year, and Germany struggling to gain stability after Merkel’s retirement. As it stands, Britain believes that supporting Ukraine with military supplies and weaponry is the best solution while Germany is against arming Ukraine in accordance with their policy from the aftermath of WWII. France on the other hand wishes to establish a security framework led by European Union and separate from NATO and the US. Moreover, Europe’s dependence on Russia’s oil and gas for 40% of its energy needs undermines their interest in preventing Russian expansion.

For Biden and the US, allowing Putin to take advantage of the chaotic circumstances and potentially start a large-scale war would be viewed as a major failure both internationally and domestically. If Russia were to get its way, it could lead the way for further expansion of autocracies as a whole from further European expansion or Chinese expansion into somewhere like Taiwan. A war would also be devastating to the world’s economy as Russia is a top producer of oil and gas. Just last week, Biden admitted that the West was not united on a solution. Despite the possible imminent invasion, Biden is still committed to de-escalating the conflict by threatening to impose economic sanctions and seemingly playing mind games with Putin.

While there is no certainty as to how the situation will play out, it is clear that something has to budge or an escalation to full-scale war is very possible.

Questions:

How does the current situation compare to the past precedent of the Cold War?

To what extent should the US become involved should the conflict escalate to war?

What other implications might an invasion create both domestically and internationally?

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/21/ukraine-russia-explain-maps/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/22/russia-ukraine-war-grain-exports-africa-asia/

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2021-12-28/what-putin-really-wants-ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/briefing/russia-ukraine-putin-biden.html

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/06/understanding-russia-ukraine-crisis/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/europe/bulgaria-romania-russia-intl/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60072502

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/joe-biden-vladimir-putin-us-russia-ukraine/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/world/europe/ukraine-biden-eu.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions-explainer-cmd-intl/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/23/europe-divided-ukraine/

Teenaged Truck Drivers Soon to be on the Road

As a result of the pandemic, global production, shipping, and supply chains have fallen apart, leaving healthcare workers without supplies, people without their entertainment, and empty car dealerships. While there are numerous layers to the issue, one aspect of the problem stems from the lack of transportation for goods from ports to their destinations.

The US is currently lacking approximately 80,000 truck drivers, a 30% increase from before the pandemic. While this shortage has existed since before the pandemic, recent conditions have only exacerbated the issue. Specifically, the past 40 years have seen a sharp decline in wages and unions for truck drivers. Adjusted for inflation, truck drivers earned an average of $110,000 in 1980 and approximately 40% were under union contracts. In 2020, that number has dropped to $47,130 and only 10% of drivers are unionized. Despite the shortage, there are millions of Americans who actually have commercial driver’s licenses and are certified to drive trucks. However, the deregulated industry leaves many truckers working long and difficult hours for shrinking pay and generally finding the career unproductive. Furthermore, the gap between people leaving school at 18 and being legally allowed to drive a truck at 21 has pushed people away from the career.

In order to alleviate the situation, the US is lowering the age requirement to be an interstate truck driver from 21 to 18. Last week, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration detailed the necessary training procedures and vehicle safety requirements where drivers have to complete 400 hours of training with an experienced driver in the truck. This program is a part of the infrastructure bill that Biden signed into law late last year. While this will help the issue, the trucking industry will continue to struggle with retaining drivers, especially considering the long hours away from home and the relatively poor conditions for the wages they earn.

Questions:

Do you think it’s wise to trust teenagers to drive trucks for long hours?

How might self-driving technologies impact the trucking industry both currently and in the future?

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/business/apprentice-program-truck-drivers.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/27/us-truck-drivers-economy-pay-conditions

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/19/economy/trucking-short-drivers/index.html

https://www.vox.com/22841783/truck-drivers-shortage-supply-chain-pandemic

Eastern Europe Tests New Forms of Media Censorship

Eastern European countries like Serbia have had a history of censoring media companies. Despite censorship in Serbia being prohibited by the Constitution under Article 50 and freedom of speech being protected under Article 46, Serbia still faces rising cases of media censorship. The most recent and publicized incident was the arrest of journalist Ana Lalic, shortly after she exposed the shortage of masks and equipment during the pandemic in 2020. This follows a pattern of reporters facing the brunt of state power when speaking out against the government. While journalists who speak out are not physically harmed through violent force, their reputations are tarnished by attacks from loyalist newspapers and media. Zoran Gavrilovic, director of BIRODI(Bureau for Social Research), a media monitoring group, explained in an interview the extent to which biased media supports Mr. Vucic, president of Serbia and SNS(populist Serbian Progressive Party), during elections. This biased reporting can be shown by a BIRODI news report that found Mr. Vucic to have 87% of his media coverage be positive while his opposition had 83% of their media coverage be negative. Mr. Vucic has had uninterrupted airtime on major Serbian television channels, while opposition leaders such as Dragan Dijilas speak only on news channels like N1, whose cable provider SBB(Serbian Broadband) is not state-controlled. The broadcasts of opposition, however, are blocked in towns where leaders are allies of Mr. Vucic, and the channel itself has faced much backlash. The battle between state-dependent broadcast companies that enforce strict censorship and the few independent media companies in Serbia has escalated. 

Recent reports by the V-Dem Institute emphasize the consequences of increasing media censorship, as Serbia’s Liberal Democracy Index(LDI) was found to have declined substantially over the past decade, and lack of media freedom was a factor in Serbia being labeled a top autocratic country. In addition, the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Serbia, by the U.S. Department of State revealed that “strict restrictions of free expression and press” and the “unjustified arrests of journalists” were among the top human rights issues in Serbia. Serbia among other European countries like Hungary and Poland, continue to take measures to silence and restrict freedom of speech. 

Questions: 

What do you think about the Serbian government’s pressure on independent media?

Do you have any thoughts or comments about the clash between state-controlled and independent media in Serbia?

Sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/world/europe/serbia-media-censorship.html?surface=icymi-home&fellback=false&req_id=279614108&algo=identity&variant=0_manual_curation&pool=pool/215befff-e8c1-41b4-947b-d712144a34dc&imp_id=658082843&action=click&module=In%20Case%20You%20Missed%20It&pgtype=Homepage

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/20/we-need-free-speech-protests-erupt-across-poland-over-controversial-media-bill

• https://freedomhouse.org/country/serbia/freedom-net/2021

• https://www.v-dem.net/static/website/files/dr/dr_2021.pdf

• https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/serbia/

• https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/74694/119555/F838981147/SRB74694%20Eng.pdf

Ohio Supreme Court tosses GOP-drawn Congressional Map

    

       In 2018, Ohio voters demanded that new redistricting anti-gerrymandering reforms be amended to the state Constitution. The reform included mandates for redistricting, a proposal for a bipartisan redistricting commission, and stated that no new plan would “favor a political party over another.” These mandates were in response to 2011’s redistricting plan, which resulted in gerrymandered congressional districts. Senator Cecil Thomas, of the Democratic Party, emphasized the consequences of the past district lines where gerrymandering coupled with Ohio’s winner-take-all system, allowed for Republican advantage: 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

        In accordance, with these new constitutional reforms, the Ohio Supreme Court recently rejected a new congressional district reapportionment plan, in a ruling 4-3. The court ordered for the redrawing of the congressional plan within 30 days, after which the responsibility would then be passed to the Ohio Redistricting Commission(panel of elected officials). The map presented to the Ohio Supreme Court allowed Republicans a 12-3 advantage and was called out for not following the wishes of Ohio voters. The proposed plan unnecessarily split counties like Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit, and the congressional district lines were drawn to be unfairly Republican-leaning. The plan also altered current districts which resulted in more GOP-leaning congressional districts, and even connected counties like Akon to high populated Republican areas “almost 70 miles away.” The ruling was supported by Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly who pointed out the “skewed results” from the past congressional district lines. The skewed results were highlighted by the statistics as the Republican party won around 55% of the popular votes, yet won approximately 75-80% of congressional delegation seats. Similarly, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, of the Republican Party, wrote in her opinion piece that the congressional map plan brought in front of the Court presented a “partisan advantage…that favor[ed] the Republican Party.” Ohio lawmakers continue to work on creating a new congressional district plan in compliance with Ohio’s constitutional reforms. 

Questions:

Do you think the Ohio Supreme Court made the right or wrong decision in their ruling? Why or why not?

What do you think about the 2018 redistricting reforms?

How should the congressional districts in Ohio be redrawn to be representative and follow redistricting reforms?

What other steps can be taken to prevent partisan gerrymandering?

Sources:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ohio-supreme-court-tosses-gop-drawn-congressional-map-n1287516

• https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2021/03/26/opinion-gerrymandering-has-disenfranchised-cincinnati-voters/7003943002/

• https://www.businessinsider.com/ohio-supreme-court-strikes-down-redistricting-map-2022-1

• https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/01/14/redistricting-ohio-supreme-court-decision-congressional-map-gerrymandering/9119566002/

Supreme Court Blocks Biden’s Virus Mandate for Large Employers

 

    On Thursday, SCOTUS struck down the vaccine-or-test mandate (which had been issued in November), claiming that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) had exceeded the authority given to it by Congress. The 3 liberal justices said in their dissent that this misapplies legal standards and hinders the government's ability to fight COVID. They also wrote that OSHA's rule was in accordance with its core mission to protect employees from danger. The mandate applied to 84 million employees (all businesses with 100 or more workers) and OSHA estimated it would save 6,500 lives, prevent 250,000 hospitalizations over 6 months, and cause 22 million people to get vaccinated (currently, 208 million are vaccinated, only 63% of the population). Biden called the mandate a "common-sense life-saving requirement" and called on businesses to institute their own vaccination requirements.

    However, the court did uphold a mandate for vaccines for employees at hospitals providing Medicare or Medicaid, as health care providers receiving federal funds have had a history of conditions being imposed on them. In addition, the mandate would protect patients from COVID. In both cases, the justices had to decide whether Congress had authorized the executive branch (via agencies like OSHA) to take broad action to address the COVID crisis.

    Personally, I disagree with the court's decision to block the mandate for employers. While it's true that "OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate," as the majority argued, these are unprecedented times, and they call for unprecedented actions. Moreover, the US is trailing many countries in vaccination rates, and lives are being lost because of this. The mandate was crucial to protecting workers and raising the US's vaccination rates. Lastly, as the dissenters argued, this should be decided by health experts, not justices. Deferring to federal agencies makes sense because they have the specialized knowledge, and nonpartisanship, needed to make these decisions.

Questions:

• Do you agree with the ruling? Or should this even be the court's decision to make? 
• Some have accused the court of becoming too politicized, and of justices being motivated to derail Biden's agenda at all costs. Do you agree? What role should personal political beliefs play in the justices' decisions?  
• Do you think businesses will listen to Biden and set their own mandates? What are the costs/risks of doing this and is it worth it?

Sources:

• https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072165393/supreme-court-blocks-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate-for-large-private-companies 
• https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-eb5899ae1fe5b62b6f4d51f54a3cd375
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate-ruling/

West Virginia v. EPA

"In... the Clean Air Act, did Congress constitutionally authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules... without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts, and energy requirements?" This question is at the heart of West Virginia v. EPA, which is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on February 28. The case could be one of the most important in recent history, with severe consequences for the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions as well as the structure of the bureaucracy. 

Background

West Virginia v. EPA challenges the Clean Power Plan, Obama's plan to fight climate change. The petitioners (coal companies and red states) want the Court to rule that the Clean Air Act of 1970 (one of the most successful environmental laws) doesn't authorize the Plan, which would limit the EPA's authority to reduce greenhouse emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA determines the "best system" of emission reduction for power plants. In short, the Act relies on Congress to lay out broad policy and delegates implementation to the EPA. As we've learned, this is effective because federal agencies are more efficient than Congress, have more specialized knowledge, and don't involve political backroom deals. 

The Power of the Bureaucracy

However, the majority of justices don't think that federal agencies should set policy. Gorsuch in particular supports the major questions doctrine, which says that agencies can only issue significant regulation with instructions from Congress. The non-delegation doctrine goes even further, saying that Congress is Constitutionally barred from delegating "legislative" powers to the executive branch. According to this, most of modern government would be unconstitutional. Gorsuch's approach would also transfer power from the executive to the judicial branch, giving it the authority to strike down federal regulations on a range of topics.

Questions

1. Do you think the major questions and/or non-delegation doctrines are valid? Why or why not?

2. What would happen if federal agencies were to lose this much power?

Sources

• https://www.vox.com/2021/11/3/22758188/climate-change-epa-clean-power-plan-supreme-court
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-case-that-could-upend-efforts-to-protect-the-environment
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-10/challenge-to-epas-climate-authority-heads-to-supreme-court
• https://ballotpedia.org/West_Virginia_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

Voting Rights and Filibuster Reform

This week, the Senate will vote on whether to reform the filibuster in order to pass a bill protecting voting rights. The bill is the Freedom to Vote Act, which is supported by all Democrats and would, among other things: expand early and absentee voting, ban partisan gerrymandering, restore formerly incarcerated people's right to vote, make automatic voter registration the national standard, reform campaign finance, and make Election Day a national holiday. This comes at a crucial time, as Republican-controlled state legislatures have been passing record numbers of voting restrictions and gerrymandering to the extreme (for example, North Carolina's new congressional map would give Republicans at least 71% of the seats, although Trump won the state with only 49.9% of the vote). This could cost Democrats the Congress as well as the Presidency in the next elections. 

However, Senators Manchin and Sinema (2 crucial votes out of the 50 Democrats needed) are opposed to changing the Senate's rules to weaken the filibuster, because they argue that the filibuster promotes bipartisanship. As for what this change would actually be, Democrats are discussing options such as an exception for this bill, an exception for bills designed to protect democracy, or a talking filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Schumer: "Over the coming weeks, the Senate will once again consider how to perfect this union and confront the historic challenges facing our democracy. We hope our Republican colleagues change course and work with us. But if they do not, the Senate will debate and consider changes to Senate rules... to protect the foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections."  

Minority Leader McConnell: "If Senate Democratic leaders are trying to use the big lie to bully and berate their own members into breaking the Senate, we're going to spend all week sounding the alarm on the radical takeover that some Democrats want to pull off."

According to Ari Berman of Mother Jones, Republicans are rigging the 2024 election with their anti-democratic voting restrictions and gerrymandering, and are violating the principle of majority rule in order to wield power. Tom Sullivan (Digby's Hullabaloo) has a similar view of the Republicans, calling their actions un-American and a betrayal to the country. He points out that Manchin is getting too much attention, as any of the Republicans could vote to reform the filibuster, and they are the ones who should be being condemned. 

Questions:

• Many Democrats are making voting rights a top priority. Do you agree with this? How big of a threat are gerrymandering and voting restriction laws?
• Is the filibuster democratic? Do you support reforming it?
• How much hate/attention does Manchin deserve for resisting the Democrats' agenda? 
• Considering everything that's happened since January 6, 2021, to what extent do you consider Senate Republicans to be "anti-democratic" and/or "un-American"? 

Sources:

• https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-vote-changing-rules-if-republicans-obstruct-voting-rights-law-schumer-2022-01-03/
• https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-act 
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/11/republicans-are-rigging-elections-for-the-next-decade/
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/its-now-or-never-for-democrats-to-protect-voting-rights/
• https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/joe-manchin-voting-rights-filibuster/index.html
• https://digbysblog.net/2022/01/08/the-autocracy-caucus/
• https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/03/voting-rights-bill-senate-to-consider-filibuster-rule-changes.html
• https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/03/politics/schumer-filibuster-rules-manchin-sinema/index.html  

Palm oil plantations: redefining deforestation as reforestation in Indonesia

Across Indonesia, palm oil plantations and production have led to massive deforestation of the nation’s tropical rainforests. Even though federal law prohibits creating plantations in natural forests, over 25% of the rainforests have been cleared out to fuel the massive demand for palm oil. Indonesia is the largest producer of the commodity, yet while its farmers thrive from the sales of palm oil, the production of the export causes biodiversity loss and eutrophication from agricultural run-off.

Even more frightening, Yanto Santosa, professor of forestry at the Bogor Institute of Agriculture, recently pushed his proposal to allow palm oil companies to plant in forest areas, classifying oil palms as a “forest crop.” Essentially, native plants and trees will be cleared to make way for oil palms — ironically making deforestation efforts classified as reforestation — despite decades of land clearing.

Proponents of the proposal argue that palm oil trees have climate benefits such as sequestering carbon and creating tree cover as well as that palm oil is better than its alternative oils of soy, sunflower, and rapeseed. However, the carbon that oil palms store pales in comparison to native forests' ability to do so. In the last two decades, these plantations store 50% to 90% less carbon than the natural forest. Proponents cite the sustainability of palm oil, yet use the flawed logic that because the annual yield of oil palm is far greater than its alternatives, it must be more environmentally-friendly and use less land. But, productivity can not be used as a proxy for sustainability. Just because Indonesia gets a better yield with palm oil than with sunflowers, does not make the former automatically sustainable.

The carbon footprint of palm oil for every hectare of land converted to plantations is super bad compared to the footprint of other oils. Further, studies from the European Union, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and International Council on Clean Transportation have all found that biofuel using palm oil has higher emissions than other oils as well as fossil fuels.

Palm oil has led to the habitat loss of endangered species like the Sumatran rhino and orangutan. Multiple non-governmental organizations, too, have documented widespread labor abuses in five oil palm plantations in Indonesia, despite the plantations being certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.

On the flipside, 8.4 million Indonesians are employed by the palm oil industry, from farmers to goods suppliers. With expansion, the industry is projected to expand by 3% over the next 10 years. These farmers’ livelihoods are directly tied to the success of the palm oil industry, and often are the only breadwinners of their families.

Classification in government can be seen throughout history. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed with the aim of limiting presidential power of involving the U.S. into any “hostilities” (which is never explicitly defined); however, the vague classification of hostilities allowed multiple presidents to circumvent the resolution. The act doesn't even apply to drones as the language of the document does not address unmanned weapons — despite the mass amounts of violence airstrikes cause.

When they laid down the framework of the War Powers Resolution, the lawmakers exhibited astonishing foresight in regards to abuses of military might, but they could not have envisioned drones playing a part in international conflicts. Because unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are employed from places thousands of miles away from where they are actually used to attack, the President does not need to obtain congressional approval for the use of UAVs in military operations as they technically do not result in hostilities where they are employed.

Another example is the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, among the ranks of heroin and ecstasy. As a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana has more restrictions put on its use — disproportionately affecting people of color. In the mid-1900s, even possessing small amounts of weed could land people years in prison. However, Black people are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than white people, even though both groups consume marijuana at about the same rate. Marijuana is not a Schedule 1 drug any more than a hedgehog is an apex predator.

The road to environmental preservation and sustainable agroforestry is a long winding path for Indonesia, but there’s a dire need for more oversight and transparency regarding its palm oil practices.

Questions

• Should the economic benefits of employment/exports outweigh the environmental damage caused by palm oil plantations?
• How will this reclassification proposal affect Indonesian forests?
• How can Indonesia combat the environmental harms and labor abuses of palm oil plantations?

Sources

• [Mongabay] Proposal could redefine palm oil-driven deforestation as reforestation in Indonesia
• [The Guardian] Fifth of Indonesia's palm oil sites lie in forest estate, says Greenpeace
• [EcoWatch] Palm Oil Plantations Could Be Defined as Reforestation Efforts in Indonesia Under 'Dangerous' Proposal
• [EU] The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU
• [EPA] Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Results
• [Ecosia] Why is palm oil bad for the environment?
• [China Dialogue] Palm oil's high yield masks environmental impact
• [Mongabay] Report finds litany of labor abuses on RSPO-certified oil palm plantations
• [Vox] The federal drug scheduling system, explained

Space race! China, Russia, … and the United States

China’s main space contractor, China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), has planned more than 40 launches in 2022, cementing the country as one of the frontrunners in the space race.

However, U.S. technology and military development is drastically falling behind China and Russia, leaving us vulnerable to attacks. The ranks of domestic suppliers are withering and offshore dependencies are growing on key offshore providers like Russia. For over 20 years, the U.S. has relied on the Russian RD-180 engine to power national security space launches.

China, too, had 55 space launches in 2021, pulling the edge over America’s 51 launches. Even countries that aren’t prominent hegemons, such as India, have a stake in the race as well; in March of 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that the country had pulled off an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) missile launch, which struck an Indian satellite in low Earth orbit, turning the object into debris.

China has exponentially increased their investment into space militarization and exploration, carrying out 152 launches in the past five years — more than any other country — up from 10 launches in 2007.

As space becomes increasingly dangerous with the development of ASATs and introduction of new players, a destructive space race becomes inevitable. In addition, the militaristic mindset that dictates how hegemons act has skewed leaders’ epistemology such that they view the world through a lens of violence as a means of solving all problems. For example, rather than the U.S. and China working together to build spatial solar panels, each country would rather invest billions of dollars into ASATs due to underlying motives of militarism, imperialism, and resource extraction.

The space race poses huge concerns, ranging from diplomatic relations to environmental harm.

China’s space policy consistently emphasizes the need for the People's Liberation Army to control space and deny access to adversaries. China has a requirement to achieve space superiority, defined as destroying an adversary’s space forces. There’s no ideal way to deter China’s encroaching power in space, as U.S. proliferation could cause China to shoot down U.S. space forces to make a large-scale first strike. The country has developed anti-satellite weapons to strike targets in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) which could be devastating as a kinetic ASAT attack would produce debris that could linger for generations.

Rocket launches also produce soot that destroys the ozone layer by increasing UV radiation; small pieces of soot and a chemical called alumina are created in the wake of rocket launches. Research shows that this material may build up in the stratosphere over time and slowly lead to the depletion of the ozone layer.

Space junk, or debris, could start to behave unpredictably: reflecting sunlight the wrong direction, changing our atmosphere, or altering the universe. We could be unintentionally wreaking havoc on civilizations far away from Earth, catalyzing future intergalactic wars.

Just going off on a tangent (not so relevant to this blog post but interesting!) about the space race, continued exploration can cause habitat loss for space microbes. NASA has proved that extraterrestrial life resides outside of Earth, such as enzymes called hydrogenases and the bacterium E. bugandensis. Countries, however, ignore concerns about coming in contact with microbes, as they only value space for its resources. Human colonization of celestial objects labels certain groups, microbes in this case, as disposable and “less than human.” This destroys their intrinsic value and renders them to politics of disposability, which is what can lead to a full-out microbe genocide for the benefit of humans to live peacefully on other planets or the Moon.

Human bodies contain trillions of bacteria, and those could infect the extrasolar planets, wiping out potential habitable niches and destroying any life potentially chilling on the planet. To establish habitats and civilization in space, humans would clear and clean out the habitable places, which inevitably means that extraterrestrial lifeforms die. Human activity in outer space contaminates previously sterile environments, leading to an ecosystem collapse from extraterrestrial life forms dying off. Not only does it cause microbes to die, it could cause another pandemic on Earth. In 2018, the bacterium Enterobacter, that can infect respiratory and organ systems, was found at the International Space Station which can spell trouble as human immune systems are especially stressed in space. This means that unexpected bacteria — or low quantities of bacteria that wouldn’t make a healthy person on Earth unwell — could potentially have outsize effects.

The anthropocentric mindset that humans have adopted has created beliefs that the environment is a supply of alternative energy/hegemonic power, causing nature to become an ontologically unappreciated standing reserve. For example, we sent the rover, Mars Pathfinder, and understood that we could colonize the planet, tempting us to see Mars as an escape from Earth and no longer a valuable part of nature. The same logic justifies the wiping out of microbes; rather, we should adopt biocentrism, or species egalitarianism, to view all living things to have equal moral standing — the opposite of anthropocentrism.

Questions

• Given that U.S. technology development and launch services are declining (in comparison to recent investments/progress by China and Russia), should the U.S. increase research and development into ASATs?
• Should the risk of environmental harm from space debris outweigh the opportunity of further space exploration?
• Is it possible to negotiate space treaties with all parties involved to ensure a “space traffic cop”?

Sources

• [SCMP] China-US space race heats up as Chinese firm plans over 40 launches this year
• [Politico] 'We're falling behind': 2022 seen as a pivotal lap in the space race with China
• [Politico] Russia's anti-satellite test launches debris and sparks tensions
• [FoPo] Beijing's Fight for the Final Frontier
• [FoPo] The New Space Race
• [Express] NASA alien life breakthrough: Asteroid discovery 'holds clues to origin of life'
• [Nat Geo] Will Mars missions make humans sick? Here's what we know.