Flying ranks below grocery shopping and eating in a restaurant when it comes to the risk of contracting COVID-19 in a public place, a new study claims.It’s all in the ventilation and the protocols, researchers at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health found in their Phase One report, issued Tuesday and not yet peer-reviewed. This first installment covered travel solely on the aircraft, the researchers said; Phase Two, examining airport operations, will come out in two months.“Analysis from the report shows that ventilation of air on aircraft reduces the possibility of exposure ...
Stories Chosen For You
'A political power grab': NY Times slams Supreme Court for even considering 'dangerously radical' theory
In the case Moore v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking a look at partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and is weighing the merits of a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The ISL, in its most extreme form, argues that only state legislatures should play a role in governing elections in individual states — not governors, not judges, not state supreme courts.
The ISL has been lambasted by a wide range of legal experts and constitutional scholars as anti-democracy, from liberals and progressive to right-wing Never Trump conservatives. But the New York Times’ editorial board, in a scathing editorial published on December 9, goes beyond slamming the ISL — it also slams the Supreme Court for even agreeing to consider Moore v. Harper and the ISL in the first place.
The board explains that in Moore v. Harper, North Carolina Republicans “are relying on an untested theory that asserts that state legislatures enjoy nearly unlimited power to set and change rules for federal elections.”
“In 2000, the chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, proposed the idea in his concurring opinion on Bush v. Gore, and the independent state legislature theory has been floating around the fringes of right-wing legal circles ever since,” the Times’ editorial board explains. “To be clear, this is a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory. Republicans are trying to see if they can turn state legislatures — 30 of which are controlled by Republicans — into omnipotent, unaccountable election bosses with the help of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The theory has no basis in law, history or precedent.”
The board continues, “The idea that state lawmakers exist free of any constraints imposed by their constitution and state courts makes a mockery of the separation of powers, which is foundational to the American system of government. By the North Carolina lawmakers’ logic, they possess infinite power to gerrymander districts and otherwise control federal elections. It is a Constitution-free zone where no one else in the state — not the governor, not the courts, not the voters through ballot initiatives — has any say.”
The Times’ editorial board notes that when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, Justice Elena Kagan “rejected the theory out of hand.”
“That so many justices would take the theory seriously is bad enough,” the board laments. “Three of them — Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — appear to favor the independent state legislature theory, as they suggested in an opinion in an earlier stage of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also indicated his openness to it. It’s worse when the public trust in and approval of the Court have fallen to historic lows, thanks largely to aggressively partisan recent opinions, as this board has argued.”
The board continues, “There’s an old saying that only close cases make it to the Supreme Court. If they weren’t close, they would have been resolved in the lower courts. But Moore v. Harper isn’t a remotely close case. A ruling for the North Carolina lawmakers would flood the federal courts with election litigation that normally plays out in the states, upending the balance of federalism that defines American government. That’s not a conservative result; it’s a dangerously radical one.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that ultimately an agreement would need to be struck to end fighting in Ukraine, nine months after the Kremlin launched its "special military operation" there.
"Trust, of course, is almost at zero... but ultimately, in the end, an agreement will have to be reached," Putin told a summit of regional leaders in the capital of Kyrgyzstan.
"I have said many times that we are ready for these agreements, and we are open (to them)," he added.
Putin comments came in response to remarks from former German chancellor Angela Merkel about the Minsk agreements, negotiated with Paris and Berlin to end fighting between Russia and Ukraine.
Merkel told Die Zeit newspaper that the 2014 accords were an "attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Kyiv had used it "to become stronger".
Putin in Bishkek said he was "disappointed" by Merkel's comments, adding he "always assumed that the government of Germany was acting honestly".
"After such statements, the question becomes: how can we agree? And is there anyone to agree with? What are the guarantees?" Putin said.
© 2022 AFP
Former President Donald Trump has spent the week losing both in court and at the ballot box, and The Atlantic's David Graham wasted no time mocking him for his misfortune.
In his latest column, Graham likened Trump to the legend of King Midas, except instead of gold, everything Trump touches "turns to crime."
He was particularly struck by the way Trump seemingly engages in criminal behavior out of sheer habit, whether it's owning a business rife with fraudulent accounting or hiding away top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
"These two news items show the sweep of Trump’s lawlessness, from the mundane to the unique," he argued. "The business crimes are a classic small-time offense. The only remarkable thing about that case is that it happens to involve the former president’s company. Meanwhile, in the case of classified documents, the evidence suggests he committed a crime that nearly no person other than a former president could commit."
Graham also found himself in awe of the fact that there was yet another stash of government documents located on a Trump property this week, despite the fact that Trump was already in legal jeopardy for his refusal to willingly hand over the government documents that were seized at Mar-a-Lago earlier this year.
All of this led Graham to conclude that "no trespass is too large -- or too small -- to tempt him."