“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the court makes this plain. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do,” he wrote.
The Constitution is now being defended by a slim reed of a majority in the Supreme Court, and is dependent upon a couple of Senate run-offs in fraud-plagued Georgia. If Democrats are allowed to steal the seats as they stole the election, they will expand the Court and Freedom will be history.
The sad thing is, it doesn't really matter much. State executives are basically ignoring court rulings now with no consequence. I guess it is just nice to know there are still decent people left in this country before its death.
"Midnight ruling exposes rifts at a Supreme Court transformed by Trump" by Adam Liptak New York Times, November 26, 2020
WASHINGTON — A few minutes before midnight Wednesday, the nation got its first glimpse of how profoundly President Donald Trump had transformed the Supreme Court.
Just months ago, Chief Justice John Roberts was at the peak of his power, holding the controlling vote in closely divided cases and almost never finding himself in dissent, but the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett late last month, which put a staunch conservative in the seat formerly held by the liberal mainstay, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meant that it was only a matter of time before the chief justice’s leadership would be tested.
This is a theme the God-awful New York Times promotes throughout the article, as if Roberts is some sort of superior among equals simply because he holds the administrative role of Chief Justice. It's also disingenuous, as the Times promotes authoritarianism and dictatorship in the Court as they decry it in others with false charges.
On Wednesday, Barrett dealt the chief justice a body blow. She cast the decisive vote in a 5-4 ruling that rejected restrictions on religious services in New York imposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to combat the coronavirus, shoving the chief justice into dissent with the court’s three remaining liberals. It was one of six opinions the court issued Wednesday, spanning 33 pages and opening a window on a court in turmoil.
As if she physically assaulted him by doing four others in the ruling.
I must say, Father forgive me, that the New York Times has never been more of a piece of $hit than it is right now.
The ruling was at odds with earlier ones in cases from California and Nevada issued before Ginsburg’s death in September. Those decisions upheld restrictions on church services by 5-4 votes, with Roberts in the majority.
Wednesday’s ruling was almost certainly a taste of things to come. While Ginsburg was alive, Roberts voted with the court’s four-member liberal wing in cases striking down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law, blocking a Trump administration initiative that would have rolled back protections for young immigrants known as “Dreamers,” refusing to allow a question on citizenship to be added to the census and saving the Affordable Care Act.
Had Barrett rather than Ginsburg been on the court when those cases were decided, the results might well have flipped. In coming cases, too, Barrett will almost certainly play a decisive role. Her support for claims of religious freedom, a subject of questioning at her confirmation hearings and a theme in her appellate decisions, will almost certainly play a prominent role.
Democrats had feared, and Trump had predicted, that Barrett’s vote might be crucial in a case arising from the presidential election, but there is no case on the court’s docket or on the horizon that has a realistic potential to alter the outcome.
Even if it gets there it won't be overturned. The amount of pressure and threats that will be put on certain justices in the secret halls of ju$tu$ is unimaginable to you or I.
It is not clear how Barrett will vote in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which was argued this month, but, judging from the questioning, the act is quite likely to survive however she votes.
See?
What the Deep $tate e$tabli$hment wants, the Deep $tate e$tabli$hment gets.
Roberts is fundamentally conservative, and his liberal votes were rare, but they reinforced his frequent statements that the court is not a political body. The court’s new and solid conservative majority may send a different message.
The ruling issued late Wednesday night said that Cuomo’s strict virus restrictions — capping attendance at religious services at 10 people in “red zones” where risk was highest, and at 25 in slightly less dangerous “orange zones” — violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.
The majority opinion was unsigned, but Ross Guberman, an authority on legal writing and author of “Point Taken: How to Write Like the World’s Best Judges,” said he suspected that its principal author was the newest justice.
“My money is on Justice Barrett,” Guberman said, pointing to word choices that echoed her opinions on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Among them, he said, was “the concession that justices ‘are not public health experts,’” and “the taste for ‘And,’ ‘But,’ and ‘show.’”
Must have been like reading a newspaper with all the grammatical errors.
The unsigned opinion was mild and measured, which is also characteristic of Barrett’s judicial work. It took issue with what it said were Cuomo’s unduly harsh restrictions, which had been challenged by, among others, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two synagogues, the latter of which had argued that Cuomo had “singled out a particular religion for blame and retribution for an uptick in a societywide pandemic.”
If this is true and they gave it to her to write, then BRAVA!
The majority opinion said less restrictive measures would work.
“Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue,” the opinion said. “It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000-seat church or 400-seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the state allows.”
The opinion said the state had treated secular businesses more favorably than houses of worship.
“The list of ‘essential’ businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities,” the opinion said.
The most notable signed opinion came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointee. His concurrence was bitter, slashing and triumphant, and it took aim at Roberts, whose concurring opinion in the California case in May had been relied on by courts around the nation to assess the constitutionality of restrictions prompted by the pandemic.
The chief justice’s basic point was that government officials, in consultation with scientific experts, were better positioned than judges to make determinations about public health. But Gorsuch wrote that the opinion, in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, was worthless.
“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical,” he wrote. “Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the court makes this plain.”
“We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack,” Gorsuch wrote. “Things never go well when we do.”
You have no idea the elation with which I read that.
Found a good man and ray of light in these dark days.
Roberts responded, in a tone suggesting that his patience was being tested, that there was no need to act because Cuomo had, for the time being, lifted the restrictions.
Think of that.
Justices are supposed to be objective, unbiased, and unemotional, and here the tyrant of the Court is getting peeved, according to the New York Times.
Can he be impeached?
“Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive,” he wrote, “and it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time.”
The court’s three liberal members were to varying degrees prepared to support the restrictions. Roberts made a point of defending his colleagues from Gorsuch’s attacks, saying they were operating in good faith.
“To be clear,” the chief justice wrote, quoting from Gorsuch’s concurring opinion, “I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as ‘cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,’ yielding to ‘a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,’ or ‘sheltering in place when the Constitution is under attack.’ They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, said the majority was being reckless. “Justices of this court play a deadly game,” she wrote, “in second-guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”
Now smartly salute with hand down and open palm!
The Globe is happy as long as they protect the 2020 Census and uphold the centuries-long tradition of counting all residents.
Related:
That was the Globe's front-page feature this past Sunday, and at least it explains the pedophiliac instincts, and his Catholicism is not such a big deal now that it isn't Barrett and speaking of the devil (courtesy Globe ad services provided by Google).
Also see:
He warned them not to use their titles for corrupt, personal gain before they kill themselves, something the Globe is apparently encouraging us all to do as they bury that below the fold.
New York City reopening schools for special-education students and younger grades
The announcement comes 10 days after Mayor Bill de Blasio closed city schools because 7-day average positivity rates rose to 3 percent, and the reversal deserves an elbow bump(?).
"As he warned that New York State had entered a new phase in fighting the spread of coronavirus, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Monday a new series of emergency measures to combat rising hospitalizations and case numbers statewide. Among other steps, Cuomo urged hospitals to form plans in case of staff shortages, develop emergency field protocols and prepare to add 50 percent of bed capacity. In Erie County in Western New York, all elective surgeries will be stopped on Friday and similar protocols could be enacted in other areas of the state. “It’s a new phase in the war against Covid,” Cuomo said at a news conference in Manhattan. “It’s a war in terms of preparation and mobilization.”
To INJECT a TOXIC TUBE of POSION into YOU!
Why isn't this mass-murder of elderly in jail?
Cuomo said that the strength of the virus’s second wave has forced the state to rely less on test positivity rates as the determinant for restrictions, and focus more on hospital capacity. On Monday, the governor announced that hospitalizations topped 3,500 over the weekend, a level not seen since May. The governor also raised the possibility that a “critical hospitalization situation” could trigger a regional return of the most stringent measures enacted in the spring, which led to the closure of all nonessential businesses statewide. “We are not going to live through the nightmare of overwhelmed hospitals again,” he said. “If a hospital does get overwhelmed, there will be a state investigation.”
They never did live through that!
Yeah, they are LYING TO YOU AGAIN, folks!
Cuomo has warned that the holidays and indoor social gatherings during the winter season could trigger a further resurgence of the virus, a concern shared in neighboring New Jersey. Gov. Philip D. Murphy said Monday that the state will limit all outdoor gatherings to 25 people in an attempt to stem an ongoing surge of cases — and an expected spike after the Thanksgiving holiday. The new limit on outdoor gatherings, which takes effect on Dec. 7, will sharply reduce the permitted number of people from 150. Religious and political gatherings will be exempt, as will funerals, memorial services and wedding ceremonies, Murphy said at a news conference. New Jersey will also suspend all indoor youth and adult sports, including practices and competitions, starting Saturday and extending through Jan. 2. College and professional sports will be exempt from the ban, which Murphy said he hoped would only be temporary.
Un-flipping-f**king-real!
You know the rea$on why, right?
Can't go to the football games but can go shoulder-to-shoulder and protest outside where it doesn't travel, blah, blah, blah, f**king, blah, as Lifshitz (I kid you not) says “we need to change how we enjoy the holidays.”
Despite rising rates of positive test results, Cuomo has resisted implementing the kind of widespread shutdowns seen in March, when hundreds of New Yorkers began to die every week, and much of New York’s economic activity ground to a complete halt. Rather, Mr. Cuomo’s strategy has been to utilize targeted restrictions on individual areas — known as his “micro-cluster initiative” — which has now expanded to nearly 30 locations around the state, including in all five boroughs of New York City, its suburban counties, and major upstate population centers. On Monday, he said new statistics — including hospitalization rates, death rates and available hospital beds — would be used to determine lockdown levels under the state’s color-coded restriction system. The state will evaluate how virus metrics change following Thanksgiving — the effects of which could be delayed because the incubation period for the virus is up to 14 days — before deciding how those restrictions would be determined, he added.
Targeted restrictions on certain areas, huh?
And people, too, I'll bet.
We are on the verge of a Blue Terror the likes of which only the Soviets have seen, and Americans just don't seem to get it.
Hospital networks across the state should also better prepare for a surge in patients than they did in the spring, and plan to spread out patients between individual sites, Cuomo said. The hope is to avoid an overwhelming number of patients at any one site, as happened in the spring at hospitals at the center of the pandemic in New York City. “That has always been my nightmare,” he said, referring to Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, where beds were filled in March and refrigerated trucks sat outside to hold the dead.
That whole production in Elmhurst was a crock of shit lie led by a simulation expert(!), and the same crap is being peddled now for more nefarious ends. The COVID exterminations camps are ready to roll!
As virus cases continue to rise across the county, hospitals have also begun to face crisis-level shortages of staff in addition to beds. Cuomo said on Monday that he was “very worried” about those potential issues in New York, urging hospitals to identify retired nurses and doctors in case of a need. “We can build beds, we can’t create more staff,” he said. He added that further increasing and better distributing testing across the state, as well as establishing ongoing testing in schools with a focus on elementary school, middle school and special education students at all levels were also top priorities. Still, the governor was hopeful that the situation in New York was “manageable” and said the state was better prepared than in the spring to curb the spread of the virus. “I think we’re going to be fine here on all of this,” Mr. Cuomo said, “but we have our work cut out for us. You can’t just sit by and let this happen.”
All for a f**king virus that hasn't been proved to even exist, and if it does it has a survivability rate of 99.9% for most.
Meanwhile, the shortages come after we were told everyone is much better prepared this time, blah, blah, f**king, blah.
It's a SCRIPT, folks, provided by the Rockefeller Foundation and World Economic Forum so they can further there Great Reset by promoting fear based on lies.
Time to move out of New York!
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
Turning to Massachusetts and the High Court's ruling, it's exactly as I said. Baker says they have no jurisdiction over him:
"Governor’s office: Mass. pandemic restrictions on churches ‘consistent’ with US Supreme Court ruling" by Deanna Pan and Martin Finucane Globe Staff, November 27, 2020
Pandemic restrictions on places of worship in Massachusetts won’t run afoul of a US Supreme Court ruling this week that barred certain capacity limits on religious gatherings in areas of New York where coronavirus infections were rising, according to legal scholars and Governor Charlie Baker’s office.
“The administration believes the Supreme Court decision is consistent with the way Massachusetts is working with our houses of worship during the pandemic,” Baker spokeswoman Sarah Finlaw said in an e-mail.
It doesn't matter what you "believe," we are talking the Supreme Law of the Land!
Rene Reyes, a constitutional law professor at Suffolk University Law School, said the Supreme Court’s decision is unlikely to undermine Massachusetts’ constraints on religious services, which are less restrictive than the numerical occupancy caps Cuomo imposed, but the court’s ruling could influence governors across the United States as they decide whether to put in place future pandemic restrictions.
One would hope they get the message, but there is no indication of that. In fact, the perception is the exact opposite.
Matthew Segal, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, agreed.
Why are you guys MIA on the trashing of Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitution regarding this fraud?
Attorney Michael DeGrandis, of the Washington, D.C.-based New Civil Liberties Alliance, also pointed to a concurring opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch that argued that, as we “face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow,” the time is over for deference to executive orders, even though they might have been necessary in the early uncertain days of the pandemic.
“The Massachusetts Legislature should enact whatever laws it deems necessary to keep the public safe, as long as such laws are consistent with the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions,” DeGrandis said, “but executive-made laws like Governor Baker’s COVID-19 orders are a direct assault on the separation of powers, and they must stop.”
(Applause)
Pastor James Montoro, of Pioneer Valley Baptist Church in Westfield, is one of several plaintiffs represented by DeGrandis in the lawsuit against Baker. Montoro said he is optimistic the state’s highest court will rule in the plaintiffs’ favor and roll back the governor’s orders.
Leave it to the land of Shay's Rebellion, and I'm not that optimistic about Baker's court rolling back anything.
“I really think [Baker] and all the other governors are replacing the family feel of church with fear and they’re replacing God with government, and I don’t think that’s their place,” Montoro said. “I think this decision by the Supreme Court backs that up.”
That is what COMMUNISTS DO!
Rabbi Chaim Prus, regional director of Chabad of Eastern Massachusetts, told the Globe he also supported the Supreme Court’s decision.
“All synagogues that I know of are following CDC and state guidelines to protect their members,” he said in an e-mail. “Adults should have the freedom of choice to use their own judgment concerning their personal safety.”
I recognize what the organization is and its supremacist views, but we will have to deal with that later. Humanity is under threat now, and of course, part of that wing is working towards extermination of us all.
On Thanksgiving, one world religious leader expressed support for pandemic restrictions. In an opinion piece published in the Times, Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, said, “With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives. The exceptions have been some governments that shrugged off the painful evidence of mounting deaths, with inevitable, grievous consequences, but most governments acted responsibly, imposing strict measures to contain the outbreak.”
Seriously, does anybody put any faith in what the co-opted pedophile of that perverted Church has to say?
The pope also criticized those who have balked at the restrictions, saying that “some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions — as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom!”
What a surprise, the Catholic Church adopting institutional repression!
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
Time to turn to the kangaroo courts of Ma$$achu$etts:
"Jury trials resume with masks, plexiglass barriers, and reconfigured courtrooms" by Shelley Murphy Globe Staff, November 16, 2020
Massachusetts’ state courts will resume jury trials at the end of the month for the first time since the pandemic began, with plexiglass barriers and reconfigured courtrooms among a host of new safety protections as coronavirus infections surge across the state.
So they claim when the surge of infection is based on faulty and flawed false positive tests.
With the judicial system facing a growing backlog, the initial trials will serve as a test for a broader reopening, with six-member juries presiding over short, fairly simple criminal and civil cases at nine courthouses. If things go smoothly, then full, 12-member juries will be impaneled in February to hear high-priority cases, particularly those involving inmates awaiting trial on serious criminal charges.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
“This is a very challenging undertaking and we are working very hard at it,” said Superior Court Chief Justice Judith Fabricant, a member of an advisory committee that in July issued a detailed report on how to safely resume trials. “We are determined to provide due process to the parties in the cases that are pending, while balancing risks to jurors, trial participants and court staff.”
Court officials, prosecutors, and defense lawyers worry about trials being indefinitely delayed, depriving defendants of their right to a speedy trial, but a return to trials has raised a host of safety concerns.
This court $y$tem will soon look like the old Soviet Union.
“We’re in uncharted territory here,” said Attorney Randy Gioia, deputy chief counsel of the public defender division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, a state agency that provides lawyers for indigent defendants. “There’s no easy solution to this, so you’ve got to be careful that people’s very important constitutional rights are upheld, even in this stressful, unique time.”
Except they are not being upheld, they are being shredded and no one is doing anything about it!
A key question is how many people will show up for jury duty, given the health risks. By state law, any juror may defer service for a year, while those over 70 may decline to serve. Jurors may also ask to be excused for health reasons or issues related to the coronavirus, such as an underlying condition, fear of exposing a vulnerable household member to the virus, or child-care issues.
Say goodbye to jury trials, courtesy of the mythical and legendary COVID.
Gioia said his primary concern is whether jurors who are able to serve will represent a fair cross-section of the community. He noted that infection rates are high in many racially diverse communities, which could result in fewer potential jurors from those areas.
“You need people from the communities where the people who are facing a loss of freedom are from. That to me is what a jury of your peers is, people who have similar life experiences,” Gioia said. “I’m fearful that we’re not going to have that if we can’t convince people that the courthouses are very safe."
Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither, nor will they get either.
All they will get is tyranny, and here we are!
Fabricant said court officials share that concern and will be monitoring the selection process to make sure that juries are diverse.
Jurors will be required to assess their health every day and notify the court if they have any COVID-19 symptoms or have been exposed to anyone with the coronavirus. Everyone in the courtroom will wear a mask at all times, except for witnesses who may remove them once they are on the stand, which is shielded by plexiglass.
This is INSANITY!
Now it is down to POSSIBLE EXPOSURE!
We have gone from the 15-day flatten-the-curve to distorted death tolls to a fake casedemic and NOW THIS!
Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan said she had concerns about whether the courts will be able to complete jury trials given the alarming rise in coronavirus cases and the approaching holidays.
“I think everyone would agree that all sides are entitled to have jurors that really can put their full attention on the evidence they’re hearing,” Ryan said, “and it’s hard to expect people to do that if they are worried about their own safety.”
Derege Demissie, a Cambridge defense lawyer, said the pandemic restrictions will impact his ability to represent his client. He will not be able to sit beside his client as he has always done, sharing their concerns as evidence is presented. Typically, Demissie said he watches jurors as they listen to a case unfold, relying on their expressions to let him know when he’s pushing a witness too hard or should delve deeper, but with jurors wearing masks, that becomes impossible.
“You can’t have a jury trial that doesn’t measure up just because you want to get it done,” Demissie said. “If you’re going to do it, you have to do in a way that doesn’t compromise their rights.”
Oh, it will be hurting defendants who are already prone to state and institutional lies and tyranny, huh?
Man, is this place ever starting to look like the Soviet Union!
Demissie predicted the new system will move too slowly to make much of a dent in the backlog of trials. He said a better solution would be to release defendants on home confinement with electronic monitoring, resolve more cases with plea bargains, and hold more bench trials without juries.
That's the eventual goal, and the greatest justice system ever devised will be finished and the court system will look like that of the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
I suppose it's only a formality, since American justice has been perverted into a two-tiered ju$tu$ $y$tem for all to $ee for a while now.
Beyond that, they don't need to monitor those citizens whom they have locked down for they are going along voluntarily as the jails are emptied to make room for you.
In the federal courts, just five trials have been held in Massachusetts since they resumed in October with a multitude of safety protocols based on advice from epidemiologists.
We are their mercy?
Jurors no longer all fit in the jury box because of social distancing guidelines. Evidence cannot be passed to the jury; instead, it’s all viewed on screens. There are no sidebars, with lawyers whispering in a huddle before the judge. Now, they consult on wireless headsets, like football coaches. Even attorneys must sit six feet from their clients.
All because of a fake disease that is no worse than a bad cold.
Rob Farrell, clerk of the US District Court for Massachusetts, said there are more than 60 criminal cases ready for trial and court officials have created a list that prioritizes which should go first. The court is currently focusing on single defendant cases because of social distancing guidelines, and officials are searching for alternate sites that would allow them to hold trials for multiple defendants.
US Attorney Andrew Lelling said it was frustrating to see the system move so slowly, but that judges have done a good job creating protocols to keep everyone safe.
“Judges are trying to strike a balance between safety and moving the docket,” he said. “I think the approach they’ve taken so far is pretty sensible.”
He said they’ve had little difficulty finding jurors, which he attributed to “pandemic fatigue.”
When the court impaneled its first grand jury in May, some people didn’t want to serve because they were fearful of the virus, he recalled, but others jumped at the opportunity.
“We also had grand jurors who said to us, ‘Thank God, I need to get out of the house,’” he said.
That's f**king criminal reporting as he fences with the Globe.
--more--"
Related:
They are searching for a new venue:
"Berkshire Mall could host jury trials early next year" by Caroline Enos Globe Correspondent,Updated November 27, 2020
A vacant shopping mall in the Berkshire County town of Lanesborough could reopen as a makeshift courtroom early next year to help ease the strain of COVID-19 on the state’s court system.
Officials have made “appreciable progress” in obtaining space at the Berkshire Mall for jury trials once they restart, according to a Nov. 23 letter from Paula Carey, chief justice of the Massachusetts Trial Court, that was obtained by The Berkshire Eagle.
The mall closed last year. If chosen, it would host jury trials in Berkshire County for the first time since COVID-19 halted them in March.
“We are hopeful that together we can move the ball forward with respect to that location,” Carey said in the letter.....
"Massachusetts DCF repeatedly discriminated against parents with disabilities, federal officials find; Under ‘landmark’ settlement, state agency agrees to change policies" by Matt Stout Globe Staff, November 20, 2020
The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families repeatedly discriminated against parents with disabilities, and must reshape its policies so to not rely on “unsupported stereotypes” when deciding whether to separate children from their parents, according to a watershed settlement with federal authorities.
The agreement between the US Department of Justice, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and DCF caps a years-long investigation into the state agency. Federal officials said they substantiated a variety of allegations, including that the state failed to provide interpreters to individuals with hearing impairments and “otherwise denied parents with disabilities an equal opportunity” to receive services.
Federal officials had found in 2015 that DCF had discriminated against a mother with a “mild intellectual disability” when it sought to terminate her parental rights to her infant daughter in 2012.
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said it received similar complaints in the five years since the initial findings, and substantiated “numerous” others. DCF’s administration of its policies was effectively “discriminating against parents with disabilities,” the Department of Justice said in a statement.
Advocates for parents and those with disabilities on Friday cheered the agreement, saying it shed light on what they consider both a systemic problem within the agency and one not limited to only Massachusetts’s child welfare system.
“That’s the core of this issue: That there was a bias, an assumption, that because someone had an intellectual developmental disability that they therefore couldn’t raise a child,” said Dan Shannon, executive director of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council, an independent state agency.
“Progress is made in inches, but this is a significant jump,” Shannon said of the agreement. “This is a precedent-setting decision.”
Under the settlement, DCF did not admit to any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice said it doesn’t constitute a finding that the agency broke the law, but DCF is required to appoint a new statewide disability coordinator, begin amending many of its policies within months, and agree not to make decisions about removing a child from his or her parents based “on stereotypes or generalizations about persons with disabilities.”
There is no accountability in a tyranny.
Andrea Grossman, a DCF spokeswoman, said Governor Charlie Baker’s administration “has been intentionally rebuilding the Department of Children and Families” since he took office in 2015, including through reform efforts and working with lawmakers and union officials.
PFFFFT!
“DCF remains committed to constantly improving the way it serves children and families across the Commonwealth, including families protected by the ADA,” Grossman said, referring the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Department of Justice said this is the first settlement it has ever reached to address disability discrimination by a state child welfare agency, and referred to it as a “landmark agreement.”
The investigation announced this week had its roots in a complaint involving a then-19-year-old mother, referred to by the pseudonym “Sara Gordon,” whose daughter was removed from her custody in 2012 days after her birth and put into foster care.....
That looks like KIDNAPPING to me.
Related:
Related:
Governor nominates Serge Georges Jr. to Supreme Judicial Court
Boston Municipal Court Judge Serge Georges Jr. would be just the second Black man ever named to the state's highest court, and “when you have diversity amongst genders and races and cultures, including experience, it’s going to lead to better decision-making,” said Georges, who was born in New York City, lived for four years in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, and grew up in Dorchester, sharing a rented two-bedroom apartment with his two older sisters and his parents, both Haitian immigrants.
The Governor’s Council confirmed Budd by a 7-0 vote on Wednesday.
Dalila Argaez Wendlandt, a state appellate court judge who holds two mechanical engineering degrees, will become the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court after unanimously clearing a state panel Wednesday.
The history-making Supreme Judicial Court built by Governor Charlie Baker will be unlike any high bench before it.
Better pray for that court case that's coming before them!
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
Of course, it all means nothing without police reform:
"Behind closed doors at State House, police reform stuck in neutral" by Milton J. Valencia Globe Staff, November 19, 2020
In June, amid protests across the nation, Governor Charlie Baker joined legislators and advocates and declared “now is the time” to pass law enforcement reforms and usher in a new era of policing in Massachusetts.
The state’s Senate and House quickly approved their own sweeping reform bills and vowed to agree on a final legislative package. Despite strong pushback from many police unions, its passage seemed like a foregone conclusion in the reliably liberal State House, but nearly six months later, even with an extended legislative session, the police reforms have lost all political momentum, taken a back seat to other matters, and some say it may not happen this year, if at all.
Several people close to the secret deliberations say lawmakers have struggled to hammer out small differences, many of which have more to do with politics than the nuances of policing.
Lawmakers have specifically been hung up on how to structure a statewide police oversight and certification board, as well as on legal protections for police officers in civil lawsuits, according to several people close to the discussions. Another consideration? The criticism from police unions that the legislation has been rushed and does not account for the sometimes precarious situations officers contend with on the job.
State Representative Claire D. Cronin of Easton, one of the legislators leading the small conference committee working to hammer out a solution, said in a statement only that “we are continuing to work diligently in the hopes of reaching an agreement.” Other members declined comment, but several lawmakers say the issue has caused a divide within the state’s majority party, with some Democrats looking for modest changes while more progressive leaders are pushing meatier reforms.
“It’s just decisions about value choices,” said one Democrat familiar with the closed-door legislative process but not authorized to speak on the secret deliberations. “There’s a reckoning that has to happen in the Democratic Party … and that hasn’t happened yet.”
Baker, a Republican who has been increasingly open to police reform in recent years, has been among the fiercest critics of the process. He has repeatedly noted that he submitted proposals 10 months ago that would allow for the decertification of troubled State Police troopers. So far, those proposals have sat idle.
“The administration cannot understand why [proposed legislation] has not advanced through the Legislature,” the governor said through a spokeswoman, Sarah Finlaw.
State Representative Russell Holmes, a Democrat from Mattapan and one of the original backers of criminal justice changes in Massachusetts, also expressed frustration. He said Black and brown legislators submitted a reasonable proposal in June, but continued infighting among legislators has made its passage more complicated and politicized. Meanwhile, he lamented, legislators have turned their attention to other matters.
“Do what Black people say is most important — criminal justice reform, police reform,” he said. “Let’s make sure we get it done, now.”
The recent elections seemed to have had little influence on the proposed legislation. Though dozens of Republican candidates signed a “Back the Blue” pledge, vowing to oppose police reforms, few of them won their races, and dozens of Democrats who voted against police reform nonetheless cruised to reelection.
This state is hopeless.
Peter Ubertaccio, a political science professor at Stonehill College, said that the lack of any political consequences means the status quo remains.
“I don’t know if there’s going to be a significant push for moving it forward, or a political price to pay for not having done so,” he said.
“There are enough activists on all sides of the issue to keep the conversation going,” he added, "but the question is — can it translate in a post-election environment to passage? That is still unclear to me.”
The political will seems far less urgent than when protestors took to the streets in May and June, demanding police reforms in a historic social justice reckoning over systemic police abuses. The police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and Breonna Taylor in Kentucky, galvanized the movement.
Baker unveiled his own police reform bill in June with widespread support. The state’s Black and Latino Legislative Caucus also unveiled a 10-Point Plan for reform. Later in the summer, the Senate passed its version by a 30-7 vote, largely splitting along party lines. The House version passed by an unusually close 93-66 vote, with dozens of Democrats bucking the leadership and siding with police unions.
Though the competing legislative packages have similar proposals on training and use-of-force restrictions, they include several differences.
Carol Rose, head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said lawmakers must act without delay.
“Our elected leaders should seize upon this historic moment to show that they are listening to the voters, and to demonstrate that Black and brown lives matter in Massachusetts by passing strong police reform legislation as quickly as possible,” she said.
Why are you guys MIA on the criminal and unconstitutional lockdowns?
Police unions, though, have called on legislators to pause on reforms, even if that means they postpone a decision until next year. The largest unions, representing thousands of police officers across the state from Boston to Worcester to Springfield, have a substantial lobbying presence on Beacon Hill.
Many unions said they would be open to reforms, such as changes to training and use of force protocols, even the idea of a certification system, but they also argued that the reforms have been rushed in response to the protests. They say the Legislature’s failure to reach a compromise over the last several months shows that the matter is far more complicated.
In recent weeks, the Legislature has been preoccupied by deliberations for the constitutionally required approval of a budget, an especially fraught process in an uncertain financial year. Lawmakers also are moving to enact new protections for abortion rights, as part of the budget process. Those deliberations have been made more complicated by a COVID-19 outbreak at the State House.
If criminal justice reform is not passed by January, police unions could indeed be back at the table with legislators, advocates, and the Baker administration, and the process would have to start all over.....
Related:
They just answered her question.
Also see:
It could take a while, but the mayor has vowed to do whatever he can to carry out the recommendations of his Boston Police Reform Task Force, but if he expects to pull off what would be one of the most ambitious overhauls ever of the nation’s oldest police force, he’s going to need a lot of help.
Sean Ellis’s quest for justice remains maddeningly unfinished
Released from prison in 2015 after judges found significant evidence of police misconduct, Sean Ellis retains a a related conviction on a gun charge that was left untouched. That he remains a convicted felon is a miscarriage of justice, and it has to change.
Marine charged with murder
The US Marine Corps has charged a lance corporal with murder and other counts in connection with the beating death last year of Emerson College student Daniel Hollis in Allston, the military confirmed Monday.
She cut a deal with them.
Providence police oversight board PERA faces a firestorm
The next step will be to clean up the teachers’ unions, as what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
NEXT DAY UPDATES:
Another avenue of defunding!
Come to think of it, why do we need them?
Acting more like oppressors these days rather than "serving and protecting."
Also see:
"
Leaders of the federal judiciary are working to block bipartisan legislation designed to create a national database of court records that would provide free access to case documents. Backers of the bill, who are pressing for a House vote in coming days, envision a streamlined, user-friendly system that would allow citizens to search for court documents and dockets without having to pay. The debate during the lame-duck session of Congress comes after a federal appeals court last summer said the judiciary is overcharging for access to online court records. The dime-per-page fees can quickly mount and become a barrier to access for academic researchers, journalists, and citizens tracking the work of the federal courts. In a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, the court’s policymaking body, James C. Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, said higher fees for litigants in civil and bankruptcy cases could represent an “outright barrier to seeking relief in the federal courts.” A free database, he added, would be
a “financial windfall” for the large banks, legal-database companies, and research institutions that currently fund 87 percent of the costs of the online court records service....."
Related:
A new 77-page report from Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan found egregious failures in the search for Tim White by both the Bedford VA police and the nonprofit organization that managed the building.
The man suspected of wounding a Massachusetts State Police trooper was killed during a shootout in the Bronx that resulted in the wounding of at least two US Marshals, according to the US Marshals Service.
The man suspected of kidnapping 18-year-old Jalajhia Finklea, a pregnant New Bedford resident who vanished Oct. 20 and whose body was found Nov. 25 in Florida, typed out a note on his phone disclosing the location of her remains before he died in a confrontation with authorities, prosecutors said Friday.
