The View from Right Field

Here’s My Theory Why Self-Driving Cars Are a Long Way Off: Lawsuits

On Monday, the Financial Times had an article noting that driverless cars may create more traffic jams because more people will take cars if they don’t have to drive themselves.  But, the article also noted that “[p]redictions for driverless cars hitting the road en masse have repeatedly been proved wrong.”  The FT published my letter giving my theory why in Friday’s paper.  Here it is (there is no link because it is behind their paywall):

“Lex talks about how driverless cars may result in more cars on the road as people find car travel even easier if they don’t have to drive themselves.  (‘Driverless cars: jam tomorrow’, March 7)  But the article also notes that, ‘[a]fter a decade of hype and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, you still can’t buy a self-driving car.’  As the article concludes, ‘[t]he future [of driverless cars] may also be further away that investors hope.’

Voting Rights Bills: Democrats Should Be Careful What They Wish For. They Might Get It.

Joe Biden and Democrats are pushing the Senate to kill the filibuster for their voting rights bills, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, and allow the bills to be passed by a majority vote; i.e., 50 Democrats plus Vice President Kamala Harris.

But I wonder if they have thought this through.  If they abolish the filibuster and pass their bills setting up national rules for presidential elections and elections to Congress by a majority vote, what is going to stop Republicans from passing their national election rules in 2025 if Republicans win Congress and the presidency in 2024?

Right to Choose; Right to Life. Again.

The big deal in Washington on Wednesday, in addition to Covid, was the Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case involving the Mississippi law generally prohibiting abortion after fifteen weeks.  Among others things, the question in the case is whether Roe v. Wade (1973), along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), should be overturned.

I had several thoughts.  I’m going to just list them, maybe not in the right order, but as I think of them.

1. First, I think Roe v. Wade is a poor decision from a legal reasoning point of view. The Court created the three-trimester test out of thin air. It didn’t really justify it; it just stated it.  Without commenting on whether abortion ought to be legal, Roe v. Wade is just poorly done.

Teaching American History in an Age of Woke-ism*

The Wall Street Journal recently had a review of a new book about Berlin after World War II – and especially the Airlift.¹  It looks fascinating.  I have read other books about the Airlift and have been to Berlin to see the sights of it – more than once.  It is a great story: How we turned a former enemy into an enduring friend, while defending freedom in the heart of Europe.² 

But I wonder how the Airlift is taught in school today.  Well, it probably isn’t.  But I wonder how it would be taught, if it was.  Would it be taught as a triumph of American policy and determination.  As a success story in the early days of the Cold War.  Something for Americans to be proud of.

Why Plessy v. Ferguson – and What Might Have Been

Earlier this month was the 125th anniversary of the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.  The New York Times had an op-ed by Peter Canellos on the only justice to dissent in Plessy: Justice John Marshall Harlan.¹

In his article, Mr. Canellos said this of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy:

“The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson … is duly remembered as one of the great abominations in legal history.  By endorsing the notorious separate-but-equal doctrine, it consigned most African Americans to a state of rank oppression.  In the space of no more than 5,000 words, it violated the plain language of the Constitution, engaged in expansive racist dissembling and defied the outcome of the Civil War.”

Supreme Court or Supreme Election Board?

Three weeks ago, I asked “Will Courts Be Changing Voting Rules Right Up to Election Day?”  Since then, some of the more extreme examples I mentioned in that post have been walked back.  On Monday night, the Supreme Court upheld, by a 5 to 3 vote, a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a federal district court decision in Wisconsin to extend the period for getting absentee ballots back to the election board until six days after Election Day.  (Wisconsin law provided that absentee ballots had to be received by Election Day.)   

What I wanted to talk about here are a couple of things Justice Elena Kagan said in her dissent in that decision.  Justice Kagan said: “As the COVID pandemic rages, the Court has failed to adequately protect the Nation's voters." and "[T]he Court's decision will disenfranchise large numbers of responsible voters in the midst of hazardous pandemic condition.”

Will Courts Be Changing Voting Rules Right Up to Election Day?

Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial listing what I assume are just some of the lawsuits going on across the country to change voting rules for this November.  In some of these lawsuits, judges have extended the date by which ballots that are postmarked as of election day can arrive at the election authority and still be counted.  In others, courts have held that ballots received by some new court-set deadline are to be counted even if they don’t have a postmark.  The deadline for receiving ballots has been extended a few days in some states.  In Michigan, it has been extended until two weeks after the election. 

Which raises the question: Who is supposed to decide the rules for elections these days?  It used to be that legislatures would pass laws setting rules for voting; i.e., when ballots needed to be postmarked; when they had to be received; etc.  But things have changed.  Now it seems like courts are doing the deciding in a lot of states.  The question is: Why?

Just When You Thought the 2020 Political Campaign Couldn’t Get Worse

The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sad.  Obviously, I didn’t know her, but people who did have spoken so highly of her.  It is impressive.

While I hope it is not inappropriate to say, while Justice Ginsburg’s passing is sad, her passing right now is horrendous.  Could anything have happened that would have made the 2020 political campaign worse? 

Where Did All This Partisanship Come From?

I will assume most people will not say that it started with Donald Trump.  He certainly is bad, partisanship-wise,¹ but it didn’t start with him.  Some people might go back to Joe McCarthy or Richard Nixon,² but I’m thinking of something more recent.  Republicans might point to Ted Kennedy’s attacks on Robert Bork in 1986, when President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court.³  Democrats might point to attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s (the “vast right-wing conspiracy”).  And so on.  But I am going to suggest something else.

Sometimes it is hard to remember how you felt about a particular event at the time because things that happened afterwards color your recollection of how you felt then.  Even reading contemporaneous news articles about something in the past will sometimes surprise you because you know what has happened since and the article doesn’t. 

Little Sisters of the Poor and Free Birth Control

There was considerable outcry earlier this week when the Supreme Court upheld Trump administration regulations under Obamacare that provided the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other religious groups, did not have to provide free contraceptive services under their health plan.  Well, actually, it was more complicated than that.  The Obama administration had not required the Little Sisters to provide free contraceptive services; it required the Little Sisters’ health plan to provide free contraceptive services, without charging the Little Sisters for the services.¹  The problem for the Little Sisters was, as I understand it, that they did not feel comfortable with what they had to do in order to opt-out of providing free birth control.² 

Apparently, 70,000 or more women could be left without free birth control under the Trump administration regulation, which bothers (outrages) a lot of people.  But the point is, which a lot of people seem to miss, is there is a simple way to make sure free contraceptive services are provided to all women without forcing groups like the Little Sisters to violate their religious principles: Have the federal government pay for it.  If free birth control is that important, just pass a law and provide for it.  Nobody’s religious principles are violated,³ and women get free birth control.