Another Reason People Fear the Government
Why do Americans have such deep distrust of their government?
It's a simple question with a complex answer, but here's part of the reason: All too often, the government wrongfully inflicts profound harm on American citizens and then leaves them with no recourse. It violates the law and leaves its victims with no way to be made whole.
Let me give you two recent examples, both taken from Supreme Court cases that were argued this term and have not yet been decided.
In the predawn hours of Oct. 18, 2017, an F.B.I. SWAT team detonated a flash-bang grenade at a home at 3756 Denville Trace in Atlanta. A team of federal agents rushed in.
The family inside was terrified. Hilliard Toi Cliatt lived there with his partner, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son, Gabe. They had no idea who had entered their house. Cliatt tried to protect Martin by grabbing her and hiding in a closet.
Martin screamed, 'I need to get my son.' The agents pulled Cliatt and Martin out of the closet, holding them at gunpoint as Martin fell to the floor, half-naked. When they asked Cliatt his address, 'All the noise just ended.'
He told them: 3756 Denville Trace. But it turned out they were supposed to be at 3741 Landau Lane, an entirely different house down the block. The agents left, raided the correct house and then returned to apologize. The lead agent gave the family his business card and left the family, according to their Supreme Court petition, in 'stunned disbelief.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Hamilton Spectator
18 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Cloudy skies can't dim joy as thousands fill nation's capital for World Pride parade
WASHINGTON (AP) — Gray skies and drizzle gave way to sunshine, multicolored flags and celebrations as the nation's capital held the World Pride parade Saturday. Tens of thousands of people participated in parades and other festivities, in defiance of what activists say is an unprecedented assault on the LGBTQ+ community that challenges the rights many have fought for over the years. A rainbow flag the length of three football fields flowed through the streets, carried by 500 members of the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, D.C., to kick off the parade. Behind them, people waved Pride flags and flags representing the transgender, asexual and bisexual communities from atop a bus. Singer-songwriter and actor Reneé Rapp laughed and blew kisses from the back of a pickup truck draped with a transgender flag while Laverne Cox, a transgender actress and activist known for her role in Netflix's 'Orange is the New Black,' waved from an open convertible. 'Pride means us looking out for each other no matter what,' she declared to the crowd as the convertible rolled to a stop. 'We know how to be there for each other.' Many LGBTQ+ travelers have expressed concerns or decided to skip World Pride due to anxieties about safety, border policies and a hostile political climate that they say hearkens back to another time . But that did not keep international travelers and other participants away, with groups visible from Iran, Namibia, Kenya and Russia. Along the parade route, hundreds gathered outside the National City Christian Church as rainbow flags and balloons lined its steps and columns. A child with rainbow face paint blew bubbles at the base of the steps while Whitney Houston's 'I Wanna Dance with Somebody' blared from loudspeakers.' 'D.C. is already one of the biggest cities in the country for celebrating Pride,' said Cheo White, 33, from Annapolis, Maryland, 'But we are all collectively more united and turning out more because of what's happening in the White House.' Many have said the gathering has taken on a new meaning amid the Trump administration's aggressive policies against protections for transgender Americans and diversity, equity and inclusion programs. White's partner, Nick Kerver, 26, who was visiting from Toledo, Ohio, said Pride has 'always been a political tool' but has taken on more importance this year amid mounting threats to the LGBTQ+ community, especially transgender and nonbinary Americans.' 'It feels more important than ever,' Kerver said while wearing a rainbow hat, sunglasses and a T-shirt. 'But we also have to get involved in our local communities too.' David Begler, a 58-year-old gay man from Philadelphia, expressed disappointment that many international travelers felt unsafe visiting D.C. for World Pride but said he appreciates its presence in the city during this political climate. 'It's the perfect time to have World Pride in D.C.,' Begler said. 'We need it right now. I want us to send a message to the White House to focus on uplifting each other instead of dividing.' Stay DeRoux, 36, usually plans a day trip to D.C. Pride from her home in Fredericksburg, Virginia. But this year, she and her wife, Deenie DeRoux, planned a full weekend. ''This is a really big year,' Stay DeRoux said. 'There's been a lot of turmoil. So it's an amazing thing to be among allies, among people who love because we've experienced so much hate on a daily basis.' For the day, the idea of threats and opposition took a backseat to the celebration. Streets were closed, but filled with floats, and impromptu parties broke out with music and food in streets adjoining the parade route. Johnny Cervantes Jr., dressed in a black suit and top hat, headed to a grandstand at a church themed float to marry his partner of 28 years, Freddie Lutz, owner of Freddie's Beach Bar and Restaurant in Arlington, Virginia. Events culminate tomorrow with a rally and protest March Sunday and a giant street party and concert covering a multi-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue. 'This is World Pride in the best city in the world,' Mayor Muriel Bowser declared as she walked the parade hand-in-hand with her daughter, Miranda. ___
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
