Connect with us

News

Tentative labor deal averts threat of nationwide rail strike

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

Tentative Labor Deal Averts Threat Of Nationwide Rail Strike
google news

By JOSH FUNK, JOSH BOAK and ZEKE MILLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rail companies and their workers reached a tentative agreement Thursday to avert a nationwide strike that could have shut down the nation’s freight trains and devastated the economy less than two months before the midterm elections.

President Joe Biden announced the deal, which emerged from a marathon 20-hour negotiating session at the Labor Department and came just one day before the threatened walkout.

“This agreement is validation of what I’ve always believed — unions and management can work together … for the benefit of everyone,” Biden said in the White House Rose Garden.

The deal, which includes a 24% pay raise, will go to union members for a vote after a cooling-off period of several weeks.

The threat of a shutdown carried political risks for Biden, a Democrat who believes unions built the middle class. But he also knew a rail worker strike could damage the economy ahead of the midterms, when majorities in both chambers of Congress, key governorships and scores of important state offices will be up for grabs.

Biden made a key phone call Wednesday evening to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh as negotiators were talking and being offered Italian food for dinner, according to White House officials who insisted on anonymity to discuss the conversations.

On speakerphone, the president urged both sides to get a deal done and to consider the harm that a shutdown would inflict on families, farmers and businesses , the officials said.

One union had to wake up its board to move forward on the agreement, which involved 50 calls from White House officials to organized labor officials.

Joined in the Oval Office by business and union leaders, a beaming Biden joked that he was surprised everyone was “still standing” after the late night and that they should be “home in bed.”

A strike would also have disrupted passenger traffic as well as freight, because Amtrak and many commuter railroads operate on tracks owned by the freight railroads. Amtrak canceled all of its long-distance trains ahead of the strike deadline and was working to restore full service.

The five-year deal, retroactive to 2020, also includes $5,000 in bonuses. The railroads agreed to ease their strict attendance policies to address union concerns about working conditions.

Railroad workers will now be able to take unpaid days off for doctor’s appointments without being penalized. Previously, workers would lose points under the attendance systems at BNSF and Union Pacific railways, and they could be disciplined if they lost all their points.

The talks also included Norfolk Southern, CSX, Kansas City Southern and the U.S. operations of Canadian National.

The unions that represent conductors and engineers who drive the trains had pressed hard for changes in the attendance rules, and they said the deal sets a precedent that ensures they will be able to negotiate such rules in the future.

Victor Chen, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies labor, said concerns about working conditions have increasingly become a priority for unions and the workers they represent.

“At a certain point, good wages just aren’t enough to make up for the toll these sorts of working conditions impose on workers,” Chen said. “The companies need to treat workers like human beings, rather than just inputs in a business process.”

The railroad unions pointed to workload and attendance rules after the major railroads cut nearly one-third of their workforce — some 45,000 jobs — over the past six years.

The railroad industry has aggressively cut costs everywhere and shifted its operations to rely more on fewer, longer trains, which use fewer locomotives and fewer employees. The unions said the remaining workers, particularly engineers and conductors, were on call 24-7 because of jobs cuts and could hardly take any time off under strict attendance rules.

Unions had an advantage at the bargaining table because of the tight labor market and ongoing service problems on the railroads, Chen said.

Shippers have complained loudly this year about delays and poor service as railroads struggled to quickly hire enough to handle a surge in demand as the economy emerged from the pandemic. The shipping problems gave rail workers extra leverage.

Newly hired CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs said he hopes the new deal helps the railroad hire and retain more employees to address the service problems.

“Now we can move our conversation into how do we work together to grow the business and better serve our customers,” he said.

Union activism has surged under Biden, as seen in a 56% increase in petitions for union representation with the National Labor Relations Board so far this fiscal year, including prominent organizing efforts at Starbucks, Amazon and other companies. A number of unions have gone on strike over the past two years to get better deals.

Rutgers University professor Todd Vachon, who teaches about labor relations, said working conditions have increasingly been a key part of labor disputes — sometimes rivaling wages and benefits. Railroad workers were particularly attuned to work-life balance and the ability to take time off for health reasons.

That has led to a “real resurgence in the labor movement that goes beyond merely reacting to inflation,” Vachon said.

Before the deal was reached, business groups including the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were predicting that a rail strike would be an “economic disaster.”

The Association of American Railroads trade group estimated that a rail strike would cost the economy more than $2 billion a day and force many businesses to scale back or cease production and consider layoffs.

“We appreciate the Biden administration’s intervention on behalf of the businesses and consumers who would have been impacted at a time when high inflation and economic uncertainty are challenging consumer budgets and putting business resiliency at risk,” said Matthew Shay, chief executive of the National Retail Federation.

The deal also has broad implications for control of Congress and the health of the shipping network that keeps factories running, stocks store shelves and stitches the U.S. together as an economic power.

American Trucking Associations President and CEO Chris Spear said the rail deal “permits our supply chain to continue climbing out of this COVID-induced rut.”

With the economy still recovering from the pandemic’s supply chain disruptions, the president’s goal was to keep all parties talking so a deal could be reached.

Biden also knew a stoppage could worsen the dynamics that have contributed to soaring inflation and created a political headache for the party in power.

Biden confronted the same kind of predicament faced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 with coal and Harry Truman in 1952 with steel — how does a president balance the needs of labor and business in doing what’s best for the nation?

Railways were so important during World War I that Woodrow Wilson temporarily nationalized the industry to keep goods flowing and prevent strikes.

So the administration jumped into the middle of the talks with Biden and cabinet officials calling both sides and the labor secretary participating directly in negotiations.

By 5:05 a.m. Thursday, it was clear that the effort had paid off as Biden announced the deal, calling it “an important win for our economy and the American people.”

___

Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska.

google news
Advertisement

News

How will OPEC+ cuts affect gas prices, inflation?

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

How Will Opec+ Cuts Affect Gas Prices, Inflation?
google news

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Major oil-producing countries led by Saudi Arabia and Russia have decided to slash the amount of oil they deliver to the global economy.

And the law of supply and demand suggests that can only mean one thing: higher prices are on the way for crude, and for the diesel fuel, gasoline and heating oil that are produced from oil.

The decision by the OPEC+ alliance to cut 2 million barrels a day starting next month comes as the Western allies are trying to cap the oil money flowing into Moscow’s war chest after it invaded Ukraine.

Here is what to know about the OPEC+ decision and what it could mean for the economy and the oil price cap:

WHY IS OPEC+ CUTTING PRODUCTION?

Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman says that the alliance is being proactive in adjusting supply ahead of a possible downturn in demand because a slowing global economy needs less fuel for travel and industry.

“We are going through a period of diverse uncertainties which could come our way, it’s a brewing cloud,” he said, and OPEC+ sought to remain “ahead of the curve.” He described the group’s role as “a moderating force, to bring about stability.”

Oil prices had fallen after a summer of highs. Now, after the OPEC+ decision, they are heading for their biggest weekly gain since March. Benchmark U.S. crude rose 3.2% on Friday, to $91.31 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 2.8% to $97.09, though it’s still down 20% from mid-June, when it traded at over $123 per barrel.

One big reason for the slide is fears that large parts of the global economy are slipping into recession as high energy prices — for oil, natural gas and electricity — drive inflation and rob consumers of spending power.

Another reason: The summer highs came about because of fears that much of Russia’s oil production would be lost to the market over the war in Ukraine.

As Western traders shunned Russian oil even without sanctions, customers in India and China bought those barrels at a steep discount, so the hit to supply wasn’t as bad as expected.

Oil producers are wary of a sudden collapse in prices if the global economy goes downhill faster than expected. That’s what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and during the global financial crisis in 2008-2009.

HOW IS THE WEST TARGETING RUSSIAN OIL?

The U.S. and Britain imposed bans that were mostly symbolic because neither country imported much Russia oil. The White House held off pressing the European Union for an import ban because EU countries got a quarter of their oil from Russia.

In the end, the 27-nation bloc decided to cut off Russian oil that comes by ship on Dec. 5, while keeping a small amount of pipeline supplies that some Eastern European countries rely on.

Beyond that, the U.S. and other Group of Seven major democracies are working out the details on a price cap on Russian oil. It would target insurers and other service providers that facilitate oil shipments from Russia to other countries. The EU approved a measure along those lines this week.

Many of those providers are based in Europe and would be barred from dealing with Russian oil if the price is above the cap.

HOW WILL OIL CUTS, PRICE CAPS AND EMBARGOES CLASH?

The idea behind the price cap is to keep Russian oil flowing to the global market, just at lower prices. Russia, however, has threatened to simply stop deliveries to a country or companies that observe the cap. That could take more Russian oil off the market and push prices higher.

That could push costs at the pump higher, too.

U.S. gasoline prices that soared to record highs of $5.02 a gallon in mid-June had been falling recently, but they have been on the rise again, posing political problems for President Joe Biden a month before midterm elections.

Biden, facing inflation at near 40-year highs, had touted the falling pump prices. Over the past week, the national average price for a gallon rose 9 cents, to $3.87. That’s 65 cents more than Americans were paying a year ago.

“It’s a disappointment, and we’re looking at what alternatives we may have,” he told reporters about the OPEC+ decision.

WILL THE OPEC PRODUCTION CUT MAKE INFLATION WORSE?

Likely yes. Brent crude should reach $100 per barrel by December, says Jorge Leon, senior vice president at Rystad Energy. That is up from an earlier prediction of $89.

Part of the 2 million-barrel-per-day cut is only on paper as some OPEC+ countries aren’t able to produce their quota. So the group can deliver only about 1.2 million barrels a day in actual cuts.

That’s still going to have a “significant” effect on prices, Leon said.

“Higher oil prices will inevitably add to the inflation headache that global central banks are fighting, and higher oil prices will factor into the calculus of further increasing interest rates to cool down the economy,” he wrote in a note.

That would exacerbate an energy crisis in Europe largely tied to Russian cutbacks of natural gas supplies used for heating, electricity and in factories and would send gasoline prices up worldwide. As that fuels inflation, people have less money to spend on other things like food and rent.

Other factors also could affect oil prices, including the depth of any possible recession in the U.S. or Europe and the duration of China’s COVID-19 restrictions, which have sapped demand for fuel.

WHAT WILL THIS MEAN FOR RUSSIA?

Analysts say that Russia, the biggest producer among the non-OPEC members in the alliance, would benefit from higher oil prices ahead of a price cap. If Russia has to sell oil at a discount, at least the reduction starts at a higher price level.

High oil prices earlier this year offset much of Russia’s sales lost from Western buyers avoiding its supply. The country also has managed to reroute some two-thirds of its typical Western sales to customers in places like India.

But then Moscow saw its take from oil slip from $21 billion in June to $19 billion in July to $17.7 billion in August as prices and sales volumes fell, according to the International Energy Agency. A third of Russia’s state budget comes from oil and gas revenue, so the price caps would further erode a key source of revenue.

Meanwhile, the rest of Russia’s economy is shrinking due to sanctions and the withdrawal of foreign businesses and investors.

google news
Continue Reading

News

Another month of solid US hiring suggests more big Fed hikes

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

Another Month Of Solid Us Hiring Suggests More Big Fed Hikes
google news

By PAUL WISEMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s employers slowed their hiring in September but still added 263,000 jobs, a solid figure that will likely keep the Federal Reserve on pace to keep raising interest rates aggressively to fight persistently high inflation.

Friday’s government report showed that hiring fell from 315,000 in August to the weakest monthly gain since April 2021. The unemployment rate fell from 3.7% to 3.5%, matching a half-century low.

The Fed is hoping that slower job growth would mean less pressure on employers to raise pay and pass those costs on to their customers through price increases — a recipe for high inflation. But September’s pace of hiring was likely too robust to satisfy the central bank’s inflation fighters.

In September, hourly wages rose 5% from a year earlier, the slowest year-over-year pace since December but still hotter than the Fed would want. The proportion of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one slipped slightly, a disappointment for those hoping that more people would enter the labor force and help ease worker shortages and upward pressure on wages.

The jobs report “was still likely too strong to allow (Fed) policymakers much breathing room,” said Matt Peron, director of research at Janus Henderson Investors.

Likewise, Rubeela Farooqi, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, said she didn’t expect September’s softer jobs and wage numbers to stop the Fed from raising its benchmark short-term rate in November by an unusually large three-quarters of a point for a fourth consecutive time — and by an additional half-point in December.

Last month, restaurants and bars added 60,000 jobs, as did healthcare companies. State and local governments cut 27,000 jobs. Retailers, transportation and warehouse companies reduced employment modestly.

The public anxiety that has arisen over high prices and the prospect of a recession is carrying political consequences as President Joe Biden’s Democratic Party struggles to maintain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

In its epic battle to rein in inflation, the Fed has raised its benchmark interest rate five times this year. It is aiming to slow economic growth enough to reduce annual price increases back toward its 2% target.

It has a long way to go. In August, one key measure of year-over-year inflation, the consumer price index, amounted to 8.3%. And for now, consumer spending — the primary driver of the U.S. economy — is showing resilience. In August, consumers spent a bit more than in July, a sign that the economy was holding up despite rising borrowing rates, violent swings in the stock market and inflated prices for food, rent and other essentials.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has warned bluntly that the inflation fight will “bring some pain,” notably in the form of layoffs and higher unemployment. Some economists remain hopeful that despite the persistent inflation pressures, the Fed will still manage to achieve a so-called soft landing: Slowing growth enough to tame inflation, without going so far as to tip the economy into recession.

It’s a notoriously difficult task. And the Fed is trying to accomplish it at a perilous time. The global economy, weakened by food shortages and surging energy prices resulting from Russia’s war against Ukraine, may be on the brink of recession. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, warned Thursday that the IMF is downgrading its estimates for world economic growth by $4 trillion through 2026 and that “things are more likely to get worse before it gets better.’’

Powell and his colleagues on the Fed’s policymaking committee want to see signs that the abundance of available jobs — there’s currently an average of 1.7 openings for every unemployed American — will steadily decline. Some encouraging news came this week, when the Labor Department reported that job openings fell by 1.1 million in August to 10.1 million, the fewest since June 2021.

On the other hand, by any standard of history, openings remain extraordinarily high: In records dating to 2000, they had never topped 10 million in a month until last year.

Friday’s report underscored how resilient the job market remains.

“The U.S. labor market continues to decelerate, but there are no signs that it’s stalling out,’’ said Nick Bunker, head of economic research at the Indeed Hiring Lab. “Payroll growth is no longer at the jet speed we saw last year, but employment is still growing quickly.”

google news
Continue Reading

News

GBPUSD’s latest decline attempts to break and stay below the 200 hourly MA again

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

Gbpusd'S Latest Decline Attempts To Break And Stay Below The 200 Hourly Ma Again
google news

GBPUSD is trading above and below the 200 hourly moving average

Focusing on the hourly chart above, the pair is back below the 200 hourly MA and is currently trading at 1.1109.

GBPUSD tested the broken 38.2% retracement and the former trendline

Last week, GPBUSD closed at 1.1183. This week’s high price stalled just before the 1.1500 level before reversing lower over the past few days. Current prices have moved lower over the week, but still well above last week’s low which hit 1.0353.

cnbctv18-forexlive

google news
Continue Reading

News

Proud Boys member pleads guilty to seditious conspiracy in Capitol Riot

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

Proud Boys Member Pleads Guilty To Seditious Conspiracy In Capitol Riot
google news

A North Carolina man pleaded guilty on Thursday to conspiring with other members of the far-right Proud Boys to violently prevent the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election, making him the first member of the extremist group to plead guilty to a charge of seditious conspiracy.

Jeremy Joseph Bertino, 43, has agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation into the role Proud Boys leaders played in the Jan. 6, 2021 mob attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a prosecutor has said. federal.

Bertino’s cooperation could increase the pressure on the other Proud Boys charged with the siege, including former National President Henry “Enrique” Tarrio.

The guilty plea comes as the founder of another extremist group, the Oath Keepers, and four associates separately charged in the January 6 attack stand trial for seditious conspiracy – an offense rarely used in wartime civilian that requires up to 20 years behind bars.

Bertino traveled to Washington with other Proud Boys in December 2020 and was stabbed during a fight, according to court documents. He was not in Washington for the Jan. 6 riot because he was still recovering from his injuries, according to court documents.

Bertino participated in planning sessions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 and received encrypted messages as early as Jan. 4 that Proud Boys were planning to storm the Capitol, authorities say.

A statement of offense filed in court says Bertino understood the Proud Boys’ purpose in traveling to Washington was to prevent certification of Joe Biden’s victory and that the group was prepared to use force and violence if necessary to do so.

Bertino also pleaded guilty to an unlawful possession of firearms charge in March 2022 in Belmont, North Carolina. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly agreed to release Bertino pending a sentencing hearing, which was not immediately scheduled.

Justice Department prosecutor Erik Kenerson said the sentencing guidelines for Bertino’s case recommended a prison term ranging from four years and three months to five years and three months.

A trial is due to begin in December for Tarrio and four other members charged with seditious conspiracy: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. The charging document for Bertino’s case names these five defendants and a sixth member of the Proud Boys as his co-conspirators.

The indictment in the Tarrio case alleges that the Proud Boys held meetings and communicated via encrypted messages to plan the attack in the days leading up to January 6. On the day of the riot, authorities said, the Proud Boys dismantled metal barricades set up to protect the Capitol and mobilized, directed and led members of the crowd into the building.

Bertino’s video testimony was shown in June during the first hearing of the House committee investigating Jan. 6. The committee showed Bertino that the band’s membership had “tripled, probably” after Trump’s comment during a presidential debate that the Proud Boys should “step back and be ready.”

Tarrio was not in Washington on January 6, but authorities say he helped spark the violence that day. Police arrested Tarrio in Washington two days before the riot and accused him of vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic black church during a protest in December 2020. Tarrio was released from prison on January 14 this year after serving his five-month sentence. for this case.

More than three dozen people charged in the Capitol riot have been identified by federal authorities as leaders, members or associates of the Proud Boys. Two – Matthew Greene and Charles Donohoe – pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct an official process, the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to certify the Electoral College vote.

voanews

google news
Continue Reading

News

UPSC Recruitment 2022: Golden opportunity to get job in these posts in UPSC without examination, apply soon, salary will be available according to 7th pay

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

Upsc Recruitment 2022: Golden Opportunity To Get Job In These Posts In Upsc Without Examination, Apply Soon, Salary Will Be Available According To 7Th Pay
google news

UPSC Recruitment 2022: Golden opportunity to get job in these posts in UPSC without examination, apply soon, salary will be available according to 7th pay

UPSC Recruitment 2022 Sarkari Naukri 2022: Before applying, candidates should read all these important things given carefully. Also, under this recruitment process, candidates can get jobs in UPSC (Govt Jobs).

UPSC Recruitment 2022: There is a good opportunity for the youth who are looking for a job (Sarkari Naukri) in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). For this (UPSC Recruitment 2022), UPSC has sought applications for recruitment to other posts including Assistant Professor, Specialist Grade-III (UPSC Recruitment 2022). Interested and eligible candidates who want to apply for these posts (UPSC Recruitment 2022), they can apply by visiting the official website of UPSC, upsc.gov.in. The last date to apply for these posts (UPSC Recruitment 2022) is 13 October.

Apart from this, candidates can also directly apply for these posts (UPSC Recruitment 2022) through this link Also, by clicking on this link UPSC Recruitment 2022 Notification PDF , you can also see the official notification (UPSC Recruitment 2022). A total of 43 posts will be filled under this recruitment (UPSC Recruitment 2022) process.

Important Dates for UPSC Recruitment 2022

Last date to apply: 13 October

UPSC Recruitment 2022 Vacancy Details for

Serious Fraud Investigation Office Prosecutor(SFIO)-12

Specialist Grade III (General Medicine)-28

Assistant Professor (Ayurveda)-01

Assistant Professor (Unani)-01

Veterinary Officer-10

Eligibility Criteria for UPSC Recruitment 2022

Candidates should have the relevant qualification given in the official notification.

Application Fee for UPSC Recruitment 2022

Candidates will have to pay Rs 25 as application fee.

The post UPSC Recruitment 2022: Golden opportunity to get job in these posts in UPSC without examination, apply soon, salary will be available according to 7th pay appeared first on JK Breaking News.

google news
Continue Reading

News

Adam Carrington: The illegitimate attacks on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

Adam Carrington: The Illegitimate Attacks On The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
google news

Legitimacy. The word has dominated discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court for years. Some, mostly on the left, claim that the court has lost its legitimacy. The debate on this question even has spread to the court itself, with comments on the matter made by Justices Elena Kagan, John Roberts and Samuel Alito over the summer.

But what does it mean for the current court to be illegitimate? Illegitimacy describes one or both of two conditions: First, it refers to someone occupying a position to which he or she possesses no right. Second, illegitimacy pinpoints the exercise of one’s power in ways flagrantly beyond its proper scope, so much so as to involve powers entirely foreign to the office.

Critics of the Supreme Court make both claims regarding its legitimacy. They argue the last three justices to be appointed — Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — have no right to their seats. They further declare that recent decisions, especially during the court’s last term, go so far outside the court’s rightful powers as to make the institution itself illegitimate.

They are wrong on both counts. First, they morph the meaning of legitimacy into conformity with their preferences. They say that, in 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell never should have refused to confirm President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, a move that led to Gorsuch’s appointment in 2017. They also claim that the unproven accusations made against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford disqualified him. Finally, they chafe at President Donald Trump’s nomination of Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, coming as it did right before the 2020 presidential election.

None of these accusations has anything to do with real legitimacy. In each case, the appropriate and constitutional process was followed. A sitting president made the nomination. The Senate either refused its consent, as it did in 2016, or gave it, as the body did in the cases of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. That is the only standard for a justice’s legitimacy to be on the court. It is the only one because it is the constitutional one, the dictate of the supreme law of the land.

We may debate the fairness of refusing a vote on Obama’s nominee. We can argue over the merits of the accusations against Kavanaugh. We even can question the choice of not waiting for the people’s decision in 2020 before adding a new member to the bench. But even if all these objections were right, they would not make any of the appointed justices illegitimate.

On the second count, the court’s last term did not render it an illegitimate institution. Those accusers again seek to replace constitutional standards with their own opinions. To be sure, the court announced monumental decisions last term on a host of hot-button issues concerning religious liberty, gun rights, the administrative state and, of course, the abortion precedents of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Yet, too many attack these decisions based on whether they follow popular opinion. Kagan, for one, argues, “If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy.” The court’s role, however, isn’t to follow the lead of often-flawed opinion polling. The justices follow the people’s will insofar as that will is expressed through the law — the Constitution and subordinate congressionally passed statutes. Both get their ultimate origin in “we, the people.” In this written form, they encompass a much more stable and discernible articulation of public sentiment.

Kagan also critiqued the majority’s approach to ascertaining the people’s will as expressed through law, indicating that the majority hide behind claims of impartially applying the words of laws as written in order to realize their policy preferences. “If you’re a textualist, you’re not a textualist just when it’s convenient. You’re not a textualist just when it leads to the outcomes that you personally happen to favor,” she said.

This accusation doesn’t hold up to scrutiny when turning to particular cases. Justices will certainly disagree on the precise meaning of legal texts. But in last term’s decisions, the majority painstakingly parsed the words of the laws and the accompanying history. They then ruled not on the basis of their partisanships but on what the law meant at the time of its composition. The abortion ruling did not outlaw terminating a pregnancy, as anti-abortion-rights activists would want, but merely returned the decision to the political process. The court’s decision on guns made extensive use of history to understand the nature of that right in relation to current law. Finally, the court’s limiting of the administrative state defended the principles of separation of powers and consent of the governed that are essential to our constitutional framework.

Critics of the current Supreme Court should be more honest in their attacks. They object to how certain justices were nominated. They disagree strongly with the court’s recent decisions. But, even if true, neither makes the current court illegitimate. They’d be better served to focus their arguments on the majority’s decisions and reasonings.

Given the rightness and strength of both, critics are in for an uphill battle.

Adam Carrington wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.

google news
Continue Reading

Trending