![]() But is it possible to act collectively and maintain individual rights? Worldwide, citizens have given up civil liberties in order to fight the pandemic. was basically, How willing were people to go along with these restrictions? What were they willing to sacrifice and what were they not willing to sacrifice?” “What’s interesting about the current situation, and particularly prior to the development of the vaccines. Are they complements or substitutes?” says Marcella Alsan, professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School. “That tension is long-standing, liberty versus security. The balance between compulsion and cooperation may shape the response to future public emergencies. At issue is whether governments bolstered a sense of partnership with their citizens or squandered trust. Others bypassed privacy in favor of track-and-trace measures and digital surveillance of those under quarantine.įor many citizens, sacrificing civil liberties was a necessary and worthwhile trade-off in the bid to “flatten the curve.” Now, civil libertarians are assessing the short- and long-term ramifications of often unprecedented steps. Some countries cracked down on speech and press freedoms. Freedom of movement was hemmed in by various rules for curfews, travel, and public and private assembly. It is simply common sense,” said the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight earlier this month.įrom Australia to Zimbabwe, almost every nation in the world enacted restrictions during the pandemic. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has not recused herself from court cases involving publisher Penguin Random House, which has paid her millions in book royalties.“A demand for ethical constraints is not an attack on the Court or any single justice. That should change, say some experts, given the allegations against Justice Alito and recent revelations about gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas from billionaire Harlan Crow.This isn’t about attacking the court’s conservative majority, some insist. Singer had any interest in the cases before the court, he insisted.There’s been a code of conduct for federal court judges since 1973, but the Supreme Court isn’t bound by it. Singer’s hedge fund in a lawsuit that ultimately netted it $2.4 billion.Justice Alito has denied that he did anything wrong. In a prebuttal in The Wall Street Journal published prior to ProPublica’s release of the story – an unusual step – he said that the trip was personal hospitality, and thus he didn’t need to report it. ![]() In 2014, justices voted 7-1 in favor of Mr. That may have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most such gifts, according to the ProPublica story.Nor did Justice Alito recuse himself when cases involving businesses of the billionaire, Paul Singer, came before the court. Is it time for the Supreme Court to have a detailed, binding code of ethics?That’s a question sparked by the recent report from ProPublica that in 2008, Justice Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip to Alaska on a billionaire’s private jet.Justice Alito did not report the trip on his financial disclosure. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |