Never mind Kaci, what about Ted?

The more that comes out about Kaci Hickox, the more questionable she becomes.

But neither should the government be excused from all questions in its handling of Kaci in particular, and of Ebola in general.

The Maine health officials had sought a court order to compel Kaci to distance herself from others by at least three feet for the duration of the 21-day incubation period.  Had the order been granted, Kaci would have been allowed to go biking or jogging outside.  In my opinion, that struck a reasonable balance between public safety concerns and Kaci's Constitutional rights.

But, as just about every non-comatose American knows by now, the judge ruled against the State of Maine and Kaci now has no movement restrictions.

I am, of course, concerned for the health of the population of Maine no less than I am for the Constitutional rights of Kaci Hickox.  If Hizzonor called that one wrong, and Kaci actually comes down with Ebola, then not only will the people of Maine and beyond be in danger for their health, but the Constitutional rights of everyone will be imperiled from what will be the reluctance of any court anywhere in America to take chances.

So I now wait and see, and pray for the health of Kaci Hickox.

I do have one question for the Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention, however.  You people were so quick to lawyer up and go to court to try to restrain Kaci's movements.  You tried to keep her at least 3 feet away from everyone.  But what about Kaci's boyfriend, Ted Wilbur?  Why didn't you try to impose similar restrictions upon him?  How sure are you that Ted has been keeping 3 feet away from Kaci?  If he has been getting closer than 3 feet, then is he not also a menace to the public health?

 

Methinks that your Ebola management program is too light on public health, and too heavy on politics.

 

States' Rights as a Sword

States' Rights as a Sword

Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is not particularly nefarious as far as our Congresscritters go.  And he certainly can show intellect, accomplishment, and talent, and can argue with the best of them.  I have not to date had occasion to personally meet him, but would be pleased to do so should the occasion arise.  But he is an African-American Democrat representing a densely-populated urban district.

Since the New Deal era of FDR, the position of the Leftward side of the political spectrum has basically been to impose federal constraints upon the Constitutional rights of States.  Ghosts from the slavery era continue to implicitly drive that Liberal political posture.

I therefore note the irony of Mr. Jeffries's invocation of States' rights, with the objective of facilitating New York's imposition of additional taxes upon residents of other States.  It doesn't fit the stereotype.  But then again, neither does Congressman Jeffries.

 

The Strange Ways of Justice

One matter in which I am ambivalent is the criminal prosecution of mobsters for murdering other mobsters. On one hand, we are supposed to be a society of laws, and the law needs to be enforced, else anarchy runs rampant in the streets and nobody's person, life or property is safe. On the other hand, it saves lots of public resources when the organized crime players impose disciplinary penalties upon one another, without the involvement of the already overburdened court system.

Once upon a time, the old mob did honor the line between mobsters and civilians, and if you stayed out of the mob's business then they would generally stay out of yours. This is less and less the case today. For this reason, I will have broad shoulders and state that even mob hit men who hit other mobsters ought be prosecuted by our criminal justice system. But understand that a part of me says we should let the mobster gangs kill one another in peace.

However, if you are going to make the law and order argument in favor of prosecuting the mobsters, then you must hold the prosecution to the same standards of law and order. Which means you must honor the defendants' constitutional rights to due process, and to have speedy trials.

This is exactly what happened in the case of People v. John Sinagra, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4160, 2007 NY Slip Op 51180(U), N.Y.L.J., 6/15/2007, p. 23, col. 3. Citing the 16-year delay in prosecuting Sinagra for murdering Patrick Porco, some other wiseguy mobster who was a suspected snitch, Justice Gustin Reichbach dismissed the murder indictment against Sinagra. Sinagra is now at liberty, and, having proven himself capable and qualified, can now take on other contracts to exterminate 6-legged, 4-legged or 2-legged vermin.

For those of you who are too young to remember, Gustin L. Reichbach, who now wears black robes and sits on the bench of the New York Supreme Court in Kings County, was the key SDS agitator behind the student riots that effectively shut down class registration at Columbia University in 1968.

Reichbach presumably received (and may even continue to receive) royalties for "The Bust Book: What to do Until the Lawyer Comes," which he co-authored along with several other anarchist radicals, including cop-killer Kathy Boudin.