DV Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a request to temporarily block the Biden administration’s rules on carbon emissions has energy industry advocates warning that America may face a growing demand for electricity and less supply to meet it.

At issue are new regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that all sides agree would force many baseload electricity producers using coal or natural gas to either shut down or drive up costs for consumers. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas power plants by some 90 percent in the 2030s — a goal many energy experts say simply isn’t possible.

A statement from the court written by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch argued that since the compliance actions don’t begin until June, there is no need for emergency action.

“So this Court understandably denies the stay applications for now,” Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wrote, adding “the applicants have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule.”

Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America’s Power, appreciated those statements from the justices. She told InsideSources that America’s Power has long considered the new EPA rules to be an illegal overreach, one that would “undermine the reliability of the electrical grid” in the United States.

“By forcing the premature retirement of coal plants, the EPA would reduce needed sources of electricity at the same time electricity demand is exploding,” Bloodworth said. “Coal-based electricity is essential to ensuring the United States can develop and deploy artificial intelligence and not fall behind other nations like China.”

Craig Stevens, spokesman for the Grow America’s Infrastructure Now (GAIN) Coalition, noted power demands for new data centers to power AI are already putting pressure on electricity demand.

“Our nation needs more power generation to ensure American families can afford to keep their lights on,” Stevens said. “The EPA’s regulation on power plant emissions does the opposite – setting an unrealistic requirement that will inevitably force plants to shut down entirely.”

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), global energy consumption is projected to increase by nearly 50 percent between now and 2050. Few energy industry professionals believe current renewable technologies like wind and solar, which only provide about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply, can cover that growth.

“Wind and solar cannot replace natural gas and coal,” says Bloodworth, adding seasonal weather can be a factor in production.

The EPA says the rule is necessary to combat man-made climate change. In 2022, the electric power sector generated about 25 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

Environmental groups like the rule and applaud the Supreme Court for siding with EPA in this case. Holly Bender, Sierra Club Chief Energy Officer, said these and other EPA safeguards are vital to the mission of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and helping move from fossil fuels toward a clean energy economy.

“As we continue to witness the impacts that coal and gas plant pollution have on our climate and health, we must do everything possible to reduce emissions, mitigate the harm caused by fossil fuel combustion and, ultimately, end this practice altogether,” said Bender.

Ending the use of fossil fuels entirely is a long-stated goal of political progressives, and opponents of the EPA rules say that’s the real motivation behind the regulations — regulations that have never been approved by Congress.

They also point to Vice President Kamala Harris, one of the original sponsors of the Green New Deal in the U.S. Senate, which calls for an end to fossil fuel production. Harris famously pledged to ban fracking during her 2020 presidential bid, but she now says she would not ban the process.

However, given that she co-sponsored the  Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which would have ended the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, the energy sector understands the direction a Harris administration would likely take.

“If Vice President Harris is elected and continues the policies of this administration, we’re headed down the path of California, where rolling blackouts and thousand-dollar monthly electricity bills are becoming the standard,” said Stevens.

Pennsylvania Democrats reacted swiftly — and angrily– to Thursday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s race-based admissions systems. The court found they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That led one Delaware Valley Democrat to call the decision “21st-century segregation.”

Writing for the six-member majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted race was the determinative factor for a “significant percentage” of Black and Hispanic applicants accepted by Harvard, with a similar admissions process used at UNC.

Roberts’ famous adage is, “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” and the majority of the court embraced that view. Many Democrats disagree, however, arguing the only way to treat people fairly is to give preferential treatment to some.

“The Court’s misguided decision reminds us how far we still have to go to ensure that all Americans are treated equally,” said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Shortly after the decision was released, Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus members held a press conference to express their ire at the court and their continued support for the race-based policy.

Speaker of the House Joanna McClinton (D-Philadelphia/Delaware), a member of the caucus, said, “Today’s ruling ending the use of affirmative action in higher education admissions hurts all students but is especially detrimental to Black and Brown students who are already underrepresented on many college campuses. This is incredibly disappointing at a time when we need to be doing more to foster diversity and inclusion, not less. In Pennsylvania, we’ll continue to fight for equitable educational opportunities for every student.”

State Sen. Art Haywood (D-Philadelphia/Montgomery) linked the court’s rejection of racial preferences to America’s refusal to pay reparations for slavery.

“Today, the Supreme Court put our nation in reverse by ending affirmative action in college admissions,” Haywood said. “For a nation that has repeatedly rejected comprehensive reparations for Black Americans, affirmative action has been a narrow remedy to the oppression of 200 years of enslavement, 100 years of Jim Crow terror and segregation, and continued systemic racial discrimination.

“The court’s decision makes way for new 21st-century segregation. Now college admission officers and recruiters are told to put back on the same blinders that prevented them from seeing black talent for centuries,” Haywood added.

And Sen. Vincent Hughes (D-Montgomery/Philadelphia) added, “Damn the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision! We will not give up!”

For Republicans, the Democrats’ outspoken advocacy for racial preferences could be a political winner. Polls show Americans strongly oppose the policy. For example, a new YouGov poll found nearly two-thirds of adults believe colleges and universities should not consider race at all in admissions decisions. And a recent Pew Research Center poll found 50 percent of Americans opposed race-based admissions, while just 33 percent approved.

Not surprisingly, Republicans running for president endorsed the Supreme Court ruling.

“We must instead restore equality of opportunity starting with equal access to educational opportunity in K-12 schools, via school choice and other means,” said entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. “We must restore colorblind meritocracy in America once and for all. This lifts up all Americans regardless of their skin color.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another presidential candidate, tweeted, “College admissions should be based on merit, and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court has correctly upheld the Constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities.”

And former President Donald Trump, who is leading the field of Republican candidates in the polls, said on Truth Social, “People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded. This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for, and the result was amazing. It will also keep us competitive with the rest of the world. Our greatest minds must be cherished, and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!”

All three candidates will participate in the Moms For Liberty national summit in Philadelphia this weekend.

Conversely, President Joe Biden said, via Twitter: “We cannot let today’s Supreme Court decision be a permanent setback for the country. We need to remember that the promise of America is big enough for everyone to succeed. That’s the work of my Administration, and I will always fight for it.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

When did the ambition to sit on the Supreme Court first burn within Antonin Scalia?

It was the lone mystery surrounding the late justice after his death from natural causes in February 2016 — 29 terms on the court had brought controversy but no hint of scandal — and it has now been solved.

Scalia sought to throw the hounds off the trail. In April 1986, when Judge Scalia was serving on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, two months away from being nominated to the Supreme Court, C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb, a longtime friend, asked if he had ever wanted to be a judge prior to becoming one in 1982. 

“Until the time when it was offered,” Scalia replied, “I really hadn’t thought of it.” 

Ten months later, Justice Scalia told a New Orleans audience: “I had the unrealistic ambition of being a federal judge back in 1960.”

Yet, his yearning for the court originated even earlier. This revelation comes from an unimpeachable witness: Father Robert Connor, the Catholic priest whose close friendship with Scalia, despite a quarter-century-long dormancy, stretched from boyhood to old age.

As Connor recalled in a lengthy interview in 2020 — his first about his famous friend — he made a momentous decision in the summer of 1959 when he and Scalia were 23: to drop out of medical school and relocate to Rome to study Opus Dei. 

Fearing for her son’s future, Connor’s mother asked his friend, Nino Scalia, valedictorian from their 1953 class at Xavier High School, to talk sense into him.

When Scalia entered the upstairs bedroom of Connor’s older brother in the family home in Jamaica, Queens, Connor was stunned to see him.

Father Connor: He says, “What are you doing?”… So I explained (Opus Dei) to him and he said to me, “Well, that sounds pretty good to me.”… I said, “What are you going to do?” And he says, “Oh, I’m going to the Supreme Court.” And I said, “Well, how are you going to do that?” And he said, “I’m … going to get a position in Cleveland with this law firm that’s well connected in Washington (Jones Day). … I will be sent to Washington, and then I will rise.”

Rosen: So that struck you as plausible, what he said — it wasn’t comical or fantastical?

Father Connor:: No, no, no, no, no. … Nino was driven. … Scalia had a sense of destiny.

Rosen:  Do you think he regarded it as a divine calling?

Father Connor: I bet. … I mean, it’s sort of a convergence of two transcendental moments. … He came out to ask the question, “What are you doing?” And I said, “I’m going to God,” and he says, “I’m going to the Supreme Court.”

Justice Scalia’s staunchest defenders — his family, friends and clerks — always bristled at efforts to solve the mystery, lest they feed the false narrative, promulgated by Scalia’s critics, that his rise owed less to faith, industry and genius than to careerist cunning. The fact is that certain individuals are blessed to know their destiny early on. Charles Schulz, the creator of “Peanuts,” said he wanted to be a cartoonist at the age of 5.

Scalia was similarly blessed, and all Americans, beneficiaries of his towering legal legacy, should be grateful. As the justice told a Catholic University audience in 1999: “It is good to know where you came from. It is even better to know where you are going.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

I generally hate year-in-review columns. They seem forced, like a list of things you must buy at the grocery store. Check this off, and then this, and we did this, and I need that, and we are out of this, and can we have extra of that, etc. Years blend into each other and it’s often hard to pick exceptional events, particularly since the same things seem to happen over and over again: Wars start and continue, and we think they end, and then they’re prolonged.

People die (surprise!) and we reflect on their lives, even when we might have forgotten they were still alive. Couples divorce and then find other partners they will eventually cast off in search of the perfect fit. Fads spring out of nowhere and insecure people with no particular talent film themselves on once-obscure social media apps in the hopes of boosting their self-esteem (after artificially boosting their lips and bosoms). Year after year, the same things tend to happen, and we try and frame them in a context where they seem historic.

But this year, something historic did happen, something that many people despaired of ever seeing, even though hope is the last thing to die. Since this is my column, this is my perspective. You won’t hear me talking about the tragic war in Ukraine, the January 6th Committee results, the disappointing red trickle at the mid-terms, the death of Sidney Poitier, or any of the other things that were indeed important (and about which I’ve written) but which did not stand out as the central, sea change event of 2022.

What defines for me the alpha and the omega of this year, the San Andreas Fault that splits two diametrically opposed tectonic plates, the BC and AD of our current historical timeline, is the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

That case, like Brown v. Board of Education, brought down a monolith of injustice: Legalized abortion by judicial fiat. The fiat was created by seven old men who ignored the voices of the American people and reached into some insubstantial and fictitious folds of constitutional jurisprudence to pluck out the right to kill a child.

Most would not be quite so blatant about it. They would replace “child” with “pregnancy” and “kill” with “terminate.” Those are the accepted terms in polite conversation, even though there is never anything polite about discussions around abortion. But the truth is clear and has been for almost 50 years.

January 22, 1973 would have marked one of the bloodiest half centuries known to modern society. That would have been the anniversary of the date Roe v. Wade, the decision to legalize abortion, was handed down and announced by that all-male court. I keep emphasizing the gender of the justices since we have been force-fed a diet of “if you can’t get pregnant, you have no right to have an opinion” by pro-choice advocates. I am going to be generous herein using the term that they prefer, pro “choice,” even though I would invite the reader to reflect on what “choice” we are discussing. There are only two: Life and death. Pro-choice advocates find both to be equally acceptable. Roe v. Wade supported that position and perpetuated a myth that there was virtue and legitimacy to the idea that women have dominion over their own bodies and the body growing within them.

But in 2022, after 50 years of lost potential and lives sacrificed to convenience and a skewed sense of autonomy, a court composed of men and women ruled that abortion was no longer a “right” and that, indeed, it never had been. And even though the reaction was brutal and there are continued attempts to codify abortion rights into law, and even though there are states where women will continue to be able to “choose” termination, there is now in this great country where immigrants find shelter and the oppressed find solace, an understanding that you cannot simply make up a right to do whatever you want, simply because you want to do it.

That principle transcends the issue of abortion. In 2022, women and men were told that no matter how much they want to engage in magical thinking and read the Constitution as a blueprint for living the lives they want, in the way they want, on the timeline they want, there are principles that are larger than their own narcissistic desires. One of them is the respect owed to other lives.

That is a lesson we should have figured out after the Civil War. It’s still a lesson we need to learn, and 2022 is bringing us closer to the point where we’re finally getting the message.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Various Pennsylvania candidates for the U.S. Senate and governor responded to the pending Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade leaked to the press Monday evening.

Adding to the mix, President Joe Biden also weighed in Tuesday, calling the right to an abortion “fundamental.”

Pennsylvania voters face a stark choice between the positions of the Republican candidates and those of the Democrats. Not surprisingly, Republicans staked out pro-life stances, and Democrats argued for a woman’s right to choose. Indeed, Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who is running for governor, has been airing ads touting his pledge to protect a woman’s right to an abortion. If elected, Shapiro promised to veto any anti-abortion bills that come to him from the legislature.

And if the leaked draft holds true, the states will have a larger role in determining abortion law. Here are comments from some of the Republicans who are running for governor:

“Once the repeal of Roe v. Wade is official, I am calling on the General Assembly to hold a vote on the Heartbeat Bill (that stops abortion once a baby’s heartbeat can be detected). The time is now for action to protect the rights of the unborn,” state Sen. Douglas Mastriano (R-Franklin) posted on Facebook.

Bill McSwain said via Twitter: “If true, this is, of course, the correct decision, both constitutionally and morally. But this leak is an outrageous attack on the court.”

Charlie Gerow told the Delaware Valley Journal, “I am praying that the leaked document is, in fact, the final decision of the court. It would allow the American people, through their elected representatives, to enact new laws protecting unborn children and honoring women. If Roe is overturned, our job will be to work with the legislature to build consensus and pass the strongest protections for unborn children and women.”

Lou Barletta said, “If this turns out to be accurate, it will be a long-awaited victory for unborn children. In the time since Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, tens of millions of babies have been killed, and all through the decades, the pro-life movement has fought to get to this point. If this draft ruling is indicative of the final majority opinion, it will save untold millions of innocent lives in the future. As I have made clear, I will not prejudge or predict what kinds of legislation may come before me, but I will be a pro-life governor, and I will sign pro-life legislation.”

And Dave White mentioned his disabled son, saying, “If (the) report is accurate, it is both a moment of joy and simultaneously one of great sadness. With joy for the millions of innocent lives that will now be spared, but with sorrow for the tens of millions who were never given a chance to laugh or to love. The loss to our society and our humanity that 50 years of Roe has stained our nation with will never be erased, but … I am encouraged that the Supreme Court appears prepared to overturn the injustice that was perpetrated through the Roe v. Wade decision.”

“Every day, I see the grace of God through the eyes of my son, Brian,” he added. “For 33 years, Brian’s life has been our family’s greatest blessing, and it is Brian’s love that drives me to be a better husband, a better father, and a better governor for all Pennsylvanians.”

White said he would be the best candidate to defeat “unabashedly pro-abortion Shapiro.”

And Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Gale said, “In this era of fake news, I pray that the revelation of Roe v. Wade’s reversal is true. Abortion is an atrocity and a stain on our nation. The United States Supreme Court’s 1973 decision legalizing the murder of the innocent unborn was not only unconstitutional but morally reprehensible. If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned and the issue of abortion is returned to the states, as the Republican governor of Pennsylvania I will fight to ensure every life in the womb is protected from the moment of conception.”

Sen. Pro Tempore Jake Corman said, “I am pro-life and have supported extending protections to the unborn since I first ran for office. While I will wait for the formal opinion rather than a leaked draft, you can rest assured that I will sign pro-life legislation that respects life and protects the innocent.  A Corman administration would move swiftly to work with the legislature to craft pro-life legislation that accomplishes these goals.”

Some Senate candidates also commented.

“The court is right. Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion laws should be left up to the American people and their elected representatives. I look forward to supporting pro-life legislation that saves innocent lives in the U.S. Senate,” said Dr. Mehmet Oz, a Republican.

Republican Dave McCormick called the leak, “What an earth-shattering breach of trust that is further evidence of an assault on our institutions.” If the high court overturns Roe v. Wade, he said, “This would be a huge step forward and a huge victory for the protection of life…This is an issue on the campaign trail. It’s already been a flashpoint,” adding that he is pro-life.

“If you’ve heard my story, you know how grateful I am for the decision my grandparents made to support my very young mother and allow me to live rather than be aborted,” said GOP candidate Kathy Barnette. “My life matters. All lives matter and I value all life, from conception until natural death,” Barnette said. “Every one of us was created with a purpose and I am greatly encouraged to see that our nation is prepared to engage in the long-overdue discussion about when life begins and when constitutional protections come full force.”

However, she decried the leak and said those responsible must be “held accountable.”

And Republican Jeff Bartos said in a tweet: “If this is authentic, the Supreme Court and the DOJ must investigate this leak immediately and hold the responsible person(s) accountable. Roe was wrongly decided. The court now has the opportunity to follow the constitution and allow the states to protect the unborn.”

Former Ambassador Carla Sands said, “If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the American people and their elected representatives could then enact measures to uphold and protect the sanctity of all human life. This development underscores the need to elect a U.S. Senator who is truly and unequivocally pro-life. In the U.S. Senate, I would vote in favor of sensible legislation with the goal of saving unborn human lives.”

As for the Democrats running for Senate, state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta tweeted, “Just last week I stood up in the face of fierce opposition and defended the need to expand the court and begin the hard process of rebuilding public trust in this critical institution.”

In a statement, Kenyatta added, “This is a sad day for our nation. Make no mistake, we arrived at this moment because Mitch McConnell shamelessly packed the Supreme Court with radical right-wing extremists. That is why, as your next senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I will fight to expand the Supreme Court to reflect the will of the people and to restore the balance of justice in America. And as we figure out how to navigate this painful moment I encourage everyone to be gentle with themselves. I know how deeply held the right to choose is for each of us, especially to the women leading my team. On the debate stage last week, I stood in the face of fierce opposition from my primary opponents on the matter of restoring balance to the Supreme Court and I will proudly do the same as your nominee and as your senator.”

John Fetterman said in two tweets: “Let’s be clear: The right to an abortion is sacred. Democrats have to act quickly – get rid of the filibuster to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act + finally codify Roe into law. We cannot afford to wait.” And, “We cannot afford to wait. Send me to Washington, and I’ll be that 51st vote to codify abortion rights into law.”

Also on Twitter, Congressman Conor Lamb said, “If Dems lose in PA, Congress may never save Roe. Poor women will suffer most. I voted to put Roe into law, I’m endorsed by @NationalNOW, & I’ve voted 100% pro-choice while winning in GOP districts. That’s my record. If I’m your nominee I’ll give you the campaign you deserve.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Comedian Bill Cosby gets the last laugh.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele to reopen the criminal case against the 84-year-old former TV star. That upholds a decision last year by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court overturning Cosby’s conviction on indecent assault charges that led to his release from prison. Scores of other women also claimed they were assaulted by the entertainer.

The state Supreme Court held in June 2021 that Cosby should never have been tried in the case because a previous prosecutor (Bruce L. Castor, Jr.) sanctioned a “non-prosecution agreement” with the actor. “In light of these circumstances, the subsequent decision by successor D.A.s to prosecute Cosby violated Cosby’s due process rights.”

The Elkins Park resident was tried twice for his 2004 aggravated indecent assault against then-Temple University employee Andrea Constand. According to testimony, Cosby drugged Constand at his home before the assault. A judge subsequently sentenced him to three to 10 years in prison. He spent just over two years behind bars.

Asked to comment on the Supreme Court declining to hear the appeal, Castor was succinct.

“How does Cosby recover the years of freedom taken from him by Kevin Steele?” he asked.

Steele defended his actions. “Petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review was the right thing to do. But obviously, there was only a small chance the high court would be able to hear the case. We appreciate the court’s consideration. My appreciation also goes to Andrea Constand. All crime victims deserve to be heard, treated with respect, and supported through their day in court. I wish her the best as she moves forward in her life,” Steele said.

Whether or not to prosecute Cosby was a campaign issue in the 2015 district attorney’s race that pitted Democrat Steele against Castor, a Republican, a former district attorney and a former county commissioner.

Cosby’s spokesman issued this response:

“On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Cosby and the Cosby family, we would like to offer our sincere gratitude to the justices of the United States Supreme Court for following the rules of law and protecting the Constitutional Rights of all American citizens of these United States,” said Andrew V. Wyatt, a spokesman for Cosby. “Mr. Cosby’s Constitutional Rights were a ‘reprehensible bait and switch’ by Kevin Steele, Judge Steve T. O’Neill, and their cohorts. This is truly a victory for Mr. Cosby but it shows that cheating will never get you far in life and the corruption that lies within Montgomery County District’s Attorney Office has been brought to the center stage of the world.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal.

In a 6-3 ruling Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s OSHA vaccine mandate on businesses with more than 100 employees.

However, the high court permitted the vaccine rule to be imposed on healthcare workers at institutions that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding, unless those employees have medical or religious exemptions.

OSHA issued its mandate in November, parts of which– including a mask mandate for unvaccinated workers — were scheduled to take effect this week.

In response, 27 states have sued the Biden administration in various venues over its attempts to use the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) to impose mandates on employers with 100 or more workers. The mandates, which required employees to either be vaccinated or undergo regular testing, would have affected 84 million workers.

Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain re-tweeted a statement calling the OSHA rule “the ultimate workaround for the federal government to require vaccination,” a point noted by the court during its oral arguments last week. Klain’s attitude fed suspicions among some legal observers that the White House’s decision to issue the OSHA order is just the latest example of the Biden administration issuing a policy they know is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny for the sake of political messaging.

For example, when Biden issued a federal moratorium on evictions last August, he admitted, “The bulk of the constitutional scholars say it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster.” The Supreme Court swiftly struck it down.

It only took a week for the Supreme Court to do the same with the OSHA mandate, once it reached the high court. “Under the law as it stands today, that power [to regulate the pandemic] rests with the states and Congress, not OSHA,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said Thursday.

“By blocking the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court showed that it’s possible to take statutory limits on federal power seriously, not just constitutional ones,” said Ilya Shapiro, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. “After all, even if we accept federal regulation of workplace safety as constitutional, there’s a difference between occupational risk and the general risk of living in a pandemic.”

Some local businesses chafed under the mandate, while others supported it.

“The Pennsylvania Chamber fully supports vaccination to curb the pandemic,” said Chamber president and CEO Gene Barr. “However, we heard many concerns from employers in response to the ETS – both confusion over implementation and with losing employees during a workforce crisis. We urge lawmakers to work with the business community as partners helping employers get through both the pandemic and workforce crises.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said, “The Supreme Court’s decision to block the administration’s private employer testing and vaccine requirement is a welcome enforcement of the constitutional limits of the powers of the executive branch. I continue to believe the vaccine is the best choice for most Americans, and I hope those who are able but have not received a vaccine will do so soon. The Biden administration lacked the legal authority to coerce vaccination through employers. This unlawful and unconstitutional exercise fueled vaccine skepticism and led to employees leaving the workplace, exacerbating current staffing shortages for businesses.”

Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) holds similar views.

“Over the past few months, I have heard from countless constituents across our community who have expressed concern over the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate on private businesses,” said Fitzpatrick. “While I have been a proponent of COVID-19 vaccines since they became available, I believe receiving a vaccine should be a decision left up to individuals. I oppose the federal vaccine mandate and cosponsored H.J. Res. 65, a resolution expressing disapproval of OSHA’s vaccine mandate for private businesses with more than 100 employees.”

Fitzpatrick added, “I support the Supreme Court’s decision to block enforcement of this draconian mandate. Since the onset of the pandemic, our businesses have faced months of massive revenue losses, supply chain issues, workforce shortages, and skyrocketing costs. The overreaching OSHA standard will only add strain on our businesses and will further discourage people from entering back into the workforce, impeding Pennsylvania’s economic recovery. I have always believed that it was not in the best interest of the Commonwealth to implement or enforce OSHA’s vaccine mandate, and I will continue to stand with my colleagues against this misguided measure.”

Meanwhile, two doctors who hope to replace Toomey when he retires had opposing points of view.

Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz said on Twitter, “Joe Biden’s attempt to dictate a decision that should be made between a patient and their doctor was always unconstitutional. I will always stand against mandates that take the power away from patients.”

However, Dr. Kevin Baumlin, a Philadelphia ER doctor and Democrat, told the Delaware Valley Journal he supports vaccine mandates as a way to stop the virus by encouraging more people to get COVID-19 shots.

“I think it’s a bad day for public health and health policy,” said Baumlin. As for Biden’s mandate, “I think the intentions were good. We don’t want vaccine mandates because we want to hurt people. We want to keep people safe. This is a particularly contagious variant. It spreads easily. Therefore, the attempt to impose mandates in the workplace is to decrease illness, death and dying.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Depending on what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, Bill Cosby’s taste of freedom may be brief.

On Monday, Montgomery County D.A. Kevin Steele announced he is asking it to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the famous comedian and actor’s conviction.

“Petitioning to ask the High Court to review was the right thing to do because of the precedent set in this case by the majority opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that prosecutors’ statements in press releases now seemingly create immunity,” said Steele in a press release. “This decision as it stands will have far-reaching negative consequences beyond Montgomery County and Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court can right what we believe is a grievous wrong.”

Some 60 women have accused the octogenarian of sexually assaulting them over the years. In 2017, a Montgomery County jury found him guilty of charges related to his treatment of then-Temple University employee Andrea Constand. She claimed Cosby drugged and assaulted her in his Elkins Park mansion in 2004. A judge subsequently sentenced him to three to 10 years in prison. He spent just over two years behind bars.

The state Supreme Court held in June that Cosby should never have been tried in the case because a previous prosecutor (Bruce L. Castor Jr.) sanctioned a “non-prosecution agreement” with the actor. “In light of these circumstances, the subsequent decision by successor D. A.s to prosecute Cosby violated Cosby’s due process rights.”

Cosby was promptly released and was soon back at his home, flashing reporters the victory sign.

Asked to comment, Andrew Wyatt, a spokesman for Cosby said, “Unwilling to accept (his) epic loss in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Montgomery County District Attorney has now filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. In short, the Montgomery County D.A. asks the United States Supreme Court to throw the Constitution out the window, as it did, to satisfy the #metoo mob.

“There is no merit to the DA’s request which centers on the unique facts of the Cosby case and has no impact on important federal questions of law,” said Wyatt. “The United States Supreme Court does not typically interfere with the rulings of a State’s high court unless it conflicts with the decisions of other state high courts or our federal court of appeals. This is a pathetic last-ditch effort that will not prevail. The Montgomery County’s DA’s fixation with Mr. Cosby is troubling, to say the least.”

But Steele contends the Cosby case opened the door for future plaintiffs to argue they may not be prosecuted based on a prosecutor’s press release, even if new evidence is found.

“This Court, not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, should be the one to decide whether Cosby’s drastic expansion of (a previous case) is appropriate and whether its dramatic shift in law about prosecutorial statements should continue through our court systems,” said Steele in his pleading to the high court. “The issue is important because other courts have rejected the idea that press releases are bilateral agreements or issued as anything more than an administrative task. Under Cosby’s rationale, the accused in those cases now have transactional immunity, regardless of any potentially new evidence coming to light and regardless of whether the accused’s reliance on the statements was reasonable.”

Steele told the high court “Cosby is a dangerous precedent. A prosecution announcement not to file charges should not trigger due process protections against future criminal proceedings because circumstances could change, including new incriminating statements by the accused. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that due process makes detrimental reliance on a decision not to prosecute constitutionally enforceable, regardless of reasonableness. Detrimental reliance, according to that court, transforms a mere decision not to prosecute, or even the absence of a decision to prosecute, into a promise of non-prosecution with a constitutional guarantee. A suspect need only rely to his detriment to ratify his immunity to future prosecution. That is quite an attractive proposition, not only to celebrities like Cosby, but to all manner of garden-variety litigants.”

Castor declined to comment. It is unclear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to hear Montgomery County’s appeal.

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal.