Get Rid of the Electoral College

 It is true that the Framers mistrusted the Hoi Polloi when they invented the Electoral College to insure that men of reason and means chose the nation’s leader. It is equally true that this peculiar Institution has ingrained itself in the American ethos and is viewed as a safeguard protecting smaller states and their populace from the tyranny of the coastal elite.The tension between recognition of the popular will and protection of minority rights has preserved the Electoral College and prevented meaningful reform of the system.

One proposal that would perpetuate the Electoral College (and perhaps mollify its adherents) while giving truer meaning to the concept of “one man, one vote” and addressing the inequities of the present system, would be; award Electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in a given state. By doing so, the votes of the losing side would no longer be disregarded as they now are under the winner take all approach.
The benefits of such a modification would include a lessened likelihood that the loser of the popular vote will win office, the elimination of the existence of swing or battleground states, diminished need for court challenges and recounts and motivation for candidates to pay attention to voters in all, and not just a few key, states.

Trump Tweets Barr is Leaving

 

In typically Trumpian fashion the early departure of Attorney General William Barr was announced by a presidential tweet. In keeping with his fawning tenure, Mr. Barr delivered a letter lauding Mr. Trump and assuring him that his baseless election complaints will continue to receive Department of Justice attention.
Whether Mr. Barr was forced out (because some of his recent pronouncements displeased Trump) or he really wanted to get a head start on the holidays, is of no moment. What matters is that the defilement of DOJ by this Trump sycophant has ended, though his unqualified replacement may yet inflict  further damage to the rule of law in the few remaining days of this lawless administration.
Though a strong case could be made to challenge Mr. Barr’s fitness to continue the practice of law that decision should be left to local authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction. What is imperative is for President-Elect Biden to promptly announce his choice for Attorney General so that career prosecutors at DOJ and the nation are reassured that the independence and integrity of the department will swiftly be restored.

The Senate Must Be Taken

 

In 2009 Mitch McConnell vowed to make Barack Obama a one-term president and to block everything he attempted to do. Though Mr. Obama was re-elected and had some memorable achievements, McConnell, once he became Majority Leader, effectively blocked many of President Obama’s initiatives including, most notoriously, Mr. Obama’s choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Mr. McConnell’s intransigence has since been made more virulent by Donald Trump, who has used his one-term presidency to dismantle a multitude of Obama programs.

Now, more than a decade later, and after hypocritically rushing through a Supreme Court appointment in the middle of an election, Mr. McConnell still poses, and promises to be, a roadblock to the agenda of a new Democratic administration. The implementation of McConnell’s threat hinges on the outcome of the two senatorial elections in Georgia.

While the country agonizes in the throes of a pandemic, an economy on life support and a wave of racial unrest, a continued government stalemate is inevitable unless Democrats can wrest control of the Senate from McConnell.  

Texas Sues in the Supreme Court

 The course charted by Donald Trump, to upend the Constitution and remain in power despite his election loss, has reached an inflection point. The crime-ridden Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, has asked the Supreme Court to set aside the election results in four swing states, claiming violations of the Constitution impacting Texas and other states. While Paxton may simply be courting a pardon from Trump, the Supreme Court has directed that a response be made by the four states by this Thursday afternoon. If the court does not then peremptorily toss out this frivolous lawsuit our democracy will be in dire peril.

Coupled with Mr. Trump’s installation of his acolytes at the head of the Defense Department, paving the way for employment of the military to perpetuate his power grab, we have reached a moment in history that will determine the fate of this nation.

Prosecuting Trump a Bad Idea?

 Prof. Eric Posner is right to caution against a federal prosecution of an ex-president Trump (A27, 12/4). It would perpetuate and increase national division, likely would not succeed and would allow Mr. Trump to achieve the martyrdom he seeks.

Mr. Trump, however, should not be given virtual immunity from state prosecution for pre-presidential crimes even though such prosecutions may run the same risk of undesirable consequences. If Mr. Trump’s past tax and credit frauds are overlooked, he will have every incentive to continue conducting himself and his business in the same illicit manner and,seemingly, will have been granted a “stay out of jail card” as he does so.That is too high a price to pay for the prospect of restoring national unity.

Thank You, Justice Gorsuch?

 

Bret Stephens, in his op-ed "Thank You, Justice Gorsuch" suggests that someday liberals will celebrate the recent ruling  of the Supreme Court on religious liberty. I suggest that Mr. Stephens completely misconstrues the ruling and the liberal mindset. The decision, which enjoined Gov. Cuomo's restrictions on the size of religious gatherings during an upsurge in the pandemic, seems to substitute the judgment of the justices for that of public health experts, in contravention of earlier rulings.

Mr. Stephens uplifts Justice Gorsuch's reach for literary sheen ("Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis" and "Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during the pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical").

Yes it can and yes it may, depending on the degree and duration of the danger to be avoided. 

Freedom of speech may be curtailed if it imperils public safety, constitutes a threat, is found to be obscene or defames an individual or group. The right to assemble is subject to reasonable, content-neutral, narrowly tailored limitations. Thus, a large group planning to march on a busy thoroughfare may be required to obtain a permit.

These limitations do not make the protected rights "second-class" just as health-driven restrictions on religious observance, based on scientific determination , do not unconstitutionally infringe religious liberty.

Election Fraud Claims

 Having turned truth on its head for four years it is hardly surprising that Donald Trump has now taken on the rewriting of the civil law. Since time immemorial the law has required that the party alleging fraud has the burden of proof, usually by the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence. But Mr. Trump, incredulous that Joe Biden could have received 80 million votes, has tweeted that he will vacate the White House only if Mr. Biden proves that his vote total was not fraudulently obtained. A good lawyer, if only Trump had one, would counsel her client that the legal system doesn’t work that way. But it seems that it will be left to the courts to deliver the message. In the meantime,  Mr. Trump embarrasses himself, sows national discord and makes our democracy an object of pity and a laughingstock internationally.

Trump Appointees Show Clout as Justices Scrap Limits on Congregations

 

The Trump-constructed conservative majority on the Supreme Court has now made it clear that, while limitations on free speech imposed by obscenity and defamation laws are acceptable, reasonable and temporary restrictions on the size of prayer meetings, designed to protect public health, are anathema.

Justices who usually defer to the expertise of partisan politicians when it comes to drawing voting maps, now substitute their lay judgment to override the scientifically-based advice of epidemiologists  about how best to combat a pandemic.

Apparently, these justices believe it is constitutionally more important to shelter sensitive ears and protect fragile reputations than it is to safeguard the public's health.

Trump Pardons Flynn

 An unintended yet powerful reminder of how President Trump corrupted the criminal justice system, and how close we came to losing our democracy, is Mr. Trump's pardon today of Michael Flynn. Mr. Flynn, a confessed liar, was fired by President Trump for misinforming the Vice President about his dealings with the Russians and because he was vulnerable to Russian extortion. Notwithstanding, Mr. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey for resisting presidential pressure to drop the case against Flynn and, then, had his Attorney General, William Barr, finish  the job (or so he thought) by moving to dismiss before a court could impose sentence. When the court required Mr. Barr to explain his inexplicable and unprecedented turnabout, Mr. Trump delayed until the election ended and then granted today's pardon.

Now we await with apprehension the final blows this roundly rejected president may deliver to the rule of law as he makes his flailing exit from office.

Trump Moves to Hem Biden In

 

President Trump and his administration are laying economic, environmental, and diplomatic mine fields calculated to prevent, hinder and disrupt the new president’s programs to restore the economy, protect our climate, equalize justice and create a more peaceful world.
Trump has launched an eleventh hour maelstrom to seed the courts and federal agencies with long serving ultra conservatives, suspend protective regulations, forfeit funds for economic recovery, award drilling leases on pristine lands, harden rifts with our adversaries and widen the separation from our allies.
This unhinged rampage is the vengeful and destructive work of an egomaniac determined to bring down the nation that rejected him and to insure the failure of his successor.
It is time for Republicans to realize that the boat being scuttled will carry all of us to the bottom.

Challenge For Biden

The greatest challenge facing Joe Biden’s presidency will be a Republican controlled Senate dominated by Mitch McConnell and dedicated to blocking every program intended to help working class Americans and the confirmation of liberal judges.

A President Biden must immediately send to Congress proposed legislation to fund the unemployed, save small business and keep states and localities from bankruptcy. He must also forward a program to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, thus salvaging our crumbling roads, bridges, water lines and mass transit systems and spurring employment for millions.
The House of Representatives must swiftly pass this legislation and send the bills on to the Senate. Mr. Biden must then initiate a nation-wide full court press to gain support for these measures and pressure Senate Republicans to defect from McConnell’s negativism. The problem of judges will only be solved when Democrats regain control of the Senate, hopefully in 2022.

Biden's Ambitious Plans Ride on Georgia Runoffs

 It is imperative that President- Elect Biden and the two Democratic senatorial candidates in Georgia lay out in detail the new administration’s proposed legislative plan to defeat the virus, restore the economy and rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. They must demonstrate how these measures realistically can be funded.

Then they must make the case to Georgia voters that the program is a sound and effective way to solve the country’s myriad problems and not, as Republicans falsely assert, a wild, radical pipe dream.
Finally, they must persuade the voters that keeping the Senate under the thumb of Mitch McConnell will surely be a lethal roadblock to the nation’s recovery.

Is America Becoming a Failed State?

 What this election has demonstrated yet again, perhaps more dramatically than ever, is that the Electoral College is an outdated relic that undermines democratic governance and must be discarded if America is to survive as a functioning, just and modern nation.

In 2016 that method of choosing a president enabled elevation to power of a man rejected by a majority of voters , having lost by 3 million votes. Now we are witnessing that same person losing his bid for re-election by an even greater margin likely to exceed 5 million votes. Yet the switch of several thousand votes in a few key states would have wrought the unthinkable; another four years of autocratic, corrupt and incompetent rule by a president who lost the popular vote overwhelmingly.

The will of a majority of Americans is further thwarted by a system that allocates two Senate seats to each state. As Paul Krugman points out, 39 million Californians have the same representation and weight in the Senate as do just half a million residents of Wyoming. The result is a national policy that neglects the needs and disregards the preferences of a great preponderance of Americans and a Supreme Court that upholds the implementation of that inequitable policy.

Election Prediction

 On election night the exit polls and the completed count in many states indicate that Biden will win the popular vote by a substantial margin and the electoral college by a lesser edge. Most states will announce that the winner cannot be declared pending the completion of the ongoing count of mail in ballots.

Trump will claim that the “Radical Left” is stealing the election by fraudulent means. He will call upon “patriots” to protect the nation and armed militias will take to the streets, surround election sites and attempt to confiscate ballots. In some cities the police will act to disarm and disperse the mobs; in other cities the police will take no action.
Trump will challenge the vote count in courts and, ultimately, a fiercely divided Supreme Court will deliver the presidency to Biden. The military will restore order in the troubled cities and insure that Trump leaves office at the end of his term.

Burisma and the Debate

 

At the debate this Thursday, Joe Biden must use the opportunity afforded by the enforced silence of Donald Trump to put to rest the Hunter Biden/Burisma Hail Mary being thrown by the Trump campaign.
In a compact and compelling statement Mr. Biden should remind voters that this timeworn concoction has been debunked by multiple law enforcement and congressional investigations, has been identified as anticipated Russian disinformation aimed at disrupting the election and is based upon a fantasy fed to Rudy Giuliani by a known Russian operative currently under investigation by the FBI.
Mr. Biden should also reinforce the fact that his pressure to remove a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was in furtherance of US policy to cleanse that country’s judicial system and had international support.

Unmasking Probe Ends With a Whimper

 

It has been reliably reported that the "great unmasking investigation", initiated by Attorney General William Barr, at the instigation of Fox anchor Sean Hannity and President Donald Trump, has come to an inglorious end. The United States Attorney, John Bash, who was charged with finding criminal misconduct in the highest echelons of the Obama administration, including Vice President Biden, National Security Director Susan Rice and FBI Director James Comey, has left the Department of Justice. Mr. Bash reportedly found no prosecutable wrongdoing, in connection with alleged spying on Michael Flynn and other Trump personnel,  and the report of his non-findings is apparently being buried by Mr. Barr.

After years of almost nightly denouncing the "greatest political conspiracy in American history" and promising that, at any moment, Obama officials would be exposed and jailed, the demise of the investigation has gone without comment or acknowledgement by Mr. Hannity. Mr. Trump has bemoaned the betrayal by his staunchest supporter, Attorney General Barr who has, unexpectedly, failed to do his bidding to imprison the president's opponents.

In these topsy turvy times of a Justice Department out of control, small victories must be noted.

Supreme Court Declines to Revive Abortion Restriction

 The Supreme Court, for the moment, thankfully has declined to stay an injunction issued by a lower court preventing the government from requiring women seeking an abortion pill to travel and appear in person to obtain the medication from a hospital or medical office. The court below found that this requirement imposed an undue burden on the constitutional right to an abortion given the risk of needless travel during the coronavirus pandemic.

In his dissent Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, complained that the court had sanctioned restrictions on religious liberty and free expression by refusing to exempt churches from state shutdown orders but protected abortion rights from government safety regulations. In Justice Alito’s distorted view, the court had allowed serious infringement of free speech and religious liberty in the name of safeguarding public health but now fails to intervene when abortion rights are protected at the expense of public health.
Justice Alito’s reasoning  is logically flawed. Congregating for religious, or any other purpose, poses a health threat. So does a federal requirement that a woman travel unnecessarily to obtain medication provided by mail. Allowing government restriction in the religious context and forbidding it to prevent access by mail to a constitutionally protected right to abortion are each consistent with an overriding concern for the protection of public health. The court’s approach, Justice Alito’s complaint notwithstanding, does not elevate abortion rights above free expression or religious liberty; it subjects each right to the same test of insuring public health.

Impending Constitutional Crisis

 

The previously unimaginable has come to pass. Our nation contemplates the real possibility that Donald Trump, in defiance of the electorate and the dictates of the Constitution, will reject a lost vote and attempt to retain power.
While some take comfort in the ultimate patriotism of public officials to block such a putsch don’t count on it. Others believe the courts will insure that the rule of law is adhered to but courts by themselves haven’t the means of enforcement.
I suggest that the survival of our democracy will hinge on the action or inaction of the U.S. military. Will the generals be true to their oaths to defend and preserve our Constitution or will they elect to obey the orders of the “Commander-in-Chief “?
There is speculation that military leaders may resign their posts if Mr. Trump acts the tyrant. Though that coarse may seem commendable, it would be tragically wrong for two reasons.
First, Mr. Trump will find acolytes he can elevate to lead the military to support his usurpation of power. Second, it is likely Trump’s claim of a fraudulent election result will unleash armed militias in the streets of our cities who will overwhelm outmanned or sympathetic local law enforcers. Those armed mobs must be put down by a military response, a response which will be absent if the commanders have resigned.
This Doomsday scenario must not be gain said; it is real and requires an immediate public commitment from military leaders that they will remain on duty to protect the survival of our democracy.

The Supreme Court

 

Lifetime appointments result in a petrified bench whose members may be out of touch with a changed society. Undue longevity may also weaken an otherwise keen intellect. Allowing a single president to shape the court's judicial philosophy for generations into the future is inimical to a robust democracy.

The solution is staggered term limits so that, ultimately, three justices are replaced every fifteen years. A fifteen-year term is adequate to insure consistency, growth and acquisition of experience. The turnover of three justices every five years increases the likelihood that nominations will be spread across multiple presidents from each party.

Dr. Fauci Debunks Sen. Rand Paul

 The false assertions made by Sen. (Dr.)Rand Paul, incorporated in his questioning of Dr. Anthony Fauci, are a discredit to the Senate and unworthy of a doctor.

During the hearing held on September 23 by the Senate Committee on Health, Labor and Pensions to examine and update the federal response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Sen. Paul wrongly commended Sweden for foregoing a lockdown and getting a good result. Dr. Fauci corrected him, pointing out that the virus toll in Sweden was the worst among Scandinavian nations.
Dr. Fauci also debunked Sen. Paul’s assertion that New York’s good recovery resulted from herd immunity conferred by the early explosion of the virus in that state. No such immunity was achieved, Dr. Fauci explained, and New York’s recovery is attributable to its strict lockdown and the near universal wearing of masks and social distancing by its citizens.
By promoting the notion that lockdowns and mask wearing have not worked, when science has established exactly the opposite, Sen. Paul, an eye doctor challenging a world renowned immunologist, has endangered countless Americans who may misguidedly believe him.

Lindsey Graham's Turnabout

 

Senator Lindsey Graham explains why he is prepared to jettison his unconditional pledge not to act upon a Trump Supreme Court nomination in the year before election. He was so pissed off at how Democratic senators treated Brett Kavanaugh that he no longer feels bound by his commitment.
In other words, Sen. Graham places personal pique above personal integrity, principle and national interest.

Battle Over Court Seat

The Republican attempt to distinguish between their stonewalling of President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, nearly a year before the 2016 presidential election and their announced intention to race through the confirmation of whom ever President Trump may nominate while the current election is in progress, is shameful and ludicrous.

The only real difference is that senate Republicans had the votes to block Judge Garland and now believe they have the votes to reinforce the conservative majority on the Court while Trump is still in office.
Whatever happened to their oft repeated mantra, "let the People decide "?

Justice Dept. Steps In to Aid Trump

 By unleashing Justice Department lawyers to defend Donald Trump, accused of defaming the woman who alleges he raped her, Attorney- General William Barr continues to burnish his reputation as Mr. Trump's Roy Cohn. Moving the case from state to federal court is a transparent maneuver to cloak Mr. Trump with federal immunity and further delay a trial beyond election.

These legal tactics can only be justified if Mr. Trump's misconduct falls within the scope of his official duties. The notion that a sitting president is fulfilling presidential duties when he attempts to escape the consequences of pre-presidential wrongdoing, by falsely branding his accuser as a liar, is beyond comprehension and without legal foundation.

Hopefully, the federal judge to whom the transferred case is assigned will make short shrift of this blatant misuse of the legal system, return the case to state court and prevent the Justice Department from acting as Mr. Trump's personal defenders.

Trump Solicits Election Fraud

Once again President Trump has committed a crime in plain sight. Apparently, in an attempt to demonstrate that voting by mail will result in a fraudulent election, Mr. Trump has urged voters in North Carolina to vote by mail and then cast an in-person ballot  in the same upcoming presidential election. If the voter can get away with it, the President counsels, it will prove that the election is rigged.
As one might suspect, voting twice in the same election is a crime. One who invites or encourages such an unlawful act is, himself, guilty of the crime of criminal solicitation. Mr. Trump continues to adhere to the notion that he is above the law. When confronted with the fact of his transgression expect him to claim that he was only joking. And don’t expect Attorney-General William Barr to initiate any enforcement. Mr. Barr acts only to investigate those he perceives to be the President’s enemies and to assist the President’s cohorts.

Flynn Case Sent Back to Sentencing Judge

 Fortunately, the full bench of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has overturned a 2 to 1 ruling of the three judge panel which had directed the trial judge in the Michael Flynn case to accede to AG Barr’s suspect motion to dismiss the case against the confessed felon without inquiry into the government’s motivation for its unprecedented turnabout.

One of the two dissenting judges, recent Trump appointee Neomi Rao, questions how the prosecution can proceed without a prosecutor. Judge Rao is patently mistaken. The Flynn prosecution ended with his admission, under oath, acknowledging his guilt. The final stage of the proceeding is entirely in the hands of the judge. The only role left for the prosecutor is to make a recommendation as to sentence.
Judge Sullivan may ultimately feel constrained to accept the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. But he will, at least, have an opportunity to probe publicly the justification for Mr. Barr’s politically driven maneuver and be able to question the distorted factual basis offered in support thereof.

Republican Convention Breaks the Law

 

Donald Trump strode into the room in the White House, past the full dress marines who saluted and ceremoniously opened the large wooden doors giving access to the gold-trimmed carpet, so that the President could confer US citizenship on five carefully chosen candidates in an astoundingly discordant charade completely at odds with Mr. Trump’s true position on immigration.
The President’s regal entry immediately brought to mind the image often shown of Vladimir Putin following the identical spectacle before proceeding to a podium. Obviously, Mr. Trump has adopted Putin’s Tsar-like fanfare and, undoubtedly, would like also to emulate his role model’s autocratic grip on executive power.

Report of the Senate Intelligence Committee

 

The  claims of a "Russia Hoax", promoted by Donald Trump, AG William Barr and various Fox News agitators, and their continuing assault on the findings and bona fides of the Mueller Report, have now been debunked by the extensive findings contained in a voluminous bipartisan report of the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. After a wide-ranging, long-term inquiry conducted in a bi-partisan manner by the members and staff of that Committee, it has been established that Russia interfered broadly in the 2016 presidential election to promote the candidacy of Mr. Trump and that persons involved in Mr. Trump's campaign welcomed this foreign intrusion and had numerous meetings with persons identified as being Russian intelligence operatives. It was only because of a lack of evidence proving a conspiracy (i.e. an agreement between the Russians and the Trump people to act in coordination with one another) that the charge of collusion could not formally be brought.
One might expect that the Committee's findings would put to rest the baseless and politically driven assertions that Trump was the victim of Deep State spying and a conspiracy to deny or oust him from his deserved presidency. Don't count on it. You can be sure that Trump and his minions will turn on the Committee, including its Republican majority, and denounce its report as the fake findings of never- Trumpers who are colluding with Democrats, the FBI and everyone else in the world who fails to appreciate the President's genius, honesty and historical achievements.

If Our Masks Could Speak

In his column (A-23, 7/29), Thomas Friedman put his finger right on the nub of the problem of a spreading virus when he described the attitude of anti-maskers as being “Don’t tread on me but I can breathe on you.” That implicit quote captures perfectly the warped notion that personal liberty entitles one to engage in any activity without regard to its impact on others.
That is the same twisted philosophy which underlies the callous objections to smoking bans. “ I can choose to put my own life at risk even as I blow carcinogens up your nose.” Surprisingly, this corps of “libertarians” has not yet asserted the right to expectorate even if you happen to be in the way. But don’t get complacent, that’s probably next.

Biden Should Send a Letter to Putin

Given Donald Trump’s abdication of his constitutional responsibilities and his blatant obeisance to Vladimir Putin,  Joseph Biden should immediately issue the following statement with a copy sent directly to Vladimir Putin.
President Putin,
In a few months I will be sworn in as president of the United States notwithstanding your best effort to achieve a different result.
You are hereby put on notice that Russia must cease forthwith its interference in this nation’s electoral process and immediately halt offering bounties on the lives of American soldiers. Your failure to comply with these demands will result in dire consequences for your country. Immediately upon my assumption of office I shall move to impose the most severe sanctions upon Russia financially, politically and diplomatically. I will lead an international coalition to isolate your country as an outlaw nation and will initiate a criminal investigation to hold individual wrongdoers, including yourself, personally accountable. Mr. Trump will have no authority to pardon you.
Joseph Biden
Prospective President of the United States

The Barr Hearing

Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee squandered their one and only opportunity to expose Attorney General Barr as the  rule -of -law -breaking charlatan he is. Instead of asking probing questions supported by record facts, the representatives generally repeated, in long soliloquies, well known accusations of Mr. Barr's widespread acts of corruption. Once again the Democratic members of the committee demonstrated their utter inability to interrogate in an effective, meaningful manner. Well qualified questioners could have confronted Mr. Barr with his prior contradictory statements, compelled him to acknowledge his unprecedented intrusion in criminal cases to favor presidential allies, explore his mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and expose his misuse of armed federal forces in the streets of the nation.
Republican members of the committee, similarly, used the hearing to further the Trump campaign strategy of painting a picture of chaos in cities and alleged spying by Democrats.
The net result; undecided viewers gained no new insights and were left to wade through competing, well worn rants in search of underlying truth.

Baseball is Back, Sort Of

I have been an unregenerate Yankee fan since the days Joe D floated in the outfield at the old stadium. Like millions of others, I have been desperate for the return of baseball. I have watched every inning of the preseason and expect my upcoming nights to be spent in front of the television during the truncated regular schedule. As always, my moods will swing with the fortunes of my team, my days will be spent reading  about the niceties of last night’s game. But it won’t be the same.

As Baseball’s anthem implores, “take me out to the ballgame, take me out to the crowd”. The crowd is the soul of baseball and without the roars of approval, the boos of disapproval, the buzz of anticipation and the anguished cries of defeat, that soul will be stilled.

Like the Potamkin figures in the stands at Citi Field, baseball will be little more than a cardboard cutout. There will be no joy in Mudville.

What a Second Trump Term Would Look Like

While Prof. Eric Posner warns against the dire prospects of a second Trump term, he understates Mr. Trump's lunatic lust for power and the extent of the damage already done to our democracy. His assertion, that Mr. Trump has not violated the law or the Constitution and that he has not tried to expand his powers is simply wrong.

Mr. Trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal investigation and congressional oversight, his wholesale dismissal of inspectors general, his dismantling of regulatory authority, by installing lobbyists to head agencies that oversee the very industries they had been promoting and diminish the power of those agencies and his use of the Attorney General and the Justice Department to influence and interfere with criminal and antitrust cases, constitute violations of law and the Constitution. 

His derogation of the judiciary, his demonization of the press and his contempt of Congress are aimed at weakening the powers of the institutions charged with checking a rogue president and are done to promote his attempt to create an imperial presidency. 

Finally, Prof. Posner is engaging in sophistry when he declares that Donald Trump's danger to democracy is not by his overturning the Constitution but by leading Americans to reject it in exasperation. Isn't that result one and the same?

Supreme Court Rulings on Trump Subpoenas

Once you get passed the window dressing it is obvious that the Supreme Court has handed Donald Trump a huge victory. While the court rejected his claim of immunity from investigation and prosecution, that specious contention was always a non-starter and it is hardly surprising that the justices slapped it down.
The bottom line, however, is that Mr. Trump will be enabled to keep his financial and tax records from public scrutiny until well after the election and, given the litany of tests that the court said Congress must satisfy in order to compel delivery of any documents by the president, it seems likely that this or any future president has been given a clear path to thwarting congressional investigations going forward.

Neoliberal Looting of America

While the OP-ED by Professor Mehrsa Baradaran (“The Neoliberal Looting of America “)(A23,July 8) is erudite and factually accurate, her unfortunate choice of title is likely to mislead. It is true that Friedrich Hayek’s promotion of private investment in public markets as the better road to wealth and economic co-ordination than government spending programs was denominated “classical liberalism “. It is also true that private equity firms have embraced that philosophy and have carried it to an extreme that has created the concentration of wealth and power and the disparity of benefit in current society.
Indeed, Hayek, together with other economic thinkers, including Milton Friedman, popularized the term “neoliberalism “ to describe a philosophy committed to enhancing the rights of individuals while being wary of the dangers of unlimited democracy. Hayek believed that the market was a better regulator of monetary policy than centralized governmental planners.
However, it is unfortunate Prof. Baradaran has chosen to resurrect the term neoliberal in describing the societal problems and gross inequities fostered by private equity firms. While these firms may be following, and exceeding, the tenets of classical liberalism, they do not in the least espouse modern day liberalism as that designation is now commonly applied.
Unlike Hayek and his ilk, today’s liberals strongly favor government intervention to address the ills and to overcome the disparities of a society structured to reward only the very few.
So, by describing the private equity marauders as neoliberals as she damns them for present day economic woes, Prof. Baradaran misleads the casual reader to believe erroneously that liberalism as the term is currently used has dis-served the common folk and is responsible for the existing imbalance of wealth and wellbeing. That is not the case, as the article actually demonstrates.

Court Permits Funding Based on Faith

Chief Justice John Roberts has, over the years, shown flashes of judicious, even-handed decision making, most recently in cases involving abortion, gay and immigrant rights. However, his majority opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which strikes down state constitutional prohibitions against use of government funding aiding churches or sectarian purposes, demonstrates his continuing notion that the First Amendment separation of church and state was intended not to keep religion out of  governance but to insure that proponents of religion can obtain public funding to promote their beliefs. Thus, he has written that excluding a church from a public benefit “ is odious to our Constitution “.
That is the same sort of twisted logic that led Justice Roberts to invalidate a key provision of the Civil Rights Act which was enacted to prevent states from perpetuating race-based obstacles to the free exercise of rights by all citizens regardless of color. Justice Roberts essentially labeled that protection a form of discrimination when he disingenuously wrote that the best way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.
Progressives should harbor no more than a modicum of hope for the direction of Justice Roberts’ future pronouncements.

Attorney General Pushed to Undermine Prosecutors

The threat posed by Attorney General William Barr's partisan stewardship of the Department of Justice extends beyond the damage he has inflicted upon the rule of law. His ceaseless defense of limitless presidential power and his unmitigated obstruction of Congress has shaken to its core the bedrock principle of separation of powers.
His persistent intervention in criminal cases involving the president and his cohorts and his meddling in the affairs of the Antitrust Division to punish Trump resisters, stands in stark contrast to his lack of active participation in matters unrelated to Mr. Trump and highlights the corrupt nature of his interest. His corrupt motivation is further exposed by his revival of concluded investigations into the actions of those who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, the so-called "Deep State".
Those who have raised an alarm, including hundreds of former federal prosecutors, are dismissed by Mr. Barr as "conspiracy theorists". While he masquerades as a conservative man of the law and a pillar of rectitude, he has marshaled military forces of masked origin to assault peaceful protesters to serve the political posturing of the president.
Mr. Barr's unethical and lawless behavior, if not criminal, at least warrants his impeachment and disbarment.

Clayton Wants a New Job

"The White House has said the decision to nominate Mr. Clayton [as USAttorney for SDNY] was intended to find another job for [him] in order to accommodate his request to be closer to his family in New York ". NYTimes, 6/26, p.18
"So Jay wants a job closer to home. Yeah, let's see, we could make him Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank there. Or, maybe put him in charge of the regional response to the corona virus, maybe he can bring the curve back into line with the national average. That'll take some of the shine off of Cuomo. Hey, how about having him head the local office of the FBI where he can launch an investigation of the US Attorney's office.
Those jerks think they're so independent that they can indict friends of the president. Better yet, let's announce that Geoffrey Berman has resigned and that Jay will be replacing him. He is a lawyer, right? No trial or criminal law experience? No problem, we'll let him know who to charge and who to cut loose. All he has to do is follow Bill's directions. You know, someone better call Berman and tell him he's resigned."

What to Do With Statues

Statues erected to glorify, in contrast to those created solely as expressions of art, are latter day extensions of primitive, religious idolatry. The ancients built and worshipped earthly representations of their imagined gods and gods, as we know, cannot have flaws.
My proposal; let our artists continue to sculpt forms that capture and convey the beauty and spirit of nature and humankind. Let us refrain from memorializing individuals by carving their likeness in stone or bronze. The attempt to eternalize and lionize figures of the past, with the hope of future notice and admiration, is bound to run afoul of historic fact and human frailty. Better that the stories of extraordinary personages be told by historians able to marshal and reveal facts, add perspective and contribute to the store of knowledge passed to successive generations.

DC Circuit Court Rules Flynn Case Must Be Dismissed

Justice and the rule of law are precariously on trial in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. A bizarre 2 to 1 ruling of a panel of that court has stripped a federal trial judge, Emmett Sullivan, of his jurisdiction to determine whether a motion to dismiss a criminal case, that of confessed felon Michael Flynn, should be granted. The majority held, in substance, that Judge Sullivan must rubberstamp the dismissal without an opportunity to evaluate the evidence, the law and the reasons behind the novel request made by a patently corrupt Attorney-General who has demonstrated, on multiple occasions, that his first and only allegiance is to Donald Trump.  

Instead of allowing Judge Sullivan to make an informed decision and then reviewing its correctness on appeal, the majority has rendered meaningless the legal requirement that a dismissal may be obtained only "with leave of the court" and, in an unprecedented departure from normal process, has short-circuited appellate review. The attorney appointed by Judge Sullivan to represent the public interest, a role normally filled but abandoned by the Department of Justice, must immediately seek redress from an en banc panel of all the active judges of the DC Circuit Court. If that body fails to undo the outlandish ruling of the two judges, rendered over a stinging dissent of the third judge, a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed with the Supreme Court. The outcome will determine whether this nation will continue to adhere to the rule of law or will become an autocracy ruled by a tyrant.

Berman Firing

Apparently President Trump and Attorney General Barr continue to subscribe to the outdated notion that dreadful things may be done late on a Friday without incurring unwelcome media attention. Not so any longer.
The attempted corrupt firing of Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who, unlike the Attorney General, has refused to act as a Trump surrogate, has set off yet another firestorm engulfing this administration. The attempt to punish a prosecutor for moving against Trump allies, and to thwart other ongoing investigations must not be allowed to succeed. Congress must launch an immediate investigation, attorneys working under Berman must express their outrage, the public must raise a storm of protest and the media must keep an ongoing focus on this patent assault on the rule of law.

Republicans Announce Police Reform

At a time when bipartisanship is needed more than ever, President Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham, in announcing their pallid responses to police abuse of black citizens, persisted in their untruthful assault on the nation’s only black president.
Their specious claim, that the Obama administration did nothing to prevent racial inequities in policing, is not merely false, it is grossly hypocritical. President Obama, in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown, created a task force of experts to examine and recommend changes to policing in the 21st century. That body issued reports which made major proposals for reform, none of which were acted upon by Mr. Trump (though his just issued executive order borrows some concepts from those proposals),
The Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched  numerous investigations into police abuse of minorities, threatened or brought lawsuits and exacted consent decrees which required significant reforms. The Trump administration effectively dismantled the Civil Rights Division and discontinued the use of consent decrees.
President Obama, by executive order, foreclosed the transfer of surplus military equipment by the Pentagon to local police departments.Mr. Trump reversed that order.
Mr. Trump blatantly encouraged police officers to roughly handle those they arrest. Mr. Trump, Sen. Graham, stop lying and dividing, start producing.

Police Reform









To:

•  oped@nytimes.com
  
  Gov. Andrew Cuomo has challenged the cities and counties of New York State to enact laws reforming (or perpetuating) their police agencies by April 1, 2021 or lose state funding. For New York City, which has the largest, and arguably most troubled, force in the state, this mandate poses an enormous challenge and grand opportunity.
  
  I propose that the city amend its charter to create a new agency empowered and charged to administer the policing function. This Police Commission, if you will, should be comprised of men and women representing the key stakeholders affected by the exercise of the police power. It must include public members appointed by community boards, police officers chosen by the rank and file of their unions and public officials selected by the mayor and presiding justices of the court. The commission should have nine unpaid members, five of whom must be named by a consensus of the community board in each borough, two by the police union membership and one each by the mayor and presiding justice.
  
  This body must be invested with the authority to set and oversee policing policies and practices, disciplinary procedures and range of punishment, hiring and training standards, budget formulation and equipment requirements and prohibitions. The commission must be provided with a paid, full-time staff, headed by an executive director of its choosing, to carry out the policies adopted by the commission and, with the aid of subpoena power, to investigate and report on instances of abuse and corruption. The commission should have authority to refer the findings it accepts to the state's attorney-general for prosecution when appropriate or to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
  
  The commission should meet regularly and hold frequent public hearings. It should propose further legislation delineating areas of public concern better removed from the policing function and delegated, instead, to other agencies best suited to address the needs of affected individuals.
  
  The police force would continue to be managed on a day to day basis by its hierarchy of ranking officers answerable to a police administrator chosen by, serving at the pleasure of and subject to the directives of the Police Commission. While the specific mechanics described here may well be modified and improved upon, it is essential that the basic concept, of a collaboratively led department with strong representation from affected communities be preserved and implemented.