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.