Judge Overrules Special Master

 Judge Aileen M. Cannon has further demonstrated her lack of fitness to serve on the federal bench. First, she ruled that a special master must be appointed to review the documents seized at former president Donald Trumps's Mara Lago estate and stayed the Justice Department's investigation of their removal and retention, a decision that has been roundly criticized in legal circles and partially reversed by an appellate court. Judge Cannon appointed as special master Judge Raymond Dearie, the candidate recommended by Mr. Trump's lawyers.

When it became apparent that Judge Dearie, a senior federal district judge, was acting decisively and with dispatch, disappointing the Trump legal team's expectations and strategy for delay and obfuscation, Judge Cannon intervened to tether Judge Dearie and slow him down. By patently putting her thumb on the scales of justice, to advantage the man who appointed her, Judge Cannon is bringing disrepute to the federal judiciary and undermining the rule of law.

The Justice Department should consider appealing this latest travesty; failing that, Judge Dearie should consider issuing a noisy resignation as special master.

Republicans Eye a New Constitution

 

The American constitution, the world's oldest, is justly venerated as the touchstone of a democratic society. Together with certain of its amendments, it enshrines and protects many basic human rights and civil liberties. As a symbol, it remains a grand and inspiring work of political genius. As a working document, interpreted by an originalist Supreme Court, it is a straitjacket that impedes changes required by an evolving reality.

Oddly, the pressure to rewrite the constitution is coming from both the Left and the Right and many progressives and conservatives share a concern that a new constitution will wipe away the protection and advantages each side prizes. Recent legislative actions and inactions and decisions of the Supreme Court have made transparent the need for a major overhaul of our founding document. The dilemma posed is how to accomplish this without putting in jeopardy the bedrock principles of a democracy and risking the adoption of a document that is nationalistic, homophobic, gender-biased, religiously slanted and gun-centered.

The bottom line is that a new constitution must be adopted by a broad spectrum of the American people, not by a vote of states which may constitute a majority but represent less than a majority of the electorate. Indeed, the phenomenon of lightly populated states wielding disproportionate influence over national priorities is one of the defects of our electoral system that should be remedied by a new constitution.