The Supreme Court May Weigh In on Trump Ballot Issue

 Those academics who say that the Supreme Court cannot regain its legitimacy no matter which way it rules on the exclusion of Donald Trump from the ballot are taking the short-term view. It is true that a significant percentage of the current electorate will condemn the Court whatever its ruling. But should the Court, controlled by a supermajority of conservatives, unanimously interpret the constitution as plainly written and hold that Mr. Trump is ineligible to run   for the presidency, history will judge that the Court found its way and restored a large measure of its legitimacy.

Behind the Scene of the Dismantling of Roe

 The brilliant account in the New York Times of the undoing of Roe v. Wade exposes a shameful saga of partisan judging by justices who were committed to ending a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion even as they misled the Senate about their respect for long-settled precedent.

Appointed by then President Donald Trump with the mandate of reversing Roe, the three newest justices joined the reactionary core of Justices Thomas and Alito to fashion a decision that will live in infamy, rivaled in disgrace only by the cases of Citizens United and Dred Scott.
The story, off how the conservative majority manipulated the calendaring and hearing of the case, and their activism in going beyond the limited relief initially sought by Mississippi, will further erode public confidence in the integrity of the Court and undermine its legitimacy as a once revered institution.

Trump's 2025 Plans For Immigration

 What to expect from a second Trump presidency was horrifyingly laid out by his principal henchman, Stephen Miller, as detailed in the NYTimes article. It will be nothing less than a re-enactment of the Third Reich, including mass roundups, conducted by the military, mass incarceration without benefit of due process and governance by handpicked sycophants who have no regard for the Constitution or rule of law.

The mass deportation of "undesirables“planned by the Trump team are reminiscent of Hitler’s initial policy which later devolved into “The Final Solution “.
Trump anticipates that his remaking of the judiciary will facilitate his assault on democracy and, in any event, expects that the sheer number of his victims will overwhelm and render ineffective those who would defend them.
In the chilling words of Mr. Miller, “Bottom line, President Trump will do whatever it takes.”

Supreme Court Seems Likely to Disarm Domestic Abusers

 

During the argument of a case raising the issue of whether a domestic abuser has a constitutional right to possess a gun, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is recorded as saying,“I’m so confused.“ No wonder. It’s because she and her conservative colleagues recently, in the Bruen case, created an absurd test for determining whether a law regulating the carrying of a gun violates the Second Amendment. Legislators and judges, in weighing whether such a law is constitutional, must now do historical research to  uncover similar laws adopted in the 1700s or 1800s. Should none be found, as is virtually true in every instance, the new law, however reasonable or necessary, must be struck down.
In the wake of continuous mass shootings the justices now seem to be searching for way out of the untenable situation they have created without abandoning the unworkable test they have adopted. Apparently, the Court is ready to carve out an exception for persons deemed to be “dangerous”. That is not a useful resolution and will only add to the confusion. The Court should acknowledge its error and formulate a rational test for implementing the Second Amendment.

Justices' Commitment To Gun Rights Faces A Challenging Test

 Ever since the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment, as granting virtually every person an almost unfettered right to possess an arsenal of automatic weaponry, this nation has suffered a bloodbath of mass murder on a daily basis.  Invoking the rubric of "strict construction", the conservative majority of the Court has fashioned a constitutional test which makes it almost impossible for legislatures to adopt sane laws protecting against gun violence or allowing lower courts to uphold such measures.

According to Justice Thomas and his cohorts, if there is no evidence that the founding generation adopted such regulations they cannot pass constitutional muster. The absurdity of that approach is self-evident. The founders were dealing with muskets, not machineguns and mass murder was limited to warfare; it was not a fact of daily existence.

Now the Court is about to make a new ruling that will either enable gun violence to spin further out of control or allow for some enforcement of sensible gun regulation. The issue: can a state prohibit a domestic abuser from possessing firearms? How do you think this Court is likely to decide?

Democrats Are Their Own Worst Enemies

 In her column Pamela Paul warns Democrats that they are losing support because the party has “disconnected from the priorities, needs and values of many Americans “. Ms. Paul appears to argue that the cultural values of an elite minority, on such issues as race, gender ideology, immigration and climate are too progressive for a majority of Americans who resent having such values imposed. If Democrats are to stop the bleeding, Ms. Paul counsels, they must focus on delivering what the people want.

That is the thinking that currently characterizes MAGA Republicans. Never mind what is right, just and equitable. Principles and constitutional respect be damned. What is important is the retention of political power even at the cost of environmental extinction or catering to residual bigotry.
Adherence to principle may be an electoral disability but true leaders take that risk. Surrendering to the baser instincts of the electorate, in pursuit of power, cannot be the template for a principled political party and is no way to govern a nation.

Seeking Lawyers to Bless Trump's Full Ambition

 

If ever there was a red flag warning against imminent disaster the article in the NYTimes tops the list. The Trump team is drawing up a list of candidates who will willingly do Trump’s bidding should he win a second term as president. Trump surrogates are looking for lawyers to serve in high office who will follow orders even if that means burning the Constitution. The next Trump White House and agency heads will be staffed by acolytes who have neither the fortitude nor inclination to preserve the rule of law or protect our democracy from Trump’s tyrannical designs.
If the American people fail to reject Trump’s attempt to regain and unlawfully retain presidential power, the great experiment that is American democracy will come to an inglorious end

Why Unions Are Good For America

 Nicholas Kristof makes a compelling case for the proposition that unions have been the driving force in lifting the economic standards of American workers, both union and nonunion. He acknowledges that unions helped to equalize somewhat the sharing of the national pie by those at the bottom of the economic ladder, including Black workers, and won benefits like health care and vacations, benefits essential to human contentment. Mr. Kristof rightly condemns union busting by courts and legislators which deprived workers of a path to the middle class and contributed to the decline in union membership. This has led to despair, addiction, and family crises.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kristof fails to mention the most egregious consequence of disappearing unions. When the working class feels unfairly treated and robbed of its dignity and has lost the power to redress its grievances by collective bargaining and striking, history teaches that the resort is to violent revolution or support for tyranny. We are currently witnessing just such a turn; the blue-collar class has been persuaded by a would-be tyrant that he alone can address its concerns and even the playing field. While other factors, including an underlying racism, contribute to this phenomenon, the decline of unions is a major cause.

Definition of Graft Is Key in Menendez Case

 

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously defined obscenity as follows; “I know it when I see it”. It is time for the Supreme Court to apply that same commonsensical approach to the definition of official corruption. Instead of excusing politicians who accept lavish gifts in exchange for favors, like arranging meetings, making appointments, and attempting to influence government decision making, as merely engaging in routine “constituent services“, the Court should take its cue from Justice Stewart. Justice Stewart used his eyes; the current Court should use its nose. When it comes to defining official corruption, the justices should “know it when they smell it”.

Good Chance Trump May Be Found 'Willfully Blind'

 Professor Burt Neuborne’s argument, that former president Donald Trump cannot escape criminal liability even if he somehow believes he won the 2020 election when the established facts conclusively prove otherwise, is legally sound. However, Prof. Neuborne overlooks an even stronger basis for holding Mr.Trump accountable notwithstanding his delusional belief. A person who believes, even rationally, that he has been wronged cannot take criminal measures as a remedy. So, someone who honestly believes that his bank owes him money cannot with impunity withdraw money at gunpoint to make himself whole. Trump’s attempt to use fake electors and to coerce Vice President Pence to violate the Constitution were criminal acts which are legally punishable.

Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences

 

Though Prof. Jack Goldsmith justly condemns Donald Trump’s “election shenanigans “, the thrust of his essay mistakenly conveys the notion that the cost of the remedy outweighs the harm of turning a blind eye to Mr. Trump’s assault on our democracy.
The fallout forecast by Prof. Goldsmith, from prosecuting Mr. Trump, such as the future politicization of the Justice System and erosion of respect for the rule of law, indeed, poses a grave risk. But the consequences of ignoring Mr. Trump’s attempted coup will have the immediate effect of green lighting attempts to overturn elections based on false claims of fraud.
The problem is exacerbated not by missteps of the Department of Justice, which occurred, but by Trump’s racial attacks on prosecutors and judges which appeal to the underlying bias infecting a majority of his implacable base.

Roberts Court New Take on Consttitution

 

The original constitution, together with its amendments, had a dual purpose; to establish a system for governance and to protect the rights of the non-majority. To achieve these ends Politics and Law had to be balanced and, to a degree, insulated one from the other. Elected representatives make the laws and appointed judges insure that that they do not violate the protections guaranteed by the constitution. This is known as the separation of power.
The Roberts court has erased this essential distinction. The conservative majority of non-elected justices have assumed the role of politicians and have begun to refashion the law to reflect their own political preferences and religious convictions. The court has swept away decades of constraints on the exercise of judicial authority and has ignored the bedrock principle of respect for long established precedent. If this existential threat to democracy is not reversed, this nation is on a doomsday path.

A President Governing from Behind Bars

 If Donald Trump should be elected president while serving time how will he be inaugurated? Will he be given a two-day pass so he can fly to Washington D.C. to take his oath before hurrying back to his cell. Or will Chief Justice Roberts hold the ceremony in the prison’s visitation room?

Will Mr. Trump draft his self-pardon on prison stationery or have his defense lawyer draw it up?
Will the president’s Secret Service unit be housed together with him or be stationed in the adjoining cell?
Tensions with Russia and China seem of little moment compared with these jaw dropping procedural issues.

Republicans Leap to Raise Clinton Email Controversy

 

Those who claim that Hillary Clinton was treated more favorably than Donald Trump, on the issue of mishandling classified documents, have their facts upside down. In reality, though Mrs. Clinton’s dereliction was far less serious or damaging to the national interest than Mr. Trump’s gross misuse and obstruction, the FBI’s politically fraught investigation and disclosures late in the 2016 election cycle surely cost Mrs. Clinton the presidency.
Given the plethora of evidence pointing to Mr. Trump’s criminality, it is neither surprising nor blameworthy that he has been investigated and publicly charged. What is troubling, and somewhat perplexing, is that voters rejected Mrs. Clinton notwithstanding her exoneration but now seem inclined to rally to Mr. Trump as the victim of his own misdeeds.

No less an authority on the importance of safeguarding classified documents than former President Donald Trump, pronounced the appropriate judgment for those who failed that obligation, they are unfit to be the president. Amen.

Should Courts Be More Political

 In an ideal world judges would be chosen and rule without regard to politics. In reality, as Prof. Jedediah Britton-Purdy argues, the judiciary is just another political branch of government. Too often, the selection of judges and the thrust of their decisions reflect their political beliefs.

Taking this as a given, Prof Britton-Purdy urges that democracy is best protected if judicial candidates more openly espouse their constitutional viewpoints and voters can make better informed decisions in selecting those who more closely reflect popular constitutional beliefs.
While Prof. Britton-Purdy’s proposal has the appeal of a practical solution, it points in a dangerous direction. If judging is accepted as merely an alternative exercise of political choosing, the basic belief in a fair and impartial system of justice will be fatally forgotten. Better to keep alive the vision of “courts [as] forums of principle, wisdom and deliberation “which deliver just judgments free of political fervor. While that may be an elusive goal, our historic, democratic precepts require its pursuit.

Reaction to the Durham Report

 

Donald Trump and the rightwing media repeatedly told us that Special Counsel John Durham would issue a blockbuster report exposing a deep state conspiracy to falsely accuse the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia to boost Trump's chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. 

Consistent with his practice, Mr. Durham has issued a report which makes a host of allegations without a scintilla of proof and concludes that no laws were violated. While every respectable legal authority and media outlet recognizes the Durham report for what it is, a nothingburger, Sean Hannity and his Fox News chorus and Republican House members, as might have been predicted, have seized upon the report as, somehow, confirming their allegations of massive criminal activity by Obama officials, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the FBI. 

Once again, the Big Lie strategy is being invoked to mislead the public at large and gratify Trump's MAGA base.

Republican Reaction to the Trump Verdict

 When a jury which included Trump voters speedily reached a unanimous verdict, finding that former president Donald Trump had sexually abused and defamed E.Jean Carroll and demonstrated careful consideration of the facts by finding the evidence of rape insufficient, one would think that all reasonable people would accept the verdict as just and fair. Not so.

At a Trump “town hall” conducted on CNN, which more accurately could be described as a campaign rally, a crowd of Trump supporters, including so-called undeclared voters, laughed and applauded as Mr. Trump repeated his defamatory attack on Ms. Carroll and his whine about witch-hunts.
This sorry spectacle reinforces the fear that, for a substantial segment of the American public and a majority of Republicans, the rule of law and common decency may be irretrievably lost.

Justice Thomas Must Resign

 The mindboggling disregard for ethical standards exhibited by Justice Clarence Thomas is exceeded only by the outrageous indifference shown by Republican politicians and the inaction of Chief Justice John Roberts in failing to react to one of the worst scandals in Supreme Court history.

While the credibility of the court may be beyond redemption, any chance of salvaging even a shred of its moral authority will be lost if Justice Thomas fails to resign and is not then impeached.

Lawmakers to Scale Back Bail Law

 Bail laws are only as effective and humane as the judges who employ them. It is a given that far too many people have been incarcerated unnecessarily and for too long when facing minor or nonviolent offenses because of their lack of means. The blame for that fact rests primarily on judges who had the authority to release the accused without bail but lacked the gumption to do so. That circumstance justified laws proscribing cash bail in appropriate cases.

The Achilles’s Heel of those laws, which made them lose public support and has led to their revision, was their failure to empower judges to set bail when the facts demonstrated that an accused posed a danger to public safety. While that deficiency should be remedied, in reality it will make little difference. Notwithstanding their lack of express authority, most judges tacitly weigh the danger when fixing bail. The revised law should codify that practice.
However, the criminal justice system will only achieve just ends when the men and women who preside have the good judgment and courage to implement it fairly.

How to Make Trump Go Away

 In his column Frank Luntz purports to advise those who would challenge Donald Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination for president. His bottom line, champion the Trump policies but offer a more stable, less controversial personality.

It is surprising that Mr. Luntz, a long-time political pollster who claims to have his finger on the pulse of the American voter, can so badly misread what has been motivating voters and driving elections. He makes no mention of the issues most concerning to even Trump supporters.
Any potential candidate who fails to recognize that the assault on women’s reproductive rights, the rejection of sensible gun regulation and the mistreatment of minorities, racial and sexual, are the issues of paramount importance, cannot win a presidential election.

There's Precedent For Ousting Justice Thomas

 The disgraceful behavior of Justice Clarence Thomas was foretold by his sexual harassment of Anita Hill which should have precluded his appointment to the Supreme Court.

By ruling on matters in which his wife has an interest and by accepting lavish gifts from the extraordinarily wealthy, with whose interests Justice Thomas regularly aligns, and by failing to disclose them, the Justice has demonstrated an utter indifference to ethical standards and has made a singular contribution to the erosion of the reputation of the Supreme Court.
Even more troubling, however, is the lack of outrage from Republicans whose silence in the face of so devastating an assault on the rule of law is deafening.

Trump Courtroom Spectacle

 

Two letters published in today’s NYTimes really rankled. One writer, concerned about diminishing the presidency and undermining America’s moral standing in the world, expresses his sincere hope that Trump is not guilty. My friend, America was disgraced and diminished when it provided the required number of electoral votes to deliver the presidency to a lifelong charlatan devoid of moral decency.
To the gentleman from Pennsylvania who proudly proclaims that 75 percent of his county voted for Trump in 2016 and, again, in 2020, and “shames” New York City for prosecuting a former president for his criminality, I say, no sir, the shame is yours and your fellow enablers who brought this blight upon our nation and, even after the depth of Trump’s depravity was fully exposed, attempted to keep him in office.

Dominion v. Fox News

 

In the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion against Fox News both sides have moved for summary judgment. Dominion has presented an impressive array of documentary proof and startling admissions by Fox’s senior management, demonstrating that Fox and its leading anchors knew that they were airing false claims that Dominion’s voting machines were tampering with the vote count to aid Joseph Biden.
Nevertheless, the Delaware judge hearing the case would be well advised to reserve decision or deny the motion and allow the matter to go to trial before a jury. If the judge deems the jury’s verdict to be legally erroneous, he can then grant appropriate relief to the wronged party notwithstanding the verdict. By doing so, the judge will have preserved, for appellate review, both his own judgment and that of the jury. Further, the jury should have an opportunity to assess the extent of punitive damages, if any, it may find appropriate.

The Trump Affair Should Be Resolved in a Manner That Best Serves the Nation

It is ironic, and tragic, that the one person who most effectively can heal the divide festering in the nation, is Donald Trump. Unfortunately, given Mr. Trump’s history and character, which is unmoored to any moral foundation, he is not likely to act in the best interest of his country.

To uphold the rule of law, which is the bedrock of a democratic society, it is imperative that Mr. Trump, and those who aided and abetted him, be criminally charged with inciting an insurrection and obstructing governmental proceedings. If he is brought to trial, no matter the outcome, a substantial segment of the American public will be outraged and remain convinced that Mr. Trump is the victim of political retribution. The nation’s warring notions of justice and patriotism will be further widened and reinforced. The prospect of reconciliation will be dimmed, if not extinguished, and the nightmare of a “national divorce “ will become more real.

Perhaps Mr. Trump can be persuaded to rationally assess his legal peril and act in his own best interests. The prosecution should offer to dismiss the criminal charges against him (though not against his collaborators) in exchange for a public admission by Mr. Trump that the 2020 presidential election was fairly conducted and lawfully won by Joseph Biden, that his attempt to overturn the results was legally, constitutionally and morally wrong and that the assault on the Capitol was a form of domestic terrorism that must never be repeated. He must also agree never again to seek public office.

The incentives for Mr. Trump, to make these admissions and give an assurance of political retirement, are readily apparent. He would obviate the need for a long and expensive trial and appeal, avoid the likelihood of criminal conviction and escape the prospect of imprisonment. He would spare his daughter the pain of testifying against him and spare the nation the ugly and unprecedented spectacle of trying and imprisoning a former president.

Perhaps more appealing to Mr.Trump, he might achieve some small measure of historical redemption by helping to insure, however belatedly, the survival of his country and our democracy despite the cataclysm he has unleashed.

This resolution will not appease the hardened racists and fascists who used Mr. Trump to advance their insidious goals, much as he used them. But a trial which resulted in an acquittal, or a conviction would exacerbate the widely shared belief of victim hood and retribution while a hung jury would only further the existing national division.

Hopefully, admission of wrongdoing and relinquishment of political office, in exchange for dismissal of criminal charges, would be accepted as fair and reasonable by a preponderance of those rational supporters of Mr. Trump who make up a majority of his base and allow the nation finally to bind up its wounds and begin to reconcile.

North Dakota Set to Ban Books

 Book banning is akin to book burning, and North Dakota is poised to join other red states that have acted to “protect” readers from exposure to explicit sexual material regardless of its artistic or social merit. Librarians who make such material available can be prosecuted as criminals.

The next step will be the outlawing of books, films and art that convey controversial ideas or politically objectionable viewpoints.

This assault on free expression is part and parcel of the march to curtail voting rights, impede equality of opportunity, enshrine gun rights and impose religious uniformity.

Make no mistake, this nation is at an inflection point: It will either overcome these dangerous incursions and emerge a freer and more open society or it will descend into the darkness of autocracy.

As Biden Visits Ukraine Republicans Carp

 

Shame on those Republican House members whose patriotism is so shallow that they criticize the Commander-in-Chief even as he exposes himself to potential danger by traveling to a war zone to show support for a beleaguered ally. This is clearly a new era when partisanship no longer stops at the water’s edge but is waged worldwide even when it weakens America’s essential foreign policy interests.
The new breed of Republican politicos is committed to criticizing every move made by the President no matter how successful. They can find no action taken by Mr. Biden worthy of even grudging approval; every policy is wrong-headed, incompetent, or un-American. If this continues to be the prevailing posture of one of the two major political parties that constitute the structure of our electoral system this country is destined to become ungovernable.

Republicans Recite Constitution

 Republicans, bent on demonstrating their professed patriotism, began the current Congressional session by reading aloud the Constitution. Everyday members of the House recite the Pledge of Allegiance and now, are required to pledge a second time at the start of each committee hearing.

Notwithstanding their patently exhibitionist performances, Republicans would do well to honor the oath each took, to uphold and defend the Constitution. Reading the document aloud, and constantly repeating the Pledge, rings hollow and does not camouflage nor excuse the disrespect shown by many Republican representatives for the rule of law and the ideals of a true constitutional democratic republic

Barr Pressed Durham To Find Flaws in Russia Investigation

 Everything we suspected about the Durham probe of the Russia investigation has been proven true by a sterling bit of journalism by New York Times reporters.

Durham, though a prosecutor with a reputation for rectitude, succumbed to Donald Trump’s importuning and the corrupt prodding of AG William Barr and tried to manufacture a false narrative that would condemn Hillary Clinton and justify the wild claims of a Deep State conspiracy spewed by Trump and Fox Network propagandists.
Durham came up with nothing other than two failed prosecutions, disaffected colleagues who resigned rather than be associated with his tainted report and a damaged reputation. Barr, notwithstanding his belated recognition of Trump’s chicanery, will leave a dark stain in the history of the Department of Justice.

The Classified Documents Fiasco

 

The Biden administration has handed Donald Trump a get out of jail free card, at least so far as the Mar-A-Largo documents case is concerned. Granted there is a vast difference between the circumstances underlying Trump’s retention of multiple top-secret documents and obstruction of their recovery and Biden’s apparently minor slip up which was speedily remedied.
The American public, the right-wing media and Republican politicians are not known for drawing fine distinctions. The sure to be raised defense of “whataboutism” will likely persuade the Justice Department to forego an otherwise slam dunk prosecution of Mr. Trump, knowing that it may be extremely difficult to convince a jury to unanimously agree that there a rational basis to treat the two matters differently

South Carolina Constitution Includes Right to Abortion

 

The satisfaction being enjoyed by supporters of a woman's right to abortion, stemming from a decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, unfortunately, may be short-lived. The court struck down a state law which banned abortion after six weeks, finding it to be violative of the right to privacy explicitly provided for in the state's constitution.

However, the United States Supreme Court may soon render a decision that strips state courts of the power to interpret their own constitutions and confers unfettered authority upon state legislatures to do so. If the US Supreme Court so decides, abortion rights will be imperiled in a host of states and the democratic principle of separation of powers will be shattered.