Trump and the Press

Shockingly, the media has been cowered by Trump's daily assaults upon it and by right-wing radio's constant carping about the media's alleged anti-conservative bias. Thus, stories about Trump's obvious ignorance of policy, especially foreign, and his rambling, wholly inconsistent rants about immigration, race, and taxation are reported uncritically and, when read from teleprompters, treated as bordering on presidential.
On the other hand, reporters seem to feel pressured into regularly raising faux issues about Clinton's honesty, and judgment, fueling her low ratings for transparency, likability and truthfulness. The result is the  prospect of an unnervingly close election and the nightmarish possibility of a Trump presidency.
The duty of the press to be unbiased and fair does not override its essential obligation to report fully and accurately. When the emperor has no clothes, it should say so.

Donald Trump's Rant

Presumably, expecting Donald Trump to react in a newsworthy fashion to FBI Director Comey’s exoneration/condemnation of Hillary Clinton, the three major cable news channels showed nearly the entire 30 minutes of Trump’s speech in Cincinnati. (NY Times, July 7, P A16)

 What we got instead, was a chilling insight, in real time, into the unbalanced, obsessively self-centered mind of the presumed Republican nominee for the presidency. Trump’s rambling, unhinged vituperative rant was appalling and recalled nothing so much as the cringe worthy performance of Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny as he testified neurotically about the stolen strawberries.  Queeg was removed from command of his ship.  We must not put Trump in command of the nation.

Keep Guns Away From Terrorists

Some gun advocates, in the name of protecting a sacred constitutional right to bear arms, oppose restrictions on the ability of  persons on a terrorist watch list or no-fly list to purchase weaponry. Their objection, they say, is not to keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, but to the government's unfettered discretion in compiling such lists without a corresponding right of persons so listed to effectively challenge their inclusion.
With this as their basic premise, the gun advocates find it easy to resist proposed laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to persons on the suspect lists even when such laws include due process remedies for those who dispute the propriety of their listing.
So, for example, Professor Jeffrey Kahn, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times (" A 'No Buy' List For Guns Is a Bad Idea", July 1, 2016) rejects the claim that search and wiretap warrants procedures would adequately protect the rights of persons unjustly included on a watch list. Even if such procedures would require a court to find reasonable cause, as is now required before a search or seizure may be made, Kahn argues that a suspected terrorist would not enjoy equivalent protection. That is because persons whose property has been seized with judicial approval would be entitled to a follow up trial at which their guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whereas suspected terrorists, even if accorded such a procedure, would be unable to prove that they are unjustly under suspicion.
Professor Kahn's arguments are fundamentally flawed in several respects. First, an approved search which results in the seizure of contraband (eg; illegal guns or drugs) has performed an important function even if the accused is not subsequently found guilty at trial. The dangerous contraband has been taken out of circulation and great harm has likely been prevented, just as a warrant that prevents the immediate sale of an assault rifle to a suspected terrorist and defer such sale until the suspect's status can be resolved at a hearing, is likely to provide an important measure of protection to the public.
A law which gives a listed person the right to challenge his suspect status at a hearing or trial would not be a meaningless remedy, as Kahn suggests, because the burden of proving  a reasonable basis for the listing would presumably be placed upon the government, not the challenger. Thus, someone put on a terrorist watch list would be able to test the reasonableness of such suspicion and gain adequate relief from the court if the government fails to make its case.
Finally, it simply seems offensive to commonsense to equate the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the government with the recently court-expanded right to bear arms. Even the slim majority of the Supreme Court which found that right to be granted to individuals, recognized that it was subject to regulation.

Supreme Court Deadlock on Immigration Reform

TO THE EDITOR:
 By voting to affirm the 2-1 decision of the lower appellate court, the four conservative members of the Supreme Court have created a deadlock which has the effect of blocking the President's attempt to assure stability to millions of immigrants who are the parents of American born or resident children and effectively prevents them from getting work permits and drivers' licenses.
To reach that impasse, the conservatives accepted the outlandish notion that the State of Texas had standing because it would incur some costs associated with the issuance of drivers' licenses, a cost it has visited upon itself, and, further, bought the State's tenuous argument that the President's unquestioned right to establish priorities for deportation is, somehow, lost when he exercises that right on a broad scale.
This result condemns millions to life in the shadows, insures family disruption and highlights the need to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, hopefully with someone more inclined to respect human rights and executive privilege.

Supreme Court Choice and Sen. Hatch

Senator Orrin Hatch's defense of Republican intransigence, about acting upon the President's Supreme Court nomination, is rife with misstatements, misleading pronouncements and illogical argument.

The Senate has never before refused to, or ever declared  in advance of a nomination that it will not, act upon any proposed nominee. In the past every nominee has been accorded a hearing and an up or down vote (unless the nomination was withdrawn). The assertion that the Senate has never acted upon a nomination this late in a president's final term is simply false.

Sen. Hatch ignores the plain fact that the people have spoken by electing the President, who has a constitutional duty to fill judicial vacancies, just as the senators have a duty to consider and act upon his nominees. If Supreme Court vacancies may only be filled during times of political serenity, as Sen. Hatch implies, the Court's membership may never be made whole.

How to Read the Polls

The latest polls show that Clinton and Trump are now in a statistical dead heat with a small edge to Trump. The polls also indicate that Sanders would defeat Trump handily, by as much as 15 percent points. I am not a statistician but it would seem the obvious explanation for this anomalous projection is that many Sanders supporters when polled, are either not expressing a preference as between Clinton and Trump or are favoring Trump in order to enhance the status of their own candidate in his head to head match up with Trump. If that is so, the compelling conclusion is that a large number of these Sanders supporters will ultimately vote for Clinton in the general election (if they vote at all) rather than risk a Trump presidency. Thus, Trump's apparent strength in the polls, vis a vis Clinton, is probably illusory. Of course, things may turn out very differently if the Libertarian Party ticket includes William Weld, a candidate likely to have strong appeal to socially progressive and fiscally conservative voters.

A Flexible Constitution

The single most urgent and overriding function of our Constitution is to insure that the rights of those who lack the votes to enact policy are not wrongfully diminished or debased because of their minority status. That protective imperative is timeless and should not be subject to changing mores, concepts or language.

But to the extent that the Constitution also serves as a blueprint for governance, it is foolish and unhelpful to worship words or concepts crafted in another time to deal with a very different world. Many of the Founders had perspectives about slavery, race, punishment, women's rights and social relationships that are completely out of step with modern thought and philosophy. Because they knew change was inevitable, and necessary, they bequeathed to their posterity a document that can live, breathe and adapt.

To insist that today's legal and moral issues must be resolved only by reference to the Constitution's 18th century language, or to the meaning attributed to such language by its contemporary populace, is neither justified nor forward looking. Such an approach merely straitjackets our society and inhibits its continued growth and world leadership