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.