The Cure for What Ails Our Democracy

 

 David Brooks argues that the solution for the political dysfunction that currently plagues our society is for the citizenry to embrace pluralism by balancing goals that are competing or in tension and, thus, arrive at compromises which advance the greater good. Mr. Brooks’ essay is erudite and thoughtful but, at least in one respect, oversimplifies the problem. Mr. Brooks declares that we are not engaged in a struggle of good versus evil, unlike World War II and the Civil War, but rather in a conflict between liberal values and Trumpian populism and that each view has legitimate concerns. If that was an accurate description of the situation a solution could be achieved. Unfortunately, there is a significant proportion of the American population that has been infected by the contagion of hate spread by Donald Trump. That faction, like Mr. Trump, is driven by racial, religious , sexist and gender intolerance and is not open to compromise or accommodation. In that respect, we are engaged in a war of good versus evil and, heaven help the nation, there does not seem to be a reasonable remedy.

Classified Documents Report

 

Shamefully, Special Counsel Robert Hur has put a political cast on his report finding that criminal charges against President Biden are not warranted for his mishandling of classified documents. Taking a page from one of his predecessors, Kenneth Starr, who gratuitously included salacious details of President Bill Clinton’s conduct in his report on an unrelated matter, Special Counsel Hur handed Donald Trump political fodder by describing President Biden as an old man with memory problems. That comment, though arguably relevant to his decision not to recommend criminal prosecution, was of minuscule significance compared to the other circumstances which compelled his conclusion not to bring criminal charges. Surely, Mr. Hur knew that the political consequences of including that description of the president far outweighed its legal relevance and is likely to impact the coming election.

Border War At The Supreme Court

 Even as Donald Trump’s tyrannical agenda threatens the foundation of our democracy, the conservative, more accurately the radical majority of the Supreme Court is mounting an equally destructive assault on our basic form of government.

The United States, for centuries, has been the world’s exemplar of a democratic republic insured by a written constitution. Though comprised of individual states, the nation functions as a cohesive whole by application of the doctrine of federalism which makes the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress the supreme law of the land.
Now, the majority of Supreme Court justices seem poised to discard that time tested  and historically honored form of government and, instead, empower individual states to choose their own course, unencumbered by constitutional restraints and in defiance of federal law. If those justices achieve that end, the nation will disintegrate into 50 disparate and alienated jurisdictions, individual liberties will be left to the mercy of hostile local majorities and the dream of America will dissolve in chaos.

A Looming Clash Of Two Presidents

 

Peter Baker is a marvelous political commentator and his analysis of the upcoming presidential election is spot on. America, indeed, has become so divided on issues as fundamental as race, religion, economics, identity and culture as to virtually constitute two separate and hostile nations.
However, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Baker’s description of Donald Trump’s view, that he leads an America where “ the undeserving are favored over hard-working everyday people “.
Mr. Trump holds no such view; in fact he has no views or convictions and couldn’t care less about the welfare of hard-working everyday people. Truth be told, if Trump believes in anything he would favor increasing the wealth of the undeserving as his tax initiatives have already demonstrated. We need to be accurate when describing what Donald Trump stands for.

Donald Trump and the 14th Amendment

 In a letter to The NY Times, retired federal bankruptcy judge Mark Wallace pronounces flawed the legal analysis of the 14th Amendment controversy by David French in a recent Op-Ed article. According to Judge Wallace the amendment does not prohibit an unqualified person from running for office, only holding office. Therefore, he argues, the issue is not ripe for judicial review unless and until Donald Trump wins the election. Respectfully, it is Judge Wallace’s reasoning that is flawed.When someone is deemed constitutionally unqualified to hold office it is implicit in that prohibition that such a person may not stand for office. Otherwise the electorate is presented with a false choice, a costly campaign must be nullified and the likelihood of a violent response by the supporters ofa winning candidate who is denied office would be exponentially increased.

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.