The Biden Administration's Low Approval Ratings

 One of the perplexing questions of this Age is why so many Americans disapprove of President Joseph Biden notwithstanding the many commendable accomplishments of his administration, accomplishments achieved in the face of an inflexible, politically motivated Republican majority in the House and despite the indisputably strong economy it has restored.

Part of the answer is the growing strength of White nationalism and the racist resentment it has unleashed. That rancor has been stoked and amplified by Donald Trump, a right-wing media that willfully distorts facts and politicians who have surrendered ethical standards in their quest for power.
However, I respectfully submit that the primary reason for Biden’s low approval is a function of optics. The President projects an image of dotage, stumbling in both words and steps. Even admirers of his good judgment, experience and effectiveness are given to wince at his appearance. While the impact of these visuals may be unfair it is understandable. Americans have come to admire the projection of vitality and youthfulness in their leaders. Adding to this disenchantment has been a perceived lack of gravitas exhibited by Vice President Kamala Harris, though this perception has recently begun to change as she forcefully defends the rights of women to appropriate healthcare and bodily autonomy.
If ever there was a need to delve beneath surface appearance and judge the substance of competing candidates, now is that time. America cannot afford to elevate charisma above character.

Alliances on the Supreme Court

 Former Justice Stephen Breyer paints a pretty picture of how well the justices personally relate to one another even when they strongly disagree on the law. His essay ignores certain historical anomalies and hardly draws a complete portrait.

We know that there were times in the past when religious bigotry infected relationships between certain justices. And while Justice Breyer’s assertion, that the justices at their conferences never raise their voices in anger nor make snide or personal remarks may be accurate, it is not uncommon for dissenting justices to harshly criticize or even vilify a colleague in their written (and public) opinions.
Given the recent revelations about the misconduct and corrupt practices of some of the justices, and the obvious political bent of their decisions which have eroded public trust, perhaps it is time for justices to call out their offending colleagues and hold them to account since no one else seems to have the authority or gumption to do so.

Trump Hush Money Trial Delayed

           The issue of the moment in the world of Trump litigation; why did the federal prosecutors in the                 Southern District of New York wait until now to deliver over 100,000 pages of documents to                      Trump’s lawyers, thereby causing the hush money trial to be delayed? My reading of the matter follows.

As a former Assistant District Attorney in New York County, I know from personal experience that historically there has been a state of mistrust, competition and tension between the offices of the SDNY and Manhattan D.A. When, over a year ago, D.A. Alvin Bragg requested documents relevant to this case, the SDNY felt neither the inclination nor obligation to comply. When, two months ago, Trump’s lawyers subpoenaed the same documents, the federal prosecutors realized that a failure to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant, especially one of such high profile, would expose their office to widespread condemnation and would threaten the validity of any conviction won by the D.A. they, belatedly and deliberately, began to turn over the documents.

GOP Response to State of the Union Address

 

Having heard the horrific story of sex trafficking recited by Sen. Katie Britt, as the featured point of the Republican response to President Biden’s State of the Union Address, I will never, ever vote for George W. Bush to again be president of the United States.

Subway Security Plan Faces Pushback

 The decision by Governor Hochul, to post the National Guard in subways, is controversial. Whatever one’s view of this deployment, it should be a no-brainer that the guardsmen and women should leave their assault rifles back in the barracks.These soldiers are not responding to a terrorist threat. Side arms and tasers are far more useful (and far less intimidating to the public) to prevent misconduct by potential violent offenders and emotionally unstable individuals.

Better yet, let the military attend to military matters and, instead, provide an increased police presence to preserve the peace and calm public fears in the subway.

Supreme Court Keeps Trump On Ballot

 

The holding by the Supreme Court, that Congress and not the states has the power to keep a candidate for federal office off the ballot, and that that power can only be exercised pursuant to legislation to be enacted by Congress, means that, as the law now stands, the only remedy barring an oath breaking insurrectionist from running for president is impeachment followed by conviction by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
That result was expected and not particularly controversial. The real test of the Court’s integrity and independence will come next month when it hears argument and, ultimately, must decide whether a former president has complete immunity from prosecution for engaging in criminal conduct while in office. By unduly delaying resolution of this issue the Court has already injudiciously advantaged Donald Trump, possibly insulating him from ever being held accountable for his unlawful attempt to remain in office. Still, how the Court rules will demonstrate whether the majority of justices are jurists or politicians in robes.

Supreme Court to Rule on Trump's Immunity Claim

 Now that the Supreme Court has, intentionally or inadvertently, aligned with those seeking to delay the trial of Donald Trump, on charges stemming from the January 6th insurrection,  until after the election, it is time to consider other potential consequences.

If Trump wins the election he will either direct his attorney-general to dismiss the case or attempt to pardon himself. Should Trump adopt the first alternative, I believe the judge before whom the case is pending has the authority, indeed, the duty to reject such a result as contrary to the public interest. Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a pending criminal case may be dismissed by the prosecutor “ on leave of the court “. Case law makes it clear that the judge should deny such a motion if dismissing the case would be unjust or is not in the public interest. Clearly, a self-directed dismissal of the charges against Trump would be a manifest injustice.
Whether Trump can pardon himself raises legal issues which remain to be resolved. Can we be confident that this Supreme Court will not sanction such an undemocratic exercise of self-interest?