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.