GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that pundits on the anti-Trump right erroneously conflate two different categories of objections, substance and process. Buchanan points out that by attacking the substantive policies supported by Democrats and not distinguishing substance from process, Republicans risk weakening the Constitution’s political processes.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan responds to a Washington Post guest column by Ian Birrell—a speechwriter for the United Kingdom’s former prime minister David Cameron—in which Birrell argues that Brexit is worse than Trump. Buchanan makes the case that Trump’s negative legacy is likely to be both worse and longer-lasting than Brexit’s.
NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate David Moosmann comment on some of the legal issues presented by President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to secure funds for a border wall along the southern US border. Estreicher and Moosmann argue that there is a need for legislation tightening up the standards for presidential declarations of a national emergency, and for Congress to review and consolidate the seemingly vast array of statutes that authorize emergency measures on a presidential declaration.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan looks at recent electoral developments in the United Kingdom and the United States (Brexit and Trump’s election) and argues that the justification that Leave/Trump voters “voted their pocketbooks and fears” is no longer supportable. Buchanan points out that democracy does not require that one side excuse the choices of voters who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, voted the wrong way.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Democrats should embrace progressive policies rather than shy away from them in an effort to avoid being described as “extreme left” by Republicans. Buchanan points out that many of Democrats’ progressive policies are hugely popular, and Republicans will vilify them regardless.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that while rhetoric and symbolism have always played an important role in politics, today’s Republicans are running an entire campaign on an incorrect definition of “socialism.” Buchanan points out that many people are discovering—to the chagrin of Republicans—that socialism means progressive taxation, increasing workers’ pay, and reducing the costs of higher education, rather than collectivist worker camps, and that it might actually be a good thing.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control that reflects a decrease in the rate of abortions in the United States. Colb explores the various reasons why this might be the case, illustrating how such reasons might differ between pro-life and pro-choice perspectives, as well as offering her own take on the report's findings.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses a comment within a speech by Professor Marc Lamont Hill that sparked recent controversy and led to his termination as a political commentator at CNN. While critics claim Professor Hill’s speech implied a desire for the complete and total destruction of the State of Israel, Margulies argues that focusing on one line in a much longer speech is insufficient to glean the true meaning behind Hill’s message.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan revisits his exploration of how vastly different U.S. government and politics might look today if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election in 2016. In this alternate history, Buchanan points out how Republicans might use extreme tactics to undermine a Democratic president and discusses in what ways the 2018 midterm elections may have had a drastically different outcome.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes the immediate consequences that should persuade all voters, but particularly young voters, to vote in this year’s midterm election. Buchanan points out that the short-term consequences of Republican victories this week will mean the likely shutdown the special counsel’s investigation of Trump’s 2016 campaign, continued vilification of the FBI and intelligence services, environmental ruin, increasing economic inequality, and more.
John W. Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon, engages in a question-and-answer session with Jonathan Weiler, who, along with Marc Hetherington, authored Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. Responding to Dean’s insightful questions, Weiler explains some of the book’s themes, particularly the authors’ choice to use the terms “fixed,” “fluid,” and “mixed” to describe political views that have traditionally been described in terms of “authoritarianism.” Dean praises the work as a fascinating read and a well-written book.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law, critiques Alan Dershowitz’s The Case Against Impeaching Trump, finding that the book is essentially a defense brief for President Trump that largely lacks meaningful legal analysis. Falvy argues that the book won’t persuade any legal scholars, but if at least 34 members of the GOP Senate caucus buy Dershowitz’s argument, Trump will likely not be forced from office.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb argues that some people's belief in the trivial nature of sexual assault may go hand in hand with the belief that it never happened. Colb examines the relationship between denial and devaluation in other contexts, as well as in the context of gender oppression, and finds consistency in the thinking of people who hate or otherwise persecute others.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Brett Kavanaugh’s defiant responses to questioning by senators about his conduct while drinking ignore common knowledge about the effects of alcohol and illustrate the toxic combination of drinking culture and young men who think their actions have no consequences.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb observes that we as a society have become extremely credulous for an era of cynicism and that we as individuals have divested ourselves of critical judgment, preferring instead to defer to people who share our political ideology or qualify for special status for some other reason. Colb considers what might be driving this deference and how we can combat it. She points out that constructive disagreement is healthy and that “viewpoints are not violence, disagreement is not hatred, and no one has a patent on the truth.”
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan writes a letter that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could have written (but didn’t) in response to allegations that he sexually assaulted and attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was a 17-year-old high school student. Using a fictional letter as a rhetorical device, Buchanan points out that Kavanaugh could have acknowledged that he, like anyone who has ever drunk to excess, does not recall exactly what he did or did not do while drunk, particularly on the night in question, but instead, Kavanaugh flatly denied that the allegations could be true. Buchanan argues that Kavanaugh’s response to the allegations demonstrates that he does not belong on the US Supreme Court.
John W. Dean, former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon, shares the statement he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2018, during the confirmation hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Dean also argues that Judge Kavanaugh’s denials of lying under oath in his earlier 2004 and 2006 confirmation proceedings, and the fact that he must now lie under oath again to get confirmed to the Supreme Court, have disqualified him for the job.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether a vegan generally, and New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker specifically, would have a shot of winning the presidency in 2020. Dorf explains how food plays an important role in politics and considers whether the election of a vegan to the highest office in the land is likely to hurt or help the vegan movement.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law, critically reviews of Bob Woodward’s Fear: Trump in the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2018), finding that while the book adds considerable detail to our portrait of Trump’s behavior in office, it overlooks (or ignores) much of the larger picture of President Trump’s character, career, and presidency. Falvy takes a close look at both the substance and style of Fear, delving into the strengths and limitations of Woodward’s “free indirect” style of narrative as well as the substance of his insider interviews, especially that of Trump’s former personal attorney John Dowd. Falvy predicts that Dowd’s statement to Woodward that Trump is a habitual liar lays the groundwork for a final line of defense for Trump: that even Trump’s own statements cannot be reliable evidence of obstruction of justice or other crimes.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies explains how the recent anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times underscores the fundamental continuity between the Obama and Trump administrations on issues of national security. As Margulies observes, our approach to national security in the post-9/11 world has achieved hegemonic status, but we should hope that some future president might not share the same hegemonic view of transnational terror and instead may try to set national security on a different course.