Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg and his critics are both wrong about the U.S. Supreme Court having become especially political. Dorf points out that since the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison the Court has been highly political, and the true problem lies with the unprecedented polarization of the political parties—not with the Court or the appointments process.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, discusses the private testimony of U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor regarding President Trump’s interactions with Ukraine. Falvy argues that by meticulously tracking his digital and verbal conservations with other high-level players, Taylor is forcing the implicated officials to engage at a similar level of detail and precluding them from asserting blanket “I do not recall” defenses.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan criticizes Democratic pundits and presidential candidates for trying to force Senator Elizabeth Warren to say explicitly whether she intends to raise taxes to pay for her healthcare-for-all plan. Buchanan points out that their insistence on this point essentially does Republicans’ work for them, rather than setting the table for an honest and clear discussion about the financial costs (by any name) of reform.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent unanimous decision by the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament. Dorf explains how that ruling highlights the error of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court declined to intervene in a political gerrymandering case, citing the so-called political question doctrine.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Biden’s campaign promise of a return to “normal” if he is elected President could result in the country’s situation becoming even worse than it currently is. Buchanan suggests that if Biden wins the nomination and the presidency and he is not seen as a serious fighter, he will lose a generation of voters forever.
Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a panel of state-court judges in North Carolina striking down partisan gerrymandering schemes as violating that state’s constitution. Amar had argued after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that state courts would have to address partisan gerrymandering on “independent and adequate state-law grounds” (rather than on federal constitutional grounds), which is exactly what the North Carolina court did.
In this second of a two-part series of columns, University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Americans do not have to—and should not—support Trump simply because he claims (erroneously) to have revitalized the economy. Buchanan argues that for a voter to cast a vote purely on account of a perceived improved economy would require her to devalue every other issue—effectively selling the country’s soul.
Guest columnist Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—expresses concern that Democrats are joining President Trump in undermining the public’s trust in the judiciary. Sarat specifically discusses an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by five Democratic senators in which the senators criticize the bias and partisanship of the Court’s conservative justices.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan cautions liberals, particularly the Democratic presidential candidates, not to treat Donald Trump as unbeatable—as though he were some sort of undefeatable science-fiction villain. Buchanan argues that while liberals should not make the same mistake they made in 2016 of being overconfident, they should also not overstate his ability to win, lest they make that perspective a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Cornell Law 3L Jareb A. Gleckel and professor Sherry F. Colb argue that President Trump’s overarching goal in his presidency is not to benefit the country but to create a legacy for himself, and a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border would be the pinnacle of such a legacy. Gleckel and Colb draw a comparison to Dr. Seuss’s character Yertle the Turtle, who had similar lofty ambitions, and call upon Americans to expose the President’s true motives and thus undercut his malign pursuits.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan laments the current precarious situation of our constitutional democracy. He argues that a constitutional democracy becomes unsustainable and ultimately dies when a party abuses and changes the system to maintain its power, which he observes Republicans are doing now.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the public dimension of forgiveness and explains why politics are inherent in the act of forgiving. Margulies describes numerous examples of people whose arguably comparable transgressions resulted in society’s vastly different degrees of willingness to forgive them.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan considers whether America, having elected Donald Trump, must consequently accept everything he does as “democracy at work.” Buchanan argues that constitutional processes exist not only to protect democracy not only in word but also in spirit, and that extreme consequences of legal action can still threaten the future of democracy.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why President Trump’s threat to escalate tariffs on all Mexican goods if Mexico had not stopped the flow of Central American Migrants erroneously presumes a win-lose situation where none exists. Dorf also explains the fallacy of the criticism that immigration and trade ought to be always kept separate in negotiations.
Michigan law professor Evan Caminker considers whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller could have—and whether he can yet—opine on whether President Trump committed a federal crime in obstructing justice. Caminker argues that if Mueller is subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he should say more than he did in his report.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether two New York bills—one that requires state and local officials to provide congressional committees with the President’s state and local tax records upon request, and the other that would permit the state to prosecute an individual for conduct that was presidentially pardoned—set a dangerous precedent for state interference with federal action. Dorf argues that these bills provide a permissible form of diagonal checks and balances between the branches of the state and federal government and do not raise constitutional concerns.
Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on President Trump’s recent tweet suggesting that if the Democrats were to try to impeach him, he would ask the Supreme Court to block the impeachment. Amar argues that while critics of that assertion are correct, the legal matter is more complicated than might appear at first blush.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law, comments on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Trump-Russia affair. Falvy points out nine deliberate choices Mueller made in conducting the investigation and drafting the report and highlights one choice Mueller notably deferred to the people.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses some of the she ideas she also expressed in a speech on identity politics. Specifically, Colb explains that the phenomenon of identity politics concerns two components: (1) identity and naming, and (2) victim culture.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his series of columns discussing how the establishment left, particularly the media, is treating the policy and politics of Senator Bernie Sanders (and others) irresponsibly and superficially as “extreme left,” reinforcing false equivalence and “bothsidesism.” Buchanan provides additional support for his thesis across these columns that the supposedly extreme ideas of Sanders and others are actually hugely popular and not at all radical.