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.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses why the recent announcement by the Trump administration that it is considering a unilateral tax cut for the rich would be a political gift to Democrats. Buchanan describes what the tax cut would do and explains that no one thinks that such legislation could pass, which is why Trump’s people are talking about this executive workaround.
Guest columnist and former US Congressman Brad Miller explains why Congress may not intrude on an open criminal investigation, especially not to help political allies who are likely targets. In support, Miller points not only to traditional democratic norms, but also to unequivocal jurisprudence on the limits of congressional oversight.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar laments the present state of the federal judiciary system, recently illustrated by Senator Chuck Grassley's call to conservative Supreme Court justices to retire promptly. Amar explains why the proposal of term limits for Supreme Court justices would address some of the concerns of partisanship and would not present issues of judicial independence or due process.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the country is not going to be any less divided whether President Trump is impeached or simply not reelected. Buchanan calls upon both sides to acknowledge the strong forces that seek to divide us and to adapt accordingly and realistically.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on the entrance of popular TV shows into the political fray, especially (recently) “Roseanne.” Buchanan argues that for Roseanne Conner to be portrayed as a Trump supporter is inconsistent with her (fictional) character as developed over the years.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on Tim Draper’s proposal to divide California into three separate state. Amar describes what the proposal would do and provides three levels of hurdles that will (and Amar argues should) make the proposal a difficult sell, particularly among rational Democrats, who make up the majority of California voters.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies expands upon a prior column in which he argued that all of President Donald Trump’s attacks thus far on Special Counsel Mueller are not actually a threat to the rule of law. Margulies considers two other scenarios: delegating the task of firing the special counsel, which Margulies argues does threaten the rule of law, and pardoning those convicted by the special counsel, which he argues does not.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why regressive taxes make Republicans “reverse Robin Hoods” by focusing on the core disagreement between those Republicans and everyone else about the ethics of taxation. Buchanan points out that the Republicans’ argument boils down to the tautology that rich people deserve what they have because they have it.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes two reasons Republicans’ regressive tax cuts are unpopular: people are no longer falling for Republicans’ claims that the tax cuts help the middle class, and people are increasingly aware that the tax cuts increase, rather than reduce, economic inequality.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies explains why we should withhold judgment about President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel. Margulies points out that, notwithstanding what we do know about Haspel’s role in facilitating torture at CIA black sites, there is much information we still do not yet know that could inform our assessment of her. He calls upon both the Left and the Right to reduce knee-jerk reactions and instead seek to make careful assessments based on complete information and facts.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how Republicans' unjustified war on the Internal Revenue Service and attempts to defund it have incidentally caused all charitable organizations to suffer. Buchanan recounts the non-scandal involving the IRS and highlights the inconsistencies in Republicans' rhetoric as to that incident-which led to dire consequences not just for honest taxpayers but for legitimate charitable groups and the people who would like to support them.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies considers the contention that President Trump's frequent tweets criticizing the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Mueller and others are an assault on the "rule of law." Margulies notes that the prevailing view on this rather nebulous concept seems to be that the law must be allowed to operate without criticism from anyone it targets. Not only is this interpretation overly literal and simplistic, Margulies argues, President Trump’s criticism also does not amount to such an assault. The president’s attempts to interfere with the ongoing investigation, his order for Special Counsel Mueller to be fired, and other actions, on the other hand, come far closer to constituting an (attempted) assault on the rule of law.
John W. Dean, former White House counsel under President Richard Nixon, continues his series of columns analyzing Donald Trump's "base." In this column, Dean explores the observation that the core supporters of Trump's presidency are best described by social scientists as "authoritarians."