In light of the approaching one-year anniversary of the January 6 Capitol Insurrection, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf argues that the next assault on American democracy could come from within the Capitol and other institutions of American democracy. Professor Dorf points out that the phrase “political violence” is an oxymoron in the context of a democracy; to practice democratic politics is to accept a common set of ground rules for resolving policy disputes peacefully, and when the loser of an election uses violence to try to change the result, democratic politics ceases functioning.
Austin Sarat, Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College, describes nefarious Republican efforts to ensure victory in future elections by changing rules governing voting and the vote-counting process. Professor Sarat points out that Republican-dominated state legislatures are devising ways to insert themselves into the vote counting process and replace local election officials with loyal partisans.
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.
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.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses a recently introduced Ohio bill that would ban abortion, regardless of circumstances. Grossman notes that while this bill may not ever be signed into law, a growing trend in recent years has seen many nearly as extreme bills become law in other states. Grossman argues that federal courts will follow Supreme Court precedent and hold most of these recently passed abortion bills invalid but cautions that the Supreme Court’s increasingly conservative lineup of justices may one day invalidate existing precedent, paving the way for the passage of similar bills.
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.
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.
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 considers gerrymandering, particularly whether there are legal or constitutional limits on how far one party can go to marginalize and potentially destroy the other party. Buchanan explains how gerrymandering works and why it is such a troubling phenomenon in a democracy.
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.
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.
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."
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the phenomenon by legislators on judges for alleged "activism." Amar argues that when the attacks on judicial independence move from seeking to limit jurisdiction or undo particular rulings to attempting to remove jurists themselves, although such attacks may not "seem" right, they are (perhaps oddly) legal. He points out that state constitutions operate not just in the larger context of morality and justice, but also in the larger context of the US Constitution. Ultimately, Amar explains, the most important decisions are made not by judges or even legislators, but by voters, when they elect people to the political branches.