A reader asks: There have been so many awful decisions by this court, and many of them have ignored precedent. Why can’t a Democratic president add enough justices to make the court somewhat fair and to overturn the worst of this court’s rulings?
Answer: He absolutely could — but he would need Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to pass such a law. Senate Democrats also would have to modify or do away with the filibuster. The public might be much more supportive now after the run of rotten decisions, but Democrats first would have to win!
A reader asks: Would Vice President Harris be the alternative presidential nominee for the Democratic Party by default, or would it be possible to draft someone else? If so, who would be your choice? Instead of providing a list, can you name only one person?
Answer: If President Biden decided to step away after the nomination became official, the Democratic National Committee would choose the replacement; if he left before the convention, the delegates would choose another nominee. I find it inconceivable that Democrats would overlook the first female African American woman, one who served capably and is adept at hitting the MAGA Republicans on their most vulnerable issues (e.g., abortion, Project 2025). She could inject the enthusiasm needed to drive young voters to the polls.
A reader asks: I don’t feel like the Democrats have exposed the terror of Project 2025. Will it fall to the likes of celebrities such as Taraji P. Henson?
Answer: You’re right: They have not done enough. However, the campaign, elected Democrats and Democratic activists (perhaps with help of celebrities) have time to fire away at this radical plan set to undermine effective government and transform America. Democrats can highlight a few of the most alarming items (e.g., replacing thousands of government employees with political appointees loyal only to former president Donald Trump, rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants for deportation, banning Mifepristone). Third-party groups can focus on the items most relevant to them (e.g., AARP can highlight increased drug costs for seniors, teachers’ unions can focus on the elimination of the Education Department). Trump’s panicky effort to disown Project 2025 suggests what a juicy target it is.
A reader asks: Everything I’ve read paints newly elected British Prime Minister Keir Starmer as the most boring, lifeless party leader in history. Yet, Labour just smacked down the Tories so hard that it may actually end the Conservative and Unionist Party. Maybe Americans shouldn’t be panicking about Biden? Certainly, the Republican Party deserves to die. We need a new party that, at a minimum, requires candidates to understand the word “conservative.”
Answer: The British parliamentary system is much more focused on party and policy than on personality. (Reason to be envious!) That said, Democrats would benefit from reminding voters that whoever is atop the Democratic ticket would not seek dictatorial powers, ban contraception and abortion nor withdraw from NATO. Democrats have to decide whether they still can make the anti-MAGA case effectively with Biden, or whether they can only get through to voters without him.
A reader asks: Another sad commentary on our media pack mentality. They are devouring every tidbit they can find about the state of Biden’s brain. I haven’t seen one story about the brain of a malignant narcissist and what that would portend for the judgment of someone who might govern our country. Why doesn’t Trump’s brain receive attention?
Answer: I have inveighed at the media for irresponsibly playing down (if not ignoring) the mental health questions raised by Trump’s unhinged rants, compulsive lying, verbal miscues, incoherent rambling and bizarre digressions. This journalistic malpractice creates entirely one-sided coverage of the candidates’ mental fitness. (So much for the vaunted commitment to “balance.”) The media’s failure to adequately cover Trump, however, does not excuse Biden staying in the race to the detriment of his party and our democracy.
Democratic activists, elected officials, donors and volunteers can control only so much. But while uncertainty afflicts the top of the ticket, the rest of the party has work to do. First, these groups must increase public awareness of the danger the Supreme Court has inflicted in immunizing the president from most criminal prosecutions. Running against MAGA Republicans now entails running against the court. Second, just as frightful, Project 2025 is a road map back to the turn of the century — the 20th century. Democrats should make sure all voters understand its implications. Finally, whether at the top of the ticket or as a No. 2 ready to step up if needed, Harris is an underestimated asset. Democrats would be wise to showcase her considerable talents.
The Associated Press constructed a near-perfect first paragraph: “Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, a massive proposed overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former officials in his administration, days after the head of the think tank responsible for the program suggested there would be a second American Revolution.” The report continues, “The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists.”
The article communicates all the critical parts of the story: Trump’s deceit in trying to distance himself from the plan; his allies’ threats to those who might oppose it (“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts said); and the scope of the radical plan.
Defenders of democracy and of sane, sensible governance should hope others follow the AP’s example.
The New York Times reported: “The Kansas Supreme Court reaffirmed abortion protections in the state’s Constitution on Friday, striking down Republican-backed laws that banned a common second-trimester abortion procedure and created additional licensing requirements for abortion clinics.” The case demonstrates how state voters and courts can serve to reinforce abortion rights in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The Kansas State Supreme Court in 2019 held that its state constitution’s “personal autonomy” protection secured abortion rights. It therefore struck down a 2015 law, S.B. 95, restricting second-term abortions. After voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment to take abortion protection out of the state constitution, antiabortion zealots came back to the court demanding it reverse its previous order and allow S.B. 95 to stand.
Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Kansas jurists rejected the idea that a change in the makeup of the court warrants reversal of a recently decided issue. (What a novel notion!) And the court methodically dispensed with arguments resting on purely ideologically driven assumptions:
The State devoted much of its brief to inviting us to reverse our earlier ruling in this case that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. We decline the invitation …
Throughout its briefing and arguments, it characterizes this interest as protecting a fetus from the medical community, protecting pregnant patients from the medical community, and protecting the integrity of the medical community. The State’s failure to advance a specific and concrete interest alone suggests to us the district court was correct when it ruled the State failed to prove this interest is compelling. But, again, we need not wade into the depths of that discussion because the State’s abject failure to produce any evidence supporting its position results in a clear failure to show S.B. 95 furthers any interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession or in patient safety.
Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s descent into MAGA partisanship, state courts and referendums might become the most critical vehicles for protecting Americans’ freedom.
Next week, I’ll have my online Q&A, so please submit your questions. Questions submitted after next Wednesday will go to my next Mailbag newsletter.
Credit: Source link
