In his post today about the Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the Texas lawsuit without so much as an explanation, Jeffrey Tulis wishes that the Supreme Court had written a more extensive statement explaining why they threw it out. Tulis cites a similar piece by Tom Goldstein making roughly the same argument. Both Tulis and Goldstein want the Court to have written a more extensive opinion which, to use Goldstein’s words, “decimates” the lawsuit. Although I agree that this lawsuit was not only ungrounded but dangerous, I would suggest that a more lengthy “decimation” would have been a serious … Continue reading Supreme Court Rejecting Texas Case
The Supreme Court declined to take up the case from Pennsylvania. But the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, has now asked the Court to take another case. Over at The Bulwark, Kim Wehle has an excellent take on the latest effort to overturn the election: “Paxton is asking five unelected justices with jobs for life to cancel the millions of votes legitimately cast in four states, and tell the legislatures in those states to give the electors to Trump.” Like the Pennsylvania suit, it’s not going to work. But asking whether it’s going to work is the wrong question. … Continue reading The Gathering Storm?
In this article, Laura Field analyzes what is next for for the Republican Party in the post-Trump era. As Field reasons, “just because we dodged a bullet doesn’t mean the gun was never loaded or that now it has been cast aside.” Continue reading What Now of the Authoritarian Threat?
Even the Washington Examiner realized this was sedition! Democracies have always died at some point. The Federalists worried that they could never survive because they had never survived. Ours has always depended on certain constitutional norms that insured the peaceful transfer of power. More than anything else, our democracy has avoided the fate of others because we have accepted the constitutional processes that ensure that our regime is based, to use Hamilton’s words, on “reflection and choice” rather than on “accident and force.” The founders’ Constitution separated us from prior democracies because it created institutions through which the democracy could … Continue reading Michael Flynn meets Alexander Hamilton
You are welcome, New York Times and Susan Rice, for my metaphor and some of my argument. I remind myself of something that Teddy Roosevelt purportedly said: “As long as they are going my way, I don’t care who gets the credit.” He probably did care a little bit, as I do. But we care more that people heed the message. Click the headline in the post to read the New York Times piece. Here is my version from November 5, a couple of days after the election: Continue reading Our Near Death Experience
What are the broader implications of Trump’s legal strategy in the 2020 election? George Thomas offers his insight into this important question, saying, “The Republican Party is disowning the American experiment in democratic self-government.” Continue reading The Republican Party’s Dangerous Anti-Democratic Turn
Is Donald Trump’s strategy of pressuring states in their choice of electors a legitimate “Hail Mary” plan to secure a second term? Dr. Jeffery Tulis thinks not. In this article, Tulis challenges his readers to “engage in a broader constitutional conversation than is common for the judiciary” when thinking about the role of the Electoral College.
Continue reading Trump’s “Hail Mary” Pass