Below is my column in USA Today on the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to reject the disqualification of former president Donald Trump from the 2024 election. Some Democrats are now seeking to resume the effort through Congress to prevent voters from being able to vote for the leading candidate for the presidency.
Here is the column: Continue reading “A Moment of Supreme Clarity: How the Court Delivered a Blow to the Lumberjack School of Constitutional Law”
Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office. Continue reading “Raskin and the Agents of Chaos: Democrats Prepare to Resume Disqualification Efforts in Congress”
We have been discussing the alarming shift in higher education in favor of censorship and speech regulations. These voices have been amplified on media platforms like MSNBC which has championed efforts to censor people and groups on social media and other forums. The most recent example is the interview of University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade by Rachel Maddow. In the interview, McQuade explains how the First Amendment is the “Achilles Heel” of the United States and why the public needs to embrace greater limitations on free speech. Continue reading “MSNBC Legal Analyst: Free Speech Could Be America’s “Achilles Heel””
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former president Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.” As I mentioned last night in the coverage, legal scholars are hardly doing a conga line in celebration. Indeed, this morning had the usual voices attacking the Court as “craven” and partisan for granting review in the case. Despite the Court (including three Trump appointees) repeatedly ruling against Trump and conservative causes in past cases, the same voices declared that the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.
One of the most interesting dynamics in this election is the impact of third party candidates from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Cornel West to a yet-to-be-named candidate with the No Labels ticket. Both Democratic and Republican operatives have been actively dismissing the ability of any third party candidate to win, including claims that the No Labels group has waited too long to get on ballots. I do not believe that is true. There is a path for a third party alternative to both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. However, that path is rather narrow and rocky.
President Joe Biden held a press event to brag about a major accomplishment this week. That itself is hardly surprising in an election year, but the boast itself was rather curious. In announcing the writing off of another $1.2 billion owed to the government in student loans, Biden gloated that the Supreme Court could not stop him from acting unilaterally to cancel the debt. For an Administration running on saving democracy from his political opponent, the chest-thumping brag that no one can stop him was a moment of impressive political dissonance. Continue reading ““That Didn’t Stop Me”: President Biden Brags that the Supreme Court Cannot Stop Him from Canceling Student Debt”
Below is my column in The Hill on the applicability of the 25th Amendment to remove President Joe Biden in light of the Special Counsel report detailing his “diminished faculties.” Despite the various calls for using the amendment, it is neither practically likely nor factually warranted on the basis of his report.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Can Biden Be Removed Under the 25th Amendment? Don’t Bet on It”
It has been 65 years since Hawaii became a state, but the Hawaiian Supreme Court appears to be having second thoughts. In an extraordinary ruling, the unanimous Supreme Court rejected the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment as inapplicable to the 50th state. Hawaii apparently is controlled not by the precedent of the Supreme Court but the “spirit of Aloha.” While Queen Liliʻuokalani would be pleased, the justices on that “other” Supreme Court may view such claims as more secessional than spiritual.
This morning I will be joining the live coverage of the Supreme Court of the arguments over the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment. When I am not on air, I will be doing my usual running analysis on Twitter/X. I have been a vocal critic of the theory under Section 3 as textually and historically flawed. It is also, in my view, a dangerously anti-democratic theory that would introduce an instability in our system, which has been the most stable and successful constitutional system in the world. Continue reading “Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect”
Last year, we discussed a Democratic candidate (Will Rollins) for Congress who was running on an anti-free speech pledge to increase censorship in the United States. Now there is a GOP candidate for Secretary of State in Missouri, Valentina Gomez, who is literally running on a book burning platform. Continue reading “Torching Free Speech: Republican Candidate in Missouri is Running as a Book Burner”
Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Open Borders and Closed Courts: How the Supreme Court Laid the Seeds for the Immigration Crisis”
A move by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles could present a long-awaited test case on transgender identity. The Department is reportedly moving to bar people from listing their transgender identity for their gender on Florida driver’s licenses. The rule could be challenged and force a court to rule on the constitutional protections afforded to sexual identity. Continue reading “Florida Moves to Bar Transgender Identity on Driver’s Licenses”
The California legislature is now moving toward implementing a series of reparation proposals after years of debate. The bills notably do not include the most talked about item: financial reparations. After years of batting around figures as high as $5 million per recipient, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently balked at the cost. It is not clear if voters will see this as a bait-and-switch given the building expectation of huge cash awards. However, buried in one of the items in the slew of benefits for African-Americans is the restoration of affirmative action in education. Continue reading “California’s New Reparations Legislation Would Restore Affirmative Action in Education”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) yesterday called for the denaturalization of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after a controversial speech was uncovered in which she pledged to put Somalia first in Congress and her work. While I have been a long critic of Omar, her views expressed in this speech are not only protected speech, but they are not a basis for denaturalization. Continue reading “No, Omar Cannot be Denaturalized on the Basis of her “Somalians First” Speech”
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows lost another attempt to force review of her disqualification “decision” before the United States Supreme Court hears arguments on the issue on Feb. 8th. The Maine Supreme Court declined to review the matter. With other states like Massachusetts ruling this week against disqualification, Colorado will remain the outlier as the only state supreme court willing to embrace this dangerous and anti-democratic theory. Continue reading “The Maine Event That Wasn’t: Bellows Fails Again to Force a Ruling on Disqualification”