Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Losing The Rule Of Law

It isn’t just the loss of due process (yesterday’s lament).

The Bulwark recently published an essay comparing the rule of law to the rule of Trump which is displacing it. You will not be shocked by the article’s conclusion that the two are incompatible. Under the rule of law, for example, certain specified persons are empowered to use force on behalf of the state in specified circumstances against persons engaged in specified activities. The rule of law does authorize state violence, but only under the enumerated circumstances–and other laws restrain government officials from engaging in such activities.

Under the rule of Trump, inevitable conflicts between public safety officials and people with whom they engage become conflicts “between angels and demons.” In Trump’s mind (I use the word “mind” hesitantly), “military police are heroic patriots by virtue of being in his military police.” Criminals are people who anger or cross him, or object to Trump’s will. By definition, they are dangerous insurgents who must be rooted out.

In other words, criminals are whoever Trump says are criminals, including the invented rioters and murderers in his fanciful descriptions of the horrors of life in Blue cities–descriptions so at odds with reality that they confirm his mental derangement.

The New York Times recently interviewed  50 members of the Washington, D.C. legal establishment, men and women who had worked as high-level officials for every president since Ronald Reagan. The group was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. All of them were appalled.

One former official who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations–including Trump’s first term–was quoted as saying “What’s happening is anathema to everything we’ve ever stood for in the Department of Justice.” There was a near consensus among the officials surveyed “that most of the guardrails inside and outside the Justice Department, which in the past counterbalanced executive power, have all but fallen away.”

The indictment of James Comey, the former F.B.I. director who was charged only after Trump fired the prosecutor who refused to do so and installed a pliant operative in his place, represents a misuse of power that several respondents said they had never expected to see in the United States.

The survey found a “collectively grim state of mind.”

All but one of the respondents rated Trump’s second term as a greater or much greater threat to the rule of law than his first term. They consistently characterized the president’s abuses of power — wielding the law to justify his wishes — as being far worse than they imagined before his re-election.

And every single one of the 50 respondents believe that Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, have used the Justice Department to go after the president’s political and personal enemies and provide favors to his allies.

At the end of his first term. Trump pressured the Justice department to investigate obviously “fact-free” claims. Bill Barr, who was attorney general at the time, had been a close ally of Trump, arguably subverting DOJ independence on Trump’s behalf in several matters. But when Trump pressured him to pursue allegations that Joe Biden had won the 2020 presidential election because of voter fraud, Barr wrote in his memoir that it was an ask too far, and he resigned rather than give in. Other top officials also threatened to resign rather than use the department in a dishonest effort to overturn the election.

Because of the lawyers in the room, the safeguards held. But if such a scenario were to play out in Trump’s second term, the same result is “unthinkable,” said Peter Keisler, who was an acting attorney general under President George W. Bush.“No one in the room now will say no,” said the Justice Department official from Trump’s first term. The lesson Trump drew from his first term, the former official continued, is that the lawyers who talked him out of “bad ideas” were the wrong kind of lawyers. “The president has set it up so that the people who are there are predisposed to be loyalists who will help him do what he wants.”

The dismantling of the rule of law began immediately after Trump assumed office the second time, with his shocking grant of pardons and commutations to the Jan. 6 rioters. It has continued with innumerable other examples, many of which were enumerated in the Times article.

It was significant that all 50 respondents faulted Congress for doing little or nothing to fulfill its role of restraining the president–and a majority also faulted the rogue Supreme Court. When checks and balances no longer check and balance, autocracy flourishes. 

RIP rule of law…..

Comments

RIP Due Process

During my tenure as a college professor, I taught graduate and undergraduate classes in Law and Public Policy through what I called a “Constitutional lens.” I was convinced–and remain convinced–that policy decisions unconnected or antagonistic to the country’s underlying legal framework are illegitimate, and that the public affairs students who would become police officers, public managers or legislators needed an education grounded in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When we came to the 4th and 5th (and 14th) Amendments, the lessons revolved around the purpose and definition of “due process.” I used to introduce that discussion by drawing two circles on the blackboard (or later, the whiteboard..)–one large circle, which I labeled “the 500 pound gorilla” and a much smaller one labeled “the individual.” As I would proceed to explain, due process guarantees were intended to level, to the extent possible, the mismatch between the power of the 500 pound gorilla (the government), and the resources of far less powerful individual citizens–to require the government to prove its right to deprive a citizen of either  liberty or property.

The Fourth Amendment is considered one of the due process Amendments. It requires that the government have probable cause to arrest a citizen. The courts have (until now) defined probable cause as sufficient, reasonable, articulable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or will be committed, in order to justify an arrest, search, or issuance of a warrant. Hunches or suspicions aren’t sufficient–and until this year, arresting someone solely on the basis of their identity would constitute a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

There are three kinds of due process recognized in American jurisprudence: criminal due process, civil due process, and substantive due process. I have written extensively about the current attack on substantive due process, which limits the areas of our lives in which government can properly intervene. When it comes to criminal due process, legal scholars frequently use the phrase “fundamental fairness” to summarize the elements intended to provide an accused person with a fair hearing, including a trial overseen by an impartial judicial officer, the right to an attorney, the right to present evidence and argument orally, the chance to examine all materials relied upon by the prosecution, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right to appeal an adverse result.

In my undergraduate classes, I sometimes used a tape from an episode of “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” (yes, I’m a nerd) to introduce due process. In that episode,  Miles O’Brien, the station’s Chief Engineer, is arrested by Cardassians (the series’ aliens) while on a vacation. The Cardassian system is the mirror opposite of ours–O’Brien isn’t told what he was accused of, his lawyer is appointed by the state to “make the case” for his eventual execution (which was scheduled before the trial began), the Judge was also the prosecutor, and so forth. My students would be reliably outraged at the obvious unfairness of that system, and that outrage led to thoughtful and productive discussions about what a truly fair trial would look like and the reasons for the multiple requirements of “due process of law.”

The current, corrupt Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to eviscerate those constitutional guarantees. In Noem v. Vasquez, the Court lifted a lower court injunction against patently unconstitutional arrests of people believed to be non-citizens, essentially holding that ‘looking like an immigrant’ can now be considered probable cause for stop, arrest, and detention.

It isn’t just Supreme Court rulings diametrically opposed to years of precedent.

The Prospect, among other sources,  has reported that ICE deliberately uses bureaucratic excuses and location transfers to isolate detainees both from their families and from their lawyers. Only 23 percent of defendants in immigration court even have an attorney in court to represent them. (Unlike in criminal courts, defendants in immigration court aren’t entitled to representation.) But those who do have attorneys are struggling to connect with them. The Prospect report documents the impediments ICE has intentionally constructed to keep these detainees in situations the report describes as “punitive and desperate” and to deprive them of due process.

So here we are. We have a Supreme Court untethered to long-standing constitutional guarantees, and a federal agency committed to denying their indiscriminate targets anything resembling fundamental fairness.

We’ve unleashed the 500-pound gorilla. I’m glad I’m no longer teaching….

Comments

The Label Is Wrong

Several media outlets recently reported on a Gallup poll finding that forty-three percent of Americans think the current Supreme Court is “too conservative.” Excuse me, but that finding is an example of a fundamental misperception that infests current American debates, and keeps our political arguments unilluminating and unproductive.

The current Supreme Court is many things, but conservative is certainly not one of them. Indeed, some of the most trenchant criticisms of the entirely corrupt Court majority have come from jurists and scholars with unimpeachably conservative bona fides. For example, J. Michael Luttig–a conservative icon  and former judge who consistently issued very conservative opinions when he was on the bench– called the Court’s bestowal of immunity for “official acts” of the President “irreconcilable with America’s democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.” Legal scholars, including a number of conservatives, have argued that decisions rendered by the current majority break with centuries of understanding, lack textual support, and undermine accountability.

Several conservatives have warned that the Court is legitimizing a “kingship” rather than a presidency. 

The Court’s unprecedented use of the Shadow Docket–historically a mechanism reserved for matters requiring an urgent response–has drawn criticism from across the ideological spectrum. The Court’s majority has used the Docket to issue decisions that lack the sort of legal analysis that lower courts rely upon for guidance, and has issued those decisions without the benefit of briefing or argumentation, lending credibility to the impression that they are operating via prejudice rather than analysis.

In a string of unexplained decisions utterly inconsistent with precedent, the majority has eroded the independence of previously independent agencies and commissions. It has allowed Trump to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly and exclusively grants funding decisions to the legislative branch. It has overturned the longstanding deference of the judicial branch to agency understandings of their own regulations, empowering judges to determine highly technical matters; the majority’s “religious liberty” decisions have significantly eroded the First Amendment’s separation of church and state in favor of a performative and illiberal Christianity, and–perhaps most shocking of all– it has allowed ICE to ignore the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

The list goes on.

Words have meanings, or at least they should. A truly conservative Court follows–conserves–legal precedent unless faced with formidable evidence that the precedent is no longer consistent with modern realities. Stare decisis and respect for legal predictability have long been lodestars of the judiciary, including–indeed, especially–conservative members of that judiciary. Evidence of such respect is nowhere to be seen in the Roberts Court; for years, Clarence Thomas has signaled his desire to overturn decisions with which he personally disagrees, and Samuel Alito gave a metaphorical finger to both individual liberty and fifty years of precedent when he authored the Dobbs decision.

Conservatism has been defined as a philosophy of preservation and prudence; conservatives value continuity, social stability, and gradual evolution rather than radical change. Conservatives prioritize respect for institutions, the rule of law and moral and cultural traditions. In contrast, reactionary far right ideologies are fixated on a desire to “reclaim” a mythic past. Reactionaries reject checks and balances; they embrace nativism and define belonging in racial and religious terms rather than civic ones, and they detest the pluralism that defines today’s America.

 

Where conservatism sees order as compatible with liberty, reactionary and populist far-right movements define order as the suppression of difference.

 

The problem with labeling our reactionary Court as conservative is that such a label obscures reality. It’s akin to the misuse of other labels like Left-wing and socialism, but it’s arguably more dangerous, because it makes a very real threat–an ahistorical judicial deviation from the rule of law in favor of a very unAmerican authoritarianism– seem like a normal part of America’s ever-shifting political environment. We’ve always had courts and political parties that are properly understood to be more conservative or more liberal, but by mis-labeling this radical Supreme Court as “conservative,” we minimize the extent to which it has deviated from the political and constitutional norms to which both liberal and genuinely conservative courts have adhered.

 

If this Court was truly conservative, America wouldn’t be in the midst of an authoritarian coup.

Comments

it’s The Structure, Stupid!

A reader recently sent me a link to an article from Governing with a provocative title suggesting that the current crisis with democracy should be blamed on the states. The article pointed to a variety of problems that this blog and many others have frequently addressed, including the Electoral College, gerrymandering and vote suppression, and the structure of the Senate.

Despite the article’s title, the problems identified in the article can’t fairly be attributed to the states, although some of them (gerrymandering and vote suppression, certainly) are activities conducted by the states. The very real problems the article enumerates–and a couple it doesn’t–are more properly designated as structural. 

One of the problems with a population that is largely civically-ignorant is the widespread belief that we just need to elect the “right” people who support the “right” policies, and longstanding issues will be resolved. Very few Americans recognize the structural roots of our dysfunctions, and consequently, there are few, if any, efforts to address them.

The linked article identifies several of these structural impediments to a genuinely democratic system–defined as a system truly reflecting the will of the voting populace. I’m well aware that there are a number of scholars and pundits who are unenthusiastic, to say the least, about such a system; they remind us that the Founders were leery of “the people” and created impediments to what they characterized as mass prejudices and popular passions. (Indeed, the Bill of Rights is correctly identified as a counter-majoritarian document.) Most Americans today, however, give at least lip service to the notion that a democratic system, in which elected officials act in ways that reflect the expressed will of the majority, is the ideal.

We don’t currently have such a system, and as the linked article reminds us, the constitutional prerogatives of the states in our federalist system are largely to blame.

Consider all the ways states serve to frustrate the will of the people. First, the Electoral College, which votes state by state, has already installed five presidents whom the voters had rejected nationwide. The many additional near misses make frequent future recurrences a statistical certainty.

The U.S. Senate is even more counter-majoritarian. As of 2023, a majority of the U.S. population is clustered in states that together get only 18 of the 100 senators. The minority get the other 82.

We can blame the Founders for the Electoral College, but the clustering of the population is a more recent demographic reality–and even more damaging. That said, even among the Founders there were those who failed to understand why their “states’ rights” colleagues insisted on the equality of states, which were, after all, artificial creations, rather than the equality of the people who lived in them. As the article reminds us, Federalists like James Madison were bitterly opposed to what they saw as a grossly undemocratic Senate. “Ultimately, however, they accepted the proffered compromise (equally populated House districts, plus states as Senate districts), but only as an unavoidable concession to get the required nine state ratifications.”

One result of this empowerment of states rather than people has been a gradual shift of voting power to rural inhabitants at the expense of urban Americans. (One study found that a rural vote counts one and a third compared to a vote cast by a city dweller.)

As the article reminds us, states have used their prerogatives to suppress votes and–in states that allow initiatives–to overrule the results of popular votes. (In Indiana, which lacks a referendum or initiative, no rational observer would suggest that majority members of our legislature even try to reflect the will of the people.)

Making matters worse, in the U.S., changing structural defects is incredibly difficult.  That’s why the effort to eliminate the Electoral College is through an interstate compact rather than a Constitutional amendment. As the article reminds us, the U.S. Constitution has been described as the hardest in the world to amend.

It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or a constitutional convention process that has never been used).

Winning a two-thirds vote in the already counter-majoritarian Senate is hard enough, but ratification by the states can be harder still. Only recently, states that represented just 22 percent of the U.S. population were able to block the Equal Rights Amendment, against the wishes of states representing the other 78 percent.

If and when we emerge from our current descent into fascism and autocracy, we need to address the structural issues that have facilitated that descent–including a thorough revamping of the Supreme Court.

Comments

Feeling No Shame

I keep thinking about the question that led to the downfall of McCarthy and McCarthyism–at long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?

I doubt that Donald Trump could spell decency, much less define it, but I think there’s another, related question we might pose–although we know the answer: at long last, sir, have you no sense of shame?

I recently looked into the concept of shame and its social utility. It turns out that the ability to feel shame is an essential element of what psychologists and psychiatrists call “pro-social behavior.” It prevents people from damaging their social relationships and reputations, and it warns one of social ostracism or disapproval. Feelings of shame motivate individuals to conform to group norms and expectations, and that helps members of a society function cooperatively.

Although shame can also be toxic, in its healthy form it serves as a natural mechanism for self-control and social regulation, and promotes a shared sense of values and expectations for behavior.  

As we learn daily, Donald Trump and his cast of incompetent clowns and sycophants are incapable of feeling shame or even of experiencing its dimmer cousin, embarrassment. In the wake of one of the most recent exhibitions of Trump’s detachment from reality, Lincoln Square ran an article bemoaning the fact that Trump isn’t simply embarrassing himself, he’s embarrassing America.

The author of that article, Kristoffer Ealy, wrote,

Every time I see a headline or a YouTube video that says, “Trump embarrasses himself by…” it irks me a little. Not because Trump doesn’t make a fool of himself — he always does — but because is it even possible for him to get embarrassed? Embarrassment requires self-awareness. It requires an understanding of social standards, the recognition that you’ve fallen short of them, and the capacity to cringe at yourself.

Trump doesn’t express any of these traits. He barrels through life like a man who believes the world is his open mic, and the crowd is obligated to applaud no matter how stale the jokes are. Embarrassment implies an internal governor that makes you stop and think, “Oh, maybe I shouldn’t have said that.” Trump is missing that chip. He is an indictment on the United States of America, and not just as a president but as a mirror of the worst parts of us — anti-intellectualism, cruelty as entertainment, and the delusion that bluster equals brilliance.

Ealy wasn’t even writing about the latest embarrassment–Trump’s rambling and incredibly inappropriate speech to an assembly of American military leaders. He was reacting to the equally senile and unselfaware word-salad delivered to representatives at the United Nations, which he characterized as “bad improv with nuclear weapons.”

The first gem was his declaration that other nations are going to hell. That’s not analysis; that’s Shao Kahn from Mortal Kombat mixed with Jimmy Swaggart. If the goal was to sound like a dictator moonlighting as a televangelist, mission accomplished. He said it with the same flourish that Swaggart used to beg for donations, except instead of promising salvation he was predicting damnation. Imagine sitting in that room as a world leader and hearing the U.S. president channel both an arcade boss fight and a disgraced preacher. That’s not foreign policy—it’s fan fiction written by a crank.

Then came his insistence that climate change is a hoax. This is where roasting almost feels too easy, because it’s not just dumb — it’s dangerous. Trump is proof of how far the Republican Party has fallen. I would never call George W. Bush a champion for climate action, but even Bush had the baseline sense to acknowledge that climate change exists. 

That embarrassing performance has been eclipsed by the more recent–and more shameful–display to America’s military leadership. (The overall reaction to both Trump and Hegseth was summed up in an Atlantic headline: “Hundreds of Generals Try to Keep a Straight Face.”)

Trump’s obvious inability to understand when he is making a fool of himself, his utter imperviousness to feelings of shame or embarrassment, are indicators–according to the psychiatric literature–of psychological conditions like narcissism and psychopathy. An inability to feel shame also accompanies a lack of empathy and a lack of self-awareness.

That lack of self-awareness must also be a characteristic of Trump voters, who evidently view his ongoing clown show and decline with equanimity, and seem perfectly okay with his demonstrable inability to govern, not to mention his destruction of America’s global status…

They’re shameful.

Comments