Questions from readers: This court has made many terrible decisions, many of which ignore precedent. Why can’t a Democratic president add enough justices to make the court somewhat impartial and overturn the court’s worst decisions?
answer: Absolutely, but to pass such legislation, Democrats would need majorities in the House and Senate. Senate Democrats would also need to fix or eliminate the filibuster. Public support may be much stronger after a series of bad decisions, but Democrats must win first.
Questions from readers: Will Vice President Harris be the default replacement for the Democratic presidential nominee, or can someone else be nominated? If so, who would you choose? Instead of providing a list, can you just name one person?
answer: If President Biden decides to step down after the nomination is official, the Democratic National Committee will choose his successor. If he steps down before the convention, the delegates will choose another candidate. It is hard to imagine the Democrats overlooking the first African-American woman who is skilled at working and attacking MAGA Republicans on their weakest issues (abortion, Project 2025, etc.). She could inject the enthusiasm needed to drive young voters to the polls.
Questions from readers: I doubt the Democrats have uncovered the horrors of Project 2025. Will a celebrity like Taraji P. Henson take it on?
answer: You’re right, they haven’t done enough. But campaigns, Democrats, and Democratic activists (possibly with the help of celebrities) have time to attack this radical plan to undermine effective government and transform America. Democrats can highlight some of the items they find most disturbing (e.g., replacing thousands of government employees with political appointees loyal only to former President Donald Trump, rounding up millions of illegal immigrants for deportation, banning mifepristone, etc.). Third parties can focus on the items that matter most to them (e.g., AARP can highlight rising drug costs for seniors, while teachers unions can focus on abolishing the Department of Education). Trump’s hasty attempts to disavow Project 2025 show what an attractive target it is.
Questions from readers: Everything I have read paints the newly elected UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as the most boring and lifeless party leader in history. But Labour has just slammed the Conservatives so hard that the Conservative and Unionist parties may actually be coming to an end. Shouldn’t Americans be panicking about Biden? Surely the Republican Party should be dead. We need a new political party that requires its candidates to at least understand the word “conservative.”
answer: The UK parliamentary system places more emphasis on parties and policies than personalities (enviable!). That said, Democrats would benefit from reminding voters that whoever the Democratic nominee is will not seek dictatorial powers, ban contraception or abortion, or withdraw from NATO. Democrats must decide whether they can effectively advance their anti-MAGA narrative with Biden in the mix, or whether they can only appeal to voters without him.
Questions from readers: Another sad commentary on our media collective mentality. They are devouring every bit of information they can find about the state of Biden’s brain. I have not seen a single article about the brain of a malignant narcissist and what it bodes for the judgment of the man who may govern our country. Why is there no attention on Trump’s brain?
answer: I have railed against the media’s irresponsible downplaying (if not ignoring) of the mental health issues caused by Trump’s erratic rants, compulsive lying, verbal gaffes, incoherent ramblings, and bizarre digressions. This journalistic blunder has left coverage of the candidate’s mental health completely one-sided. (So much for the vaunted efforts at “balance.”) But the media’s failure to adequately cover Trump does not justify Biden remaining in the race, to the detriment of the party and our democracy.
Democratic activists, elected officials, donors, and volunteers can only control so much. But while the top candidates are mired in uncertainty, the rest of the party has work to do. First, these groups must raise public awareness of the danger the Supreme Court has posed by exempting the president from most criminal prosecutions. Taking on the MAGA Republicans now entails taking on the Supreme Court. Second, and just as frightening, Project 2025 is a roadmap to the turn of the century, the 20th century. Democrats should ensure that all voters understand what it means. Finally, whether as a top candidate or a number two ready to step up if necessary, Harris is an underrated asset. Democrats would be wise to showcase her superior talents.
The Associated Press crafted a nearly perfect first paragraph: “Donald Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, a proposed sweeping overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former administration officials, days after the head of the think tank behind the plan suggested a second American Revolutionary War would break out.” The report continues, “The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential powers and a plan to fire up to 50,000 government employees and replace them with Trump supporters.”
The article hits all the key parts of the story: Trump’s deception in distancing himself from the plan, his allies’ threats against those who might oppose it (“We are in the process of a second American revolution, and it will remain bloodless if the left lets it,” said Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation), and the scope of this radical plan.
Defenders of democracy and sound, sensible governance should hope that others will follow AP’s example.
The New York Times reported, “The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed abortion protections in the state constitution, striking down a Republican-backed law that banned general second-trimester abortions and imposed additional licensing requirements on abortion clinics.” The case shows how state voters and courts can work to strengthen abortion rights. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution’s “personal autonomy” protections guarantee the right to an abortion. As such, the court struck down SB 95, a 2015 law that restricted abortion for a second term. After voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have removed abortion protections from the state constitution, anti-abortion zealots appealed to the court again, asking it to overturn the previous ruling and allow SB 95 to stand.
Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Kansas justices rejected the idea that a change in the court’s composition justified the overturning of a recently decided issue (what a novel idea!), and the court has systematically rejected arguments based on purely ideological assumptions.
The state has spent much of its arguments asking the Court to overturn its previous ruling in this case that the Kansas Constitution guarantees a right to an abortion. The Court declines that request…
Throughout its brief and arguments, the State characterized this interest as protecting the unborn child from the medical community, protecting pregnant patients from the medical community, and protecting the integrity of the medical community. The State’s failure to assert a specific, tangible interest alone suggests to us that the district court was correct to rule that the State failed to demonstrate that this interest was compelling. But again, we need not go into the depths of that argument, because the State’s failure to present any evidence in support of its position clearly fails to show that SB 95 advances the interest of protecting the integrity of medical professionals or patient safety.
With the U.S. Supreme Court now in the MAGA camp, state courts and referendums may become the most important tools for protecting Americans’ freedoms.
We will be doing an online Q&A next week, Submit a QuestionQuestions submitted after next Wednesday will be published in the next mailbag newsletter.
