answer: In a democracy, voters have a voice. If they were reckless enough to elect Trump, the Constitution would give him all the powers of an executive, including (among other things!) the powers of commander-in-chief. Voters need to consider how dangerous that is.
Readers ask: Could any of the judges in Trump’s pending case request a psychological evaluation?
answer: The former president, who has been indicted four times, has not admitted to insanity or diminished capacity. Therefore, the judge cannot initiate an assessment on his own.
Readers ask: Democrats and women’s groups attack mailings of Viagra, other erectile dysfunction drugs, and testosterone products as “obscene” and used for “obscene purposes” if Republicans and courts reinstate enforcement of Comstock law Should I start? Is it good for both the gander and the geese?
answer: Great argument in court. Applying this law only to female reproductive organs and medicines violates equal protection (or due process, if the Supreme Court still recognizes substantive due process) and the First Amendment. But I don’t intend to contest constitutional wrongdoing against other acts (i.e., retaliate with broader Comstock laws that also apply to men). The goal should be to repeal this horrible law.
Readers ask: How can we get the media to accurately report the consequences that a possible second Trump term could have for fascists? I don’t believe the public is taking this threat seriously enough.
answer: Traditional media claim this is a traditional election between two opposing parties, not a contest between democracy and authoritarianism. The media cannot accurately define the MAGA movement because it is completely sold on false equivalencies. Nevertheless, President Biden now consistently emphasizes President Trump’s dictatorial agenda and fascist language. Biden will need to work harder to attract media attention.
Readers ask: I recently read about the controversy surrounding assisted suicide in The Economist. what is your opinion? The position varies greatly from country to country.
answer: Bills under consideration in the UK Parliament require that patients have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of less than 6 months; The system allows patients to request end-of-life drug treatment under the authority of two judges, etc. (not under duress). On the other hand, I believe deeply in individual autonomy. However, even with restrictions, the risk of abuse (as seen in the Netherlands) remains. Furthermore, given the rapid advances in medical science, I don’t know how doctors can be so sure about a prognosis of six months to live. They also worry about the slippery slope of assisted suicide expanding from terminally ill patients to chronically ill patients. While I support providing patients with the full range of palliative care at the end of life, I remain deeply ambivalent about assisted suicide laws.
reader asks: Can Mr. Trump’s lawyer resign and delay the trial while a new lawyer is hired and on track?
answer: Probably not. The judge would have to remove the lawyer from the case. In any case, Judge Juan M. Marchan will almost certainly instruct President Trump to proceed with negotiations with another lawyer for the former president’s billions.
Readers ask: Let’s say Trump is convicted, loses the election, and goes to prison. Do you think other trials will proceed?
answer: After an initial conviction, felons are often taken to other jurisdictions for trial. This is no exception.
Despite his whining and constant maneuvering to delay his trial, President Trump currently faces 34 felonies in New York courtrooms. A judge on Monday systematically rejected President Trump’s objections to evidence showing his fear that the alleged sexual encounters would ruin his 2016 election chances. A hearing will then be held on whether Trump should be charged with contempt for his ongoing “true public intimidation” of witnesses. Held next week.
This is what justice looks like. Slow but effective, imperfect but satisfying. When the rule of law works properly, it is a sight to behold.
Social media and other critics understandably mocked, mocked, and condemned the New York Times with the headline, “Two Imperfect Messengers Challenge Abortion.” The subheadings were just as bad. “Neither side of the conflict over abortion will likely engineer the exact candidates they will have in 2024.” This could be the crowning jewel of “two-facedism,” which accomplishes that feat in a variety of ways.
First of all, it blurs the distinction between Biden’s clear and unwavering positions (to write) Roe vs. Wade federal law) of President Trump. well documented Contradiction, deviation, contradiction. These two men simply do not have They also lack communication skills. This imbalance between clarity and honesty can actually determine the outcome of your campaign.
In addition to misrepresenting candidates’ relative abilities, this typical “process story” diminishes the moral importance of the issue. The 1942 headline “Two Imperfect Messengers Fight a World War” would have been unimaginable. As with the story, awarding style points trivializes the abortion issue.
Finally, the Times headline becomes a self-parody of gamified political reporting. “Neither side of the abortion debate will likely accurately design the candidates they will field in 2024.” (Well, neither team in the World Series will ever engineer the exact lineup they have.) In essence, the Times is telling us, “No human being is perfect!” — Empty cliché. Journalists have an obligation to accurately portray to their readers the vast differences in the candidates’ consistency, clarity, and moral seriousness on abortion. Alas, such accuracy will require telling the truth instead of a false “balance”.
Following the Arizona Supreme Court’s 4-2 decision reinstating the 1864 abortion ban, women can only hope that the adage, “Today’s opposition is tomorrow’s majority,” holds true. In that case, the court’s dissenting justices accused the majority of manufacturing ambiguities in the law.Plain reading of the text should Rather than a complete ban, it calls for a 15-week limit and exceptions in cases where the mother’s health is at risk.
Associate Chief Justice Anne Timmer wrote in response to the dissent: DobbsThe majority interprets it as [the abortion law] as providing if egg If the proposal is defeated, the state would turn back the clock to 1973 by enforcing a near-total abortion ban on doctors, even if they follow the rules. [the law] By performing elective abortions before the 15th week of pregnancy or when necessary to prevent serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman. Timmer blasts the majority’s belief that Congress is “hiding an elephant in a mouse hole.” Translation: Lawmakers don’t intend to toss monumental proclamations into what amounts to footnotes.
Unlike the majority, Timmer “refuses to engage in the guesswork required for transplantation.” [the 15-week law’s] The blunt language means that the Legislature may or may not have intended if it had expected the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. egg.” Just to be sure, she cites conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia to support her opponent’s textualist position.
Once again, with a wise dissent, the right-wing justices (who had previously demanded strict adherence to the plain meaning of the original text and chastised liberals for fabricating flimsy evidence to reach their desired conclusions) clearly found themselves It has become clear that the vaunted rules of interpretation were not intended to apply. More than anything, abortion. Hmm. Perhaps they were ideological partisans hell-bent on imposing Christian nationalism on an unwilling nation.
next week, I look forward to chatting online. Submit your question. Questions submitted after next Wednesday will be published in his next Mailbag newsletter.
