Monthly Archives: September 2020

The Electoral College and Election Law

In recent weeks, there has been a proliferation of articles on how President Trump could effectively change the rules after the election if it appears that he is likely to lose.  For now, I am putting to the side the possibility of an actual coup in which he prevents the new Congress from meeting and certifying a Biden-Harris win or prevents Joe Biden from taking the oath of office after being certified as the winner.  I just don’t see the circumstances in which members of the military or the Secret Service or the D.C. police force would participate in such an extreme stance.  So I will limit myself to an attempt to change the legal winner of the election.

For federal offices, including the president, there are three main sources of law governing the election of such officials– the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws (which can be the state constitution, state statutes, or state regulations).

Most of the arguments for legal manipulation are based on past history and a misreading of the Constitution.  There are two key provisions in Article II of the Constitution.  First, the electors are chosen “in the manner that the Legislature shall direct.”  The key thing about this provision is that it says that the Legislature directs the manner of choosing the electors.  It does not say that the state legislatures get to choose the electors.  While, in the early days of the country, some legislatures opted to have the legislature actually choose the electors.  that was because the legislature opted for that mechanism.  Today, every state has opted to choose the electors through a popular vote.  While the legislatures could theoretically change the manner of choosing electors, I will get back below to why this will not happen. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election, Elections, Electoral College, Judicial | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Electoral College and Election Law

October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part Two)

As we saw in Part One, COVID-19 has caused a rather unique set-up for the first two argument sessions of the upcoming term.  October are the cases that would have been argued last term but for COVID-19 requiring the postponement of arguments.  As such, as the more politically significant cases were heard in May, October features very few “political” cases.   On the other hand, highlighted by the on-going attempt of the Republicans to use the courts to undo the Affordable Care Act, November has several very significant cases.

There are two big cases on December’s docket.  First, there is the on-going disputes related to President Trump’s legal troubles.  In particular, Trump’s taxpayer-funded law firm (the Department of Justice) is trying to block the House Judiciary Committee from obtaining grand jury transcripts from the Mueller investigation that might be demonstrate that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  The technical issue is whether the House Judiciary Committee when doing a preliminary investigation into impeachment fits within the limited group authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to access grand jury testimony.

Second, there is a case-involving the Federal Housing Finance Agency (one of the agencies created after the Bush financial market crash of 2008) and whether it is legally-structured.  We saw a similar case this past term involving the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  So, even if the Republicans do not manage to get another conservative judicial activist onto the Court before this argument, the odds of a ruling upholding the validity of the restrictions on removal are slim and none. Continue Reading...

Posted in Impeachment, Judicial | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part Two)

The Ginsburg Vacancy and the Future of the Supreme Court

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg occurs when our country was already at a crossroad.  By historical accident, there has been a “Republican” majority on the court since 1972.    For the past thirty years, there has been a movement among conservative interest groups and supportive lawyers to rewrite the Constitution to undermine the protection given to constitutional rights during the Warren Court and to undermine the legal consensus that arose from the New Deal era.

The Constitution says very little about the structure of the judiciary.  It says that there will be a  Supreme Court with some cases on which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.  For the most part, however, the Constitution left it to Congress to fill in the details.  And, while the justices are appointed by the President with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, the Constitution is silent on the details of the confirmation process.

The latter issue is currently front and center.  When there was a vacancy in February 2016, Moscow Mitch cited a non-existent Biden rule as barring any confirmation hearing in a presidential election year.  This year, Moscow Mitch has put forth a modified version of the rule holding that confirmation hearings are only barred if the Senate is controlled by the opposing party.  Of course, that is not a principled rule.  It is a rule about power.  Namely, that the Senate majority gets to do what it wants regardless of what is in the best interest of the American people. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Ginsburg Vacancy and the Future of the Supreme Court

Notes from your Doctor: Let’s Talk Vaccines

There are currently 27 vaccines in Phase 1 trials, 15 in Phase 2, and 9 in Phase 3. Both China and Russia have approved vaccines, but, um, there are some problems as none were ready for prime time yet. In fact, one of the Chinese vaccines was approved for single dose, and now they’re going to give everyone who got a first dose a second one, because one dose alone didn’t confer protection.  You can see details on all of the vaccines here.

Source: New York Times, reprinted with permission.

The chart at the left presents information on the different trial phases. Sometimes Phases 1 and 2 are combined to speed up the process. And after Phase 3, there is an approval phase, although in some cases, there can be Emergency Use Limited Approvals. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2019-nCoV, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Vaccines | Comments Off on Notes from your Doctor: Let’s Talk Vaccines

October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part One)

Last night, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her fight against cancer.  In the upcoming days, much will be written commemorating her long fight for justice.  Much will also be written about the politics of appointing her replacement (and I will almost certainly be putting in my two cents).  But very little pauses the Supreme Court calendar, and the Supreme Court’s term effectively begins next week when the justices will meet (either with appropriate social distancing in a large conference room or via teleconferencing) for the annual “long” conference that reviews all of the applications for review that have piled up over the summer.  The following week — on the First Monday in October — the Supreme Court will commence hearing argument on this term’s cases.

Before starting a look at the cases on the docket, three key things to note.  First, until the Ginsburg vacancy is filled, there will only be eight justices on a case (barring a recusal).  That creates the possibility of a 4-4 tie.  In the case of a 4-4 tie, there are two options.  On the one hand, the Supreme Court can “affirm by an equally divided court.”  Such a decision leaves the lower court ruling in place for the parties involved in the case, but is not a precedent for future cases.  On the other hand, the Supreme Court can set the case for re-argument when there is a full court.  It is really up to the justices to decide which option to take.   Second, who ultimately fills the vacancy will impact the outcome of a small number of cases, but those cases tend to be the most significant.  Third, at least for the October argument session (the Supreme Court term typically consists of seven argument sessions of two weeks each) and probably for most of this term, the Supreme Court will be holding its arguments by teleconference with each justice, taking turns by seniority, getting approximately three minutes per party to ask questions to the attorney.  The audio from these arguments will be livestreamed by several news organizations.

October is likely to be the calm before the storm.  Back last Spring, the Supreme Court had to cancel the March and April argument sessions.  The Supreme Court decided to hold a special May argument session, but only put the most important (and politically sensitive) cases into that argument session.  That left about half of the cases that would have been heard in March or April on the docket.  Those cases are being heard in October.  The biggest case in October is probably the first case up for argument — Carney v. Adams.  This case arises from Delaware.  Delaware requires that judges on the top three courts be balanced with no more than a one-judge majority for either major party with the other judges coming from the other major party.  So, on a seven judge court, there would likely be four Democratic judges and three Republican judges.   The claim presented to the Supreme Court is that conditioning eligibility for a judicial vacancy on an applicant’s partisan affiliation violates the First Amendment rights of potential judicial applicants. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Healthcare, Judicial | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part One)

Labor Day 2020 — The Future of Social Security

One of the big accomplishments of the labor movement in the 1900s — both in the U.S. and in other industrialized countries — was the concept of pensions (both public and private).  The basic concept behind pensions was to guarantee workers that, when they got too old to work anymore, they would have a guaranteed payment for the rest of their life.

Of course, with the decline of the labor movement, there has been a movement away from “defined benefit” plans to “defined contribution” plans.  From the workers perspective, a defined benefit plan offered two significant advantages:  1) if something went wrong, the company had to make up any shortfall caused by bad investments; and 2) the company would hire a competent money manager to properly invest the funds dedicated to the pension plan.  From the perspective of upper management, a defined contribution plan had two major advantages:  1) the company’s contribution was set in stone regardless of whether that investment ended up being sufficient; 2) the most economically savvy (i.e. the financial types that tend to ended up in the top tiers of companies) could get more from the pensions by making slick investment decisions while the average worker was left with measly investment gains (and maybe even losses if the default investment ended up going down the tubes).

At the public level, the big pension plan in the U.S. has been Social Security.  Social Security has always been a variation on a defined contribution plan.  But it has also always been a “pay as you go” type plan.  These two features has always combined to create a “crisis on the horizon” situation for Social Security. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election, Donald Trump | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Labor Day 2020 — The Future of Social Security

Cut Time

A political party serves two fundamental purposes.

First, people form and join political parties to advance policy.  (Of course, there are disagreements on the exact priorities or the specific details of policy proposals.)  In fact, one of the biggest mistakes that the Framers made was not anticipating that, once there were elections for federal offices, the groups in New Jersey that favored rural farmers over “urban” merchants would unite with similar groups in Georgia (and vice versa for the groups that favored merchants) rather than stay isolated in their own states.  Simply put, if you want a single-payer health care system, you are more likely to get it by forming a large group with other supporters of that type of proposal than working on your own.

Second, the way that political parties try to advance policy is by getting their candidates elected to office.  You can’t pass a single-payer system if the opponents of single-payer have the majority in Congress or control the White House.  And political parties win elections by finding good candidates and raising and spending money to support those candidates.   Especially in the year before the election, money tends to be spent on creating tools (like voter databases and helping state parties) that are available to all candidates that run on the party’s ticket.  And at this point in time, with the exception of the last handful of state primaries, the parties have their candidates. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election, Money in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cut Time

Trump Law Update

You know that something is wrong when you have to watch the appellate courts to know what is happening in the White House.  And this week has already seen several interesting rulings.

The biggest — because it is from the full U.S. Circuit Court for the D.C. Circuit — concerns the Michael Flynn case.  As you may recall, Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor for a day) pleaded guilty to charges of lying to federal agents as part of the Mueller investigation.  After Mueller wrapped things up and turned things over to the career prosecutors, William Barr became Attorney General of Trump and decided to start undoing what he could of the Mueller investigation and prosecutions.  Rather than proceeding with sentencing of the admitted criminal, A.G. Barr is willing to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea on a flimsy theory and then dismiss the charges.  Because this seems fishy and motivated by something other than normal prosecution operations, the judge who took Flynn’s plea decided to appoint an attorney as amicus curiae (literally friend of the court) to brief why the plea should stand and the request to dismiss the case should be denied.  (This procedure is not unusual at tbe appellate level.  Typically, once or twice a year, the Supreme Court will appoint an attorney to defend a lower court decision when both sides contend that the decision below was erroneous.  Rarely does the appellate court side with the amicus, but it does make sure that the best arguments in favor of the lower courts decision are heard.)

Mr. Flynn and his friends in the administration did not like this road bump in their attempt to wipe away any incentive for Mr. Flynn to decide to start telling the truth about his ties to Russia; so Mr. Flynn filed what is called a petition for writ of mandamus (essentially an order directing a lower court or government agency to do a specific act which contrasts with an injunction which orders a party not to do something).  Mr. Flynn got very lucky with the initial panel assignment somehow ending up with the two Trump appointees to the D.C. Circuit on his three-judge panel.  And the initial panel voted 2-1 to grant the petition and order the trial judge to grant the motion to dismiss.  The rest of the judges on the D.C. Circuit on their own motion decided to take the case from the panel and conduct a rehearing “en banc” (that is in front of all of the regular judges of the court).  On Monday, the full D.C. Circuit issued its ruling — an 8-2 decision denying the petition. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Trump Law Update