Author Archive: Glenn Reynolds

SOMEBODY TELL GAVIN NEWSOM:

DON’T GET COCKY: Gallup: Trump Is More Popular Than Harris Now. “Trump’s favorability today is substantially higher than in 2016 or 2020, despite the vitriol that has been aimed at him for years. This data seems to suggest that Trump is in much better position to win than the public polls suggest, and it lends credence to the suspicion that the polls themselves are part of an attempt to create a narrative in which Harris is cruising to victory.”

No, seriously, don’t get cocky. Are you donating? Volunteering? Phone-banking? Poll-watching? Commenting on blogs doesn’t count.

HE’S RIGHT. Austin Bay: The US Election’s Dirty Issue: Undisciplined and Corrupted Security Agencies.

Related:

THIS IS GREAT:

Plus:

KEVIN WILLIAMSON HAS BEEN A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT: It is striking that these defenders of democracy spend so much time attacking not Trump but Trump’s supporters. They throw outrageous insults at them, portraying them as ignorant poltroons who should learn to code, take up voodoo or santeria if they want to fit into their communities, and, for God’s sake, learn Creole. Trump has forced many of these people to reveal something that was either true always about themselves or has become true as Trump derangement syndrome has rotted their minds: they hate Americans.”

A key weakness of America’s ruling class is that one of its major bonding tools is open contempt for those it rules.

HARSH BUT FAIR:

IT’S ABOUT TIME: The Supreme Court Gets a Defense:

As political attacks on the Supreme Court become more heated, the institution could use more defenders. Most of the press and the professoriate are hostile. So it’s welcome that a leading member of the appellate bar is speaking up to defend the Court and urging his colleagues to do the same.

“I believe that the criticisms of the Court’s legitimacy are unfounded,” said Kannon Shanmugam in a notable speech Monday at Duke Law School. “But more than that, I believe that attacks on the Court’s legitimacy are dangerous, undermining public confidence in the Court and imperiling the rule of law.”

Mr. Shanmugam, a partner at the Paul Weiss law firm, has argued 38 cases at the Supreme Court. He clerked for Antonin Scalia on the Court and was an assistant to the Solicitor General at the Justice Department. “I believe that those of us who practice regularly before the Court, and who thus have a unique familiarity with the Court and its work, should speak up when we believe that the Court is being unfairly attacked,” he told the Duke audience. He’s right.

Take the claims of unethical conduct. “Many of the allegations are transparently insubstantial,” Mr. Shanmugam said, citing as an example the recent news of a $900 gift on Justice Samuel Alito’s financial disclosure. “Just last week,” he said, “we had the claim that there was something nefarious about a Justice and his spouse attending a concert with a, quote, ‘eccentric German princess.’” The proliferation of immaterial complaints suggests some critics “are more concerned with targeting particular Justices.”

He went on to discuss “two rules” that apply at the High Court. The “core ethical rule,” Mr. Shanmugam said, is that Justices recuse from cases in which their impartiality is “reasonably” in question, as “assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person, not someone who presumes the Justice is acting in bad faith.” Second is an obligation of financial disclosure.

Mr. Shanmugam: “In my view, in order to assert that the Court is acting ‘corruptly,’ critics bear the burden of showing, at a minimum, that the Court’s members have been intentionally violating those rules. That is a high burden, and I do not believe the critics have met it.” Complaints of alleged failures to recuse “largely center on the conduct not of the Justices themselves, but of their spouses.” Disputes about the Justices’ old disclosures of travel and “personal hospitality” reflect “genuine ambiguity about the meaning of the then-existing rules.”

There’s room for “healthy debate” about ethics rules, Mr. Shanmugam said, suggesting the Court might want to restrict lucrative book deals or require blind trusts. Yet this isn’t what the complainers want: “It is hard to escape the conclusion that many critics’ real beef is with the outcomes the current Court is reaching.”

Of course it is. Nobody who’s supported Biden or Harris cares about corruption.