Poll of judges, lawyers sees grave Trump threat to rule of law

Sometimes it seems like the only thing standing between a functioning democracy and a true Trump autocracy is a thin, dark line.

Although the Supreme Court, in general, and conservative appeals courts, in particular, have bowed down and granted President Trump permission to do just about anything he wants, they have not completely capitulated to his relentless quest for ever more power. (In the manner of invertebrate Congressional Republicans.)

At the lower court level, judges have repeatedly ruled in ways that keep Trump in check, particularly when it comes to civil and constitutional rights violations under his blind immigration agenda.

The tendency to slow down his administration’s response to these decisions — and to ignore others that Trump thinks he can safely ignore — only contributes to the perception of presidential lawlessness and the feeling that our justice system is being strained to a breaking point.

Go ahead, if you like, and dismiss these concerns as just excessive whining or mindless anti-Trump chatter from your friendly political columnist. A new survey of legal experts — including federal judges, top lawyers and dozens of professors from some of the nation’s top law schools — reveals widespread concern about the fragile state of our legal system.

And it’s not just the fears of many shaggy-minded liberals.

“The nation is strong, and so is its commitment to the rule of law,” said a Republican-appointed appeals judge. “The current president poses the greatest threat in decades. »

The survey was conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in collaboration with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

Conducted between mid-February and early March, the poll anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.

What struck Rick Hasen, director of UCLA’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, was that “across the ideological spectrum and among judges, lawyers, and law professors, there was considerable consensus that the rule of law in the United States is under enormous pressure.” This consensus, he said, suggests “a real risk for democracy.”

Most legal experts agree that Trump is using executive power excessively, with the majority doubting whether the conservative-leaning Supreme Court handles cases involving the Trump administration impartially. Experts have also raised concerns about the politicization of law enforcement as Trump seeks to persecute his perceived enemies, the overreach of executive power and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in the rogue president.

Eight in 10 respondents said federal officials did not comply with court orders somewhat or very often, and nearly 9 in 10 said political appointees in Trump’s Justice Department misled federal judges somewhat or very often.

Talk about contempt of court – not to mention our vital system of checks and balances.

Unsurprisingly, there was a divide between conservatives and liberals who participated in the survey. (The study defined legal conservatives as those who believe the Supreme Court should base its decisions on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as it was originally written. Liberals, who made up most of those surveyed, were defined as those who believe the Court should base its decisions on what the Constitution means today.)

Conservatives, for example, were more likely than liberals to view former President Biden as a greater threat to the rule of law than Trump. Liberals were more likely than conservatives to see evidence of Trump’s politicization of the Justice Department.

There are also differences between legal experts – those most intimately involved in the justice system – and the general public. Experts were more concerned about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law, which Hasen says makes sense.

The legal system is not a problem that most people encounter on a daily basis, like, say, the price of gas or the price of groceries. “Yet,” Hasen said, “it’s one of those substantive things that really matters.”

For what?

Hasen put it this way: “Imagine a person had a dispute with his neighbor and it ended up in small claims court before a judge and the judge made the decision not on the merits of the case but on the fact that he was friends with one of the parties or that he didn’t like people who looked like one of the parties.

Now imagine this kind of corrupt and perverted justice system at large.

If, for example, “people know that the government can get retaliation against those who criticize it, they will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country in an even worse situation by muzzling those who would hold their elected leaders accountable.

Or if, say, rioters invaded the U.S. Capitol and tried to steal an election and, instead of being punished, received cash payments from the federal government, what incentive would there be to follow the law?

Luckily – and who couldn’t use a little cheer right now – all is not lost.

People “can demand that their elected representatives take steps to ensure that the rule of law will be respected,” Hasen said, and they can insist “that the government [not] play favorites or seek revenge on perceived enemies.

This is the power that people have, at election time. This is why voting is important.

Many things depend on the outcome in November, including the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.

Keep this in mind when voting.