Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Marc Elias: The Courts Must Stop Presuming Donald Trump is a Regular President
https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/the-courts-must-stop-presuming-donald-trump-is-a-regular-president/If there is one thing that is clear from Donald Trump’s first 100 days, it is that he is not a regular president. But the courts continue to treat him as one, which is what has us barreling towards a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Jack Goldsmith, a conservative law professor at Harvard, recently described the way courts typically approach presidents: “Much of our law depends on a presumption of regularity in the presidency. It depends on the courts thinking that they can trust the president to comply with orders, and to be honest and truthful in court.”
As Professor Goldsmith suggests, much flows from the presumption of regularity. Courts assume that the president and his administration act in good faith, that their actions are lawful, their statements truthful and their motivations honest. As one early Supreme Court case stated, government officials “are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.”
The consequences of this presumption are profound. Courts are reluctant to second-guess the administration’s motivations, unlikely to probe into the government’s internal processes and often dismissive of claims of improper bias.
-snip-
Jack Goldsmith, a conservative law professor at Harvard, recently described the way courts typically approach presidents: “Much of our law depends on a presumption of regularity in the presidency. It depends on the courts thinking that they can trust the president to comply with orders, and to be honest and truthful in court.”
As Professor Goldsmith suggests, much flows from the presumption of regularity. Courts assume that the president and his administration act in good faith, that their actions are lawful, their statements truthful and their motivations honest. As one early Supreme Court case stated, government officials “are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.”
The consequences of this presumption are profound. Courts are reluctant to second-guess the administration’s motivations, unlikely to probe into the government’s internal processes and often dismissive of claims of improper bias.
-snip-
Please read and share.
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This is just now being figured out?
