Dem
47
GOP
53
Need another hint for this week's headline theme? We'll tell you that those readers who solve the puzzle will do it with ease (as it were).
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I read your items this week on Qatar's gift offer of a $400 million airplane to Donald Trump. I agree this is an attempt to influence Donald Trump, and it's an unconstitutional form of corruption. However, you haven't addressed an equally crucial part of this issue: public opinion on Trump's impropriety.
It's not a secret that Trump was convicted of criminal financial fraud charges in New York last summer, but the American public elected him anyway. I've argued before on this website that Trump's elections normalized his behavior. I think I was right. There seems to be a huge swath of the American public across all 50 states that does not care about his corruption. Maybe they don't want to be distracted from watching this week's mixed martial arts event or episode of The Real Housewives of New York City.
What does the polling say about Trump's corruption? Do you think a democracy can survive if the public does not care if its leaders are corrupt?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, allow us to point out two things that we think are very relevant. The first is that the U.S. electoral system offers voters exactly two viable choices for president. And so, it is possible that a person could be bothered by the corruption, and yet decide that other issues are ultimately more important in how they cast their vote.
The second is that the corrupt acts that made Trump into a felon are somewhat "inside baseball" and not so easy to understand. In fact, it is easy to spin them away as, in effect, bookkeeping errors. On the other hand, taking a free plane, largely for personal use, from a foreign government, is rather easier to understand and rather harder to explain away. So, we would caution against drawing an equivalence between these corrupt acts, and how voters view these corrupt acts.
As to the polling, there isn't much of it on this particular subject, but the polling that does exist suggests that somewhere between 60% and 70% of voters are broadly concerned about Trump being corrupt, or behaving in a corrupt manner. For example, in a Marquette poll from October of last year, 61% of respondents said that Donald Trump behaved corruptly while in office the first time. And in a YouGov poll from March of this year, 46% of respondents described Trump as "a lot" corrupt, and an additional 18% described him as "a little" corrupt, for a total of 64%.
The polls also reveal something else about corruption. While voters believe that Trump is particularly corrupt, they also tend to believe the whole system is rife with corruption. And if you believe that both presidential candidates are, on some level, corrupt, then your vote might not be influenced too much by which one is MORE corrupt. In other words, you could very reasonably say that the problem is not that voters are willing to tolerate corruption, it's that many of them felt they did not have a viable non-corrupt option to choose from.
All of this said, if Trump's corruption gets worse and more obvious, and at the same time he fails to deliver substantially on the issues (especially the kitchen-table issues) he promised to deliver on, we suspect that his party will be punished for it in 2026 and 2028.
J.J.P. in Rochester Hills, MI, asks: I saw a few items from Electoral-Vote.com noting how Qatar is in bed with Iran, and I felt pretty confused by that. What led you to make such a statement? I thought Qatar was one of the closest U.S. allies in that area, with two U.S. military bases located in the nation. I also thought Qatar prides itself on being a neutral party in the Iran/Saudi (and Israel/Iran) conflict, and often facilitated talks between parties (I thought they helped with many talks with Hamas?). I also thought the neutral image was why they set up Al-Jazeera. So given all this, shouldn't they be viewed more like the Saudis rather than Iran? This feels like an ally trying to curry further support, rather than an adversary looking to spy (although I'm sure allies like to spy, too).
(V) & (Z) answer: We have a letter that we were going to run tomorrow, but that we'll just include here, because it's directly relevant. So, here is reader A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK:
As a former resident of the [Persian/Arabian] Gulf region, I think your recent comments that "Qatar is in bed with Iran" and that "the Iranians could call up their clients, the Qataris" risk misrepresenting the relationship between Qatar and Iran.
Yes, the two countries have a less confrontational relationship than is typical between an Arabian Peninsula state and Iran, but this is not based on the two countries being 'in bed' with each other, or a client-state relationship. Instead it's largely based on a perceived need to cooperate on the extraction of natural gas from the world's largest natural gas field, which straddles the maritime boundary between the two countries. Qatar has sometimes refrained from criticizing Iranian actions alongside its Arab neighbors, and when Qatar fell out with those Arab neighbors in 2017 Iran offered both diplomatic and logistical support to Qatar, leading to the two countries exchanging ambassadors that same year. But at the end of the day, Qatar is an Arab Wahhabi Sunni state while Iran is predominantly Persian Shia state, and they often have competing goals when it comes to projecting power within the broader region—for example, in Syria. They occasionally cooperate tactically, so as not to undermine their shared interest in natural gas extraction, and it can suit both parties to engage in a bit of diplomatic dancing when Qatar is going through one of its occasional phases of using its fossil-fuel wealth to distance itself from the Saudis. But again, this is a long, long way from suggesting that the two countries are allies, or that one country is a client of the other. Instead, it's part of a much more delicate ongoing attempt by both countries to build local counterweights to different regional centers of power on a case by case basis.
If nothing else, Qatar is home to the important Al Udeid Air Base, which hosts both the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force, alongside a forward headquarters of United States Central Command. Qatar is not going to risk damaging that relationship, or undermine its own security reliance on the (discreet) presence of Western armed forces in the country, by cozying up too much with the Iranians.
The proposed transfer of a Qatari 747 "palace in the air" to Donald Trump is corrupt and highly concerning on any number of levels, but I very much doubt it's being driven by the Qatar-Iran relationship, such as it is.Thanks, A.B.!
Sometimes, when writing on a deadline, things get a little sloppy. So, we'll add two comments here, clarifying what we meant to communicate. The first is that there are many diplomatic triangles, where [COUNTRY A] gets along with [COUNTRY B] and [COUNTRY B] gets along with [COUNTRY C], but [COUNTRY C] does not get along with [COUNTRY A]. We probably shouldn't have used the word "client," but we can certainly envision a scenario (unlikely, yes, but not impossible) where Iran asks Qatar to down Air Force One through a remote kill switch, and Qatar complies, since they do need to cultivate a working relationship with Iran, and since it would be difficult or impossible to prove the Qataris' culpability.
Second, and most important, primarily for the reasons that A.B. points out, many pro-Israel right-wingers (such as Laura Loomer) perceive the Qataris as being in bed with the Iranians. And they are reacting to this proposed deal accordingly, even if the truth of the matter is much more complicated.
D.G.H. in Barnegat, NJ, asks: You have written before how the Republicans missed their self-imposed deadlines for President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. Besides the final day of this Congress, are there any hard deadlines that must be met?
(V) & (Z) answer: The short answer is "no."
In March, Congress passed HD 1968, a continuing resolution that largely retains the final Joe Biden budget for another fiscal year, albeit with a handful of right-wing changes.
Ostensibly, the Congress will need to have a budget in place when FY 2025-26 commences on October 1 of this year. However, they virtually ever get it done on time. And if they don't get it done on time this year, then they will pass yet another continuing resolution, giving themselves more weeks (or more months) to figure it out.
To the extent that there IS a deadline, it's that the debt ceiling is going to be reached sometime in June or July, or maybe August at the outside. That is a problem that could be dealt with by passing a budget, but it's much more likely it will be dealt with by passing a standalone bill that just raises the ceiling yet again.
M.W. in Huntington, NY, asks: In "In Congress: At Long Last, Are Republicans Finding Their Spines?," you noted how some Republican congresspeople are starting to occasionally push back on some of Trump's actions.
One of them is the decision of who will replace the terminated Librarians of Congress. I'm genuinely not following. Republicans are willing to go along with all of the other insanity (I was going to list all of the looney-tunes Cabinet nominations, the gutting of departments, the abductions of people, etc., but it wouldn't leave room for any other questions), but appointments to the Library of Congress is where they draw the line?? Seriously? That's where they're going to use their political capital?
In trying to understand, I read the Politico article that you linked to. In part, it noted that the Library of Congress "is where lawmakers get their research, enjoy elegant dinners, host meetings and escort visitors into the ornate Reading Room. That's not to mention its name. 'It's the Library of Congress, after all, not the library of the president,' said Sen. Alex Padilla of California, the top Rules Committee Democrat."
That's it? If it has "Congress" in its title, that's when they realize they have skin in the game? Are they that vain? What in the world is going on? Seriously, can you help me understand what's so special about the Library of Congress? I can't imagine that their constituents care. I can even see their constituents turning on them for pushing back against dear leader.(V) & (Z) answer: Do not interpret our answer as a justification, it's merely an explanation. When Trump, the head of the executive branch, abuses executive branch powers and agencies, he's still operating on HIS turf. However, when he screws around with the Library of Congress, he is now on THEIR turf. Members of Congress have always been sensitive about crossing that particular line in the sand.
Now, it would be nice for them to take notice that imposing tariffs is also THEIR turf.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: If my paternal grandparents were both born in the U.S., but my maternal grandparents came from: (1) Canada and (2) Denmark, where would I be deported to?
Treat this as snark if you wish, but when my strong liberal bias is ferreted out, I expect to be deported somewhere.
My preference is neither El Salvador nor Libya.(V) & (Z) answer: We are going to start our answer with... Joseph McCarthy. As long as he was going after labor leaders, artists, writers, college professors, civil rights leaders, etc., Republicans did not say "boo" because those demographics all skew very liberal. Once he started going after members of the U.S. armed forces, however, the right-wingers turned against him.
We think that as long as long as the Trump administration is targeting people who are brown and/or Muslim, Republicans will be content to look the other way, just as the Republicans of the 1950s were content to tolerate McCarthy. However, if the Trump administration starts targeting white people, especially if those white people are jus sanguinis citizens (i.e., they are the children of citizens), that will be a bridge too far for many Republican politicians and voters.
It is true that Donald Trump knows very little history, and so might not take heed of Joseph McCarthy's cautionary tale. However, Trump did learn the art of dirty politics from Roy Cohn, who was McCarthy's right-hand man. So, Cohn might have mentioned something about not biting off more than you can chew. Further, the guy who's really running the anti-immigrant crusade is Stephen Miller, and we suspect he is clever enough to know that you have to pick your targets wisely.
In short, if a person is brown-skinned/Muslim, and is a jus soli citizen or a green card/visa holder, they have very good reason to be nervous right now. White people, not so much, we think. That said, just to take this to its conclusion, for thought-exercise purposes, if the Trump administration DID get too big for its britches, and if it DID repeat the mistakes of McCarthy, we think they would send white deportees to a predominantly caucasian nation. It would need to be a nation willing to accept the people without pushback or questions, presumably in exchange for money or other considerations. To us, the obvious candidate is... Hungary, run by Trump lackey/clone Viktor Orbán.
E.S. in Maine, NY, asks: I remember that Ronald Reagan had his recession early in his first term (back then, recessions seemed to happen more often). And thus, it was "Morning in America" by 1984, because the recession he partly caused was getting better.
But can you ask the staff economist to do some crystal ball gazing and see if they think the same could happen this presidential cycle?(V) & (Z) answer: The economy is a strange beast, and the future is hard to predict. Many people have literally gone broke trying to do it, and failing.
That said, we think there are two differences today, as opposed to back then. The first is that the economy was in the middle of a years-long, generally bad run. So, a recession manifest early on, and there was time to recover before the presidential election. On January 20, 2025, by contrast, the economy was generally strong, and had been for several years. There might not be time for Donald Trump (and his tariffs) to truly wreck the economy and THEN for the U.S. to climb out of the hole.
The second is that, in sizable part due to changes in the media, presidents (and, by extension, their parties) have less margin for error, and voters tend to be less forgiving once they've decided a president is not up to the job. Lyndon B. Johnson, to take one example, bounced around from an approval as low as 35% and as high as 79%, and it was not entirely linear. He was sometimes in the 60s one month, down into the 40s a few months later, and then back into the high 50s a few months after that. Today, presidents appear to have a ceiling in the low 50s (or mid-40s, for Trump), and once that starts to erode, they struggle to regain the lost ground. So, if the economy is very bad in 2026/2027, that could very well create a wave of "throw the bums out" sentiment that will not subside, even if the economy actually bounces back in 2028.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, asks: I've been reflecting on a couple of posts this week and was wondering about the Republican 2028 options.
First, you've said that there isn't anyone out there who the MAGA base would trust as an authentic Trump-like successor. No one can be wild enough and believable enough as a wild man to scratch their itch.
Second, the Democratic Party will likely end up with the safest white boy.
These things being the case, do you think there could be a "contrition" lane in the Republican primaries in 2028? I'm imagining messaging like "Trump was right that the country needed a new direction, but he broke too many things in the process. I'm the candidate who can clean up the messes and get our new smaller government working better for Americans. I will fix the things that make sense without reviving the bloat and excess entitlements of the past." Could the MAGA movement have spent enough of its energy that the Republicans end up with their own safer white boy?(V) & (Z) answer: For the foreseeable future, there is going to be at least one Republican candidate running in the same lane that Nikki Haley did, wherein they claim to be the person to lead the party into the post-Trump era.
However, we doubt that lane can reasonably be described as a "contrition lane," at least not in 2028. The Republican Party is now, to a large extent, the MAGA Party. There just aren't enough sane Republicans left in the Party to win elections. And telling those MAGA voters they blew it is not a path to the promised land. So, we would expect softer messaging than you propose, from whomever the Haley candidate is in 2028 (very possibly Haley herself). Something along the lines of "Let's make MAGA work for the 2030s!" That implies a shift in approach, but without tacitly criticizing Trump and/or the MAGA voters.
There will also undoubtedly be full-on MAGA candidates in 2028 who claim that everything went great 100% of the time, and the only thing that's needed is more of the same. J.D. Vance leaps to mind.
F.F. in London, England, UK, asks: This is a super-interesting interview of Steve Bannon with the Financial Times. Among some of the usual right-wing things, he says he'd raise taxes on the rich to 40% above $1 million in income. Are you aware of other Republicans saying they'd like to tax the rich? Assuming this is his agenda, what do you think his motivation is?
(V) & (Z) answer: Steve Bannon is not really a Republican. He's a right-wing populist who votes Republican because that's the major political party that most closely aligns with his worldview.
Bannon is persuaded that the American system is badly broken, and that one of the reasons is that the people who have power (such as the wealthy) have co-opted virtually everything for their own benefit. So, smacking the rich upside the head with stiffer taxes is entirely on-brand for Bannon, even if he is only well-known because he rode the coattails of a billionaire.
There are other Republicans talking about taxing the rich, including Trump himself. However, the ones who are saying it openly are doing so because taxing the very rich may be the only way to make the numbers work in Trump's "big, beautiful bill." If there are Republican officeholders who think, as Bannon does, that it's really time to tear the whole system down, they are not saying so openly.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Is it just me, or have the tone of both CNN.com and the television station change markedly in Donald Trump's favor recently?
I keep seeing a ton of stories about all of his huge wins, and far less criticism than there used to be. The whole thing about suspending habeas corpus got one day of weak, anemic coverage and now we're talking about huge wins with China and in the Middle East.
They know there's nothing to the China deal and they would be going apesh** if anyone else were palling around with terrorists and despots.
In my view, they are deluded if they think any Republican is going to watch them ever again, and suddenly lurching to the right is a great way to piss off your dozen viewers.(V) & (Z) answer: You're probably right. CNN's problem is that while there was a time that they were the king of the cable news hill, they now have a very strong rival for right-wing viewers (Fox, obviously), and a pretty strong rival for left-wing viewers (MSNBC, obviously).
It does not help that CNN made massive investments in infrastructure and talent when they were king, and that those investments are often still costing them lots of money to maintain (for example, Anderson Cooper joined the station around the time Fox started to rise, and now draws a salary of $20 million a year). It also does not help that cable TV, as a whole, is in decline, with millions of people cutting the cord every year.
So, facing a potential Red Sea of red ink, and with a somewhat less clear identity and user base than the other two major cable news (or "news") stations, CNN has lurched around a bit in the last several years, particularly as different CEOs have come in and tried to implement their vision for the kind of network CNN needs to be. The current CEO is Sir Mark Thompson, whose previous gig was running The New York Times. The Times does some good work, but it is also worldwide headquarters for bothsidesism. So, it's not too surprising that we're seeing a lot of bothsidesism from CNN these days, and that the network's biggest star, besides Cooper, might well be right-wing gasbag Scott Jennings.
J.F. in Fort Worth, TX, asks: Could you tell me what this shelf of books is behind Trump? Whatever they are, each president apparently gets two:
And if Trump has two after the Barack Obama volumes, I'm surprised they aren't positioned so that they're not behind a flag.(V) & (Z) answer: Those are volumes in a series called Public Papers of the Presidents (you can see details here). Franklin D. Roosevelt, before he died, made arrangements to publish his speeches, proclamations, etc. in book form, and the folks who run the Government Printing Office (GPO) thought that was a swell idea, so they stole it. There was no need for them to publish FDR's papers, since that was already done, but in 1957, they published the public papers of Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman, and they continued to do so for the next 11 presidents.
In general, one volume covers about 6 months of a president's term. So, for example, there are 16 volumes for the Obama presidency, and five for the Ford presidency. Clearly, the books behind Trump are meant for decorative purposes, and were chosen/arranged to be "fair and balanced," because there is no president whose entries in the series were limited to two volumes.
And if there were Trump volumes, you're right, they surely would be displayed. However, there are no Public Papers of the Presidents for Trump, because the GPO refuses to publish documents written in Sharpie.
Ha! Just kidding. It's because libraries today are trying to go digital, as much as is possible, both to save space and to make resources more accessible. So, the series ended with Obama, and there are no volumes for Trump or Joe Biden.
J.F. (soon to no longer be) in Sloatsburg, NY, asks: What advice would you give to someone who is moving to a new state and looking to get involved in state or local politics as fast as possible, at any level (not necessarily running for office)?
(V) & (Z) answer: At risk of being obvious, go to Google and search [YOUR NEW CITY/TOWN] and [YOUR CHOSEN PARTY]. For example, if you search for Peoria Democrats, in the event that you're moving to Peoria, IL, you get peoriademocrats.org. And right there, on the front page, is a button to click if you want to volunteer.
Of course, some people live in very small towns like Sloatsburg. And those very small towns may be, de facto, one-party towns. So, for example, if you search for Sloatsburg Republicans, you end up with a Facebook page for the Rockland County Republican Party. And that puts us in a position to explain our second piece of advice. Depending on the place you're moving to, and the party you are interested in, there might be a city-level organ, there will almost certainly be a county-level organ, and there will definitely be a state-level organ. You can move up and down the ladder, and decide at which level you think the organ is actually a serious and meaningful entity. For example, the Democratic Party of Los Angeles is a serious player, while the Democratic Party of Jackson Hole, WY, might well be one guy with a post office box.
Alternatively, there are plenty of political activist groups that have a state, regional, or national footprint, and are always looking for people to get involved. That includes the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Limited Government, MoveOn, etc.
J.I. in San Francisco, CA, asks: Regarding the maximum age of senators and representatives (as well as judges, justices and (vice) presidents), it would, of course, require a constitutional amendment to set such a limit. However, most of these officeholders get various perks such as salary, retirement plans, cafeteria and gym access, office space, and so on. Could it be feasible to simply set an age limit after which all of those would cease to be provided, or would be severely limited? It wouldn't stop someone determined to stay on the job, but presumably it would make it more likely they might decide it was time to go.
(V) & (Z) answer: Any policy or law that says that you lose your pension/gym membership/health insurance/whatever when you turn 75 or 80 or 85 would trigger age discrimination lawsuits. We think those lawsuits would be successful.
When businesses, or universities for that matter, want to push people out the door, they don't threaten to take benefits away, because they wouldn't get away with it. However, they DO often offer an inducement, usually in the form of a buyout. So, it might work to offer a lump-sum payment of, say, $250,000, available only to people who retire after the age of 55, but before the age of 70.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, asks: There have been 17 chief justices of the Supreme Court. How would you rank them, from best to worst?
(V) & (Z) answer: Most of them are in the mushy middle, and trying to distinguish between, say, #9 and #10 would be pretty meaningless. So, we're just going to do a top three and a bottom three (which we've also done before, but it's useful to revisit these things sometimes).
Top Three (with the very best at #1)
- Warren Burger: He wasn't quite the judicial force that his predecessor (Earl Warren; keep reading) was, but he nonetheless rode the momentum of the Warren years to a pretty successful tenure in the big seat. In particular, he showed great integrity in ruling against the president who had named him to chief justiceship in United States v. Nixon, which served to make Richard Nixon's position untenable, and would lead to Nixon's resignation just over 2 weeks later.
- Earl Warren: To some extent, a list like this is going to be based on how much we agree or disagree with the decisions made by that Chief Justice's court. However, we don't feel we're taking all that partisan a stance in saying that, for example, striking down segregation was a good call. And not only did Warren oversee some of the most important and positive decisions in Supreme Court history, he used his skills as a politician to create consensus. For example, he managed to get all eight of his colleagues to sign onto the majority decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Can you imagine a decision that fraught, and that controversial, being 9-0 today? It's actually a pretty good argument for choosing politicians to lead the Supreme Court (Warren, previously the governor of California, never served as a judge at any level before assuming the chief justiceship).
- John Marshall: George Washington took a broad outline of what the executive branch was supposed to look like, and turned that into a living, breathing, functional part of the government. Marshall effectively did the same thing with the judicial branch, most obviously by clearly establishing the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. And it did not stop there; the Marshall Court issued more important decisions than all the other Supreme Courts of the 19th century combined.
Bottom Three (with the very worst at #1)
- Melville Fuller: Being a judge, we would say, is a results-based business, and on that basis, Fuller was a failure. He oversaw a bunch of decisions that may have been well-received in his day, but that did not survive long-term. Many of these were pro-business rulings, but the ruling that has permanently ruined Fuller's reputation is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The only dissenting justice in that case, John Marshall Harlan, warned his colleagues that history would judge them harshly for their obviously racist decision. Harlan was right about that, to say the least.
- John Roberts: This story is still being written, and there is still time for him to move up or down the list (but up, into the #1 slot, is more likely). He's overseen a disastrous era for the Court, not only featuring some very dubious and damaging decisions, but also trampling on longstanding elements of Supreme Court function, most obviously stare decisis. And, like an anti-Warren, he does not apparently have the skills needed to create a consensus on... much of anything of consequence.
It is true that Roberts got the job in a highly partisan era. And it's also true that he can't be held entirely responsible for the fact that some of the most partisan justices in American history sit with him. However, like a version of Chuck Schumer in robes, Roberts' favorite tactic for confronting problems with the Court is to deliver a strongly-worded speech to a bunch of insiders. His handling of the leak in Dobbs was flaccid, to say the least, and his notion that the decision on presidential immunity was Solomonic wisdom for the ages is laughable.
- Roger Taney: He's still holding on to the top (bottom?) spot, at least for now, thanks to his highly partisan leadership of a highly partisan court, culminating most obviously in the Dred Scott decision, which is a case study in how not to craft a decision.
Note that we wrote this answer entirely off the top of our heads, and THEN went back and found the previous occasion in which we did this exercise, which turns out to have been in May 2022. If you would like to read our previous answer, it's here. It's similar, but not identical.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: What would you say were the key actions, events, or other signals that indicated which way the winds were blowing in 1936, such that it was time for Jews or others to leave Poland?
I am wondering what signals to be looking for now. There are lots of present signals to choose from.(V) & (Z) answer: We'll give you an answer, but we don't think that it will be helpful.
Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, having built a movement and a brand based around vicious antisemitism and other forms of bigotry. A couple of months later, on March 23, 1933, he was given near-unlimited power over the legislature via the Enabling Act. And on August 2, 1934, he assumed near-dictatorial power when President Paul von Hindenburg died.
All of those developments were very bad signs for Jews... in Germany. However, you asked about Poland. It would have been difficult for Jews or anyone else in Poland to conclude in 1936 that the time had come to decamp for somewhere else. The bad signs for Polish Jews (and others) were when Germany and Russia signed a non-aggression pact on August 23, 1939, and then when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. By then, however, it was too late for most Polish Jews (and other Poles) to flee.
In terms of Trump, the time to get very nervous, if you are brown/Muslim, and in particular if you're not a child of citizen-parents, is now. If you are white, and in particular if you ARE a child of citizen parents, then the time to get nervous is when and if Trump says he will not abide by decisions of the Supreme Court.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: You mentioned the four times in U.S. history that habeas corpus was officially suspended.
Were the Japanese-Americans who were incarcerated granted habeas corpus?
Was it suspended in practice, without an official declaration by Congress?(V) & (Z) answer: This is a little weedy, and different people might explain it in different ways.
That said, the four instances in which habeas corpus was suspended, it was suspended for everyone in a particular area. That meant that people either could not get a hearing at all, or they could only get a hearing before a military tribunal.
The Japanese Americans who were interned were in the mainland U.S., and so were not subject to the suspension of habeas corpus in Hawaii. As to "suspended in practice," that characterization is probably more misleading than it is illuminating. Consider the most famous internment case, Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which Fred Korematsu made several arguments, one of them being that his habeas corpus rights were not observed, because he was not formally charged with a crime. But he DID get before a court, and did get to make an argument, unlike people living in a place where habeas corpus was suspended. In its majority ruling, the Supreme Court ignored the habeas corpus part of the case, and said that being charged/convicted of a crime was not a requirement in this circumstance, due to military necessity.
The Court's conclusion, in that case, was so off-base that it was eventually vacated (in 1988) by a very, very rare legal maneuver (a writ of coram nobis). That means that, as things now stand, Korematsu's habeas corpus rights, while they were partly observed, were not properly observed. However, it probably goes too far to say that there was a de facto suspension for all internees, or that the authorities of that era tacitly understood that they were imposing a de facto suspension.
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: Hardcore conservatives often described Franklin D. Roosevelt as a borderline dictator, in part (among other things) for breaking the two-term norm. You have also written that he could, in fact, be a bit of a jerk.
Imagine that FDR does not die in April 1945, his health is reasonably robust, and the U.S. is in the clear. World War II is won, the depression is over, and the future looks good. Would he have run for a fifth term? Or would he have stepped aside?(V) & (Z) answer: You know, thinking about FDR is actually kind of useful in understanding the budget fiasco that Republicans currently find themselves in. They are shooting for radical change, the sort that requires a mandate, but they clearly do not have a mandate. If they did, they would have a margin of error of 30 or 40 or 50 votes, not 3 votes. What allowed FDR to do the things he did, besides the fact that he ruled over two different existential crises for the nation, was that he DID have a mandate. He was personally very popular and had the trust of a sizable majority of voters, and his political party had an iron grip on Congress (especially early in his term).
The counterfactual you propose really couldn't have come to pass, because Roosevelt's health was an X-factor in every election after he suffered that paralysis, including his run for governor. That said, if Roosevelt had been alive and able to serve a fifth term, we don't think he would have run, and if he did, we don't think he would have won. His tenure was absolutely brutal, and he would most certainly have earned a well-deserved retirement by 1948. And if he tried to stay on, well, that would likely have been a bit too much for the electorate, even with Roosevelt's personal popularity. The third anf fourth terms were justified by World War II, but a fifth would have looked like a naked power grab, and just would not have sit well with a lot of voters. Certainly, Thomas E. Dewey, or whoever it was that ran for the Republicans in 1948, would have made that THE issue of the election: "Vote for me, or vote for Dictator-for-Life Roosevelt!"
F.L. in Allen, TX, asks: Donald Trump has the lowest approval ratings since Harry Truman. My question is: Why was Truman so unpopular?
(V) & (Z) answer: There were a lot of things: economic upheaval, the integration of the armed forces, the Korean War, the firing of Douglas MacArthur, and weariness after two decades of Democratic rule among them. And the problem for Truman was that he was pissing off different constituencies. If a president today is anti-choice, and anti-trans, and deports people without due process, all of those things largely anger the same set of voters. But, for example, the Korean War angered liberals, while integrating the armed forces and firing MacArthur angered conservatives. So, Truman was feeling the pain on both ends.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote: "The (somewhat lefty) standards for California state history, taught to 4th graders, is something like 9 pages long, and contains some subjects that (Z) wouldn't even try in a college class, much less a 4th grade class."
My kid is in 4th grade, and so now you've got me curious about what's in the 4th grade standards that you wouldn't even try covering in college. Would you mind elaborating?(V) & (Z) answer: The operative phrase we'll use here, for lack of a better term, is cost-benefit analysis. A teacher wants the material to be engaging and understandable, and some material is not very engaging and not very understandable. There's also the question of time—some topics, particularly those that aren't especially engaging or understandable, will take a LOT of time to cover. And since time is not unlimited, then any choice to cover [X] means that [Y] has to go.
So, for any lesson, you have to decide if the time, effort, and pain inflicted on the students is worth the benefit they'll get on the other side. Consider a few of the actual California state history standards as examples:
Standard: "Explain and use the coordinate grid system of latitude and longitude to determine the absolute locations of places in California and on Earth."
Comment: This is doable, and probably wouldn't take very much time to teach, but... to what end? How many people EVER use this particular skill, unless they are in a profession where it would be taught to them as part of their training?
Standard: "Describe the development and locations of new industries since the nineteenth century, such as the aerospace industry, electronics industry, large-scale commercial agriculture and irrigation projects, the oil and automobile industries, communications and defense industries, and important trade links with the Pacific Basin."
Comment: Like a lot of teaching standards, both within California and without, and within history and without, this is an "everything but the kitchen sink" guideline. If you were teaching an entire class about the economic development of California, and you could give a week or two to aerospace and its development and how the industry did (or did not) differ between north/south or rural/urban, and then a week or two to oil and automotive, and then a week or two to communications, and so forth, then maybe, but you'd have to work double-time to keep it fresh and engaging. And, of course, this is not the subject for the whole class, it's one guideline out of twenty or thirty guidelines. In theory, that means you have an hour or two for this subject. Is it really plausible to do a meaningful presentation on so many different industries, in so many different time periods, accounting for different parts of California, in an hour or two? Answer: Trust us, it's not.
Standard: "Understand the purpose of the California Constitution, its key principles, and its relationship to the U.S. Constitution."
Comment: Does this seem like a fourth-grade topic? Or even a college undergraduate topic? It would be a very, very dry presentation, and would largely involve fairly subtle points that would be hard to communicate and that are mostly of interest to... lawyers. In other words, seems like a law school subject to us.
To take a specific example, (Z) has a piece of a lecture about Native American casinos in California, and gives a very simple explanation of how reservations are semi-autonomous nations, and so can make (some) laws that vary with those of the local and state governments. Even something like that is a little tricky to communicate. If it was a whole day or week of that sort of thing, and talking about how California's view of, say, privacy is different from the one in the U.S. Constitution, then... yeesh.
A.A. in South Orange, NJ, asks: I often hear about baseball's antitrust exemption, including in your item about Pete Rose. Do other major American sports leagues enjoy any similar privileges? If not, then what is the justification for granting it only to baseball?
(V) & (Z) answer: Baseball's antitrust exemption, which applies only to commerce issues (for example, stopping a team from changing cities without league permission), and not to labor issues (for example, stopping players from negotiating with multiple teams), is unique. It is the product of a lawsuit filed over 100 years ago, Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922), in which the owner of a team in a competing league (the Federal League) saw his team and league collapse, and sued Major League Baseball for anticompetitive actions under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Supreme Court found that baseball is NOT an interstate business, and so the Sherman Act doesn't apply. A new case could theoretically come along that leads to the earlier ruling being modified or overturned, but none has.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: This is of indescribable importance. The future of civilization depends on a question.
Is the new Pope a Cubs fan or a White Sox fan?
This is surely one for the staff detective unit.(V) & (Z) answer: Shortly after Leo XIV was named as the new pope, photos of him in a Cubs jersey circulated on social media, and led many outlets to report that he is a Cubs fan. That really should not have passed the smell test with anyone who knows Chicago baseball, since the pope is from the South Side, which is Chicago White Sox territory. And indeed, he's actually a White Sox fan. There's even video of him attending the World Series when the White Sox won in 2005.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: In Marvel's Captain America: Brave New World, James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes, a.k.a. the Winter Soldier, announced he was going to run for Congress. In the MCU's latest film, The Thunderbolts*, it is revealed that Barnes was elected to the House to represent his home district in Brooklyn. Do you think a 108-year-old man (cryogenic stasis, for those who don't know) from a modest background, who was best friends with Captain America and fought beside him against the Nazis in World War II but was later captured by the Russians, was augmented and brainwashed to become a feared super-powered assassin (the Winter Soldier), was later operated by Hydra (a secret villainous organization bent on world domination) to assassinate a lengthy list of victims, who has a vibranium artificial arm gifted to him by a wealthy but secretive African nation, but who after being de-brainwashed, fought alongside the Avengers to save the world, be elected to Congress in our universe? And is Bucky Barnes a Democrat or a Republican? Inquiring minds have to know.
(V) & (Z) answer: New York City has already elected a congressman who fought the Nazis, worked as an assassin, was re-armed by Africans, and helped save the world. His name is "George Santos."
In all seriousness, however, we clearly live in a political world where a person's compelling biography can overcome a lack of relevant experience or qualifications. After all, Ronny Jackson, Tommy Tuberville and Marge Greene are all members of Congress right now. And this is not unique to our era, necessarily—Americans of past eras elected P.T Barnum, Fred Brown, Bob Dornan, Ben Jones and Fred Grandy, among others. Anyhow, Barnes could certainly be elected, we think.
As to his political leaning, Barnes was born in Indiana to parents who named him after an overtly racist president that tried hard to preserve slavery. He's also a military veteran. That all suggests Republican to us. At the same time, most of these golden-age comic book characters, especially the ones created by Jack Kirby (which includes Winter Soldier), were meant to be Jewish, at least allegorically. Living in Brooklyn also suggests the possibility that he's Jewish.
Taken together, we conclude that Barnes is a Jewish Republican elected by the people of NY-11. Of the five House districts that include at least part of Brooklyn, that is the only one currently represented by a Republican (Nicole Malliotakis). It is home to a sizable, but conservative-leaning, population of Jewish voters, and also a fair number of ex-military types.
J.L. in Richmond, VA, asks: I just finished watching The Residence on Netflix (a very well-done and witty whodunit) and was impressed by the sets designed to look like rooms of the White House. I'm not an expert, so maybe they're way off, but it did get me thinking that there are a lot of movies and TV shows where the Oval Office is one of the main settings. (Z), living in Los Angeles, are you aware if there's one White House/Oval Office set that the different studios all share, or does each studio dedicate one sound stage to these areas since they're so popular? It's hard for me to believe they'd constantly be building and tearing down these sets since they're so in demand. Where are they filming all of these things?
(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) is unaware of anything like this, and is skeptical that such a thing would exist.
The first problem is that the studios are, in the end, competing businesses, and generally are not in the habit of cooperating. That's not universally true, but it's generally true.
The second problem is that studio space, at least in L.A., is at a premium. So, the pros who handle set design are very good at building modular sets that can be put together and taken apart fairly easily. It would be very unusual, except in the case of an ongoing TV show, for the same set to remain intact for weeks or months at a time.
A third problem is that the Oval Office needed for production #1 probably wouldn't be right for production #2. For example, if there is a production doing a Richard Nixon movie, that Oval Office would be different from the one needed for a World War II movie. Similarly, a naturalistic drama would use a different Oval Office set from a sitcom, including being able to accommodate very different camera setups.
If a production DID need an Oval Office set, and did not want to create one from scratch, they might try to find an Oval Office set that is in storage at one of the studios (or one of the scenery houses). They might also try to find some filming location that could fill in for the Oval Office. For example, there are movies that have shot "Oval Office" scenes at the L.A. mayor's office. There are also movies that have shot in the Oval Office re-creation found at the Nixon Library in Whittier.
R.B. in Santa Monica, CA, asks: (Z) noted that he saw Kid Rock in concert, but as the opening act, and that the real purpose in attending the concert was to see the headliners. Who was headlining?
(V) & (Z) answer: Metallica, on July 15, 2000, at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum. It took four hours to get out of the parking structure.
J.W. in Newton, MA, asks: Given the immensity of the task, I am glad that you've added a third contributor, (L). How did (L) join the team, and what will she focus on?
(V) & (Z) answer: (L), who is a lawyer, and is named Alison Regan, writes about legal matters, particularly the Supreme Court. She is a longtime reader and writer of letters to the mailbag, and she lives in Los Angeles, so she, and (Z), and some other L.A.-based folks have had lunch together several times. That, in turn, led to her offering, and (V) and (Z) accepting a plan to contribute to the site.
We introduced (L) on the occasion of her first contribution, and also included a brief note about her here.
P.D. in Smithfield, RI, asks: I know it's a "first world" problem, but your Saturday Q&A is your best posting of the week. It's also the posting that seems to get canceled most frequently due to assorted reasons.
My suggestion is that on weekends when you can't do a Saturday post and provide excellent answers to questions, do away with the reader letters on Sunday and do a full Q&A instead.(V) & (Z) answer: There are two issues here. The first is that the Saturday post takes twice as long as the Sunday post to put together, and so if we are short on time, or we need a breather, killing the Saturday post is more helpful in that regard. The second is that the Saturday material is, on the whole, less time-sensitive. The Sunday letters, by contrast, generally reach their expiry if we don't run them in the week they were submitted.