It seems like a long time ago. On January 11, Donald Trump’s lawyers revealed a plan to resolve the clash between his business interests and his presidential duties. Whether the result of impulse, intention, or incompetence, his subsequent chaos has accomplished one objective: He diverted attention from his plan’s assault on one of American democracy’s central pillars: a presidency free of institutionalized corruption.

This installment addresses his conflict of interest problems. They are related to — but distinct from — his constitutional Emoluments Clause violations addressed in Part 2 of this series. Part 1 described the unfortunate role that Sheri Dillon and her law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, played in shilling for Trump’s plan.

A Lawyerly Approach

Dillon, a tax lawyer, focused on a technical legal question: Does the federal conflict of interest statute applicable to all other federal employees apply to the president?

By its terms, the answer is no. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. And when it comes to preserving the integrity of the presidency in ways that protect it from corruption and impropriety, legal permissibility is just the beginning of the relevant inquiry. But not for Trump.

Trump’s attitude in making the deal that resulted in the Morgan Lewis Plan was that of a negotiator who held all the cards. Whatever he offered, his opposing parties — the office of the president and the country — could not refuse. He admitted it:

“[A]s you know, I have a no-conflict situation because I’m president….it’s a nice thing to have… I have something that others don’t have…”

Bigger Stakes

To counter Trump’s continuing conflation of the issues, Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, set him straight:

“Now, some have said that the President can’t have a conflict of interest, but that is quite obviously not true. I think the most charitable way to understand such statements is that they are referring to a particular conflict of interest law that doesn’t apply to the President…”

As Shaub explained, “Common sense dictates that a President can, of course, have very real conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is anything that creates an incentive to put your own interests before the interests of the people you serve.”

Who Represents America? 

Shaub then cited Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion in a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The chief justice observed that a conflict of interest is “an evil which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of corruption.”

Shaub outlined the implications for Morgan Lewis’s assignment:

“That same Court referred to what it called a ‘moral principle’ underlying concerns about conflicts of interest. The Court cited…’the Biblical admonition that no man may serve two masters, a maxim which is especially pertinent if one of the masters happens to be economic self-interest.’ A President is no more immune to the influence of two masters than any subordinate official. In fact, our common experience of human affairs suggests that the potential for corruption only grows with the increase of power.”

“For this reason,” Shaub emphasized, “it’s been the consistent policy of the executive branch that the president should act as though the financial conflict of interest law applied.”

The question isn’t mere technical compliance with a statute; it’s preserving a central norm that underlies the moral authority of the nation’s highest office.

What Would Scalia Say

Even Trump’s model U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, lands on Shaub’s side of the argument. In a 1974 memorandum, then-Justice Department attorney Scalia concluded that the text of a particular conflict of interest law didn’t apply to the president. Remarkably, Dillon cited that memorandum to support her position. She didn’t discuss Scalia’s final recommendation in that memo:

“Notwithstanding the conclusion that neither the Executive Order nor the regulations pursuant to it legally bind the President or Vice-President, it would be undesirable as a matter of policy for the President or Vice-President to engage in conduct proscribed by [them]…. Failure to observe these standards will furnish a simple basis for damaging criticism, whether or not they technically apply,”

Shaub emphasized Scalia’s point: Those at the top of government set the example for everyone else — at least they should.

“The sheer obviousness of Justice Scalia’s words,” Shaub continued, “becomes apparent if you just ask yourself one question: Should a President hold himself to a lower standard than his own appointees?”

Missing the Big Picture

The Morgan Lewis Plan ignores that big picture. In waiving the attorney-client privilege by divulging Trump’s directives for developing a plan, Dillon opened the door to several unanswered questions:

— What limits did put he on removing himself from his business?

— Did his attorneys recommend additional steps?

— Did Trump reject them?

Here’s a directive that Trump did not give:

“I want to preserve the integrity of the presidency. There can be no basis for any claim that anyone — foreign or domestic — is trying to curry favor through my family businesses. Even the appearance of a bribe, corruption, self dealing, or other impropriety is unacceptable. Tell me what is necessary, and I will do it. The presidency demands no less.”

That command would not have produced the plan that Dillon tried to sell Americans on January 11:

— Rather than divest Trump from his business, it allows him to reap its benefits while in office.

— Rather than establish an independent trustee to manage his business assets, it places control in the hands of his two adult sons and a current Trump executive.

— Rather than maintain even the pretense of a blind trust, it permits Trump to see periodic reports of how his business is doing.

The plan’s failures are equally evident from its illusory window dressing: a “trust” that is far from blind; a promise that the Trump Organization won’t do any new foreign deals; an “Ethics Advisor” to sign off on new domestic deals (backsliding from Trump’s December 12 tweet, “No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office”); an unenforceable assurance that Trump will learn about new deals “only through the media, as the American people would.” (The last promise is another violation of a blind trust principle, namely, that he should know nothing whatsoever about his personal financial affairs while in office.)

And then there is the ultimate window dressing in human form — Fred Fielding, who served as associate and deputy counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1970 to January 1, 1974. He was there for Watergate. He was there for the “Saturday Night Massacre” when Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy AG before finding someone willing fire independent counsel Archibald Cox, who had asked Nixon to produce his White House tapes.

“Mr. Fielding has been extensively involved with and approved this plan,” Dillon declared at the press conference.

Fielding didn’t say a word.

It’s hard to believe that it was only three weeks ago. I wonder what Fred Fielding thought on January 30, when Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates. In eroding the integrity and dignity of the presidency, Trump has already made Richard Nixon look like an amateur — and a saint.


On January 22, 2017, Kellyanne Conway confirmed what everyone should have known all along: Donald Trump is never going to release his tax returns. Lawyers who rose to defend Trump’s silly “under audit” excuse from a man seeking the nation’s highest office might want to think twice before embracing his plan to deal with his business conflicts of interest.

“Fool me once….”

The first installment in this series dealt with the unfortunate role of Sheri Dillon and her firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, in shilling for Trump. This and future posts detail some of the Morgan Lewis Plan’s deficiencies.

The clash between Donald Trump’s businesses and the integrity of the presidency creates three separate issues: violation of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause prohibiting federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign countries, conflicts of interest generally, and federal statutes relating to those conflicts.

Trump conflates and confuses these three issues with a single imprecise and inaccurate phrase: “The President can’t have conflicts.” Let’s keep the issues straight, starting with the emoluments clause.


In the final minutes of her speech, Dillon discussed Trump’s constitutional problem. Her framing of the issue adhered to an accompanying Morgan Lewis “White Paper” that was as masterful as it was disingenuous:

“Some commentators have claimed that the Constitution prevents the President-elect from owning interests in businesses that serve foreign customers. In particular, they object to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.”

In that nifty sleight-of-hand, Dillon elided past Trump’s even bigger foreign-state problems: loans from banks to the Trump Organization and its projects, tenants paying rent for office space in its buildings, investors, and unknown other foreign-state connections to his assets. Never mind Trump’s tax returns. Ascertaining the financial structure of Trump’s empire goes far beyond whatever they might show. Just ask any real estate developer.

Dissecting the Plan

The Morgan Lewis White Paper’s emoluments defense starts with this premise: “The scope of any constitutional provision is determined by the original public meaning of the Constitution’s text.”

Yes and no. The late Justice Antonin Scalia championed such “originalism.” The White Paper’s sole supporting citation for its premise is a book that Scalia co-authored. But as recently as 2005, even Justice Scalia acknowledged that originalism was a minority view:

“I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.”

More importantly, Justice Scalia noted that even for originalists, the text is only the beginning of constitutional interpretation, not the endpoint. In a 1988 lecture, he offered this example:

“What if some state should enact a new law providing public lashing, or branding of the right hand, as punishment for certain criminal offenses? Even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that these were not cruel and unusual measures in 1791, and even though no prior Supreme Court decision has specifically disapproved them, I doubt whether any federal judge — even among the many who consider themselves originalists — would sustain them against an eighth amendment challenge.”

Moving Beyond the Words

Justice Scalia understood that a slavish adherence to the Constitution’s language can produce “medicine that seems too strong to swallow.” (Scalia also had things to say about presidential conflicts of interest generally, but we’ll get to those next time.)

Morgan Lewis’s argument qualifies as originalist medicine “too strong to swallow.” Among the founding fathers’ foremost concerns was foreign influence over America’s political leaders. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote about the necessity of protecting elections from foreign interference. In Federalist No. 22, he wrote, “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

Discussing the emoluments clause in 1986, then-Assistant Attorney General Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote, “[T]he answer to [an] Emoluments clause question must depend [on] whether the [arrangement] would raise the kind of concern (viz., the potential for ‘corruption and foreign influence’) that motivated the Framers in enacting the constitutional prohibition.”

None of those principles made the cut in the Morgan Lewis presentation. But consistent with Sheri Dillon’s expertise as a tax lawyer, technical legal arguments did.

Words Not Found in the Constitution

“So long as foreign governments pay fair-market-value prices,” the Morgan Lewis White Paper continues, “their business is not a ‘present’ because they are receiving fair value as a part of the exchange.” It argues that any transaction at “fair-market-value” between Trump businesses and foreign states is not a violation of the emoluments clause.

That’s another nifty and unpersuasive sleight-of-hand. For good reason, the words “fair-market-value” are nowhere in the Constitution. The concept does not satisfy the Constitution’s core concern. Any foreign state patronizing a Trump-owned or licensed business knows that it confers a financial benefit on Trump. So does Trump.

As Sheri Dillon put it, “President Trump can’t unknow he owns Trump Tower….” And as her client told The New York Times on November 22: “The brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before.”

Self-Refuting Arguments

“The Constitution does not require President-elect Trump to do anything here,” Dillon asserted. Nevertheless, he’ll “donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotel to the United States Treasury.” The Morgan Lewis White Paper broadens his largesse to include “his hotels and similar businesses,” whatever that means.

In one sense, that concession is a tacit acknowledgement of his larger problem. How about other Trump enterprises? Foreign loans to his projects? Royalties and licensing fees? And how will the Trump Organization calculate profits from foreign governments’ individual stays at his hotels?

On January 18, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks’ response to some of those questions: Accounting and financial personnel “will perform the profit calculation and would track payments from foreign governments” which will be done “through its accounting systems.”

Pressed for clarification, Hicks answered, “Profit is calculated as revenues minus expenses = profit.”

Winners and Losers

The January 23 complaint against Trump details just some of his known business interests that collide with his presidential duties. It’s a safe bet that Trump’s attorneys will do everything they can to avoid testing the substantive arguments that Sheri Dillon and the Morgan Lewis White Paper presented on January 11.

Instead, they will try to prevent any court from reaching the merits of their originalist argument. They’ll probably focus on whether the plaintiff in this and other cases has suffered a sufficient injury to sue (“standing”). They might assert that only Congress can resolve the issue because it presents “political questions.” Perhaps they’ll urge that the only remedy for a presidential breach of the emoluments clause is impeachment.

One great danger is that if any of those preliminary defenses prevail, Trump will overstate his victory as proof that he was right all along: “The president can’t have conflicts.”

If a court gets to the merits of the claims, the Morgan Lewis legal arguments will get a severe test that they aren’t likely to pass. If Trump’s lawyers lose, their client still wins: Trump will have lawyers to blame.

However it turns out, the country is the loser. It already is.


Dear President-elect Trump,

Sometimes your lack of impulse control works for you. For example, on Friday night, you lashed out at the Broadway hit, Hamilton. With the stroke of a few tweets, you dominated the weekend news cycle. The fun ended Sunday morning, when Vice-President-elect Mike Pence told CBS’s John Dickerson that Hamilton was “a great show.”

Pence “wasn’t offended” by a 90-second post-performance comment on behalf of the cast and producers. Your tweets had demanded an apology from them, but it turned out that you now owe one — for misstating the facts and challenging First Amendment principles.

You achieved a larger objective. Your twitter tantrum diverted popular attention from: your thumbs-up group photo after meeting with business partners developing a Trump-branded luxury apartment complex in India; white nationalists convening in Washington to celebrate your election; and your selection of National Security Adviser-designate Mike Flynn, who called Islam a “cancer” and a “political ideology hiding behind religion.” He’s also a board member of ACT for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “far and away the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group in America.”

Master Distracter

Your Hamilton tweets also moved the spotlight away from your attorney general-designate. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan’s Republican Senate put Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court and made William Rehnquist chief justice. But even at the height of the Reagan revolution, Alabama’s then-U.S. attorney Sessions became only the second nominee in 48 years to be rejected for a federal judgeship. Now he’ll be your attorney general.

In a normal world, Sessions’ earlier defeat would doom your nominee. But you’re normalizing the abnormal. When Steve Bannon is the baseline for comparison, even Jeff Sessions looks good. He shouldn’t.

Sessions on the Merits

The junior senator from Alabama is one of its most conservative members. He opposes: any path to legalizing undocumented immigrants, gay marriage, abortion, and the legalization of marijuana. He voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. His portfolio is a distressing compilation of what you seem to mean by “Make America Great Again.”

Sessions is far out of step with most Americans. (Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory — 1.5 million ballots and growing — proves that you are, too.) But resigned to his confirmation, I propose a bipartisan assignment for him: restore the integrity of the FBI. It will require a public investigation into events culminating in your election.

Roll the Tape

In October, polls showed you losing so badly that you were likely to cost Republicans the Senate. Three months earlier, FBI Director James Comey had announced that no reasonable prosecutor would bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. But in an unprecedented press conference, he’d opined about her recklessness anyway. That kept your “Crooked Hillary” rally theme alive. Even so, as summer turned to fall, the email-gate story was losing its legs.

On October 25, your key surrogate, Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox & Friends. When a host asked whether you had anything other than “some more inspiring rallies” planned for the remaining 14 days of the campaign, Giuliani chuckled.

“Yes,” he grinned.

“What?” a co-host asked.

“You’ll see,” Giuliani answered in a full-throated laugh. “We’ve got a couple of surprises left. I call them surprises in the way we’re going to campaign, to get our message out there. Maybe in a little bit of a different way. You’ll see, and I think it’ll be enormously effective.”

Giuliani then discussed how “all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton, finally, are beginning to have an impact.”


On Oct. 26, Giuliani appeared with Fox reporter Martha MacCallum. As the interview ended, he interrupted her to volunteer, “And I think he’s [Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days.”

MacCallum tried to conclude the interview, but Giuliani kept pushing: “I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”

Finally, MacCallum took the bait.

“I heard you saying that this morning,” she said. “What do you mean?”

“You’ll see,” Giuliani laughed.

Friday, October 28

Only days after Giuliani’s teasers, Comey violated Justice Department guidelines with a letter informing Congress that the Bureau was reviewing additional evidence relating to the Clinton email investigation. Conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson interviewed Giuliani.

“There’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original [July] conclusion being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face of the FBI’s integrity,” Giuliani said. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents who, obviously, don’t want to identify themselves.”

Later, Giuliani backpedaled.

“I don’t know anything about leaks from the FBI or the Justice Department,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “I haven’t talked to anybody in the FBI or Justice Department.”

When Blitzer confronted Giuliani with the Lars Larson interview, Giuliani responded, “Well, the information I’ve been getting is from former FBI agents. If I did say that, that was wrong.”

In 48 hours, Giuliani had gone from “I know that even from a few active agents who, obviously don’t want to identify themselves” to “the information I’ve been getting is from former FBI agents.”

But Giuliani’s distinction didn’t help the Bureau. Whether the leaks came directly from active agents, or whether active agents leaked to retired agents who then went to Giuliani, they originated within the FBI. In addition to professional responsibilities of confidentiality under the ABA Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations, agents sign employment agreements that have sharp non-disclosure teeth. Certain FBI personnel working on the Clinton investigation also signed a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement,” agreeing that “due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination.”

Lie detectors!

Wednesday, November 2 

Less than a week before Election Day, another FBI leak produced a new bombshell. Bret Baier of Fox News cited “two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations” for what turned out to be a bogus report. He said that the Clinton investigations would likely to lead to an indictment. You milked that one. As rally crowds responded with “Lock her up” even more loudly than before, some members of your mob added, “Execute her!”

By Thursday, Baier admitted that he’d spoken “inartfully” about the false FBI report. By Friday, he was in full retreat: “That just wasn’t inartful, it was a mistake and for that I’m sorry.”

When MSNBC’s Brian Williams grilled your campaign manager Kellyanne Conway on whether you would stop using the earlier false report in your stump speech, she smiled and said, “Well, the damage is done to Hillary Clinton…”

Sunday, November 6

Then Comey sent another letter confirming that his earlier missive had been a false alarm. But by then, early voters had cast 40 million ballots — almost 30 million of which came after his October 30 letter. Meanwhile, you’d spent the week telling crowds that Clinton’s problems were “bigger than Watergate” and that criminal investigations into her dealings would continue for years into her presidency.

When confronted with Comey’s latest exoneration of Clinton, Kellyanne Conway kept her smile as she told MSNBC, “We have not made this a centerpiece of our messaging… This has not been front and center of our campaign.”

Sessions could put Rudy Giuliani under oath and ask him to name his FBI sources — active or retired. After all, if this had happened to you, hearings in the Republican Congress would already be underway. Now they’ll never happen. To “Make America Great Again,” start with the FBI, if you dare.


Lawyers parse words. But sometimes, even supposedly smart lawyers misuse them.  Senator Ted Cruz’s March 7 editorial in The Wall Street Journal has examples of both phenomena.

Distinctions Without a Difference

First, the parsing.

“Seldom has a Supreme Court vacancy arisen before the election in a presidential year,” Cruz writes. “Benjamin Cardozo, whom the Senate confirmed in February 1932, was the last justice confirmed to fill such a vacancy before the election.” He then notes that Republicans controlled both the Senate and the presidency.

The parsed phrase is “vacancy arisen before the election in a presidential year.” His citation to Cardozo as “the last justice confirmed to fill such a vacancy” is accurate. But only because it excludes lots of justices whom the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year, but who filled seats that had opened earlier.

The most recent example of a presidential year confirmation is Justice Anthony Kennedy. But Cruz’s parsing eliminates that comparison because Justice Kennedy filled the seat that Justice Lewis Powell vacated in June 1987. President Reagan’s unsuccessful nominations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg in 1987 pushed Kennedy into a presidential election year — 1988.

If the point is whether the Senate should act on a President’s Supreme Court nominations, Cruz’s proffered distinction is both disingenuous and meaningless. Incidentally, a Democratic-controlled Senate approved Kennedy’s nomination — 97 to 0.

Even apart from Justice Kennedy, the facts undermine Cruz’s core argument that history is on his side of this debate. The SCOTUS blog has a factual summary leading to this conclusion: “The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.”

Rewriting the Constitution

The other aspect of Senator Cruz’s op-ed is more troubling. As an honors graduate of Harvard Law School, he knows what the constitution actually says about the President’s obligations and the Senate’s responsibilities:

“[H]e shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court….” (Article II, Section 2)

Senator Cruz reads the founding fathers’ command out of the document. He writes, “I believe the Senate should fulfill its constitutional duty by letting the American people be heard in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.”

The Senate has no such “constitutional duty.” The President has a duty to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to act on that nomination. To be sure, it can vote up or down on the selection. Some states conduct popular elections for state court judges. But the “American people” don’t get to nominate or approve federal judicial appointments.

Let Your Imagination Run Wild

The irony of Senator Cruz’s argument would not be lost on Justice Scalia, who dedicated himself to originalism. Regardless of whether you agreed with him, Scalia urged an interpretation of the constitution that respected its text and meaning. Applying that philosophy, he strove for consistency in its application.

For the lawyers who appeared before the Court, Justice Scalia was also an active interrogator. Imagine the questions he might have posed to Senator Cruz:

“Show me where, in the constitution, it says the Senate has a duty to let the people select a Supreme Court justice?”

“You say the election year makes things different. Why? Where does the constitution say ‘delay, delay, delay’?”

“If I accept your argument about the election year exception — which is nowhere in the constitutional language — what’s the limiting principle? Once we move away from the command of the text — “the President shall nominate” — why not make the exception two years long? Or three?”

“Do you agree that the constitution gives the Senate a duty to act on the President’s Supreme Court nominations? If so, at what point does the Senate’s failure even to consider a nominee make it derelict in the performance of that duty?”

“In your Wall Street Journal piece, you say that the Senate should ‘not consider any Supreme Court nominee until the people have spoken and a new president is nominated.’ Please show me a single word in the United States constitution that supports your position.”

The silence in response to the last question would be deafening.


The battle lines are drawn: President Obama will name his choice to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court; Senate Republicans are determined to block it. One aspect has become striking: Which side has the better argument that history supports its position? It turns out, there’s another battle happening there: news versus opinion.

On the same day, February 16, 2016, two of the most widely read newspapers in the world, carried these contradictory headlines:

“In Court Fight, History Backs Obama” appeared in The New York Times.

“No Clear Confirmation Parallels in Recent Court History,” said The Wall Street Journal.

Who’s Right?

Unless you read both newspapers, you wouldn’t think there was any disagreement on the question of historical precedent for filling the current Supreme Court vacancy. The Times article appears on the paper’s op-ed page. But here’s the real kicker: The WSJ carries its version as a straight news item.

The Journal’s readers saw “news” declaring “no clear confirmation parallels” to the present situation. It cites and purports to distinguish only two earlier precedents.

In 1968, the Senate prevented President Lyndon Johnson’s lame-duck appointment of Justice Abe Fortas to succeed the retiring Earl Warren as Chief Justice and the naming of Judge Homer Thornberry to the Fortas seat. Eventually, President Nixon filled those vacancies. (The Journal doesn’t mention that it took Nixon two unsuccessful nominations — Haynsworth and Carswell — before getting Blackmun over the hump.)

The other Journal example is the oft-cited case of Justice Anthony Kennedy. A Democratically-controlled Senate approved him unanimously in 1988. Apparently believing that distinctions without a difference matter, WSJ reporter Brent Kendall notes that prior to Kennedy’s confirmation, the Senate rejected President Reagan’s first choice, Judge Robert Bork, and that his second choice, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew.

At the end of his article, Kendall identifies Jess Bravin — Wall Street Journal Supreme Court reporter with a bachelor’s degree from Harvard and a J.D. from University of California-Berkeley — as having “contributed to this article.”

Another Opinion

At best, The Wall Street Journal article is incomplete. Ironically, The New York Times op-ed includes more facts than the Journal’s news item. Professor Timothy S. Huebner notes: “On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. This does not include the most recent and frequently cited example, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan in November 1987 to fill a vacancy and won confirmation from a Democratic-controlled Senate in February 1988.”

Professor Huebner continues, “In 11 of these instances, the Senate took action on the president’s nomination. In all five cases in which a vacancy occurred during the first quarter of the year the president successfully nominated a replacement.”

What’s the Difference?

The distinction between news and opinion matters.  Editors have a responsibility to make that difference clear, especially in our age of political polarization. Due to the power of confirmation bias, consumers of media tend to limit themselves to views they embrace. It keeps people comfortable in belligerent adherence to an understanding that may, in fact, be incomplete or even wrong.

In October 2014, PEW Research reported, “Those with consistently conservative political values are oriented around a single outlet — Fox News — to a much greater degree than those in any other ideological group: Nearly half (47%) of those who are consistently conservative name Fox News as their main source for government and political news.” Both Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are parts of the Rupert Murdoch family’s media empire.

Liberals tend to be, well, more liberal in their choices of news sources. According to the PEW study, “On the left of the political spectrum, no single outlet predominates. Among consistent liberals, CNN (15%), NPR (13%), MSNBC (12%) and the New York Times (10%) all rank near the top of the list….”

The predispositions of their constituencies create a special obligation for the media. There’s money in fomenting divisiveness. Blurring the line between “news” and “opinion” might advance a political agenda or sell advertising space, but it’s making the country’s problems worse.

In my opinion.