Assuming Biden takes office on 1/20, I think we are likely to see a narrative emerge about how well the guardrails of our democracy performed during the past four years, despite having a demagogue in office. I think this narrative is wrong, and, more importantly, dangerous. 1/
Curtis Bradley
820 posts
Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Joined November 2016
- Replying to @curtisabradleyThe lesson, in my view, is not how wonderfully the guardrails have worked, but rather how (assuming Biden takes office) we narrowly escaped disaster. A chief focus going forward should be on how to strengthen the guardrails before a more competent demagogue comes along. /End
- Replying to @curtisabradleyOne problem with this narrative is that many guardrails of our democracy are built on norms rather than on hard law, and Trump has managed to blow through the norms, in part because he has no sense of public duty and also because he has a tight grip on the Republican party. 2/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyLet’s take, for example, Trump’s serial dishonesty. He has lied to the American public, on small and large things, on almost a daily basis. He has tried to gaslight the country on numerous issues even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, and he continues to do so. 3/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyIt is hard to say that his dishonesty has been unsuccessful, after he received more than 70 million votes and helped the Republicans do reasonably well in the congressional elections. Millions currently believe his baseless claims of election fraud. 4/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyNormally, the mainstream media and moderate politicians would check and deter such dishonesty, but for a variety of reasons the media now has much less ability to carry out this function, and moderate politicians are a dying breed. 5/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyEven though Trump's efforts to overturn the election will likely be unsuccessful, Trump and his lackeys are exposing the creakiness in the joints of our electoral system—creakiness that can be exploited the next time around. 9/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyAlso, we all knew that the chief test would be whether Trump would accept the result of the election if he narrowly lost. So far, the answer is no. We also wondered whether Republicans would pressure him to do so, and again the answer so far is no. 8/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyOther examples: (1) Trump has taken a variety of steps to obstruct the investigation of Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election and subvert our democracy, without serious consequence.... 6/
- Replying to @curtisabradleyTrump also tried to coerce a foreign leader to develop fake dirt on Trump’s chief political opponent. While the House impeached him for this conduct, he weathered that storm and if anything became politically stronger as a result. 7/
- After 16 truly wonderful years at Duke Law School, I have decided to accept a faculty position at the University of Chicago Law School, starting this summer. While I’m looking forward to this new chapter in my professional life, I will greatly miss my colleagues at Duke.
- If Cruz et al. had any integrity or love of country, they would withdraw all further objections to the electors once proceedings resume.
- When I clerked at the Supreme Court (more than 30 years ago), some other clerks and I formed what we called the “Chevron group” to meet weekly to discuss issues relating to administrative law. I am hereby disbanding the group.
- There is no "doctrine" that says courts must accept executive branch assertions concerning national security no matter what.

