The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers is a member-led Association dedicated to structural election reforms in the public interest. We provide support to our member organizations through shared resources, best practices, and regular convenings. What unites us is being pro-voter, not anti-party. We favor a robust competition of numerous political parties and independents, and a level playing field on which that can occur. Our members have led campaigns for changes that increase electoral competition like Colorado's more open primary and redistricting reform, Maine's statewide ranked choice voting initiative, and California's top-two nonpartisan primary system.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Tucson youth members of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition listen as Rep. Adelita Grijalva talks about the importance of youth voices on the issue of climate change and extreme heat. More than a dozen Arizona youth met with Representative Adelita Grijalva and Ward 5 council member Selina Barajas on Tuesday, at El Pueblo Activity Center in Tucson, to share some of their concerns about climate change, as well as some of the work they are already doing to address these issues.
Credit: Stephanie Casanova
Arizona Youth Tell Lawmakers: Climate Change Can’t Wait
Aug 20, 2026
When Carmen De Backer was a toddler, she would sit on the couch staring at photos of wildlife in the worn pages of National Geographic magazines her mom bought at the thrift store. She couldn’t read the articles so she would ask her older sisters to tell her about the wildlife in the photos.
That’s where her love for and curiosity about nature started.
Throughout grade school, she would revisit the magazines, reading the articles and looking at the photographs over and over. At about 7 years old, De Backer remembers watching a video about how polar bears and their environment were being impacted by a warming planet, their feet getting stuck in ice blocks and injuring the bears.
“I remember my heart, my heart broke,” De Backer said, as she dropped her hands to emphasize the heavy emotion. “I’m like, ‘why are people letting this happen?’”
Carmen De Backer is photographed at 5 years old with binoculars hanging from her neck. De Backer, now 16 and co-lead of the Tucson team of the Arizona Youth Climate Council ,was “always a big adventurer” whose love for wildlife and the outdoors has stayed with her through her teenage years as she fights to address climate change. Photo courtesy of Carmen De Backer.Now 16 years old, she is co-lead of the Tucson team of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition.
On Tuesday, De Backer’s long, wavy copper hair rested over her shoulder, partially covering the “AZYCC” logo on her t-shirt, as she introduced Rep. Adelita Grijalva and Ward 5 Council member Selina Barajas to more than a dozen Arizona youth during a climate change conversation at El Pueblo Activity Center on Tucson’s south side. The two elected officials were there to listen to how extreme heat and climate change impact young people’s lives, and to share some of the ways they’re addressing the issue at a local and national level. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter hosted the conversation alongside a handful of community organizations.
The wall and windows of the large room were lined with signs that read “Climate Can’t Wait,” “El Clima No Espera,” and “Too Hot To Learn.”
The students, mostly high school aged from Tucson and Phoenix, sat at tables arranged in a rectangle as Grijalva told them how much their voices matter on the issue of environmental justice. She assured them that there are national leaders, local leaders like Barajas, fighting to address climate change. But the solutions have to also come from youth, she said.
“This conversation cannot wait for people my age and older to figure it out,” Grijalva said. “Because you’re the ones that are going to be living with the consequences every single day.”
Climate change is the biggest challenge this generation is facing, Grijalva said, and it’s important that the adults who are in positions of power listen to youth rather than simply telling them what elected officials are doing to address the problem.
Barajas urged the students to think of ways to get their classmates and neighbors more involved in climate solutions and more civically engaged. She said there is a correlation between low voter turnout in Ward 5 and the climate inequities South Side residents face, like poorer air quality and less tree shade.
“I want to see if there’s opportunities that we could collaborate and bring more people in the room because I want this area to be the greenest area,” Barajas said. “I want this area to have the highest voter turnout.”
Over the next hour, students described how heat affects their daily life as they watch parents work outside in dangerous temperatures, endure triple-digit heat during after-school sports and push school and city officials to adopt policy changes.
Students worry about parents who work outdoors
One student from Pueblo High School said her dad builds pools, and it’s been difficult for him and his coworkers to get the job done in extreme heat. She wanted to highlight that the people most affected by heat are outdoor workers, as well as unhoused people who have to spend most of their day outside.
Ward 5 council member Selina Barajas (left) and Rep. Adelita Grijalva met with Arizona youth Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026 at El Pueblo Activity Center to discuss the impacts of climate change and listen to how extreme heat affects their young constituents. Credit: Stephanie Casanova
Barajas added that the city has a list of cooling centers for people to find relief from the heat, including one at El Pueblo Center across the parking lot.
Azulayde Romero, a junior at South Ridge High School in Phoenix, also worries about the wellbeing of her dad, Olegario. He has been a landscaper since he was 21, and Romero has seen how excessive heat has impacted him over the years.
“My dad’s older now, he’s 62 years old, and he’s still working in the heat, from 5 in the morning to like 3 in the afternoon, and seeing him it’s upsetting, you know, because I want to do something about it,” Romero said.
Romero joined a team of youth through a Mi Familia en Acción summer fellowship and helped educate her neighbors about tree shade inequities on the south side of Phoenix, where there is a predominantly Latino population. The team did some research on the heat island effect and found that many factories and asphalt on Phoenix’s southwest side along with fewer trees cause an even hotter climate in that part of the city.
Romero and her teammates went door to door educating their neighbors about what they learned and helped them register for a workshop with the Salt River Project, where the energy company gives homeowners two free trees to add shade to their property.
“I’m worried about the extreme heat that we’re facing because it feels like [we’re] getting more intense heat waves, and the solutions that we’re getting are often just temporary fixes rather than long-term effect fixes,” Romero said during the discussion. “I just want to know what steps are truly being taken to address this and ensure that our state is being prepared for the future and not just to make a quick fix.”
Grijalva said not much is being done because a lot of the long-term solutions need to come from the federal government and right now “you have people in power that don’t believe that what’s happening to our climate is a real thing, they don’t believe in science. They don’t believe in solutions.” While it’s important that everyday residents do their part in saving energy and water, corporations also need to do their part and be held accountable, Grijalva said.
Youth are already taking action through policy change
The daughter of immigrant parents, De Backer grew up in a community in Tucson where her neighbors struggled to keep the AC on during the summer. At school, she notices the waste – single-use plastic, food waste, incandescent lights that use more energy than LED lights – and wonders why no one is fixing the problem. She’s not relying on adults to address these issues. Instead, she’s working alongside other teenagers in Tucson to write policy.
De Backer is part of Tucson Unified School District’s Climate Action and Sustainability team, which ensures that the district is making changes according to its policy code.
“I feel I would be doing an injustice to my community, I’d be doing an injustice to my family, if I wasn’t fighting,” De Backer said. “Because if I wasn’t fighting, then there would be one less person that could help with the impacts of climate change.”
Sofia Garcia, a senior at Canyon del Oro High School highlighted the policy report on energy, titled “Distributed Capacity Procurement,” that Arizona Youth Climate Coalition members drafted and presented to the city’s Commission on Climate Saving Energy.
The group spent months analyzing Tucson Electric Power reports, doing a fiscal analysis and gathering community input “to build a more sustainable future for Arizona’s energy grid,” Garcia said. They are hoping the city adopts the policy.
Garcia, co-lead of the Tucson team of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition, said it’s important that youth are given more opportunities to be involved in addressing climate change.
“We’re the ones inheriting the environment,” Garcia said. “We’re the ones that are going to have to deal with these long-term effects for generations to come.”
Gabriel Sadza, a sophomore at University High School, shares a story about having to practice for the marching band inside the school gym with no AC. Sadza was one of more than a dozen Arizona teens who participated in a conversation about extreme heat with council member Selina Barajas (left) and Rep. Adelita Grijalva (center, seated) on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026 at El Pueblo Activity Center. Credit: Stephanie CasanovaExcessive heat impacts outdoor sports
Gabriel Sadza, a sophomore at University High School, took the microphone from Garcia. With his 6-4 stature and his booming, upbeat voice, he admitted he was a little nervous to speak in front of an audience.
Sadza shared a story about having to practice for the marching band inside the school gym.
“We’re doing our plie, relevé. I’m sweating. I can’t see out of my eyes. My sweat’s stinging my eyes. So we move into the gym. The gym AC blows out. We’re marching in a 95-degree gym for 14 hours a day, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. for a week straight,” he said. “This shouldn’t be how we live here in Tucson. We need to adapt.”
That was one of many times Sadza has had to deal with excessive heat during a school activity. He remembers his first cross country practice. He was in the second grade. It was over 100 degrees.
“I’m not joking when I tell you I was dying. My vision was blurring. I was going through it,” he said. “I was so dehydrated, and at that age, I didn’t know what was happening to me. I didn’t know how to ask for help. I wasn’t educated on the dangers we were facing with extreme heat and also ways to remedy that.”
He remembers an advisor got him some water, helped him find shade and sat with him to make sure he was OK. The heat has only gotten worse since then, Sadza said.
While canceling outdoor recreation is left up to each school principal, the Arizona Department of Health Services recommends moving activities indoors when temperatures are above 105 degrees.
“When I got to high school, I was like, ‘What can I do in my position and pulling from my experiences to help fight the increasing climate crisis, and you know make sure students in the future, students like myself that love playing outside, that love going on hikes with their families, ensure that they don’t experience the same struggles that I faced growing up?'” he said.
Sadza, who is the communications director for the Youth Climate Coalition, has been involved in finding solutions to address climate change. Tuesday’s conversation was a step in the right direction, he said, but the work needs to continue in order to find climate solutions that will make Arizona’s communities better for everyone.
As the event came to a close, Grijalva told the youth that her office was committed to having more conversations on climate solutions on a monthly basis. The students say they intend to hold her to that commitment.
Arizona Youth Tell Lawmakers: Climate Change Can’t Wait was originally published by Arizona Luminaria and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

AI chatbots and online therapy promise easier mental health care, but technology may be eroding the boundaries, privacy and human connection that make psychotherapy effective.
David Espejo/Getty Images
Big Tech’s Solutions to Mental Health Bring Bigger Problems
Aug 19, 2026
While America is suffering a mental health crisis, the good news is that tens of millions of people are getting help. In 2023, 60 million adults reported having sought counseling or treatment in the previous year, and the numbers continue to rise.
Psychotherapy works because of what’s known as the therapeutic frame, a set of boundaries that create safety and structure for patients and clinicians. Sessions last 50 minutes. Fees are agreed upon prior to the start of treatment. The therapist remains neutral, shares little of their personal life, and holds confidentiality sacred.
The bad news is that the future of mental health is increasingly being built around the idea that those boundaries are obstacles. Online therapy platforms promise unlimited access. AI chatbots serve up emotional support. New software records sessions and generates clinical notes.
Each innovation claiming to improve therapy by making it faster or easier is dismantling the very framework that makes it effective. The people shaping the future of mental health often understand venture capital better than they understand the human psyche.
Take BetterHelp, for example. The world’s largest online therapy platform spent $76.9 million on podcast ads in 2021, nearly triple the next largest advertiser in any category. It is a subscription service that uses online questionnaires and algorithms to automate the process of matching patients with therapists. Its closest competitor, Talkspace, does the same. Then patients and therapists interact online via video, audio, or live chat.
While these online platforms advertise accessibility and seem like a good way to get more people into mental health care, they come with a dangerous downside.
The consensus amongst seasoned clinicians is that 20 to 25 clients per week is the sustainable upper bound for a full-time therapist. Therapists at some of these major direct-to-consumer platforms routinely report carrying 40 or more, with new clients assigned to therapists without their consent and with no path to refer anyone to other clinicians.
A clinician juggling 45 clients doesn't have the bandwidth to give each their full attention. Clients might walk away believing therapy doesn't work, a potentially deadly conclusion for the one in 20 American adults who reported seriously considering suicide in the past year.
And when a patient finds a therapist through one of these platforms, the platform owns the relationship. For instance, if a therapist leaves BetterHelp, they can’t take a client with them, putting an abrupt end to whatever progress may have been made.
The online therapy platforms also sell features like 24/7 messaging and unlimited therapist access, which sound good in ads but undermine another crucial part of the therapeutic frame: containment. The therapy hour is designed as a holding space, a consistent environment where the therapist and client can safely explore and process complex emotions. When the container leaks and communication flows freely outside the session, the clarity and safety of that sacred space dissolve.
At the same time, more than half of U.S. adults say they would feel comfortable discussing personal mental health issues with an AI chatbot, bypassing the desire for a licensed mental health professional altogether. A new study shows nearly one in five young adults is turning to AI chatbots for emotional support, with two-thirds of them not telling anyone they’re doing it.
Unfortunately, comfort and convenience aren’t the same as safety, and chatbots built on large language models like ChatGPT are no substitute for licensed mental health professionals.
Taking the personal touch out of therapy already is proving to have significant consequences.
Lawmakers in states like Illinois, Utah, and Nevada are recognizing the risks of turning therapy over to machines, restricting how AI companies can operate in the mental health space. And class action lawsuits and FTC settlements against large online therapy companies expose that they have engaged in everything from selling patients’ sensitive data to third-party platforms for targeted advertising purposes to matching patients with unlicensed or inappropriate therapists.
Therapists themselves are facing growing pressure to integrate AI into their practices too. New software can record therapy sessions and use AI to generate progress notes automatically. While this probably could save therapists administrative time, we have remarkably little evidence about what AI recording does to the therapeutic process. Clients can agree to being recorded and still hold back without realizing it, the same way most of us speak differently when we know someone else is listening. Before these tools become routine, we should understand how they affect the conversations they're meant to preserve.
Technology absolutely has a place in mental health. It can help connect people with care, improve scheduling and billing, and make treatment more accessible. But when we hand over the intimate, human work of therapy to AI or prioritize efficiency over depth, we risk losing what makes therapy transformative.
Therapy’s power lies in its slowness, its privacy, and its humanity, and those qualities can’t be coded into an algorithm or outsourced to AI. If we continue to treat psychotherapy as another system to optimize, we will optimize away the very things that make it work.
A licensed psychotherapist, Paul Fugelsang is the founder and executive director of Open Path Psychotherapy Collective, which has helped more than 160,000 clients in need access affordable care through a network of 36,000 therapists across the U.S. and Canada.
Megan Cornish, LICSW, is a licensed clinical social worker, clinician advocate, and consultant to behavioral health companies.
Keep ReadingShow less

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The Democratic Socialists of America Is Not What It Seems
Aug 19, 2026
I liked what I knew about the DSA. I liked what Democratic DSA candidates were saying (with some exceptions). Because I believe strongly that our government must be more about the people in order to be true to our founding principles, and industry should have less power. And so I was in agreement with Democrats who are socialists (with a small "s"); indeed, none of the Democratic DSA candidates are Socialists (with a capital "S")—they do not believe that capitalism should be replaced by government or collective ownership of the means of production.
When I first looked at the Democratic Socialists of America, it sounded as though democracy was central to their philosophy. The DSA states that, "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy."
But after doing some further research recently, I found that their goal is not democracy—which is universally defined as "government by the people," meaning all of the people, not some subset. Instead, their goal, stated unequivocally, is a "government and economy by and for the working class," not by and for all Americans. In its view, to protect the American worker, our whole system needs to be trashed and replaced with something non-capitalist and worker-controlled, not just worker-friendly.
This is taking the wrong that they are rightly fighting against—the way capitalism has developed in the U.S. and our democracy benefiting the rich and industry more than the average person, in spite of everyone having a vote—and turning it on its head and replacing it with another wrong, government by and for the working class. Not everyone. I was also shocked that part of DSA's platform includes the abolition of the police, prisons, and borders; defunding the Pentagon; abolition of the Senate; and other provisions that would create a workers' state.
As I've written, I urge a return to the founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and making government more focused on the people. While that does mean reforming our capitalist system (see my article, "Towards a Reformed Capitalism"), and it does mean reorienting the Democratic Party to protecting the fundamental rights of the people (see my article, "People Are Hurting - America Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles," among others), it does not mean doing away with the entire structure of our government and economy.
Yes, the police have significant problems—they need to be retrained and their leadership vetted on their attitude towards those they "serve and protect." Yes, prisons are a terrible place, and our concept of how to treat those who break the law should be altered (see my post, "Rethinking Criminal Justice - Prisons as Monastery not Dungeon").
The problems the DSA is trying to address are not a function of the form of our government or economic system; it is a function of the nature of society, of people (see my post, "The Problem Isn't Capitalism, It's Our Society"). It's true that there is a real problem with most of the institutions that the DSA wants to dismantle. However, the answer is not abolition.
These institutions have a legitimate purpose in the function of our or any democracy. The answer is not the creation of a workers' state. The answer instead is the answer to the question: how do we make these institutions more reflective of the values contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so that government and the economy work for all the people?
That was the purpose of my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto. It looked at all major areas of government activity, using the words of the Declaration as a touchstone, to determine what policies the Democratic Party should advocate.
We live in a country and in a world with a great diversity of people—not just in ethnicity and religion—but more tellingly in their financial status or educational status, and all the inequality that results from these differences. Those are the facts of life recognized by the Founding Fathers.
The answer to that inequality—material and otherwise—provided by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence was that all people have a moral right to equality and that the government must ensure that every citizen has an equal right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, which means that they must all have an equal opportunity to pursue that right. What someone makes of the opportunity is another matter and solely the responsibility of the individual, but it is the government's role, as stated in the Declaration, to secure that right, to provide that opportunity.
The DSA is committed to creating a very different system of government—a government by and for the working class. That is not the United States, nor was it meant to be at its founding. That does not reflect the thoughts of our Founding Fathers in creating our country and government. That is not a democracy. Much needs to change for us to live up to the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but the change should and can be within the framework of government set down at our founding.
Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, El-Sayed, and all other Democratic candidates who are members of the DSA should resign from the DSA if they believe in America, because its platform is inimical to our government as set forth in the Constitution. It's not just one aspect of the platform; it's the whole framework. If they don't, Republicans will skewer them in the general election.
Instead, they should fight to have the Democratic Party adopt a Mission statement based on the Declaration of Independence, as I have proposed (see my article, "URGENT: What the Democratic Party Must Do to Win the Midterms"). Fight to return the Democratic Party to what it was before the Democratic Leadership Council brought about a shift to the right in the party's ideology in the late 80s. Fight the good fight to ensure that all people have the rights promised to them in the Declaration of Independence.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less

a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background
Photo by Fine Photographics on Unsplash
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
Aug 19, 2026
The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.
The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup
In hindsight, one can marvel at the muted reaction to the Rehnquist Supreme Court ruling in Florida’s 2000 presidential election. The Republican majority on that court stopped a careful vote recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in midstream, simply declaring George W. Bush president by 537 votes. Their haste was a planned coup: had the recount continued, Al Gore would have won Florida and the presidency.
Its coup did not mar the Court’s reputation in those halcyon days. More informed with time, the sadder but wiser contemporary assessment of the Supreme Court has sent its favorability ratings falling precipitously.
A majority of Americans now view the Roberts Court as discredited, its rulings repeatedly reflecting the justices’ personal political priorities rather than the law. This erosion of judicial integrity has rendered the court illegitimate. Some 86% of respondents to a 2025 Pew survey believed Supreme Court justices should not allow their political views to influence rulings - but 56% believe the justices are doing just that. And a 2026 Washington Post/Ipsos survey found that 55% disapproved of the court, the highest on record.
An International Embarrassment
Critics of the Robert court have numerous complaints.
First, the Roberts majority believes the Founders were mistaken to distrust oligarchs. Instead, they and their predecessors have engineered a pay-to-play political system. These rulings, including McCutcheon and Citizens United, have placed the corruption of money at the center of American politics, with public policy dominated by wealthy donors (read what Harvard professors call “one of the most important studies you’ve probably never heard of”). Pay-to-play has made the US electoral system an international embarrassment – of lower quality than in other rich democracies or nearby Barbados, Brazil, Canada and Jamaica – no better than other similar oligarchies like India and Mexico.
Second, the Roberts Republican majority is a group of politicians in robes, the first partisan court in history. Five of the six were Republican Party operatives in their pre-court careers, including three - Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – who rushed to Florida in 2000 to help devise and implement the Rehnquist Court coup. The public agrees: 79% of Republicans approve of them versus just 14% of Democrats, the largest gap Gallup has ever recorded. Their unprecedented partisanship is exemplified by rulings favoring the Republican Party on issues ranging from gerrymandering, Jim Crow poll taxes, voter suppression, and neutering the Voting Rights Act, to the 2026 midterm elections.
Third, the Roberts Republicans are ideological outliers, their conservatism well outside the U.S. mainstream. They were hand-picked, vetted, and groomed by the conservative Federalist Society – their appointments staged by wealthy Republicans. Moreover, all but Thomas were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. Their partisanship and conservatism have forced Republican Senators to make their confirmations highly politicized affairs. All but Roberts garnered bare majorities, among the fewest Senate confirmation votes in U.S. history.
Fourth, the Republican majority has enabled President Trump’s creation of an all-powerful executive. They have enabled his weakening of Congressionally Mandated independent agencies (ending a 91-year precedent) and his actions trampling congressional budget authority. They have also gifted Trump broad immunity for criminal acts.
Fifth, the Roberts Republicans' support of Trump’s policies has sparked a judicial civil war. Federal Circuit and Appellate-level court judges have blocked hundreds of the Trump administration’s Executive Orders and bogus “emergencies” declarations, like invoking wartime powers to deport immigrants or allowing troops to police cities. Yet, the Roberts majority has overturned 80% of them to please Trump, almost always without explanation, in an unprecedented surge in use of the shadow docket. Their procedure and rulings have appalled Federal judges. Lower court judges are terming their obsequious Supreme Court's overrides “mystical,” creating a judicial crisis. The Roberts justices have responded by upbraiding judicial critics, instructing them to silently obey their betters.
Sixth, the Roberts court’s politicization and ethics compare poorly to apex courts elsewhere. A politicized appointment process, partisanship, and low-quality justices are why the American court ranks just 27th among global apex courts. Independent, non-political legal experts confirmed as judges by legislative supermajorities for limited terms are de rigueur abroad. For instance, appointment to an apex German court requires a two-thirds vote of parliamentarians, with justices serving non-renewable 12-year terms. Moreover, apex courts abroad have ethical standards policed by independent entities with remits to investigate and recommend removal of unethical judges. In sharp contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court relies on self-policing, with ethical violations commonplace. Justices have received $2 million book deals and millions in gifts, for instance, from wealthy benefactors with business before the court. You can judge their ethics for yourself: is it reasonable for Chief Justice Roberts’ wife to have received over $20 million from legal firms since his appointment? And do you agree with the Roberts Republicans that cash “gratuities” paid to reward politicians are not “bribes?
Seventh, the nation’s Founders would be aghast at the Roberts Republicans substituting their individual partisan preferences for legal scholarship. James Madison, for instance, envisaged a court of integrity - non-political, modest, independent legal experts rendering reasoned interpretations of the law - courageous justices ensuring that the law diffused power.
A 2028 Reckoning
The legitimacy and stability of the rule of law are jeopardized by the judicial civil war and the public perception of the Roberts Court as a partisan tool. A reckoning may well be precipitated should the Democrats attain a governing trifecta in 2028 or thereafter. Leading Democrats are eager to dismantle the Roberts Court. And the ideological Roberts Republicans might seek to neutralize that danger with a judicial coup.
The 2000 judicial coup was received at the time with remarkable equanimity. The reaction to a similar coup in 2028 is certain to be vastly different, with widespread, sustained civil disobedience sundering the legitimacy and stability of the rule of law.
George Tyler is a former deputy assistant treasury secretary and World Bank official. He is the author of books including Billionaire Democracy and What Went Wrong.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More















