Political News and Views

July 10, 2025

Dueling Views on the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and Its Impact on Social Security

The Social Security Administration (SSA) and legal scholars have offered sharply differing perspectives on the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill. In an official communication, the SSA hails the legislation as a historic victory for seniors, emphasizing tax relief for nearly 90% of Social Security recipients. By contrast, in a commentary published by VERDICT: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia, Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the SSA’s messaging as a politicized distortion, arguing that it prioritizes presidential branding over transparency and fails to address the deeper structural challenges facing Social Security. These conflicting narratives raise important questions about policy substance, public trust, and the politicization of federal agencies.

VIEW ONE:

From the Social Security Administration:

July 10, 2025

H.R. 1 (119th Cong.): Summary of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” *

by David Badertscher

On July 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed into law H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted as Pub. L. No. 119–21, 139 Stat. ___ (2025). Passed through the budget reconciliation process under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this comprehensive legislation represents a central pillar of the Trump administration’s second-term domestic agenda. It enacts sweeping reforms to the federal tax code, restructures discretionary and entitlement spending. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act does not suspend the debt ceiling through FY 2027. Instead, it raises the debt limit by a specific $5 trillion—an amount projected to sustain federal borrowing for roughly one to two years [i.e., until 2026–27, depending on fiscal trends].

Legislative History and Process

H.R. 1 advanced through Congress under budget reconciliation procedures, thereby circumventing the Senate filibuster and requiring only a simple majority for passage. This expedited pathway allowed the bill’s tax and spending provisions to be consolidated into a single legislative package and enacted swiftly along party lines.

June 10, 2025

A Constitutiional Crisis in Real Time: Lessons from the Past, Warnings for the Future*

by David Badertscher

Introduction

The post referenced below is an adapted excerpt from “The ‘Seizure of Power’ 2025: An Historical Reflection,” authored by Professor Matthew W. Finkin, Research Professor of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Originally delivered as a comprehensive lecture at Mander Hall in London on March 18, 2025, this version has been condensed and selectively edited for publication by Justia Verdict, where it appeared on June 5, 2025 .

In this incisive analysis, Professor Finkin draws a compelling historical parallel between actions undertaken by President Trump in 2025 and the early methods of consolidation used by the National Socialist regime in 1933. He examines significant developments such as the purging of civil servants, the creation of loyalty-driven structures like the Office of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and mounting judicial and institutional threats to underscore the risks surrounding democratic erosion in what he terms a possible “seizure of power.”

April 27, 2025

Dualist Democracy and the Trump Administration–Judicial Authority in Extraordinary Times

by David Badertscher

This posting consists of commentary on Roger Citron’s article, Judge Wilkinson’s Dualist Opinion in Abrego Garcio v. Noem: Judicial Review of Executive Action in a Transformative Time, amplified with information from additional sources related to Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy.

In his article, Roger Citron revisits Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy, presenting a timely analysis of how this framework sheds light on current constitutional tensions. Through a close reading of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s opinion in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Citron suggests we may be witnessing an effort at higher lawmaking—a constitutional transformation driven not just by legal arguments, but by political and public realignment.

Ackerman’s concept of dualist democracy, introduced in We the People: Foundations, distinguishes between two modes of governance (Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations 6–8 (1991),

April 10, 2025

Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Law Firm Susmann Godfrey, DOJ Bans it’s Attorneys From Participating in ABA Events, and More

by David Badertscher

April 10, 2025

From The Legal File by Reuters Legal.

The rundown on the top legal news of the day.

March 29, 2025

Tariffs as an Emergency Power?

by David Badertscher

From VERDICT, Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia, 27 March 2025.

SUMMARY:

NYU Law Professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate Andrew Babbitt analyze President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during his second administration to impose and threaten tariffs on several countries. They highlight how this approach bypasses the usual legislative and procedural processes required for implementing tariffs. According to Estreicher and Babbitt, this tactic marks an unprecedented and legally questionable expansion of executive authority—one that sidesteps congressional intent and oversight and raises significant constitutional concerns about the broad, unchecked use of the IEEPA.

February 14, 2025

NewsBriefs and Summaries from NJSBA, February 14, 2025

by David Badertscher

These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed

NEWS BRIEFS:

After Costco Digs in Its Heels on DEI, What Could Go Wrong?

January 26, 2025

Reactions to Trumps First Days as a Second Term President: Perspectives from the Right and Left

by David Badertscher

President Donald Trump’s second term began with a whirlwind of executive actions, sparking sharply divided reactions from the left and right. While Trump’s policies focused on immigration, energy, federal employment, and high-profile pardons, the responses have highlighted ideological divides:

The Right’s Perspective:

Many on the right criticized Trump’s sweeping pardons for January 6 rioters, with outlets like National Review calling it a mistake that undermines law and order.