"Would the American public stand for [Trump using a tricky path to a third term]?"

"It would obviously be an attempt to technically circumvent the prohibitions of the 22nd Amendment. But you know that's what lawyers do all the time. Democrats and Republicans. You always try to find loopholes in in the law. Religious authorities do that. Secular authorities do that. Certainly,  constitutional lawyers do that all the time. For example, when the Supreme Court was about to write its decision saying you couldn't use race-specific affirmative action to give benefit to black applicants over white applicants, Larry Tribe issued a bunch of tweets and stuff figuring out how to circumvent that, how to get around that.... Would the American public stand for it if they felt that, yeah, we'd like Trump, yeah, we'd vote for him, we think he's probably the best president, but you know the framers of the 22nd amendment, when they said you can't be elected to the third term, I think they really meant you can't serve the third term but they didn't say it but they didn't say it um so it depends what is is and it depends what elect it is, and these are very very technical arguments but, hey, I'm a constitutional lawyer, I'm a law professor.... " 

"Permanent impeachment won't empower Pelosi's Resisters.... It’ll empower Trump's deplorables, because Trump will still need them."

"In effect, impeachment can be the anti-dote to lame duck insularity, reestablishing the accountability to voters that the term limit of the 22d Amendment takes away. I'm not arguing for impeaching every President in his second term. It’s a legalistic, emotion-draining way to try to correct for the ill-advised two-term limit. Usually there are bonds of ideology and party loyalty constraining even popular second-term presidents. Trump seems a special case — someone you really might not want to see unleashed. I'd feel much better voting for him again if he were impeached multiple times."

Writes Mickey Kaus in "Impeach Him Again, Nancy!"

I'm not agreeing with that, but I find it interesting. There are lots of other things you might say about the benefits of impeachment on the pro-Trump side. But having written "pro-"... I'd like to discuss Kaus's writing "anti-dote" — "impeachment can be the anti-dote to lame duck insularity."

Even in the 17th century — I checked the OED — there was no hyphen in "antidote." But the word is, indeed, made out of the prefix "anti-" — which means "against" — and the root "-dote."

It makes you wonder, what is a "dote"?

If you check the etymology of "antidote," you will see that "dote" comes from a Greek verb that means "to give," so an antidote is something that is "given against" something else.

But "dote" is an English word, and writing "anti-dote" — with the hyphen — seems to take us away from the familiar word, "antidote," and ask us to think of something that is against whatever that English noun "dote" means.

I looked it up in the OED. A "dote" is "A foolish, incompetent, or slow-witted person." It's been around about as long as the familiar verb "to dote." The OED has the noun "dote" going back to the 13th century, and it nicely has — among its examples — this from 2018:

2018 @Skeptic_Fashion 11 Apr. in twitter.com (O.E.D. Archive) U should have ur keyboard privileges suspended for a week 4 being a dote.

A tweet! First time I've noticed a tweet preserved as an OED quote documenting the current usage of the word. I like it. We need more mean but gentle insults.

Is Trump a dote? No, but many of his haters think he is, and they may want to give the country an "anti-dote." But to impeach him over and over again? Who's the dote?

And keep in mind: Even when you have a poisoning and want to administer an antidote, that the antidote itself can be a poison:

The effects of many toxic substances within the body are well understood and can therefore be treated successfully with specific antidotes even when those antidotes are often considered poisons in their own right. For example, strychnine is highly toxic but its symptoms can be counteracted with curare, also highly toxic, because both compounds interact with the same receptors in nerves but have opposite effects. Atropine (or belladonna) poisoning can be treated with physostigmine; and physostigmine poisoning can be treated with atropine.

I am showing you some reasoning by metaphor, after Kaus started it, calling up the word "antidote." You're in a figurative wonderworld when you use metaphors, but I'll just say even when you have a workable antidote for a poison, you don't just take lots and lots of antidote! And I think it's crazy to impeach the President and then impeach him again and again.

"Russian Premier Abruptly Quits Amid Swirl of Speculation on Putin."

The NYT reports.

In a statement issued by the Russian news agency Tass, [Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev], a lawyer who has known Mr. Putin since they worked together in St. Petersburg in the 1990s, linked the unexpected resignations to an overhaul put forward earlier on Wednesday by Mr. Putin.... Mr. Putin, who under current law must step down in 2024, proposed amending the Russian Constitution to expand the powers of Parliament and a body called the State Council, which currently carries little weight....

It was not immediately evident whether the resignations signaled a rift at the top of Russia’s hierarchy or were part of a coordinated but as-yet-unclear plan by Mr. Putin to hold onto power and reshape the political system that has been in place with only minor adjustments since the early 1990s.... Mr. Putin described the proposed constitutional changes in his annual state of the nation address on Wednesday as an effort to enhance democracy..... Russia has been abuzz for months with speculation about whether he would come up with a maneuver to extend his rule — or, if not, who might succeed him.

Term limits are easily portrayed as an enhancement of democracy, even though they are also and even more easily portrayed as detrimental to democracy. The American Supreme Court case showing how that's done is U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (in which the Justices disagree about whether "the right of the people to choose whom they please to govern them" is helped or hurt by term limits on members of Congress).

"Clinton wishes he had left White House 'in a coffin.'"

Ridiculous headline. Here's what Bill Clinton said:

"It's good that we have a (term) limit. Otherwise I would have stayed until I was carried away in a coffin. Or defeated in an election... I loved doing the job."

"A sad day for New York’s democracy"?

So Bloomberg got his way.

Brownback's unusually religious announcement that he's running for President.

Let's analyze it. (I'm boldfacing the religious words.)

I have decided, after much prayerful consideration, to consider a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

Now, now, he didn't say God told him to run, did he?

I am running to spread hope and ideas. We are a blessed nation at an important crossroads. War, corruption, disintegrating families, and for some, hopelessness, tear at the American Dream. We need hope and ideas.

I am running for America…to be of service in a crucial time of trial.

Ours is an exceptional nation. A nation between two oceans made up of people from every nation on earth. A great nation united by our ideals. But we are a great nation because of our goodness. If we ever lose our goodness, we will surely lose our greatness.

All very uplifting. Hope, greatness, goodness. But it's all threatened.

We believe in a culture of life—that every human life is a beautiful, sacred, unique child of a loving God.

His #1 issue is anti-abortion, and he has situated it within a larger setting of the crucial need for a nation to believe in profound ideals.

We believe in justice for all—at all times.

We believe in liberty.

But the central institutions that best transmit these values—the family and the culture—are under withering attack.

We must renew our families and rebuild our culture!

We need to revitalize marriage, support the formation of families, and encourage a culture of commitment.

The Presidency isn't about family, however, so why is he running? Justice and liberty seem to have more to do with the duties of the President, and he puts those two things first only to say "but" the family is what we primarily rely on to "transmit these values," and this gets him right back to the matter of the traditional family, which he clearly has as his core concern. But we care about more than transmitting the values of justice and liberty to the next generation, and the President has a direct role in protecting liberty and insuring that justice is done, so it's worrisome to hear him shift immediately to the the subject of the family. I'm picturing him in the debates, taking every question and finding a way to answer with family, family, family.

We need a culture that encourages what is right and discourages what is wrong—and has the wisdom to understand the difference.

Each generation of Americans is called upon to carry the torch of virtue during its brief season. If one generation lets the torch fall, its light is extinguished for all future generations. That’s a big responsibility, but we can achieve it if we pick up the torch with courage, generosity, and realism. We must meet and fulfill the job we are called to accomplish in our day. The time to act to insure our future as a nation is now.

This wordy passage mostly restates the importance of tending to the next generation. The imagery isn't very good. (What's the realistic way to pick up a torch? Grab the end that's not on fire!)

Problems abound. The federal government wastes and spends too much. We lack compassionate yet practical programs to help the poor here and around the world. We need energy independence and alternative, clean-burning, domestic-grown fuels. The scourge of cancer has killed too many and must be stopped. We need term limits for judges and members of Congress like we have for the President. We need a flat tax instead of the dreadful, incomprehensible tax code we now have.

This is the issue logjam. I certainly agree that cancer must be stopped.

And we need humility.

While I am proud to be an American, when I consider my citizenship and the responsibilities it carries today in the light of eternity, I am more humbled by it. We have been given much and will be held to account for what we have been given.

He is unashamed to present his role in the Presidency as a matter of service to God. Humility is a nice theme, and a hard one to pull off when you're putting yourself forward as deserving the most powerful position in the world. I remember John Roberts making much of the humility theme at his confirmation hearings, when he described the role of a judge. But a judge is appointed by another person -- not pressing himself forward, and a judge can rightly humble himself before the law and promise to do only what the law requires. A President must impose his will. And everyone who runs for President is pursuing his will to achieve power.

I ask mostly for your prayers. Pray for America, that our division as a people might end and that our land be healed.

Thank you for your interest and support. Thank you for your prayers. Please join our campaign of national renewal and hope for the future!

God Bless you, and God Bless this nation we love so dearly...

I heard this part of the speech on television and was struck by how religious it sounded, more so than in text form. There was passion and sincerity in his voice. Hope, healing, renewal, prayer, America, God. We get the message.

Checking the tone of the hearings.

I've been slogging away at the TiVo'd C-Span coverage of the Alito hearings. I wonder how many people are really trying to listen to everything. Probably none. Personally, I speed through nearly all of the Republicans, who essentially provide Alito with a break -- a break where he doesn't get to leave the room.

But even the Democrats are too dull to take much of. With the multiple rounds of questioning, we're hearing more questions of the I'd-like-to-get-back-to-the-issue-of type. It's often painfully obvious that the Senators have nothing left to say.

This morning, I heard one of my Senators, Herb Kohl, going over and over whether Alito thought there should be term limits or age limits on judges, a question with almost no value in the first place, since the Constitution establishes life tenure for federal judges. There is utterly nothing for a Supreme Court justice to do on that subject. Alito was ploddingly patient with the Senator. Too bad he couldn't say: What possible relevance does my opinion on that subject have? After Alito explained why the Framers chose life tenure and why it makes sense for those who interpret constitutional law to serve for very long terms, Kohl ridiculously criticized him for giving "on the one hand, on the other hand" comments and nattered away about just being really interesting in knowing his opinion and how this may be the last time that the American people will get to hear his opinions. (Huh?)

I would have perked up if Kohl had asked questions like: "Judge, you know the Constitution gives federal judges life tenure, but don't you think they hold on to their jobs too long? Don't you think the judges have an ethical obligation to step down at a certain age or maybe after 20 years at the most? Would you reveal your thoughts on when you will retire and pledge to step down if you suffer a serious illness or reach the age of 80?"

For those who aren't subjecting themselves to this easily avoidable ordeal, there are the newspapers. Here we find the equivalent of weather reports: How was the atmosphere today? Yesterday, according to the WaPo, "The once-sluggish confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned confrontational." Today, with the hearings just started, the NYT tells us, the tone has become "calmer." With a slight chance of storms?

I'm sorry, yesterday was sluggish. The fact that Kennedy blew a gasket at one point and that Mrs. Alito left the room at another was not enough to dilute the overwhelming tedium of the event. I mean, how tedious does something need to be that a woman walking out of room is a big to-do? And was this exciting (from the WaPo article):

Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.

Yesterday, Alito said that Roe must be treated with respect because it has been reaffirmed by the high court several times in the past three decades.

But when Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) peppered Alito with questions about whether the ruling is "the settled law of the land," the nominee responded: "If 'settled' means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis." Stare decisis is a legal principle that, in Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided."

During Roberts's confirmation hearings, he, too, was reluctant to disclose how he would vote if asked to overturn Roe . But during the 2003 hearing on his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he had said he viewed the ruling as settled law.

Oh, my Lord, he edged closer!

We have had separate (and multiple) lines of questions on the meaning of "stare decisis," "precedent," and "settled law." Who knows, maybe one of these terms has some special dimension that could bring new controversy to Alito's views on abortion rights, which were actually thoroughly spelled out in the very first set of questions he answered (at the beginning of Day 2).

Let's try shaming first.

John Fund has a Wall Street Journal editorial arguing for term limits for Supreme Court Justices:

A seat on the high court is now so powerful and so heady that many justices stay long past their prime. Legal scholars have concluded that half of the last 10 retirees have been too feeble or inattentive to fully participate in the work of the court.

The secrecy that shrouds the high court can also allow someone to turn his chamber into a nursing home, as William O. Douglas did in the 1970s. He was so determined to hang on until a new president could appoint someone philosophically compatible with him that he refused to leave after an incapacitating stroke. This is not only irresponsible, but for, say, a liberal justice hanging on through a series of Republican presidents, it is directly at odds with the preferences of the electorate. In Douglas's case, his colleagues were so concerned that they informally agreed that during the last year of his service none of the court's decisions would be valid if his was the deciding vote. They finally pressured him to resign in 1975. A weakened Thurgood Marshall often looked to his fellow octogenarian William Brennan on how to vote because he no longer could hear well enough to understand the arguments other justices made during their conferences.

Fund makes a strong argument. (Read the whole thing.) But he does not address how term limits would affect presidential campaigns. We'd know which Justices were slated to leave in the upcoming presidential term. As it is now, we just engage in a guessing game, saying things that are often ridiculously off-base. (In the 2000 campaign we were told the next President would probably get three appointments, but in fact, he got zero.) Maybe the people voting for President should know which Justices are coming up for replacement. And there is something unseemly about the Justices -- supposedly aloof from politics -- timing their retirements to try to control the ideology of the next occupant of their seat.

But I still resist changing the Constitution, and even if I didn't, I'm realistic enough to know how incredibly difficult it is to amend. A more moderate approach, which I want to recommend, is shaming.

While we do criticize Justices for their opinions, we hold back from criticizing them for clinging to their seats too long. I think we may be observing the general social norm that frowns on age discrimination and accommodates disability. But maybe we ought to set aside that generality and get specific about Supreme Court Justices: they wield immense power and they cling to it. Why don't we talk about that? Why don't we shame them for staying too long?

We don't spare the criticism for other persons who tighten their grip on power. Before we try to amend the Constitution, let's try shaming. I think the Justices are vulnerable to our criticism. Much as they may love their power, they must also love our good opinion. They must want to be remembered as great Justices. But insulated on the Court, surrounded by respectful admirers -- should I say sycophants? -- they may need to hear stronger voices from the rest of us. Why don't we put aside our stock politeness and say more clearly and more often that it is wrong to hold your seats too long and wrong to let too many years pass without giving the President a chance to appoint someone new.

I'll leave you with this passage from Bill Maher's book "New Rules":

New Rule

Just because you have a job for life doesn't mean you have to do it for life. It's well and proper that we venerate our elders -- but give it a freakin' rest....

Now, I know it must be hard to give up your job when your job is literally sitting on a throne, or being on a "supreme" court, or keeping women out of the priesthood to make room for the gays -- but at some point it starts to look like you think of yourself as indispensible, and no one is indispensible, including you, the late Mr. Infallible...

[T]here's a reason that names like Cary Grant, Joe DiMaggio, and Johnny Carson inspire a special kind of awe: They all did something that made them more beloved than anyone else -- they left before we got sick of them.