Never before in our history has the judiciary played so central a role in an election. It makes more sense for voters to cast their ballots on issues relating to the economy, foreign policy, immigration, abortion, and other matters that affect them and their families.

It’s contrary to the spirit of our elections for the focus to be on legal and constitutional issues, many of which are difficult to understand, thus making it easier for politicians to use sound bites instead of thoughtful arguments.

What, though, is the alternative? If a presidential candidate, or the son of the incumbent, has arguably engaged in criminal conduct, investigations are in order, and if the evidence supports it, prosecutions. Yet it’s wrong for prosecutors to use the criminal justice system to achieve political ends.

[All true, and Dersh also recognizes some of the nuances involved. For instance, should we allow anyone engaging in criminal activity to get immunity from prosecution by running for office? But the problem here is societal, rather than legal or solely political. We have fractured in our abandonment of traditional and classical education, and produced several generations of nihilists that are seizing levers of power to impose their political will rather than to serve the public. We have always been a litigious society, but adding that element is creating an existential crisis for representative republicanism and the rule of law. — Ed]