Superb advice, Bret - good thing they're not going to take it...
Here’s why…
Kavanaugh currently makes $220K/year - an associate justice makes $35K/year more…
Did you see the look on Ashley’s face, as Trump was announcing…
What this pack of gangsters is about to put her and her daughters through – after blathering for weeks about Trump’s cruelty to immigrant families and their children…
She’s got a sinking feeling that the raise may not be worth the trouble…
We could make all the analogies and equivalences – true, false, or in between – no matter…
Folks will speak on a Tuesday this fall…
PS
Already happening…
Ocasio-Cortez was looking like she could do for the Dems what Nicks did for Fleetwood Mac…
Now looking more like what Ross did for Quarterflash…
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/nyregion/ocasio-cortez-crowley-twitter.html
The irony – you guys once again meddled…
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/nyregion/ocasio-cortez-primary-third-parties.html
Not sure what’s going on – but everything he’d put out in text or to the media has been supportive of O-C…
She’d been affirmative and assertive in her style – and I was hoping that she’d maintain that, even in the face of DC politics…
She’s talked more about and to people holding two – or more – jobs, than people on welfare…
In ordinary times, Schumer would host them both for a street-vendor lunch and make things right…
But Chuck’s in a foul mood, these days…
A pragmatic centrist can only be pushed so far…
The best one all day...From Alice in NYC:
Bret, I am scouring the web for your column entitled “Just Confirm Garland.” Can’t find it. Please advise.
9
"he (and Obama) were cynically disrespected"
And the Constitution.
Can rules of quorum be waived? Is it possible to shut down Congress via walk-out?
1
I recall reading this op-ed several weeks ago. I guess the NYT decided it was worth recycling. I disagree. It was defeatist then, and it's defeatist still. Just throw up the white flag and don't make a fuss because who needs all that controversy? (Echoes of Tokyo Rose here.)
What a shameful stance! One that has even less merit now that we know Justice Kennedy probably had special interest in seeing this man nominated.
Add to that, the fact that:
"Kavanaugh wrote in a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article that it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute allowing criminal investigations and prosecutions against a sitting President to be deferred until their term ends."
Which of course couldn't have been the deciding factor for a besieged and culpable president.
3
Come on Brett Stephens, Kavanaugh is in no way mainstream and does not deserve confirmation! McConnell broke with the Constitution and denied Progressives Mr. Garland. Liberals have the right to protect the country from an extreme Supreme Court—or at least try. We can’t expect more than tribalism from Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell, but I for one certainly expect more from NY Times columnists. My guess is that you will regret this column in the not-too-distant future.
2
Keep eyes on the prize. Republicans were able to block Garland and will be able to seat Kavanaugh because they control the Senate. Democrats need to take back the Senate. Focus on that and don't waste energy fighting a righteous but lost cause.
4
I agree with all of Bret's points and would only add that as long as the nomination is unconfirmed it's a rallying point for the _Republican_ base. Why did Trump get such a large percentage of the women's vote in 2016? Abortion. As long as the seat is in play, those votes are safe. If there were any way the Democrats could actually block anything, then it would be worthwhile, but they can't. They have to play a longer game. Win the elections, then try to make changes.
4
He's in favor of absolute presidential power and voter suppression. The five have every intention of legislating from the bench in favor of power and wealth and against democracy.
I don't think so.
3
Republicans are governing as if they represent everyone, when in fact they represent well less than half of us.
Dangerous autocracy. Young Kavanaugh is going to help silence us.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We already have a one party government, and the courts need to be a corrective to that.
6
Will taking on a Kavanaugh battle help or hinder DEMs getting a majority in Congress this coming November?
In my view, that is all that matters at the moment.
Once DEMs have a majority we can actually make some positive changes. Until then winning is what counts.
5
Leaving the wisdom of our Constitution as some would encourage us to do, is not wise.All the reasoning that went into its construction is readily available to be considered.
As a practicing attorney and student of the writings of the Founders, respect for their work only increases with time.
Kavanaugh will be a fine Justice for all Americans.
1
Perhaps he will. But I won't know until he has been asked a lot of hard questions. The vetting process is a good thing.
1
What a reasoned, thought-out, informative and impressive Op-Ed piece about a controversial subject.
Which, alas, it means it has no place in the current state of what passes for political debate nowadays.
3
hardly reasoned . more a lecture
Left that in college No thanks brett. taking your advice is political suicide for ther Dems.
It;s time to show a spine.
4
Dems need to fight back! The country just wants to see that they are capable of fighting this CorruptedGOP. Let them fight back NOW!
3
"Kavanaugh will almost certainly be confirmed."
And it's also true that this confirmation would ensure GOP control of the judiciary for decades. Stephens is fine with that, but Dems shouldn't be. The stakes are so high that it's worth putting up a fight even if the odds are low.
"Fierce opposition to Kavanaugh hurts Democrats."
This is a mere assertion with no real explanation following. Given that GOP courts have targeted voting rights, affirmed gerrymandering, and given the country GW Bush in the last 20 years, we can be sure that failure to fiercely oppose Kavanaugh will hurt Dems in the long run.
"Liberals always cry wolf."
They cried wolf about Kavanaugh in 2006. Based on his record since then, they were right. We can easily see for ourselves that this isn't Souter or even Kennedy. Whether a nominee is "non-scary" should be determined by his record, not by his anodyne appearance based on a "closer look" on TV.
"What about rallying the base?"
It's not about rallying the base, it's about avoiding infuriating it.
"Kavanaugh deserves confirmation."
This is the only relevant argument, and it's entirely a matter of opinion. You say he merits it, others say no. But again, you offer no SUBSTANTIVE explanation of why this is a "manifestly qualified nominee."
You'll have to forgive us if we don't just take your word for it. Everyone knows that Kavanaugh is the essence of establishment extremism, everyone remembers Garland, and no one is buying your false concern.
9
The discussion at hand, whether to resist Kavanaugh's confirmation, boils down to this one simple question: If now is not the time for Democrats and Independents to fight like hell, when the stakes are so high and the judicial consequences are so dire, then when exactly is the right time?
6
Democrats should have one goal and one goal only and that is to take the majority in the House and perhaps the Senate. Anything that and I mean anything that derails that effort should be immediately spiked. A kamikaze, feel good effort on Kavanaugh is a waste of effort and focus and will be unsuccessful. Style points don’t count.
3
The only thing "confirmed" here is the endless hypocrisy and duplicity of the GOP.
9
The Democrats should just insist that Kavanaugh's lengthy record be thoroughly vetted. There are lots and lots of documents to read. It should take well into November.
6
I agree that fighting this nomination is probably hopeless and probably Democrats should just make a perfunctory
opposition with the red state democrats voting yes in an act of self preservation. And even in the unlikely event that we killed this nomination Trump would just nominate someone much worse like the religious cultist from Indiana. But let’s not pretend that SCOTUS is anything other than a political institution. I was an appellate attorney for three decades and I can predict with 90% certainty how each SC Justice will vote without knowing anything about a case except the parties’ names. The 2000 (stolen) and 2016 (possibly compromised) presidential elections were lost and with them SCOTUS. Thank you Ralph Nader and Jill Stein depriving our nominees of a fraud proof majority. This is what you have wrought! You both will live in infamy.
3
Don’t forget to thank Putin.
2
Why didn't Bret Stephens tell the Republicans to "just confirm Merrick Garland"?
10
And Mr. Stephens what was your stance as McConnell refused a hearing to Merrrick Garland? The hypocrisy of you and your ilk is astounding to me and to many others.
9
Your article is inherently contradictory not to say ridiculous on its face. On the one hand — or side of your mouth — you argue that the Democrats not resist the nomination of Kavanaugh simply because they don’t have the votes. A purely political stance. Then on the other side of your mouth you make plummy arguments about the judges eminent — to your lights — qualifications, leaving the politics aside. Well if you really left the politics aside before you sat to write this piece, perhaps you could have concentrated on the ethical and constitutional duties of the Senate, which is clearly and unapologetically to advise and consent. Let’s let the Senate have serious hearings and thoroughly vet this fellow. Let’s let the Senate do its job.
8
Yes dems, give Kavanaugh a pass and you'll be way stronger for the next confirmation! Just watch your political capital grow and grow while you silently submit....
7
Bret, I am scouring the web for your column entitled “Just Confirm Garland.” Can’t find it. Please advise.
19
Put this political wisdom in your ears: "Merrick Garland nomination".
5
Yes, the treatment of Merrick Garland was grossly unfair and possibly criminal.
Yes, McConnell is a hypocrite.
Yes, Trump is a lunatic (no offense to the moon).
But all that matters right now is that DEMs focus on winning a majority in November.
Will taking on this Kavanaugh fight (or any other fight between now and November) help or hinder the DEMs chances in November? The answer to that question is ALL that matters at the moment.
Once DEMs have a majority we can start talking about justice and fairness. Until then we're just spitting into the wind.
When considering the above question, remember, we are talking about getting people who recently voted for GOP representatives to switch to DEM. That's what it will take to get a majority. Those are the people that have to be reached.
The DEMs will not obtain a national majority by trying to mobilize the Left wing of the party (of which I am one). That will only serve to cement the support in Left-leaning districts already controlled by DEMs. It's good, yes, but not helpful in winning swing district seats.
What battles and what DEM actions will compel people in eastern PA, for example, to vote DEM when they voted GOP last time?
1
Democrats have consistently made the Supreme Court the number one reason for voting the lesser of two evils for those less enthusiastic voters for a couple decades now. Failure to take the issue seriously now says a lot.
2
Democratic leadership is spineless and needs to be replaced. They should be fighting 10 times harder and with bottomless passion. We were robbed of a nominee and that must be righted.
2
I think we're not seeing the forest for the trees. We're in the middle of a takeover of this country, by a party and a President that has no use for the rule of law.
Things that never could have been considered need to be considered: Trump is de-legitimizing the Court-- McConnell stole that seat.
We need to take back our country.
Bret Stephens, as usual is over his head. William Buckley is turning over in his grave.
2
The title of your article reminds me of the Bush/Gore debacle. Gore won, the country lost. Thousands of American service people died because of a war that was not a war we should have fought. It was Republican pressure to do something after 9/11 - anything - even start a war with Iraq when it was Saudi Arabians who flew the planes.
Your title is so quick, so placating, so republican.
3
The Dems just need to worry about convincing voters that all Democratic Senator's are justified in voting "No" on him. They shouldn't try to obstruct or delay the vote. They should just get it over with and focus on the mid-terms. If they just all vote "No" as a block and all Republican's vote "Yes" he will be confirmed and then we can move on. There are really good reasons to vote "No" on him and the Red-state Dems can justify their "No" to their constituents by pointing that they voted "Yes" on Gosuch.
If all they can do is make him look bad, to people other than the church people, that’s what the Democrats should do. Then use it for the congressional.
1
Opposing a qualified candidate is a waste of time, a show of weakness, and a great way to underline the fact that the left has lost the culture wars for the foreseeable future. I may have left the Republican party over Trump's nomination and voted for Hillary, but my disgust with his actions does not cloud my thinking. Get over it, and instead of complaining that you don't like the outcome, remember that elections have consequences, we lost, and get off your behind and vote. Nothing else counts.
4
Another reason for SCOTUS term limits rather than lifetime appointment. We really don't need originalists determining the course of our lives based on a 231 year old document.
2
How should the course of our lives be determined?
The reality is that the GOP Senators need to attack him because it is clear that Trump nominated him because of his belief that the president can do no wrong.
2
Confirm someone who belies that a sitting president cannot never be indicted for criminal conduct while in office? Let's just give Trump an AR-15 and let him loose.
Confirm an agent of a foreign power?
2
Bret Stephens is mostly right except for the biggest issues of all, separation of powers and checks and balances, where Kavanaugh is weak if not terrible. The judicial activism of the originalists, of which Kavanaugh is one, is breathtaking. Democrats can make a united stand based on Montesquieu and Madison, which is not going to hurt Democrats in red states at all, and may even help them. No politician has ever lost a race by being too Madisonian. Go for it, Schumer.
4
Whenever Republicans offer "friendly" advice to Democrats, one can reliably assume that just the opposite is the way to proceed. Mr. Stephens is to be ignored.
2
I think Mr. Stephens underestimates energy on the left.
The Blue Wave is coming. Not only will we pick up more than 70 seats in the House, but we’re probably going to win the Senate too.
What Trump has done to those migrants, and to our economy, is UNACCEPTABLE! Americans throughout the land are seething with rage, and WANT to obstruct Trump at every turn.
Don’t take the bait my fellow progressives! As socialism catches on, Republicans like this author are trying to talk us down. But this only happens when they’re scared. In this case, Mr. Stephens knows full well that the Left is about to triumph!
In fact, I won’t be the least bit surprised if this time next year Hillary is our President, and Oprah is Kennedy’s replacement on the Supreme Court!!!
Your comparison to Garland is ludicrous as McConnell blocked even having hearings using his made up to close to the election bull. Well let's see shouldn't that bull be seen as setting a precedent in the senate. So then Kavanaugh's hearings should likewise be after the midterm elections. That would be the true comparison to Garland. Otherwise he does not belong in the conversation at all. You are quick to say Democrats overreach but come on in bringing up Garland in this way you are doing it much more and without logic.
3
Even though they went to the same prep school, Kavanaugh comes across as less of a rich snotty brat than Gorsuch. So he should be an easier sell on the personal level.
Democratic opposition to Kavanaugh in the Senate is probably futile unless buttressed by massive daily protests in both DC and the home states of the Senators thought to be in play. One thing we have recently learned is that so-called political principles are readily trumped by angry populist mobs. In this benighted era principles quickly melt into mush. It's an ugly game, but a simple one that Democrats can master as well as Republicans.
1
No Mr Stephens. It is time to fight fire with fire, and dirt with twice as much dirt.
Garland was held up, Kavanaugh should be too...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The Democrats need get a whole lot more feisty and aggressive, and fight as if their life depends on it, which it will.
2
The main candidates had one-on-one interviews with Trump. Kavanaugh gave Trump the right answer to the question 'will you keep me out of jail?' I cant prove that is what happened, but if past is prologue, that is what happened.
2
One particularly hopeless progressive Dem Senator went so far as to wish that up to ten of the red-state Dem Senators up for re-election in a hundred or so days would ignore their chances by insisting Kavanaugh wasn't lefty enough.
Oddly, he would retain HIS Senate seat, of course, in this little demonstration of political fervor.
Unless I am much more confused than I think I am, Bluto did not become a US Senator. Bluto was played by John Belushi, not Al Franken, who did become a US Senator. Belushi went on to die of a drug overdose, if I remember correctly. While death should not perhaps disqualify someone from serving -- I think many dead people would be superior to Mitch McConnell and his gang of toadies -- the law as it stands today would prevent it. If, like Bret Stephens, I could reshape the Senate by installing dead people, I would suggest Flounder (Stephen Furst), who sadly died last year.
Sorry, I still remember how happy I was when I learned that Scalia had died. Scalia gave s Citizens United, Bush43, and an idiotic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Our democracy is at risk as long as Trump is in office.
3
Dear Democrats: remember to do exactly the opposite of whatever Republican columnists suggest you do.
6
You don't get it do you Mr. Stephens? The outrage over Kavanaugh's appointment isn't about Mr. Kavanaugh himself, no one would expect the dolt-in-chief to appoint anyone who wouldn't kiss his ring. The outrage is over the duplicity, dishonesty and downright disrespect for the rule of law and our institutions. The appointment of Kavanaugh is one more example of the distorted sense of democracy being pushed forward by the thugs in the White House and the big money right behind them. The outrage is over fear for the future of our democracy.
3
I see. When the used car salesman (with the bizarre hair) says, "I have just the model you, its great, you'll love it" you advise just taking him at his word?
Personally, I think we should take a little time and look under the hood of this '70 Kavanaugh. After all that '49 Pruitt we bought earlier didn't quite work out as advertised.
Myself, on a quick first look at the Kavanaugh, thought I detected a distinct whiff of a lying, self-agrandizing toad ("No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. Mr. President, I am grateful to you and I am humbled by your confidence in me. Thank you.") Is this Kavanaugh going to stand up to the rough road ahead? Or is it just going to collapse in a heap when we really need it. And what about the steering? Right turns only, perhaps? Not much use to me and we should take the time to find out before we buy.
1
"Things are going to get unimaginably worse and they are never ever going to get better again."
Kurt Vonnegut
2
Is this in the same tradition as, "Just give a hearing to to Garland"? Oh, I thought not.
3
Why didn't you say just confirm Merrick Garland when he was selected as Supreme Court Justice? He had a much longer career in the Federal Court and was considered brilliant and a fair minded centrist who understood the nature of fair and balanced judicial review.
Why? I suggest that you are motivated by ideological bias and it doesn't bother you if the court overturns
judicial precedents protecting women, gays, minorities, unions, voting rights, and the environment.
Unfortunately McConnell changed the rules requiring 60 votes out of political opportunism and prevented the vote on Garland for the same reason.
Trump lost the election by 3 million votes despite the Russian involvement in the election and Comey's late intervention.
His election is at best tainted and he is under investigation for likely criminal behavior in the election and in his business. He admitted in civil court to fraud.
He has no business appointing powerful lifelong Judges in this setting. It is unfair and morally repugnant and compromised.
3
Fundamentally, the Senate should confirm any nominee whose competency and fitness to serve on the court is established. It should never be a partisan issue. Winning the Presidency confers certain advantages over winning a Senate election, and this is one of the big ones.
Comparisons and contrasts to past events (e.g., Garland) aside, at this moment in time the Dems have a choice of whether to act with maturity or childish obstinance, the latter of which will only hurt them in November and further drive our country deeper into the abyss. Moreover, as Stephens correctly acknowledges, there are other fights to be had -- many of them! Why pick one you will inevitably lose and lose capital fighting?
2
"Democrats shouldn't fight, they should focus on X" is the advice that Democrats always get and listen to and it's always wrong (not least because when X actually comes around, they're invariably advised that that's not the time to fight after all). For evidence of why this is wrong, look no further than the other major party which never shies away from a fight and has been eating the Democrats' lunch for the last several years.
What Republicans do that Democrats (and Bret Stephens) never seem to understand is MAKE THE ARGUMENT. Voters don't agree with you? That's why you MAKE THE ARGUMENT to persuade voters to come over to your side. (This is without even getting into the fact that Kavanaugh is out of the mainstream and most people already agree with Democrats on most issues.) This is a fundamental part of politics, but it's something that Democrats miss time and time again.
If Kavanaugh joins the court, it will be very bad for most people, including in states Trump won. He will increase corporate power at workers' and consumers' expense, undermine civil liberties, and make abortion a crime, something even many conservative women don't actually want. There are lots of ways to convince people that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. Skipping the fight would just fast-forward to the part where Democrats lose and accomplishes nothing. Senate Democrats, show some self-respect and strategic acumen and fight this to the end. You might even surprise yourselves and win.
2
I don't think that Kavanaugh deserves confirmation, but I do think he deserves sincere consideration: the usual process of combing his background, his legal philosophy, and so on. Once that is done thoroughly, he deserves a full debate of his qualifications for the job. Then and only then will Senators decide whether or not he will be confirmed. I agree with Stephens that Kavanaugh is likely to be confirmed. I hope that Democrats work as hard as possible during the background investigation and the debate, and that if they find cause that he should not be confirmed, that they convince their colleagues to vote no.
2
I agree. It would seem to me that the Senate owes the candidate the usual degree of professional respect and serious study. I am a voter, and I would like to see my elected Senator do that. I am sure there must be many other voters who would like that, too. The Constitution is a good document and a good guide. Our elected representatives should endeavor to do their utmost to follow its intentions.
2
I'd like to see exactly what you describe, while at the same time DEMs make sure to point out loudly to the American public that they are not engaging in a strategy of obstruction, unlike the GOP with Merrick. Rather they are participating in the correct and just legal process as described in our Constitution, laws, and long, stable history.
The GOP will use any excuse to paint DEMs as "obstructionist" and hypocritical. This is what must be fought.
2
Will taking on a Kavanaugh battle help or hinder DEMs getting a majority in Congress this coming November?
In my view, that is all that matters at the moment.
Once DEMs have a majority we can actually make some positive changes. Until then winning is what counts.
Believe it or not, there are actually some of us who voted for President Trump because we wanted him to select candidates such as Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump promised us he would choose more conservative justices who would also follow the laws according to our constitution. Shocking isn't it that President Trump is actually following through on this promise.
We have had four very liberal justices and one that voted occasionally with them (Justice Kennedy). They cast the deciding votes on some our progressive decisions and now we would like to see a swing to the right. Hopefully we will have another conservative join the other four and bring back some normalcy. It is time for a change and we look forward to seeing it happen.
Mr. Trump is our legitimate president who was voted by the people through the electoral college. If people are unhappy about this, they should work to have it eliminated. All this discussion of our president not deserving of the office is just plain silly. Those of us who voted for him are very glad and like the fact that America is great again. It will be even better once Mr. Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
2
The Democrats always cry wolf? Hmmmn. They seem to have gotten Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch pretty much right. Maybe they missed a few things about Kennedy, but he mostly fell in line. Souter was a surprise to everyone.
Democrats should confirm Kavanaugh, a judge who has an expansive view of executive power? I seem to remember Republicans complaining about Obama overreaching just about every day for eight years. If they had the courage of their alleged convictions, they'd be aghast at the prospect of someone who doesn't think Presidents should be constrained.
Kavanaugh has support of the public? Please, they barely know him. Sure he sounded the right notes at his intro and has millions of dark money behind him, but his opposition to abortion is at odds with the majority of the nation. So, too, is his opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
Remember the days when Republicans complained about activist judges who legislate from the bench? Kavanaugh is one of those justices.
Senators Snow and Collins confirmed him as a federal judge? That's no big deal, Republicans confided Merrick Garland and even bestowed heaps of praise on the guy.
5
Right now the 1ST priority is winning a majority in Nov. 2018. DEMs need to be SELECTIVE in their battles, with that priority in mind. Until they have a majority they are essentially without weapons to stop the GOP agenda.
What is there to gain or lose by fighting a Kavanaugh nomination to the point of obstruction?
1. Chances of quashing the nomination are near nil. On the rare chance DEMs succeed Trump would simply nominate a replacement who is even worse, like Amy Barrett.
2. Will taking on this battle help or hinder DEMs chances of gaining seats in Congress currently held by the GOP? DEMs will only obtain a majority by taking seats from the GOP. But those seats are, almost by definition, in districts and states that are "swing" states, i.e. generally centrist. Does taking on a Kavanaugh battle improve DEMs chances in those districts? To me the answer appears to be "NO".
If the point of fighting Kavanaugh, or any number of other battles, is to "galvanize the base", that is misguided strategy. There are only a few districts where an apathetic DEM base, if woken up, could win currently GOP seats. In the large majority of weak GOP seats, its the swing voters who will decide.
10 years from now things could be different, if DEMs gain control and reverse the gerrymandering of 2010. Then it may be the time to take on battles based on ethical principles.
But for now all that matters is winning. We need to be very careful to pick the right fights.
I was nodding along until I saw the "Borking if Bork." While I also prefer competence over ideology in judges (and I'm a federal litigator), a vote on ideology is appropriate when the nominee's ideology is extremist. If such things could be quantified, Bork's ideology would three standard deviations away from the norm. While that type of extremism is tolerated (both right and left) in the academic environment from which he came, it has no place in a job where, first and foremost, you are a public servant called upon to resolve actual disputes between actual parties who actually have to live by your ruling. Supreme Court decisions should not be radical thought experiments.
3
Oh, okay Bret, if you say so. I'll just forget about the whole Garland thing.
5
Democrats should not stop fighting for people's rights just as Republicans have persisted for decades trying to take away people's rights and obstruct fair voting practices.
6
Trump collaborated with the Russians to win the presidency.
Trump had 3 million less votes than his opponent.
Republicans obstructed Merrick Garland.
No, Democrats, do not just confirm an illegitimate Supreme Court nominee put forth by an illegitimate president.
12
The new reality: Supreme court appointments will only happen when the majority in the Senate is the same party as the President. The Democrats best course of action is to focus their energy on retaking the Senate and Presidency.
1
When the Supreme Court decided on the 'hanging chads" that determined the 2000 the Bush_Gore election, the justices voted down party lines. We gasped. We slumped.
Political hackism.
The role of the independent judiciary, the fourth
part, a key part, to the workings of checks and balances in our
government, had fallen on its face. . What are we to do? Dear Senators, Act like senators.Dogma has inflated rhetoric, stilted dichotomies have destroyed thought. Your job is to protect the independence of the judiciary.
Brett Kavanaugh is a political hack. He has been well
rewarded and will be well rewarded, but he has disqualified himself for this position.
4
Culture wars are far longer than election cycles, and the GOP hasn't won one since the day their intellectual forebears fired on Sumter. I want this war. I want to win this war. I know that America's strengths are its integrity and decency, and though there may be short term assaults on those strengths, they win in the end.
And I am deeply dismayed to see The Times forget its place. This paper ought to be ashamed of itself for this piece, by a writer who doesn't have the integrity and decency to be ashamed of it.
2
Good points...for a change.
1
Is it just an accident that every single one of the current conservatives have Catholic upbringing? That indoctrination is deep -- there is a hierarchy of God, Jesus, Pope and Priest.
Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court Level, is more than politics, more than administration, but weighing morality, ethics and values that had been relegated to religion.
Sure, this all rings of retrograde religious bigotry, but when such officials want to prevent a woman having the final choice of terminating a pregnancy before "quickening" --which even Catholics accepted decades ago, we have a deep distortion that is only explained by this nexus between church and state.
I had hopes for Gorsuch, given that his family are now Episcopalians, a group that is officially pro-choice. But at a deep level, these are "Manchuran Candiates." Rationality is too slender a thread to defeat deep religious beliefs.
There is no atheistic-secular political force in this country. It is this sad reality, that while probably half of elected officials fit this category, almost none would attempt to run on such a position.
As long as "In God We Trust" is our motto, and also our cultural norm, then Bret Stevens is correct. It is the cowardliness and disorganization of atheists that has given us Donald Trump, and soon decades of religious based "justice."
3
Yes, well of course. Democrats should take the strategic advice of a Republican and just roll over.
I don't think so. I'd rather fight and lose than just roll over.
8
Wait, so centrist voters will be upset about obstruction? What happened with Merrick Garland then? What happened to swing districts and states following the horrifying GOP obstruction?
6
Culture wars are far longer than election cycles, and the GOP hasn't won one since the day their intellectual forebears fired on Sumter. I want this war. I want to win this war. I know that America's strengths are its integrity and decency, and though there may be short term assaults on those things, they win in the end. The Times ought to be ashamed of itself for this piece, by a writer who doesn't have the integrity and decency to be ashamed of it.
3
It's so cute how all these conservatives are giving out advice on how to succeed:
"Just Confirm Kavanaugh"
"Be Civil"
"Stop Identity Politics"
I would have loved to see them react to similar advice back in, say, 2009 or 2016.
Thanks, but no thanks, Bret. I think we'll take our chances with doing things according to our own principles. Kavanaugh is a loyalty pick by a wannabe dictator.
7
Here we go again.
A male white conservative columnist who will never have to fear the government blocking him from voting, or forcing him to bear a child, or eviscerating his health insurance, or immunizing a cop who shot him, or favoring religion over all other freedoms, or muzzling civil service employe explains to Democrats why they shouldn't oppose a white male conservative judge who has tried to do all these things, and has promised to try again.
Brett Kavanaugh, apart from having a hand in the memos that permitted torture by Americans, not only worked like a rabid beaver for Kenneth Starr, he wrote the most pornographic parts of the Starr report--the parts even Starr edited out because they were so slimy.
The only people who believe Brett Kavanaugh is "manifestly qualified" are people who support Kavanaugh's politics, or, if they're Democrats, are unprincipled, spineless hacks. They know who they are & so do we.
10
I wonder if Bret Stephens was one of the people saying before the election something like “I think we should give Trump a chance”. Before the 2016 election it was clear that Trump has issues like his tax returns and his disgraceful comments about women.
Cavanaugh needs to be carefully scrutinized to see if he is fit to be on the Supreme Court. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Trump picked the candidate who thinks the President is above the law.
5
I'm ashamed of this paper's cowardly in-curiosity and acquiesce to the terrible momentum before us.
3
I might agree with Bret if the opposition is merely a rabid, shrill, frothing-at-the-mouth reaction. But a calm, reasoned but pointed interrogation of Kavanaugh's positions is absolutely necessary, no matter the outcome. We don't want to be Bluto, in Dean Wormer's office, saying "Seven years of college (8 years of Obama) down the drain!"
4
I believe what you're really saying is why not relax and enjoy it?
9
Warren, Schumer, Booker, and others who are out there getting liberals' hopes up are only ensuring that the disillusionment and disappointment will be that much worse. I am seriously questioning Schumer's intelligence, we all know Booker loves a camera, and Warren seems to think the whole country is Massachusetts. Liberals deserve better leaders.
1
I agree. The real issue is voting out DT (or impeaching) ASAP.
I enjoyed reading this column I searched the archives for the column that Stephens wrote two years ago, titled "Just Confirm Garland."
There wasn't one.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
12
It's bad enough Kavanaugh would shield Trump from prosecution over what has been happening with Russia. You know if Trump thought he had the license from the judiciaruy, he'd LITERALLY be shooting people on 5th Ave. It is not a waste of political capital to stand for basic principles.
4
Short of finding a dead body in his basement, Kavanaugh will be confirmed and "Deserving has nothing to do with it." He's obviously not unqualified, perhaps more so than others on the bench. He's also partisan just like the others as well as the people who nominated them. To think otherwise is simply naive. And the fantasy that the court possesses real democratic legitimacy? It's as political as any other branch of government. The cold reality is Democrats have a difficult choice; lose more seats in vulnerable red states in the coming mid terms or retain a sense of moral superiority in defeat.
I for one dont think Kavanaugh should not get a vote because he has a position (at least currently LOL !) that sitting POTUScan't be indicted (not at all what he said when Clinton was POTUS !) BUT it is a fair question to ask and one he should have to answer esp since he has made very public comments across the year on this issue, if only to establish his veracity.
BUT Non scary ? Ask that of any of well over half a million women who had an abortion last year....or their daughters - or your daughters . (You do have daughters, I presume Brett, or you have no standing in this debate unless you are planning sex change surgery....But I cavil- to compare the bork hearings with the Garland nomination (no hearing ! Hello !!) is not just an oversight on your part-its a bad faith duplicitous bald faced attempt to change facts/history. The Bork hearings WERE political and partisan, as many SCOTUS hearings have been. ONLY Garland has been denied a hearing/vote, and why dems should feel free to invoke McConnell excuse its an election year. Would love to see how strongly you objected to McConnells tactics re Garland-I dont recall you saying sqaut about that-your silence then coupled with your willful hypocrisy now, undermines your credibility severely.
As for transferring federal prosecutors onto the paper chase for his hearing, not only is that unprecedented and inappropriate, we ALREADY have a n acute shortage of prosecutors to deal with serious crimes.
1
Brett -- was right there with you. Confirm fast, get back to the issues driving the mid-terms. Then, in his opening remarks: "Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. Mr. President, I am grateful to you and I am humbled by your confidence in me. Thank you."
" No president has EVER consulted more widely or talked WITH MORE people from MORE backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."
Ever? Really??? Trump putting in an effort??? Is he already a Trump toady two sentences in? Either Trump's team reviewed his remarks and added this, or the Judge was kissing butt on his own devices -- it's either a willingness to repeat a lie or a fact he cannot know or confirm on his own as directed by the President, or, a willingness to make up crap on his own to appease the President's ego. I would expect more from a Supreme Court nominee. We all should. So, sorry Brett, Dems should go after him for the first words out of his mouth as a nominee... Lies.
5
The American people deserve to view a hearing on Kavanaugh. That certainly would be more than Garland got. Let us not forget the logic employed to deny him a hearing.
Applying that logic to the Kavanaugh hearing one wonders why a sitting president who may be under investigation with results yet unknown can appoint a Supreme Court nominee when there is no guarantee that president would not be impeached or indicted.
No one can predict outcomes.
A politicized judge needs to be questioned. He may not be fully invested in overturning Roe v. Wade but he has opinions that could use some explaining.
The Court is a fragile link to the rights of all Americans, not just the ones who voted for Trump or profess to be members of the best race and best religion.
4
What evidence shows harm to Dems?
Workers' rights, wages, good jobs, college debt, voter rights continuing to be diminished, abortion rights, continued growth of racism, antisemitism, abandonment of seniors and more with this clown...
I could list more harm but I need to go practice eating out of cans to prep for the collapse and the revolution
3
Defeatist, cowardly attitude. One of the reasons the Democrats are doing so badly and will continue to do so. Those Democrats who voted for Gorsuch should be ashamed and they might as well be voted out of office. The Republicans must love them and it's to the Republicans advantage to have a few Democrats working for them.
5
And beware American Women! Our bragging rights of Women's Rights will be history. And Americans should stop their sanctimonious preaching to women in hijabs, chaddors or burquahs. We might just be in victorian skirts if these Republicans have their way!
What an astonishing proposition from a conservative!
Liberals and the Democratic Party should just roll over, admit defeat, and agree to whatever Trump wants!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the Democrats losing a major election after eight years of Obama acting like one of the few remaining adults in Washington?
5
I don't usually agree with Stephens but I do to some extent in this case. Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what. Collins is already expressing her positive views. While it is very important to question Kavanaugh about his outlier vision of presidential immunity the Democrats should use this as a point of education rather than a means to stop the confirmation process, which is really futile. Let them focus more on energizing their base to get out the vote in the midterms. Remember, an opinion writer made a very interesting point several days ago -- if Roe v. Wade is repealed or seriously disabled the religious right will have little to fight for politically in the future. So, look to Kavanaugh's confirmation in that positive light since it's inevitable anyway.
1
I don't suppose there's any reasonable hope that Kavanaugh will turn out to be some sort of stealth Earl Warren or David Souter. But it would be wonderful just to see the look on Bret Stephens's face if that turned out to be true.
2
If I had 1 wish, I would make an amendment to the constitution to require a minimum of 60% of the senate to confirm a supreme court justice. That would force both parties towards the center and maybe even help us to see we have more in common than we have differences.
If Trump, in his tenure, gets 2 or even 3 more SCOTUS appointments this country will spend the next generation divided and bickering and fighting to get back to center. If it were required to have 60% to confirm, the choices would be more towards the center. Is a polarized country what the founders really had in mind?
2
Mr. Stephens is right once again, and I'm a Libtard.
Kavanaugh is a conventional choice, not some wing nut who will bring down the Republic.
Since he's going to get confirmed why not keep our powder dry and give vulnerable red state candidates some breathing room?
Must everything be a crisis?
Take back Congress, wait till 2020, win back the White house, let RBG and Souter retire, and replace them with two 'reliables,' and balance (or whatever you want to call it) is restored.
Kavanaugh is not the end of the world. Far from it.
3
Bret, you are so right but the Democrats in the Senate will ignore your sage advice. It is political war out there in the era of Trump. No holds barred and take no prisoners. The only thing important in national politics today is the political views of the nominee.
Maybe you haven't heard that the Dems think that all things Trump and Trump himself are evil & immoral. Therefore, nothing Trump does and no one that he appoints is worthy of enactment or confirmation. We no longer have meaningful discussions between friendly opponents who think differently than we do. The Dems have taken the moral position that most of the political views of the GOP are simply immoral and that no compromise is possible.
Does that remind you of another time? Perhaps one thinks of 1860 and the immorality of slavery. No compromise was available to the parties. The question is are there any issues today (abortion?) where there is no room for compromise and the parties consider each other as being evil for holding such views?
2
As the Alt-Right says to everyone else about America, "Hey, quit your blubberin'. When I get through with this baby you won't even recognize it." (Daniel Simpson Day to Flounder, 'Animal House')
2
Why aren't Republicans being lectured on their political risk in fast-tracking and rubber-stamping this Trump SCOTUS nominee before the voters have a chance to speak in the midterms and before the Mueller investigation provides facts about this president's behavior vis a vis Russian interference in his election, his firing of FBI director James Comey, his possibly compromising financial ties to Russian oligarchs, and more? It is apparent to all that getting this justice seated before either of those events takes place is the only goal of Republicans. They want their pro-corporation, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-environment, and anti-woman fixer on the court for life while they still have the one vote to ram him through. Their political prospects, however, might not look so good if their president is found to have obstructed justice or lied to cover up Russian activities his campaign staff aided and abetted to help his election. There are still a few Republican voters who care about such things.
6
The reason conservatives always accuse liberal justices of "making the law", while believing conservative justices merely interpret the law, is quite simple: they DISAGREE with liberal interpretations, and want is THEIR interpretation of the Constitution to win out. Unfortunately, however, they will seldom admit this.
But all of their protests against "legislating from the bench" and their fairly recent creation of the concept of "originalism" point to something far more sinister: that they believe there is the only one correct way to interpret the Constitution, and its theirs.
But if this were true, there would be no need for 9 justices, but only one; and there would be no divided decisions or minority opinions issued by the court, for every opinion of the court would be unanimous.
And moreover, it would also mean that whenever a Democratic president (or an insufficiently conservative Republican president) is elected, then that person would be filling our courts with judges who act unlawfully.
So, I'm afraid that we ALL must accept that there are different interpretations of the Constitution to be made by different justices, and each of us wants interpretations that we agree with to be made, and not ones that we disagree with.
Believing anything else is ultimately a threat to pluralism and democracy itself.
So, please stop accusing justices you disagree with of "making the law" instead "interpreting the law"--the latter is what they are ACTUALLY doing.
4
Yes. Confirm Kavanaugh. Complete the Republicanification of the Supreme Court and Americans can live unhappily ever after.
2
As a liberal democratic I feel personally offended by your description "mindless obstructionists". We democrats could NEVER match the level of callous obstructionism that republicans in Congress are so good at and you know it.
Neil Gorsuch occupies a stolen supreme court seat and democrats were foolish idiots to let Trump succeed with his confirmation. Gorsuch is an arrrogant pro-corporate, anti-consumer rights conservative who shouldn't be there in the first place!
Trump has nominated Kavanaugh because he seems MOST LIKELY TO PROTECT TRUMP when Meuller issues a subpeona for heavan's sake! The nomination of Kavanaugh is the most clever and nefarious thing Trump has done to date. Trump continues to pull the wool over the public's eyes. He is a selfish con-man in clowns' clothing.
11
As the great jurist, Thomas More, said: "When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos." The GOP forsook its collective conscience in supporting Trump. The Democrats will only find integrity and strength in expressing and acting on theirs.
6
Yes, Bret Stephens we should confirm Judge Kavanaugh because he is intelligent, non-partisan, capable, blindly just!
Yes, make the SC more compromised than it is already. Gorsuch is intelligent, non-partisan? Really? All he did to get to the bench was just evade answers to reveal his core beliefs. And what the Republicans did to Judge Garland's nomination was correct? The Republicans without an iota of guilt hijacked his nomination - for the evasive, furtive Gorsuch. And please give me a break! Kavannaugh is no Justice Souter or Justice Kennedy. He is just a Republican.Period
6
I agree. In fact, please let them roll back reproductive rights on women and see what happens. 2018 will no longer be a Blue Wave. It will be a 40 day flood.
2
So, the Left and Center, and the vast majority... all of whom will be grievously impacted by this confirmation, should just admit defeat, and submit to a throat-slitting?
Nice try, but I think I’ll pass! Standing up for decency, and our nation’s future is never a lost cause.
7
Our current president denigrates the FBI and Mueller's investigation DAILY; and Mr Stephens compares --- A SENATE VOTE (52 Democrats plus 6 Republicans SAY NAY to Reagan's reward to Nixon's PARTISAN STOOGE who carried-out the Saturday Night Massacre) --- to the Constitutional-Oath-Breaker's shelving of the Merrick Garland nomination FOR 10 MONTHS. (And The People voted for Hillary, btw, Mr McConnell.)
For those who have forgotten, Bork admitted that Nixon promised him the next SC vacancy. FUNNY how Bork CLAIMED that Nixon told him of his reward AFTER he fired independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bork-nixon-offered-next-high-court-vacancy-73...
What I was to know is: Does our Bork-champion (Mr Stephens) believe that NIXON HELD BACK that promise after Richardson resigned, after Ruckelshaus resigned, after Bork's initial hesitation, UNTIL AFTER Bork did the actual firing?
4
The Senate should vote on Brett Kavanaugh, and he should be confirmed if the votes are there.
If the Democrats don't like it, they might try winning some elections. Hint: running more candidates that actually represent people (as opposed to lobbyists and big business) might actually help voters distinguish between the far right GOP and the medium right Democratic establishment.
Sometimes I forget this this is not Comedy Central when I read Bret Stephens. I get that he is trolling us. As nearly everyone else has pointed out, the irony the title of this column vs how Merrick Garland was treated is absurd. When the Democrats get back in power, it is time to expand the Supreme Court and stack the deck in their favor. Given what happened to Garland, the Supreme Court has become a kangaroo court.
6
oppose, oppose, oppose. We need to show what we represent and what we stand for. The new generation of voters need to see that being a Democrat means standing up for some principles that are currently being trampled by this administration. It's gone beyond the political gamesmanship. We gave Gorsuch a pass, even though his entire nomination was a travesty, and we need to stand firm on pointing out the flaws in Kavanaugh's candidacy. If for nothing else, then to create some meaningful headlines that make people think about what's going on instead of newspapers like the NY Times that allow Trump to make up fake headlines.
5
"A plurality of Americans already want Kavanaugh confirmed, according to a Rasmussen poll. "
A RASMUSSEN poll?
Surely even you know, Mr. Stephens, that the Rasmussen poll is typically distorted toward the right wing. And what do you mean by a "plurality"? That more people want him confirmed than don't, but enough are still undecided that the numbers for confirmation don't reach a majority. In fact, according to Rasmussen, those numbers are 44% -- i.e. around the same number that RASMUSSEN thinks have a favorable opinion of Trump's presidency.
Well that is certainly decisive, isn't it?
4
This is absurd. Although the Supreme Court is not much of an honorable institution as far as I'm concerned, the fact it has so much power in determining the future of the US polity means that every nomination to the Court should be picked apart. Kavanaugh's support of torture and the imperial presidency should cetainly be challenged. In addition, who knows what financial crimes he may have committed. All this needs to be vetted. All that takes time. No one but a simpleton or out and out partisan would argue against taking that time. Which are you, Bret?
2
After what Mitch and his senate henchmen did to Merrick Garland- steal a seat- we’re suppose to stand down and let them confirm a right wing zealot? He’s probably sweet as sugar and a good father etc etc etc. Who cares? He will apply his nasty federalist ideas to the rest of us. No pain for his family or friends
5
I would love to see the Democrats vote no. We will pick up more Republican Senate seats as a result.
I am so sick and tired of hearing how Democrats should just play "nice-njce" and that it will damage them if they don't. Being a doormat for the GOP has gotten them absolutely nowhere. It's time to stand up and fight. With the makeup of the Supreme Court at stake it's a perfect time to start.
5
This article is panderblust. Were republicans hurt by completely ignoring their Constitutional duty under the Obama administration ? Democrats, though, will be hurt by acting like they care about the makeup of the court ? To be clear, Citizens United definitely hurt everyone, which includes women. Kennedy was a catastrophe of capitulating conservatism and Kavanaugh will be worse. Merrick Garland, if anyone, deserved confirmation, or at least a chance at it. If anything is deserved, under the sun, it is that republicans become the small and vocal minority they were always meant to be and the democrats treat them just as they have done the democrats, in fact, the country deserves that to, because it would actually produce some legislative good along the way, instead of the oligarchical corporate fascism the republicans have given us all, in their insatiable lust to fill the troughs of their masters.
5
The Democrats should beware of Stephens bearing gifts. Again, Bret pretends he's steering the Democrats toward victory in the midterms (which he obviously doesn't want to happen) while offering to their lips a poisoned chalice. As for confirming all well-qualified candidates for judgeships, the Republicans ditched that old principle ages ago without a peep of objection from Bret. The Democrats should fight the nomination on grounds that will resonate with the public, health care, freedom from the religious prejudices of bosses, and the principle that not even the president is above the rule of law (a Republican mantra in Bill Clinton's day). And the Democrats should simply apply the Garland rule to all of Trump's judicial nominations--meet hardball with hardball finally.
3
I think you're wrong, but I also think you're not being completely honest here. My guess is you're writing this because you WANT us all to believe that Kavanaugh is unscary, not that you sincerely believe he is from a liberal perspective.
And, hey, I admit I'm not an expert on your politics, but every time conservatives give advice to liberals on these pages, I'm inclined to they really wish that they themselves had done more to stop Trump (or that they could have done more when they actually couldn't).
I think this nominee, like all the conservatives before him, will try his best to be inoffensive, and then will Gorsuch 2.0, or maybe even Thomas 2.0 right down the line on every decision.
So, unless you're a super ultra conservative (in which you'd never be a Democrat anyway), you're going to look like a complete lackey and tool of the far right if you rubber stamp this guy.
You're right that they can't win--it would be a MIRACLE if they could even postpone the nomination. But they still need to expose what this guy (and the elitist and misleadingly-named Federalist society that made his nomination possible) are all about: returning the country to the plutocracy of the Gilded Age.
2
It used to be, "It's the Economy, Stupid".
Now, "It's the Vote, Stupid".
There's only two things that matter going forward given the national nightmare that is demolition of the constitution, the environment and faith in public institutions that has been wrought by trump and the gop. I won't call him President Trump, because his "election" was the result of a bloodless coup by President Vladimir Putin. Ergo, we don't have a legitimate government now, so Supreme Court appointments under the trump regime are also not legitimate, especially given mcconnell's stealing President Obama's nominee to the high court, Merrick Garland.
Here are the two things that matter:
Vote Democrats at all levels of government in 2018 and 2020.
and,
The culmination of Mueller's investigation with indictments against trump and his family and the Kusher's for money laundering; and for treason as relates to the conspiracy to overthrow the legitimate 2016 presidential electoral process with the help of an enemy of the state -- Vladimir Putin.
Every day is painful to watch as our country is flushed down trump's golden toilet, but as Maximus (Mueller) says to Commodus (trump) in the final scene of Gladiator, "The time for honoring yourself will soon be an end."
2
Regarding Stephens's claim that Kavanaugh willl almost certainly be confirmed, some once said that the irresistible is often merely that which has not been resisted.
All kinds of negative things can be made public about Kavanaugh now that he is in the spotlight: whether he engaged in sexual abuse or tolerated it in others; whether his spendthrift ways led him to evade taxes owed; whether lied under oath to Congress in denying that he had anything to do with G.W. Bush's torture policies.
The Democrats should do everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from becoming more politicized than it already is.
1
ACLU statement about Kavanaugh states that If confirmed, Kavanaugh could very well be the decisive vote Trump needs in the Supreme Court to give his concerted campaign to undermine civil liberties and civil rights long-term impact. And in light of President Trump’s promise to appoint justices who would overturn Roe, this nomination could jeopardize the right to an abortion millions of women and families have relied on for more than four decades."
Democrats do your job, we elected you to block the nomination for such candidates. Republicans play dirty, and they are not fair, they do not care! We lost 12 years waiting for them to do the right thing and the reasonable and logical! No more, now you must fight!
2
Capitulate? NO! No replacement till after the 2018 elections. Only fair that the policy is implemented. Bret ,please give my kind regards to Steve Bannon. All is only lost if you capitulate, this dishonest president should not be able to nominate anyone for anything.
2
At least on the surface, Kavanaugh feels like a significantly more sympathetic figure than Alito or Gorsuch. Maybe someone who actually might be in the Souter mold. But clearly there is no way of knowing. His Pence like obsequiousness in thanking Trump for the nomination was extremely creepy. As a basketball coach he seems to love the girls that he coaches. How far this extends is hard to know. What type of legal protection does he want these girls to have if they fall in love with other girls. Controlling timeouts, plays and substitutions is one thing. Controlling their sexual and reproduction lives is quite another. How ferocious is his need for that. His attempt to force a teenage immigrant young women to give birth was horrible and shameful. Is that what Bret calls competence. It is only competent in the sense of trying to enforce patriarchal power but using whatever type of argument you can come up with.
Similarly it is one thing tutoring young black students. It not something to minimize. But if it is an example of a type of paternalism that extend to his judicial actions that would be extremely destructive.
As for the other stuff business friendly, environment hostile, and all the rest it doesn't look too good. In fact it looks very bad. But I find that he is sympathetic and might be open in ways the Gorsuch and Alito are not. But the damage he and his brothers in reaction are capable of is mammoth.
4
On further reflection I think I short changed David Souter. He seemed when he first appeared like a much stranger, much more independent, much quirquier person than Kavanaugh does. I remember thinking at the time he might turn out much better than people think.
1
What about Gorsuch is competent. This is another kind of mystifying falsehood. Is there anything involving anything decent he won't turn himself inside out trying to prevent.
1
Yes it's late, yes it's probably futile, but Democrats owe it to their constituents, and the American people to fully articulate the repercussions of Kavanaugh on the court. Since those constituents generally favor Roe v Wade and abortion access, and this pick was selected partially because he would not, they also owe it to the American people to fight for their rights. Rights that took women centuries to secure.
Stephens claim that liberals "cry wolf" yet many of liberals worst fears have been coming true for the Trump presidency. Environmental protections taken away, net neutrality repealed, people being rounded up in cages, etc. This fight isn't over, it's ongoing. And I'm suspect of a conservative whispering in liberals ear, "It's going to be okay, don't fight it".
2
Generally, Stephens gets this one right.
However, he does note that there's a possibility that Democratic tactics might delay confirmation until after the midterms. If Democrats feel they can do that, strong opposition is politically a good idea. It will give liberals another strong reason to vote in the midterms, namely, to gain the Senate for Democrats and then have a voice in the Supreme Court pick.
Does anyone Remember Bret Stephens' "Just Confirm Merrick Garland" opinion essay in 2016?
Me either.
11
While I ultinately believe Democrats like Manchin, Jones, McDonnell and Heidtkamp will need freedom to vote how they want to, they should wait to see what Collins and Murkowski decide to do. If they support him, then his confirmation is ensured. At that point those senators should decide on their own basis. Before then, Democrats should fight. It will only help to bring out their base. This nominee is really a political operative who happened to be a lawyer. He worked on Ken Starr's lengthy ( 5 times in length of the Mueller probe at this point) inquisition of Clinton and then advocated for Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. He has radical views on detainees and the fact the got involved in the abortion of a 17 YOA immigrant in detention demonstrates that he has a definite agenda in his jurisprudence; he's not out there to call balls and strikes.
2
I suppose you would also have advised Neville Chamberlain to give Herr Hitler what he asked for, since he was going to take it anyway. (Which is what Chamberlain did, covering himself with ignominy for not opposing evil when he was given the opportunity to do so.)
4
If you mean go to the mats to fight this nomination, I agree. But any Democratic senator who votes for Kavanaugh can forget about being re-elected.
The comment about qualifications I find laughable. All Supreme Court justices vote their ideology, then come up with a legal justification for it.
1
If the Supreme Court is to maintain democratic legitimacy it must not become a den of the far right.
The Republicans have played an incredibly dangerous game in persuit of minority rule.
If they succeed in turning the courts into a political organ then don't be angry when the next Democratic president appoints the 10, 11, 12 and 13 member to the court. it's legitimacy will have long been dead courtesy of the Republican party.
6
Agreed - the court as many other things are lost the most important thing to focus on is 2018 & 20 and reducing the damages done.
Presidents have always made court appointments based upon both merit and ideology. So long as nominee judges/justices were qualified and under no ethical cloud, the Senate generally rubber-stamped the president's nominees. But when that ideology became extreme--sometime during the Reagan administration--the Senate, quite properly, felt a need to intervene. The court is not designed to be an extreme institution.
Implicit in Steven's argument is the notion that Democrats can win by acting like Republicans. Democrats are not going to win any Republican votes by coalescing to Republican nominees, nor are they going to gain any independent votes. They will win votes, from their own voters, by standing for what they believe in.
Democrats aren't going to win any antiabortion votes. They need to stop trying. Democrats are in step with the rest of the nation on abortion rights; they need to make it clear that it's Republicans that are out of step.
2
"There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology."
There was also a time when Supreme Court nominees were nominated on the basis of merit, not ideology -- and that ended, too, with the nomination of Robert Bork. Nobody, least of all Ronald Reagan and his advisers, was unaware of Robert Bork's place on the political spectrum. He was a right-wing conservative whose views were in sharp opposition to the expansion of Constitutional rights favored by the Warren Court -- an ideological appointment if ever there was one. The nominations of the less ideologically defined Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor were easily confirmed. I'm tired of the shibboleth that the Democrats opposition to Bork -- rather than the purposeful nomination of a hard-right political and judicial conservative -- set the precedent for the shameful refusal of the Republicans to confirm whomever Obama chose to nominate in 2016 and for the continued purposeful selection by Trump of hard-right conservatives.
2
In other words, even those of us who do not approve of Kavanaugh should go along with his confirmation because we would be fighting a losing battle in opposing him and damaged what leverage we have left.
How they vote on Kavanaugh tells me where a politician really stands and how strong are their convictions and integrity.
I will remember who voted for Kavanaugh's confirmation in all elections for years to come. How about that for an argument?
4
Why not just confirm Trump's nominee?
Women's rights for reproductive choice
Separation of church and state
Environmental protections
Common sense gun laws
American presidents should not be above the law
The voice of Americans should be heard in the very near election, which will give valuable feedback as to how well we feel the current administration is representing and protecting our interests, and those voices should matter in this choice....as McConnell insisted when he refused to even consider Barack Obama's Supreme Court nomination nearly a year before the next election.
That's why.
5
The Republicans ended nominating and confirming on the basis of merit with the Thomas nomination. And there is now an ideological split in the country and its justice system that did not exist previously to the extent it does now. Instead of trusting to the competence and wisdom of a justice, we now have litmus tests about various issues, and mainly about a theological one.
5
It may be that SCOTUS confirmation hearings have devolved from a substantive process toward theater over the decades. But that still doesn't mean a nominee is entitled to a place on the SC just because his friends, colleagues and former law professors tell us what a great guy he is. Judge Kavanaugh is a member of the elitist club that Donald Trump now presides over. And, yes, he will likely be confirmed because the Republicans have the means to do so. Still, he (and his supporters) ought to be willing to discuss the details of his credentials, philosophy and full record before the Senate. No walkovers should be accepted for a lifetime appointment to the country's most important court.
1
Contrary to Mr. Stephens's suggestion, the opposition to Robert Bork was hardly comparable to the opposition to Merrick Garland.
Bork was defeated by a bipartisan, 58-42 vote. He was so ideological extreme that six Republicans even opposed him. When Anthony Kennedy was nominated in Bork's stead, he was confirmed 97-0. Thus, Democrats immediately and unanimously proved that their opposition to Bork would not preclude them from confirming a more mainstream Republican nominee.
On the other hand, Republicans rejected Garland's nomination out of hand, having declared their refusal to consider any Democratic nominee at all. No hearings. No debate. No vote. No opportunity for President Obama to select a new nominee. No offer to suggest nominees they'd be willing to confirm.
In short, the bipartisan opposition to Bork was no precedent for the Republican opposition to Garland.
10
The political wisdom quite simply is that the court is better constructed without Kavanaugh than with him The damage that can be done is evident in the Citizens United and Shelby v. Holder decisions.
3
I have a few questions. First can a president who holds office by means of fraud on the American people and collusion with a hostile foreign power (with whom he is in business) appoint a Supreme Court Justice with a lifetime tenure, to which I would think no. He certainly should not.
Second why would any representative democratic government allow such a person under such a serious investigation make any judicial appointments until that investigation is concluded and after the American people know the results of whether their president is a criminal who stole his office and is therefor illegitimate?
Which leads us to the bottom line. Can an illegitimate president nominate Judges and Justices with a life long tenure, and also can Justices who accept appointments to stolen judicial seats, which belonged to another president to fill, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, stay in office when the man who appointed him is legally removed from office or convicted after leaving office as being a criminal? Why would we want to reach such a question except for a political power grab, Mr. Stephens?
4
I don't want to be unduly negative but looking out to the future, it seems likely that the republicans will keep control of the Senate at least until 2020 and possibly beyond. Trump probably has a good chance of being reelected in 2020. So it seems to me that trump has a good chance of making many more nominations to the supreme court. If you are upset by Kavanaugh, there is probably more like him to come.
About the only hope for the democrats on the Federal Government level seems to be the House of Representatives. That would be great in terms of legislation, appropriations, and investigations but the Senate is special because it deals with appointments both to cabinet positions and the federal judiciary.
Of course, the democrats really need to do yeoman work on the state level. Democrats love to talk about the gerrymander but the republicans were able to gerrymander because in 2010 they won control of many state legislatures and governorships. After the 2010 census republicans in many states could redraw legislative district boundaries to favor republicans running for state legislature and the U. S. House of Representative.
Election to the Senate and for state governor are not affected by the gerrymander because they are state-wide races. I wonder why democrats are weak in those races also.
1
The fact that each state, regardless of population, has two senators is why the GOP manages to hold onto the Senate. We tolerate this fiction that, for some reason, South Dakota should have the same voice in the Senate as NY or CA, despite the vast population differences (not to mention the vast differences in contributions to the US treasury). Democrats aren't weak in state races ... it is just that their voices don't count because they're not spread evenly throughout the country.
I would offer a slight correction: According to the McConnell doctrine, a Republican senate has no such obligation. Democrats should carefully consider whether unilaterally following the constitution saves the republic, or buries it.
5
Isn't it wonderful how Stephens is so concerned for the Democrats and what will help or hinder them come election time. So considerate.
1
One reader. agreeing with Stephens, says, "Democrats shouldn't come off as whining crybabies."
The nation 's ability to reason is in question. Who is the biggest whining crybaby of all time? Trump. Which party is it, comprised of those who adore elites, privilege for the ruling class, yet still plays the victim constantly? Always someone else's fault with the right. You want to see whining hysterical crybabies, watch the harangueing of Pete Strzok by the GOP today.
So, the GOP is allowed to be whining crybabies, but use Machiavellian tactics with no regard for ethics at all, but the Dems should not take a stand even if it is in defense of the welfare for the majority of the population of the country, who are not CEO's, Wall St bankers, founders of tech companies or owners of businesses. That is being a "crybaby".
Stephens says not one word about Cavanaugh's public record. I reckon he agrees with most conservative positions. He he hates Trump, but his conservative sympathies always shine through. Fine, but he has a bad habit of cherry picking things that support his view, and leaving out valid counter arguments.
4
Bret Stephens is smart and articulate, but morally idiotic. The only gesture worth making at this point in US history is to do everything possible to disrupt, denigrate and sabotage the Supreme Court, until one demand is met: Neil Gorsuch resigns, and Mitch McConnell publicly demands that the Senate re-instate the filibuster in the case of SCOTUS appointments. Few have grasped that the travesty of Gorsuch's placement on the court will be seen as the last straw in the decline of a constitutional republic - you can count on this judgement of history. It can only be undone by the loud and persistent demand, by all Americans who are not craven cowards, that it be literally undone. It doesn't matter whether it fails to happen, or whether smug pundits find it futile, or whether it looks untidy on television. If we do not assert ourselves on this matter now, we will never save our souls or this country.
4
Watching the Democrats this past year is like watching a blinfolded child wildly swinging at a moving pinata. Resistance is not a strategy, it's a reaction. And it's sadly becoming a condition.
2
The time for being "reasonable" ended when Republicans stole the Garland seat.
5
"You fight the fights that need fighting."
- The American President
1
Please find me the voter who was wavering on voting for a Democratic senator, but upon finding out they voted against Kavanaugh, decided to vote GOP.
"Man, I was really considering voting for Joe Manchin, but did you hear he voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation?! It's all Republicans for me now," - said no one ever.
5
Yes. The facts are that owing to previous shenanigans, this nominee will be confirmed. Democrats do not have to vote for approval, but some might and that’s fine too, given the political landscape in their states. Democrats should also seek testimony during the confirmation hearings that will educate voters. But don’t turn this into anything other than what it is: a president’s nomination to scotus.
Bret, I read all of your columns to gain perspective and to try to see the other side's point of view. You're very reasonable, but this time, to say the Democrats will "play to type as mindless obstructionists"? This seems to me like a huge double standard. Weren't the Republicans obstructionists with the Garland nominations and on so many other occasions during the Obama years? I don't think the Democrats have a exclusive claim to being obstructionists, mindless or otherwise. There's plenty in both parties.
2
Once it's proven that Kavanaugh was nominated by a criminal, will he lose the seat? Also, when the identity of the foreign power who paid off his debts becomes clear, will he be removed from the bench?
Dem Senators need to clearly raise these questions.
4
Why is every liberal nominee put forward by a Democrat President a "moderate" whom we should just roll over and accept, but every Republican nominee since William Rehnquist in 1983 has been progressively more and more shrilly cast as a cross between Armageddon and 11:55 on the nuclear clock? Stephens has it exactly right: either we return to normal approaches to judicial confirmations or we admit they are political fights (in which case, Democrats, you LOST the Presidency, Senate, and House in 2016 and, as a reputed genius opined, "elections matter"). And if they are political fights, then let's stop pretending that we are a democracy: we are a judicial oligarchy where the losers who cannot manage to convince a legislature to enact their policy preferences engage in a modern version of alchemy, turn their policy into an inalienable "right," and then find five black-robed politicians (oh, I mean, "justices") to shove it down America's throat, unappealable.
1
History proves liberals correct time and again. Conservatives will destroy the world.
1
But Brett, Mitch McConnell completely convinced me that a duly elected, sitting president is NOT entitled to fill a court vacancy if there is an uncoming election. He made his case, now he has to live with it. The fall election may completely change the control of both the HOUSE and SENATE. Let's wait and see what happens. Wasn't that the justification for refusing a hearing to Judge Garland? Nope, sorry. You can't have it both ways.
4
I think that there needs to be some exploration of why Justice Kennedy is retiring, his son's connection to Trump and the loans that he approved at Deutsche Bank for Trump, and whatever deal Trump made with Kennedy in order to get him to retire. There is some murkiness in this situation that should be aired out along with the possibility that Kavanaugh wrote an article that seems to declare the President above the law. If he believes that, that should be disqualification enough as the President is not a King and has no divine right to be President.
1
The Supreme Court confirmations carry the taint of an unfair and un-democratic process after the refusal to consider the Obama nominee. The entire political process these days seem stacked. If gerrymandering is legal, does it then make it right? If blocking a nominee is legal, does it then make it right? Government seems less about governance and more about power.
3
I could not agree more. The Dems have a great chance here to cast themselves as responsible stewards of our constitutional order - a nice contrast to the obstructionism of Mitch & Crew. Kavanagh seems eminently qualified, and should be given the same consideration that Garland deserved.
Many pundits deplore the nasty partisanship in Washington, but the news media does its part to exacerbate it, relentlessly emphasizing politics and the unceasing horse race. This column is yet another example. It is almost entirely about the politics, with only a passing characterization of Kavanaugh as "qualified." Senators' job is to "advise and consent," not merely to rubber stamp whatever the president wants. Mr. Stephens insults Democratic senators by ignoring the fact that they have expressed real, substantive concerns about Kavanaugh and his potential rulings.
With regard to the politics and the vulnerable senators, Republicans will likely attack them, no matter how they vote, so they may as well do the right thing. After Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly voted yes to confirm Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, Republicans accused him of voting yes solely to help his re-election chances. They would likely have done the same if he had voted no.
2
I like how Stephens tries to sneak in a phony comparison between Bork and Garland. What actually happened: Democrats gave Bork a hearing. They asked the tough questions. He didn't do well under that spotlight. C'est la vie. Fast-forward 30 years and Republicans REFUSED TO EVEN GIVE GARLAND A HEARING. False equivalence isn't a good look, Bret. (Oh, and citing a Rasmussen poll is a cherry-pickin' laugh, too.)
On a practical political level, there is something to this argument, because Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed. But this doesn't end there. Speaking as a woman and for many like myself: If we have to actually PHYSICALLY FIGHT to ensure that Kavanaugh's vote doesn't take away the right of women to decide what happens to their own bodies (a right supported by two-thirds of Americans, so such a decision would be undemocratic on several levels), we will do so. Kennedy's previous votes are not relevant, because unlike Kavanaugh, he hasn't been vetted by an organization (the Federalist Society) that specifically seeks assurances from any jurist on their "short list" that they will not uphold Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade, three words that appeared nowhere in this column.
5
The primary part of Stephens' column worth commenting on is the part about "Kavanaugh deserves confirmation." I disagree. Too far right. The Supreme Court is no longer an institution that I admire. Too many 5 to 4 decisions by hard rightists. The Court has charted a path that will smell for decades to come and will take decades to undo.
I predict that Roe will stand, but only in name. Roberts, concerned about his oil paint legacy, will become the new swing voter and will preserve Roe. But that preservation will be in name only. The right to abortion will die in about 22 states from a death of a thousand cuts, administered by the Federalist Society and that ilk.
As for the rest of his column: Some fights ain't worth fighten' even if you win an some fights ar' worth fighten' even if you lose. Fight Democrats, fight.
2
A "decidedly non-scary nominee?" He's written he doesn't think the president can be investigated criminally or civilly while in office. I'd call that hugely scary, under the circumstances.
4
Maybe it is time for the Democrats to focus in on the moderate voters, who will help them win in 2018 and 2020; instead of driving them into Trump's arms. Getting down in the dirt with Trump really isn't the way to win. It makes the people on the left feel important and potent, but it doesn't win elections. Blow horns and radical ideas won't beat Trump. A sane, moderate and intelligent voice will.
2
We tried a sane, moderate, intelligent voice once against Trump. Didn't work. Now it is all-out war.
1
There is very little doubt that all of the money and effort that Democrats intend to spend on trying to prevent the confirmation of an indisputably qualified nominee to the Supreme Court will end up being for kavanaught.
2
A president under investigation should not be allowed to appoint "friendly" judges. Period.
2
How much political capital can Democrats lose by failing to show people that they are willing to fight for what’s right. Democrats have always been sick of their elected officials being weak and not putting up a fight.
3
What scares me the most is how poor the judgment is of the Democratic Party. How about just doing the right thing, and saying so? Kavanaugh should be confirmed. He's brilliant. That I don't agree with him is pretty much irrelevant, and it should be. If you don't like to result, go vote next time and put someone in office who will be sympathetic to your views. This is not complicated, and a plain spoken allegiance to the simple truth, to common sense, and to honesty would, I suspect, go a very long way. It might even be what people are looking for. The Dems will, no doubt, be so terribly clever about all of this that they will totally miss that boat.
New York Times editors, just fire Stephens now. You know you're going to have to do it sooner or later. You're not helping yourself with a losing cause. Stephens represents himself as a principled conservative, but he's just another right wing troll. Yes, he'll wail and the NYT will be lambasted for "censorship". But you are anyways. Republicans always cry wolf. Go ahead and fire him. It's inevitable. Get it over with and move on to more important things.
6
Don't his spending habits and debt acquisition( as outlined in the Washington Post) count against him? For me, running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt buying baseball tickets doesn't bode well for a future justice. And what about his rich friends who paid his debts. Does it matter to any other reader out there?
2
"Fierce opposition to Kavanaugh hurts Democrats. "
Fierce opposition to Garland did not hurt Republicans. Their chicanery and moral depravity hasn't hurt them either. The voters rewarded them. I say all is fair at this point.
4
When it comes to who should be advising Democrats, my vote goes to Elizabeth Warren. She's been on Trump's case from the get-go and she has his number. She knows how to get under his skin and he's scared of her. Yes she has haters, but that's because she's effective.
Bret's argument that the Democratic base doesn't need rallying should apply to sober-minded Republicans who believe in science and competence and aren't obsessed with tax cuts. They should acknowledge that any Democrat is reasonable compared not only to Trump but to Mitch McConnell.
Bret seems to think he knows what would turn off potential Democratic voters, but why? If Republicans understood their base so well, why did Trump beat 15 other vyers for the party's nomination?
Instead of telling Democrats what to do, how about advising Republicans on how to free themselves from the grip of right wing radio and TV personalities? How about asking them to make good on their promise for healthcare reform that was better and more affordable? How about weighing in on that?
4
If he lied to Dick Durbin in his previous confirmation hearing, then he should be disbarred, not elevated to the Supreme Court.
4
These are not ordinary times; and this is not an ordinary Neil Gorsuch-type conservative. At a time when we have a President already involved in two criminal lawsuits for sexual harassment by Summer Zervos and campaign finance violations by Stormy Daniels, we have a nominee who is against allowing such cases to go forward while Donald Trump is in office. At a time when a Special Counsel is investigating whether impeachable offenses were committed by Mr. Trump, we have a nominee who would rule against him being subpoenaed and even go so far as to allow Trump to fire Robert Mueller III. Brett Kavanaugh would likely be the deciding vote on these issues. His nomination amounts to jury tampering and he shouldn't be confirmed or, if so, allowed to rule on these cases.
4
Wrong Brett.
The fight over Kavanaugh unites Democrats in a battle that they know they will almost certainly lose in the end. It builds "Esprit de Corps" and make no doubt about it, Democrats are at war with Trump.
You don't win wars by hiding from battle.
4
I agree with this, not because Kavanaugh is such a savior or brilliant judge, but because the Democrats have no viable way of blocking Kavanaugh.
Crying all you want about Garland -- the Republicans had majority in the Senate not to give Garland a fair hearing. The Democrats don't, and at the rate of pushing socialism and fringe social agenda, may not even after the midterm.
Regarding the comment: "Justices such as Roberts and Gorsuch deserved their seats on the court for the same reason Ginsburg and Breyer did — they are competent, conscientious judges, irrespective of how they vote."
Gorsuch does not deserve his seat on the court, not because of his judicial philosophy, but because the process that confirmed him was a corrupted by Mitch McConnel. I don't know if it's possible to impeach a SC justice, but if it is, the dems should make removing Gorsuch a top priority.
3
Yea, but you have have a majority first.
While I disagree with Democrats "hair on fire" approach, this is exactly what we got from the GOP during Obama's administration. It was patently ridiculous to deny Merrick Garland a fair hearing, and the GOP should have been made to pay dearly for demeaning a measured and intelligent sitting President. Trump does not deserve such consideration. Many of us non-Trump supporters were at least relieve that we have a system of checks and balances. That has blown away like dust in the wind. So, NO, Kavanaugh should not be allowed to slip quietly into a seat in our highest court. The next justice will be sitting until long after I am dead,until my grandchildren are in their 30's or 40's. I have no concern over SCOTUS' impact on the remainder of my life, but I have grave concerns over what their impact will be on theirs. No nominee should be auto-piloted in to a seat. And while I think hysterics are unwarranted, measured concern and careful vetting certainly is - there are many allegations that, if true, need to be addressed. This president has done almost irreparable damage to our country already - his interests are solely his own. It is the responsibility of Congress - ALL OF CONGRESS - to limit the damage yet to come. The State of the Union depends on it.
4
Stephens is right. Trump put on a great show of reasonableness when Kavanaugh was introduced, and the judge himself presented well as a family man and a moderate (even throwing a shout-out to Elena Kagan for hiring him at Harvard). That put the Democrats on the defensive, and Senator Schumer and his colleagues took the bait. They should not have made the knee-jerk announcement that they will block the nominee (unknown to most Americans) at any cost. They should have said they would review the record, listen in interviews and at the hearing, and then decide on the merits. That looks reasonable, and it looks like how Senators should act. That would win votes down the road.
Absolutely agree. This confirmation is a done deal. Democrats cannot come out of this looking vindictive or mean spirited. The Republicans are all too good and reversing that into our faces. The focus and money must be directed toward November.
What about Republicans? There is only one objection Democrats should raise forcefully against this particular nominee by this particular president in his particular circumstances in this critical time for our democracy, and patriotic, law-respecting Republicans should raise the same objection with equal conviction and zeal. The only non-partisan, non-ideological reason to oppose this particular nominee so far is his writings concerning criminal and civil prosecution of a sitting president and his legal opinions while serving Special Counsel Kenneth Starr in the investigation of President Bill Clinton, which resulted in impeachment. Those are very relevant to the circumstances of President Donald John Trump and critical to preserving the rule of law and faith in our justice system and democracy. If they were true patriots, not partisan power players, Senate Republicans would have postponed consideration of any SCOTUS nominee by this president until after Special Counsel Robert Mueller completes his investigation, files his report and absolves President Trump of any impeachable or criminal offense. Instead, they are rushing his nominee through, one he no doubt chose to protect him from the consequences of the Mueller investigation. Shame on Republicans!
1
Do I recall correctly that Stephens also wrote a column entitled: Just Confirm Garland?
3
Wrong on all counts; especially the notion that you only fight battles you know you can win. Opposition on all fronts to trumpism is a patriotic duty. Anything else normalizes pro-Russian extremism. Sad that Stephens, while critical of Trump, is seemingly unaware of the politics that put him in power and Stephen's own small role in that.
3
I am a lifelong Democrat but I agree with this column. We are wasting our time opposing a person who will almost certainly be confirmed. Our country will not fall into ruin with Cavanaugh on the court. Instead, my wants to reprise another immortal scene in Animal House: “Food fight!”
Trump is under criminal investigation.
After watching the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" I have no doubt that the Russians actually hacked the voting machines themselves in November 2016. The documentary showed this with a real electronic voting machine, changing the outcome with absolutely no trace left behind.
Trump was fraudulently elected and until exonerated by Mueller should not be allowed to nominate judges for lifetime appointments.
Would you allow John Gotti to use one of his consiglieres as his trial judge and all of his made-men Mafiosi as members of the jury?
Trump's possible indictment or his receipt of a subpoena to testify will be contested and will likely end up before the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh, based on his stated positions, has already decided in Trump's favor. Kavanaugh's contention is that the President is too busy handling his job to be distracted by indictments and subpoenas. (But not too busy to golf every weekend at a Trump-owned property. In 18 months, Trump has spent $90 Million in taxpayer dollars visiting his own properties.)
I don't care if fighting against Kavanaugh is doomed, patriotism and civic duty require exposing Kavanaugh's biases plus his inability to manage his own family budget, going $200K in debt for Baseball tickets. Let's find out what rich donor paid off that debt for Kavanaugh and what was the quid pro quo.
1
The only appropriate action right now for the Democrats is to resist everything that this president and Republican Congress brings to the table. They have both proved themselves as immoral as bandits (and let’s not make a mistake, not of the Robin Hood type). Do not believe enablers like Bret Stephens who belongs to the National Review of the Dinesh d’Souza times. Expose him for what he is.
3
It’s been over thirty years since Bork. It’s ridiculous to still bring it up as relevant today. Move on. Find another fig leaf to cover your naked power grab while admonishing the Democrats to play nice.
2
I am a center Democrat! It seems to me that the majority want to see a end to the extreme division we are seeing in reality and in the media. It is easy to put the blame on someone but that doesn't help end the division. I think the democratics should analize the situation and realize they have know way to stop the nomination; they can only drag it out with more unwanted division. Therefore, logic to me is accept what appears to be the inevitable and just vote for the nomination after a normal back in forth and the effect should have a beginnning of healing that was begun after Tip was out of the House.
Well Bret, maybe they are playing a long game. Perhaps putting up a struggle, borne of intestinal fortitude, will begin to plant the seeds necessary to roll these people this fall. Listening to conservatives talk like you is beyond belief when one considers the tactics of the party you support.
3
You speak with such certainty, and I wonder why you don't question yourself just a bit more. Are you advocating an avoidance of the tough questions during the hearings? Are you asking to deprive the public from an education of what this candidates' record is? Is doing the right thing just rolling over? Have you made up your mind so completely that it is not worth the time or effort to properly vet this candidate? After all, our supreme leader believes in extraordinary vetting. Let the vetting begin, I say. All should shut up until the hearings, and then the questions that need to be asked, should be asked of anyone taking such an important position, should commence. If it ends and precedes November elections, so be it. If it extends beyond, so be it as well. You say: "Just Confirm". What a terrible message.
3
As an octogenarian who has voted for Democrat presidents since Kennedy (save one) I am pretty sure that Bret is right. Let's fight battles that we might win and avoid doing stupid things.
2
How dare another male intellectual try to minimize the real-deal, poverty v wealth, safety v trauma , free v oppressed
dillemas faced millions of smart, centrist, practical, noble women. We are your mothers sisters, daughters, bosses, teachers, nurses and doctors.
Don't tell me reproductive choice means less than gun rights. Don't tell me I should roll over on this. Just don't.
6
OK, this is likely the last Stephens column I'll wast time with. I liked him better as a conservative, when he applied critical thinking to his opinions. Lately his writing is all over the place, aimless. He seems to have lost interest and is just phoning it in.
He might want to take a gander at the NYT's article today on Mr. Rosenstein and his recent request of US attorneys.
3
"...Gorsuch deserved their seats "
Gorsuch occupies a stolen seat. He did not deserve it - it was stolen by corrupt republicans and given to a craven political hack who gleefully took it so he can promulgate his ultra right wing extremism on the American People - who reject his dogma out of hand. Gorsuch is best known for lazy work and poorly reasoned "decisions."
10
Refusing to hold hearings on Garland was unconscionable beyond any doubt. However, I doubt that he would have been confirmed given the makeup of the Senate and the hyper-partisan nature of it at the time that the hearings should have been held.
If he wasn't going to be confirmed why waste time with hearings? I don't find it unconscionable, I think elections have consequences.
@jkemp: Why shouldn't he have been confirmed? He might have been, and he should have been allowed to have his chance. That was so wrong, and gave lie to all those things we were told about our country and how it operates.
Illegitimate president = Illegitimate Supreme Court judge. Any president under investigation that could lead to criminal charges must not be allowed to appoint any judges at all. If Trump is indicted, everything he ever touched can be challenged as tainted, including judges.
5
Me too. I'm a Democrat pro-choicer. Also an attorney with a pretty good working knowledge of the SCT. Kavanaugh is not terrible. It could have been a lot worse. Save your fire. Is this the hill you want to die on?
Also, I never thought much of Kennedy. And his last bit of throwing meat to Trump demonstrates I was correct.
2
For the millionth time, Bork was Borked because Bork was unfit to serve and he let everyone know it.
By contrast, Garland was denied a hearing because he so obviously was fit to serve.
The path from Bork to Garland to Trump's illegitimate appointees is as good of an illustration as any of how radically anti-American the Republican party truly is.
10
Democrats have to be for something, not just against everything. And when they realize this, they better understand that being for illegal immigration will even less politically effective than being against draconian ICE tactics.
The Dems should pull Trump. Follow Trumps NATO and North Korean performances and get K to commit to follow law. Then smile, sit down and declare Victory.
1
I think the Democrats should fight this nomination tooth and nail. It is nonsense that they will be wasting "political capital." The democratic base is so fed up with their party -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- doing nothing and caving in before every battle has begun. Also, we don't know yet what lurks in Kavanaugh's closet. There have already been some news reports on financial improprieties. Let's let the process play out -- and by that I mean that the Dems should do their job and push hard! Enough with the politeness. There is absolutely nothing for them to lose. The Democratic base is so fed up by their wimpiness. The base is looking for leadership that will take a principled stand for once. Also, this "oped" reads more like political propaganda. I appreciate Stephens' role as a voice of conservatives, but his argument here is sophomoric.
2
I suppose you wrote this before his financial mis-dealings (that would keep him from getting a security clearance at the TSA) came up. The White House didn’t properly vet the guy. I suppose they thought the legal charlatans at the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation had actually done that heavy lifting before breathlessly handing that list back in September 2016...or at least in the nearly two years since then. Guess someone will figure out who Kavanaugh was handing free season tickets to the National’s....this is gonna be fun.
2
Brett is totally out of touch with the voters.
They want politicians, and especially cadidiates, who will fight. That's why Bernie Sanders was and continues to be so popular.
Every time the Democrats concede to the GOP they lose votes. The Democrats have lost one election after another by pretending to be GOP-lite.
Obama lost his progressive base, enabled the rise of the Tea Party, and lost Democratic seats in two midterms by his refusal to fight. Clinton continued the losing streak, and Schumer and Pelosi are right on those coattails.
The Democrats may lose in the confirmation hearings and the vote for Kavanaugh, but it's their chance to send a strong message to voters.
If they don't do it, that will be wasting their political capital.
4
I don't think it's helpful for Mr. Stephens to call the people who oppose confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh "stupid." However, I support his confirmation even though I'm a proud liberal in the Bernie Sanders mold.
Judge Kavanaugh is highly qualified, bright, scholarly, and hard-working. He is capable of changing his mind, as the Minnesota Law Review article makes clear. Nor is he crazy like Robert Bork, who once wrote infamously that the Bill of Rights was "hastily drafted and ill-conceived."
No matter which party is in power, the Senate should confirm Supreme Court candidates with whom they disagree politically where, as here, they are as highly qualified and thoughtful as Judge Kavanaugh.
3
Merrick Garland.
5
I've never understood why so many Republicans insisted - and continue to insist - that Robert Bork was treated unfairly. The man carried out the "Saturday Night Massacre." That this fact all by itself disqualified him should be considered beyond dispute by anyone outside of Nixon's tiny handful of die-hard defenders. I can't believe Stephens is serious on this point.
4
Bork was opposed for his questionable extremist views, and his track record that demonstrated as much. Garland was opposed because he was nominated by a Democrat.
But sure Mr. Stephens, keep harping on that blatant false equivalency. Something tells me that people who want to believe that Democrats started this whole thing 30 years ago won't do the requisite 30 seconds of research to realize how baseless that statement really it.
5
Summary: As the title of Michelle Goldberg's piece says: "Lie Back and Take It, America", to which Mr. Stephens adds "because resistance is futile, and if you're really nice about it, maybe it won't happen again". I fully expect Mr. Stephens to apply this same argument to any of a number of issues in the future.
2
"Everyone knows that North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Indiana’s Joe Donnelly are vulnerable, which is why they voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch last year."
Everyone also knows that if Republicans produce the votes to confirm Kavanaugh by themselves, those red state Democratic Senators will be free to vote for him too.
1
It is never a "waste of time" to ask difficult and probative questions and to press for unequivocal and honest answers based upon the nimunee's published record. Moreover, don't expect any threshold confessions regarding conversation(s) with Mr. Trump or Mr. Kennedy, although I am certain turthful and unvarnished responses in that arena would prove most illuminating.
2
Justice Elena Kagan never served as a judge and had no judicial track record, but she still got five Republican votes and turned into a fine SCOTUS Justice.
As repugnant as it was to deny Merrick Garland a hearing, let's be honest ... the GOP followed a game plan laid out by Chuck Schumer ('07) and Joe Biden ('91). It is not reasonable to brandish such a weapon and think it cannot be used by your opponent too.
It's time to drop the nonsense and confirm Kavanaugh.
3
"It is not reasonable to brandish such a weapon and think it cannot be used by your opponent too."
I agree. Now, it is reasonable to abolish the filibuster to put whoever you want on the Supreme Court when you get power. Democrats, take note.
2
True. But remember, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kane told cheering crowds that when they were elected, they would push the nuclear button on Supreme Court nominees, just as Harry Reid had done on appellate court nominees.
So, once again, the Democrats put a weapon in the hands of the Republicans. So why are we shocked that they used it?
I don't think you understand. I'm for Clinton and Kane's position. I'm glad McConnell went all the way. There's only one step left:
Pack...the...Court
Next time Democrats are in power. They should put 6 additional people on the Court. If Republicans put 2 extra on the court before then, Democrats should put 8. If Republicans put 10, Democrats should put 16.
The court is an unelected political body right now. The political system should be able to influence it however it likes.
Yet another Republican offering advice (thinly veiled scare tactics) urging the Democrats to "spare themselves" any harm and just confirm Kavanaugh. Theiseen et. al. over at the WaPo and now Stevens. I'm getting a little bit suspicious of all this concern over the Democrats' impending mistake and future.
A few points:
1) It's not just about Roe. Kavanaugh is a guy who hounded Bill Clinton with investigations - distracting him - and now we're not supposed to distract or indict a sitting president. Good to know that Guiliani was right: Trump does have the "right" to shoot Comey and continue his conspiracy with Putin.
2) He believes in expansive presidential power. I think if we've learned anything with Trump, is there is a flaw in that plan.
2) ACA - he will without a doubt get rid of this law including the VERY popular protections for pre-existing conditions.
3) Even Roe is 60/40. The Democrats are not supposed to fight for the majority of Americans? The Electoral College and the Senate have created a government whereby the minority has outsized influence on our lives.
4) Let's remember who put Doug Jones over the finish line: Black Women. Maybe. Just Maybe they don't want Kavanaugh.
This isn't about Bork or Garland. I don't want this guy making decisions about my life.
5
Yes, correct. The Dems got played and/or McConnell got extremely lucky. Lick your wounds, win the House and maybe the Senate.
1
Do the words “ loyal opposition” mean anything to you, Mr. Stephens? If there are questions, objections, and concerns, they need to be fully addressed, fait accompli or not.
This “just shut up and take it” attitude turns my stomach. We are not — yet —an autocracy.
3
Don't just confirm blindly! There have been too many really terrible executive branch nominees who have been confirmed by mostly Republican votes. I would ask the senators who voted for Scott Pruitt: "Have you no shame!?" I think that these senators took their confirmation advice from a man claiming to be a stable genius... abdicating one of their main constitutional jobs: advise and consent.
"VIrtue signaling" is a repellant phrase used to deny the possibility of others having empathy or virtue.
1
Unless and until the Democrats regain control of the House and the Senate and actually use their regained control, there is little point, now, for them to try to "take the high road" or otherwise attempt to reset to "reasonable" debate. McConnell, Ryan, and Trump, and all the Republicans who fall in line, believe, for good reason, that being unreasonable, undiplomatic, and, really, generally uncouth, wins. Statesmanship no longer has a place in their public service. I have little doubt that McConnell and Trump are thinking to themselves, "reasonable is stupid . . . reasonable people get rolled, by us," as they laugh with their buddies for whom they are getting sweet deals. I doubt any candidate will win or lose based on her/his support of/opposition to Judge Kavanaugh, but his confirmation hearings will be entertaining.
1
“There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology.” There was also a time when Supreme Court nominees were nominated on the basis of merit, not as part of a deal to replace one justice with another. It seems clear that nominating Kavanaugh was the price Kennedy extracted for his resignation. And Kavanaugh’s views on executive power suggest that he was nominated, not because of his merit, but because he is most likely to protect Trump from subpoenas, indictment, and possible prosecution.
I agree that confirmation will be very difficult to avoid, and Democrats will do themselves few favors by appearing to be against Kavanaugh based purely on partisanship. It would be foolish to squander political capital on such a fight. But the confirmation process is extremely important and need not cost the Democrats anything. It should be used to thoroughly, rationally and objectively probe Kavanaugh’s record and, if possible, reveal the positions he is likely to take on future cases that may be brought before the Supreme Court. Many Americans will be skeptical of his arguments about executive power and other issues. While we may not be able to prevent confirmation, if handled well, this confirmation hearing can strengthen Democrats going into the mid-terms.
1
A judge who has gone on record saying a sitting president is above the law must be strongly and publically challenged, especially when he is nominated by a president under investigation. And especially when that nomination was the result of a deal made with an outgoing judge whose son has monetary ties to that same president.
3
All those Republican / Conservative are "Constitutional Originalist" until they are not.
It is just a convenience when it suits them.
The worst will be Citizen's United.
Not to mention they blocked Merrick Garland and then got rid of the 60 vote threshold.
All so the rich can get richer.
Inequality, poverty, incarceration, deficits / debt, health care, education.
Truly heartbreaking what they are doing to this country.
3
Seems to me one the reason Trump is in the White House and the Democratic party is a minority in both houses, as well as a good number of states is that the Democratic 'base' has alienated a good number of voters in the middle of the political spectrum so, what is the point in 'energizing' them to turn up the volume? Really Senator Schumer do you want to take back control of, at minimum, the Senate which to my simple mind would be the best method for counteracting Trump's excesses or merely polish your credentials with the 'choir' on the left?
1
Far from alienating the middle, the Democrats have tried to pander to it, with disastrous results in two midterms and the last general.
The voters wanted change, and Sanders and Trump promised it, while Clinton rode the fence with "incrementalism."
The radical right wins elections by ignoring the middle and pulling no punches. The Democrats have to do the same on the left.
Rasmussen is not a highly regarded poll. Bork fired Archibald Cox.
Kavanaugh has a vast trove of materials to be obtained and reviewed. Have these been produced yet? How long would a reasonable person take to review them? Having reviewed the materials, how long can the Democrats take to review these materials with Kavanaugh? Is there a cutoff? Is there some obscure rule McConnell can rely on?
It would be a shame if the acquistion, review and questioning took us up to the midterms. (sigh)
2
The only reason Gorsuch got confirmed and that Kavanaugh got confirmed is because Mitch McConnell changed the rules to no longer require 60 votes.
History will not be kind to McConnell and Republicans for this and for deficits / debts and voting rights and Citizens United. And the list goes on.
All true. But Mitch does not care. Neither do his colleagues. And neither does the evil-hearted, rotten-to-the-core base.
2
The GOP legitimized holding up a nomination until the next general election.
They're just eating their own dog food.
The time for a fight was when McConnell wouldn't even entertain the notion of Merrick Garland joining the court.
2
You cited a Rasmussen poll as proof of something. That's rich.
1
Fight him tooth and nail; it is Civil Was 2.0 time, literally.
1
Bork got what he deserved. His extremist ideology was his calling card until his dying day and the Senate, for once, did what it is there for: providing advice and consent (or not) to the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. He would have been a disaster as a member.
"There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology. For Democrats, that ended in 1987 with the Borking of Bork"
Bork's craven actions during the "Saturday Night Massacre" removed any perception of "merit" to his name. For Reagan to have nominated him was a disgrace. Six Republican senators could not even vote for him.
3
The Democrats need to mobilize their voters for the midterms, and if at all possible, delay the vote until after the midterms. McConnell is a wily and despicable politician who has consistrntly put his party over his country, and this will be difficult but needs to be tried.
2
Bret's a Republican whose opinions would play better on Fox News or the Limbaugh show.
1
Democrats need a new strategy. Talking tough, then caving every single time is clearly not working. Duh. Maybe time to switch it up with 6 or 8 different political parties, and they all duke it out demolition derby style. The big tent is filled with the stench of defeat.
1
Obama appointed two liberals to the Supreme Court. Trump appointed two conservatives. That's what Republicans do. Why exactly does this constitute some sort of lurch toward totalitarianism? If we don't like what the Republicans are doing to the country, the appropriate response in a democracy is to use the ballot box to remove them from power. But that will take a lot of money and hard work. We might have to miss watching the NFL on the Sunday before the election. But it will do a lot more good than writing and reading hysteria.
2
"Obama appointed two liberals to the Supreme Court. Trump appointed two conservatives."
This should read: Obama appointed two liberals to the Supreme Court as a result of three opportunities. Trump appointed two conservatives while being given only one opportunity.
2
I like how this timeline starts with Roe v. Wade. If you were looking for any indications about what Republicans are going to sell the country down the river for, look no farther than their white whale.
1
Here's the political wisdom you requested:
Few, if any, Democrats will vote Republican in the midterms, regardless of Kavanaugh's qualifications or disqualifications.
Few Republicans will be inspired to vote primarily because of Kavanaugh's confirmation battle.
The key - the entire enchilada - to the midterms is turnout. Democrats must assertively and repeatedly point out the dangers of Trump and a "Trump" court to the liberties gained in the last 50 years. Women, especially of color, immigrants, millennials, union workers, LGTBQ folks and good old white privileged progressives like me, must and will turn out in unprecedented numbers to derail this anti-democratic administration.
The more we fight, the more animated these folks will be. To capitulate to any reversal of social progress will discourage a resistance movement that is still growing.
5
Politics and wisdom seldom go together. Politics demands that you do unwise, fly in the face of common sense stuff. I think the occasion demands that Democrats not go down without a fight. How to fight without further worsening the situation is a balancing act that requires good political sense.
5
Every time I begin to think that Stephens has some depth and gravitas, he then write a column like this. Animal House? And doing the right thing, but ignoring the recent GOP action to block Merrill Garland?
What Stephens unwittingly makes a case for is a term limit on Supreme Court justices.
8
Dems should never be discouraged from grilling any Supreme Court nominee.
The health and welfare of the entire nation, especially women, is at stake. The American people better wake up and realize how Kavanaugh's views will impact all aspects of their lives. Corporations will have supreme powerful over the people and keep them working 2 or 3 low paying jobs so they have no time to "protest" . The enormous and growing gap between the rich and poor will guarantee the rich will buy all elections. Government will dictate all issues related to women's pay equality and access to health coverage. Civil rights will be shredded. And the systematic dismantling of environmental regulations will result in catastrophic events which the government will dismiss as just acts of nature.
5
Perhaps predictably, I agree with Bret. However, that predictability goes beyond general ideological affiliation with Bret.
It’s very unlikely that Kavanaugh will make as bad a public impression as Bork did, for one reason because the former isn’t as arrogant a man as the latter was by about six Texas tons, and for another because Bork was a ginger who combed his hair with buttered toast. It’s also been awhile (basically since our civil war and its lengthy fashion aftermath) since we’ve taken public figures seriously who sported facial hair. So Kavanaugh has yet another advantage going in that Bork refused to exploit by the simple use of a razor.
But a #MeToo revelation on Kavanaugh could get him some support from OTHER than the holly rollers (and the non-religious illuminati, such as myself).
My tendency to deflationary humor is on excessive display today, but a lot of it has to do with my continued disappointment with Democrats on this issue. They have a lot of political cover here – Kavanaugh is as unimpeachable (hehehe) as Gorsuch on credentials, Republicans have the numbers to confirm, and Democrats SHOULD be looking for things they can trade for their support on the nomination – things that Republicans might be willing to give them. But do they? Of course not. That would be SENSIBLE.
Democratic senators with an eye to the true interests of their constituencies need to start thinking about HOW sensible it is to continue to be led by Chuck Schumer.
1
"Democrats SHOULD be looking for things they can trade for their support on the nomination..."
Please, what could possibly be as valuable as a 40 year tenure for a very conservative justice? Medicare for All as a constitutional amendment? Elimination of the Electoral College? Not even bills as far reaching as campaign finance, gun regulations, and a standard for regulating gerrymandering are worth very much since said justice will just strike them all within a few years of being seated.
2
Jordan:
You'll need to EARN your fevered dreams at the polling booth. A start to that might be securing less ambitious advantages by swapping support for a judicial candidate who is going to be confirmed regardless of WHAT you do.
What might those less-ambitious things be? Identifying them is SCHUMER'S job, and yours; and not mine.
But that potentially-40-year term of office is not within your power to deny. Given that, you might consider giving some thought to what you MIGHT get that's actually gettable.
"Given that, you might consider giving some thought to what you MIGHT get that's actually gettable."
Um, ok. So, Democrats should try to negotiate to get things that aren't worth very much in the vain hope that Republicans will deign to bless them with these gifts out of the goodness of their heart? What? Have you met Mitch McConnell?
As always, Stephens speaks for those who will never go to prison for lighting a joint or jail for failing to post bond; the men whose mistresses will always have the cash on hand to procure a safe abortion; whose beachfront property will be be insured and protected by taxpayer-built jetties even as millions suffer from famine and disaster caused by climate change.
Thanks for your perspective, Brett.
12
It’s shocking to me to see how the comments to various Kavanaugh op-eds in the Times have devolved into a stew of rank partisanship, conspiracy theories, off topic arguments and ad hominem attacks.
My favorite is the current “tinfoil hat” theory that Kavanaugh’s thoughtful 2009 piece of scholarship, which was published whole Obama was president and informed by his experience under Ken Starr - in which he explicitly explained that a president was subject to civil process under current law and which was couched as a recommendation for the legislature - somehow portends some under the table arrangement to spring Trump should the need ever arise. Seriously? If anything, it signals the opposite.
If Kavanaugh is the hill the dems seek to fight on (and I suspect not), then Heitkamp and Donnelly and Doug Jones could end up in figurative body bags. For nothing, to boot. Not sure they’ve fully thought this through.
1
The Constitution does not prohibit the indictment of a president.
It does not say that impeachment is the only remedy for his misdeeds.
It only says what action the Congress, for its part, can take.
A well waged fight, even if it's lost, will do more for the Democrats than yet another capitulation, which has proved disastrous in the past.
1
The political wisdom behind what the Democrats are doing on the Kavanaugh nomination is simple: Firing Up the Base.
Who does this fire up - virtually the entire base of Democrats:
1) Pro-choice women
2) Minorities on affirmative action
3) Hispanics on ICE and border patrols
4) Intellectuals who fear a lurch to the right
5) Anti-Trump voters who are in a majority
Does that explain it to the author?
7
Just wondering-did you right a similar column about the eminently qualified Merrick Garland in 2016 advising Republicans to "Just Confirm Garland?
18
McConnell rule: after election.
7
The McConnell rule was not "after the election," but "after the inauguration."
It isn't a rule. It was petty nonsense McConnell came up with citing another piece of nonsense he called the Biden Rule. Just nonsensical unconstitutional diversion built for those who don't care about what is real and true but enjoy a good nit-pick in the dark.
And for crying out loud, the inauguration IS after the election.
This nonsense if for the birds. What McConnell did was wrong, pure and simple.
But, hey, separating children from their parents, now that is up there with some real Nazi stuff.
It is more than an ludicrous suggestion to just confirm Kavanaugh as though all he stands for is blindly acceptable and without question.
What does Bret Stephens have to say about Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell's perhaps treasonous disregard of the Constitution and the rule of law?
In that case too it was party before country. How is that acceptable?
16
"A plurality of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed, according to Rasmussen." Really Bret? You need a better authority than the Republican party's pollster equivalent of Fox News. Anyway, a pluality wanted Trump as president. How did that work out? And sorry, but Gorsuch does not "deserve his seat on the Supreme Court". You may recall that this is the seat that was stolen by McConnell and his cohorts when they denied Merrick Garland a hearing. BTW, I don't recall hearing you complain then. The stated reason was the voters should decide in November, some 10 months after Obama put up Garland's name. Well now we only have 4 months to the midterms, so let's not rush things. Let' check the guy out, and I don't only mean his credit card debt, although that being paid off in a rush is weird, in the best senario. Where'd he get the dough for that? Did he have any conversations with Trump about authority to fire Mueller? And what were the circumstances of the very sweet timing of Kennedy's departure? Let's get some facts, Bret, something your party has no concerns about.
6
Stephens ought to be running the DNC: if so, Congress would be won back and we would have a Democrat president.
1
Actually, I don't think the solution to our political polarization is simply for liberals to become conservatives.
1
Brett Stephens-lite is already running the DNC.
The DNC is as much the enemy of the Democratic Party as the GOP.
The relative disparity between the vast wealth, power & resources of the rightwing -- fueled by the lucre from shadowy billionaires & Corporate CEOs such as the Koch Bros., Mercers, Sinclairs & Adelman & further potentiated disproportionately by the disastrous Citizens United 5-to-4 SCOTUS decision in 2011-- inform the strategies which Democratic forces must contemplate.
It takes tens of billions of $$$ to fund long-term think tanks such as the Heritage Society, Americans for Prosperity (for the very rich), the Fraser Institute, the Cato Institute, ALEC to name a few. Progressives & Liberals do not have such financial artillery. The billions of Progressives George Soros & Tom Steuer are dwarfed by the megafunds of Conservatives -- particularly since most major Corporations freely give billions of $$$ to rightwing organs.
With SCOTUS decisions undermining voting rights with the evisceration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as well as the double-faced Janus decision which emasculated American Public Labor Unions ability to raise moneys, there is no balance between the far right wing versus Progressives.
That being said, one wonders how much longer Progressives will remain quiescent & tolerant, despite horrific setbacks, when the entire U.S. Gov. & most of the State Houses & Legislatures remain under rightwing billionaire support -- further enabling Conservatives who already own all branches of governance to game the political system with gerrymandering & adverse SCOTUS rulings.
5
I love the sign Senator Schumer is holding. It reads, #WhatsAtStake What is at stake is his job. And Nancy Pelosi's job. And all the Democrats' jobs. Please get out of the way and let some fresh blood to lead the party.
1
Appreciate your dispassionate advice, Bret; really I do.
Just, help me out again: where were you on the 'McConnelling' of Merrick Garland's nomination?
Lots of reasons for Dems not to make a fuss there too, were there?
23
"Or maybe Democrats will figure out a way to kick a vote past the midterms. In which case, Democrats can seize their chances."
Way to completely undermine your lame argument, Bret.
Thank you for placing those sentences early and saving me from wasting any more of my time reading the rest of this silly opinion essay.
8
A president under federal investigation for possible obstruction of justice and collusion with a foreign power to influence our elections should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice until that investigation is complete. Good grief, according to the Republican playbook, Obama was not allowed to appoint a justice because he was in the last year of his presidency. But somehow, this guy who might end up being indicted should have that authority? I think it’s a travesty.
10
A nice piece by a neocon who often sides with the Right. Yeah, the Senate's evenhanded treatment of Garland certainly demonstrates that Republican's are honest and ethical when it comes to governing. Kavanaugh may even have been the tipping point for getting Kennedy to resign. But a fight, even a losing fight, is also about standing up for something. The Democrats are using anti-Trump for the sake of hating Trump strategies that may well backfire. Voters want issues to be debated, not personalities. This is a genuine issue for the ages, unless you're a neocon in neutral clothing who wants to appear reasonable.
4
Sorry Bret. There are plenty of red flags here.
It would be malfeasance just to close our eyes and confirm Kavanaugh.
His opinions on executive privilege are astonishing.
And, there's a strong sense The Fix Is In vis a vis Kennedy but also, in the event Trump faces indictment or even a subpoena - Kavanaugh is on record stating he thinks, essentially, presidents are above the law.
This is unacceptable.
8
And again, why is a president that is currently under investigation allowed to submit ANY Supreme Court nominees?
"Democrats would help themselves, and the country, by returning to the old standard and refusing to let Kavanaugh’s confirmation become the political event of the season."
Are not failing to assess anything for it's potential as "political event of the season" and, finding ANY, failing to"go for it," by every new - and deplorable - standard, the equivalents of taking a non-recyclable plastic knife to a gun-fight with the 21st century of a Gatling gun?
Stated differently, is there anything at this moment to suggest the possibility of a return to anything fairly describable as a standard, old, new, borrowed, blue?
Interesting that the issue of preventing President Obama’s from nominating a justice to the Supreme Court was not mentioned by the writer. How does that fit into the current situation?
10
"Interesting that the issue of preventing President Obama’s from nominating a justice to the Supreme Court was not mentioned by the writer."
That's because it completely undermines the lame argument he was trying to make.
8
NO.
Do NOT confirm any of The Con Don and his democracy-destroying Robber Baron brethren's nominees for any judicial position in OUR United States of America.
WE THE PEOPLE will not allow the International Mafia and their supposed "christian" brethren to take over OUR country and keep us all in servitude to them.
Not now. Not ever again.
5
Yes they should confirm him, but not for these stupid reasons. They should promptly confirm him because he is very qualified, and his being on the court won't really make that much difference. How about they just do their jobs and not worry at all about politics. We used to confirm such based on qualifications not some idea of how we want courts to do what we desire but can't accomplish within our constitution. If you hate the constitution so much you need to find some other country to live in.
1
Dear Mr. Stephens,
When he was nominated, Judge Kavanaugh said "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." Do you think that's true? What evidence can be offered to support such an assertion? If the answers are "No" and "None," what does that say about Judge Kavanaugh?
7
It says that Judge Kavanaugh will lie for Trump.
I think that's why Bret Stephens likes him so much. The entire Republican Party - including Bret Stephens - have become complicit fascists who now admire liars more than anything else.
6
In my view there are only aminisule cases where it makes a huge difference. Otherwise it looks like this is being played up by players on all sides. Words like battle royal etc. are being bandied about just to add an extra spice.
It also appears to me that originalism is just a trick by which conservatives would like to keep the society functioning as much into past as possible . That they think apparently helps their cause, when the real force of s ien e and technology co yinues to wipe out all kinds of old thinking.
1
Touche - Well articulated. This is a battle for the soul of the nation. The Democrats in the senate are our only voice in defense of hard won victories for women's rights, a tyrannical dictatorial illegitimate president and a dishonest minority forcing its will down the throats of the majority. We have no choice but to fight this terrible regressive appointment. It may be a ratings victory for el-presidente but for many of us this is a struggle for the kind of country we want to live in.
Per Mitch, we cannot confirm an SC nominee in an election year. You people made the rule, now follow it.
8
Bork=Garland?
Talk about false equivalence.
Bork was complicit in the Watergate cover-up. He betrayed the trust of the American people and did not deserve to sit on any bench; let alone the Supreme Court.
5
Why should it be expected that Democrats who (com)passionately support civil rights should "play nice" and accept "inevitables"? Where were the Republican voices supporting due process when Garland was up for confirmation? Practicality is not always the wise choice. Thank you for thoughtful columns, but know the peril. You are a protected white male of means. You are not at risk.
4
It would take a miracle to derail this nomination but the Democrats need to put Kavanaugh to the test and do their best to define who he is in the vetting process and try to get him to agree to recuse himself in event our banana republic president's russia/obstruction of justice issues ever arise to the the Supreme Court (same for Gorsuch).
We are in an ugly time here is the US, with a republican party more interested in holding onto power than exercising it for the public welfare and a thief, charlatan and Russian tool for President.
4
Oh this is rich Mr Man.
You're right - The Republican Senate and the Republican President will affirm anyone they want.
But as you're probably beginning to see - or will soon - the battle for this seat will be a pyrrhic one for @GOP Corporation.
Democrats would be smart to exact their pound of flesh for this hypocritical move - one wholly counter to Republicans' "Will of the People"/"Let the Voters Decide" argument allowing a Gorsuch to sit on the court today.
3
Democrats should take advice from a deeply partisan Republican columnist who wants to destroy the Democratic Party because...?
8
Really? Just roll over and play dead? Republicans would never do that, and maybe that's why they're in control right now.
Democrats can take a lesson from Israel. Traditionally, Judaism teaches that the only way to be perfectly moral is to be a perfect victim. Fighting back, even in self-defense, might mean you harm the wrong person or for the wrong reason; hence Jesus pleading to God, “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do” (today, he’d say “They don’t know what they are doing”). Many of the Jews who survived WWII decided it was time to change—it was either be prepared with self-defense or face extinction. And thus Israel was born, and they're still around.
A minority (mostly white men) is acting like extinction is what they will face unless they win every single political battle, and judging by the political climate lately, it seems to be working. It is time for Democrats to stop being so consolatory and fight back like our lives and our country depend on it.
3
Hogwash. As long as the GOP are spendthrifts in political capital, we should and will closely examine the people they have chosen to represent the United States for the foreseeable future.
We will do ourselves that courtesy even while the GOP look around to burn down whatever institution displeases them next. The GOP are balanced on a pin. We see that clearly. The only question is when and how they will topple and how much of the world they will take with them.
4
Evolution of Democratic Judicial Thinking:
1) 1973 (Roe v Wade) Rule #1: A liberal SC is a GREAT way to circumvent the Constitutionally proscribed legislative process!
2) 1987 (Bork nomination) Rule #2: Notwithstanding the time-honored practice of reviewing a nominee solely based upon qualification, ideology now is a reason to reject indisputably qualified nominees. (Can’t jeopardize rule #1!)
3) 2010 (Citizens United) Rule #3: Legislating from the bench is an outrageous constitutional breach! (Rule #1 is suspended until there is a predominantly liberal SC, then reactivated.)
4) 2013 (Nuclear option) Republicans (following Democratic rule #2 for review of judicial nominees) are slowing/blocking the approval of Obama nominees. Adhering to the Obama administration mantra “elections have consequences”, Harry Reid implements Rule #4: The 200-year old filibuster rule for (non-SC) judicial nominations no longer applies!! (Astoundingly, apparently doesn’t occur to HR that there could come a time when Dems lose the Presidency and majority!)
5) 2017 (Gorsuch) McConnell completes Reid’s anti-filibuster action by extending to cover SC. Dems bemoan their shortsighted power grab in approving Rule #4, now arguing that a simple majority should not be sufficient.
6) 2018 (Kavanaugh) Unable to challenge his impeccable credentials or block him on ideology, Dems invoke Rule #5: When all else fails, completely distort his statements, even at cost of embarrassing yourselves in the process.
1
Your "rule number 2" is as false as the rest of the post, but I'll respond to that one.
The vote for Bork was not blocked. His confirmation was voted down, with a number of Republicans joining in the rejection.
That knocks out some of the other "rules" as well.
Check out David Brook's recent column on the same issue. But Brooks reviewed the effect of being a member of the Heritage and Federalist cabal, which in deep pervasive ways demolishes the concept of "competency" of jurisprudence being the controlling criteria for a Justice.
Is it just an accident that every single one of the current conservatives have Catholic upbringing? That indoctrination is deep, that there is a hierarchy of God, Jesus, Pope and Priest. Sure, this rings of retrograde religious bigotry, but when such officials people want to prevent a woman having the final choice of terminating a pregnancy before "quickening" which even Catholics accepted decades ago, we have a deep distortion that is only explained by this nexus between church and state. I had hopes for Gorsuch, given that his family are now Episcopalians, a group that is officially pro-choice. But at a deep level, these are "manchuran candiates."
There is no atheistic-secular political force in this country. It is this sad reality, that while probably half of elected officials fit this category, almost none would attempt to run on such a position.
As long as "In God We Trust" is our motto, and also our cultural norm, then Bret is correct. It is the cowardliness and disorganization of atheists that has given us Donald Trump, and soon decades of religious based "justice."
2
A president who is under investigation for working with a foreign power to win an election should not be allowed to appoint the very Supreme Court justice who will decide whether he can be subpoenaed in the investigation. Democrats need to take this stand and hold it until the end if they want to maintain any semblance of credibility in the Trump era.
It's also laughable that you would even bring up the concept of "political capital" as if it still existed in any meaningful form. Republican legislators made sure a long time ago that obstructionism was the only thing that worked in Washington, and conservative voters have shown time and again that they will reward it. The real waste of time would be for Democrats to focus on an imaginary class of swing voters who will suddenly reward "playing by the rules" for the first time in 8 years. If these voters can't understand that Democrats are dealing with an authoritarian president and trying to contain a constitutional crisis, they were never going to vote Democrat anyway.
Democrats should focus on bringing new people into the fold and exciting progressives, which is what holding the line on Kavanaugh will accomplish. (Kavanaugh's interpretation of the Constitution is MUCH more conservative than the majority of American voters.) Ultimately the Supreme Court should have been THE issue of the 2016 election, but Democrats failed to do a good job communicating that. They have a chance now to try to correct course.
2
Kavanaugh will very likely be confirmed. Democrats should, nevertheless, vigorously oppose his confirmation. There is no merit, neither moral nor political, in surrendering one's principles in the face of likely, even inevitable defeat. Taking stands only where one is likely to prevail is the worst form of cowardly opportunism. To hold back for fear of riling voters on the other side is to give up the fight before it has begun; it represents the kind of Clintonian "triangulation" and Washington-think that has plagued the Democratic party since the 1990s and led to the pervasive distrust of politicians nation-wide. The only practical political calculation of any merit is that Democrats should not, through mere procedure, drag out the record of their opposition through the November elections.
4
James Madison, the primary Federalist and writer of the Constitution, thought the highest purpose of this new government was "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." This is the originalist position, according to the originator. These shareholders in the slavery corporation wanted less democracy and more control over their well-regulated peasant militia that kept the lid on the prison-farm hostages on the plantations and the slave ships. Reagan moved the country backwards into the 1950s, Bush moved us back into the 1920s, and now Trump will get us back to post-Reconstruction. At this rate, by Trump's second term we can re-establish slave labor for those designated as lesser creatures by God.
1
"Just Confirm" doesn't cut it - this is too fraught. If Democrats don't put up a (well-considered, well-calibrated) fight they'll lose even more political capital.
1
Kavanaugh is clearly political. Having worked hard to prosecute B Clinton, he changed his tune once a President with an r next to his name came into office. Now his belief, backed by public comments and papers written, is that the president cannot be prosecuted while in office.
So imagine the Mueller investigation reveals major wrongdoings by the President and his team. So much so that not only does the House impeach, but the Senate nearly unanimously convicts (yes its a long shot but use your imagination). Trump appeals to the SC. The court rules in his favor making the president able to commit any crimes while in office.
That is the end of democracy.
3
Sadly I recognize that Stephens is absolutely right. The best use Dems can make of this is to launch a campaign of education for the general public showing the stupidity of originalist legal theory and the disingenuousness of its public supporters.
1
Just Confirm Garland. Deal?
4
Let me get this straight, Bret, you believe Democrats shouldn't waste political capital fighting this nomination. Were Republicans wasting political capital when spent 8 years as the Party of No? Democratic, progressive, and rational Republican voters will reward Democratic candidates with political capital when stand up and fight the fanatical radical right-wing corporatists and retake faith and flag.
2
Along with so many others, I just say: Garland. When you reprint your writings from 2016 urging Republicans to "just confirm Garland," then I'll consider what you have to say.
2
sure Bret because that's what your party does right? Does the name Merrick Garland mean nothing to you or are you typical of your mates in the GOP with selective memory issues?
There is nothing that you or your party is in a position to lecture anybody about unless it's hypocrisy in which case you guys own the market.
3
Give me a reason why I should follow the advice of such a misguided writer. Yes, we need to get out the vote, and a way to do that is to show that we have backbones. Go to the mat on this one, exposing Kavanaugh for exactly who he is during the hearings, and then use the monolithic GOP confirmation as a reason to throw the rascals out.
No conservative worth the term should believe that the GOP should get away with trashing the political process the way they have. Merrick, disenfranchisement, graft and corruption, and a narcissistic ignoramus as the head of the party. Gotta fight it every way we can.
1
Sorry, trump lost the election. Thanks Mr. Stephens for chiming in, but you can't bark orders from your cozy cubicle. RESIST at every turn, call those who support separating children from their families out, and chide in public. Peacefully of course.
4
Stephen's argument for confirming Judge Kavanaugh, is at best passive aggressive. If Brett is concerned, as previously argued, about Trump's lack of fitness for the presidency, and
the ever mounting evidence of his passing strange admiration for Putin. Why then, does he argue for the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee who clearly expressed in previous writings, that a president should not be accountable for any acts of criminality while in the presidency? "Just confirm". Never mind NOW whether Trump has committed TREASON.
1
"Justices such as Roberts and Gorsuch deserved their seats on the court ... "
Correction ... Garland deserved a seat on the Supreme Court, not Gorsuch. It is amazing how Republicans get away with dirty tricks and suffer zero consequences (they even gain), but everyone counsels Democrats to be reasonable and accommodating. We've got to get away from this fantasy that if Democrats act like grownups, then Republicans will follow. They won't.
4
Mr. Stephens,
Did I miss your "Just Confirm Garland" commentary?
Send my greetings to Mitch when you wallow with him while recommending that the Democrats take the high road.
6
Thank you, Bret, for your crocodile tears for the Democratic Party.
1
This column is another perfect illustration of why it's impossible to take conservatism seriously. For example, while Roberts may have saved the ACA, he certainly killed section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The real issue is what kind of America will the SCOTUS create? Here's one scenario: This court will permit the open carry of assault rifles and pistols as a logical extension of the Second Amendment. States, mostly blue, which will resist such a ruling on grounds of public safety will find this court unsympathetic to their concerns. One obvious consequence of such a SCOTUS ruling, aside from the potential for public mayhem, will be the nearly total end of tourist industry, accompanied by a serious decline in the number of foreign students seeking an American university education. America will no longer be the "city on the hill" and the American experiment in self-government will be aborted.
2
Did I miss the "Just Confirm Garland" column?
3
So he's a "temperate, intelligent, decidedly non-scary nominee" ?!?! You deserve the America you will get.
1
"Never underestimate the power of mediocrity." -Nietzsche
2
I wish the Dems had the votes to block him, but they don't, and that is why they should chose another way to fight Trump and his cadre. I like that they will publicize his outside the mainstream views but that's what is available. I would like to be wrong and to discover that some Republican has the guts to go against this nomination, but that is dreaming. Better to note your opposition and get on to winning in November.
1
the issues blocking the tried and true democrats from grasping reality is they are stuck on the idea that they barely lost or didn't lose(because Hilary won the popular vote) at all. But this one election result does not tell the story of how badly the Democrats have been trounced all over the country in local, state and national elections over the last 6 years. That is why you couldn't get Garland and now have to accept Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Your ideas have lost election after election. At some point you have to wake up to the reality that the most important vote, the independent vote, has no respect for your party platform. I don't care for Originalist Supreme Court justices but it doesn't mean they aren't qualified so I have no interest in the Democratic fight to the death. Like most Americans, I want a comprehensive immigration reform plan but that does not include continuing illegal immigration. I want a party whose 5 most important policy platforms help the most amount of Americans and do not represent small fringe issues. Until this stuff comes to the Democratic party, I'll vote Republican because at least I know I will get a tax cut of some sort.
Thank you Bret Stephens for your call to pragmatism. Trump is approaching genius status if the degree to which a political leader in a sophisticated democracy succeeds in implementing the mandate on which he or she is elected is the test of that. Thankfully, there is no Nobel Prize for politics.
He may be an evil genius to some, including myself. But it is hard to deny what Trump and the GOP are achieving for their diverse coalition. Trump and his enablers have steamrolled so many established political and social conventions without paying a political price and they just got started.
This scourge must be stopped. However, the resistance must even grudgingly recognise this is a guerrilla war being conducted by a political machine which will not be defeated by conventional strategies. Respect the opposition. Think of this as the Vietnam of politics if that helps. The resistance must be willing to step back from orthodoxy and consider the type of leaders who will have a chance to defeat Trumpism, the permissible weapons to use, the rules of war to be adopted and the battles to fight. Let’s listen to new viewpoints too. To use a tired cliché, it’s time to think outside the box. It’s time to dump failed leaders, old strategies and rules of engagement or we will be stuck with Trump for two terms (and perhaps a couple more appointments to the Supreme Court from that long list). So please let’s keep an open mind for now on what the Democrats should do on the Kavanaugh situation.
Yes, by all means, we should skip the whole confirmation process and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime position as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States.
I, (sarcastically), agree with Bret Stephens. Who needs to vet someone that the Federalist Society, the Kochs, and the Mercers, et al. have chosen and nurtured for years to do their bidding.
1
How easy it is for so many men to advise that since the confirmation is a foregone conclusion, no discussion is necessary. The confirmation process is an important report to the public, and a necessary part of the senate's role to advise as well as consent/dissent. And for all those who fine-tuned their refusal to support the last democratic candidate for the presidency, this process makes it crystal clear why, even if you hate everything else about a candidate, the power of supreme court nomination should prevail--I've not enjoyed voting for some democratic presidential nominees (my primary favorites did not prevail) but I've done so precisely for and sometimes only for the prospects of a supreme court nominee (and judicial appointments all down the line--Preet Bharara, for example), with lasting historical consequences, far exceeding the term of any single president
5
Really? what if he lied to congress in his previous confirmation hearings? what if he actually made a deal with Trump to protect him from impeachment, subpoeana, etc (it is not beyond asking this question given the loyalty oaths Trump has asked for from Comey etc etc).
And why was his previous confirmation so difficult? Just because the Republicans have the votes and lack of principles to put him through doesnt make it the right thing to acquiesce to.
3
Bret Stephens needs to stop trying to tell Democrats to "be nice" and "be quiet". The opinions of trumps new supreme court justice appointment are dangerous to our democracy primarily because they could allow Trump his Get Out of Jail Free card and create a stronger, better oligarchy.
Democrats may lose this protest. But this protest must happen, because if they do lose, other steps to bring back our Democracy must happen.
3
Thanks for trying to soften the times, Bret. But, it's pretty clear there's only one thing that matters now: raw political power. Sure, we've been dancing around this fact for 20+ years, but here's where we are: Garland didn't get a vote and then McConnell overrode the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to seat his own justice.
When Democrats win again, whether in 2018, 2020, 2022, or later, they need to exercise this power to achieve their own goals at all levels of government. If it takes packing the court by introducing a bill to allow a Democratic president to seat 6 new justices. Do it. That bill gets filibustered in the Senate? Destroy the filibuster. Then, bring a gerrymandering bill before the Court and have them strike down the districts in Republican states. Where you currently have Democratic state governments, redraw the lines to your benefit, rinse, and repeat. Trouble breaking into a few Republican states? No worries, pass a national bill mandating a certain number of state reps per population. Open and close voting sites to advantage your voters and disadvantage Republican voters. Add state reps until you have a majority in all statehouses.
Worried that Republican might get back in power? Don't be. Democrats have always had more votes available and people prefer their economic policies. No one actually cares how government works.
2
"For Democrats, that ended in 1987 with the Borking of Bork."
-------
Robert Bork brought it upon himself with his participation in the Saturday Night Massacre and his philosophy that was viewed by almost everyone as outside the mainstream of legal thought. It's time this tiresome trope of "Borking" is put to rest.
5
Given that even the leaders of the campaign(s) against Kavanaugh recognize that they will fail to stop his confirmation, it's tempting to read their campaigns cynically as more virtue signaling for the sake of rallying the base to contribute more $ and increase voter turnout in November.
But that doesn't mean we should tell our elected representatives to just confirm Kavanaugh. The Senate should take its advise-and-consent role seriously and thoroughly vet Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh should be expected to provide detailed answers to valid questions about his jurisprudence; he should not be allowed to get away with pretending that he cannot address any aspect of any issue that could potentially come before the Court. Only after this vetting process has been concluded and Kavanaugh's fitness for the job made apparent would it be appropriate to call upon the Senate to just confirm Kavanaugh.
That Stephens so egregiously jumps the gun here suggests that he is no more sincere in his campaigning for Kavanaugh than the Democrats are in their campaigning against him.
2
As a Democrat, I totally agree. It also shows that the party needs young leadership like Tim Ryan of Youngstown, not, elite obstructionist Nancy Pelosi. Don't they understand there are lots of Kavanaughs out there. Their efforts to derail the confirmation are like scooping a cup of water from a spillway and expecting the flow of water to stop.
1
No one was crying wolf. Kennedy HAS been a disaster. Off the top of my head, how about --
Citizens United (corporations are people?)
Hobby Lobby (eviscerating women's right to contraception)
Shelby County (nullifying the landmark Voting Rights Act)
Bush v. Gore (a naked partisan power grab, giving us two wars, Hurricane Katrina, and the Great Recession)
-- and of course this season's attacks on the first amendment (Masterpiece) and workers' rights (Janus).
7
Would have thought that Mr. Stephens had moved on by now, and would be happily employed by FOX News. That of course is where he belongs.
2
Mr. Stephens' posturing, in the face of this toadying Republican Congress, is breathtaking. He tells us that we Democrats should spend our efforts elsewhere. Apparently he doesn't care that this Court will surely strip many of us of our Constitutional rights. After all, as a white male, he has nothing to lose.
Mind you, Congressional Republicans failed to discharge their responsibilities by sitting on the nomination of Merrick Garland, who was a political moderate, some nine months. Where were you then, Mr. Stephens, to say that they should just "go ahead and confirm" him?
It seems Mr. Stephens has fallen into the intellectual trap that has snagged many others -- that only Democrats must act in a conciliatory, bipartisan manner, while Republicans may hold out for as long as they want, break as many rules as they want, in order to enforce their extremist agenda.
Frankly, this essay smacks of a bully telling his much smaller victim, who he has repeatedly struck again and again, "Look, just lie down and take this. It'll be a lot worse if you don't." Well, the smaller victim may not win the battle. But he or she wouldn't be criticized for fighting for their own survival.
Mr. Stephens talks of motivating the Democratic base. What he refuses to see, though, is that nothing is more demoralizing that continuing to see Democratic candidates rolling over and over and over again. We don't mind a battle lost. But we do mind when our side just gives up without a fight.
2
Thank you. As a sitting judge on the DC Circuit, Demo look ridiculous wasting political capital on this guy.
The only focus should be to warn the American people this man was appointed by a President under investigation. Repeat: the only point the Dems should make is that Trump is under a heavy cloud and this selection should wait until that's cleared.
All else makes Dems look like nit-picking losers, which they will be when the Senate votes. Preserve political capital to support Mueller.
Man, this guy is a real piece of work. Does anyone really believe that Stephens wasn't rooting for Dean Wormer, and his nasty, bratty, sycophants? He is repeatedly disappointed with the outcomes, but he keeps cheering for the bad guys. Of course. So, what does that make him?
3
Mr. Stephens, thank you for offering the worst, most self-serving advice I could hope to read from a Republican in the NYT.
5
Judge Bork received a hearing and a vote.
Judge Merrick Garland did not.
The fact that a right wing columnist - in a column insisting Democrats must confirm Kavanaugh -- used this dishonest comparison should not surprise us.
After all, the man who Bret Stephens just insisted must be confirmed just told the American people this huge whopper:
"No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination".
Bret Stephens heard that whopper and said "that's the liar I want to insist that Democrats confirm." Wow, just wow. How far this columnist has fallen from any ethical principles. You don't write a column promoting a man who just lied to the American people unless you are a liar yourself or simply lack any ethical core. Which one is Bret Stephens, I wonder?
4
Justice Gorsuch does NOT deserve a seat on the bench, no matter how well qualified he may be. His name should always be denoted with an asterisk, his seat was stolen for him by Sen. Leader McConnell and will always live under a cloud of cynical corruption. Now Kavanaugh is a legitimate nominee and an object lesson to Democrats on the futility and danger of third party candidates like Bernie and the toxic results of ceding elections because the Democratic candidate does not excite you. Electing presidents is NOT like choosing shoes; you can wait till just the right shoe comes along, no doubt you have plenty more in the closet. Democrats handed the Oval to Trump and now that unforced error will cost all of us further campaigns against environmental protections, workers rights, voting rights, personal rights and freedoms. This didn't have to be, can we learn this lesson?
2
It's not futile to oppose this nomination. The Republicans have laid down markers for what they wants and don't want for decades. It's the long game and has paid off despite a few losses along the way. This isn't just about Kavanaugh. It's about what you believe in. Of course Mr Stephens want the Dems to lay back and take it, why wouldn't he?
1
The particular candidate is a Bush asset, carefully positioned to help maintain continuity and immunity for the former president, among others. And he is a pure GOP party asset as well. He otherwise signaled his ideological allegiance, not by comments over human rights, free speech, women's legal protections, environmental issues, crime, tort reform, civil procedure, gun control, banking, immigration or a hundred other matters, but rather over one allegiance and reliability over all others: the Global War on Terror, and his utter sworn allegiance to the 2001 crew.
1
By confirming Kavanaugh, the Democrats would essentially guarantee Trump’s completion of his first term and will increase the possibility of him getting re-elected.
While chances of getting enough senators to vote against him are slight, resisting the installment of yet another Trump appointee is worthwhile.
It will signal to Americans who’ve been feeling defeated that the struggle to rid ourselves of this monstrous president will continue for as long as he is in office.
Mr Stephens is right.
The Democrats should focus their questions on getting Judge Kavanaugh to commit to non-idealogical, non-partisan rulings. In particular, they should test his opinion on Stare Decisis.
If, once nominated, he doesn't perform as he said he would, like Justice Alito didn't on Stare Decisis, then a Democratic administration can use that justify appointing new justices to balance him out, increasing the SCOTUS bench to eleven.
This Supreme Court tragicomedy is the product of a modern society trying to live according to a piece of parchment written with a quill pen by men in knee breeches. The Court isn’t the problem; an antique Constitution is. And now, we’re faced with the prospect of yet another justice who believes that the best way to deal with issues in the 21st century is to seek wisdom in a document from the 18th.
1
It is never a waste of time, or political capital, to do the right thing. Democrats who require a complete and robust review of Kavanaugh's record absolutely are doing the right thing. When the Constitution was written, I believe the framers intended for the Senate to do more than rubber stamp nominations to the Supreme Court.
2
Stevens is right.
The question is not whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed but rather how to avoid doing damage to the chances of the Democrats rolling up solid victories in the midterm elections.
Even if he is defeated there are dozens more right behind him that won't vote any differently on critical issues.
So the focus should be on getting control of the Senate to be able to successfully block the next right wing appointee.
Who will they lose Bret, voters that are never going to vote for Democrats anyway? Core democratic voters (the expanded base) want a fight, even a loosing battle.
I have to agree. The activist base is basically demanding that Democrats fight a battle after the war has been lost. The outcome isn't going to change ( Kavanaugh will be confirmed 51-49 at least). So all you have are casualties.
If the liberal base is upset, perhaps they should've voted in 2014 when control of the Senate was at stake or in 2016 when the Presidency was at stake. But both of those, you had the folks that favor purity over practicality and couldn't be bothered to vote for someone that didn't agree with them 100%. The result is that now, the GOP controls Congress and the WH which means they get to select who serves on the SCOTUS. If the left doesn't like that, then VOTE.
3
Maybe Mr Stephens should think of Democrats opposition as the equivalent of an oral dissent from the bench. Or as a call to reform a "Justice" system that is no longer accountable to the majority of Americans and is not an independent judiciary because of crony timed retirements, and that even death does not effect that.
Americans should look at their courts as the Chinese should look at theirs. The law of the land, but not justice by any meaningful use of the word.
No one should respect this court.
2
Perhaps this should not be the "fight of the dems life." But there is a huge gap between that and playing dead. First up is exposing the now all-powerful Federalist Society as the selector of SCOTUS nominations by the GOP. Talk about an elitist swamp! Next would be to grill him on his views of the first amendment: is it a protection of We the People as it has been traditionally viewed? You know, an inalienable right to gather in the town square and protest SCOTUS decisions? Or is it a way to further entrench corporate power and build up a state religion as was the case in two recent decisions? And of course, what are the limits of presidential power? The majority of us did NOT vote for this monster, and most of us support the investigation into his presidency. Most of us do not want to see him evade the charges when they come. Dems will live another day when Brett is chosen; they do not have to sell their souls in the process. Somethings are worth arguing about-- imagine if Obama had gone to the American people and the mat for Garland? That is one he might have won. Lastly, the dems must cagily expose the entire charade of Kennedy retiring (why now?) and the cozy relationship between his son and the trump mob business enterprises, and what terrible bargains were struck to get to this point.
Midterm elections are very much about passion, especially the upcoming one as has been noted in many places. The democratic base has long argued that the party establishment does not counter the right tactically. Ironically then, "futile and stupid gestures" are exactly what are called for leading up to November as a party losing one issue can still "win" affectively as long as its efforts are not hollow. America is a land of second acts, and the Democratic party needs one just in time for these midterms.
When you have no power, you must create it virtually as opportunities to, at the least, express principle. In the current political context, the intensity with which this particular fight is waged--and lost--far outweighs any possible criticism levied at such moves.
In political terms, 'tis better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all or to have fought weakly.
And, of course, what if lightning does strike?
Commentators are overlooking the Koch-Cabal factor. Kavanaugh is yet another jurist with allegiance to corporate business, a bedrock principle indoctrinated by conservative law education for the last several decades. (IF you haven't read Jane Mayer's DARK MONEY, do). It's not the red-herring cultural issues, it's that there maybe be another Citizens United up their sleeve. Stopping this is pretty near on impossible. But you gotta try...
2
Democrats and liberals have the most creative ways to go about losing. They will fight this losing battle, thereby strengthening Trump.
The farther left liberals are the more creative they can be about how to lose. Bernie Sanders used the Democratic Party, when convenient for him, to undermine Clinton, which got us into this mess in the first place.
Studies show that his supporters who switched to voting for Trump out of "protest" were enough to make the difference in the few key states. (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/08/23/wow-12-perce....
Fewer than 80% of Sanders voters ended up voting for Clinton.
How much more creatively can liberals find to lose the country than this?
And now, we will have a Supreme Court that will be issue rulings liberals will detest for decades.
So, when Bernie Sanders goes to vote yea or nay on Kavanaugh it will be irrelevant----he already voted yea last year, when it counted.
Thanks Bernie. Thanks Bernie-bros. Thanks Stein voters. Thanks "Social Democrats." Thanks liberals who like to make points instead of winning. This one is on all of you. You found the most creative way of losing ever, and the vulnerable in our society, not you, will pay for it.
So, go ahead and yell all you want about Kavanaugh. It will make you feel all warm inside. But you will lose that one too.
3
Brett has outlined the pitfalls for Dems of confining confirmation hearings to battle against Kavanaugh.
But that should not be the Dems’ goal in these hearings. Rather, the hearings should be made a stage to make crystal clear the Republicans’ moral bankruptcy and determination to demolish democracy. The Republicans in these hearings should be backed into a corner to face their hypocrisy and lies with a clarity that leaves them tongue-tied and spluttering before the voters who will see the motives of these lackeys laid bare and putrid in the light of day.
4
One really great reason is Kavanaugh's stance on presidents being exempt/above criminal investigation. In today's Bizarro World, it is difficult not to see this as THE reason trump nominated Kavanaugh. This is just another kind of gerrymandering by the GOP and this president. Trump stacked the deck with a ringer because he is under extreme peril of facing criminal charges for his misdeeds. Maybe Mueller can speed up and get it done before Kavanaugh gets confirmed.
2
Please paste a link to the opinion piece you wrote arguing that Merrick Garland was an abundantly well-qualified and moderate candidate. I searched and could not find it but since your most compelling arguments apply to him as well, you must have written one.
I really like these people who cry themselves to sleep with their passion for the constitution while greasing the wheels that undermine the obvious intent of the whole enterprise. Do you really think anyone who designed this system was hoping the SCOTUS would turn into 9 unthinking votes that voted almost exclusively along party lines?
1
1. Your idea of political capital is outdated—did opposition to killing Obamacare last year use up political capital? It seems to be it built up political capital. 2. You’ve fallen for the he’s-Mr.-nice-guy marketing ploy. He’s not really a judge but a political activist opponent of working people, women’s rights, and investigating presidents (unless the president is a Democrat)—all legitimate issues to raise that will be raised and could well sway the outcome.
2
Where were you Mr. Stephens when senate leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans were blocking President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. Were you asking your conservative clan to be reasonable and honor precedent?
I hate to see another conservative justice, but is fighting this nomination our top priority going into the mid-terms? I think not, simply because we cannot stop it. We Liberals need to be smart and tough. Once we have won back congress and the presidency, we can begin to undo the damage wrought by the current POTUS and congress. And we will win.
1
Go fly a kite, Bret Stephens! You will never have an unwanted pregnancy. Nor, as a privileged white man, will you ever be denied the right to vote or have your health insurance or civil rights stripped away. A president elected by a minority, who is under criminal investigation and who, according to some, has already committed several impeachable offenses, is about to foist a hard-right ideologue onto the highest court to undo every progressive law of the past 50 years in the interest of large corporations - and you're telling Democrats we should just lie back and take it? We may not win, but by resisting we can make sure that every American knows exactly who this man is, what his record is and what the next 20 or 30 years will be like for the younger generation. Indeed, they are the ones who will bear the consequences of this ruthless and pernicious nomination.
1
Can we please put to rest this nonsense idea of "political capital" that gets thrown around every time someone wants to convince a politician or political party to not act? People respect those who have the courage of their convictions and fight for them, tooth and nail. This is why the GOP, despite having awful retrograde policies, have won the policy debate at almost every turn since 1981. If the Democrats spent half the time they used measuring the political winds and agonizing over "political capital" to actually fight for what they believed in, there would be no President Trump.
2
Rolling over and giving up is what Democrats are good at. Democrats always out-think themselves and end up appearing weak and lacking conviction. This is exactly the sort of self-reflective nuance that doesn't work in politics any more and gave us Trump. The Republicans always bring a gun to any fight. Democrats need to stop showing up with a knife and bag of good intentions and overly-nuanced positions. Democrats may well lose, but should go down fighting for every inch.
3
"Yet there’s still such a thing as doing the right thing, even in politics." Yes, Mr. Stephens, the right thing to do would be confirming Merrick Garland not Kavanaugh!
3
Thank God! Finally someone speaking some common sense.
Mark my words, Democratic "fire an fury" in opposition of Brett Kavanaugh will destroy any chance Democrats have of taking the Senate, allowing Trump to appoint another Gorsuch Conservative when Justice Ginsburg passes (or Justice Sotomayor retire due to her poor health) in the next few years.
But hey, I'm a Republican. So, keep it up Democrats!
2
But in what passes for civil political discourse in 21st century America, hysteria is the proper tone and every issue is world-ending and worth dying for.
Ratcheting the rhetoric and emotions up to eleven is the new normal, especially for the party not in charge. The Republicans did it during the Obama administration, and the Democrats have gone above and beyond since Trump took office.
Its not the Russians, its not Facebook, its not anti-fa--its us.
2
I highly doubt this author is "all ears" for hearing a political argument; "I'm all ears," is what I hear when passive-aggressive people make an attempt to listen to opposing opinions. To the author, I live in a Red state and if I do not see my Dem Senator highly involved in the confirmation process, I will be deeply troubled come the midterms.
No senator, regardless of party, should confirm a Supreme Court nominee without thoroughly vetting her or him. That is their duty. It is the height of journalistic arrogance for a columnist to cavalierly counsel that Mr. Kavanaugh is well qualified, in his opinion, and so should be summarily confirmed. Bret Stephens was not, thanks be to God, elected to public office. It's too bad that there are so many who were elected who are as complicit in frittering away Constitutional checks and balances as he.
1
"Smile and swallow Mommy's medicine, dear." Stephens discusses some issues intelligently, but as to his attempts at conservative propaganda - major fail.
1
Stephens’s ritual invocation of ‘the Borking of Bork’ ignores the following inconvenient facts. I know. I was there.
First, no one did a better job of ‘Borking Bork’ than Bork. From his smearing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as embodying a ‘principle of unsurpassed ugliness’ to his dubious thoughts on privacy to his coldly out of touch description of the job he was eeeking as merely an ‘intellectual feast,’ Bork betrayed himself as a soulles, right-wing ideologue out of step with even a mainstream then defined by Ronald Reagan.
Second, perhaps Stephens has forgotten — though it happened only two years ago — that Judge Merrick Garland didn’t even get Botk’s level of Senate consideration. Fearing that Senate Judiciary Committee hearings would let Judge Garland display his sterling education, professional attainment, and character, to the detriment of what could only be bogus arguments against President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Republicans invented the facially comical and historically and Constitutionally risible rationale of the necessity for an intervenibg election to justify their denial to Judge Garland of even a confirmation hearing.
In other words, Stephens here attempts, futilely, to rewrite history. Bork wadn’t so much ‘Borked’ as exposed. And knaves in service of a naked Republican power grab treated Judge Garland in an unprecedentedly shabby way.
We should be able to expect better than this from a Times columnist.
2
While it is likely that another extremely conservative person will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it is important to vet him thoroughly in the open. His views are not in line with the average American and it needs to clearly pointed out. And while Stephens is trying to paint a picture that a plurality of voters (44%) is the equivalent of a majority of voters. But, the 44% is simply the same 44% who support Trump no matter how destructive his behavior is. It is imperative to demonstrate that Kavanaugh does not believe women should have equal rights to men. This is the future battle line and pointing out the extremism only fires up centrists and the base more.
Your column represents very reasonable and considered thinking. But this is not what these times call for. In light of the asymmetrical distribution of power, there is only one thing that any liberty loving politician can do... OBSTRUCT.
3
The baseline for acceptable lower court judges is lower than a SCOTUS nominee. The mere fact that a badly decided case can be appealed to a higher court enables that.
SCOTUS, being the court of final appeal, nominees MUST be held to the highest standards, especially regarding preservation of the rights of Americans, be it personal life choices or basic rights to participate in elections once registered to do so along with every other right we enjoy. There is no other way to approach this.
American lives matter, and this one has serious doubts this candidate recognizes that.
1
Democrats don't have to support Kavanaugh. They must do their constitutional duty and vet him very carefully. In the end, they may not be able to stop his appointment if the confirmation is rammed through by the GOP majority in the Senate.
For Democrats, it will be much more impotent to think strategically: the top goal must be to regain the majority in the Senate and the House. That is the only chance to re-assert legislative control and start reigning in Trump's ill-advised policies.
Disagree. Stretch out the hearings until the fall elections making sure as another columnist has suggested that Trump will be unable to fire Mueller in the interim.
"The base" is what is going to be the death of the Democratic Party. Judge Kavanaugh is no less technically qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Justices Breyer or Ginsburg as Mr Stephens rightly points out. Whether one likes his tilt is a problem solved by not losing elections.
Dragging this out will serve only to animate that the "base" that appears increasingly defined by the Brooklyn-Berkeley axis - instead of the more realistic center that came to be defined by the Democratic Leadership Council - constitutes the end of whatever is left of comity.
The Democratic Party's insistence on fighting this nomination is a mere prelude to the 2020 election where the left's response to the right's grievances will be no more than their version of the same.
If we truly want a return to civil society: we have to start behaving in a civil manner, and approving this nominee is a good step in the right direction.
Civil society? Maybe we run that by Mitch McConnell? Or are you on board with his
“civil” blocking of Garland? Maybe it’s time to re-examine what’s civil for those you obviously oppose.
I also agree with Stephens, all except his last point. Because the Supreme Court has become a political institution, with justices coming out of and rallying around interest groups such as the Federalist Society, I cannot agree that he "deserves" confirmation. Democrats should probe how he decides cases, but not necessarily the result, as well as his views on the confirmation process itself, and they should vote for him only if he has the proper respect for precedent, procedure and ethics. That would be a small step toward decreasing the political fervor of the nomination and the court. Practically speaking, this nomination is probably a losing issue for the Democrats but the least they can do is to reorient the conversation away from result-driven jurisprudence and educate the public on why method is more important than result.
Why was Mitch McConnell not impeached for failing his constitutional duty as a Senator to conduct a vote on Garland? Actually, since that event is still within the statute of limitations, it's not too late.
2
Can we please wait for the investigation before "just confirming" Kavanaugh? We waited a year for Justice Gorsuch, certainly there is no rush to confirm another.
If it turns out he was chosen by Trump because of promises stated or implied that the president is above the law, it would probably be a good idea that we know it. Not that it will matter to Republican senators, though.
2
One reason is his stance on presidents not being open to criminal investigations. In the Bizarro World trump has created, it's difficult not to suspect the reason Kavanaugh was nominated was because Trump needs his support in the upcoming months. That's a big old red flag, and makes opposition a lot less stupid and futile. Maybe even required and patriotic.
2
Isn't it plain with Trump that we really only have one party in the US? Democrats do very little to stop this "slash, burn and rape everything that had been cultivated". Other such tangos: Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.
1
Trump is so toxic that he contaminates everything he touches, including the nominations of justices. If Bush or Kasich had won the election, they likely would have nominated people such as Gorsich and Kavanaugh, while if Hillary Clinton had won, she would have chosen nominees such as Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayer. The confirmation process provides discernment; Judge Kavanaugh's academic qualifications are outstanding, while his experience as an inquisitor in the Starr debacle and his service in the GWBush torture administration certainly give anyone pause. His contention that sitting presidents should be protected from criminal indictments seems weird- does he really believe that impeachment procedures would follow if indictments are not threatened if a president like Trump gains power? Because of Trump's malfeasance, dishonesty, cruelty, boorishness and stupidity, anyone associated with him - including devout Catholic intellectuals - is immediately suspect.
3
The article is absolutely correct.
1
RESIST!!! I call on all Democrats to speak up and invoke Merritt Garland's name. Shame on the Republicans who would not allow his interviews to go forward. The Democrats, and President Obama should have spoken out with great force and condemned this. Encouraging the Left to be polite is not the answer. Trump and the Right are taking America down a path the majority of the County does not want to go - stacking the Supreme Court with judges who will rule in favor of issues granting corporations person-hood, ensures the ruination of our Democracy. RESIST and do not stop. Speak out! Cry Shame when these evil people crawl out of this swamp!
2
Funny how we didn't hear the same thing from this pundit re. Garland... hypocrisy at it's best. The motto of the entire GOP and the Trumpians
4
But... Kavanaugh likes BASEBALL and bought tickets for his neighborhood friends!! Dems should make this an election issue!!
1
Brought to us by the guy who believes that political disagreement is unAmetican
No thank you
Your cred Mr Stephens is like trump’s with any thinking person: ZERO
6
Mr. Stephens opinion is one of the dumbest pieces I have yet to see in the NYT, even counting those from readers who can't spell.
Supreme Court nominations for the last several decades have not been about how qualified the judge is, but how faithfully the man will adhere to conservative-or ultra-conservative ideals. Remember Judge Bork who was willing to do Nixon's dirty work and fire Special Prosecutor Cox? Thank God he never got on the highest bench in the land.
The fact is, Democrats need a good fight to get their blood up, and now is a great time for it. Keeping a judge off the court that might vote to let his patron out of complying with a subpoena is an very good reason to fight this nomination. It's high time the Democrats showed some backbone.
2
Oh, ok, the Democrats need to let Kavanaugh's confirmation go through without impediment because it would be politically inexpedient for them not to do so? What a cowardly, weak piece by a questionable "columnist". With the President under multiple investigations this pro-corporation and pro-imperial Presidency intellectually lightweight politically appointed judge, deserves to be elevated to the Supreme Court without rigorous due diligence? Shame on you!
6
Where was your 'Just Confirm Garland' column?
8
I know this is bad for my mental health, but until the day I die, I will always put an asterisk next to Gorsuch's name. That seat was stolen by McConnell when it rightfully belonged to Obama/Garland. McConnell's hypocrisy is now on full display for all to see.
That said, I agree with you that now is the time to keep our powder dry for more winnable fights. And who knows, maybe easy passage will gin up the Democratic base even more.
We need to send a clear and unambiguous message this November, people! Vote, Vote, Vote! (well, not multiple times like we usually do, right Kris Kobach? SMH. )
2
Brett adds to his jaw dropping list: Palestinians should not fight for equal rights, Charles Murray should be celebrated, Netanyahu is Lincoln, Dems should abandon Puerto Rican progressives, and now mr baseball ticket Kavanaugh should be confirmed without criticism. Really brett indicts himself and exposes his shameful causes. Why is he in the times?
2
When Democrats take back the House and Senate and White House? Add two SCJ's and there you have it. No more rightwing majority.
Furthermore, Mr. Stephens' opinion (throw in the towel) is noted, as he looks like none of his rights will be taken away.
In addition, when it gets to the point of "deport all progressives?" Will Mr. Stephens just tell us to leave already?
2
Nice try, buddy. It isn't "capital," it's the lives of every person in this country and the planet besides.
1
We need Gail Collins to respond to this one.
3
"Liberals always cry wolf," Bret? How's a nominee even remotely "qualified" when the unqualified nominator's so-called election's being investigated? If ever we HAVE cried wolf, at least OUR Little Red Riding Hood's not a hood riding on Russia's Red wave!
1
I stopped reading at “Liberals always cry wolf”. Is this a joke? Liberals have stood by and done nothing as the right ravages our country with its parade of cruelty and hatred. Kavanaugh is an evil candidate and I don’t care what the right (or this columnist) says about it because they do not have our best interests at heart. There is no compromise on human rights. This columnist is an apologist for crimes against humanity and an increasingly oppressive right wing government.
3
Agreed. Unless something comes up as Mr. Stephens notes in his essay, why waste precious political capital this matter? Only the democratic party in today's USA would step on its own feet (there is another way of putting this, but it would be inappropriate). It is as if the Democratic party wants to become a permanent "back bench" and increasingly silly political party with all of its leaders professing they were at Woodstock! Come on! For some of us that would like to see change in our Congress and for me in the Ex. Branch ---- you CANNOT get there by calling everybody a in the country that you disagree with: a racist, a fascist, a sexist, a rural idiot (I live in rural MI), using Nazi imagery to define the USA etc. etc.
Judge Kavanaugh is not the devil incarnate and he is fine justice --I do not agree with many of his rulings but, and this is obvious to all (except if there is some bomb shell we do not yet know about) Judge Kavanaugh IS MORE THAN qualified. The democratic party must reassert party maintenance and get real! Or it will be gone. I wonder if any of the democratic party leaders (who I respect) read a history book on American political development! Please get your act together or go the way of the Whigs! Please. Many of us want an alternative to the current GOP. Today's Democratic party does not seem to fit that bill, leaving many Americans such as me, just shaking our heads in dismay.
2
Whatever it takes to get the democrats out to vote big time in November is the right thing to do, taking advice from Stephens on this is a bit like taking advice from a great white shark on when it's safe to go in the water
2
I will concede that Stephens makes a strong case here . However it is interesting that if you apply his logic then Republicans should have confirmed Merrick Garland on the same basis . After all they acted as if the country would be in dire straits had he been permitted to sit on the court and now they seem to have amnesia about it .The game has changed and so i understand the opposition. One of my coaches before a game stated the obvious , "We are going to be out manned but i still expect maximum effort from everybody today."
7
I couldn’t agree more.
1
Maybe the Democratic Leadership is doing this for show. If so, ok. I understand that. But, to get all worked up for a fight that we cannot possibly win just isn’t very smart. Time and again, I see my party talk endlessly about “principles “ . Time and again, we rant and rave about every liberal cause on the planet.
That’s not the way to win...and winning is the objective. After winning, they can craft principles and causes into legislation that actually has a chance of being passed into,law.
1
A good reminder that geography will determine both the mid-term election and the 2020 presidential election. The only way for me to actually influence the mid-terms or the 2020 election would be to move to Florida or Ohio where my liberal vote might make a difference. Voting for Democratic candidates here in Washington State is a bit like sending ice to the Arctic Circle - they already have plenty and probably don't need more from me.
3
"There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology."
Senator McConnell and the slim Republican majority he commanded in 2016 changed that when they refused to consider Merrick Garland, Bret.
Republicans have slapped both cheeks of the clear majority of Americans and they're going to pay for it.
6
Quite right. Why fight against the inevitable? Much the way German progressives must have felt in 1933. The fascinating aspect of the next 20 years in the United States will be the consequences of the marginalization of the federal government. We can all thank Trump for having revealed this truth: that the federal government is merely a clownish reality tv show. It has no charter, no mandate whatsoever to promote social progress or public well-being. It seems to be an organization whose only purpose is to fund a gigantic military-welfare system. Kavanaugh will help to permanently cement the total polarization of the people of the United States into rational progressives v. dogmatic regressives. It's a perfectly natural polarization, and we should get used to it. The interesting thing will be to see how two such completely incompatible societies can dissociate step-by-step from each other without another bloody civil war.
3
I believe that the SC with its liberal and conservative judges should be an even court to force consensus. The court was supposed to be about judges who do not let party affiliation or political views influence their decisions, but that has always been quiet impossible. After judge Garland fiasco, 8 is the only way out of this never ending mess.
This sounds right; sad but true. Never underestimate, however, the capacity of the Democratic Party to shoot itself in the foot. At the moment, I see no national candidates because oldsters have dominated the leadership positions, and no well articulated positions that would give people positive reasons to vote for Democrats. In spite of a couple of Democratic presidents, Republicans have dominated politics since 1980. As a comment said a few days ago, Republicans focus on winning elections, while Democrats focus on winning arguments. It's easy to win when your opposition is incompetent.
3
Well no Bret. Respectful questioning based on his previous statements is hardly a political act. Nor would it be wrong for Senator Durbin to remind Kavanaugh that he lied under oath the last time he went through a confirmation hearing. Nor would it be wrong to ask him to explain his evolving (no whiplash) view of Presidential power and criminal acts. The red-state Democrats will make their decisions based on their own views and needs. And Collins will say nice things and then vote in lock step with her GOP colleagues.
I really don’t think that Senate Democrats are going to go to the mat here. I think they will ask tough questions which Kavanaugh will dodge with the cowardice we’ve come to expect from SCOTUS nominees.
Also, the GOP may one day wish it wasn’t the dog that caught the car. I always say many women are against abortion except in the case of rape, health of the mother or a pregnant daughter. And the main reason young people don’t join the GOP is its foul meanness toward GLBTQ Americans. And Obamacare has worked to help people who would rather fix it than kill it. And clean air and water are things that people can take for granted until they go away. And, with Kavanaugh on the court (who you know will not surprise anyone), you have your 5-4 to act on these things.
So sure, give Kavanaugh his seat on the court. And watch the next generation of Americans turn on a hyper-conservative Republican Party for the rest of their lives.
4
You fight for the same reason the Republicans fight everything. To show the base that you have a spine. Sometimes you lose ground fighting for what you believe in, but Democrats can't let the energy and excitement that's in the base go to waste.
The right expected their party leaders to fight Obama tooth and nail and they did. Didn't hurt them in the least.
Finally, did Stephens really quote a Rasmussen poll and expect anyone to believe the result?
6
In polite company Stephens claims that he is not a Trump supporter, but in his heart he really is a dyed-in-the-wool Trumper.
4
He only likes Trump because Trump likes Netanyaho
Thanks for your opinion Bret. Happy to explain the political wisdom of it: Merrick Garland. Doesn't seem to have hurt the Republicans one bit, nor has it appeared to affect pro-business or pro-Republican rulings from the current Court. Who votes for Democrats? Democrats and Independents. Are we trying to win over Republicans? No. With the nuts the Republican Party is currently fielding, should we worry about Bret, who compares liberal political opinions to the behavior of characters in a frat-boy movie from two generations ago - while a frat-boy Republican President creates futile and stupid policies affecting our country and the world at large? I think not.
4
Another column from Stephens worried that Democrats aren't legitimizing the rise of Republican policy & practice, decades long in acclivity by standing mutely in acquiescence as the Trump forces parade by.
Kavanaugh would have preferred a Bush too, Stephens, but like Rummy said, you work with what you've got. Just go shopping?
2
Two words in justifying opposing the nomination: Merrick Garland.
4
I understand these arguments for the Democrats not to wage a scorch-earth battle against this SCOTUS nominee, but I believe in Karma, and so they should battle "tooth and nail," just like Republicans would do. You never know what gets turned up if you do so that can put off the vote to confirm till after the election or nudge fence-sitting senators of both parties to vote no. But, as I suggest, mostly the Democrats have to be as nasty, mean-spirited, and broadly condemnatory as the Republicans would be. Imagine if Garland did get a hearing during 1916: it would be stone the nominee time for them. What goes around comes around! Make the Republicans pay!
2
If you're a woman, don't listen to this man. Same if you're gay, transgender, black, an immigrant or refugee, someone who appreciates untainted food and air, or somebody who still supports our Constitutional rights. If you support the rights of consumers, ignore him. If you're one of the overwhelming majority of Americans who wants stronger gun control and womens' reproductive freedom maintained, do not listen to this man.
He's been wrong before, BTW.
6
Oh, give the Bork thing a rest. This country is richer for not having had the spineless weasel who went along with Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox rewarded with a Supreme Court seat. The situation between Trump and Mueller today GREATLY reinforces the wisdom of keeping him off the court.
2
It's not a stretch to believe that Stephens, ever the good party-uber-alles Republican, would be calling for a moratorium on filling a SCOTUS seat till the next presidential election if a President Hillary Clinton had nominated Kavenaugh. No surprise that he loyally calls for immediate confirmation, without any hearings, under Trump.
1
Sure, fighting Kavanaugh will not do much to rally the democratic base, and yes the best way to deal with Trumpism is to get out the votes. However Kavanaugh's nomination is just another example of our country heading down the wrong path, and to get out the votes Americans need to understand just how bad things can get on the current trajectory, which. Kavanaugh must go through a rigorous process so everyone realizes what we are giving up as a country. I say a plague on both bases since they got us into this mess in the first place. We need to rally the American people.
1
It's simple, Brett. No person of integrity and good moral character would possibly accept a nomination by this anti-American nightmare of an Administration. Therefore, there must be something fundamentally wrong with this man. All who support this President are irredeemably tainted.
3
If Democrats take direction from this clueless beltway pundit, they will meet the same fate they did in 2016. Learned helplessness and capitulation are not a winning strategies, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court, however slim the potential victory might initially appear. If "red state Democrats" who voted against health care repeal approve of Judge Kavanaugh, they deserve to be voted out--if they or anyone else believes that appeasing Trump voters will convince them to vote for their Democratic incumbent instead of the GOP candidate, I'd like to know what hallucinogens they're taking. I understand the overrated concept of "reaching across the isle," but, if you're a Democratic senator, voting for this nominee is at the expense of your own rank and file. What's the point of having Democrats in the Senate if they're just gonna caucus with the Republicans? The cowardice of (Establishment) Democrats, including their smug, pompous advisers and strategists, who almost always lose, is befuddling. I wish they would all resign and let the younger, smarter members of the party take the reigns.
2
More hypocrisy! No arguments of this sort seemed to inhibit Republicans from stealing Obama's last Court appointment .
What would help Democrats in the Fall and beyond would be to show principled opposition to the GOP installing an extreme right-wing court.
The Republicans want a Supreme Court so far to the right that it will make Ronald Reagan look like a Bolshevik by comparison.
The damage such a Court would do to America will make future generations reject any party that didn't fight tooth and nail against it's creation!
4
Sorry Brett. Recent events have made your arguments moot; the wild-eyed liberal left (which has it right this time) sees Kavanaugh as an extension of Trump’s crimes and has noted that DOJ and Mueller, who seem to have some true vertebrates in their employ, may have had a similar thought. Prepare another column.
1
Why should the Democrats "just confirm" Kavanaugh? Did the Republicans "just confirm" Gorsuch? You "concern" for Democrats hurting themselves by fighting this nomination is touching. I'm sure if you weren't worried that them might actually have a chance in getting this nomination rejected you wouldn't be writing this column.
2
This is so disingenuous. Republicans want this judge precisely because they believe he will vote to support their ideology. There's a reason these candidates are vetted by the Federalist Society, and it has nothing to do with their supposed integrity or objectivity.
3
While you are probably correct that Kavanaugh's nomination cannot be defeated, it can be used to illustrate the extreme views that Senate Republicans support such as not restricting the unlimited powers Trump is assuming and the Republican members of the Supreme Court apparently support. His extensive views as recorded in his judicial record contain ample evidence of women's health issues, misinterpretation of 1st Amendment free speech, pro big business bias and unlimited presidential war powers.
Democrats should use these positions to help shine a light on the modern Republican Party's deviation from traditional conservative thinking.
1
"Democrats would help themselves, and the country, by returning to the old standard and refusing to let Kavanaugh’s confirmation become the political event of the season."
Forget that. The court is nakedly political at this point. Ignoring how overtly political it is essentially means you aren't representing your constituents well and should be voted/primaried out of office.
1
What is wrong with the Kavanaugh nomination is not prognostication about where he will fetch up on some sort of left-right unilinear assessment scale; this is punditry at its worst, and notoriously unreliable over time -- witness Hugo Black and William Douglas, who turned out far differently than their nomination opponents feared. The problem with Kavanaugh is the Yale-Harvard Law monopoly on the Supreme Court. SCOTUS now views the world through spectacles tinted by uniform professional deformation. If the Constitution is to be interpreted to test Congress's and state legislative will, those doing it should not be stamped ourt of the same mould, excellent though it may be. There are other great law schools in the USA, and other paths to career leadership than a SCOTUS clerkship.
What present-day conservatives constantly forget is that Senate debates in support or opposition to a Supreme Court nominee is a constitutional requirement. Article Two states very clearly that this appointment is "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Mitch McConnell and the GOP flagrantly violated our nation's Constitution by refusing to even hold one hearing about President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland. They didn't just oppose his appointment. They sabotaged the whole process. If Democrats ask Kavanaugh some tough questions or vote against his confirmation, it is because they are constitutionally entitled to do so. At the end of the day, Kavanaugh will have been treated far better than Garland.
2
The battle for the soul of America is over. The never ending fight over state's rights vs a centralized government with uniform rules has just been cemented again in favor of the former.
Most of the rights of concern to progressives will ultimately be left for states to decide. Democratic party must focus on controlling state legislatures and state executive offices. If not the gerrymandering of the federal offices will continue until there is no shot at taking back the Federal Government. The far right and evangelicals have played a long game and chose to ignore their moral beliefs in exchange for winning battles thought to have been settled. Stare decisis? I think not.
2
Today the Republicans are grilling Pete Strzok because they say that he could not properly investigate Trump because of an e-mail exchange belittling Trump. (Strzok expressed more support for John Kasich).
Is that the standard for an investigation of the President that Ken Starr's office had? Was the fact that Ken Starr was an active Republican and you as his right hand man was an active Republican mean that you broke the law to get Clinton? Or will you go on record stating that all you Republicans in Starr's office did not break the law even though you were Republicans, even if your own party has implied that you would have done so because that is how they believe investigations are handled?
Mr. Kavanaugh, you already told us how much you believe Trump is superior to other Presidents in his search for Supreme Court nominees. In what other ways do you believe Trump is superior to Presidents like Clinton who you did not like and still investigated for over 6 years despite being a right wing Republican who didn't like Clinton?
1
You say he is "temperate." So please explain why he said, "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." Pushing propaganda is the opposite of the role of the Supreme Court.
Without excessive name calling and hysteria the Democratic Senators
should simply perform due diligence in evaluating Mr. Kavanaugh as
is their right and their duty. Clearly, they are obliged to ask all the questions
and see all the data. Then, sometime in 2019 or 2020, Mr. Kavanaugh
should get his vote.
2
Never take advice from your political enemies on how to defeat them.
If the Democrats don't fight with every scrap of an edge they can find here, they will be showing all of us who are relying on them to represent us that they do not have our best interests at heart and cannot be trusted. That they will not deserve our support in November. By "us" and "our" I'm referring to the liberals and leftists that the Democrats need to win - they need us for fundraising, for energy, for knocking on doors. They may be the party but they need the people!
Otherwise, who knows? Maybe in the future the DSA or the Greens can be a real party. That is, if we still have a country left.
The battle is who will get to polarize the court. If my tribe doesn't, I will wail lamentations. Of course, my polarization is correct.
The Democrats lost the election because they put forward an incredibly flawed candidate (it wasn't the Russians who had to convince voters of this, outside of the coastal bastions of virtue signaling).
Put forward a good candidate. Hope that Ginsburg lives. Stop pushing gun control in term of draconian bans as a target for SCOTUS overturning. Why should overturn Roe be horrific and Heller not?
Both parties need to get their heads out of using SCOTUS as the social issue police on guns and abortions. Americans want the right to have both in a free manner.
2
Who is Judge Kavanaugh? That's the Question this American wants to know and thats exactly why we have confirmation hearings. Sure, Democrats have an agenda and thats part of the American democratic deal not to mention the blatant misuse of power by the Republicans which blocked a Supreme Court selection during President Obamas term. For better or worse I look forward to the hearings. Let the American people including the press be the judge of both process and substance.
2
It may be a loosing battle, but not putting up a strong resistance just makes the Democrats look even more weak and helpless. If Kavanaugh's confirmation is a foregone conclusion, it's all the more reason for the Democrat and independent senators to put up a good fight.
Have we forgotten something? Right now there is a lawful government investigation as to whether this president legitimately holds office due to alleged collusion with a hostile foreign power. Whether as the result of post presidency trial or impeachment, it would become clear whether or not the Trump presidency was illegitimate from the start if proven his illegitimacy would have started when he took the oath of office.
Possession does not imply legal right. Thus if you possess a million dollar stolen diamond and you sell it to X, then X bought something from someone who had no right to sell it and the sale conveys no clear title and the true owner can demand its return. Likewise an illegitimate president’s acts cannot have the same legal validity as a legitimate president’s acts. All pardons would be revoked. The new tax law’s validity which Trump signed would have to be revised for a new president.
So we have two questions. First can a president who holds office by means of fraud on the American people and collusion with a hostile foreign power (with whom he is in business) appoint a Supreme Court Justice with a lifetime tenure, to which I would say no, he cannot and should not: and second why would we allow such a person under such a serious investigation to with any judical appointments until that investigation is concluded and the American people know the results of whether their president is a criminal who stole his office and is illegitimate.
2
How about this "grand bargain", Mr. Stephens. Our side will willingly confirm Kavanaugh if your side secures the resignation of Gorsuch and his replacement by Merrick Garland. DEAFENING SILENCE. So predictable.
2
You are channeling Clayton Williams. Poor form but no longer unexpected from your column. Our expectation should be that representatives will actually represent our interests and perform due diligence. Your instruction is not just patronizing, its offensive.
2
Give me a break. This idea that obstructing the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice will hurt the obstructing party is asinine. Did a single Republican senator pay a price for unconstitutionally blocking Garland, or did they win the majority in both houses of congress and the presidency? Do you really believe that there's a swing voter out there who doesn't love Trump, but gee, he's always been a big fan of Kavanaugh's nuanced approach to originalism!
The swing voters are those that are iffy on Trump and they want his power to be checked. The other 98% of voters have already made up their minds. This isn't about persuasion. Its about turnout. If you want to turn out your voters, you need volunteers. If you want volunteers, you need a motivated base. If you want a motivated base, you fight Kavanaugh's confirmation tooth and nail.
And skip the "temperate, intelligent, decidedly non-scary" assessment of Kavanaugh. The man has already made it plain that he thinks the office of the president and its occupant are above the law. And he's already began the Republican rite-of-passage of fawning over the great leader. "No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." This is a blatant act by Republicans to take party control of the highest court in the land. Full stop.
11
Thanks for the realpolitik. Those who disagree with Mr. Stephens' assessment can go back to reading NYT's latest take on mistreatment of undocumented LGBTQ migrants at the border and consider the wisdom of scrutinizing trees whilst the forest burns.
Is it just me, or is there a Democratic catastrophe looming come fall?
1
Bret Stephens seems to be arguing for the rise of a dictator, or perhaps worse, has grown so spiritually exhausted that he has adopted fatalism as his muse.
Neither is a good option. The current nominee, if he does gain a seat on the court, will fight for allowing our current president to continue on his reign of terror.
3
The whole idea of advise and consent is to do the vetting process so the American citizens can see what they may be getting as a Supreme Ct. Justice. These are lifetime, unelected appointments. We should not only expect, but demand a full blown Senate hearing to determine the views of the candidate.
It is called democracy, even when the Republicans and their enablers like Mr. Stephans would prefer the candidate keep their views hidden from the public sphere.
Unless we find a skeleton or two in Kavanaugh's closet (his spending habits and debt warrant further investigation) we are not likely to be able to stop his confirmation.
However, there is much to gain in pointing out that women could realistically lose the right to an abortion in this country among other changes.
The notion that there is not value in trying to gain maximum political advantage from a protracted (albeit likely losing) campaign against Kavanaugh's confirmation is nonsense.
Does anyone believe Stephens? Why? Mr. Stephens apparently, conveniently, overlooks the fierce anger and determination of a majority of America regarding the gross miscarriage of Justice regarding Mr. Garland. That, and the clear and present danger that the current administration presents. To urge America to "just move on" is akin to asking slaves to "just wait...it's not time for you to object, yet."
1
I prefer reading Bret Stephens' opinions in The National Review; then it's clear where those opinions are coming from.
2
The reason they won't is simple. It's not about him. It's about Ds and Rs trying to win the next election. Yes, they care about policy. But, the professionals know that in order to get their policies in place they have to get control.
We have two disreputable parties who gave us the worst choice for president in our history. I doubt that ever before the two candidates were so disliked by those in their own parties as these two. And, so long as they have power over us, so long as the game the two play of drawing all the oxygen out of the room so that every political discussion is viewed as a fracas debate between the two, we will have to accept the hyperbole, character assassination, dishonesty and sometimes self-destructive behavior that are their tools.
You never know what will pop up when you put a human under the microscope. Politics, like lawsuits, are played out in fishbowls where the most minor transgressions or sometimes just choices are routinely compared to the holocaust by adversaries. It is sometimes hard to imagine, even given the great rewards, why someone would put themselves and their families through this.
Although I dislike both parties, the Ds are the more vicious when it comes to opposing S. Ct. nominees, as the late Justice Bork, Justice Thomas and even Justice Alito (they made his wife cry with their viciousness) could attest. If you watched his 2006 hearing, you already know most of the questions. Except, this time it will be likely be worse.
1
Really, "they" made her cry? You just made my day :-)
I can't say I'm surprised, NS. I'm sure many people share your feelings on both sides. One of the worst things about partisanship is that normal empathy for people, even people who are related to perceived opponents, goes out the window and is replaced by hatred.
There is political wisdom in being skeptical and noncommittal. What could possibly be the rush? 200K of debt on baseball tickets sounds fishy, we should take a deep breath and hold upuntil we can figure out what is going on there.
1
Exactly, fold the tent and declare defeat now! Nothing says 'vote for me in November' like 'I won't even try to fight for you in July'.
3
Merrick Garland deserved at least a hearing and most likely a seat on the Supreme Court and of course Mr Stephens wrote a similar just get over it and do the right thing in the WSJ at the time Right???? his refusal to see the glaring hypocrisy of the right is why it is hard to listen to his opinion even when it is rational- something similar to what I feel about David Brooks-
4
"Democrats will again play to type as mindless obstructionists." I know you only said this to get a rise out of people, since the Republican party in the Obama years was committed solely to obstruction, to the point that our country became an embarrassment to the world, but just shut up.
4
So Bret-
You may be right from a tactical standpoint. But that's the point. For over 30 years, Democrats have been lurching from tactic to tactic to make an effort to bring this country into a better version of itself-towards a more liberal democracy. Even BO was in that mode--with his "there are no red state/blue states" pablum. And here we are. Kavanaugh has proven himself to be a loyal soldier for the right for years, and we can be sure that he will protect potus - a man who colludes with our enemies in broad daylight (see "private" meeting with putin...), who insults our friends, and jails babies in cages and laughs about it (see-"then they shouldn't have come here...")
If there were ever a time for Democrats to grow a spine and change the narrative about who they are--this is it.
1
Suggest that Stephens read the Op Ed by STEPHEN JESSEE and NEIL MALHOTRA
A futile and stupid gesture? Fighting for the causes you believe in might sometimes be futile, but is never stupid. Defending women's rights, the environment, and the rights of citizens when challenged by corporations is worth a short term political loss for a long-term moral -- and potentially political -- gain.
I hope the Democrats stand their ground and show the kind of political will the Republicans have shown in their long march to political power.
1
Unless Bret Stephens wrote a column 2 years ago ordering the Republicans to "JUST CONFIRM MERRICK GARLAND" , this entire column smacks of hypocrisy.
It seems as if Stephens is pandering to President Trump almost as much as the American people watched Brett Kavanaugh pander to Trump in his very first act as a Supreme Court nominee.
"No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” Kavanaugh said. Why such a lie?
Because Kavanaugh is Trump man's and lying for the President should disqualify him. Kavanaugh is dishonest and cares more about pleasing the guy who nominated him than telling the truth. And Stephens believes that is an admirable quality? Blatant lying for Trump?
Again, if Stephens did not write a column ordering the Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland, then why is he being such a hypocrite now to demand the Democrats confirm a man who just blatantly lied to the American people about Trump?
3
Sounds great Bret, as long as it all goes your way, why, everything is just "ducky".
I'm sure that 142 years ago last week, Mr. Stephens would have written a similar column telling those who were thinking about voting for independence from Britain how foolish they were wasting their energy on this, especially considering that at best only 1/3 of the people supported this view.
Or a hundred years ago, he no doubt would have been asking why Lincoln didn't simply let the south have its own country.
Or in 1940 and 1941, ask why we were wasting money supporting a doomed Great Britain against the inevitable might of Nazi Germany.
Maybe sometimes people have to do what they consider to be right without worrying about themselves and that those actions may end up being best for the country and the world. Of course, in the age of Trump, it's always "me first."
2
2018 - 142 = 1876, The year the US voted for independence from Britian.
2018 - 100 = 1918, The start of the Civil War. (Just after the end of the First World War)
...um?
The control of the Court has become part of a vicious partisan political football game...hey it's shaping up like the last 70 years of the Roman Republic without violent civil war yet. While the jerks play it the USA led by the ultimate trash politico the Pres. goes further into decline as none of the problems we face is dealt with - an outrageously expensive medical care system, infrastructure repairs, a failing education system, an ignorant and obese population, rising deficits.
Well, maybe the shoe will be on the other foot in 2020 so much so that the Dems will take revenge in spades.
Brett, since we're living in an eye-for-an-eye era with Mr. Liar and Mr. Cult, wouldn't you agree that Americans should expect a McConnell-ish hold on Mr. Kavanaugh? After all, President Obama was not under investigation by the FBI for conspiracy or collusion. Nor were his family, his appointees, his staff, or his lawyers. I'm a citizen and I oppose the appointment of Kavanaugh based on the Mueller investigation.
Stall and belittle democrats, but push through quick and easy for republicans.
Good title for a conservative republican, though. Quite fitting.
2
Oh stop it already. What you're bemoaning is exactly what republicans did (along with a LOT of gerrymandering and state level nonsense), and look where it's gotten them. Playing nice is what democrats have done since before Obama's first term, and it's gotten us . . . well, it's gotten us this! And to think this writer didn't even mention Hillary's emails (missed a good chance there).
1
Great advice. Too bad the progressives can't see the forest for the trees.
3
"There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology. For Democrats, that ended in 1987 with the Borking of Bork. For Republicans, it ended with the mistreatment of Merrick Garland."
I guess you mean in recent history, but imho, with Republicans, and a few Democrats, confirming a Justice on the base of ideology, not merit, started with Clarence Thomas.
Just confirm the man who last year in a speech said referring to Roe vs Wade, "freewheeling judicial creation of enumerated rights". Mr Stephens you have no understanding of Roe vs Wade, you are a man, and as I have pointed out before an entitled white man. Roe is settled law and has been since 1973, this man Kavanaugh will vote to overturn, period. You call the the democrats efforts "futile and stupid gestures", I call them giving voice to millions of women who demand that the law of the land be protected.
3
“Just Confirm Merrick Garland” - there, I fixed it for you.
8
Why does the NYT continue to give Brett Stephens this platform to publish his views? Does Fox give air time to Noam Chomsky (or any intelligent progressive?) By continuing to publish so called “conservatives” like Stephens, it lends support to the critics who decry the paper as a centrist rag unable to cleanse itself of the errors made during the Bush Administration.
Yet another example that elections have consequences....and the consequence of allowing the Clintons, and their never-ending baggage, loose on the 'process'.
Depressing....
1
No. Democrats should absolutely not worry about expending political capital. The GOP has already drained their account. . .in the middle of the night with a crow bar. The country is being held hostage by a party of cheaters and liars. We should not relinquish the Supreme Court without a fight.
Just Surrender the Country to One Who is Above the Law.
If anybody did not deserve their seat on the court, it was Neil Gorsuch - that seat belonged to Merrick Garland - and it was a travesty that any Democrats voted for him. Their votes sent two messages - 1) that Republican bullying tactics work 2) that unlike the Republicans, who maintained that their opposition to Obama was principled and therefore not open to compromise, Democrats are simply being politically expedient, and when necessary will abandon supposedly cherished principles to keep their seats.
Compromise by Democrats has worked against them in the past - Ultimately, Bill Clinton was blamed for policies largely favored by conservatives at the time - Nafta, 3 strikes, financial deregulation, while Hillary Clinton was somehow blamed for voting for the Iraq war - as if she was the one who initiated the policy. there is something fundamentally irritating about never Trump conservatives giving Democrats/progressives advice about how to win. Supposedly reasonable Republicans have been relying on Democrats to compensate for the extreme elements in their party for a long time now (the bank bailouts, not defaulting on the debt), and watching silently as Democrats took the political blame for doing the right thing. They didn't follow in the steps of Bruce Bartlett in condemning their party, until Trump appeared on the scene. They were out of touch with their own base, and hence are in no position to tell Democrats what to do.
Kavanaugh will be confirmed and probably with votes to spare as some red states Democrats view opposition as a losing issue BUT there are two things you are missing here.
The first is obvious, after what the Republicans did to Garland the Democrats risk alienating a good portion of their base if they don't put up a token fight. The second is less so but worth the effort. Kavanaugh has essentially made clear that he does not believe a sitting president should be subject to investigation. The nomination smacks of self-dealing by trump. If it came to pass that trump was indicted for criminal acts and the issue of presidential immunity went before the Court the Democrats need to make Kavanaugh's position transparent to the American public.
1
As Stephens so aptly writes "there’s still such a thing as doing the right thing, even in politics." Democrats have far more to gain by taking the high road, rather than retaliating against the bad behavior of Republicans (i.e, the refusal to vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland) with more bad behavior. Evaluate the candidate before taking a stand for or against - and evaluate him fairly. That's what I want from both Democrats and Republicans.
The article is absolutely correct. If this weren't an election year, if the looming election wasn't so consequential, we could all have fun trying to frustrate Trump and his nominee(s). But now is not the time.
2
Kavanaugh deserves confirmation? Still guffawing--albeit from a standpoint of hysteria rather than hysterical laughter.
The list of judges who are qualified for the Supreme Court, who might "deserve" confirmation is extensive, far greater than the vetted list the Heritage Foundation foisted upon the public abetted by compliant Executive and Legislative branches. (Yes, might as well mention Merrick Garland again.)
In truth, the Kavanaugh nomination is nothing less than another notch in the belts of those who seek hegemony at the expense of democratic consensus.
So, Stephens' advice to "do the right thing" and confirm Kavanaugh based on democratic legitimacy is specious.
But, agreed, the current administration gives the Democrats enough fuel to fight Republic fire with a conflagration of political and moral justification.
And it will all be wasted without coherent strategies and tactics, long-term vision, and leadership capable of building cohesion across the diversity of the party spectrum.
2
When do the Democrats and the Senators decide to fight; to take a stand? I see no reason to not take a chance and oppose this collaborator. As a Democrat, I don't want him on the Supreme Court and I want my Democrats to think about the rest of us and if they get voted out of office - so be it. If you don't fight, you don't win. If you always think "I'll fight in the future; I'll stay in power to fight the good fight," "Someday I'll take a stand;" the result is nothing is ever done, except for staying in office. And Rasmussen leans right, so that is not an accurate poll for Democrats.
1
I get Stephens's point, but I think he completely misreads the costs/benefits of resisting Kavanaugh for the Democrats here and perpetuates the same misguided thinking that caused Democrats to lose in 2016. I simply can't believe that there are that many lean Democrat/Independent voters on the fence for the Heitkamps/Manchins for whom Democrat resistance to Kavanaugh would be the deciding factor whether or not to vote for the Democrat in the midterms and frankly, if it is, they were probably a lost cause anyways.
On the other hand, Democrats have seen success in special elections post-Trump precisely because they have an energized base that has been motivated to participate in elections in ways we haven't seen from Democrat voters in a long time. The Democrats need to keep this base energized and motivated and resisting Kavanaugh, even in the highly likely scenario that they are powerless to stop his confirmation, is crucial to maintaining that energy in the final push towards the midterms.
Simply put, Democrats have far more to lose by trying to cater to the whims of voters who they can't control than by taking a stand and keeping their base motivated.
2
This issue was settled once Trump won the election, especially since the Dems and President Obama let McConnell and his ilk steal a seat — McConnell could have at least put it to a vote and defeated Garlin there. Forcing Kennedy out was unforeseen, but not surprising.
Repeatedly it seems that Republicans are focused on raw political power while the Dems are obsessed with "being correct." They need to put that aside and focus on winning in November.
1
If the Democrats fail to oppose Kavanaugh, they will demoralize their base. Hold his feet to the fire on the whether the President should be above the law.
Then, when Democrats regain power, whatever the date, either 1) impeach Gorsuch (no matter how long on the bench) 2) Add two seats to the court.
The first is better as it puts the ambitious on notice that their cooperation with the destruction of democratic norms will not go unpunished.
2
Yet another example that elections have consequences....and the consequence of allowing the Clintons, and their never-ending baggage, loose on the 'process'.
As to the present state of affairs, in re Supreme Ct nominees, this started with Bork, continued in another form with Garland, and I fear it will continue now like this thru my lifetime at least.
Depressing....
I totally agree with everything Bret Stephens said in this article. Senator Schumer, I suggest you hire Mr. Stephens to be our party's Karl Rove so that we might keep ourselves from self- immolating before what should be very winnable midterm elections this November.
1
If that were the case, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. We could use a court that implements the law says, rather than the personal beliefs of conservative ideologues like Kavanaugh.
1
On a purely tactical level, maybe this makes sense. But what about what's really been going down here? What about Merrick Garland and then the nuclear option for Gorsich? I hear you saying that Garland is essentially the Republicans' Bork. Baloney, false equivalency. It was Harry Reid's fault? No. Remember the context: Republicans were stonewalling on Obama's judicial nominees at an unprecedented level. And for McConnell the Machiavellian to use Reid as an excuse to use the nuclear option for Gorsich ignores the likelihood that he would have used it anyway. Does anyone really doubt that? On these grounds alone, the Democrats should not just roll over. Keep making the case to the American people for once, too many of whom have poor memories.
2
Shorter Brett Stephens:
"Shh, little children, don't cry, it'll all be over soon."
"There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology. For Democrats, that ended in 1987 with the Borking of Bork. For Republicans, it ended with the mistreatment of Merrick Garland."
At best incomplete, at worst false equivalency. Per the Times' 1987 article, Bork was rejected by the largest margin of any Supreme Court nominee in history, 58-42. Among the "no"s were six Republicans (two Democrats voted "yes"). The vote came after exhaustive hearings that probed Judge Bork's record and views in minute detail. In the end, he was rejected because of concerns by members of both parties over his judicial philosophy and temperament.
Merrick Garland, by contrast, was never even accorded a hearing. His rejection was based neither on his record nor on his temperament. As House Speaker Paul Ryan put it at the time: " This has never been about who the nominee is. It is about a basic principle." That "principle" was the newly invented rule -- never before applied in our history -- that a president should be be denied a Supreme Court appointment in his last year in office.
Hey Brett:
Sometimes pure political calculation is not the signal concern of elected officials.
Sometimes elected officials do the right thing for its own sake and for the sake of our democracy.
I realize that as a GOP apologist you may not understand that Brett given that no one in the majority of the Senate or the House does, save for, on occasion, John McCain.
1
Looking to Democrats for political wisdom is futile.
They should be shouting from the rooftops about the damage Trump is doing to healthcare, foreign relations, national security, and our economy. They should be in the suburbs, talking about how the tax plan resulted in higher taxes for many homeowners. They should be in the heartland, talking about the real consequences of tariffs. They should be in the Deep South, talking about how healthcare is being undermined for the least healthy Americans.
No, instead they are proposing bills to abolish ICE and dying in a ditch to oppose - without any actual ability to block - a qualified Supreme Court candidate who is about as moderate and mainstream as they were going to get from a GOP president. (Or have they forgotten that the alternative was a the glassy eyed, pseudo-pentecostal Catholic with a lack of respect for precedent?)
Pandering to non-voting, non-citizen immigrants and virtue signaling to tiny enclaves of activists in already blue cities might win in the Bronx, but it's not what won in Upper St Claire or Arlington.
And Democrats need continued support from voters in the latter more than the former.
1
I completely agree. Fighting this nomination is a waste of time and can only lose Democrats more Senate seats. The train has already left the station. Focus on taking back the House and Senate by any means.
How exactly did the Republicans "mistreat" Merrick Garland? Mitch McConnell announced there would be no hearings and no confirmation in an election year BEFORE Obama nominated him. If Obama chose to ignore reality in order to score political points than it was Obama who mistreated him.
Furthermore, this argument that "there could have at least been hearings" makes no sense. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate, they were not going to confirm him. They were especially not going to confirm him in a lame duck election year after Joe Biden said it was a bad idea to do so. He said this when the President was a Republican and the Democrats were in control of the Senate (1992). So what would have been the purpose of hearings if Garland was not going to be confirmed? It would have been a colossal waste of time.
The problem is Democrats have no problem lecturing Republicans that "elections have consequences" when they win elections but can't comprehend this fact when they lose them.
The Republicans controlled the Senate when Scalia died and they control the Senate when Kennedy retired. Kavanaugh is qualified and Mr. Stephens is right, the Democrats are hysterical...again.
Fight away, the more you "resist" a Democratically elected President (also known as whining) and the more you screech hysterically the better Republicans fare in elections.
Godspeed Donald.
1
Political wisdom Mr. Stephens??
Many liberals have kicked wisdom to the curb for the time being and are operating on pure rage. It seems to be a part of the zeitgeist of the Trump era, and sometimes it feels like all we have left.
"Democrats will again play to type as mindless obstructionists and one-note alarmists."
You mean like Republicans did for the 8 years Obama was president? I'm really sick of hearing disingenuous quotes like this one. Mitch McConnel said on national TV that the Republican strategy for dealing with Obama would be obstruction at every turn. We haven't forgotten about it, so quit trying to slip these ridiculous statements past us.
Furthermore, Merrick Garland's seat was stolen in the most egregious example of obstruction to date. Republicans must have realized the pandora's box they were opening. These fights will happen with every nomination from now on.
Lastly, John Roberts may have held up the ACA, but he also wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, probably the worst and most destructive decision the Supreme Court has ever made.
So yeah, we're going to fight for what we believe in - too much is at stake to sit back and do nothing.
4
I am surprised that you don’t have more concerns about this nominee’s writings on the second amendment.
I agree that he is qualified, but my cynicism concerning the process taints my opinion of the Supreme Court as an institution.
The left has never paid a price for its hysteria. In fact they get awarded for it in attention and money form their donors. They greet every opponent with doomsday scenarios. Goldwater would drop an atomic bomb on a child picking flowers. Reagan would destroy us all in World War Three. Ted Kennedy's rant against Bork would have been more appropriate in describing Goebbels. Bret Stephens gives us more examples in the comments made about Kennedy and Souter. Why does the left never have to pay a price for such outlandish rhetoric? The strategy has worn thin. Pursuing it again, though apparently unavoidable-its seems genetic-will discredit them. Very few people are left that can be manipulated that way, and frankly, they have already worn out their welcome with the pettiness and personal harassment they use to respond to Trump. In fact, that kind of emotionalism and moral preening is what got us Trump.
We don't confirm judges in election years. Jesus himself decried that.
Maybe Kavanaugh is a great judge. The people should vote and if there are 51 Democrats in the Senate then the court should have a vacancy for at least 2 more years.
Politics and wisdom aren’t on speaking terms.
3
Isn't it amazing how "representatives" see re-election as first and most important obligation? "The US can turn to garbage but I have to get elected". Gorsuch (who shouldn't have even been a contender but for GOP senators who violated their oath of office "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
They refused to hold public hearings and to vote on Obama's nominee, thus violating the oath of office.
The Senate should conduct a proper and thorough vetting, as should be done for any nominee. At first glance, Judge Kavanaugh appears to be highly qualified, which is the primary criteria for being a Supreme Court justice. It is not whether everyone agrees with his past opinions. Unless there is meaningful evidence of a material character flaw or intellectual shortcoming that would prevent him from being a Supreme Court justice, the Democrats would be well-served to approve him and pick a different fight. As Trump continues to embarrass us internationally, lie to us daily and create havoc on stable institutions, it is only a matter of time until he and the stooges who blindly follow him will be displaced. If Democrats are hopeful of improving their position as that occurs, they need to pick battles that matter and they can win. Otherwise, they look like whiners and will not convince the middle and deciding portion of America that they have the intelligence, character and backbone needed to govern.
Does anyone believe Stephens? Why?
2
Shorter bret stephens: "just lie back and enjoy it."
We just would like to see for a change, a coherent strong Democratic Leadership charge.
We have YET to see the Dem Leader even close to equal the malevelantly gifted and devious Sen McConnell.
1
sorry don't want to read your bad ideas--title was enough. Democratic party needs to fight this judge even if the chances to win are slim to nil. If dem pols don't strongly support what the dem majority want the members will give up on the party as a way to put their ideas into action, policy, or law. Letting this judge be confirmed w/o a fight or worse dem pols supporting him is to deny women's rights, workers' rights, environmental care, and the future of liberalism in USA--everything that matters to dem voters.
It's hard to express the measure of contempt I felt reading this insipid opinion. The argument boils down to "resistance is futile". This is exactly the mantra you would expect from a party that has adopted a "win at any cost" philosophy that is brutally advanced to satisfy their corrupt pursuits. Why else would they nominate someone to the Supreme Court whose views stands in such stark opposition to the majority of Americans. I can answer that question. Republicans could care less about majorities. It would seem that lately they care very little about democracy itself.
Now I have some advise for you. Democrats don't care how much "political capital" you think they have and they certainly don't want your opinion about how to spend it. Democrats are not going to take any advice from a party with ZERO moral capital. The GOP is nothing but a rotten corpse of a party, led gangster-style. We will fight you with our last ounce of strength. RESIST!
It is always important for Democrats to follow political advice from a guy who passionately wants Democrats to lose.
1
I totally agree. Move on from this and do not waste precious political capital on a losing cause! He is as good a nominee as one could expect from this administration. Move on!
1
Why should we allow the talking heads of the Right define our strategies and choose our battles? Enough. Everyone seems to forget that even with the Russian collusion, gerrymandering, and voter suppression, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people. Is this governing by consensus? The shameless sabotage of Merrick Garland's nomination and the bullying of GOP Senators, led by the odious Mitch McConnell, will not be forgotten. Fight on Democrats. Drag this out as long as possible.
Judge Kavanaugh has been at ground zero during some of the most egregious acts of the Republican Party since he graduated. Shoulder to shoulder with Ken Starr and his deranged inquisition of Bill Clinton's infidelity, helping to craft Bush v. Gore (widely acknowledged to be a low point in the Supreme Courts history), and then topping it off by working in the corrupt Bush White House where torture was discussed at the highest levels. He is a partisan hack and has been on the wrong side of history his entire professional life. There is nothing "normal" about this guy and every effort should be made to make this clear to the American people.
1
The Dems should hold hearings during which they question him extensively and intensively. They should not allow him to hem and haw and sidestep. Clear and unambiguous answers unlike the usual meaningless drivel that gets shoveled out during hearings. He might refuse to honestly answer questions (a la Gorshuch / Nonsuch and I want that made abundantly clear. I want every person who cares enough to watch, to see & hear exactly what he refuses to answer and why. I want to hear him say 100x that he has an opinion & refuses to let us know what is is "because it be adjudicated in the future" Yeah?! That's exactly why I want to hear his opinion!
I want to hear him say that he is unable to disagree with a previous decision! Really?! "So you swear here and now to never undo an existing decision, Mr Kavanaugh?"
The point of a hearing, Senators is to let us HEAR what the nominee has to say. And to refuse to let him not answer fully.
That is USING political capital, not wasting it! That is one of their jobs!
"Just Confirm Kavanaugh" - Yea, that's just what the Republicans and trump would like - for the nation to roll over and die without a fight. Not a chance, Mr. Stephens!
The underdog fighting the losing fight is the American way and how heroes are born - with the fight extending all the way to the election.
As long as we'll have two illegitimate justices on SCOTUS appointed by the most illegitimate POTUS and party in our history, the legitimate fight will continue to highlight the illegitimacy of the politicized and biased SCOTUS that the GOP, especially McConnell, destroyed.
The Federalist Society people learned their lesson with Kennedy and will not make the mistake of recommending a loose cannon this time around for SCOTUS.
Conservatives always cry witch hunt every time they are caught acting like evil witches.
Justice Kennedy, Kennedy Jr. at Deutsche Bank, trump and Kavanaugh's history of 100% partisan activities over the decades stinks to high heaven.
Fighting the Kavanaugh appointment will not lose us any of trump's base - we never had them to lose regardless of what liberals do. Not fighting WILL LOSE liberal supporters and many other Americans.
Should Democrats win in November, they should establish a new rule that a POTUS who did not win the popular vote cannot nominate justices for any court that would be in a position to judge the majority of Americans who did not vote for the POTUS.
1
We need to spend our capital because if this pick lands on the court there won't be any more winnable battles.
3
I totally agree other than as far as I'm concerned, the Democrats can go waste some more of their time and energy fighting this. Trump could nominate the next incarnation of the dalai lama( should he in fact be a judge) and the Democrats would STILL find fault with it. I don't think anything will turn around for the Democrats until they decide that knee-jerk hating of anything "the other side" proposes isn't working for them, and neither does identity politics and litmus-test liberalism.
1
Americans deserve a consistent, principled representation of liberal values. So-called red state Democrats won't be fooling their constituents if they vote to confirm a justice whose interpretation of the Constitution is an affront to the ideals of the Founders. Stephens' argument, which he would never deploy were the circumstances reversed, is transparently self-serving, untethered to evidence, and ethically irresponsible.
1
The Senate should proceed thru "extreme vetting". That is all. If there is a disqualifying discovery, then don't vote for Kavanaugh.
Bret Stephens is making the reasonable assumption that Kavanaugh has not been a secret serial killer, or has no other secret that is important. But it is important to look. I suppose he believes that Donald Trump has spent a long time looking at Kavanaugh's record, and done a thorough investigation.
I do not think Trump knows much more than Kavanaugh's name. I think he needs to be investigated. Someone has to do that, and the democrats are the only ones willing to not rubber stamp some guy who has been pushed to the front by conservative lobbyists. We know that Trump farmed out the SC nominee hunt to the "Federalist Society" ... it only seems prudent that someone elected actually read his papers, and ask his opinions.
1
I disagree. If the Democrats want their left wing to support them in the future, they need to go down fighting on this one. Who knows, a few Republican senators might join them, if for no other reason than to show that the Senate still has a spine and a mind of its own. If the Democrats cave on this one, I can assure you and them that they no longer can count on my support, and I suspect that they will never convince those independents who voted neither for Trump nor Clinton to support Democrats either.
3
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent has written eloquently about why fighting this fight matters. Mr. Stephens, hear a word from a Democrat and long-time environmental activist: when it comes to advice on how to fight our battles and which ones to invest in, don't call us, we'll call you. I'll take my advice from writers who don't distort and cherry-pick climate science and irreponsibly trivialize the stakes, thank you.
8
I have 2 particular objections to Stephens assertions
First there's his statement that "liberals always cry wolf." Granted, my political awareness only stretches back about 15 years (i.e., early high school). But that said, it's been mostly conservatives trying to scare me my entire adult life. WMDs, mushroom clouds, death panels, sharia law, "war" on Christianity, "selling" fetus parts, runaway inflation, etc., etc. And that's not even counting the particularly insane conspiracy theories. Little of what they warned about came to pass. On the other hand, I can think of quite a few things liberals have warned about that HAVE manifested. Climate change is a reality. Workers' rights HAVE been decimated. Citizens United DID lead to corporate dominance of politics. Gun proliferation HAS resulted in more shootings. And Trump's rhetoric does reflect his literal intentions.
My second objection is more of a moral one (does that still matter?)... Stephens says "what counts in American politics is location, not turnout." I'll concede the practical point Stephens is making. But it is worth noting that a democratic system (even a representative one) is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, not enable minority rule. Trump IS president. But he holds office against the demonstrable wishes of most U.S. citizens. A popularly elected president was denied his SCOTUS pick while a minority rule president picks 2? Of course there will be resistance.
6
Bret,
Are we to believe based upon your article that a nominee for the SCOTUS doesn’t need to be thoroughly vetted simply b/c he has the qualifications for the job? Come on. Republicans asked for this fight when they unnecessarily obstructed the nomination of an equally qualified nominee, Judge Merick Garland for political purposes in the final year of the Obama presidency. That action will not be soon forgotten by Democrats, and the Republicans should expect those kind of political actions to be reciprocated in this confirmation process. Republicans also have a calculated political amnesia that allows them to ignore their own past political actions so they can cry foul when similar actions are used against them. Do I need to remind you, Bret, that instead of negatively impacting Trump’s base, those kinds of obstructionist actions Congressional Republicans took in 2016 actually fired up the political base that ultimately elected Trump? The Republicans asked for this fight and they will get it. Judge Kavenaugh should be thoroughly vetted, even if that process lasts until after the November midterms.
3
Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent candidate for the Supreme Court who will very likely be confirmed by the senate along party lines. Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal have vowed not to vote for him and have said they are ready for a fight. A few moderate Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly who are from red states may decide to elect Mr. Kavanaugh rather then sacrifice their political careers.
Brett Kavanaugh has wonderful credentials and is very bright. Yale undergraduate and Yale law school. This man is no slouch and is as qualified as any sitting justice now on the bench. He will hear cases with an open mind and decide the outcomes according to the constitution if confirmed which is likely to happen.
The Democrats do not like him because he was appointed by President Trump a man they despise. They will no doubt ask Mr. Kavanaugh some very difficult questions and will drill him on all areas of the law. He is a very astute lawyer and will answer accordingly. He has already been through difficult questioning from 2006 when he was voted to become a judge. He was prepared then and he will be prepared now. He is ready for the fight of his life and will triumph.
Mr. Kavanaugh will be our next Supreme Court justice and will be an outstanding member of the bench. He will serve our country proudly and make a fine justice.
I object to the false equivalence, comparing the rejection of Bork in 1987 and the failure to even consider Garland in 2016. The process worked as it was supposed to with Bork: the nominee frankly discussed his views on the law, and the senators rejected him as considerably being out of the mainstream. The president then nominated a somewhat more moderate (but still conservative) justice, Anthony Kennedy, and he was confirmed easily. With Garland, no one would consider his views to be outside of the mainstream of American legal or political thought, yet he was not even given a hearing. Those two confirmation processes not equivalent in the slightest.
2
A few years ago, I would have agreed with Mr. Stephens. Indeed, Kavanaugh probably does have the experience but the stymied nomination of Mr. Garland changed that.
The Constitution assigns the duty of advise and consent to the Senate and the Senate has the right to do just that.
A couple decisions do raise red flags and we all have the right to hear relevant questions. After all, some of the decisions that the Court will hear in the near future will affect us all.
Further, it is important for the Democratic party to responsibly evaluate his application and voice all our concerns about him and the Supreme Court. If that hurts the democratic process, we are all in trouble.
1
I'm in 100 percent agreement with you, Bret. And I'm a left of center guy living in one of the reddest counties in America! No Republicans will flip, several Democrats may support the candidate to save their electoral hides and the nominee is eminently qualified. Why hand Trump a gift ? Approve the guy and get on with winning the midterms. Many Justices have proven to be surprises as time on bench goes on.
2
"Just Confirm Kavanaugh"
Dream on, Mr. Stephens! Chuck Schumer will be adopting every strategy that Mitch McConnell used in thwarting President Obama in appointing Merrick Garland to supreme court to stop Kavanaugh's appointment. If I were in Chuck Schumer's shoes, I would be compiling a library of Republicans' notes, letters, and pronouncements regarding Judge Garland's appointment and, when the opportunity arise, throw them back at the Republicans one-by-one.
2
I am surprised at the support for Kavanaugh among NYTimes readers. Besides the fact that he would be Trump's ticket out of being held responsible for breaking our laws, he has lied to Congress before--and been called out for it. Merrick Garland was not confirmed on the basis of merit. It was fine for the Republicans to hold out on his confirmation based on political ideology. We cannot just fold every time Trump takes away a piece of our Democracy.
I recall an incident at the Town Board of a small town in the Catskills when I was reporting for the weekly paper there. The board voted unanimously for a proposition that one of the members had vocally opposed. When I asked him why he voted for the resolution, he said that while he might convince one other member to vote with him, the measure was sure to pass so why vote against it?
What I told him then, and what I would say about Democrats in this instance is that if you don't make your position (in this case opposition) clear, you leave voters unsure of where you stand or why they should come out to vote for you. Democrats need to fight this nomination to let their supporters know that they are worth the effort of voting for them. And who knows, they might just shake a couple of Republicans loose. At least their supporters will know they stood up to fight the good fight.
1
Just confirm Kavanaugh? What next Mr. Stephens? Accept every injustice? You can decide to give up before even starting, thankfully others will go through due process.
2
The real question is why would ANYONE in the Senate vote on a Trump nominee who could very likely hear pending cases involving Trump? The ethical questions involved should far outweigh any rush to confirm this, or any other nomination, regardless of the nominee's qualifications, political views, or party.
3
I noted that you are a white male, so you have no "skin in the game". I am a white female with two granddaughters coming of age. I care deeply about whether Roe vs Wade is overturned, not only for the sake of my granddaughters but also for all women who for over 40 years have had control over their health and bodies. Judge Kavanaugh has already signaled where he stands on the right of a woman to choose when he ruled that the 17 year old migrant woman could not obtain an abortion.
I have no idea whether this is a slam dunk for Kavanuagh, but the Democrats should push back against his confirmation. Why should they roll over when McConnell would not even consider a nominee fo SCOTUS for almost a year, because it was an election year? Why do the same rules not apply in this case? That is why the Democrats are well within their rights to challenge even going forth with confirmation hearings. This just isn't about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is a far right conservative.
2
Easy for someone to say who has absolutely nothing at stake in this fight. For women, it's a matter of preserving basic rights. Also, why should Democrats confirm a Republican in an election year anyway? If Mitch McConnell is going to make up new rules concerning SCOTUS nominations, as least be consistent.
1
While I would much prefer to Garland on the bench I too think that this is a loosing proposition for the left, given their limited options. Throwing a fit will do nothing but delay and bring this closer to the mid-terms thereby energizing the gop base for those elections.
1
Until Muller comes out with something, it's a non-issue to the courts or anyone else for that matter. Dems should focus on winning in November, so they can impeach him if the investigation finds him complicit. For those of us on the left, the only way to get out of this administration's awful reign is through election. Praying that Muller comes up big is wishful thinking at this point. If he has something on Trump, the bureaucratic nonsense that will take place will keep him in office probably for the rest of his term without a major Democratic presence in congress.
One has to acknowledge Stephens' point, even if Kavanaugh's philosophy reinforces much of Stephens' beliefs. This may be an unnecessarily bruising, but losing battle for the Democrats. However, they must highlight and question Kavanaugh about his flirtations with gambling (he's racked up credit card debts from his obsession with baseball), his proposition that the president is above the law (which flies against his past job as a prosecutor on the Ken Starr investigation into Bill Clinton's sex interests) among others.
Before giving up the fight I would like Kavanaugh to answer a few simple questions:
1. If the President murdered someone while in office, is he subject to criminal investigation?
2. If the President ordered underlings to murder political opponents, is he subject to criminal investigation?
If the answer is no, then we can just close the door on our democracy. If the answer is yes, then please tell us where the lines are that determine when a President is no longer subject to the rule of law.
And please also tell us how these interpretations derive either from being an originalist or one who respects precedent?
10
DT has nominated someone who believes that presidents shouldn't be subject to investigation or prosecution while in the White House. That is why he was selected.
With Cohen and Flynn cooperating with the investigation, the bizarre reverence the president holds for Putin, and his total inaction and lack of outrage at Russian sabotage of US elections, his choice of this SC nominee is solely based on protecting himself from investigation and prosecution.
While most other issues the SC rules on can be legislated by law-making, in this case, with the support of Kavanaugh, Trump will--as he has done throughout his career--remain the slippery lawbreaker he has always been, incurring no consequences, furthered encouraged in his delusion that laws do not apply to him. He will have virtually unfettered power to do whatever he likes, rendering the Judiciary branch of government irrelevant.
Mr. Stephens seems pretty blithe about that.
2
I agree with this article. It's just another example of Dems trying to be anti-trump. Resources and energy need to be focused on the elections and actually having a platform of ideas other than Abolish ICE, Roe V Wade, and the president's awful tweets. Find a new focus other than worrying about an ideological takeover by Republicans. Most of the dribble they spew will never happen, especially if we can dominate in November.
2
The Senate should evaluate Kavanaugh based on merit and vote accordingly. There is no point in Democrats blocking this nomination solely on ideology. Trump has 2+ more years in office - this nomination is his.
I would agree with this column but for the issue of reproductive rights. For me this is THE issue that trumps (pun intended) all others. I don’t believe that a theoretical article about the limits of presidential power necessarily predicts how a judge will rule in a concrete case. But if there is even a suspicion that Judge Kavanaugh will overturn Roe (and I’m afraid it’s more than suspicion), the Democrats should at least put up a real fight. In their efforts to motivate the base, the Democrats should not forget that there are many centrists and independents who are not wildly enthusiastic about “democratic socialism” and who will peel off if the party lurches too far left. But at least for liberal women, the issue of reproductive rights is about our human dignity and worth. If the Democrats don’t stand for secular values and against encroaching theocracy, they can forget about my vote, my contributions or my support.
2
There is a reason you're a columnist, not a political strategist. The obvious reality is that Democrats don't win without an energized base, and a docile puppy of a part that rolls over to get its belly scratched doesn't do that.
Many of the things that Kavanaugh wants to eviscerate, abortion rights, the environment, democracy, are widely popular and red state Democrats aren't going to win with a discouraged base.
So, in fact, Democrats have to make a strong showing at minimum, and with a few potentially waffling Republicans, they might be able to actually win. After all, they won on the repeal of Obamacare, that paragon of Republican campaign promises.
Not showing up to fight is precisely why Democrats have been losing. You can't win if you don't fight.
6
Thank you. I am a lifelong loyal Democrat, and I agree that there is no reason for not confirming Mr. Kavanaugh.
This nomination provides the Democrats with a chance to step up and be states-people. Yes, be deliberate in asking about his legal credentials. Yes, make sure that his integrity is strong. But do not go down the trail of trying to vote on him because of his legal philosophy. If he is a qualified jurist (and he certainly has the experience to assess that), then vote “yes.”
The party has two imperatives, and it can accomplish both with thoughtful leadership. The first is to win elections. The second is to restore integrity and civility to our polical discourse. Fighting this nomination will get us neither.
5
I would generally agree, but the information held in his released financial statements are of great concern, especially his consistent and overbearing debt. Someone with this kind of potential for bribery couldn't be hired as a police officer, so why can he be appointed to the highest court in the land?
3
Obviously Bret Stephens has become disillusioned with his Republican Party and their candidate-now President.
But shouldn't he be calling on members of his own party to show a bit of spine. Doing so by withholding their 'yes' votes in order to get some other legislation they've championed onto the Senate floor.
Senators Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and John McCain come to mind. It would be the very same game Rand Paul plays so successfully. The razor thin margin in the Senate makes it possible.
Two GOP senators is all it would take to stymie the Kavanaugh appointment. And those votes would give Democrats all the cover they'd need. Especially if together, they formed a bipartisan group of moderates from both parties to push votes for immigration reform, health care, or infrastructure.
Demanding that until those major issues get a vote and fixed, there will be no vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
5
Judge Kavanaugh seems to be very bright, decent man with a strong professional record. He should be thoroughly vetted as should anyone who wants to be appointed or elected to a high office (this also goes for those individuals being appointed very quickly to federal judicial positions that had been kept open for years). The questions here must go beyond basic qualifications as he and the others on the short list for SCOTUS and all federal judicial positions have been carefully vetted by the Federalist Society etc. to ensure that they have credentials plus a specific worldview and would apply that worldview to deciding cases. The question is whether that worldview would allow him to follow the precedent of decisions decided under a more expansive view of the Constitution's delegation of powers. For example, would the decisions decided under the more expansive Dormant Commerce Clause interpretation - like the federal government's power to pass and enforce civil rights laws or minimum wages/maximum hours or privacy stand? This Clause has been narrowed in decisions decided by the Rehnquist and Robert's courts. Does Kavanaugh believe in that the Constitution provides no textual basis for these decisions? Would he vote to overturn them as wrongly decided or modify them to strictly limit federal government's power to legislate or to reimpose the Contract Clause into wage/hour disputes? Can we support the results of his worldview and live in the society it creates?
1
Why should the Democrats expend political capital to fight a losing battle? It’s like asking in 2016 — why should Republicans nominate a Presidential candidate who doesn’t have a chance of winning the election? Answer: You can never tell. Besides, it’s what “the base” is asking for.
7
Did they want a less qualified judge? In the conservative spectrum, he is eminently qualified. I thought New Age was dead, but apparently not. The country seems overly populated with clairvoyants who can predict judicial outcomes.