Gail, you do realize, of course, that the world champion of boredom and "no drama" is Mike Pence. No Dem can compete. If you really wanted boredom, Pence would be your man. And he may be a twit, but he's NOT a dangerous nut who could cause nuclear war. So, yes indeed, the Dems and Mueller need to force Trump's impeachment ASAP. Impeachment of Trump should not be confused with impeachment of Clinton. Saving America from Trump would be as popular as saving America from Nixon. Sure, the Silent Majority was mad, but Carter showed it was no longer the majority in 1976, thanks to exposing Nixon then dumping him, exactly what the Dems in control of the House and Mueller have more than enough guns to pull off for Trump.
1
Gail and Brett, I do love your banter, but Gail I am quite sure that Trump does run around in his underwear babbling about space aliens. Its one of the more normal things he does and is what is behind his so called space force. It will probably take his launching WW 3 to get him impeached, but then we wouldn't have a Congress to do it and it wouldn't matter anyway.
3
This discussion, which I thoroughly enjoyed, reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently;
"If you elect a clown, you should expect a circus!"
5
Let's see Bret. Bork got to state his qualifications and lost in the vote. Thomas got his vote and won. Garland never got his vote. Give all of us a break.
14
Excellent discussion this week, both of you.
One quibble. Given that my fave ideas are at the ideological spectrum's other END, I must ask Bret about his guy, Robert Bork.
I was glad that he only talked and wrote books instead of being on the court for all these many years. What difference it made? Hmm. Didn't he get replaced by Judge Kennedy?
Clearly Bork was a very clever student and reader of the law, but that alone is not enough, I'd argue. And in 1973, he sat tight, got promoted twice, and then fired Archibald Cox, didn't he, as acting AG after the two resignations by superiors at the DOJ--acting for his president the frightened Richard Nixon. I'd be interested to hear your defense of that Bork behavior during the "Saturday Night Massacre" it got labeled long ago.
It is not like SCOTUS has not had enough judges carrying the legal word buckets of the American libertarian position.
For such a long time we had (now gone), the peppery hot Antonin Scalia. For me, he was there during half my lifetime, way too long for the minimal-government-economic-action viewpoint that seems one-sidedly antique in the reality of today's world economy. His fearful energy and advocacy reminds me of Kavanaugh's political career.
Cheers,
p.s.
Appreciated much humor, wordplay, and quirkily good mini-debates about our republic. Look forward to future discussions of perjury charges against the nominee.
4
I love this column and grateful that Bret Stephens is on board at the Times. A self-prescribed 'Common Sense Moderate' from Minnesota and avid outdoorsman I get riled up when anyone mentions opening up 'more federal lands for mining, drilling & logging.' Especially when the policy makers live in urban jungles!! I prefer the challenge of developing more creative & less enviornmentally invasive sources of job creation and tax revenue. We're capable!!
7
"Basically, anyone smart and responsible and good at making you forget he’s even there. Or rather, she."
So then I guess we can rule out Serena.
"But this isn’t a normal presidency, so I’m rooting for a Democratic Congress as a check on a dangerous and lawless president. I also think Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for conspiring with Michael Cohen to violate campaign-finance laws and that he ought to be impeached, convicted and removed from office."
So Bret, why should this guy get to select a Supreme Court justice?
12
I completely agree with Session's policies regarding immigrants. Anything we can do to dissuade people from showing up at our borders should be done. We don't need people coming here. Where is the benefit for the U.S.? We already have about 40 million Americans who are either unable, or unwilling, to join mainstream society.
2
Except that we do need immigrants. Our replacement rate of births vs deaths is becoming low. We need new blood to join the economy and help keep Social Security and Medicare sound.
That is why, in 2013, The Gang of Eight led by Marco Rubio, rewrote our antiquated immigration laws....only to see Mitch McConnell say there would never be a day that he would let it be brought up for debate in Congress.
4
@Jim Tagley -- OK, don't dog-whistle -- just exactly who are these "40 million who are UNABLE or UNWILLING...?" ... and why?
7
Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court and confirmation process was a textbook case of the Senate’s constitutional role in seating the judiciary. Mr. Bork got his hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. The committee advised its colleagues by voting against Mr. Bork’s elevation. He also got a vote in the full Senate, where 52 Democrats and 6 Republicans chose to withhold consent, thereby denying Mr. Bork a seat on the Supreme Court. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Mr. Stephens should take another look at the Constitution - it does not say the Senate should rubber stamp a president’s nominee. As for Mitch McConnell’s disgraceful behavior in completely blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination - and the craven, self-serving behavior of the rest of the GOP in enabling it - that will cause problems by the ton in years to come, as well as go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the Senate.
15
Intellectually qualified? What would this people term Herrick Garland? Everyone seems to.think.money is the answer. Elect a businessman to run this country. Silently the Republicans say nothing because their agenda is helping dehumanize America and the world. These are horrific times for humanity.
6
So odd to like Mr. Stephens so much, his excellent writing, etc. Yet to know that in more normal political times, I would be extremely opposed to his Republican/conservative policy positions! These days, however, I value and appreciate his morality and clear thinking about Trump.
1
his morality??
2
Another thought provoking conversation, Gail and Bret. Bret, even though our policies are pretty much 180 degrees of each other, our goals and the end result are on the same page when it comes to all things Trump and Congress. Apparently, there ARE ethical ways for the end to justify the means. (Your analysis of Mr. Sessions was a treasure to read! But, oh, I do not like your take on Obamacare. Tsk, tsk.)
To hone in on the "Who-Is-The-Anonymous-One," wouldn't it be a kick if it were Ivanka? After all, she is at the end of the day a registered Democrat. I will not even attempt to guess who it is. I just hope we do not have to wait several decades for this secret to be revealed as we did with Deep Throat and Watergate.
When all is said and done, I am grateful to the Times for the op ed mentioned above. I am also grateful for Bob Woodward's book. In fact, I am eagerly awaiting it. Hurry up, Amazon! We seem to be on a roll now, especially with President Obama coming to the rescue. Our knight in shining armor. Only a few more months of hard work and rolling up our sleeves to get our people in Congress and governorships. 2018 may just end up being a good year after all. God knows, we sure need, and deserve, some light in our lives.
3
I appreciate Bret Stephen's stand against our unfit president. But touting the likes of Kavanaugh to sit on the highest court in the land? Absurd. Brett 'lied under oath'. That disqualifies him!
9
Bret is mistaken that Kavanaugh will be “traditionally conservative” and so is s great choice. Kavanaugh is not “conventionally conservative”. He is a very articulate apologist for corporate interests regardless of whether these are good for the Country. And a very articulate spokesman for the benighted few billionaires that now run the GOP Congress and have brainwashed about 40% of voters with disinformation and fake news blasted over TV and the web and over a few wacko evangelical media outlets.
11
Statements like "...there’s every reason to believe ...." are a sure indicator of hyperbolic and unreliable commentary. Gail knows who I am writing about.
2
"Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
School "choice?: that is right wing code for "profits but no education."
End Obamacare? That is right wing code for "we really do not care if ANYONE has ANY healthcare.
Open up more federal lands...? That is right wing code for "There are huge tracts of Federal lands open now but we are spoiled brats and won't be satisfied until we have it all and are allowed to destroy it all just to make a buck."
This is why the right wing has zero credibility.
18
Those statements by Bret bothered me as well. The term "school choice" for Republicans is simply a move to give wealthy people more money. Here's how it works: The Texas legislature proposed giving every family that applies for it, $1500 to send their child to the school of their choice.
However, the local private schools such as Country Day School or Trinity Private School charge $15,000 a year. So, what is the middle class or poor family supposed to do with their $1500 dollars?
But, if you are already wealthy, that's a nice $1500 in your bank account. Sure, it harms the public schools, but, hey, Republicans don't care about those schools!
And, you can look people in the eye and say, "Well, we gave them school choice! They just didn't take it."
6
When we clean our house we need to clean out Mike Pence as well...God forbid he ever becomes president...clearly he is not qualified and he is involved w/ Trump's criminal administration....so get rid of Mike Pence too, he poses as a religious man but he is extremely ambitious and answers to his real bosses...not the American people and not God.....he was bought & sold some time ago. Say NO to Mike Pence.
10
C'mon Gail, don't let Bret get away with so much. He justifies the treatment of Garland because of Bork!!! He deserves more pushback all the time instead of a witty quip.
14
Mr. Stephens believes that Trump warrants impeachment for violation of campaign finance laws. This certainly appears true.
However unmentioned by him or Ms. Collins is the likelihood, growing all the time, that Trump is under the control of Vladimir Putin.
If Trump is run by Putin, and Trump controls the Republican Party, which largely controls the nation, we are surely in a situation far worse than any specific crime on the President’s part, and indeed more ominous than America has faced in modern times.
13
If Kavanaugh received hacked democratic emails and lied about it under oath, he should not be confirmed. Lying under oath is categorically disqualifying for a judge on any court, especially the Supreme Court.
13
Excuse me, but 2 Democratic Senators voted for Bork and 6 Republicans voted against him. Merrick Garland didn't even get a hearing. No. Comparison. Whatsoever. Bretttttt.
17
@Pat Johns
Glad you mentioned this. Bork got a fair hearing, but was rejected. It was in fact how the process is supposed to work.
6
Bret, shame on you. Your that right wing? Vacate this column immediatley.
7
Can Brett Stephens please do a column where he explains why lowering tax rates on people who already have immense amounts of money and exploding the deficit worse than any Democrat is a good thing? Repeal the ACA? Why not fix it? Does he think it was a better situation for the average income citizen before the ACA? Conservatives first advanced the idea of the mandate. A GOP governor, Romney, set up the health system in Massachusetts, which the people of that state like, and Obama said he was impressed by that and imitated it. So why is forbidding pre existing condition people to be insured a good thing? Ali Velshi just praised Canada's health care system and said all the right wing blather is a lie, it works great, he never had to wait when he was living there.
Why open public lands for more drilling, timber, mining? look at a chart of the forests before the white man came and now. 90% of all trees in the continent are gone already.
Please, Bret, detailed defense of your beliefs. Every study of the US economy since the right wing became dominant shows that the average Joe has suffered. What is the deal with worship of business to such a colossal extent?
Sure, business creates jobs for workers. Fair enough. But why must such huge profits go to such a small number of elites?
After the Garland scandal, Stephens backing of a man he loathes right to stack the court the way the Federalist society wants is absurd. Kavanaugh got caught lying. Just let the disgrace stand?
8
Trump is headed toward disaster of some sort; we can only hope that America is not to damaged in his passing.
He's down to near-Nixon popularity, meaning impeachment starts to look politically possible ... and it is obvious more blows are coming.
Manafort was said to be seeking a plea-bargain for his second trial, and didn't get one. Think about this for a moment -- he's already convicted of crimes that will put him in jail for life, absent leniency for turning state's evidence, or a pardon.
If he thinks he will never talk, or expects a pardon then why does he care about the next trial at all? He could just plead nolo and ignore the whole thing.
But if he is going to flip, the time to do it is before the next conviction. Afterwards there's no plea bargain, only prosecutor's recommendation for leniency.
i think Manafort will flip soon. And then even if it is only Little Donnie he takes down ... it heads toward impeachment much quicker.
2
What makes Bret Stephens so sure that Kavanaugh will not overturn or limit Roe v. Wade or the availability of abortion and contraceptive health services?
In Garza v. Hargan. Kavanaugh's ruling shows what is in store when he gets on the US Supreme Court.
In the Garza case, Kavanaugh ruled against a teenage immigrant girl desperate to terminate her pregnancy, and this after a federal district court judge had already ruled that she could have the abortion. Kavanaugh wrote that “the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life.”
By the time a full court overruled Kavanaugh, the girl was 15 weeks pregnant and needed a more complicated second-trimester procedure.
Those who care about women's lives had better get busy stockpiling RU-486 and make sure all girls and women know what to do if they find themselves with an unintended unwanted pregnancy.
Of the nine justices, there are now five Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh will be the sixth Roman Catholic on the court. You can bet these Catholic lackeys will overturn Roe v. Wade, or chip away at abortion availability. And it would not surprise if they return the nation to pre-1963 when, before the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, contraceptives were illegal in the USA.
The monotheistic religions are devoted to the ideology of male supremacy, blame women for giving life and want to punish women for engaging in sex. A pox on them all.
5
I think one reason Hillary Clinton "lost" (never forget that more of "the American people" chose her than chose Trump) was that a lot of voters considered her "boring"--and Trump wasn't. It's hard to be both exciting and competent, and given a choice between the two, a remarkable number of people go for the carnival.
57
@carrobin They like the way he talks because they are just like him - all talk, no real intelligence.
1
@carrobin
Precisely. Same problem with Gore & Kerry. All would be great presidents; all too adult-like for Americans.
Presidents get their SCOTUS, but the abnormality of our times includes the proposition that Trump could be an illegitimate President. This is such a disturbing idea that we veer from its implications in horror...but what if it turns out to be true? This is why I believe that many things, certainly including a SCOTUS decision that could rule on the President’s legal standing, must be placed on hold by the Congress until the Mueller investigation is complete.
56
@Dagwood
Amen. There is so much wrong with this picture and what is more disturbing is that elected officials are doing nothing to save the country. The country is in free fall and the economy is going to burst. Working three jobs as a professional tells you something important, we are all living from paycheck to paycheck and don't get sick.
This nomination should be held up and the politician's voting for him should not be voted back into office again. They are not doing anything good for this country
3
@Dagwood An illegitimate election should be nullified with all actions undone. Robert Reich has spelled it out perfectly.
2
Bork and Garland .
Two wrongs do not make a right.
3
@Ian MacFarlane
But the Bork rejection was not wrong. 2 Dems voted for him
and 6 Republicans voted against.
4
The Dems should not impeach. They should do what hasn’t been done in years, govern. Trump loves a fight. Do not make the next two years about him he would like that. Let the justice department have him at the end of his term.
3
Bret, please put aside your GOP bias and inform yourself about the Affordable Care Act.
5
We all know what to expect from Gail Collins. And she represnts her viewpoint without shame or hesitation.
The same cannot be said of Mr. Stephens. One cannot escape the feeling that this former editor of the Jerusalem Post is treading carefully a the the NYT, lest he present his center-right viewpoints without sufficient anti-Trump disdain.
Barack Obama , for all his faults, and there were many, gave us Obamacare. For that, I will always be sincerely grateful.
Donal Trump, for all his flaws, and there are almost too many to count, has been an unwavering ally of Israel at the UN and in movng the embassy to Jerusalem, and in calling out the Mullahs who would exterminate Israel, in a manner which far surpasses anything we have seen previously.
And for that, I will always be forever grateful.
And so should you, Mr. Stephens, and when you have a 'conversation" with Gail Collins, you should proclaim it loudly, as loud as she proclaims her loyalties to the Leftist agenda.
And you should have also wished Gail Collins, Shana Tova! Or maybe she should have wished you, happy New Year.
1
Quite right. We don’t want to impeach Trump, or otherwise have him leave office early. That just gets us the sniveling sycophantic weasel Pence, who’ll run in 2020. No, let the Trump/Pence horror show suffer a humiliating defeat so we’re rid of the lot of this entire administration. Let the fiasco end with an embarrassing beating that sends him away in disgrace.
5
Bret, I generally find you to be among that very rare species, a reasonable “ conservative “. Do us a favor and stay far away from the subject of Abortion. Very far. Otherwise, I might have to start commenting that YOU are nearing MY acceptable age cut -off for S-E-X. After all, I’m allowed to have an opinion of that very personal topic. See how it works ?????
Seriously.
3
Brett, bemoaning over the treatment of Bork, the least popular candidate for SCOTUS in the last 50 years ... really?
Couple that with the mildness of your comments on passing by Garland and refusing to consider him on the merits at all ...
Not buying that you have independent judgment on the matter. The word from people who have known Kavanaugh over the years doesn't assures us that Kavanaugh's judgment is extremely tainted by ultra-right politics and snap, cruel, unreflected judgments of those who are not of his political ilk: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-...
Nope. #TooExtremefor SCOTUS #NoNoKavanaugh #SaveRoe
5
I am completely in agreement with Mr Stephens and not completely at odds with Ms. Collins so it is a good day. Except. I am sincerely disappointed that neither of these professional journalists is willing to call out their employer on the publication of the anonymous op-ed. If the content was nothing new (and believe me you don’t have to live in the beltway to surmise that the Trump administration is dysfunctional) why stoop to such a crass stunt? And now you are shocked and appalled that the irrational President reacted irrationally? Perhaps these columnists recognize this as an effort to boost circulation and keep them employed.
Bret,
I have spent my life in a community surrounded by the Federal lands on which you would like to see more resource extraction.
Our local economy depends on tourism, and tourism depends on the pristine qualities of the (mostly Federal) lands that surround us.
Our local environmental quality is also affected by the management of these lands.
Please look into the environmental and economic realities in the Western states (where the majority of Federal lands are) before you ignorantly advocate for spoiling these lands.
15
@Larry
Thank you. Nice comment !
4
Why not make Trump's tax returns a condition of a vote on Kavanaugh? We are pretty sure Trump is a crook so that should have some bearing on his ability to nominate anyone.
7
Why is Bret Stephens perpetuating the myth that Democrats treated Bork unfairly ? Republicans voted against his confirmations and his views were way out of the mainstream. Actually, Bork is a case showing how the confirmation case should work. And of course, there is no comparison with McConnell's shutting down the confirmation process with Merrick Garland. And btw, Bret Stephens should consult Jeff Toobin's prediction about Roe v. Wade - that it is doomed.
8
Forget impeachment. Five days in the stocks, just outside the White House, would make me more than happy.
2
A boring Democratic winner in 2020? Please tell us where we are going to get that person. Former President Obama tarnished his legacy by abdicating his duty to lead and grow the Democratic Party while he was in office. We deserved an eight-year-long search; instead we got a premature coronation and at the end, a few months of panic.
Now the Party seems determined to nominate another candidate who will deliver the blue states, maybe even fewer, and lose the nation.
2
Impeachment is going to happen, because realistically it would only be political theater, and only would lend credence to the idea that Donny Dimwit, like his "make america white again" base, is being persecuted, rather than the reality he is guilty of many offenses that should be impeachable. The problem is conviction, impeachment is like an indictment, kind of like a grand jury where people say a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, in the Senate it requires a 2/3s vote, not likely unless the Democrats get a super majority of 67, which is impossible even with donny dimwit in office, if Democrats take over likely would be another of these 51-48-1 splits or something like that.
1
Democrats would be insane to impeach Trump. Why bail the GOP out by getting rid of Trump and paving the way for Pence? They get the president they really want and blame the Dems for creating chaos. The GOP created this mess - let them bleed out for two more years so their incompetence and cravenness is on voters’ minds in 2020?
4
Gail Collins and Bret Stephens, trying to stay relevant? You both can talk till your blue in the face, and have absolutely no bearing to whether the next Justice of the Supreme Court is Mr. Kavanaugh or not. Please you and the rest of the Democrats can thank Harry for the Nuclear option, especially when the trifecta is reached with RBG.
2
Mr. Stephens says to bring on more mining and drilling on public land. People who support the intrusion onto public land by oil and mineral companies don't understand science. Most of the land is desert. It looks tough but desert is fragile. The soil is held together by billions of micro organisms: bacteria, fungus, and other microscopic living things. If you've hiked in the desert (please stay on the trails) you'll see a blackish crust on the soil. That is cryptobiotic soil, the organisms living there. They keep the desert from blowing away. They keep the desert from washing away during flash floods. If you crush it, as trucks, mining equipment, even feet can do, it takes hundreds of years to build it back up.
Maybe the oil companies will get a few more years of gas and oil, but the desert will be destroyed for hundreds of years.
8
I will never forget that the Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat. To compare that to the Bork nomination is ridiculous. First, Bork actually got a hearing. He even got a full discussion on the Senate floor after the judiciary committee voted against his nomination. Second, the seat was filled by another Reagan nominee, Anthony Kennedy. Reagan wasn’t denied his right to seat a justice. Obama was. 11 months. That’s how many months that were left in his term.
Because the seat was stolen, I believe both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are illegitimate. The court is illegitimate.
Indeed, many of the Republicans in Congress were elected in spite of the fact that more Democrats voted thanks to gerrymandering. They can’t win elections or seat justices fairly so they cheat. Only 2 Presidents since 1888 have “won” the Presidency by losing the popular vote—Bush and Trump. Bush not only lost the popular vote, he was basically seated by a Supreme Court filled with Federalist Society members—good party men.
Demographic changes mean the Republicans can’t win without cheating—voter suppression laws, wrongly removing voters from registration rolls, gerrymandering, or the manipulation of Senate rules to ensure continued conservative monopoly of the courts.
When a minority governs the majority, guess what usually happens? Let’s hope it’s a non violent revolution this time.
16
Gail, Gail, Gail. The Democrats will NEVER take back Congress.
In case you hadn’t heard-Three old men just decided that NC’s midterms will proceed as scheduled with illegally gerrymandered voting maps. The Supreme Court gave red states the green light to start purging voter roles as they see fit. The current Congress is doing everything within its power to defund and disempower the FEC. And then there’s those paperless, easily-hackable electronic voting machines.
Just you wait and see. Republican candidates in ‘contested’ districts will somehow eke out unexpected victories again and again by no more than one or two percentage points. And those of you in the media will again scratch your heads and wonder aloud how the exit polls could have been so wrong.
8
Bret,
I have spent my life in a community surrounded by the Federal lands on which you would like to see more resource extraction.
Our local economy depends on tourism, and tourism depends on the pristine qualities of the (mostly Federal) lands that surround us. This is not to mention our local environmental quality.
Please look into the environmental and economic realities in the Western states (where the majority of Federal lands are) before you ignorantly advocate for spoiling these lands.
7
Never mind impeachment. I'll patiently wait for trial by jury in the great state of New York on whatever criminal misdeeds Mr. Mueller and his team find. A conviction in that court would make it impossible for Lodestar mike to grant a pardon, and it would insure that no matter what trump thinks, no man is above the law.
8
Stephens mentions "the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork, the Reagan nominee who should have been confirmed".
The opposition to Robert Bork's nomination was based on Mr. Bork's claim that the federal government had no right to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states. That's right, Mr. Bork claimed that the fairness of federal elections was none of the federal government's business!
The opposition was not mistreatment and it was certainly not "Democratic mistreatment" -- 6 of the 46 Republicans in the senate opposed his nomination.
It took me 0.44 seconds to uncover this information through a Google search. Perhaps Mr. Stephen's ignorance stems from an ignorance of Google.
10
"... Robert Bork, the Reagan nominee who should have been confirmed."
Nonsense comparison to Merrick Garland. Reagan got to fill that seat. That response is a total failure.
13
Kavanaugh's judgement should seriously be called into question due to his preoccupation with the Vince Foster conspiracy theories https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-wi.... Nobody who regarded such wild claims as plausible enough to spend years and extended efforts looking into should be on the Supreme Court. You can have the most brilliant legal mind, but if you are incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction, what good is it?
13
Should Kavanaugh be elevated to the Supreme Court when there is evidence that he may have been less than truthful when answering Congressional committees in the 2000s?
I think Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh and offer up another SCOTUS nominee.
Kavanaugh's testimonies should be investigated, using all of his documents. If Kavanaugh did lie, he should be impeached from the judiciary... completely... period.
12
As a Blue Dog Dem, I don’t want impeachment. Too nice and As noted that would only bring us Pence who rhymes with Dense and cause Jesus weeping.
I want Dem House and Senate committees subpoena-ing every stinking document, text, tape, tax return of the Trump Admin to date to lay bare the extent of this criminal regime and the extent they will go to cover up and lie to remain in power.
I want to see no legislation passed and signed into law for 2 years. No Supreme Court justice confirmed who is nominated by the President.
I want to see the abject humiliation of a man who has no demonstrated shame, morality, or competence. I want his Twitter feed to be the Diary of a Madman. I want Melania to publicly leave him and write a tell all.
I want to see a clear case laid out for indictments to be handed down and current occupant to leave the White House on Jan 20, 2021 in a perp walk led by President XX or XY.
17
Well you made my day!
3
"And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?" Mr. Stephens is not in any way for the environment. Stop the hogwash.
15
"The G.O.P.’s refusal to consider Judge Garland’s nomination was a disgrace. No argument from me there," Stephens opines.
But forget about that and approve the pick from a treasonous republican like trump made in obvious disregard for the lies and excuses of McConnell. - The obvious message from Stephens.
8
I'm left of liberal, and I hope the Dems take control of both houses, but I am against impeachment. Trump is a dangerous buffoon. Pence is just as dangerous in different ways, but in most regards he is not a buffoon. The simple fact is that he is more re-electable than trump. So the gamble is this: are we better off with 2 more years of trump or 6 or more years of pence? I can hold man breath for two years but not 6 or more.
6
Was Gerald Ford malicious? I was unaware!
4
Garland > Bork.
Sorry Bret. Another false equivalency and you went back 30 years to find something even remotely comparable. But of course you want Brett confirmed. You're a man. You don't really have a stake in this do ya?
19
When president bone-spurs is convicted of collusion with that sawed off russian, bilbo putin, thus invalidating his presidency, how can gorsuch* and kavanaugh, two fruits of the poisonous tree, be allowed to remain?
* - dirty thief of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court Seat
10
“End Obamacare? Absolutely.”
Mr. Stephens, my question for you is ...why?
Do you have a plan in mind that you think is superior to Obama’s that would ensure that all Americans receive health care?
I hope so. Or, is it, “Let them be sick,” rather than, “Let them eat cake.” ?
Perhaps you could devote one of your columns to health care in America, so we can better understand this bizarre comment.
Then we can move on to your reasons for more drilling on federal lands. Please tell me you’re joking.
14
All the readers who protested Bret Stephen's hiring a year ago need to read this conversation and send Stephens & the NYT a polite apology.
1
@Jean I don't think so. He is so off-base on Borkh (Reagan's nominee got a hearing and rejection; Obama's couldn't get an interview with a Senator); and he is completely out of touch with regard to the wholesale rape of our public lands by the extraction industries.
6
@Jean hardly
1
Stephens claims "that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks," but provides no argument. The Constitution says the Senate needs to advise and consent. What part of consent does Stephens not understand?
And then he repeats the utterly false claim that Bork was mistreated. Bork, Nixon's hatchet man for his attempted massacre of our Constitutional Republic.
I once read an article by Bork in which he stated that if the Federal Government continued to allow abortions to take place then armed revolution was justified.
What is wrong with you Stephens?
15
I worry that “Anonymous” will turn out to be a cabal including the likes of Carson, Perry, and DeVos. In other words, the self-styled “adults in the room” may turn out to be a bunch of over-grown kids...
4
"...Basically, anyone smart and responsible and good at making you forget he’s even there...
My AI bot, from a list of 2 billion Facebook users it just innocently happened upon while innocently querying Google:
“best way to meet 1 billion fake women [AND] no secret CambridgeAnalytica data”
It did a few quick passes - smart and forgettable showed interesting correlation pattern...
Below $3M net worth – all smart men were completely forgettable...
Above $3B – not only were the men almost all completely unforgettable, tens of millions of women had loaded facial-recognition apps on to their phones to alert them if one of these guys is now in the same elevator or bar as them...
After refining – and pausing to download an app to recognize robot women worth more than $3B – my bot found only 37 men worth more than $3B eligible to run in 2020, who were both smart and forgettable...
Filtering further on “responsible” – down to a single name...
MBloombergLLC
Either of you – any thoughts on what a couple of terms of this guy might look like...
Aaah, don’t bother – my bot just came back with a big red flag...
Says the guy’d likely try to finagle a 3rd term...
See how insightful AI can be...
PS
Some smartphones used for the analysis dropped – seems they got busy after recognizing this guy getting into an elevator just down the street from you...
PPS
My bot’s concluded Roomba’s founder a splendid pick – and it’s past time...
Now, if I can only get it to vacuum the rug...
I'm not far enough past the pain of September 11th that I want to read glib conservative-democrat columnist sparring today. Gail's outspoken brilliance gets too watered down in these duet columns.
3
Bret Stephens' confidence that Kavanagh will not participate with four other justices in overruling Roe or severely curtailing it is not based on anything real or substantial. It is Pollyanna wishing.
8
Is the president asleep in the picture or suffering from stomach distress?
6
Smarmy is the new evil. We are in a tragic struggle. Knock it off
4
Aaaah...the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork. Robert Bork got what he had coming to him. His treatment was payback for his disgraceful behavior in the Saturday Night Massacre. End of story.
9
I would like to nominate Bret Stephens for a prize for most uses of the word irrespective in consecutive columns in nyt history
2
If the Dems take back the house, Trump will turn on the republicans like a delinquent tenant in one of his towers.
He might even start wearing Nike's and talking to Nancy; all Trump cares about is winning and surviving.
3
Robert Bork--the hatchet man of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, defender of racial segregation, opponent of reproductive choice--was given a full Judiciary committee hearing and a full Senate debate and floor vote despite losing in committee. Six Republicans voted against his confirmation--seven, if you include boll weevil Democrat and soon-to-be Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Why the contentious but functional and bipartisan rejection of Bork is routinely cited as justification for strategic partisan inaction on the previously uncontroversial Merrick Garland (recommended as a compromise SCOTUS nominee by GOPer Orrin Hatch, who wouldn't support hearings after Obama called his bluff), let alone the hurried and furtive Kavanaugh rush-job, I'll never understand.
9
I remember the relief of having Mayor Bloomberg - no particular charisma, but smart as a whip and innovative - after Rudy Giuliani whom I need not describe here.
5
This is a great column. Thank you.
This.
"I say boring is the new black. I envision someone like Tim Kaine without the charisma; Gerald Ford without the malice; George H.W. Bush without the vicious hatred of broccoli. Basically, anyone smart and responsible and good at making you forget he’s even there."
One million times over!
2
"Presidents are entitled to ..." ... therein lies the problem.
The entitlement may have had merit two hundred years ago -just the same the Electoral College had. However, in extremely divisive political environment like last couple of decades, the Presidential Entitlement has effectively taken away judicial independence.
Relevant scholars now need to decide whether independent judiciary has higher constitutional priority or presidential entitlement of judicial appoinments?
Considering evasive answers by Gorsuch and white-lies laced responses by Kavanaugh in the hearings ... time has come for lawmakers to consider limited term and merit based judicial appointments -both at federal and state levels.
4
With Kavanaugh confirmed you will have a thoroughly politicized SUC that may block any progressive initiatives for decades. That may warm the hearts of conservatives. However, at some point if the court acts contrary to the wishes of a large majority of Americans a frustrated President and Congress will find a drastic remedy, ie increase the number of SUC justices. The constitution does not specify the exact number which has changed over time. Nine judges is an accepted norm, but norms have been violated right and left lately. Roosevelt tried it when the court blocked all his New Deal initiatives. It was not a popular move but would probably have happened if the court had not eventually relented and beat a strategic retreat.
2
All fun and games until I read this from Bret:
Bret: Under any other president, I’d want a Republican Congress to do precisely the things you oppose. Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?
Gross. I had to bail.
10
A cornerstone to this administrations efforts is to undermine the first amendment by allowing public funding to go to private education. The majority of private education is christian based and will erode our constitutions fundamentals.
Pretending to know something you don't know over fact based education is the hallmark of a budding theocracy.
2
I generally agree that a president is entitled to their supreme court picks, as long as their nominee is qualified. And although I disagree with Kavanaugh on just about everything, I would agree that he is in fact qualified based on his education and experience. He's also one of the better options from Trump's list--I don't even want to think about who Trump would nominate if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed.
However, there still remains the serious issue of whether or not he received stolen opposition emails from Manny Miranda (although I believe it's clear that he did), and whether he knew or should have known they were stolen at the time (the subject of one of these emails was "spying"), or if he found out later, and whether or not he answered truthfully when asked about these things during his prior confirmation hearings. It is possible that he committed perjury, and if that's the case, should not only not be confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, but should be removed from the bench and have criminal charges filed against him. This is not a minor issue, although it's been treated like one, and it should receive a full hearing before any confirmation vote--especially since it could still risk his future impeachment and would do a great disservice to the institution of the supreme court.
7
Quick question for Bret - you say you are all in favor of eliminating the ACA. Are you happy with no alternatives? So, just no health care for the millions who get coverage thru the ACA's Medicaid expansion or no health care for those with preexisting conditions? I'm all for these pleasant conversations but sometimes it's illuminating to see how cold the anti- govt crowd really is.
7
Gail -... "wandering around talking about alien takeovers..."
This circumstance cannot be far away from Trump policy and Twitterdom.
Photo with article shows Pence on "lodestar" contemplating an evangelical theocracy in America.
3
This is the kind of interchange between the two sides that we've been missing. Gail, Bret could we interest you two in running for office? Please, pretty please!
2
isn't it time for republicans to quit playing the "bork card"? we have crossed the 30 year line now..... i call for a statute of limitations. if you can't find another reason to obstruct you need to let it go.
6
Did Kavanaugh ever face the question of what would, or should, happen to his and Gorsuch's seats if it's found that Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the election? Why should they get to keep their seats? This presuming that "if this is what I think it is I love it especially later in the summer" somehow, unbelievably doesn't count such that the answer to the collusion question isn't already obvious.
I don't think there's a clause in the constitution that tells what should happen in that case. Maybe there is; I haven't read every word myself. Either way, it doesn't seem like rocket science that a guy who gets caught subverting our democracy should get to stuff the courts while he's there and have it stick after he's busted and removed.
But what the heck do I know?
7
As President, I doubt that Vice President milk toast would be as boring as described. Though certainly less profane, unstable, reckless and immature than Trump, don’t underestimate the conviction of his bigoted religious zealotry. A quantum leap from our current Dark Ages won’t seem so boring if we end up in another version of the 16th and 17th centuries.
4
I have to say I agree with Bret on this one point: "I think Sessions should lie in the flea-ridden bed he’s made with the president. He was the first senator to endorse Trump and now he’s getting exactly what he deserves. What’s worse, he’s chosen to accept public abuse and humiliation from Trump so that he can make good on his real ambition, which is to abuse and humiliate immigrants in a manner that’s a national disgrace."
5
If you're thinking smart, responsible and good at making you forget she's there, I nominate my senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar. Well, she makes you forget she's there until you're testifying and she is asking you very smart, very pointed questions. Clean as a whistle, smart as a whip, she's another "Hermione" getting the homework DONE.
4
Mr. Stephens: regarding Jeff Sessions: Amen. Regarding the next president being a woman: Ditto. Regarding repealing Obamacare: What do you suggest it be replaced with?
3
Pence is every bit as vile as Trump--in some cases more so--but I find him less frightening, for three (related) reasons:
1) He utterly lacks Trump's low instinct for spectacle and evil genius for driving a narrative
2) Roughly as bigoted and ignorant as Trump but much more boring, Pence really would be treated as badly by the media (which, of course, actually loves Trump) as Trump claims to be
3) Owing to reasons 1 and 2, he would lose as much as half of Trump's remaining base
Maybe most to the point, the Democrats have gotten really good at beating pols like Pence at the national level. Were he to head the ticket in 2020, the Dem could win 400 EVs.
2
Mr. Stephens said "The G.O.P.’s refusal to consider Judge Garland’s nomination was a disgrace. [...] Although I would point out that the hyper-politicization of these confirmation hearings began in 1987 with the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork, the Reagan nominee who should have been confirmed."
Please note that Bork actually got a hearing by the full Senate. Badly done, yes, but this is completely unlike McConnell's decision to simply decide that a twice-elected President's nomination for the court should simply be ignored in a gamble to benefit McConnell's party.
I'd really like to see McConnell in prison for that - since failure to perform Senatorial duties is a violation of his oath of office.
10
Mr Stephens, what, pray, did the Democrats do to Robert Bork that was so awful? Give him a hearing? Give his nomination a vote before the full Senate? Heed the thousands upon thousands of Americans who were horrified at the thought of a man whose legal mind could not conceive of a century past the eighteenth? Please. He got the full fair process and lost. Meanwhile, your side is about to confirm the second SCOTUS Justice (with Thomas) who lied under oath to get on the Court. You seem to be nice enough and your recognition of the genuine awfulness of Trump is encouraging, but 'originalism' or whatever it is called this week is an intellectually bogus argument to justify oppression against the non-wealthy, the non-white, the non-heterosexual and the non-male.
9
I should not have to remind Mr. Stephens that Bork got a hearing while Garland and President Obama were never given the courtesy.
17
When someday we look back and see that Clinton was impeached and Trump wasn't, we will wonder yet again at the stunning ineptitude of the Democratic Party.
3
@Tom
Yes, "stunning ineptitude" that 49 Democratic votes in the Senate cannot prevail over 51 Republican ones.
3
"The G.O.P.’s refusal to consider Judge Garland’s nomination was a disgrace. No argument from me there. Although I would point out that the hyper-politicization of these confirmation hearings began in 1987 with the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork,"
The art of the pivot, with a spin of false equivalence thrown in for good measure. Robert Bork was given a full hearing before the Senate and essentially talked himself out of an appointment. His written record included an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races. He opposed a Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. He said there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. He opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality. With all this ion his resume, he went before the Senate judiciary committee. Rather than walk back any of these extreme positions, his arrogance and general demeanor suggested he was doubling down on them. He was defeated by the largest margin in Senate history, 58-42. Six Republicans ultimately voted against his confirmation while two Democrats voted for it. It's absurd to say he didn't get a fair hearing.
10
Gail,
This exercise you have with Stephens only sullies you. I don't know how you can keep from gagging in hearing his ignorant and scary ideas, for Kavanaugh, for Bork, etc, hating on Sessions, not Trump.
Who's screwy idea is this column? Maybe you are forced to do it. That's sad, no idea how you could admire anything about this hack. He'd s disgrace to the NYT principles.
9
@suejax How sad for you, and others that think this way, that you can't just enjoy the humor and know that reasonable people can talk rationally about subjects on which they likely disagree...
Presuming we have an election in 2020. I’m sure that if the Republicans keep both houses, we are done with Presidential elections.
1
I am sorry Bret but "the hyper-politicization of these confirmation hearings began in 1987 " with the disgraceful NOMINATION of Robert Bork, the solicitor general for Nixon who fired the Watergate special prosecutor after others above him resigned rather than carry out that illegal act. Sending his nomination to a Senate filled with members on Nixon's enemies list was meant to be a provocative nomination and it was. Nevertheless he was given a hearing both in committee where he was voted down and then in the full Senate where he was voted down again by a majority of Senators including Republicans.
Your Bork argument isn't just false equivalence, it is false.
11
Bret, you say that Republicans should love the idea of impeachment because "They would get a more typical Republican, Mike Pence, as president." So you're saying that extremist religious views, belief in the enslavement of women (no right to control their own bodies), and abuse of gays is typically Republican? I agree. That's why we need the entire Republican Party to go away and be replaced by something humane. The Republican Party became an anachronism when it became the party of social conservatism, which is all about regulating people's private lives but not regulating corporations to keep them from destroying their workers and the environment.
11
Bret remains a reflexive Republican outraged at what the Democrats did to Bork. Except it was a bipartisan vote that refused Bork. Anybody who did what he did for Nixon during the "Saturday Night Massacre' forfeits any claim to a seat on SCOTUS and there were enough Republicans with character then to recognize this.
9
Bret, you do realize that Kavanaugh is lying his way through the hearings so he can remove many rights we are all accustomed to? Why would the Republicans keep the majority of his documents hidden from the public? It is also intimated that he had lied in previous congressional hearings for his post in the D.C. circuit and the request to investigate it by the congressman who was lied to was turned down by the same person who is now working at Justice and in charge of what gets prosecuted. It has also come out that he is part of a religious organization that wants to overturn Roe and has groomed him from his law school days, according to one of his school chums. There are way too many outstanding questions and the Republicans are hiding the answers for any average person to be for this nominee. He is a liar and will remove our agreed upon rights once on the court.
6
Kavanaugh and Trump are the same; they promote the same policies, although Kavanaugh is much more dangerous- he’ll do damage for decades with no checks. Trump is a minor problem by comparison.
4
If our very own, ever evolving Bret were on the Supreme Court I think he would still do much damage in the short run. I think eventually even if he would get some kick out getting a rise out of the Gails of the world he would not want their contempt. Gorsuch and Alito love wearing their stone cold hearts on their sleeves. My own sense is that Brett has some of our Bret in him as well as some of the stone cold duo in him. Neither is very encouraging. But the latter is hell.
1
I envision another scenario. Once the Democrats win the House and the subpoenas begin to fly, I think Trump will resign. He'll resign before he'll turn over his tax returns (which are certain to contain evidence of his financial misdeeds); he'll resign before Mueller reveals the leverage the Russians hold over him; he'll resign before Allen Weisselberg tells all he knows about the Trump Organization's shady business deals; he'll resign before he'll let prosecutors reveal the contents of David Pecker's safe at the National Enquirer. He'll resign to try to salvage what's left of the Trump empire and what's left of his reputation with his base. Then President Pence will pardon him and Trump will spend years in exile, tweeting about how Fake News reporters and the Deep State stole the presidency from him. Mark my words.
14
"I honestly don’t believe that Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. "
Mr Stephens. Please read Michelle Goldberg's column today about Kavanaugh's ruling on an abortion case. And review Kavanaugh's comments supporting religious belief about some birth control being "abortion inducing."
Then explain again why families should bet the next 20 or 30 years on your "belief?"
Conservatives claim to want small government and less regulation but seem perfectly happy with the government in people's bedrooms telling them how to conduct intimate relations and with whom and how to manage the outcomes of those intimate, personal behaviors. It is clear that Roe doesn't have to be overturned when access to birth control can be restricted and legislatures can add medically unwarranted barriers to doctors providing care and make care less safe by delays and courts will uphold these maneuvers.
12
" I think Sessions should lie in the flea-ridden bed he’s made with the president. He was the first senator to endorse Trump and now he’s getting exactly what he deserves. What’s worse, he’s chosen to accept public abuse and humiliation from Trump so that he can make good on his real ambition, which is to abuse and humiliate immigrants in a manner that’s a national disgrace."
And how is Sessions ambition to abuse and humiliate immigrants any different from Kavanaugh's? Jane Doe?
Open up Parks and Forests for more drilling? What century does this so called pundit live in.
The voters in W.b.g.Virginia are probably going to send Manchin back to the Senate because those coal miners are beginning to realize that black lung is a pre-existing condition.
40 years of reaganomics have failed to raise the living wages of most Americans while allowing 1 to 2% of US to hoard more wealth than has ever before existed in human history and Stephens can't see that reality.
I have suffered through reading these "Conversations" since they began with those insufferable Brooks fellows. I have done so because just once I wanted to read where Gail has challenged them to a duel at 20 paces.
I don't know how she does it.
2
The Trump agenda is the same as the republican Party, so replacing Trump with Pence gains us nothing. Brett please read Tom Friedman's column today.
4
Presidents are NOT automatically entitled to get their judicial picks based on just "intellectual qualification."
"Advice and consent" necessarily includes evaluation of ideological intent.
Robert Bork was wisely rejected as a Supreme Court justice because of ideological extremism. That that extremism may have been consonant with the president's ideology may explain why he was nominated, but the Senate wisely decided that adding an enabler to implement that philosophy would be wrong for the country.
7
Mr. Stephens, regarding the Bork confirmation process, your comment here misses a crucial point. Honestly, I was too young at the time to appreciate the events surrounding that process, but I do know that at least Mr. Bork got committee and Senate hearings and votes. So, as the states’ rights justice Antonin Scalia told us regarding SCOTUS’s decision in Bush v. Gore, “get over it.” Also, one thing we will never agree on is the use of the people’s property, “[a]nd can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?” Corporate America has proven again and again that it cannot be trusted with anything but securing the almighty dollar using, in most cases literally, a scorched Earth policy.
8
Bret: There is no basis for your prediction that Kavanaugh will uphold Roe. It is transparent that Kavanaugh, who did not make the initial list, is a darling of pro lifers and was selected by Trump for two reasons: 1. He will shield Trump from prosecution and 2. Given the opportunity, he will reverse Roe. Trump is a chameleon on abortion. If his base were pro-choice, he would be pro-choice, a position he took most of his adult life.
11
I get the feeling that Stephens hasn't ventured out beyond the city limits very much. " And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?" That's not tone-deaf; that's profoundly deaf, and blind in both eyes. One doesn't have to be a rabid disciple of John Muir or Edward Abbey to understand how important it is to keep the cancer of environmental degradation from spreading over every acre of the planet. Certainly, if we could be sure that extraction industries would restore things after their no-holds-barred style of raids, perhaps something could work out But given their glee as regulations are gutted by this lawless administration, I expect more of the same. (See this month's Harper's "Range Wars" the copper industry's irreparable scarring of the planet).
18
Bret: ''My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks...''
Aye, so all picks after not considering Merrick Garland should be null and void. Furthermore, since the President is an unindicted co conspirator (with possible charges, indictment and impeachment on the horizon) should have all picks put on hold.
What if the President is impeached (and others in this administration) where it was proven beyond any doubt that a foreign power (and others) helped this President win the election by illegal means. What then ?
I believe Gorsuch should be impeached and removed from the bench on those grounds. What say you, Bret ?
Indeed.
30
Would Trump voters really be that unhappy with Mike Pence, should impeachment and conviction befall their beloved President Pumpkin Spice?
Does Mike Pence tweet and if so, does he only tweet in the presence of his wife or other presumably responsible adults? I guess the whole question of restraint is at issue here in terms of what the Base wants. Pence might not be enough. By that I mean, where would the daily outrage occur? Is it possible any longer for Republican--any Republican--to push their reactionary agenda forward on the dog-whistle level, or has Trump broken that strategy and left it lying in pieces on the floor?
The Base needs base behavior: insults, conscientious ignorance, cowardly threats, spineless inversions of reality, overt racism, misogyny, gluttony, greed, self-dealing, double dealing, difficulty pronouncing words of more than one syllable and all of it done out in the public sphere all naked, pink and disgusting.
With Pence it's all under-the-table and that's simply not satisfying anymore.
11
Re: Kavanaugh. He is not qualified. Not because he lacks the education or experience, but because he is delusional. He has talked himself into believing that all his researching of precedent and adherence to original text is free from his own bias. That's pure baloney and people are buying that sandwich. His mental process will always lead him into the same corner as any conservative idealogue. People like Kavanaugh who lack self awareness are dangerous in positions of leadership.
Watch the CNN program on RBG and you will see she clearly knows where she stands. Kavanaugh makes every effort to hide his positions.
19
What’s with all the support and compliments to Bret Stephens here? He’s just said he basically supports the entire republican agenda, just doesn’t like their chief mascot.
Sorry, Bret, you dont get to put a paper bag over his head and pretend he’s not your date. You like his figure, you get his face, too.
56
@Nancy
hmm right on
1
Well, Robert Bork only defended the right of states to impose literacy tests, doubted the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, denied a right to privacy that would prevent a state from forbidding abortion, contraception and dictating how you raise your kid, and suggested that county sheriffs occupy federal lands to create a constitutional crisis over federalism. Nothing to see there!
But if you lower the bar to sufficiently intellectually competent to put some legal argle bargle before espousing positions that have no basis in precedent, Bret with one T thinks you should have been confirmed because the clause requiring the Senate to advise and consent has no more consequence than the rest of the consitution.
18
The "Pentagon Papers" revealed "real secrets", yes, but have you forgotten that they were corrupt and dishonest secrets that were harmful to America(ns) as well as our allies?
11
Bret: ''My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks...''
Aye, so all picks after not considering Merrick Garland should be null and void. Furthermore, since the President is an unindicted co conspirator (with possible charges, indictment and impeachment on the horizon) should have all picks put on hold.
What if the President is impeached (and others in this administration) where it was proven beyond any doubt that a foreign power (and others) helped this President win the election by illegal means. What then ?
I believe Gorsuch should be impeached and removed from the bench on those grounds. What say you, Bret ?
Indeed
6
Like Trump's tax returns, Kavanaugh obviously has something to hide or all relevant Kavanaugh documents would have been released, and in a timely fashion. Kavanaugh seems to have lied under oath about his knowledge and role in the Bush prisoner torture program. He is on record stating the Supreme Court can overturn Roe v. Wade any time it chooses but recently telling Sen. Collins that Roe v. Wade is "settled law".
Kavanaugh cannot be trusted any more than the unidicted co-conspirator Trump who chose Kavanaugh - not in the national interests (having been warned by McConnell about Kavanaugh's self-condemning paper trail) but Trump chose Kavanaugh as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Donald and Brett (with two t's) are birds of a dishonest feather.
Supporting a two-faced "jurist" like Kavanaugh suggests significant lack of objectivity on the part of Bret with one "t".
21
"Bret: Under any other president, I’d want a Republican Congress to do precisely the things you oppose. Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
Let me punt on the subject of "school choice," which can be good or bad depending on the true motives of the person executing the program.
To everything else, even Stephens must realize it sounds a bit nutty. What is OBSESSION with cutting the top rate? And even if there is some trickle-down theory behind that, it still leaves the question of why more mining, drilling and logging is so very desirable that Bret lists it as one of the 3 things he likes to see in government. Not, say, anti-corruption or general ideas of conservative fiscal responsibility (except for defense spending of course).
I'm seriously asking: w-h-y are such things a priority to him?
7
Agree totally, but without ruining our climate and public school system. I'll take boring...
1
The problem with Bret Stephens' fanboy gushing over Kavanaugh is that he has not factored into his "well-qualified" opinion of the man the fact that he has been revealed to have lied, perjured himself in this current hearing, as well as in his prior Senate confirmation hearing for his current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh should be impeached, not elevated to the Supreme Court.
22
"Bret: Under any other president, I’d want a Republican Congress to do precisely the things you oppose. Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
Partisan gaping horror here. So Mr. Stephens, while not endorsing Dolt #45 or approving of Mitch McConnell's hijacking of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat, does: Support expanding inequality, does not support good public education, does not support health care for the general public, and wants to open up more federal lands for mining, drilling, and logging?! So he's for an educated plutocracy ruling over uninsured peons, all living in a blasted, plundered, unsustainable wasteland? Sounds like a nightmarish dysotopian future.
Thanks, Gail, I'll stick with your side.
15
"Gail: I’m so glad I don’t know because I am terrible with secrets. I do love all the speculation about Mike Pence and 'lodestar,' though."
Gail Collins calls "lodestar" speculation. I call it a smoking gun. Pence wrote the anonymous New York Times Op-Ed because he wants President Trump to be impeached. Then Pence can get the president job without having to earn it.
6
Brett says: "End Obamacare? Absolutely."
And replace it with what? The totally dysfunctional "system" we had before Obamacare? What exactly are you for, Brett, when it comes to healthcare?
I have the same question for all your Republican pals. But I've given up on them. Maybe you will answer.
11
Senator Patty Murray Of Washington State AND Senator Sherrod Brown Of Ohio, my native state. Both extremely hard working, intelligent, fair and boring. In a VERY good way. That’s the Ticket, for 2020, and you heard it here, first.
Seriously.
7
Robert Bork's firing of Archibald Cox and his frighten judicial views made the Democrats preventing him for gaining a seat on the Supreme Court heroic not disgraceful.
8
Shocking that BK's lying under oath isn't the top concern. Thought that alone would be a deal breaker.
13
On today's Opinion Page, Mr. Stephens, you are surrounded by women who are paying closer attention to Judge Kavanaugh's past writings: “the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life" -- see Michelle Goldberg's "The Handmaid's Court." And thank you Ms. Collins.
8
Write these words in granite,
"The G.O.P.’s refusal to consider Judge Garland’s nomination was a disgrace."
And to a degree excusing it here by citing Democrats' treatment of Bork, almost 30 yrs ago......didn't we then directly get Kennedy in the bargain?
11
I certainly do agree with your comment Bret that;
" My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks, provided the nominee is intellectually qualified".
The past judicial decisions of both Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh laid side by side almost mirror each other. The Majority Lead Weasel of the Senate could not abide by the fact that Obama was able to gain a second term as President after he unequivocally, stated that Obama would be a one term President. The Weasel struck back by subverting the President's choice of Judge Garland as a Supreme Court nominee. Time to send the Weasel back to the hole from whence he came.
6
Something learned getting a Poli Sci BA:
Good governance IS boring.
Time to change gears.
5
Democracy is an armchair abstraction for the male clerics of the Catholic Church, the men of the Republican party, and for Mr. Stephens.
The actual application of their policies are anything BUT democracy for one half of the population: American Women.
7
Fun read from you two, as always. However, there is a serious note in the column that should be addressed. Bret, your conservative wish list is what makes reasonable and sensible, and dare i say intelligent, progressives stay up at night. Honestly, those issues do deserve careful and thoughtful debate, not "we won and will stick it to you" from either side.
The liberal progressives I want to prevail rail against those issues, not because of sensible debates and thoughtful public policies that result, but precisely because that doesn't happen. Instead, it often seems, the loonies (those lobbyists seem to find as their best buddies) ram through laws without regard to unintentional consequences. Each side has culpability in this regard, but just between us, isn't one side a bit more culpable?
Otherwise, thanks for humor in the humorless.
2
Regarding Kavanaugh. His appointment to the Court of Appeals is described as contentious, three years from nomination due to political concerns and negotiations. How was this omitted from current hearings and deliberations? Were those concerns reflected in reviewing his judicial record since appointment?
5
Bret says :
" And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
No, Bret.
Those are my lands too, and they stabilize the planet.
I want them to be managed so that they remain - as much as possible - in their natural state for future generations.
There are plenty of other necessary activities to keep the economy growing.
And if you're so enthused about mining, drilling and logging, try visualizing those processes taking place under your kitchen window.
35
Stephen's equation of Bork and Garland is truly apples and oranges. Bork was given the opportunity to appear before the Senate and there was a vote based on his qualifications. Garland was never given the opportunity to appear before the Senate because McConnell knew that there would be no valid reasons for Republican senators not to vote for him.
So tired of hearing Republicans use unfair comparisons to pander to their audience. The Democrats had no choice but to use the nuclear option when Republicans' brazen obstruction wouldn't allow Obama to seat judges that Obama had the right to seat. Republicans used the nuclear option to steal the SCOTUS seat from Merrick Garland.
29
It's hardly a new observation, but it's striking that all the "impeachment" talk is by Republicans (with one or two odd exceptions, chiefly one chap who isn't even in office). Democrats have more important (and fruitful) fish to fry, when they get control of at least one house and can roll up their sleeves and get cracking on the proper oversight role of congress that the Republicans have been totally remiss about.
In the same vein, it's Republicans who are raising a hullabaloo over the Woodward book. Democrats by and large are simply looking forward with relish to reading the thing.
9
Strange to see how neither writer seems to care about the lawful execution of constitutional duty. If the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress has a responsibility to impeach, convict, and remove the President from office. It doesn't matter whether the action is politically convenient or not. A failure to do so represents an abdication of duty and a violation of one's oath.
For that matter, I wouldn't be so sure Mike Pence would take over the helm in Trump's absence. The man is neck deep in the administration's malfeasance. I would want testimony from Pence about what he knew and when before anyone pulls out the Lincoln Bible.
By the way, the president-elect shouldn't be swearing on a bible anyway. The gesture cuts against the grain of our constitution. I prefer John Quincy Adams. He swore on a book of law. How's that for symbolism?
36
“I honestly don’t believe that Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Democrats said the same thing about Anthony Kennedy when Ronald Reagan nominated him in 1987, ...”. I’m surprised that Ms Collins didn’t immediately offer Judge Kavanaugh’s decision in the Garza case in rebuttal. It took the full court to overturn his decision in that case. Unfortunately, there is every indication that the Supreme Court would not be a Deus ex Machina in a similar situation.
I’m truly surprised that all the female GOP senators seem to be comfortable with his confirmation, and that Senators Corker and Flake aren’t willing to stand up to Mr. Trump on this issue.
11
I'm not. At all. I have zero respect or faith in any Republican senator male or female no matter what mumblings they come up with for public consumption. Tax cuts and THEIR Supreme Court picks.
4
@David Buchsbaum
You’re surprised??? Really?
"Bret: My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks, provided the nominee is intellectually qualified. That’s one of the things presidential elections are about... I would point out that the hyper-politicization of these confirmation hearings began in 1987 with the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork...."
Six Republicans voted against Bork's confirmation, moving Bret's comment into urban legend territory.
Then, there's the issue of "advise and consent." Why should this have no role in selecting a Supreme Court justice?
13
Nothing disgraceful about how Bork was treated then, and Kavenaugh is of the same ilk now.
17
Gail is right. Ending up with Pence after impeaching Trump is revolting. Impeach them both!
18
"Under any other president, I’d want a Republican Congress to do precisely the things you oppose. Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
And this is why I consider Stephens to be a fraud. He's fine with any other president doing what Trump is doing but he really doesn't want the "president" doing it to be such a public conman, buffoon, lunatic, traitor, grifter, criminal while doing it. In other words, he be fine with all of these ugly plans to rape the environment, destroy the public school system, take away healthcare from the Americans who aren't wealthy, and make the 1% ever wealthier than they are. He'd be fine with a horror like Mike Pence who hates gay people and is a fake Christian simply because Pence wouldn't tweet and hold rallies with nutters braying "lock her up." As I said Stephen is a fraud. He wants the horror and destruction but he likes his "monster" to be quiet and pious and using dogwhistles instead of bullhorns.
42
I love hearing you guys talk.
It's like seeing--in miniature--a picture of what politics SHOULD be in this country. But isn't.
The conservative a little to the RIGHT of twelve-'o'-clock.
The liberal a little to the LEFT of twelve-'o'-clock.
(And yes! I know. Twelve-'o'-clock tends to shift. Leftwards. Just a bit.)
Well, I can dream. can't I.
And this appalling human being who (right now) occupies the White House--as you two have pointed out. . ..
. .. that common antipathy really HAS--brought liberals and conservatives together. In "gaping horror" as you put it so well, Ms. Collins.
Long ago, discussing any possible Supreme Court nomination he might make, Mr. Reagan waved aside the notion of a "litmus test."
I cannot remember the exact words. They were to the effect: I have no "push button issue. I am looking at qualifications. Nothing else.
Well--that was then.
And he was a conservative. But still. . . .
Was Mr. Bork "savaged" by the Democrats way back when? I think, Mr. Stephens, one might argue with that. Considering especially:
(1) his view on "privacy." To wit: there is no such "right" enshrined in the Constitution. Troubling, wouldn't you say?
(2) his role in the "Saturday night" massacre. Enough said!
But at least Congress gave the man a hearing. That boast of Mitch McConnell. . . ..
. . .DESPICABLE!
My opinion of that man goes down almost hourly.
But enough of that!
Keep it up, you two.
I loving hearing you.
10
Robert Bork should've been confirmed??? Good God, Bret! Seriously?!?!
31
What I like about the Gail and Bret show is they clearly state their opinions and i walk away not agreeing necessarily( with Bret, Gail is ALWAYS right) but feeling I understand the conservative point of view. Don’t agree, but don’t think Bret is a raving lunatic out to destroy my way of life. This is what civil discourse creates. Trump is such a wretched disaster. Make him go away!
6
Trump, or impeach and now Pence? Is there a door #3? Spineless Pence, always looking like he’s on the cusp of weeping as president? He was a lousy congressman, a lousy Christian radio talk show host, a lousy governor, could he finally break the mold as a president?
Expect the Flailing Knee Jerk Crimes of the GOP to continue.
17
Bret Stephens has all the worst inclinations of misleading and let's say sophistic conservative columnists. Especially you see this in conservative rhetoric, in which naturally inflammatory word choices are substituted for more accurate ones in order to disrupt logical thinking and play to primitive instincts, such as calling a fetus an “unborn child.” I have not seen him use this one in particular, but saying that the New Yorker is bowing to the “twitter mob” for not giving attention to a crackpot like Steve Bannon, and not just a crackpot, but a dangerous one in the same persuasion as the Nazis (just look at Breitbart and their “black crime” section), is an attempt to attach inflammatory rhetoric, i.e the word “mob,” that mischaracterizes. For example, I suppose if the New Yorker reacted the same way but in response to handwritten letters from their subscribers, that would not have been bowing a “mob,” but it would not have been essentially any different. Stephens uses this tactic and will keep using it. Not all conservative writers are guilty of this low behavior. Brooks does not do this and his articles are at least interesting.
9
So boring is good, but what I'd look for is "not stupid." Yeah, not stupid" would do it for me.
Right now, every time a politician opens his (ok, every now and the her, but the numbers are against it) mouth, stupid rolls out. Politics seems to be stupid cluster. Was there something in the water?
I have fundamental disagreements with Republicans over the role of government, the need for individual protections and rights in addition to the vaunted individual responsibilities, and the need for communitarian focus, which is different from communism or socialism. Market freedom balanced by community needs.
But I never considered George Bush or his cabinet members a crook, like I do almost every in the Trump administration. I worried about Reagan's behavior, and was unsurprised by the subsequent diagnosis, but I never wondered if he was a sociopath or just a toxic narcissist. I disliked Clinton, and found his vanity and arrogance deplorable, found his monetizing the WH unworthy, but never wondered if he sold that influence to a hostile foreign power. Hollywood was bad enough.
Trump is terrible, and the others were not. Fact, not fake news.
7
Dear Sir,
I cannot believe that I would be reading Bret Stephens opine about the ACO and drilling in the arctic on the pages of Times. His parlaying Merrill Garland with Bork is a travesty. Bork was not confirmed because of his role during Nixon administration where he was carrying out the orders of a crooked president who turned to be worse after his death than when he was alive. 1st amendment rights are fine but here I run in to outright misinformation masquerading as scholarly opinion on the OP-ED page. Nixon at least was much better informed compared to Trump who is destroying the norms and institutions of America. At least Nixon was a patriot of sorts, Trump’s very patriotism in in question! Please don’t torture us loyal readers of Times with the recycled Republican pablum under the guise of diversity of opinion.
Sincerely,
Vikram S Jayanty,
Houston, TX 77024.
713/305/7021.
16
Stop with the 'Democrats started it' about Bork's treatment. Bork was given a hearing, and a vote, in the Senate. He was voted down, and as we learned in later years, he was an absolute nut who would have been a disaster on the Court.
37
Thanks a heck of a lot for the image of T. Rex wandering around in his underwear.
6
I think Sessions should lie in the flea-ridden bed he’s made with the president. He was the first senator to endorse Trump and now he’s getting exactly what he deserves. What’s worse, he’s chosen to accept public abuse and humiliation from Trump so that he can make good on his real ambition, which is to abuse and humiliate immigrants in a manner that’s a national disgrace.
Finally, an utterance from Bret Stephens that I can agree with. Although, as we all know, in the scheme of these Trumpist times, someone else could be a lot worse.
6
Whatever these guys are, they're not boring.
Not if you forget Donald Trump's tweets and focus on what he and the GOP are actually doing.
For example, they're on their way to getting in yet another Supreme Court justice who believes that once a sperm is let loose, nothing should stand in the way of that egg, and anything that does is an abortion. That is a religious position and not a scientific one.
Methane and carbon in the air. Oil in the sea. Decreasing funding for National Parks and various kinds of scientific research.
Don't depend on the Democrats winning in November. Too many lazy-minded, fat-headed Americans out there.
Yes, I'm calling names.
What can you do with a population that voted for a guy who makes fun of cripples?
22
"I envision someone like..... George H.W. Bush..." Didn't get a chance to read the NYT Magazine issue on the environmental movement 1979-1989?
8
Did Bret just say the Bork was a disgraceful nominee for the Supreme Court? Don't we have enough conservative Catholic Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch)?
4
Too many Catholics (all conservative) on the Supreme Court having the final say on too many important issues. Not representative of American society.
2
“Under any other president, I’d want a Republican Congress to do precisely the things you oppose. Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?” —Bret Stephens
Oh, Lordie. And that, on top of Bret’s famous statement that, “...if it were up to me, we’d double defense spending.” Seriously?
And who’s going to pay for all this largesse, none of which benefits the average American, Bret? In your next “conversation” let’s hear you reconcile this insanity with your so-called “fiscal conservatism.” Or was that all a ruse?
9
Can a person fraudulently, through treason with a foreign government, secure the office of president and have legal authority to take presidential actions?
6
As you say, dear god!, do not impeach “it”. Pence is Trump minus the fun roller coaster rides. Let’s hang in there folks and do the deed ourselves in 2020. I don’t know about the rest of you, but personally, I’m gonna’ get sloppy drunk the night we finally vote him out and then, the next day I’m going to church to spend some time on my knees thanking God that we made it through the last 4 nightmare years.
9
Bork again! Bork was rightly rejected for not finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, not to mention the Saturday Night Massacre. And oh, yeah, calling the the 9th amendment an "ink blot." That's just what I can remember off the top of my head. I am eternally grateful that Robert Bork was not confirmed to the Supreme Court.
As for Kavanaugh, well, my late father was also Brett, with two t's, but Sen. Leahy made a strong case that this Brett lied under oath to get his current job. Far from confirming him to the Supreme Court, Congress should consider impeaching him to remove him from the federal judgeship he now holds.
14
Mr Stephens seems to have forgotten Barack Obama's other Supreme Court selection, Merrick Garland. You can smell the conservative hypocrisy as it oozes off of him.
15
Sorry, Bret with one T, but Bork should NOT have been confirmed. He wasn't confirmed for one overriding disqualifying reason. He wrote a paper saying there wasn't authority in the Constitution to serve blacks in restaurants. When asked by PA Senator Arlen Specter, he couldn't disown that paper. That's why Specter said and others rightly said no.
17
One of the definitions for obsequious, servile, should include Mike Pence. How low this guy can go. It seems that he or his subordinate wrote the letter.
6
I say for our next Presidential candidate we elect Fred Rogers of “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” fame. Sure, he might be dead and we’d have to exhume the body, but he still would have more charisma than Pence, Kaine, and Bernie Sanders put together.
4
@Paul Damiano, Ph.D.
Pence, Kaine, and Bernie Sanders... what an odd combination of people to compare to Mr. Rogers! Would you mind elaborating?
So Stephens believes that a man who repeatedly perjures himself during hearings should e confirmed 100-0 because he has a brilliant legal mind? To me that seems the very definition of amorality.
28
This column always makes me laugh but then I have to return to the reality of having an unindicted co-conspirator criminal who will not be indicted while he occupies the Oval Office, destroying environmental regulations, instituting trade wars, insulting and debasing the free press, our allies, transforming federal courts and SCOTUS for generations, wandering the halls tweeting about taking revenge on his enemies and accusing them of treason, making us the laughing-stock of the entire world, which is not at all funny. I hope the resistance inside the White House can hide the nuclear button as well as he or she hides documents from our madman-child-king.
Maybe the point of this column is to illustrate that two people with polar opposite political views can carry on a civil conversation without vitriol or personal attacks. Now that's a blast from the past, humor included.
183
Brett: cut taxes, end Obamacare, open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging???
Can we have a column where Gail interviews Brett and asks him to explain:
Tax Cuts for the Rich: Why do the rich need a tax cut when inequality keeps rising and the struggling middle and working classes have stagnated for decades? Tax cuts blow a hole in the deficit the GOP, which so worries the GOP when a Democrat is in office. And, if we want to remain a democratic nation (and I don't really think the GOP does), then keep in mind democracy requires a strong middle class and is undermined by growing inequality. Justify that!
Anti-Health Care: Why are Republicans (whom I assume have good health insurance for themselves) so against good health care for the rest of us? Why do Reps begrudge us our Social Security and Medicare that we paid into and offer a much safer retirement than stashing and losing retirement money in the booms and busts of Wall Street?
Anti-Environment, Pro Dirty Air and Polluted Water: If the GOP supports businesses growth, why try to block the growth of renewable energy, which is better for the environment and is a better bet for growing the economy than hanging onto polluting fossil fuels?
I realize the only way you can appeal to Republicans is by arguing business will benefit, rather than we need a healthy environment, planet, and better health for all.
And what/whom do the Republicans think they are Responsible for when running our government?
13
Mr. Stephens is too young. He doesn't remember the Abe Fortas nomination tubed by the republicans who wanted a republican to appoint the successor to Earl Warren as Chief Justice. Things have gone downhill ever since.
3
Democrats need to take back the House and the Senate (if possible) for one reason: the Republican led Congress has shown the voters that it is completely unable to perform its function as a check on the presidency. They're not doing their job and need to be fired and replaced with competent members who will stand up to the errant behavior of the current president. The voters will decide if they want new members of Congress who have a spine and the willingness to speak up fervently when they see something's wrong, or if they wish to continue to support the current crop of toadies doing nothing about the most reckless president ever.
3
This piece, like so many others in this day, decries the partisan divide and the deterioration of decency, dialog and compromise. Whether in the case of Supreme Court or other appointments, or a wide range of legislation. It seems to me that there's a straightforward method to reverse the yelling and lying from extremes that currently passes for governance and leadership. What if we had a 2/3 majority rule on every major aspect of Legislative activity, including confirmations, AND a mandate that elected officials MUST resolve issues within MANDATORY time-frames or be subject to personal fines or dismissal for those Legislators who seldom or never compromise. This would shift the attitude from FIGHT against to WORK for ... and it would encourage "what can we agree to" approach.
This sounds like "mission impossible" - but on our current course, we're likely doomed to dissolving our democracy in the name of "principle" or "values" - which too often turn out to be cloaks for greed, self-interest or intentional ignorance.
Give it a try next time you're temped to argue with someone who doesn't share your point of view or dogma.
2
"Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
Great. The NYT feels it necessary to carry a certified environmental despoiler and and an advocate of no health care for the cancer stricken (and other diseases) in the name of "balance."
Why are they doing this? It's not like the WSJ carries a weekly columnist who advocates environmental regulation and single payer health care.
5
My issue with Kavanaugh is unfortunately not just the Roe v. Wade possibilities, but the fact that he may have conspired with Trump's law firm to get on the court and find the Russia investigation unconstitutional to put an end to it. That's what keeps me up at night! How did these two miss it?
3
"the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork"
Robert Bork was presented with a test of character in 1973 which he failed with flying colors. A court later ruled that his action was illegal. Robert Bork, not suitable for the Supreme Court.
6
The right wing has adopted a convenient excuse for making every Supreme Court nomination a battle royale: The Borking of Bork. Unfortunately, for the sake of legitimate analysis, it's not true.
Bork was - and continued to be until his dying day - an extremist who had no business being on the Supreme Court. And, he demonstrated his partisan hackery when he carried out Nixon's orders on a Saturday night.
7
" I honestly don’t believe that Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. ... I’m confident Kavanaugh will respect 45 years of abortion precedent ..."
Seriously, Mr. Stephens?
Ask Jane Doe, the 17-year-old unaccompanied immigrant minor who was "effectively held hostage by the government to stop her from accessing abortion" even after she had obtained a court order allowing her to consent to the abortion on her own, and after she had a court-appointed guardian looking out for her best interests.
Mr. Kavanaugh's lack of respect for precedent when it comes to women's reproductive rights (see Garza v. Hargan) is effectively on par with your lack of respect for Jeff Sessions. But at least your opinion on Sessions is justified.
8
Tim Kaine has charisma? I learn so much from Bret.
Seriously, no one seems to broach the idea that Anonymous WH Staffer was simply hedging bets with the NYT op-ed.
After all, there's an odds on probability that POTUS 45 ends in disgrace. In which case, Anonymous could bravely reveal him/herself and collect the book deal. Craven actually.
2
The Golden Earring song, "When the Bullet Hits the Bone" rings loud and clear when both parties and the polka players on Wall St. open their mouths.
To my mind, a modern version of the tune, "When the Zirp is Overthrown" presents us with the distinct possibility that the next President may not be able to cope with the disaster that will result.
We are a complex, regionally differentiated and dynamically changing society. Taking all citizens into consideration, there is no good solution.
2
Brett Stephens opines that the president should automatically get his Supreme Court pick, if the nominee is intellectually qualified, opining that Robert Bork was treated badly because a bipartisan majority of senators voted against his confirmation. Stephens thereby adopts a presumption that Bork had an inherent entitlement to a position on the Supreme Court, and the Senate's vote of denial somehow constituted bad treatment. Bork was given private interviews, a full hearing, a committee vote, and a floor vote. That was all he was entitled to. It is the Senate's role to advise and consent, and they are free to withhold consent if they feel the public interest is served by doing so.
With regard to Brett Kavanaugh, I think a nominee should also be morally qualified, and he demonstrated at his hearing that he is not. Here in Indiana, we have been bombarded with TV commercials demanding that we tell Sen. Donnelly to vote yes on Kavanaugh. If Kavanaugh is as awesomely qualified as the commercials claim, his credentials should speak for themselves; he shouldn't need an advertising campaign.
6
Mr. Stephens is exactly right about Kavanaugh, Garland, and Bork. This, in fact, was the traditional view: If the nominee was at the top end of the profession, and had no particularly disfiguring quality or sordid background issue, they were voted through. The great weight in the choice was simply the matter of the President's prerogative. Advise and consent was not an invitation to Senators to imagine themselves as Spartacus or some like nonsense.
Another distinctly old fashioned view held that the office of the Presidency was important enough in our system that good citizens wished the President to succeed in the broadest sense that there should be general prosperity. One could disagree about most of the specifics and still wish the President to do well. Impeachment was not lightly considered since it was a remedy for the most dire circumstances. So to those who find Trump so beyond the pale (and those who deemed Clinton similarly repugnant) I would only say think first of the system and the importance of the office.
@Frunobulax
I think there are two issues with this.
First is the notion that the system is working. It most decidedly is not, starting with the Electoral College. Because it creates a massive disparity in voter weight (a vote in Wisconsin is a bit over three times more valuable than a vote in Florida, for example). This allows the system to be gamed for results that run against the intentions of the voting majority, like the 2016 presidential election.
The second is that the office of the president is somehow better served by leaving an unfit occupant in place. I believe there is a tipping point where that is no longer the case, and I believe that we have surpassed that tipping point. We the people should not be afraid to demand better of our leaders.
3
It's interesting that neither columnist seems to consider the possibility that Trump could be re-elected in 2020. If the economy continues to do well, re-election could happen. The risk is that outrage is making Democrats complacent, and they will push too hard on the issues that got Trump elected in the first place, namely immigration and identity politics. Americans favor immigration, but want a legal process to be followed--not open borders and eliminating ICE. Americans will elect a person of any race or gender, but not just because "it's time." We elected a black man in 2008 (something many considered impossible), as Obama smartly avoided racial issues. Hillary, in comparison, practically demanded election by virtue of her gender (always talking about breaking the glass ceiling). Focus on income inequality, the environment, health care, and education--and watch Dems sweep in 2018 and 2020. Focus on immigration and identity politics--and get ready for more of the same.
25
@Unconventional Liberal
"It's interesting that neither columnist seems to consider the possibility that Trump could be re-elected in 2020."
That's probably for the same reason that many of the rest of us share. If Trump is re-elected in 2020 -- or even if Democrats don't retake the house in November -- America is over. Period.
What we will have in spades is a fascist government. I -- for one -- will consider it no different than Nazi occupation in the 40's. Multiply me by 70 million. Chew on that for a while, Trump supporters. Be prepared to sleep lightly for the rest of your days.
3
"... the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork, the Reagan nominee who should have been confirmed."
How did this Bork meme get created? Bork; the man who end the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre by firing Coz after Bork's two preddessors resigned. Bork; the man who Nixon promised a seat on the Supreme Court after he fired Cox "Should have been confirmed"?
34
"what with the big guy in the White House bringing liberals and conservatives together in bipartisan gaping horror"
This comment by Collins is delusional. Most Republicans and most conservatives are not watching the White House in "gaping horror." Trump remains astoundingly popular among both groups. The conservatives who are actually horrified by him are remarkably few. More than a few wags have suggested that all of them have jobs as columnists or political commentators for major media outlets. The "Never Trump" wing of the conservative movement was always concentrated in its salaried ranks and shrank considerably after his election. No doubt many still wince in response to his particular antics. The biggest cause of Trump-related dissent amongst conservatives seems to be his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to international trade relations. The separation of undocumented parents from their children, and the naked pandering to white supremacists seems to disturb them considerably less than the possibility that Walmart's share value might drop a penny as a result of Trump's trade war with China.
The ugly truth that Trump's election revealed to those mysteriously unable to see it previously is that the conservative half of white voters are either themselves a bunch of raving bigots or not at all uncomfortable in their company. Its time to stop pretending this isn't the case.
16
@Christopher
Investing tip: Lemons: lemonade. Buy a Knucklebalm franchise.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't cutting it. One article is not much of a sampling pool, but if it's bad enough, it's enough. (Was this the article where Gail was supposed to be humorous?) You guys should break up and stay friends.
6
Bret, you say that boring is the new black- is that a double entendre?We had our first “black” president and he was known as “ No drama Obama”.He was not boring but maybe even you are nostalgic for his steady and principled leadership!
18
If the "anonymous" person isn't Pence, whoever wrote it is certainly trying to throw Pence under the bus. Let's see who might have it in for Trump and have some disdain for Pence all at the same time? I say......Sessions. Look at what Trump did to McCain. And McCain's only recourse was to vote against Trump on healthcare and then dis-invite him to the funeral. Despite all the wimpy "I love John McCain" stuff, no one had his back. Do you think Sessions for a milli-second didn't notice that or didn't think Trump called him "mentally retarded"or attacked him for being a southerner? Sessions had to be fuming at that and then he looks at good ole' Mike Pence who stands behind Trump at every opportunity with the s___eating grin on his face. And it must fill Sessions with all kinds of reassurance the VP has his back. So when the opportunity arises, why not kill two northern birds with one op-ed?
18
If I want entertainment, I will watch a movie. But in government, I want competence; with our without the excitement. What has always irked me about the Republicans is that they take pleasure in destroying government.
Government is not bad (as it is practiced in the US). We need to get over this juvenile notion that just because it is government that it is by design a bad thing. Government is just what we decide to do together. Lose the ideology, and lets start to have discussions about competence. I want good management and continuous improvement, not a house party.
And yeah there are many things that, while government can improve, it does better than the private sector (Social Security). This notion that we can substitute the market for policy is absurd. But you cannot reason with someone who is not reasonable. And that is where we are with the Republican Party, which is why it has to be put out to pasture in its present iteration.
22
@PB. absolutely correct- the Republicans hate government unless it is rewarding their donors or big industry.
3
Bret, predictably, brings up Robert Bork, strongly implying the whole contentious Supreme Court decision-making process began with the Democrats. In context, this is simply the tu quoque fallacy at work (as well as being patently false). And as such, it's a red herring, after all, what does a Supreme Court nomination over 30 years ago have to do with the price of tea in China? Bret has underscored a big part of the problem - he can acknowledge that the GOP's theft of a Supreme Court seat was a "disgrace", but not without minimizing it with another that is irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion, and essentially try to excuse it away with false equivalency. Refusing to allow the process for selecting a Supreme Court Justice to even take place with the limp mantra of "elections have consequences" is not the same thing. Even if you agree with Bret that the Bork nomination had the Dems playing dirty pool, you can't justify what the GOP did with Garland. That kind of thinking is how we've come to this sorry pass in our nation's thinking.
18
To refer to "the disgraceful Democratic mistreatment of Robert Bork" is disgraceful, and it's often trotted out by Republicans who count on the ignorance of their audience. Robert Bork was given a full Senate hearing, and all his previous record was made available to the committee and the country. It was after a full review and questioning before the committee, during which he actually answered questions, that the Judiciary Committee rejected him 9-5. When he refused to withdraw, the full Senate rejected him by vote of 58-42, including 6 Republicans. The decision was based on his legal record and his views, which everyone had access to, and which the majority decided were out of the mainstream of American judicial opinion. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
Contrast that with what the GOP has done in the last two years: denying even a hearing for Merrick Garland, a well-qualified, middle-of-the-road nominee, then ramming through Kavanaugh's nomination after actively preventing a thorough vetting of the period of his career that he himself described as "the most interesting and most formative" in his development to be a judge.
Enough with the "they did it to Bork" canard! Bret Stephens, you ought to know better.
71
@pmbrig
Plus Reagan still got to fill that seat. No one said he could never get a nominee appointed.
3
Oh, the Republicans are still smoldering over the 1987 treatment of Bork, which justifies what they did almost 30 years later? Give me a break.
38
@Thomas Yes, it's a convenient excuse - ironic, too, since Bork actually got more of a hearing than did Merrick Garland.
5
I take back some of the harsh words I was fixin' to write about Bret, because of his "Tim Kaine without the charisma" line. But you're still on a short leash with me, given your initials.
1
I agree that Pence would be worse than Trump, just more disciplined. What scares me about Pence is his non-belief of Separation of Church and State.
We are in the middle of a Religious war right here in the United States and it is sullying the Constitution. Between Evangelicals and Catholics they would deny us our freedoms in the name of their God.
Roe vs. Wade, Hobby Lobby, the Wedding Cake decision, etc tells me that Religion has invaded the Supreme Courts decision making.
This should disqualify the members of the Supreme Court who voted this way. They are not making decisions based on the Constitution or how most Americans feel about their freedoms.
Mike Pence and the Republican Congress, as well as the Cabinet members. believe that this is the way things should be. It is against what our country was founded on.
On another note, if you believe that anyone who lied to Congress should not be appointed, I give you the Cabinet members. They all lied or were not competent to fill the roles they were appointed to fulfill. This includes Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. He hollowed out our State Department rendering is virtually useless.
And while I cannot abided Jeff Sessions, I have a grudging respect for him for not firing Rob Rosenstein or Robert Mueller. Now if only the Congress would make sure that Trump cannot fire them. But they are spineless.
The sooner we turn the House and Senate over, the better off we will be.
215
The NYT editors liked this because they also think Pence would be worse than Trump, or think that this stance deserves equal weight in the discussion? I find this deeply disappointing. Pence may have trouble separating church and state, but this is a trivial problem compared to failing to separate fact and fiction or the criminal and the legitimate.
Being qualified for the job matters, and Pence has been both a governor and member of Congress (with, as far as I know, zero indictments!). The myopic temptation to reduce politicians to a list of policy choices is how we got President Trump in the first place.
For those still not convinced of this, the investigations that can lead to Trump's removal could very well also lead to Pence's removal. Protecting Trump might just be protecting both Trump and Pence.
2
@Jean
Pence also lied to the Senate, which should qualify him for impeachment, as well as the so called president.
1
@Jean
It isn't Catholics, at least not the 80% of them that are cafeteria Catholics, it is the orthodox Catholics, Pete the Polish Prince ie JPII and his gang of medievalist bishops and cardinals, and the evangelicals who are driving this "Christianization" of government, they are basically setting themselves up to create a new kind of Jim Crowe, based not on race (though many Christian doministions are racists whose religious beliefs support racism), but on 'belief' with of course the narrow, rigid, fundamentalist/uber orthodoxy, and yes, hateful, Christianity being the 'right one' the government supports. If for example they establish the concept that belief overrides the rights of let's say LGBT people, a state could claim that the majority of people in their state don't believe in same sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, and deny gay couples the right to marry (or make it so it is next to impossible to find a state office that would allow them to get a license and file the paperwork).
The sad part is, like the GOP as a whole, a very ignorant, hateful portion of American society, maybe 30%, is being given the green light by the GOP because they need that 30% in their 'coalition' to gain office, much like in Israel the ultra orthodox are turning Israel into a Jewish version of Iran.
1
Presidents should NOT get their picks for SCOTUS automatically and NO that’s not what elections are about. The Constitution puts a duty of advise and consent on the senate so rubber stamping a POTUS pick is an abrogation of duty.
17
@DenisPombriant
Of course, but what's your point vis-a-vis the present conversation?
I don't want Trump impeached! This will only give us Pence. What I want to see is Trump in prison after his term along with his 3 children. Also, the destruction of the Trump financial empire.
13
People who somehow conflate the 1990's regressive assault on POTUS Bubba are forgetting some pertinent facts. The inquisition was to nail the Clintons for underhanded land deals. When Star found nothing, he kept on digging until he found an embarrassing peccadillo - not a smoking gun. That is why sane America sympathized with Bubba.
The special prosecutor now has a cornucopia of felonies that he can pursue. Once the House turns blue, The Donald will be on the next stage coach out of DC and we will be left with playing Defense against Pence's attempts to declare The USA an Evangelical Nation.
14
I like Mike Pence’s lie detector idea- for Trump.
Make him wear it ALL the time and we can turn off the sound to this clown and just see the lies light up in real time.
Kavanaugh is not believable on women’s rights. The McConnell move against Obama’s Garland pick has tainted him. That Mitch and Jeff Sessions and Sarah Sanders make the Trump hatred of southern accents seem reasonable- ugh.
7
Good to know that Stephens “supported” Sotomayor and Kagan because they’re so highly qualified. I think Stephens’s distinguished career in the law and his years in the senate... oh wait.
4
The number of items on which Gail Collins and Bret Stephens disagree has shrunk considerably.
Who says that Donald Trump cannot bring Americans together? The fact that we unite in our contempt for Trump's dishonesty, incompetence, greed and cruelty is beside the point.
For the record, Bret is wrong about Brett. The Kavanaugh Kid has always been more politician than lawyer.
Putting a man on the federal bench who had never appeared in a trial court even to argue a routine motion was preposterous.
Elevating him to the U.S. Supreme Court when he accords to the president the power and immunity seen only in a Sun God is disgraceful.
8
Strange to believe the country is "uncomfortable" with impeachment. Maybe because it might not be strategic right now.
But with people who deal with Trump daily taking about the 25th Amendment, how is the much lesser impeachment not appropriate?
Other than considerations political expediency, the only reason not to impeach is that it's Not Enough, not cathartic enough to heal the damaged national psyche. It would normalize the stench of Trumpism.
Trump snuffed out America's beacon of light that shined out into the world since our founding. That's his crime and we will not recover until we get America's myth of the garden back.
What's needed to reverse this darkness is Justice - to see Trump in an orange suit - mere impeachment is too good for him and not at all good enough for us.
135
@Fourteen
A new president, voted in by a landslide, followed by Justice. Now that's a happy ending!
2
@Fourteen
To quote your comment:
"Trump snuffed out America's beacon of light that shined out into the world since our founding. That's his crime and we will not recover until we get America's myth of the garden back."
Myth is what America's "beacon of light" was and always will be. 45 is the embodiment of what our country was founded upon and that is and was, Manifest Destiny.
2
@Fourteen I think the aspect of strategy is exactly right as to why many of us are uncomfortable with impeachment. I'd love to see Trump out of office now, but we risk turning him into a martyr. What would be best long-term is for him to be absolutely and completely wiped out in a landslide defeat. That is the only way to truly discredit the current Republican zeitgeist.
I acknowledge that is also likely wishful thinking.
1
Mr. Trump needs to pull a Palin and resign during his third year. He will not get a pardon from President Warren or Booker, but he almost certainly would from President Pence. Of course, he would pardon the kiddies on the way out...or maybe not. (What have they done for him lately.)
2
Increased logging, mining and drilling - that's the reason Trumpy is the republican hero. And Stephens would love to love him for that, if only. We need conservatives who'd like to conserve. The republican party seems to represent scoundrels who want to pillage and plunder.
15
@Cynicalbi Wish I could recommend this more than once. First comment I read that picked up on this the way I did, along with lowering the upper tax rate, promoting private education , end Obama. Care. Ugh!
7
"Although I would point out that the hyper-politicization of these confirmation hearings began in 1987"
Ah, yes. Even among the GOP elite always end an argument with whataboutism. A winning tack every time.
By the way, the Bork event was three decades ago. Thirty years! And the GOP still uses it as a cudgel when discussing the judiciary. And poo-pooing away the Garland coup. So much for a meaningful judicial philosophy.
PS Lest we forget or never knew, Bork was the poodle who fired Archibald Cox. Completing Nixon's rodential bidding that two honorable others before him refused to do.
16
I doubt that the president's wandering around in his underwear complaining about aliens would cause any more of a stir than any other "bombshell" that has struck. Three days of hammering by the press, a bit of spin on the nature of truth, and voilà, no more fuss about aliens.
4
I doubt that driving Trump from office will be possibility for Democrats.
Although they are likely to control the House after November, I believe that the speculation about their capturing the Senate too is more fantasy that reality. Without control of both house of Congress, impeachment will be impossible.
And, there is the issue of Mike Pence about whom George Will has written, “Donald Trump, with his feral cunning, knew. The oleaginous Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure.”
I agree with Ms. Collins. Even if by some off chance the Democrats find themselves in the position where they could impeachment and convict Trump, do they really want to spend any amount of time with Pence as President?
103
@Michael Roush Pence doesn't have Trump's ability to rouse the deplorables. The religious right politics he practices is way past its sell-by date. He would be a singularly ineffective president.
1
@Michael Roush
I'm with you on this, but I think Pence would be easy to beat in 2020.
2
@Michael Roush
Basically, Mike Pence is to Trump what Agnew was to Nixon,insurance against anyone doing something to get him out of office, legal or illegal, it was only when Ford replaced Agnew (hounded out of office over corruption), that I think people in Congress would have had enough votes to remove him from office, the GOP because they trusted Ford would be no radical, the Democrats because Ford was not a fire breather. Pence is a Christian dominionist, where nothing is not seen through the lens of his evangelical faith (which I hope to hell doesn't include the not uncommon evangelical view that a nuclear war wouldn't be that bad a thing, since they think that will trigger the end of days and they will be off with the rapture, leaving all us sinners to face the horrors of armageddon).
1
Nice effort and I agree with pretty much everything you say. I too am wary and weary of all of the skullduggery, drama, lies, bullying, inept and ineffectual governing on the part of this incompetent, disgraceful administration. I find it particularly appalling and immoral that they continue to use the children of illegal immigrants as pawns in a despicable and immoral ploy. I could go on and obviously there is no good that comes from egregious arrogance, incompetence and malice, but that said I would hate to see the Country dragged through the dream of impeachment and I'm not sure two years of unctuous, pious lodestar Pence would be any relief or result in substantive change. In the meantime let' s hope the adults in the White House can continue to distract, placate and outmaneuver the bloated golf pro so that we can maintain some semblance of sanity and stay the course until the likes of Trump, Pence, McConnell, Miller, et al. leave town. The day that Marine helicopter leaves the south lawn with Trump in tow will indeed make America great again, won't come too soon.
94
Enough about Bork! He had a hearing and a vote, going down 42 for to 58 against. Garland had neither hearing nor vote. Further, between Bork and Garland many justices were confirmed.
16
The pairing of Gail and Bret is inspired, and emotional Xanax. In a GOOD way. We need that, Bigly. I agree, impeachment is messy, destructive and ultimately unnecessary. The MOST likely options, for the remainder of his reign :
A. HE is institutionalized, due to “ Job Related Stress “.
B. HE make a big, beautiful Deal, is allowed to resign, and keeps ALL our Money. Then, he embarks on a worldwide speaking Tour, spreading his wisdom to any audience with Cash. Also, BOOKS. Especially of the type requiring Crayons.
C. A stalemate. We ALL just try to muddle thru each Day, hoping that his designated babysitters are well caffeinated AND considering their future Job Prospects.
YES, I’ll go with option “ C “. It’s the most likely, considering the GOP has the intellect and courage of your average possum.
Seriously.
6
@Phyliss Dalmatian
There's too much overhead and time in either impeachment or the 25th. Consider the instant and efficient simplicity of defenestration.
After a week which has led me to feel that I finally need therapy or medication, or both, it's a tonic to read sane people discussing our dismal situation. I felt similarly relieved, however briefly, when former President Obama spoke. And Gail's levity (...bipartisan gaping horror!!!) is a genuine treat.
3
therapy does not help with Trump
2
“ I don’t think most Americans are comfortable with the idea of impeachment.”
Well this American is. And not just impeachment, but conviction too. Mr. Trump’s incompetence, irrational behavior; his ethical and moral bankruptcy, his poisonous demagoguery, and his endlessly cascading lies and corruption, cannot be dignified by avoiding impeachment simply because it is messy or divisive.
4
This is why we need to get rid of all Republicans in office. Bret Stephens may be anti-Trump but he’s still in favor of all the things that make Republicans so horrendous.
25
@William Flynn
As was the anonymous op-ed writer, who would assure us of simply another flavor of vileness.
2
Bret should have addressed the discrepancies between some of what Brett Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearing and what is in the record from his years working in the George W Bush administration. Is it not also of great concern to him that the vast majority of his record has been withheld by Grassley et al from the full committee and the American people? How anyone could fully endorse this nomination under those circumstances is beyond me and a travesty of the role of advice and consent of the Senate and our democracy. Let's have some intellectual honesty here, please.
11
The idea that as long as a judge is qualified we should confirm him—regardless of the way he might vote to protect or to deny rights we believe are fundamental—is foolish. Our fundamental rights are too important to be put in the hands of someone who might take them away from us just because that someone graduated from the right law schools. This idea—now ubiquitous among so-called conservatives—that technical competence requires confirmation reveals a rather shocking disregard for the importance and primacy of our unalienable rights.
169
@617to416 The idea that someone who is technically competent requires confirmation is not ubiquitous among conservatives. We can see from the many cabinet-level appointments that the Senate has confirmed that competence is not a requirement. We can also see that perceived political leanings are the key consideration for so-called conservatives: Garland was perceived as liberal and has always been seen as highly competent by senators of all stripes.
I know that I've conflated "republican" and "conservative" which may frustrate some; however, the republican politicians in power veil their malice beneath a cloak of conservatism so I am choosing the broader label. It is beyond obvious that conservatives new mantra is "Policies required, competence negotiable."
3
@617to416
Worse, it doesn't say a lot about our top law schools that they produce people who are generally classified as 'brilliant' (like the late Antonin Scalia) who seem to lack anything of a heart to temper that 'brilliance'. Looking at the current supreme court, to quote an old episode of MASH (talking about Frank Burns and Hot LIps, when asked what they saw in each other, someone else said they had barely half a heart between them). That would apply to the 4 conservative judges we have today, and likely kavenaugh, so we have 5 judges sharing maybe half a heart between them. Actually, it is 4 judges, Clarence Thomas has never had a heart, period.
1
Bret, less regulation, more money for the already wealthy, abolish the affordable care act, disregard for a woman’s right to choose. Sadly not what I expected. Money and self interest do not trump tikun o’lum. Surprising that you have forgotten this especially during this time of the year.
6
It's nice to have two intelligent people with differing opinions discuss issues in a civil way. We should all take a lesson (myself included).
1
Just don’t understand how Mr Stevens can say a president should get his scotus nominees and then cite his support for Kagan and Sotomayor as proof of his principled stance but conveniently NOT mention Merrick Garland’s nomination. How self-deluded must he be to think he’s being broad minded and principled in saying that he supported (2 out of 3 of) Obama’s nominees? I just don’t get it. Who does that? What does Stevens have to lose by being intellectually honest with himself and his and Collins’s readers?
6
@John
Actually John, Bret did mention the Garland nomination and agreed it was a total injustice. You need to read the whole article before commenting.
1
Cut the top tax rate? To what? Zero?
8
Brett has nothing or no one to complain or opine to. After all Brett is getting what he wants, tax breaks, DeVos Private Educational theory and environmental distruction. Brett’s disagreement is only on form.
3
My thanks to Gail, and Bret. Discussion the way I wish it were in Washington.
A sane, boring candidate for President is John Kasich. He has clearly demonstrated government executive ability as the CEO of Ohio. He is actually able to work across the aisle, a must qualification to many of us. From his prior career as a Congressman he has experience with, and knowledge of the actual issues of the federal government. And last, but by no means least, he is a man of courage, honor and decency. He can be trusted to keep his word and to be firm with America's rivals on the world stage.
2
@Harold
I don’t know a lot about kasich, but two things I do know are enough to reject him.
He is anti choice
He supports charter schools
No thanks
7
Excuse me, but I don't understand why people are talking about Mike Pence as possibly being the author of the anonymous op-ed, "lodestar" user or no.
I'm assuming that the Times has been honest with us to the extent that it has told us anything at all about the author. It has told us that this is someone "whose job would be jeopardized" by identification.
Now, the vice president is an elected official in his own right and cannot be fired. He can be impeached, but the causes and consequences of impeachment go far beyond the common-sense meaning of "job would be jeopardized". The phrase is also a very poor fit for the risk of being dropped from the ticket in 2020.
An outed Pence would certainly find it hard to work with Trump, to the extent that he's doing so now, but that's another matter. To say that the anonymous author's job would be jeopardized implies occupational defenestration. If that's not the case, the Times ought to have said the author's ability to function would be impaired -- or simply glossed the subject with a phrase like "who, for obvious reasons, must remain anonymous".
No, I don't think the Times has been either so disingenuous or so careless. I think Anonymous has to be someone else.
1
By pairing Gail with a GOP apologist means he will soon be moving on to spend quality time with his family. It happened to the last guy from a right-wing think tank.
1
Clearly this is an amiable digression on the worldwide disaster known as Trump..Instead of this friendly banter on a topic they basically agree on, it be more beneficial to the reader to understand why Bret wants to abolish Obama care,strip environmental regulations and support the inequitable tax cuts.Enough of Trump already.Let's get down to the basic issues dividing our country
5
"And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?"
That is outrageously insulting, and easy for you to say from the east coast where you're far removed from the deleterious effects of mining. Let's increase fracking near your house and see how much you like it when you can't drink your tap water anymore.
7
The back and forth on Jeff Sessions stands out in this piece.
Sessions will be forever condemned for providing early legitimacy to Trump in the primary campaign and now by Trump himself who humiliates him and cajoles him to act inappropriately and will fire him (not directly of course, despite Trump’s TV catchphrase).
Will other conservatives realize that it’s just not worth it?
2
Bret Stephens seems like a thoughtful enough guy until he starts taking the worn-out positions of country club Republicans: i.e, only they are entitled,(though what they call entitlements are anything but). Down with Socialism, even though they are the beneficiaries of government largesse in the form of fat defense contracts, bailouts, crop subsidies, tax breaks ,and the like. Not describing Pence as anything but a Bible thumping zealot with that faraway Rapture longing look in his eyes ,automatically discredits any other cogent positions he might take.
5
Except for his lack of humor and his conservative goals, Stephens and Collins sound much alike. Seems all intelligent people in America, with the exception of Congressional Republicans, have joined with the Democrats in decrying the man in the Oval Office.
What about these Congressional Republicans? Either I am mistaken about their level of intellect or their hypocrisy has reached some new outer limit. Are we to believe only Sasse and Flake agree with Trump's top aides?
A Democratic Congress, not impeachment, is the solution. We do not want trade tweets for a twit.
3
Well at least Bret used some good language on Sessions in this piece. But the end, the cute attempt of a joke at hoping to elect a boring President in 2020, just shows how disconnected the older generation is.
It makes sense for Baby Boomers or older Gen Xers to want to ride out their retirement with a calm, boring President. Especially since they just elected their "risky" choice a.k.a. the non-stop disgrace and daily embarrassment currently in office. But it shows how naive the older generations are.
Millennials just watched as "adults" elected a radical clown who promised to shred our institutions at the expense of kids' futures. On what Earth do you think the next President is going to be passive? Millennials look at the future, of which we have many decades, and see so much work needing to be done. We're not taking any time off. We're not retiring. We're not vacationing. We're charging ahead.
This idea that young people will all line up behind a dull nominee so grandparents can sleep soundly at night, is ludicrous. America needs so much change. Luckily, the younger generation is more energized, more ambitious, and more organized than any other in America's history.
You can't make a mistake and expect to not have to do more work later on to remedy that mistake. And electing Donald Trump was a big mistake.
1
This adult didn’t vote for the Clown. Considering that studies have shown that Millenials didn’t vote in the last election, this adult, and I suspect others, finds your comments disingenuous.
2
@Aaron K., wish the young were out there now as their grandparents were against Vietnam's carnage, against racism and sexism you can't imagine anymore. When the ill-begun atrocious Iraq bombing was going on, it was elders even then out there trying to stop it. That while we raised your folks in a time of outsourcing and contingent labor, and sometimes raised you, too. So if we talk about retiring, it might not just be that we're lazy suddenly at 70 years old. So your stereotypes need a little modifying before you even begin to know how many kinds of people, old and young, are in your world. When you are ready to step forth and solve all the problems you cite here, please, by all means, be our guests. We'll help as best we can. Might even know a few things you'd find helpful.
3
I guess I'm too polly-annish in thinking that lying under oath for a Supreme Court nominee should be disqualifying. And I really wish the press wasn't just throwing up their hands about it either.
6
Dropping in on this conversation is like visiting an alternative reality. Sure, I bristle at the reminders of Bret Stephens’ actual policy positions. Yet his sanity in the face of this president, so sorely lacking among the GOP these days, suggests that there are still principled Republicans worth listening to. And Kudos to Gail Collins for holding the line on Kavanaugh while treating your NYT colleague with the respect you both deserve. And yes, three cheers for boring!
1
@Robert: Principled Republicans??? Their only principle is greed, country is last and keeping power their main objective. As DJT would say, sad.
1
Brilliant Gail Collins misses here with her "Amen" instead of referencing Hurricane Florence now descending on our east coast and failing to mutter the two words, global warming at any point in this exchange. Bret, with only one t, managed to tout the crazy policies of conservative Republicans and dominate this "conversation." Ms. Collins, on your toes when it comes to smart men dominating conversations, even when it's civil and "friendly."
3
I initially believed that Republicans would simply get Pence, a more traditional politicians, through impeachment. I don't know if impeachment would be correct now. It is probably best to not have Trump serve as a martyr for the insane political right. I just pray that he doesn't blow up the world in the meantime.
1
Sorry, Bret, but your confidence that the Supreme Court nominee won’t vote to overturn Roe v Wade isn’t quite enough to make me comfortable with his appointment. The stakes are way too high. People’s actual lives. You have no skin in the game. You might want to rethink it from the perspective of a female.
13
The disgrace is that there were no consequences to the Republicans for their refusal to even sit down with Merrick Garland. So a president who was elected by a clear popular majority - twice! - was denied his Supreme Court pick while a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million will get his choice. The result is minority rule, and a perversion of democracy. And it's something as a voter that I won't be able to reverse. I and millions of others have been disenfranchised.
16
@DL Thank you for highlighting the "disenfranchising of millions of voters" when McConnell and the Republican party refused to give Garland an up or down vote. Lost in the whining about the myth of "working class whites" not being heard by the "elites" of the Democratic party is Trump and his radical vocal minority refusing to hear the majority voices on so many issues such as banning assault weapons, preserving national parks and maintaining clean air, water and soil.
1
Can't wait for the blue wave in November! That will be a start to stop Trump from all the damage he has done.
And I can't wait for Mueller to finish his investigation!
1
Forgive me for not having sympathy for the "huge chunk of voters feeling that their president was robbed of his office." I'm still sad for the nearly 3 million voters who felt that THEIR candidate was robbed of HER office...
5
More tax cuts Bret? Wealth addiction truly is a disease. Hoarding money is the Republican platform.
13
Gail explains of a future democratic congress: "I don’t think it’ll lead to impeachment — unless the president starts wandering around in his underwear babbling about space alien takeovers."
She does know, does she not, that much of this presidency is conducted by tweeting Trump most likely in his underwear and that he has publicly declared outer space to be the site of our next war, a reason to create (echo effect:) SPACE FORCE.
We're there, Gail. We're there.
5
Folks. in a sane world, you two wouldn't need to have this discussion at all. But Bret, your statement, "Under any other president, I’d want a Republican Congress to do precisely the things you oppose. Cut the top rate? For it. Broaden school choice? Bring it. End Obamacare? Absolutely. And can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?" is demoralizing. We have gotten just those wants delivered to us by Trump and our country is falling apart anyway.
If Republicans want to be considered an American political offering, at least let the try some partisan balance less the likes of McConnell, Ryan and the more toxic congress people.
One last point, folks, opening your column with a picture of Trump and Pence made my gorge rise.
2
Brett Stephens's "absolutely" on killing Obamacare stuns me. Is this a conservative "principle" at work - i.e. preventing the federal government from making decent healthcare unaffordable to millions of Americans? Has Bret Stephens actually talked to people whose lives have been saved by the access afforded by Obamacare? (And has he read Dr. Krugman today?) One mark of high intelligence is the capacity to re-consider absolutist positions by examining bad consequences - and even come up with sensible alternatives to a policy you dislike. You can do better, Mr. Stephens.
8
Please dry up Bret about Bork. I am extremely tired of Consevatives' whining about Bork's not being confirmed by Congress. IMHO, he did NOT deserve nominiation much less confirmation starting with his firing of Archibald Cox on Nixon's promise of getting a Supreme Court nomination in return. The smells of corruption there alone. And Congress is not a rubber stamp for nominees in any case. There have been many examples of Congress refusing to confirm Court nominees as far back as James Madison. To singularly focus on a single one shows your any biased "chip-on-shoulder" more than anything else.
And let's not forget, at least Bork got a hearing, something the conservatives in Congress refused to even to for Garland.
13
There already is a huge chunk of voters who feel that their "president" was robbed of HER office. And, it is becoming more and more clear that "robbed" is the correct term.
9
I love you Gail. Bret, why do you believe in making the U.S. and the planet hotter, more hostile and more unstable? Also why do you support inequality? Can a Democracy actually survive huge inequality? Are you really on board for a plutocracy? Are you really in favor of rule by money instead of rule by law?
13
Thanks Bret for reiterating your positions on health care, taxes and the environment. For a second there, I was thinking you were the sanest conservative voice in media-world. I still value your writing but those views are exactly what we need to fight against. Give rich people more money, wreck the environment and let the masses die or go bankrupt. Yikes!
5
The Times once again is in the cross-hairs of Big Daddy shotgun. Regardless on the First Amendment's free press guarantees, he's screaming about a libel suit for allegedly endangering national security. Did he see last year's hit movie, The Post?
He's succeeded in getting even normal TV news (every network except Fox News) in parroting every outlandish threat or outright lie as a topic worth pursuing. I swear I saw a lengthy segment on CBSN just yesterday seriously discussing lawsuits or indictments against The Times or Bob Woodward that were obviously prompted by our beloved leader's insane tweets. I concluded that the news director must have taken a course in Constitutional law at Trump University.
4
Supreme Court, the Democrats could have elected 7 of the last judges, if we had popular vote instead of electoral college. Merrick Garland helped marked the end of our republic Democracy.
2
The winds of change are stirring when the columnists agree on the corrupt man in the red tie with the staged rallies. With almost 70% of those being polled confirming his sleaziness, the system should correct itself eventually as long as we allow our citizens to vote. Still when we measure what we've lost in time and money to address real issues, this reality show has been a devastating dagger to our soul.
3
Rob Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois, is still sitting in jail for trying to sell a senate seat. Mitch McConnell continues on as leader in the Senate even after refusing to "advise and consent" in the case of Merrick Garland as is required under our constitution . Somehow, it doesn't seem fair.
3
The elephant in the room is what the right wing has done to the Federal judiciary. I think progressives are in complete denial of how bad this is going to be. We will have the most conservative since before the New Deal. For reference of what is going to happen you may want to review what America was like pre-New Deal.
5
Bret's argument that the disgraceful treatment of Merrick Garland can be traced back to Robert Bork's nomination by Reagan in 1987 and his mistreatment by Democrats. Set aside the fact that Bork was the one who ultimately enforced Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" and deserved to be "Borked." It's the thought process that I find utterly depressing.
The idea that one party's stupid or immoral or destructive deeds in the past can be used as justification for the same kind of behavior by the other party at some point in the future makes the mind reel. Once a group of knuckleheads or scoundrels does something dreadful, it seems we are condemned for all eternity to ride on a tit-for-tat merry-go-round. It's as if we are all endowed at birth with a "payback" gene that will eventually trigger, more surely than shingles, a rash of irrational "I'll show you!" retribution.
I wish the commentariat would stop citing this phenomenon, the mere mention of which suggests that it makes some semblance of sense.
280
@WDG. It's "tit for tat" politics and it only ends when the entire system collapses. Or maybe when the people come to their senses and demand better. My sense is that it will be the former rather than the latter.
It’s the political version of Navratolva’s point about Serena Williams: just because THEY (men, Republicans, choose group of folks) behave badly doesn’t mean WE should aspire (despire?) to the same bad behavior. It’s bad behavior, period.
1
@WDG I think he's arguing the opposite: that neither party should attempt to obstruct the other's nominees for political reasons, the way it worked prior to the 1980's.
"Bret: The G.O.P.’s refusal to consider Judge Garland’s nomination was a disgrace. No argument from me there."
This comment goes to the core of the problem. Most sentient and serious observers agree that the Garland case is a disgrace. But disgracefullness doesn't count in a Trumpian Republican world in which blatant lying is openly sanctioned, and in which norms, customs, rules, propriety, regular order, and even morality are routinely dispensed with.
The problem is that at a practical level the Supreme Court is now considered an almost completely political office, and confirmation hearings are little more than public demonstrations of that perception. We no longer even pretend otherwise.
The proper solution is radical, inordinately difficult, currently impossible, but utterly simple. It's to remove politics from the realm of the judiciary. That would truly be a New Black.
155
How stupid and disingenuous can people get about Kavanaugh? The Federalist Society agenda is to push as much of government as possible down to the state level. It is total abrogation of equal protection of the law for everyone.
10
@Steve Bolger
Ask yourself the same question. Do you honestly believe that Judge Kavanaugh would do the bidding of the Federalist Society any more than you would "push the agenda" of any group you happened to be a member of? That appears to be your fear. If so, it seems ridiculous to me.
Let's hope that the McConnell Rule holds: no GOP president will EVER be permitted to nominate a justice if the Senate is controlled by the Dems. Indeed, extend the rule and deny a GOP president any nomination to ANY office. Of course the reverse will also happen .... and eventually maybe somebody will think up an amendment to rectify the situation.
2
It would create great personal pain but I believe this administration could learn how to use tax policy more effectively from California. In just the last 6+ years, they reversed a huge budget deficit to a sizable budget surplus.
4
@Brad G
I generally agree that tax policy should be used to right the government deficit situation and that we need to realign our priorities. We should view government spending as investments that will reduce future government spending. Spending on healthcare, education, and infrastructure (like CA) does that. Right-sizing our military and evaluating our subsidies for certain industries would help on the spending side.
Ultimately, creating a government surplus should not be the goal: wise stewardship of tax dollars to create a higher quality of life for the American people and a more just and equitable field of play should be the aim. Being in a strong fiscal position could certainly be considered a means to that end.
1
yes except they don't want budget surpluses (and be forced to spread the bounty) they are starving the beast
1
I can't muster much enthusiasm for conservative views, but Bret Stephens is the kind of nuanced voice tottering at the edge of extinction.
15
Amazing how the tax cuts are revealing how poorly they perform. They are right here in front of Mr. Stephens to see, and yet he still doesn’t see. Further income inequality, companies not investing in their employees, a deepening deficit. He still believes in the myth of trickle down in spite of the evidence right before him. All that is happening is buy backs and raises for CEOs.
Abolish health insurance for those not covered? His lack of empathy for the have nots is showing.
51
Cut taxes on the rich, change education so everyone can choose how and whether to educate their children, kill ObamaCare and do it all in a way to make us all forget that he or she is really there.
What a mindset in which such a thing is possible!
In reality, no one is better suited to execute this agenda than Donald Trump with assistance from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. The GOP agenda has its A team at the helm.
16
@WJL
One of the pillars of our democracy is the right to a free, public education for all, no exceptions. When school prayer was considered unconstitutional, many turned to private schools. Eroding the quality and benefit of a public school education, which has set standards for achievement, to accommodate religious zealots, under Betsy De Vos, will further contribute to the already declining ability of our electorate to use analytical thinking to separate fact from fiction.
5
Mr. Stephens,
Cut the top rate? What is the special "Republican arithmetic" that proves it is economically sound to cut the top rate on taxes, the rate imposed on those few who have received increased income when most Americans have not, as the debt increases and our population ages? This after Republicans increased the debt by $13,000 per taxpayer ($26K for joint filers) with little change to the GDP or unemployment. "Paul Ryan math?"
America is spending more than it brings in. Its aging population will require more spending in the future with less workers contributing. The math is not difficult or surprising. The debt should be being paid down while the economy is doing relatively well. Your math could make sense if capital was taxed, including payroll tax, at the same rate as work rather than 50% less.
" . . . Open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?" I live in the West. If you are willing to do this on my public treasures, might I suggest we do the same in Central Park, the Washington Mall and Arlington cemetary? If your premise is to monetize public spaces, consider selling space in these areas for condos. Wouldn't bother me in Colorado, just as it doesn't seem to bother you to trash my home.
169
Forget impeachment, Dems; take back the House and begin to govern. Universal healthcare, immigration reform, environmental protection & legislation requiring public review of a presidential candidate's last 3 years of tax returns would be a great start.
117
@Kate Amerson Without a cooperative Senate and President, universal healthcare is going nowhere, but I sure would like to see those tax returns.
4
It sure seems like Trump is deteriorating more and more dailey. I think it’s time for people to realize that Trump is literally taking a wrecking ball to the environment, our relationship with allies, the Supreme Court just to name just a few things. Last I heard Trump is under six serious different investigations.
I have not seen anyone in the administration talking about the hurricane Florence which looks to be a real disaster. Nikki Haley would likely do a good job as President.
1
At least you two are talking and making sense. This is my breath of fresh air today--a progressive and a conservative civilly disagreeing about some things but agreeing on the big things, like the notion of Rule of Law and its embodiment in our democratic institutions.
Still, I am anxiously awaiting the next occasion when our President demonstrates that he is wholly unacquainted with that notion, Rule of Law, while the Republican Congress kowtows. Who exactly are they honoring with their subservience by pretending that our President is acting normally?
It makes you wonder about the real nature of human nature.
One step I have advanced thee; if thou dost
As this instructs thee, thou dost make thy way
To noble fortunes: know thou this, that men
Are as the time is: to be tender-minded
Does not become a sword: thy great employment
Will not bear question; either say thou'lt do 't,
Or thrive by other means.
Real politick by any other name.
4
@Eugene Ralph
Absolutely!
Talking with each other.
Repeating a common opinion of conservatives, Stephens says: "My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks, provided the nominee is intellectually qualified."
So our Founders fought a revolution to secure our unalienable rights and swore their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour to defend those rights. But when a justice threatens to rule in ways that deny us our rights, we are expected to meekly submit and surrender our freedoms simply because the justice is "intellectually qualified."
Who knew? When it comes to denying our rights, a man with a Yale law degree is to be feared far more than King George and his army.
79
The Dems, should they retake the House (fingers crossed!) should table impeachment for the time being, although it is so well deserved by this monstrosity of a (illegal) president. They should have a two-pronged approach to having the majority:
1. investigative committees into all of many corrupt issues associated with this administration (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/house-democrats-congress-investi...
2. pass legislation, one bill at a time, on universal health care,
eliminating the cap on Social Security, an infrastructure initiative, a clean energy initiative, a climate change initiative, voting rights, minimum wage, sensible gun control legislation (background checks and a ban on automatic weapons), sensible immigration policy, and women & LGBT rights. These are all things that poll after poll show that the majority of Americans are in favor of. If the Republican Senate or Trump prevent their enactment, then they are on the record as opposing these widely favored programs.
61
Mitch McConnell gave Trump his own Court
5 shameful chaps of the wrong sort,
The Ladies dissent
An effort well spent
And with Breyer on good report.
An ignorant POTUS now rules
Surrounded by toadies and fools
Of all Science free
Needs an egoectomy
And children as pawns are his tools.
56
@Larry Eisenberg I give you an A for that, Larry!
1
@Maureen Thank you, Maureen.
While Bret mentions a desire for more logging and drilling on federal lands without mentioning the downsides, the closing paragraph discusses a less common but still significant economic externality - the immense amount of attention many people are paying to government.
The true cost of this fretting and over-analyzing is very likely to be enormous, even if it does not yet show up on balance sheets. We elect a president and vice president together so that we can remove a president and still have an elected representative in the White House. It is past time to exercise this option.
4
Here are the main accomplishments of the GOP-Trump Frankenstein Administration and Russian-Republican Duma:
1. More Tax Cuts For Billionaires
2. More Stock Buybacks For Rich Corporations
3. Frozen Worker Wages and Record Income Inequality
4. More Polluting Coal and Methane In The AIr
5. More Global Warming
6. Two radical corporate, conservative anti-voting rights judges on a hijacked Supreme Court
7. A non-stop attempt to rip healthcare access away from tens of millions of American citizens
8. The castration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
9. America's reputation flushed down the Trump Toilet
10. The Oval Office flushed down the Trump Toilet
11. A national increase in hate crimes
12. White Supremacy Has Been Made Great Again
13. The Republican Party is officially little more than a criminal political syndicate that functions precisely the way the Russian oligarchy functions with the Kremlin.
Education, healthcare, infrastructure, voting rights, free and fair elections, campaign finance reform ????
"Drop dead, America !!"
November 6 2018
D for democracy; R for the Russian-Republican oligarchic criminal syndicate.
290
@Socrates
I say let's crown him king and send him to enjoy his throne at the Frankenstein Castle in Darmstadt, Germany.
Couldn't be more fitting. A fictional kingdom for a fictional ruler.
4
"Bret: My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks, provided the nominee is intellectually qualified."
Bret, the refusal of the Republican Senate to even consider President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland killed that idea deader than dead. McConnell's sedition ended the pretense that the Court was anything but wholly partisan, a prize to be tossed up for grabs by the party willing to run furthest from its Constitutional duty and obligations. Republicans won, that round. More than anything else since, McConnell's power grab gutted the 'regular order' and promoted the gridlock polarization that characterizes Congress. I believe the only way back is to sweep out the whole place. Vote in November.
302
@Jim Brokaw - Sedition is correct, considering the violence done to the Constitution, and the promises that if Hillary were elected GOP'er Senators intended to block her SCOTUS nominations as well:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-...
We mustn't forget how Radical these Rightists are.
3
@R. Law
Reactionary not radical.
Fun article but Bret makes some statements that fly in the face of facts. "can we please open up more federal lands for mining, drilling and logging?" when the reality was that once the appropriate and legal reviews were complete, Obama opened up lands that could be mined logged and drilled. In fact, both oil and gas production on federal lands increased every year of the Obama administration https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42432.pdf. Alas, this sort of information was overlooked including the fact that we have a glut of nat gas and are exporting oil for the first time in decades. Never let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
239
@tom yes that entire comment was ridiculous. fact and science free.
2
To both Gail and Bret, I say, do not count on that Democratic Congress to serve as a check on Trump until it is duly elected and seated. I remember when we all ‘counted’ on the election of Hillary Clinton. And look what we got instead. Crazytown. Now, I take nothing for granted. Election outcomes depend on public participation. Only registered voters 18 and older can serve as a check on this train wreck formerly known as our democracy. And only if they actually get out and VOTE.
126
And, if they are not purged from voter rolls, their voting right abrogated, their candidates not gerrymandered into defeat, etc.
So, don't blame the victim, but yes, everyone who is eligible should vote!
58
@Beatrice If Hillary had been elected we'd still be in Crazytown, but at least we would have had Republican lawmakers running around with their hair on fire instead of this weird, eerie stasis that has taken hold of the right side of the aisles of Congress since the Orange Creep took office. Then again, they're using his vise-like grip on his basest-of-bases to ram through an agenda that is utterly against their best interests, so they have no real reason to throw him under the bus ... at least not yet.
There is also that portion of the populace who say they will raise a rebellion if Trump gets drummed out of office. I say, bring it on. It would be interesting to see how Congressional Republicans react to what their failure to enact reasonable firearm controls hath wrought in the way of sheer, unbridled politico-violence.
4
@Stephanie Bradley
Can we please get rid of gerrymandering?
Polls indicate that the House and Senate will both be close to 50/50 after this November. The resulting stalemate will make the current period of inactivity look positively energetic. Unfortunately, this will provide only a legislative check on Trump, who has few legislative ambitions in any case. He will still be President Trump, with all of the attendant powers, for another 2 years. I would much prefer a President Pence, but there's no point heading down that path without substantial Republican support to remove him. Impeachment serves no purpose without a probability of conviction and removal from office.
10
"Basically, anyone smart and responsible and good at making you forget he’s even there. Or rather, she. It’s past time."
Bret concludes wondering if the next President that we'll elect will be a female, noting also that it is long overdue. Is that a silent vote for Elizabeth Warren?
8
@chickenlover
Well, any female president would certainly be a Democrat because the GOP continues to use women as token cover for their ongoing crusade to return to a more patriarchal era. To be a woman in the GOP must be to generally agree that women are unsuited to govern a household, let alone a nation. It is hard to imagine a world in which today's GOP would nominate a woman for POTUS--it's fine that women can caucus with them, but be in charge? Never.
5
"My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks, provided the nominee is intellectually qualified."
There's more to it than that.
Let's dispense with the "what-about-ism" regarding Robert Bork. As intellectually qualified as he might have been, he disqualified himself because of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.
As to Kavanaugh, there is clear evidence that he has lied to this Congressional committee and to others. Lying under oath should also disqualify a candidate.
Finally, just as the President is entitled to his choice for political reasons, it is well within bounds for the Senate, in its role to advise and consent, to make political decisions. Why shouldn't senators be able to vote against a nominee who demonstrates hostility to a legal precedent such as Roe v. Wade? It is for professional associations like the ABA to assess the candidate on legal and intellectual merits; we elect Senators to reflect our politics.
275
@Todd
One can make a good argument that it was the nomination of Bork, not his confirmation process, that started the problem. Reagan purposely chose a controversial nominee that he knew would fly in the face of the Senate's advice and consent. That he got push back was fully expected. A President that didn't want to start a political controversy would have nominated someone more palatable to the Senate. Reagan chose to start a fight. That he got one is not the Senate's fault.
6
@Todd
Hostility to Roe v Wade? Everything the judge said in his hearings pointed to an opposite reading, or are you hanging your argument on the line from his e-mail years ago about accurately reflecting the view of legal scholars as to whether or not the case was 'settled law'?
1
It makes me very happy when I read letters from readers such as this one when columnists (sometimes partisan ones) leave out pertinent information when speaking in conversations like this. Your points needed to be said or spoken in counterpoint and I was very surprised they weren't mentioned in this way; their importance should not have been overlooked.
For Bret to not consider the need for a system of checks and balances in his comments on Presidential selection of the SC nominees even when at most times the SC nominees are seen as eminently qualified, this individual and several before prove that the American people deserve levels of scrutiny that vetting by responsible parties on these bipartisan committees following reasonable rules of engagement impart. He has by his own paper trail not passed the smell test and partisan voting will shovel this heap to the next level.
This process is wholly constitutionally relevant, not a rubber stamp, important, given the high stakes, and wholly American. Thank you for bringing it up!
I enjoy these columns very much. And I realize that the awfulness of Trump has made me like Bret. Once a rational President takes over, hopefully a Democratic one, Bret will probably go back to my ‘ugh’ column - unless he has an epiphany and learns to love Obamacare and public schools.
159
@Maxie: I agree, Bret Stephens a rational person. But as the Democratic candidate for governor here in Massachusetts says, about our current Republican governor, "nice and not crazy" isn't good enough. Our standards have gotten pretty low.
5
Tim Kaine without the charisma? Ford without the malice? ( Smirk)
I disagree entirely a with Steven basic politics - but he's right that Kavanaugh doesn't have so much as a teenage acne scar to mar his image. But I have this childish obsession with fairness; that didn't get Obama his rightful - and moderate - nominee. In tough times, perhaps the right question for Dems is "what would LBJ do?" ( i.e., how do you play hardball?). But the Dems don;t have enough players to field a team. Gorsuch is the one who should have been sandbagged.
And Gail's right: too much obsession with getting rid of Trump, only to end up with a beacon of democratic ideals like Pence - save me. Save us. THAT will not put those brakes on the dismemberment of the body of law protecting individuals, the environment or our safety nets.
We need more Democrats in Congress.
Getting rid of one (ersatz) Republican - even at the top - will not change the balance of power,
74
A question I ponder:
How Republicans would conduct themselves today if the Garland situation had been reversed -a Republican president nominated a SC justice; the Democrats running the Senate chose not to take up the matter.
I doubt the Republicans would go along gracefully as they expect Democrats to do so today.
The GOP playbook seems to be: Marquess of Queensbury rules apply to thee, but not to me.
311
@John Cook
"The GOP playbook seems to be: Marquess of Queensbury rules apply to thee, but not to me."
Exactly.
The low energy oldster, low turnout Democrats would rather hand-wring than do what's necessary to win, which is why stronger hearted Democrats have been electing Progressives.
5
@John Cook John, the problem here is that the Democratic leadership would never do anything like that, it would not occur to them to try. The sad fact is the there is our predicament. How is it possible that there is such a weak and paltry objection to getting run over again and again. There are no 'rules' for this fight. This has been going on for so long one might think it has already been agreed to as a traditional act of theater. No one could be this hapless on purpose.
8
@John Cook Another question to ponder: what is the proper course for Democrats if they take the Senate and Trump gets another SC nomination? Should they go full McConnell? But that would double down on a truly egregious abuse of power by the Senate. And yet - how could they let Trump get another nominee after the theft of the Garland seat?
My own view is that they should use their position to codify the rules for advise and consent. Create rules that the Senate MUST consider any nominee of a president who is not officially lame duck (that is, after a November presidential election). Then tell Trump they expect him to nominate a moderate - as Garland was - and vote down anyone who isn't one. Nominees will still get their day to present themselves and seek votes, but confirmation would not be guaranteed.
5
Impeach Kavanaugh:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should...
just like GOP'ers would demand if he had been appointed to the bench by a Dem and Obama or Clinton were now wanting to elevate him to take Kennedy's swing seat.
65
@R. Law - P.S. Brett alarmingly seems to suffer from creeping Pres. 45*-itis, using 'disgraceful' twice in this piece.
On the subject of impeaching His Unhinged Unraveling Unfitness, he will have to resign to keep from being impeached - all that is coming was predictable from the day GOP'er gatekeepers let djt anywhere near a ballot without producing his tax returns; the outlines of who/what he is were apparent back then, with the outlines merely being filled in since.
Whatever actions the U.S. has to take to enforce its laws against POTUS have thus been brought upon us by the Fail of GOP'er gatekeepers who are fine with blatant lawless behavior because: judges, tax cuts, savaging the bureaucracy - radicals often have grey or white hair and run about in pricey suits.
The only remaining questions are whom else will the Orange Jabberwock pardon, and what will he demand Pence (the twit, per Gail) do in exchange for resignation ?
44
@R. Law -- only one thing: we need more than an "impeachment". We need the clear evidence, so strong that it will uneqiuvocally result in a conviction in the Senate. Whether any evidence exists that could be so clear as to cause Republican Senators to put country and Constitution over Trump, and vote for a conviction is an open question... but Trump won't resign solely because he is "impeached". Trump will ride it out like Clinton, unless he does something even more demagogic.
@Jim - Which is why we used the term 'enforce its laws'; looks like Mueller will present convincing evidence of criminal behavior (after all, were djt currently living at any other address in America, our POTUS would be under current federal indictment for co-conspiring to defraud the United States), and 21 GOP'er Senators are up for 2020 re-election vs. just 11 Dems - pretty much the reverse of 2018 elections.
With these changing dynamics, GOP'ers will be more eager to get rid of Pres. Very Stable Genius 45*, with his useful idiot value having declined/be dragging down the party nationwide.
Plus, for all any of us know, Mueller already has a 'sealed indictment' ready and waiting for Pres. Cheeto's exit from office; what Donald will extort from GOP'ers to leave, and what further damage (long and short-term) he will cause in the meantime are the only questions.
The GOP'er gate-keepers/donors who allowed this foreseeable situation to arise - exchanging potential harm to the country for: judges, tax cuts, gutting regulations - are totally at fault; especially GOP'er electors who Failed at their duty, with all involved choosing party over country every step of the way.
6
I agree with everything that Bret had to say about the Supreme Court nomination process--the demonization of Bork was wrong and has triggered the hyper partisanship we have with Supreme Court nominations; qualified nominees should generally be approved; the treatment of Garland, one of the best Court nominees in 30 years, was a disgrace; and Kavanaugh on the Court will not be the end of civilization as we know it. My own opinion is that he is not much more conservative than Kennedy, who aside from a few issues was a staunch conservative on the Court; and that he is not the ideological warrior that Gorsuch is. Kavanaugh reminds me a bit of Roberts. But only time will tell. He will be approved easily.
9
@Richard Bork wasn't demonized. Just the reverse. Arlen Specter among other Republican Senators said no because Bork couldn't find justification in the Constitution to serve blacks in restaurants. He was out of the mainstream and clueless about what the Constitution is really about.
21
@Richard Please stop with the revisionist history on Robert Bork! His role in the "Saturday Night Massacre," for which Bork later admitted Nixon promised him a SCOTUS seat for, the man was against civil rights, did not believe that women should be able to file sex discrimination lawsuits and, my favorite, vehemently opposed the 1965 Griswold decision that struck down a Connecticut law which made contraceptive use by married couples illegal. He was against condom use! In 1987! In the midst of the AIDS crisis. He was also in favor of things like a poll tax. The man was dangerously outisde the mainstream of American thinking and values. That Republicans have made him a modern-day martyr is ridiculous.
27
Kavanaugh is one of the most extreme rightwing justices at the appellate level in the country!
There have been a bunch of nonpartisan legal analyses that show that. He is a threat to the rule of law and a living Constitution!
10
Tim Kaine would be an excellent choice. I was happy to see that Bret likes him, too. And I don't often agree with Bret Stephens.
36
@Duane McPherson
He was kidding.
"My general principle is that presidents are entitled to their Supreme Court picks, provided the nominee is intellectually qualified."
I would agree Bret with one exception, also provided the President is intellectually qualified. And therein lies the problem with Kavanaugh.
Oh, as an aside. There was a tv program in the 50's, "Man Against Crime", the lead character was Mike Barnett. He would always introduce himself, I'm Mike Barnett, with the "two T's". Just thought I'd throw that in Bret, with the "one T".
29
Did someone say Tim Kaine, a nice guy by all accounts had charisma?
3
@JPE I assumed they were joking.
3
Trump won’t be impeached. Maybe the House is flipped in November, maybe not; but the Senate will remain solidly Republican, quite possibly with more Republican votes. If Dems take the House, it means continuing resolutions for at least two years … again. However, the basis for those continuing resolutions THIS time will be the REPUBLICAN budget of a dead Congress, not what we had to live with for years under Obama after 2010. And not much will change, except that further deregulation will need to happen by presidential action and not by Congress, and we won’t get comprehensive immigration reform.
But a Democratic president in 2021? That will depend largely on the state of the economy, which currently is great, as reported even by the Times, with even wages increasing; and the success or failure of some of his foreign policy initiatives, including trade, European participation in financing a shared defense, North Korea and Iran – heck, even the Israeli-Palestinian mess. And that president could be a re-elected Trump.
In that event, of course, the up-side would be that Charles Blow would have a job for ANOTHER four years.
5
Perhaps you should read the latest poll numbers on Trunp. His CNN approval rating is down to 36% . His average poll number is 38%. This average is from 8 polls. His approval rating with independents is now 31%. "The trend here is not good." - Saxby Chambliss (former GOP senator).
2
@Richard Luettgen
"Trump won’t be impeached. "
You continue your blithe assumption that because Mueller has not revealed any credible charges against Trump that none exist. No one knows what evidence Mueller has unless and until he reveals it. If for instance Trump is charged with money laundering, that's a felony and if that isn't high crimes and misdemeanors I don't know what is.
If there's a blue wave and Adam Schiff takes over chairmanship of the Oversight Committee subpoenas will follow and the craven Nunes (if he's even still in office) will be powerless to stop him. If credible charges of money laundering are brought against Trump, Republican sycophants (maybe even you) will be hard put to defend him. Financial felonies can lead to prison time, just ask Madoff, Millken, Skilling,Fastow etc.
@Richard Luettgen
Don't be silly. Your assessment of the NK, Iran and Palestinian issues is wrong and conditions are worsening. Kim still has nukes, Iran is still behaving badly and the Palestinian-Israeli situation will only add to the already bad condition that exists. Trump will never be re-elected and may be in jail by the time the next election comes around.
1
To impeach or not to impeach should be decided only when the Mueller investigation is completed. Should there be evidence of money laundering with the Russians, or worse, impeachment becomes a necessity.
329
@alexandra
Any results from the Mueller investigation will not enough to drive impeachment. Moving forward with impeachment, let alone conviction, will require public, sworn testimony in front of a (or several) congressional hearings.
The Mueller investigation will not put all of the facts in front of the nation. There are too many counter moves available to those who will obstruct the findings to count on a complete and public discussion.
Public hearings will put the facts in front of the nation, allow the introduction of diversionary testimony, as Corrupt Donnie's minions are trying to do now. But those diversions will be seen for what they are, spin.
A 1,000 page report from Mueller will not be widely read. Hours of televised hearings will penetrate even Sinclair and Fox attempts to ignore. That will sway the public discourse and force even Senate Republicans to act.
5
@alexandra Completely agree. I believe impeachment must be reserved for a major crime.
@alexandra
It is probable that money laundering has been Trump's modus operandi for years but as Stephens points out, Trump's violation of campaign finance law is front and center. There is no need to wait and see whatever multitude of crimes Mueller uncovers, we have the sworn testimony of Trump's own attorney that he committed that high crime.
2