Kathryn and Ed are right on the money. The idea that yet another Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Brett Kavanaugh is necessary, or even remotely appropriate, is a farce. Chuck Schumer, when he was not busy parroting the PFAW “partisan warrior” talking point, said this morning that another hearing is “the least that can be done for the nominee to the second highest court in the land and a controversial nominee.” Wrong. What needs to be done for any nominee who has already had hearings and has been pending for years, is to VOTE “aye” or “nay” on his nomination. This is true in spades if the nominee is really a “controversial” one. Why? Because senators need to be on the record, doing their job, being accountable to their constitutents for how they represent them on “controversial” votes. (The only thing “controversial” about Kavanaugh is that he works for President Bush, whom the liberals despise, and previously worked as independent prosecutor investigating the misdeeds of the Clintons.) There is ZERO chance that Chuck Schumer will be voting for Brett Kavanaugh, and there is no further testimony Brett can offer that would be edifying to any rational senator trying to decide how to vote on his nomination. So Schumer’s disingenous line that “a lot of things have happened since the last hearing, in the administration of which he is a part” is of ZERO relevance to anything concerning this nomination. It has nothing to do with his job as a member of the Committee or the Senate. It has to do with his desire to satisfy the liberal Left approaching the next election cycle. If this is the behavior of Senate Democrats, we need more than ever to vote to clarify in Senate rules what the Constitution contemplates and two centuries of Senate practice have always upheld, until now: a President’s nominees to the federal courts shall not be filibustered.
The current progressive effort to demonize attorney general William Barr is creepy, but then again not so strange. He came into the office with singular experience and an excellent reputation from past service. As attorney general, he has followed the law to the letter in handling the release, redactions, and ... Read More
The Mueller report is of course about Russian interference in the 2016 election and about the White House's interference in the resulting investigation. But I couldn’t help also reading the report as a window into the manner of administration that characterizes the Trump era, and therefore as another warning ... Read More
The U.S. Attorney General is ending asylum seekers’ opportunity to ask for bond in front of an immigration judge. Read More
The release of the Mueller report this week was a revelatory moment for me. I realized that, some time ago apparently, I crossed a political Mendoza line, where I am now more disgusted by Donald Trump’s opponents than I am by Trump himself. This is no insignificant development for me. Regular readers of mine ... Read More
Washington -- The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday will be more decorous than the gusts of judicial testiness that blew the case up to the nation’s highest tribunal. The case, which raises arcane questions of administrative law but could have widely radiating political and policy ... Read More
Democrats and their media partners owe Bill Barr an apology. He won’t get one, it goes without saying. Just to recap, the attorney general was accused of misrepresenting Mueller’s report; of providing a false summary of the report; of plotting to use grand-jury law and other secrecy provisions as a pretext ... Read More
Actors love to think they can play anything, but the job of any half-decent filmmaker is to tell them when they’re not right for a part. If the Rock wants to play Kurt Cobain, try to talk him out of it. Adam Sandler as King Lear is not a great match. And then there’s Joaquin Phoenix. He’s playing Jesus ... Read More