June 19, 2020--Swing Time With the Supremes

Considering recent SCOTUS decisions--for L.G.B.T.Q. job protection and saving DACA--I resubmit something I wrote and posted back in October, 2018. About how the Supreme Court might operate with Chief Justice Roberts more and more becoming the court's swing vote--


Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, in a postmortem after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that with the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court is now left without a swing vote. Expect, he says, very conservative decisions, among others, about abortion (severely restrict or end them), affirmative action (sack it), redistricting (what states are doing is OK), and voting rights (not to worry too much about them).

While I'm not so sure Kennedy did all that much swinging, it is true that on subjects such as gay rights he usually voted with the liberal minority. Mainly, though, he joined conservatives on the court in a series of 5-4 decisions about presidential power, corporate reach, and the funding of political campaigns.

There may be, though, another way to think about this. Even with Kavanaugh seated, instead of a predictable suite of conservative 5-4 decisions, we may find a surprising number, still 5-4s, tipped in a surprisingly liberal direction. 

We could see more moderate and even occasional progressive judgements then anticipated with someone other than Kennedy or, God help us, Kavanaugh agreeing with the four-member liberal wing of the court.

I see the strong possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts may turn out to be an occasional swing vote, especially when issues are of such magnitude that he does not want his court to be perceived as acting too regressively or with too much partisanship.

Case in point, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) where Roberts struggled to find a way, a rationale that would work for him and allow him to vote to uphold it. Which he did. (Swingman Kennedy voted with the other three conservative judges and argued vigorously to get Roberts to join them.)

Stretching the language of the actual Obamacare legislation, he saw the individual mandate of the ACA to be funded by a tax and not by either subsides or penalties. And, thus, constitutional. A stretch but revealing--he was so eager to find the ACA upholdable that he became inventive when it came to finding a way to sustain it.

Why might that be? Judicial rationalization trumping ideology and even belief?

Because it's his court. Robert's court. Forever in history, whatever the court does or does not do, finds constitutional or lacking in precedent will be attributable to the Robert's Court.

It wasn't the Scalia Court, nor was it the Thomas Court, or for that matter the Ginsberg Court. It's the Robert's Court as it was the Warren Court, the Burger Court, and Rehnquist Court.

History-minded, as all chief justices are, Roberts may not want his court to be known ever after as heartless and insensitive to the lives of Americans and our institutions. For him to be perceived that way.

I may be indulging in wishful thinking. But, then again, let's wait and see. Stranger things have happened with the Supreme Court.

August 12, 2019--Jack: Women

Jack was waiting for us at the Bristol Diner. It was not as if we had an appointment to meet. In fact, I had been avoiding his texts and phone messages. I was trying to spend less time and energy thinking about, talking about Trump. There would be plenty of time for that, I thought, after Labor Day. It would still be more than a year until the election. Plenty of time for political talk. Yes, I had relapsed into Trump Fatigue. 

We were tempted to ignore Jack's patting on the banquette, signally he was holding two places for us. I whispered to Rona, "Maybe let's go to Crissy's. I'm not in the mood for Jack."

"I know what you're thinking," he said with a smile, "I promise not to keep you more than half an hour. Come, sit with me for a while."

And so reluctantly we shuffled over to him and slid into the booth.

"I'll just have coffee," I said to Sarah, "We can't stay very long today." Rona said the same.

Without so much as a hello Jack launched into his latest rant.

"I know you and your people care only about who can beat Trump. You're putting aside your concerns about where candidates stand on health care or immigration. You're whole focus is denying him a second term."

"That pretty much sums it up," I said, "Almost everyone I know is thinking about the election that way. There will be time for debates about policy after a Democrat is elected. I agree with Tom Friedman about that. He warns, if we want a revolution and Trump wins we will have a revolution not of our liking when, for example, he gets to appoint two more Supreme Court justices like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch."

"Though one thing," Jack said, "does show up on the screen with a lot of you guys."

"This I'm interested in hearing,"I said.

"With six women seeking the nomination, many of you this time around not only want to nominate a woman, but unlike with Hillary who turned out to be a terrible candidate, you want to elect one. Most realistic, considering the poll numbers, only two have a real chance of being nominated, with winning another story. Forget Gillibrand and Klobuchar. The only two who have a chance are Warren and Kamala Harris. At the moment they're the only ones close to Biden in the polls."

"That could be true," Rona said, "But I continue to wonder if America is open to having a woman as president. They tell pollsters that they are but I'm skeptical. Among other things by what he says and how he behaves Trump sanctions not only racism and white supremacy but also sexism. And in so doing exposes how extensive it still is."

Rona continued, "Even Trump's female supporters--and there are more of them than any liberal would like to acknowledge--can in their own way be quite sexist. Why else did so many of them vote for him rather than for the first woman to be the nominee of a major party? And don't tell me it was because Hillary was such an ineffective candidate or won the popular vote. The country's just not ready for a female president. Though with Biden unravelling because of gaffs, there could be a woman next in line."

I was surprised that both Rona and I were so easily drawn into political talk. Our fatigue was clearly not that deep seated.

"Let me give you an example," Jack said, "of why I too don't think you can elect a woman.

"I'm listening."

"So there was this terrible shooting in El Paso. And what happened? Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and that mayor from South Bend whose name I can never remember all gave major speeches about it. Booker even gave his from the pulpit of the church in South Carolina where there had been another massacre four years ago. Where a white guy targeted black people and where Obama spoke and sang 'Amazing Grace.'"

Jack paused and peered at us. "I see you're not getting it."

"Getting what?" I asked.

"What's missing from this picture?"

"Enlighten me."

"Women."

"Women?"

"Yes, Democrat women candidates."

"They spoke out," Rona said, "Among other things they accused Trump of being a racist and, even more seriously, a white supremacist. Which he is. I think you're splitting hairs. I felt they were very forceful. Very effective."

"But none of the women gave a speech. A big picture, presidential-style speech, one in which they put all the pieces together. About the history of racism in this country, about how various ethnic groups have been treated. They missed the opportunity that most of the leading male candidates--Sanders excepted--seized. To show how they would act if president and incidents of this kind occurred. As they surely will. These men not only made speeches of this kind but they also showed how they would behave as mourner-in-chief."

"I hate to agree with you," Rona said, "But, thinking about it now, I must admit the women may have missed an opportunity. My guess is that they didn't want to be stereotyped as emotional women by making a speech of this kind. That they didn't want to be perceived as being soft in a situation that calls for toughness."

"It calls for both," Jack said. "For sure it's a tricky line to straddle when a woman wants to show she can be both compassionate and tough-minded. Look at how Hillary got all tangled up in whether or not to vote for the war with Iraq. She eventually voted for it in large part to show she had cajones."

"Along with most other Democratic senators," I said, "Half of whom were thinking about running for president, she botched this and paid the price."

"So this wasn't so bad after all," Jack said.

"What wasn't?" I asked.

"Spending a little quality time with me." He laughed. "When was the last time we agreed about anything?"

Rona said, "I'm not sure we're agreeing now."

"Let's order some food," I said. "Sarah."

May 17, 2019--The Surprising Supremes

The struggle between the Trump White House and the Democrats in the House of Representatives is heating up. 

Congress is attempting to do its constitutionally mandated oversight work. They want access, for example, to the full Mueller report; they are also subpoenaing Trump's tax records; and they want to gather direct testimony from Mueller and, along the way, to have Donald Jr. testify about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump is stonewalling everything, claiming executive privilege.

None of this will be resolved as it usually is by negotiations. There is too much bad blood for that and Trump knows how devastating it would be for him if the truth were exposed. 

It will then for certain take months or years for these disputes to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Alabama just passed legislation to eliminate abortions under virtually all circumstances. Including if a women becomes pregnant as the result of rape or insist. This piece of legislation was not designed to be implemented but rather was carefully crafted to reach the Supreme Court and give the now conservative court the opportunity to consider overturning Roe v. Wade and thereby making abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Conservatives feel that with a majority of the nine members of the current court named by Republican presidents (Thomas by George H.W. Bush; Roberts and Alito by George W. Bush; and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by Trump) Roe v. Wade is threatened as are affirmative action and all forms of support for voting rights. 

But maybe for conservatives it is too soon to celebrate.  

It is by no means certain that Roe and other examples of progressive Supreme Court decisions are doomed. They are seriously threatened, but it is not yet clear they will be overturned. 

Recall that Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices to uphold Obamacare. I speculated at the time and subsequently that Roberts, perhaps feeling everything that is decided on his watch will be attributed to the "Roberts'" Court, perhaps concerned about how he would be regarded by historians, he abandoned his up-to-then predictable conservative voting record and joined the four liberals to sustain a program that provides medical coverage for 20 million Americans. He did not want to see the Affordable Care Act shredded while he was serving as Chief Justice. He therefore contorted himself and found a way to support it.

But here's the real surprise--the voting pattern of the most recent member of the court: Brett Kavanaugh.

Recall, he is the justice who was accused of sexual harassment and confessed during his conformation hearing that he had a drinking problem. He testified rapturously about how he "loves beer." So much so that he repeated it half a dozen times. 

Did anyone after this and looking at his judicial record think he would even one time vote with the liberal block?

Well, he has been. In fact, he has voted with the liberals more often than any other justice.

In recent months, for example, he voted with Ginsberg and Sotomayor on the death penalty and criminal defendants' rights. In both instances not agreeing with Trump's other appointee, Neil Gorsuch and the other conservatives.

It is premature to speculate how he might vote when it comes to disputes about Trump's claims about executive power. 

There have been more than a few surprises when it comes to justices voting contrary to what one would have expected. There were numerous times when Franklin Roosevelt appointees voted against New Deal legislation and Byron (Whizzer) White, named by Kennedy, turned out to be more a conservative than a liberal. And then there was David Souter, protected by lifetime tenure, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush but turned out, once on the court, to be dependably liberal.

So, keep an eye on Kavanaugh. Along with Roberts he may turn out to be unpredictable. He too may have an eye on history.

December 26, 2018--Swing Vote

Occasionally, one of my predictions comes true. For example, my suggesting in early October that with swing man Anthony Kennedy no longer on the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would assume that role.

I noted that Supreme Courts are referred to by historians after whomever is the Chief. Thus there is the Warren Court and the Rehnquist Court and the Berger Court or, for that matter, the John Marshall Court.

Knowing this, I wondered, with Trump appointing far-right judges, how the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, was feeling about his name being associated with a court that has descended into full-bore partisanship. 

It appears that he is now thinking that unless he becomes the swing vote, replacing Kennedy, the Roberts Court will forever after be dominated by ideological lightweights such as Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And though he does not appoint his colleagues, he will still be perceived as responsible for their actions.

Does Roberts want to go down in history rafted up with this crew?

Apparently not, which is good news to progressives and America as the Supreme Court is likely over the next year to be called on to decide if a sitting president (Trump) can be indicted or if the Mueller Report, when it is completed, can be withheld from public view by Trump's small-minded Justice Department.

The latest evidence that Roberts has become the court's swing man was his vote last week to join the four liberal-leaning justices in rejecting an appeal from the Trump administration that would, if approved, have overturned many decades of asylum policy. To severely restrict the rules by which fleeing refuges can seek the protection of the United States. 

Earlier, he again joined the liberals in overruling a lower court decision that would have restricted federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Thomas and his comrades cried foul. But there was Roberts guided by the Constitution, not partisan reflex.

In even bigger picture terms Roberts' behavior and leadership is of great consequence because, if it persists, it will mean that at least one of the three branches of our otherwise dysfunctional government might again begin to function as envisaged by the Founders and thus will be guided by the Constitution they bequeathed to us.

Then there is the open spat that has been festering since 2015 between Trump and Roberts. All initiated by Trump's intemperate criticism of what he claimed to be the ideological bias of federal judges.

During the election campaign Trump frequently spoke out against what he asserted were liberal federal judges who acted as political partisans. Those in the 9th circuit, for example.

Two days before Thanksgiving Trump attacked an "Obama judge" for ruling against him on immigration. In an unusual public rebuke Rogers shot back, claiming that there are no "Obama judges, Bush Judges, or Clinton judges." Just independent ones.

Actually, there are highly partisan federal judges who are guided more by their beliefs than by precedent or the Constitution. Conservatives as well as liberals. Supreme Court justice Anton Scalia is a powerful example of the former. 

But Roberts is articulating his aspirations for the judiciary and is modeling independent-minded behavior that he hopes will become the standard. He should be commended for that.

October 9, 2018--Swing Time At the Supreme Court

Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, in a postmortem after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that with the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court is now left without a swing vote. Expect, he says, very conservative decisions, among others, about abortion (severely restrict or end them), affirmative action (sack it), redistricting (what states are doing is OK), and voting rights (not to worry too much about them).

While I'm not so sure Kennedy did all that much swinging, it is true that on subjects such as gay rights he usually voted with the liberal minority. Mainly, though, he joined conservatives on the court in a series of 5-4 decisions about presidential power, corporate reach, and the funding of political campaigns.

There may be, though, another way to think about this. Even with Kavanaugh seated, instead of a predictable suite of conservative 5-4 decisions, we may find a surprising number, sill 5-4s, tipped in a surprisingly liberal direction. 

We could see more moderate and even occasional progressive judgements then anticipated with someone other than Kennedy or, God help us, Kavanaugh agreeing with the four-member liberal wing of the court.

I see the strong possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts may turn out to be an occasional swing vote, especially when issues are of such magnitude that he does not want his court to be perceived as acting too regressively or with too much partisanship.

Case in point, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) where Roberts struggled to find a way, a rationale that would work for him and allow him to vote to uphold it. Which he did. (Swingman Kennedy voted with the other three conservative judges and argued vigorously to get Roberts to join them.)

Stretching the language of the actual Obamacare legislation, he saw the individual mandate of the ACA to be funded by a tax and not by either subsides or penalties. And, thus, constitutional. A stretch but revealing--he was so eager to find the ACA upholdable that he became inventive when it came to finding a way to sustain it.

Why might that be? Judicial rationalization trumping ideology and even belief?

Because it's his court. Robert's court. Forever in history, whatever the court does or does not do, finds constitutional or lacking in precedent will be attributable to the Robert's Court.

It wasn't the Scalia Court, nor was it the Thomas Court, or for that matter the Ginsberg Court. It's the Robert's Court as it was the Warren Court, the Burger Court, or the Rehnquist Court.

History-minded, as all chief justices are, Roberts may not want his court to be known ever after as heartless and insensitive to the lives of Americans and our institutions. For him to be perceived that way.

I may be indulging in wishful thinking. But, then again, let's wait and see. Stranger things have happened with the Supreme Court.

October 8, 2018--Susan Collins: My Summer Senator

For half the year in Maine, Susan Collins is one of my senators.

A self-described "moderate Republican" I have yet to see much moderation in her voting record. 

On occasion she sounds moderate like when two years ago she struggled publicly about how to vote on a bill to repeal Obamacare (she eventually voted to eliminate it) and then last week when she seemed to agonize about how to vote when the roll was called to confirm Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Again, she voted the Republican Party line. In fact, she cast the decisive 50th vote. No one up here was surprised by her seeming to have an open mind but when it came to voting acted as one of the most loyal, most robotic of Republicans.

She is so craven that on Friday she took the lead role in dooming the opposition to Kavanaugh.

With a new outfit and dye-job (he hair no longer looking like roadkill), with three female Republican senators like props seated behind her (Deb Fischer [NE], Shelly Capito [WV], and Cindy-Hyde Smith [MS]), with Lisa Murkowski conspicuously absent (she was too busy writing her own profile in courage), Collins spoke for 45 minutes with seeming feeling about the testimony offered by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She could feel her pain, she claimed without feeling, but since she said there was no corroboration she was going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Not a word did she offer about the deranged conspiracy-laced statement and testimony Kavanaugh offered last Thursday. Not a word about his judicial temperament, mental stability, or his many contemporary under-oath lies. All that mattered for Collins was a lack of clear evidence about something he may or may not have done 36 years ago.

What a disgraceful show she participated in. Perhaps most disgraceful was her willingness, as a woman, with three female coconspirators backing her up, to ignore the testimony of an impressive, deeply wounded woman.

At least no one wore pink.

I am always loath to make comparisons between events in the United States and Nazi Germany, but I cannot shake the feeling that Collins and her colleague female senators acted like concentration camp kapos. Like prisoners who were assigned by the SS guards to supervise forced labor of fellow prisoners or carry out administrative tasks. For this they were given special privileges. Like blankets and food. 

Collins, who has been in the Senate for 21 too-long years comes cheap. For her staged peregrinations and eventual "capitulation" she chairs just one subcommittee--on aging. How appropriate. 

But for the bit of her soul she sold Saturday, perhaps the majority leader, the already soulless Mitch McConnell (who considers the Kavanaugh confirmation his "proudest moment"), will name her to a real committee, the foreign relations committee, for example which would allow her to junket around the world at our expense.

Mark it on your calendar--she's up for reelection in 2020.

October 5, 2018--Uncurb Your Enthusiasm

The very astute Jim Messina, Barack Obama's campaign manager for the 2012 election, says that when it comes to midterm elections what really counts is how enthusiastic voters are about voting. For midterms it's all about turnout, turnout, turnout.

In regard to the looming election, by this measure, up until October 1st, things were looking very good for Democrats. Not ideal in the senatorial races because there are up to ten Democrats seeking reelection in very red states, but for the House a Blue Wave was gathering. 

Though some pollsters and pundits felt the Dems had a decent chance of taking control of the Senate, the House was almost certain to flip. Democrats, they felt could gain perhaps 40 to 50 seats and impeachment hearing would commence January 2nd.

But, according to the very latest NPR/PBS poll it is looking as if the Republicans are more than likely to retain control of the Senate and, if current trends continue, maybe even the House.

This is because the enthusiasm numbers, the gap between the GOP and the Democrats, is narrowing fast. In fact, the Republicans have collapsed the enthusiasm gap to virtually zero.

In July "only" 68% of potential Republican voters saw the election to be "very important" while 80% of Democrats were eager to vote. A more than double-digit gap.

As of the October 1st poll, however, 80% of Republicans see the election to be very important and are feeling motivated to vote while for Democrats the number crept up to 82%. The gap is now well within the margin of error. A statistical tie.

What happened?

Simple--the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh.

The most dispassionate analysts see Republican voters to be motivated by either the excitement of his gaining a seat on the Supreme Court or, if he doesn't, it will be because the Democrats and the "mainstream" media have conspired to vilify and undermine him.

So, they are either excited or enraged. Either emotion more than enough to get Republicans eager to vote.

Thus, progressives beware. This to me is sounding spookily too much like 2016 when Trump came out of a version of political nowhere and won. We need to get even more enthusiastic about voting and work hard to assure a big turnout.

Otherwise . . .

October 4, 2018--A Subdued Trump

Until a day or two ago Trump had been on a roll and, incredibly, at times almost sounded like a normal person.

He spoke moderately about deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. After the ("failing") New York Times wrote about how Rosenstein contemplated wearing a wire to record Trump's irrational behavior, when all were expecting him to fire Rosenstein and perhaps even Robert Mueller, Trump said he really wants to "keep" Rosenstein, that he'll meet with him in a week or so, and "we'll see what happens." As if Trump had nothing to do with the what happens.

When Senator Jeff Flake got the Senate judiciary committee to delay a week before voting on Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court, to allow the FBI time to reopen its background check, rather than returning to ranting about and mocking the Arizona senator ("Jeff Flakey"), he offered temperate comments about this being a good idea. "No rush," he again said, "We'll see what happens." He even offered to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration if he is found to have lied during his testimony before the committee.

Then he bullied Mexico and Canada to agree to significant changes in NAFTA. Changes even Democrats such as Chuck Schumer praised. A new-seeming Trump barely took a victory lap.

I thought someone in the White House must have slipped some Thorazine into his Big Macs.

Most amazing, after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's wrenching statement to the judiciary committee, rather than attacking her credibility, Trump spoke softly about how it is important to listen to what she has to say and, again, if it proved to be true, he indicated he would withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination. 

But then, on Tuesday, unable to contain himself, Trump lashed out, mocking Dr. Ford.

At a rally in Southaven, Mississippi, imitating her voice, he spun out this viscous two-character Q&A--

"How did you get home? 'I don't remember.' How did you get there? 'I don't remember.' Where is the place? 'I don't remember.' How many years ago was it? 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'"

That, I thought, is the Trump I know. Playing to his misogynist base.

Where had he been? What had he been up to?

I suspect, probing to find his best political way to respond to all the battering before launching new lines of attack.

And then he found his strategy--

He set his nasty little dialogue in a new context.

At the Mississippi rally he told parents in the audience, in the era of #MeToo, boys are in more danger than girls. Daughters might be threatened by sexually assault but their sons might find themselves falsely accused of committing sexual abuse and thus have their lives ruined. 

He said, "It's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of. This is a very difficult time."

This is red meat for his base. Especially for middle-age white men who have felt their prerogatives, their privileges threatened, initially by how they experienced the women's movement which, among other things, called for equal pay, sexual parity, control of their bodies, political and executive equivalence, and now by the MeToo movement.

Women with access to a microphone or blog or a corporate human resources office have the power, these disaffiliated men feel, not only to boss them around, but with a simple accusation potentially ruin their lives.

It doesn't help the progressive cause when cable news outlets such as CNN have guests drawing comparisons between Bill Cosby (a convicted sexual predator) and Brett Kavanaugh. No matter how despicable and slimy he feels, Kavanaugh has not been convicted of anything, much less being, like Cosby, a "serial rapist."

We may already be seeing the beginnings of the political consequences from the new Trump campaign to play on this anger, these fears. 

In a number of key Senate battleground red states where Democrats are seeking to retain seats, poll numbers are beginning to swing in their opponents' direction. In North Dakota, for example, Senator Heidi Heitkamp who was running neck-and-neck with Kevin Cramer is now trailing by about 10 points.

We need to get to work. There are just four weeks until Election Day. We know Trump will be campaigning full time. Assuming he doesn't get any more love letters from Kim Jong-un.

October 1, 2018--Brett Kavanaugh: Wasted

If allowed by Republicans to do their work what the FBI will discover about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in their now resumed background check will turn out to be quite simple--back when he was accused of sexually assaulting Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and other young women he was a habitual drunk.

That would explain almost everything, including that he might in fact not remember the hideous incident. He may have been that blotto.

If they interview just a few people who knew him at the time would it surprise anyone who listened to Kavanaugh stumble through his testimony Thursday that he had a serious drinking problem? It even looked, as he rambled incoherently, that he still is a drunk.

The FBI should begin by interviewing his Yale College roommate, James Roche, who has written: 

"It is from this experience [as his roommate] that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk . . . I remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

This is particularly condemning since anyone who has had a roommate knows that roommates know everything about each other.

And of course there is Mark Judge, one of Kavanaugh's prep-school drinking buddies, who was a self-admitted black-out drunk and wrote revealing books about that, including one, Wasted, that included a semi-fictional character who was habitually inebriated, "Bart O'Kavanaugh." Sound familiar?

Next the FBI should look closely at the entry Georgetown Prep senior Kavanaugh wrote about himself for the school yearbook. According to the New York Times--

"There is lots about football, reports of plenty of drinking, and parties at the beach." Among the reminiscences about sports and booze is a mysterious entry: “Renate Alumnius.”

The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.

Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say that mentioning Renate was his coded way of boasting about his and other classmates' sexual conquests.

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”

And then there was last week's bizarre free-associative ramble of an answer to Senator Amy Klobuchar's questions about his apparent love for beer.

In his answer he mentioned "beer" and "brewskis" 29 times and at the end, seemingly drunk in the witness chair, bizarrely pressed Senator Klobuchar to talk about her own drinking habits--

"I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone . . . We drank beer."  

Asked if he had ever suffered memory loss during a time that he had been drinking, Kavanaugh said no, and returned to his beer soliloquy-- 

"We drank beer, and you know, so . . . so did, I think, the vast majority of . . . of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and . . . and still do. So whatever, you know."

Within the window of the week the FBI has to do its investigation they should be able to come up with a pretty complete picture of Kavanaugh's drinking history. Many things he lied about in his sworn Senate confirmation hearing.

If he was such a serious drinker and drunk during those years, to disqualify him it will not even be necessary for the FBI to get to the bottom of what actually happened the evening Dr. Blasey was nearly raped.

If this truth about his alcoholism is exposed Kavanaugh will either be compelled to withdraw or be pulled by Trump. We can't have another Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. What Thomas got away with 27 years ago can't be allowed to happen again.

September 26, 2018--Jack: Freaking Out

"Not me. You." Jack was on the line.

"Huh?"

"Freaking out. You must be freaking out because it looks like the president is about to fire a whole lot of folks, starting with that weasel Rosen-Rosen, or whatever his name is."

"To tell you the truth, I am a little. I mean, freaked out about where this might be headed and maybe how Trump will figure out how to get away with murder."

"You mean like the Clintons and Vince Foster?" He laughed at that reference.

"Not a bad one," I said, "I'm impressed you remember that conspiracy theory with all the ones circulating these days."

"I never forget anything," Jack boasted. From what I know about him, though we disagree about pretty much everything, he does have an amazing memory.

"But to tell you the truth," Jack said, "if Trump fires Rosen and replaces him with some flunky who fires Mueller and while he's at it fires Session and half the senior people in the White House, there'll be a lot to be made crazy by. That's why Hannity and the other Fox people are urging him, publicly begging him not to fire Rosenberg."

"The Fox world is one I don't really know my way around in. Half the time when I tune in for a while to see what they're spinning (and the hosts do seem to get the same talking points every day so if you listen to one it's like listening to them all), I don't know what they're talking about. It's like they speak in shorthand or code with their unhinged viewers. So weren't you also surprised that they were pressuring Trump not to fire anyone? I would have thought after Rosenstein was outed by the New York Times, which revealed that early in his history as deputy attorney general he thought about wearing a wire to gather evidence about Trump that could then be used to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. Wouldn't Fox want Rosenstein out of the picture?"

Jack said, "One could come to that conclusion. Especially if one doesn't get what's going on." [That someone he referred to being me.] "How firing Rosenthal and the rest of them would be a political disaster for Trump. It would be at least as big a nightmare as Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. There are a few clever Democrats and they are setting an obstruction of justice trap. If Trump fires Rosenthal it will be viewed as his doing so to get him off the case. To stamp out the investigation of Trump, his family, and his American and Russian associates."

"In other words, to obstruct justice?"

"Yup."

"If you're right about this," I said to Jack, "and I think you may be, those Fox people really do have Trump's back."

"Yes and no."

"Because?"

"Because it may be too late."

"Really? I mean, I hope so."

"By now Mueller has tons of evidence from all the Trump people who have flipped, the people they deposed, and of course Mueller has access to all of Trump's and his people's tax and financial records."

"I suspect this is true, but wouldn't pulling the plug on Rosenstein and reining in Mueller put a lid on things? Bury evidence and documents from public view with Trump slipping out of the noose?"

"That wouldn't work," Jack said, "because I suspect a pretty complete Mueller report has already been drafted with him waiting for the best time to drop it. I suspect soon after the midterms. If he's allowed to do that, we'll all see it then. All the ugly details."

"I can only wish that you're right. But . . ."

"Let's say your Rosenman does get fired and an acting DAG is appointed by Trump. Ordinarily it would need the deputy's approval to release the findings and recommendations. Or not. Mueller or whomever follows him reports to the deputy attorney general. The findings go to the new DAG who could decided to squelch them, claiming they're too sensitive or whatever."

"So there you go," I said, end of story."

"As usual you're forgetting two very big things," Jack said, "First there are the midterms. All signs point to a big turnover in the House. If the Dems take over, and I suspect they will, as of January 2nd they'll begin their own investigations and will have the power to subpoena everything Mueller gathered. Probably even calling him as a witness."

"I'm tracking this."

"And then there's one more even bigger thing." He took a deep breath, "I assume you know all about the Pentagon Papers?"

"I do."

"Hundreds, thousands of pages were copied at a time when the only way to do so was to Xerox it page-by-page. Now, in a few minutes the whole friggen Mueller report can be copied onto a thumb drive, put in a jacket pocket, taken home, and plopped in the mail to the New York Times or Washington Post. In other words there's no way to hide it. To keep it from the public. So the Fox people wanted to help Trump from making things even worse for himself." 

He paused to gather himself, "And that's why I'm freaking and why you shouldn't be."

"Of course I hope you're right. Maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight."

"Really, one final thing--with Trump I could be wrong about all of this. He could just as easily fire Rosen-Rosen on Thursday, in part to distract from the Kavanaugh hearings, and get his replacement to . . . ."

Jack broke off and I was left as confused as ever.

Rosen-Rosen

September 24, 2018--Rosencrantz & Rosenstein Are Dead

Friday afternoon the New York Times, in a bombshell report, revealed that deputy attorney general, Ron Rosenstein, after just two weeks on the job, was so upset by the president's aberrant behavior that he thought seriously about "wearing a wire" to record some off the mayhem. 

He even thought about talking to the vice president and attorney general (his boss) about the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, which sets forth the conditions under which a president can be removed from office. Mind you, again, all this after just two weeks on the job.

Not only did Rosenstein contemplate this but he also told work colleagues about his concerns. Hence, the leak to the Times and the revelations.

This may have a devastating affect on the Mueller investigation in that he reports to Rosenstein and could easily wind up being fired by Trump along with the deputy AG, thereby potentially driving a stake in the heart of Mueller's efforts.

From this self-inflicted error, Trump must feel as if he died and went to heaven. 

Just as Trump was reeling from Paul Manafort flipping and the Kavanaugh nomination potentially collapsing he gets handed a get-out-of-jail-free card by his nemesis, Ron Rosenstein.

How stupid is Rosenstein? Let me count a few of the ways--

If he was so upset by what he was witnessing in the Trump White House and needed to talk about it are FBI and Justice Department colleagues the best people to whom to confess? We can only assume that as soon as Rosenstein finished unburdening himself and drifted down the DOJ hall they speed-dialed 1-800-New York Times. They had some story to share!

Doesn't Rosenstein have a wife with whom he could share this? One who would say, "I hear you darling, but one thing--make sure not to talk about any of this in the office. Especially anything about a wire or the 25th Amendment."

I know I'm sounding cynical but Mueller's investigation is as a result more precarious and Republicans now have validation for their conspiracy theories--witch hunt, rigged investigation, Deep State. I wouldn't be surprised to see GOP poll numbers increase for their midterm election candidates.

To be frank, between now and November 6th all I'm interested in is winning. Until then I don't care who's telling the truth or, for that matter, what the truth is. We're in a political life-and-death struggle and everyone has to be persistent, ruthless, and smart.

In other words, behave like Republicans.

September 20, 2018--Show Up!

Changing votes among Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee is no longer the issue.

All GOP minds are shut tight. Without hearing one word from Dr.  Blassey Ford all are ready this minute to vote to send Brett Kavanaugh on to the full Senate where the weak-kneed and well-named Jeff Flake, the equally well-named Bob Corker, and the ever self-justifying Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins now have all the rationals they need to fall familiarly in line. All four can now feel virtuous. They will even be able to boast that they don't sound as clueless as Senator Orrin Hatch who called Dr. Ford "mixed up."

Even a few Red State Democratic senators can now justify that they too can vote for Kavanaugh and avoid rightwing retribution this November as they precariously seek reelection. 

And all things being equal (which they are not) holding her appearance before the committee hostage in the hope that the FBI will undertake an investigation is appropriate but in the real political world is a fantasy,  Such an investigation would have to be ordered by Trump and he's the last person to have any interest in seeing more accusations and facts surface. He personally knows how that feels and what that can yield. Just say "Stormy Daniels." 

Then no one in the Senate or political class cares much about Kavanaugh's candidacy. At least six Democrats on the committee have their eyes on another prize--the presidency--and see the committee's hearings to be an opportunity to come off looking nominatable and presidential. Thus far they have been so inept at this as to reduce the little stature they have. Even non-committee White House aspirants (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind) can't speak even one sentence about this without making fools of themselves. They are that desperate for power.

Sadly, it does not matter any longer if Dr. Ford is telling the truth. The committee is not a grand jury, it is not a court of law, it is a place where the essence of truth can become manifest. Hers and also, let's be fair, his.

What then is at issue? What's left is for Dr. Ford to tell her story directly to Congress and, more important, beyond that, to the American people. 

Especially to female Americans who have been fighting for decades to have their voices heard.

Forgive me, but thus far Dr. Ford has offered a tease. To tell her story to 100 million is certainly frightening, particularly while being savaged on social media, including having her life threatened. There are all those Trump crazies out there who are not to be ignored. 

But if Professor Ford is changing her mind about testifying (as of this morning she may or may not be), she should have been certain she was willing to show up to testify before beginning to squeeze out her story to her local congresswoman and the Washington Post.

If she refuses to show up on Monday to tell her story the real losers will be women who find her story all too credible and feel from their own life experience that they have been shused and held silent for too long.

The negative example of backing out, not showing up, will be devastating. And will provide cover for the worst kind of gender stereotyping. 

So please pack a bag and head for Washington. It's big person time.

September 19, 2018--Trump On Thorazine

Whatever meds the White House staff are lacing into Trump's Big Macs I want to get me some.

Last week former Trump campaign manager and money launderer, Paul Manafort went down, pleading guilty to dozens of felonies as part of a flip deal with the Mueller investigation, effectively joining the prosecution team in its probe of Trump's criminal empire.

It is now obvious that shortly after the midterms Mueller will move to indite First Son, Donald Jr, and First Son-In-Law, Jared Kushner, with Manafort, by then Mueller's favorite canary, chirping about the true nature of what went on in Trump Tower and Trump and his family's ongoing dealings with Russia, especially Russian oligarch money cleansed and passed through as bailout loans to Trump through that global financial laundromat, Deutsche Bank.  

One would have expected a torrent or vicious tweets from Trump, savaging everyone from Manafort to Mueller to Jeff Sessions to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But, no, since Friday, there has not been even one hot tweet. Or, for that matter, a cool one. Nothing whatsoever about Manafort flipping. Not even a reiteration of the preposterous idea that flipping should be illegal.

Then there is the response to the accusation that Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, more than 35 years ago, attempted to rape a 17 year-old girl. From a man who devoted so much effort attempting to stifle women from telling their stories about their sexual escapades with him, including by paying them hush money, to say the least, it comes as a surprise that Trump yesterday sounded almost normal when he said that we should respect Kavanaugh's accuser's right to tell her story, "to be heard," even if it delays by a week or so a vote to confirm his lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

There is one single truth that is revealed by both of these responses--Trump is scared. Terrified. As he should be. The circle is closing, the end is near, and he knows it.

Anything is now possible. Including this semblance of reasonableness which to Trump proceeds political self-imolation or surrender.

July 27, 2018--Hard Ball? T-Ball

John said, "We have to find a way to stop them." He was talking about Republicans in the Senate, which is considering the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

"I would like to agree but how do we do that? The Republicans control the Senate and I think they have the votes to confirm him."

"You're probably right," he said, sounding flat. "But I wish there was a way."

"Until the Gorsuch nomination and confirmation process a year and a half ago there had been. Since 60 votes were required it wasn't easy to muster that many in a closely divided Senate for someone controversial, someone now like Kavanaugh who has written that a sitting president can't be indicted under any circumstances."

"That's half the reason Trump nominated him," John said. "But Mitch McConnell unilaterally changed the rules so that only 51 votes are needed. A simple majority."

"He has the power to do that as Majority Leader. There's nothing in the Constitution about confirming Supreme Court justices. So the Senate has the ability to set whatever rules it wants to organize and govern itself."

"Yeah, he invoked what they call the 'nuclear option.'"

"What kills me," I said, "is how the Republicans, who consider themselves to be conservatives, have no problem doing disruptive, radical things like that. They're hypocrites who have little regard for tradition or congressional history."

John said, "During the first two years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress but they steered away from taking bold action of this kind. It's not just that they are wimps, which they are, but by not invoking the nuclear option because they felt it would undermine traditional senatorial decorum and ways of doing business, they lost the opportunity to enact a bold legislative agenda. They even wound up with a very watered-down Obamacare program. They frittered away the opportunity to govern. Complaining all the time. Which Democrats are very good at. Complaining."

"I agree," John said, "The Republicans play hardball and congressional Democrats play T-Ball."

"McConnell and the Republicans only care about winning. Liberals and Democrats care about being right."

John summed it up, "And so we have what we have."