"Marcus and Abernathy on the deadly police beating in Memphis" PBS NewsHour 1/27/2023
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus and her Post colleague Gary Abernathy join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including the deadly police beating in Memphis and mass shootings in California as America once again reckons with its chronic struggle to prevent violence and hold the powerful accountable.
"Brooks and Capehart on the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, the investigations surrounding Trump" PBS NewsHour 8/12/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the multiple investigations hanging over former President Trump and primary victories by his supporters who are election deniers.
Judy Woodruff (News:Hour): The press, politicians and the public are struggling to untangle a knot of questions, new and old, following the unprecedented FBI search of a former President home earlier this week, which leads us to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
Hello to both of you. It's Friday night. Good to have you with us again.
And there's one story that's dominating the news today.
Jonathan, I'm going to start with you.
I hardly know where to begin. But what do you make of this? I mean, the FBI carted off 11 boxes, we're learning, of various degrees of confidential material this week.
Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post): My head is still spinning.
And not just any material. Some of the material, we now know from the released warrant, have to — have either classified markings, top-secret markings, or sensitive, compartmented information, which is probably the highest level of security intelligence documents there are. You can only read those in secure locations, and they're not meant to be taken out of those secured locations.
Judy I'm trying to look at this, not from a partisan lens, not from my particular perspective, as someone center and left, but as just an American, taking out the name of the person involved.
We have just seen a former President of the United States be subpoenaed in June for documents, ignored the subpoena. The FBI gets a search warrant based on three aspects of the Espionage Act. They wait three days to execute it. They execute that search warrant against a former President of the United States.
And now we're learning that some of the most sensitive information a government official can have access to, he had with him more than a year after being out of office at his private residence.
Judy Woodruff: What should we make of this?
Jonathan Capehart: Under normal circumstances…
Judy Woodruff: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were stopping.
Go ahead, Jonathan.
Jonathan Capehart: No, I was just going to say, under normal circumstances, everything's should be on fire, because we should not be in the situation. No President has done this. No President should do this. But Donald Trump did it.
David Brooks (New York Times): Yes, when I first heard about it, I have to confess my stomach sank.
And my reaction was, does the FBI understand the political firestorm they're about to set off? As the days have gone by, the gravity of what the FBI did and the justification for what they did have grown.
And so, first, we learned this was not a rash thing, that it has been months in the making. They did issue a subpoena. They walked through this step by step. And then, even in the last few hours, we have learned that, as Jonathan said, if these documents are top-secret documents, the people who know more about this than I, they say that's a really big deal.
And the — one of the acts the President is being investigated for is the Espionage Act. This is a serious act, which could be a decade in prison for a normal human being. And there are other acts, the potential falsification and mutilation of documents. That's also years in prison.
And so these are — these are not small crimes. These are major, major criminal, if they get to it, accusations. And if you have that kind of crime, and you're a law enforcement officer, you have got to do something.
Judy Woodruff: Jonathan, how much of this depends on what actually was in those documents, how secret, how confidential, how explosive that material was?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I think that sort of gradation depends on what potential charges could come down the road.
But we're still talking about documents that should never have left the White House, should be in the possession of the National Archives, because they are the official custodian of Presidential records.
There are laws to ensure that those records go to the National Archives. No President, no former President, should have the documents that Donald Trump had before the FBI took them out, so — out of Mar-a-Lago. So that's what we should be focused on, that, to my mind, yes, it matters what's in the documents.
What's even more important is that he took them, against the — against statutes, once he left the White House. I cannot express how serious the situation is that the country finds itself in right now.
Judy Woodruff: David, you started a minute ago by saying, initially, you had the sinking feeling that this could lead to sympathy, greater support for former President Trump.
How much is that still something that's a concern?
David Brooks: Yes.
No, I do think this is — both things are true. The FBI was probably right to do what they did. This will help Donald Trump. And it helps Donald Trump in a number of ways.
First, as a number of his potential primary opponents' consultants have been saying off the record on — in the media, their campaigns are now — have the air taken out this — out of their sails. A couple — a month ago, a couple of months ago, half of all Republicans were saying they want to move on.
Now, in the last week, at least, and maybe short term, in the last week, the whole party is rallying around Donald Trump; 80 percent of Republicans say they're more motivated to vote in 2022 because of what they call this raid.
The vast majority are saying this is not an impartial investigation, [it] is a political hack job, something like 75 percent. Half of all Americans believe that. And so you get this situation where Trump — people are rallying around Trump. His opponents now have a little to run on, because everyone's defending the guy who has been attacked.
And then here's where I get to the nightmare scenario. What happens if, in a couple of years, a year or two from now, Donald Trump is cruising to the Republican nomination because he's winning primary after primary, and he gets convicted of something?
What happens if, a year-and-a-half from now, the American public decides he's going to be elected President…
Judy Woodruff: Yes.
David Brooks: … and the American legal system decides, oh, no, he's going to prison? What happens then to our country?
Because I assume he has to be arrested. And I assume half the country is just going to erupt in rage and, frankly, political violence.
So this — the presupposition for all this, we live in a society where there's incredibly low social trust. [A] So people don't trust the institutions. And (B) in a normal party, your candidacy is hurt if you're investigated by the FBI. That is not the current Republican Party right now, at least right now.
And so the — this is — you can see down the road to a potential where our legal system and our political system crash, and society is really disrupted.
Judy Woodruff: And, Jonathan, it's not even having a charge leveled against the former President.
I mean, just this week, this man went after the FBI in Cincinnati. He was later killed. He was somebody involved in January 6. He's a very, very strong Trump believer.
I mean, so, how much do you think the former President is helped by this politically, as David is saying, and how worried are you about it leading to something else?
Jonathan Capehart: Oh, Donald Trump is absolutely helped by this. The people who believe in Donald Trump and love Donald Trump will believe everything that he says and believe that anything that is done — quote, unquote — "against him" is persecuting him and therefore persecuting them.
I do not think that fear of potential violence or fear of whatever political benefit could come to Donald Trump should factor into the wheels of justice turning. He cannot be allowed to be above the law.
And if the Justice Department or the wheels of justice were to cower in the face of the potential of benefiting him, then our democracy is lost. He must be held accountable, just like anyone else potentially accused or investigated, tried for or found guilty of the things that we're talking about right now.
Just because he was a sitting President, a former President of the United States does not mean he's above the law. And if — let's say that crash happens that David is talking about, and he's elected, but he's convicted.
Well, he won't be President of the United States. I just — Judy, David, I am so — I am so concerned about where we are right now, because we are in uncharted territory. We don't know what the charges are going to be, what the real impact is going to be.
I do agree with David, however, that anything that happens negative, from Trump and Trump supporters' perspective, is going to lead to things that I don't think we're prepared for. But we must get prepared for it, because our democracy is on the line.
Judy Woodruff: David, should any of this worry about what this could lead to affect the judicial process in any way?
David Brooks: Yes, I absolutely think it should.
We're all responsible for the consequences of our actions. And prosecutors and investigators use discretion every single day. And so they — if they're indicting a candidate for a major party (A), my own personal opinion is the bar should be pretty high, that they really — (A) it's a very serious crime, and, (B) it's a very crystal clear case that the whole country can see.
That doesn't mean you don't — as the experts of even the last few hours have talked about what Donald Trump may have done with these documents probably clears the bar. January 6, I became more to think it clears the bar.
But you just can't ignore the society around you. You can't ignore a society that is in perilously close danger of rupturing. And does that determine what you do? Do you let somebody get away with a major crime? Obviously not.
But you can — and none of us can be blind to the consequences of our actions. And I think prosecutors are comfortable with that.
Judy Woodruff: What about that, Jonathan?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I don't disagree. I don't disagree with David.
I do think that the facts as we know them now, in terms of that FBI surge, that high bar was there, and that the Justice Department cleared those bars, and then some, because they understand the consequences of what they're going to do and the public, the public reaction, knowing that the subpoena was issued in June and ignored, that they got the search warrant three days before it was — it was executed.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Jonathan Capehart: That, to me, says that the Justice Department and those people are exercising extreme caution and care.
Judy Woodruff: Just a little bit of time left, but I do want to ask you both about more election results this week.
David, it's the election deniers who are doing well in so many of these primary contests. And, in race after race, they seem to be the folks Donald Trump has endorsed.
David Brooks: Yes, I'd say, in some weeks, we have had a mixed bag, that some non-Trump people did well.
But pretty much, in the recent ones, Arizona, Wisconsin, elsewhere, Trump people more or less swept the field. The election, I can't remember if it was the day before or after the house raid. I can't remember if it was affected by it. But they had a very good — and then progressives did pretty well.
And so I'd say the overall story from all these primaries so far is increased polarization.
Judy Woodruff: Jonathan, less than a minute.
What does this set up November to look like?
Jonathan Capehart: A wild November, Judy.
But the thing that I'm looking at is, we now have five Republican gubernatorial candidates across the country who are election deniers, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Any one of them, if they actually become governor of their particular state, the 2024 Presidential election is in deep trouble.
Judy Woodruff: Well, on this light note that we're ending on, on this Friday night…
David Brooks: Another sober week in politics.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: Another — Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you. Thank you both.
David Brooks: Thank you.
Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Judy.
"Capehart and Gerson on the Jan. 6 hearings, gun legislation, the importance of Juneteenth" PBS NewsHour 6/17/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Washington Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including new revelations after the third public hearing on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and a framework for gun regulations is beginning to splinter as senators try to turn broad agreements into law.
Amna Nawaz (NewsHour): As new revelations are reverberating across the political landscape after the third public hearing on the January 6 Capitol attack, meanwhile, a framework for new gun regulations is beginning to splinter, as senators try to turn their broad agreement into a detailed plan.
That brings us to the analysis of Capehart and Gerson. That is Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and his colleague at The Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is away.
Welcome to you both. Nice to see you.
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: Hi, Amna.
Michael Gerson, Washington Post: Thank you.
Jonathan Capehart: Great to see you.
Amna Nawaz: So let's start with those talks in the Senate.
A bipartisan group of senators, we know, have been close. They say they have a framework when it comes to gun violence prevention. Those are led by Chris Murphy of Connecticut, of course, John Cornyn of Texas.
But, just yesterday, just yesterday, John Cornyn walked out of those talks saying this as he walked out. He said: "It's fish or cut bait. I don't know what they," meaning Democrats, "have in mind. But I'm through talking."
So, Jonathan, could the talks fall apart once again?
Jonathan Capehart: Yes. Yes, they can.
How many weeks have I sat here on Friday saying I'm happy they're talking, it's great that they're talking, but I will believe it when I see it, when we get — when we go from talks to press conference to passage of the bill to signing?
The fact that Senator Cornyn has walked away from the table is the least surprising thing. The announcement of the framework on Sunday was really hopeful. And, in fact, there were a lot of things on there that Democrats thought, wow, we didn't think that they — we could get this as part of the framework.
But the fact that Senator Cornyn is saying he's done talking and it's time to fish or cut bait, well, what's the issue? I mean, does he have a problem with the boyfriend loophole, which is what a lot of the reporting is? Well, what's your proposal?
We have to keep in mind that it's not like Democrats haven't compromised. If Democrats put forth all the stuff they wanted, an assault weapons ban would be in it. So many other things would be in the framework. But Democrats have made it clear, we need to do something. The fact that Senator Cornyn is walking away from the table, quite sadly, more of the same.
Amna Nawaz: So, Michael, this — Jonathan's right. The reporting is that it's this boyfriend — closing the boyfriend loophole, keeping guns away from abusive partners, that's the sticking point for Republicans and John Cornyn.
There's a lot of stuff in here. There's funding for school safety and mental health, background checks for states to pass and bolster red flag laws. So what does Cornyn walking away do?
Michael Gerson: Well, I agree with Jonathan. This is an incremental bill. That's the way it was designed.
And, in fact, what's in there, my fear is that it would not do enough to kind of address these issues, and then you would still have some difficult problems.
But it does matter that Mitch McConnell has at least provisionally endorsed an approach like this. And that gives kind of permission to a group of senators, I think, who are in more purple states, and some of them running for reelection, that they may want to have something to say about, a problem, a huge moral problem.
We need to remember the context here, which is just the murder of children.
Amna Nawaz: Right.
Michael Gerson: And I think that Cornyn looks bad, because he's ignoring essentially the moral imperatives of our moment.
Amna Nawaz: But Cornyn also got booed, we should say.
Today, he was speaking at a Republican convention in Texas. He brought this up, that this deal is in the works, and he got booed. What does that tell you?
Michael Gerson: Well, this was a pretty hardcore audience, I assume, of Texas Republicans.
But it's — there is some risk in any deal. My concern, though, is that we were — we were moving towards a deal on criminal justice reform, for example, and it fell apart. And I'm afraid that may happen in this case, although I think there are some — not yet.
Amna Nawaz: All right, I want to move on to the January 6 Committee hearings, of course, because it was another big week with two more hearings, public hearings, on the books. They now have three hearings behind them, three more, we believe, to go.
Each of you actually shared with us moments that stood out to you. And there was a lot of information in those hearings. I want to play for you those moments and get you to react.
Jonathan, you remembered this moment from former federal appellate Judge Michael Luttig. He'd been advising Vice President Mike Pence that Pence couldn't do what Trump wanted him to do, which was throw out the election results.
Here's just part of what Luttig said.
J. Michael Luttig, Former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge: I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the Vice President overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent.
Amna Nawaz: That is Judge Michael Luttig. I apologized. I mispronounced his name.
Why did that moment stand out to you?
Jonathan Capehart: Judge Luttig is a giant. He is a giant among conservative lawyers.
His reputation is sort of — I'm trying to think of the liberal equivalent. You don't get more senior and more revered than that. The fact that he said he would have thrown himself in the — in Vice President Pence's way to stop him from doing that was pretty incredible.
But the other thing he says that we did not show was that he had a warning, that Donald Trump and the folks who follow him present a quote, clear and present danger to our American democracy. This is no liberal Democrat who's talking. This is no just rank-and-file Democrat talking.
This is a tried-and-true, dyed-in-the-wool conservative jurist who is saying — ringing the alarm about this scheme that Eastman had come up with that they were trying to get Vice President Pence to go along with, and who is also saying, they're not done. This scheme is not done.
January 6 — and he didn't say this part, but I'm saying this part. January 6 was a rehearsal for what we could see in 2024.
Amna Nawaz: Michael, I found it interesting. Most of the folks who testified, most of the people we heard from more Republicans.
And you recalled this one moment that stood out to you where we heard from chief counsel to the vice president Greg Jacob. We learned a lot about what Mike Pence was doing on January 6, how he was down in a secure location continuing to work, even as rioters outside were chanting, "Hang Mike Pence."
Here's a moment in which Greg Jacob was talking about what happened then.
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Does it surprise you to see how close the mob was to the evacuation route that you took? Forty feet is a distance from me to you, roughly.
Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence: I could hear the din of the rioters in the building while we moved. But I don't think I was aware that they were as close as that.
Rep. Pete Aguilar: Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger.
Amna Nawaz: Why did that moment stick with you?
Michael Gerson: Because it's something we shouldn't get used to.
I mean, we had a moment with a mob intent on harm, fed and pushed by the sitting President of the United States against his most loyal lieutenant, and it was a near-run thing. This could have been the murder of the Vice President. I mean, how would that — how would American politics have responded to such a thing?
And one thing that came out in the hearing is that, during this, as it was happening, President Trump was tweeting pressure tweets attacking the Vice President for lacking courage, as this was happening. And that indicates to me a reckless regard for not just his political future, but his life.
This is a President — I think we learned again, but it's the most dramatic example. This is not just a corrupt politician. This is an evil man, an amoral man. And that, I think, is important as we come around to the next election, where he's the Republican front-runner. That is a dire situation for the republic.
Amna Nawaz: Jonathan, there was another moment that stood out to me, when we heard from communications between Trump's lawyer John Eastman sending messages — he's the one who's recommending sort of a plan for how to do this, to overturn the election results.
And the committee basically shared that he e-mailed, saying: "I have decided I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works."
What was your reaction when you heard that?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I mean, my mouth was agape.
You only ask for a pardon if you know or feel that you have done something wrong. I would never ask for a pardon, right? Why?
Amna Nawaz: You can say that…
(CROSSTALK)
Jonathan Capehart: What have I done?
But Eastman knew. He knew. The committee showed that he knew from the beginning that what he was proposing was — this is public television. I almost went there — was not right, was not right.
And so he pushed it, pushed it, pushed it. And then, after January 6, he sees what happened and then says: I want to have — give me a pardon?
It's…
Amna Nawaz: We still have — we still have three more hearings to go, I should say. And there's already been so much evidence laid out by the committee.
But, Michael, do you see — do you see a world in which they end the hearings, they wrap all this up, and there's no action from the Department of Justice? Is that a possibility?
Michael Gerson: It's a definite possibility, although the Department of Justice made some noise this week, essentially, saying, we'd like those transcripts, the ones that you have of these witnesses, because there is a parallel investigation going on with the committee and the Justice Department, and they have started stepping on another's feet a little bit.
But that does show that the DOJ is looking closely at what's happening in these hearings, which I regard as a good sign. There's going to be tremendous pressure on Garland to do this. But I think it's going to be a very tough choice for them, because it would set a precedent of pursuing criminal charges against former presidents that we have never really had before.
We will see.
Amna Nawaz: Do you also think Mike Pence should testify? We haven't heard from him.
Michael Gerson: I would have loved to have heard him about all this.
Amna Nawaz: Yes.
Michael Gerson: And — but he has tried to get as far away from his actions, his own actions, as he possibly could, because he still sees a path to the presidency that doesn't exist.
Amna Nawaz: We will see. Three more hearings, as I say, to go.
Before we let you go, Jonathan, I do want to get your thoughts on this, because ahead this weekend, Sunday is Juneteenth.
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
Amna Nawaz: It is just the second time in our country's history we are marking this day as a federal holiday.
And I just wanted to ask, as the country notes this day, as we mark it together, how are you reflecting on what it means this year?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I'm reflecting on the fact that there are school districts and states that would make it difficult to even teach what Juneteenth is about, simply because some parents offended that the word slavery is used, that people were enslaved and worked for free and were tortured and all sorts of other things in the creation and the building of this country.
We just saw in Buffalo African-Americans targeted by someone who was a believer in the Great Replacement conspiracy. Juneteenth gives us an opportunity to talk about this nation's foundational wound that we still refuse to talk about, that we still refuse to confront.
And so we're in a moment in this country where Juneteenth, if a lot of these folks get their way, very well just might be a marker on the calendar with no explanation about what it means and why it's important that we commemorate that holiday.
Amna Nawaz: Let's hope we don't waste that opportunity.
Thank you for that.
Jonathan Capehart. Michael Gerson, thank you so much for being here. Good to see you.
Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Amna.
"Brooks and Capehart on the future of abortion rights, government funding brinkmanship" PBS NewsHour 12/3/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the omicron variant, U.S. government funding, and a major abortion case before the Supreme Court.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): With the Omicron variant, a near government shutdown, and a major abortion case before the Supreme Court, it has been a busy week in Washington [DC].
To examine it all, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart.
Hello to both of you.
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: Hi, Judy.
Judy Woodruff: Haven't you both together in a long time. It's good to have you here.
Let's start with the Supreme Court, Jonathan, that long awaited Mississippi abortion case, intense oral argument. It was — once you started listening, it was hard to turn away. A lot of people are saying they think they know what's going to happen based open that.
What did you make of it?
Jonathan Capehart: You don't know what's going to happen based on the — based on those arguments. We have been down this road before with the Affordable Care Act, when people listened to the or arguments and they thought for sure Obamacare [Republican name for ACA] was going to be the declared unconstitutional, and the decision came out months later, not the case.
But I do think that the concern, after listening to those oral arguments about the constant, what's going to happen to Roe v Wade, whether Roe v Wade will be overturned, is real and it's serious, primarily because, when Donald Trump was President, running for President, he said he would appoint justices to the court who would overturn Roe v Wade.
That was during the campaign. He got three appointments to the bench. There is now a 6-3 conservative majority. And that is why, after listening to those oral arguments, I'm concerned and a lot of people are concerned that a constitutional right is — could be on the verge of being overturned.
And I think that's why Justice Sotomayor's question is the defining one for me, where she asks: "Will this institution survive the stench this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"
Judy Woodruff: A lot of people are quoting that "survive the stench" line.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
Well, I think Roe is in danger at some point. Once the thought is expressed as clearly as it was expressed, I think, eventually, they're going to get around to it.
And I have, frankly, been someone who has always supported the overturning of Roe, not because I'm necessarily pro-life, but because I think the court should not decide it. I think the legislatures, and it should be decided by the democratic process.
And I have always believed — I used to believe, I should say, that, if it went back to legislators, the legislators would settle where the American people have settled. The majority of American people do not want to ban abortion. They want to restrict it in some way. And different states would restrict it.
And I have always assumed that we would wind up where Europe is, with tighter laws than we have, but not a ban.
I am no longer so sanguine that our political system can handle a massive debate over an incredibly hard, incredibly complicated question. And I say that with the awareness that majorities don't seem to rule anymore. Polarized minorities rule in our politics very often.
And so we may wind up, if Roe is overturned this year, next year with just vicious cultural, moral, political battles at a time when our democracy is extremely fragile. And that has got to be worrying.
Judy Woodruff: What do you see the ramifications, Jonathan? We don't know what's going to happen.
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
Judy Woodruff: But if it goes in the direction it seems to be headed, even if it's something short of completely overturning Roe?
Jonathan Capehart: Yes, the political ramifications are huge, and I think part of the reasons that David was talking about.
I mean, for Democrats, I'm sure — if we want to get baldly political, for Democrats it could be a way of galvanizing the base at a time when the midterm elections are coming. Democratic voter turnout traditionally is lower during midterm elections. And they could possibly be on the verge of losing the majority in the House. For Republicans, this could be a galvanizing thing for them in 2022 and 2024.
But, in addition to all the things that David said, the question then becomes, it's also a very personal decision. When we're talking about a woman's reproductive health, it isn't just whether — does she have access to abortion?
No, this is one of the most personal things that she might have to endure, or will have to endure. And I look at the possibility of the overturning of that precedent, and I look at other precedents out there that could also — with a 6-3 conservative majority, that could also be in danger.
I'm thinking about Obergefell. I could be looking at a possibility where my marriage could be nullified by the Supreme Court.
So…
Judy Woodruff: Upholding same-sex marriage.
Jonathan Capehart: Yes, upholding same-sex marriage.
So, what happens with the Mississippi case — in the Mississippi case, but also we haven't even talked about Texas. And we're still waiting to hear what the court has to say about that, which actually has even more implications for, I think, things like same-sex marriage and other precedents.
Judy Woodruff: David, your point about whether the country can withstand that kind of a — can the court withstand the perception that decisions are made based along party lines?
I know Justice Breyer and others have said, oh, no, that's not what's going on here.
David Brooks: Yes, of course, those on the pro-life think the court got into this in 1973 with Roe and they politicized it, and they invented a right. That would be the pro-life argument.
And since then, our court and our judicial nomination system has become hyper-divided, hyperpolarized, because — basically because of that issue.
Can the credibility of the court — Justice Breyer and Justice Barrett said, we're not political creatures.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
David Brooks: And, from their day-to-day perspective, that may appear to be true, because there are a lot of decisions that we don't talk about. They're not the big major decisions that are 7-2, 8-1, 9-0.
But I have to say, when I reflect back on the big decisions that really make the headlines and really shift American history, from Bush v Gore on to what's about to come, I'm stunned by how incredibly easy to predict the votes based on their partisanship.
And so, on the big issues, I think the court has become quite predictable and quite partisan, like the rest of America.
Judy Woodruff: Well, speaking of partisanship, Jonathan, the Congress this week — I guess the Democrats just barely got out of town, at least for the weekend, without having the government shut down. They were able to reach agreement over government spending.
But what — the Democrats still have some — and the President still have some big agenda items before them this month. What does it look like is going to happen?
(LAUGHTER)
Jonathan Capehart: Chaos, Judy. Chaos.
We have got — so we avoided a government shutdown, actually, a day early, if you really think about it. But we now have a debt ceiling deadline, December 15, according to the Treasury Secretary. The National Defense Reauthorization, that's supposed to be at the end of the year; Build Back Better, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says, oh, we're going to get it done by the end of the year or Christmas.
OK. Sure, if you say so.
But — and that's just, that's the stuff on the table. You have got Republicans who, on all of these things, are — basically, they're not there. They're not a governing partner.
The problem comes when you have got Democrats talking to Democrats, and especially with Build Back Better. So I said chaos, I have no idea how this is going — how this is going to turn out. But if it does turn out, it's just going to be messy, and it will bleed into next year, into 2022.
And that's a problem for Democrats, because — well, for the country, because, once we — once 2022 is on the calendar, everything is going to grind to a halt, because nobody's going to want to get anything done.
Judy Woodruff: What does it look like to you?
David Brooks: Yes, and I saw a quote, an unnamed quote from a Hill staffer, saying the odds of getting Build Back Better this year were like 20 or 25 percent.
So that — because you got to have CBO scoring. You got to figure out what Joe Manchin wants. And so that's — it would be very bad for Democrats. Joe Biden was elected to be competent, to show it would be calm, we'd have a master — the hand on the tiller, blah, blah, blah. And the longer Democrats go on, then the worse that claim looks.
But I would say one thing in defense of the Democrats. (A) it's basically a 50/50 Congress. That's hard. (B) if you look back at American history, the Great Society took years to pass. The New Deal took years to pass. Our system was not built for speed.
What worries me most — and this is about the government shutdown — like, they're now capable of doing nursery school level legislative activities. And you feel like they're just barely doing that.
I had a dentist once who was in my mouth and said: "I'm on the edge of my skill level here." And she is in my mouth. And I'm like, "What?"
(LAUGHTER)
David Brooks: So, I feel like the skill level on Capitol Hill is not where it should be, because they don't have experience of successful legislation.
That — Teddy Kennedy did it. Back in those days, they really know how to do this stuff. And so that's the big worry to me.
Judy Woodruff: That's an image Jonathan and I are going to keep in our — we're going to keep that in our minds.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: But members of Congress you know may remember the nursery school level.
David Brooks: Oh.
Judy Woodruff: The President, Jonathan, has one other thing on his plate right now.
And that, of course, is the is the variant, the new variant now. On top of Delta, we have Omicron. It's everywhere in the world. It's in multiple states. He's done a few things, travel ban. We're going to have increased testing.
How does it look? How does his management of this look? How much is riding on his management of this?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, a lot is riding on his management of this, but I do think he is striking the right tone.
When we were talking about this last week, it was like, oh, my God, what is this thing? It's super contagious. I even mispronounced it because it was so new.
Judy Woodruff: A lot of us did.
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
But the President comes out and he says, don't panic. Get vaccinated. Get your booster. Wear your mask, basically saying to the American people, look, we have the tools to be protected against this.
And I also think that the American people, after a year-and-a-half of doing this, no one wants to go into a shutdown, not the President, not — and certainly not the American people. So we know how to protect ourselves.
So I think, if the President and the administration, as much as it can, project calm, but also clarity in what we need to do to protect ourselves from Omicron, he will be OK.
But, yes, everything is riding on this, because if we do get to a situation where he has to come to the American people and say, we have got to lock down again, even if it's for a good reason, I don't know how that's going to go over.
Judy Woodruff: It was something the NIH Director, Francis Collins, who I talked to today, said it's something they don't want to do.
David Brooks: Right.
And Francis said, we're not powerless. I think that's the big story here. We're not where we were a year ago. And, to me, the best thing the administration has done is buy millions of doses of this Pfizer and Merck treatment regimes. So, you get a positive test, you get five days, and you take 30 pills. I think that's the Pfizer one.
And it has like an 85 percent of reducing — chance of reducing your hospitalization and death. So that suggests we're going to enter a phase where we're not going to kill COVID the way we wish, but we're going to learn to live with it, the way we live with the flu.
And I think we're sort of at that point. And we're going to — we're — if you're fully vaccinated and you're under 50, your odds are quite good. It's still the folks who need the continued care.
And so I think we're just going to be in a country with a lot of COVID around for a long time. But we have tools now to make it a lot safer.
Judy Woodruff: We do have the tools.
And, again, Director Collins saying, if we — as you said, he said, we just need to keep doing what we do — doing what we know how to do, which is the testing and pills.
All right, we're going to leave it there. Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, so good to have you back again.
Thank you.
Jonathan Capehart: Great to see you, Judy.
Judy Woodruff: Thank you.
"Capehart and Abernathy on Virginia elections, Build Back Better plan, Colin Powell" PBS NewsHour 11/5/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnists Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy join Judy Woodruff to discuss Tuesday’s surprising election results, the fate of the infrastructure and Build Back Better bill, and reflect on the life and legacy of Colin Powell.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Democrats and Republicans across the country are examining Tuesday night's surprising election results, with an eye toward crafting their strategies for next year's crucial midterm election races.
Meanwhile, dignitaries in Washington today gathered to remember the life and legacy of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Here to add perspective on all this and more are Capehart and Abernathy. That's Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, an Ohio-based writer and contributing columnist for The Washington Post. David Brooks is away.
It's very good to see both of you.
And, Gary, you're here from Ohio, and we're glad to see you.
Gary Abernathy, Washington Post: Thank you for having me.
Judy Woodruff: So, what a week, as the three of us were just saying.
Jonathan Capehart, you have now had three whole days to think about what happened, what the voters said on Tuesday, and what do you think it was?
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: So, I split it between Virginia and New Jersey.
With Virginia, governor-elect Glenn Youngkin showed that it's possible to embrace Trump voters with — but, at the same time, keep Donald Trump out of your — physically out of your state. He showed, as I mentioned last week, the role of playing on racial fear to drive people out to the polls, particularly when it comes to so-called Critical Race Theory.
In New Jersey, the near political death experience of Governor Phil Murphy, Democrat, to my mind shows the larger, bigger national — the problem that the national Democratic Party has. Governor Murphy is popular in New Jersey. He was running on the President's agenda, basically, and the fact that he squeaked it out says that folks in New Jersey are tired, seemingly, of the dysfunction of Democrats arguing with each other over bills, not being able to show they can get anything done.
Judy Woodruff: We saw more of that today.
Jonathan Capehart: Yes, and still going on today.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Jonathan Capehart: And so the party has to figure out how to reach those voters that Glenn Youngkin reached, be able to talk to them, but also show the country that they're competent, that they are worthy of being entrusted with governing.
Judy Woodruff: Gary Abernathy, what messages do you think the voters were delivering?
Gary Abernathy: Well, a lot of Democrats are saying that the message was: We need to do more. We haven't done this. We were punished for not passing these bills we promised we were going to pass.
I think it's the opposite. I think voters were saying: We don't like what you're doing.
Now, there are two different things here, and the Democrats try to tie them together, the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better bill, two different things. The infrastructure bill has tremendous bipartisan support. They should pass that. They should pass that tonight and show they're doing something, not just politically, but the country needs this infrastructure bill.
But people thought — we have to remember, the 2020 election was a referendum on Donald Trump. It was not about issues. It was not about what Biden was promising to do. It was, we either want Trump, more of him, or we're going to kick him out. They voted to kick him out. The majority did.
But they thought they were getting a safe alternative with Joe Biden. And he turned out to be a guy who's been much more aggressively liberal with the Bernie Sanders wing than people were voting for.
One key thing from the exit polls on — the Edison exit polls that I think The Washington Post used and other networks…
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Gary Abernathy: … said that Trump is still unpopular in Virginia. Seven out of 10 voters thought that Youngkin's policies and ideas were much like Trump's. Didn't hurt him a bit. He won.
People are OK with Trump's policies. They just didn't like Trump.
Judy Woodruff: But what about what the Democrats are offering?
I hear you, the two of you, saying different things about whether Americans want what the Democrats are debating and still haven't been able to pass yet, Jonathan.
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I think that's the problem. They still haven't been able to pass it.
If you tease out every little thing out of both the infrastructure bill, which we know has bipartisan support, but even what's in the Build Back Better Act, last I checked — there are so many things in it — but if you tease out the individual pieces, they have popular support.
It's just that, if you're going to go for it, and you have got the House and you have got the Senate and you have the White House, to the larger American public who doesn't follow the stuff the way we do, they sit back and think, why can't you get anything done if you have all three of these branches?
And that is why this is such a problem for Democrats and the President.
Judy Woodruff: What I hear you saying, Gary, is, even if they pass this other piece of legislation, that may not help the Democrats.
Gary Abernathy: I think it hurts them.
I think that it's — again, I'm going to say — and Jonathan and I are disagreeing on this, but the message Tuesday was: We don't like the direction you're going.
The Democrats, really, if they stopped to evaluate what happened Tuesday, they would be better off sitting and letting Joe Manchin lead the discussion, while Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kind of sit to the side a little bit and listen, because I think Manchin, to his credit, kind of has a pulse on where America is at now.
And, no, the Democrat Party doesn't have to become the Republican Party, but Joe Manchin is a pretty centrist Democrat who's trying to wave the red flag and ring the warning bells, and no one's listening to him yet.
Jonathan Capehart: OK.
The Democratic Party, in the Build Back Better plan, for instance, would love for there to be paid family leave. And I guess conservatives look at paid family leave as paying people to stay home, instead of looking at the domino effect of what it means in order for a family to not risk their job in order to stay home for whatever — for whatever reason, grieving the loss of a parent, a new child coming into the family.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Jonathan Capehart: There are economic benefits that the American people want, the Earned Income Tax Credit for children, any number of things.
It's not — I don't think it's that the American people don't want these things and that these aren't a grab bag of things to just give away. They have a benefit for the long-term health and security, economic well-being of this country.
Gary Abernathy: I think Americans do want a lot of those things, and they do poll as popular item by item.
But Americans love ice cream. If you did a poll, you would find out almost 100 percent of Americans love ice cream. It doesn't mean they approve of spending trillions of dollars to give everyone free ice cream. Not everybody can have things that we all agree, gee, that would be nice.
But, at some point in time, there comes a point where we have to say, we don't have any money. I mean, we're — I don't care if we're talking $6 trillion, $3 trillion, $1 trillion. It doesn't exist. So I think the American people know that too.
Yes, we'd like to have all these things, but our great-grandchildren pay for it?
Judy Woodruff: One other piece of analysis that's been out there, and it came from James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist on this program Wednesday night, Jonathan, essentially said this woke business has gone too far, the focus on injustice in our society.
Does he have a point or not?
Jonathan Capehart: He has a point up to a point.
I understand where James Carville is coming from. I have heard the quote in full and in context, I get where he's coming from.
But what he's done is, he's basically said to the base of the Democratic Party: Who cares what you think?
He calls it wokeness. Is it — it's not wokeness to want to be treated fairly by the police. It's not wokeness to want law enforcement to not view you instantly as a criminal, instantly as a bad guy. It's not wokeness to demand that our nation's history be taught and reflected accurately. That's not wokeness.
That's — at a minimum, it's asking for dignity and respect. And so for someone, a Democratic strategist like James Carville, to say those things basically to the base of the Democratic Party is really unfortunate, because I think we can talk about these issues of injustice and talk about how to move the country forward together. These don't have to be two separate conversations.
Judy Woodruff: This is a larger debate that's been out there, Gary.
Gary Abernathy: And I actually agree with a lot of what Jonathan just said. I think that we can talk about the role of slavery, the role of racism in this country. And we should do more of that. I agree with that.
But there doesn't have to be — I think what happens is with the wokeness, what a lot of us think of as the wokeness, the cancel culture, is that we have to create villains. We have to demonize. To lift up one set of people means we have to demonize another set of people.
And that's what turns a lot of people off to having the conversation.
Jonathan Capehart: No, I mean, I understand where the sentiment comes from about demonizing people.
But — the people I talked to and the people who I'm associated with and related to, we're not about demonizing anybody. We're about — could you recognize for a hot minute what we go through? Can you recognize that there was a clip of a Youngkin supporter saying, well, if young people just treat police with respect when they're stopped, everything will be OK?
No, that is not true. That is not true. And so for — until someone like her is able to see that perspective, we're always going to have this problem.
Judy Woodruff: Like that young person.
Gary Abernathy: Yes.
We tend to — on all things, whether we're talking about Critical Race Theory, which is not a thing being taught in Virginia schools, but it's a thing. I mean, it's a theory that a lot of people would like to have taught.
Jonathan Capehart: In — well, it…
Gary Abernathy: Go ahead.
Jonathan Capehart: It's taught in law school.
Gary Abernathy: Yes. But there have been — I mean, there have been pushes to get it more into curriculums.
Jonathan Capehart: Well, that's a larger conversation that we don't have time for.
Judy Woodruff: It's a larger conversation.
Gary Abernathy: But there are — it's like one extreme and the other — or the other.
We need to talk, to recognize more about what? As I said, slavery and race and racism have played a role throughout history in the building of this country, and do that honestly. And white people shouldn't be afraid to say, you know what, we really haven't done that well, and we need to do a better job of that recognize it, but without making us feel like the villains for doing it.
And I think there is a lot of that. There's a lot of emphasis on white people need to feel a certain amount of guilt over this. And we need to get past that.
Judy Woodruff: I want you to make a comment, and then I want to bring up something else.
Jonathan Capehart: Sure. Yes.
I'm not — I'm not asking for guilt. But I do think white people have to get over the — feeling villainized just even when the word race is used in a sentence. That's all.
Gary Abernathy: And you may be right.
Judy Woodruff: It's a conversation we should continue to have next Friday.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: But speaking of all this, someone who I think represents what black Americans have meant to this country was memorialized today. And that was, of course, Colin Powell.
There was a service for him. He was remembered as someone who is an example for generations to come, someone who worked across party lines.
In just a few words, Jonathan, what is his legacy? What should we take away from this man?
Jonathan Capehart: He was a statesman. He was a warrior statesman. He was the best of this country.
He — when he was thinking about running for President in 19 — in the '96 election, you know what? I was a young editorial writer at The New York Daily News. I was a big fan of President Clinton. But the idea that a black man would run for President and had a chance to win left me a little conflicted, because he was a walking role model of who we should be as Americans, but also a walking role model for me, a young black man, seeing a black man like him walking through the corridors of power as if he was just walking in the park.
We need more — we need more people like Colin Powell, regardless of party.
Judy Woodruff: Admired by so many. Just 30 seconds.
Gary Abernathy: Yes, I can't improve on that, but — other than to say, to me, Colin Powell always represented a very classy person, just conducted himself with class.
Even when he was upset about something, even when he was angry about something, even in his criticisms of people, it was done with style and class, which is why I think he was so widely admired across the divide.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we remember him fondly today.
Gary Abernathy: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: Gary Abernathy, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.
Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Judy.
Gary Abernathy: Thanks, Judy.
"Brooks and Tumulty on debt, social spending, Jan. 6 investigation, Supreme Court" PBS NewsHour 10/8/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including debt ceiling negotiations in Congress, debate over President Joe Biden’s social spending bills, new revelations about former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and what's expected from the Supreme Court this term.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): It has been a whirlwind of a week here in Washington, with the U.S. Supreme Court kicking off its October session, a new report on election interference being issued by the Senate, and a temporary deal reached on the federal debt ceiling.
To help us make sense of it all, we are joined by Brooks and Tumulty. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Karen Tumulty, columnist for The Washington Post.
Very good to have you both with us. Jonathan Capehart is away tonight. Happy to see you both on this Friday night.
But let's talk first, David, about what they have done in the Congress, in the Senate. They have kicked the can down the road. Enough Republicans gave the Democrats the votes they needed to go ahead and move the debt ceiling decision to December. Is it going to be any easier then?
David Brooks, New York Times: No.
And this is what happens when politicians play hand grenade with the nation's solvency. But it's as if the political campaign is running all year around now or all lifelong, because it's all about positioning for the next election.
So, the Republicans would love to see the Democrats on a straight party-line basis expand the debt ceiling, and then they could blame them for all the spending. And Mitch McConnell was sort of backing them up to do it. And then he sort of blinked.
And I think there are two main reasons he blinked. One, there was some threat that the Democrats were so panicked by this they were going to change the filibuster, which the Republicans desperately do not want them to do. [Two] There was some possibility they were just trying to ease some pressure on Joe Manchin, look after their buddy Joe Manchin, who is taking a lot of heat from more progressive Democrats, and then some possibility that Schumer didn't have 50 votes to raise the debt ceiling, in which case we would have gone into insolvency.
So we're going to go through all this again in December.
Judy Woodruff: It — is December going to be different?
Karen Tumulty, Washington Post: December is going to be different because they will also, in that same little window, have to vote on the continuing resolution. This is the bill that keeps the government operating.
So we may have within a few days of each other these two difficult votes, one to keep spending and the other to keep borrowing.
Judy Woodruff: And, Karen, what about — I mean, David mentioned this, that some people are saying, including former President Trump, saying Mitch McConnell folded.
What happened here?
Karen Tumulty: I all along was a little skeptical that Mitch McConnell was going to be willing to take the fall for making the — essentially the entire world economy collapse.
He had some leverage. As too often happens in Washington [DC], there's a deal right before the deadline. But I do think we ought to think about whether we ought to even have this whole exercise of raising the debt ceiling. It is something that is meaningless in the context of controlling spending, because you're basically paying bills for spending you have already done.
There's a budget process. There's an appropriations process. If you want to have fiscal discipline, that's where to do it. I think they ought to just suspend the debt ceiling indefinitely.
Judy Woodruff: And which is, I guess, an argument that the Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has been making.
But, David, I mean, are there clear winners and losers coming out of this? Or has it just muddied — is the picture just muddied even more?
David Brooks: I'd say muddied.
I think each party got a little of what they wanted. The Democrats got the Republicans to actually have a vote and produce some votes. And the Republicans got the idea that we're just going to go through this again.
Everyone's a hypocrite on matters of procedure. So whether you're for the filibuster or the debt limit, it all depends on whether you're in the majority or the minority. The Democrats, I think, in 2006, it wasn't quite the same circumstance, a very similar circumstance. They were very happy to let the Republicans take the fall and be the ones to pass the debt limit, including Joe Biden.
And now that shoe is on the other foot, so they have all 180-degree changed their positions. And this is the way it always is on these procedural game-playing things, that you do what's in your best interests at this moment. There are no actually principled players in any of this.
Judy Woodruff: Does one side come out stronger or not in this?
Karen Tumulty: No.
It is really a situation of — people seem to think this debt ceiling vote is some kind of political liability. I have never heard any campaign where it becomes an issue or the subject of an ad. The size of the social spending package that the Democrats are talking about, that is likely to be — figure in the 2022 campaign.
But I — this is just this Kabuki theater that they do over and over and over again.
Judy Woodruff: All right, moving on to something.
We just heard Fiona Hill, the — who has written a book about her experiences, David. And that is a number of developments this week about election interference in 2020. You had this disturbing report come out from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the lengths former President Trump went to try to get the Justice Department to overturn the election result.
Then you have more — watching state after state say they want to reform the way they count votes, the way they run their elections. How worried should the American people be right now about all of this?
David Brooks: Pretty worried, on a scale of one to 10, seven-and-a-half or so. That's pretty worried.
I'm not a worrying kind of guy, but I think worried about two things. One, we keep learning more and more that Trump really wanted to overturn the election. He wanted to take away the election. And we also [two] learned that, throughout the administration, throughout some of the Republican secretaries of state, there were honest people that were not going to let him do it.
And so we have learned from the Senate report that he was threatening to fire the Attorney General. And there were enough people in the Justice Department who said, we will all quit at once if you do this, and so he didn't really have a chance.
But the more dangerous thing is what's happening in the states now, is that we're setting ourselves up for this all to happen in 2024 if he runs again, and if he's anywhere close. And, this time, he will have had not a couple of weeks to prepare to take the election away. He will have had years.
And the party seems to be extremely focused on this process. And so that's the things we're worried about.
Judy Woodruff: Where should the concern be focused in all of — that there's so many moving parts to this.
Karen Tumulty: Well, the pattern of the Trump Presidency is, with these revelations, you will always hear something else happened that is both shocking and unsurprising and even predictable about Donald Trump.
And there were a few people that stood in the way. Dan Quayle, who talked to Mike Pence about his lack of powers to overturn the election on January 6, was not on my bingo card for the savior of democracy.
(LAUGHTER)
Karen Tumulty: But, next year, we're going to have the midterms, and these races in the states where governors may be replaced by governors who would be fine with letting partisan hacks control elections, secretaries of state, election officials.
I think the danger in 2024 is going to be a lot higher even than it was in 2020. And we may once again have Donald Trump back on the scene.
Judy Woodruff: And I was going to say whether he's on the ballot.
I mean, David, you read that portion of the Senate report where it — for hour after hour, there was an argument inside the White House with then-President Trump, saying, we need to replace the Acting Attorney General in order to overturn the election. I mean, they had to argue him down from this.
Karen Tumulty: The most chilling quote — and that was Jeffrey Rosen, the Acting Attorney General.
"One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren't going to do anything to overturn the election."
That is what the President of the United States [Trump] said to his acting Attorney General.
David Brooks: Right.
And so the good news is there were enough. I guess what strikes me — and this is the underlying problem — is that any time Rudy Giuliani or anybody could come up with a crackpot rationale to do this, they seized on it without any evidence. There was never a moment when people in Trump world said, that one, that theory is a little wacky.
They seized on absolutely everything. And that is what happens when you're in a post-truth world.
Judy Woodruff: And if President Trump is not on the ballot, Karen, there's still concern that people who espouse his philosophy and who deny the election result in 2020 could be pushing some of the same…
Karen Tumulty: Exactly.
I mean, these are people running up and down the ballot. It has become practically an article of faith in the Republican Party that, if you want to have a shot at elective office, that you have to say these things that really undermine the integrity of the electoral system.
David Brooks: Fifty-nine percent of Republicans in one poll said that believing the election was stolen was an important part about being a Republican. It's central to the identity.
It's not belief in free markets or being socially conservative. From philosophical and principled positions has gotten to Trump positions. And so the identity of the party has fundamentally changed from a conservative party to a Trump party, at least among, say, half of the Republican…
Judy Woodruff: Last thing I want to make time for, Karen, and that is the Supreme Court reconvening this week, a lot of eyes watching this institution because they are taking up hot-button issues, abortion, gun rights, and others, maybe affirmative action.
What are you looking for from this term? And people are starting to say, if the court does what we think it could do, this is going to look like a partisan court.
Karen Tumulty: It certainly — I think this is the term in which the heavily conservative Supreme Court is going to truly show us who they are and what they think.
And I think the biggest issue on the plate is whether or not they overturn Roe vs. Wade, either with this case that is coming their way from Mississippi, or the new Texas abortion law is likely to land in their lap again pretty soon.
Judy Woodruff: I mean, there's always — we're always watching the Supreme Court, David, but is this time different that way?
David Brooks: I think it is a little.
There has been a 5-4 conservative majority, but John Roberts, the Chief Justice, really cares about the court and the dignity of the court and the legitimacy of the court. He could now be in the minority in a lot of these cases, and he could be on the left side, because he is not — he's been hesitant to turn over precedents.
And there seems to be five at least who are much more willing. And so he [Roberts] might turn out into be the minority player. And there will be nobody to try to keep precedents just for the legitimacy of the court.
Public opinion polls on the court are not in freefall, but they're in serious decline. The number of people who think it's a legitimate and trustworthy institution is at a low. And the Supreme Court justices are all out on the road saying, no, we're not partisan hacks.
They're not. But they're conservatives and progressives, and they vote like partisan hacks, so that — on the big cases, not on most cases, but on the big ideological cases, their votes are entirely predictable by who nominated them.
Judy Woodruff: And at a time, Karen, when the country is so divided politically, it — I mean, it matters whether the court is seen as partisan or not.
Karen Tumulty: Absolutely. Absolutely.
And, again, I mean, the fact that the — these justices are feeling that need to go out and say publicly that they are not partisans is — that, in and of itself, is extraordinary. But we will see how these big cases on not just abortion, but some other hot-button issues, like guns.
And again, this is a relatively young court. And this is the court that we're going to see basically for a generation potentially.
David Brooks: It used to be people had faith in government and the governing institutions.
And when that faith goes away, everything is up for grabs. And whether we're talking about the budget, the election or the court, they all grow out of the fact that people have lost faith in the legitimacy of their institutions.
Judy Woodruff: That's a grim note to…
David Brooks: Sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: A really grim note for us…
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: Just facing reality here.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: On this Friday night.
David Brooks, Karen Tumulty, thank you both.
Karen Tumulty: Thank you.
