Kavanaugh Nomination: Current Impressions

As the maelstrom around the Kavanaugh nomination may perhaps be starting to draw to a close, a few impressions at the intersection of politics and policy:

As indicated earlier, I submit that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination should be denied because no one has brought forth a tenable reason why Dr. Ford would make up a claim — of which she has testified she is “100%” certain – when she knew that she would provoke the whirlwind which will now forever mark her life and impact the lives of her family. As far as I can tell, even Republican Senators don’t – as I understand Sen. Orrin Hatch said – find her “uncredible.” I ask my conservative women friends: If the roles were reversed, and you knew in high school a now-liberal male judge nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President, would you make up an alleged assault, purely to prevent your former classmate from being elevated to the Supreme Court? And: how likely is it that even after 30 years, you would be mistaken about the identity of your assailant?

To parrot a point admittedly made by numerous talking heads: While, subject to the outcome of the FBI investigation, a “He Said, She Said” situation appears to exist, this is not a criminal investigation; it’s a job interview. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would be appropriately required to convict Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault isn’t required to withhold consent to his ascension to the Supreme Court; what’s required are sufficient grounds to conclude that we as a people should look elsewhere for our next Supreme Court Justice. That standard has – in my view – been easily met.

I have been and continue to be disappointed at the majority of Republicans’ response to this controversy. Too many seemed obsessed by the timing of the presentation of the allegations. I consider the timing of the presentation of the allegations irrelevant – a red herring to stir up the conservative partisan base. I would have expected that the reaction of any Senator of either party to these allegations would have been: Is Dr. Ford telling the truth, or not? The truth, as well as it can be determined, is what matters – whether the allegations were brought forth months ago or minutes before the final confirmation vote. Sen. McConnell is already saying that the Senate will vote “this week.” Clearly, what he cares about is winning this fight, not truth or right – a shameful dereliction of duty on par with his failure to allow the Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Virtually no commentators think Democrats will take control of the Senate in January, so presumably, if there is sufficient evidence of questionable behavior on Judge Kavanaugh’s part to dissuade a couple of Republican Senators from consenting to the Judge’s nomination, there are plenty of other conservative judges President Trump can nominate that will receive Senate confirmation in either this or the next Congress. Sen. McConnell nonetheless clearly believes that he can’t take the chance – which says to me (if we needed further evidence, which I didn’t) that he prioritizes partisanship over truth and fair process.

I found Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony on September 27 disqualifying in two additional respects not evident in the earlier proceedings. First, conceding (as just about everybody that reads these pages is well aware) that the poster of these notes can be subject to his own Irish eruptions, and that those of us with vitriolic natures sometimes need a bit of tolerant understanding when we erupt, Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement, in which he stated that the concerns regarding Dr. Ford’s allegations involved: “… a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” “apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election;” “Revenge on behalf of the Clintons”; and “millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” was … unseemly and unsettling. This display of rank partisanship, no matter the provocation, is unfitting for a Supreme Court nominee and sullies the standing of the Court. His elevation will cause doubt throughout his tenure whether any litigant with a position contrary to his natural inclination will get a fair hearing. Second, and as important to me: although Judge Kavanaugh apologized thereafter, his response to Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s respectful question (given the circumstances) whether he had ever drunk so much that he didn’t remember what he had done the next morning was purely … bullying. He bullied her.

Nevertheless, unless Mark Judge, the only person Dr. Ford places in the room with her and Judge Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged assault, substantially confirms Dr. Ford’s account, I’d consider it highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Mr. Judge’s concern if he untruthfully supports Judge Kavanaugh’s account: if Democrats assume a majority in the House of Representatives next January, they are very likely to commission a more thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s allegations, which will certainly include checking with anyone that Mr. Judge might have talked to about the Kavanaugh-Ford incident. Any material discrepancy uncovered between Mr. Judge’s informal exchanges and his account to the FBI could well ultimately have serious repercussions for Mr. Judge … and then-Justice Kavanaugh.

I find it ironic that Republican Sen. Jeff Flake – sufficiently a pariah in some circles within his own state’s Republican party that he chose not to seek reelection – has, despite Sen. McConnell’s myopic preoccupation with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, perhaps saved a number of Republican seats in the upcoming midterms by forcing the FBI investigation of the sexual allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. We have been on the road, but even out in the great southwest, we sensed the paroxysm that would have resulted had the Republicans slammed through Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation without investigation of or regard to, and perhaps in disregard of, Dr. Ford’s claims. Although the partisan skirmishing is continuing, some of the partisan steam seems to have been let out of the pot. Unless the FBI comes up with credible evidence to support Dr. Ford’s claim, not only will Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed, but Republican candidates in close races may escape the wrath that I submit might have been visited on them for a Republican process deemed partisan and incomplete by a substantial number of Americans.

If I were President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, I’d immediately nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative favorite. Unless there is anything disqualifying in Judge Barrett’s background that has so far been unreported, a rejection of Judge Kavanaugh will sufficiently vent liberals’ furor while stoking conservatives’ anger that Judge Barrett’s nomination will sail through.

Postscript to Taking a Knee

Around Memorial Day, I did a post on “Taking a Knee,” relating to NFL players’ demonstrations during the national anthem, and it engendered as much response – pro and con, from people on both sides for whom I have the highest regard — as any note I’ve entered thus far.

With so much in our nation and the Catholic Church worthy of discussion, I enter this now only because of an op-ed published yesterday on NBC News by former NFL player Nate Boyer, a six-year Army veteran and Green Beret with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps all but me are already aware of this, but Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the national anthem as his manner for protesting police brutality toward African-American males arose as a result of a discussion with Mr. Boyer. Apparently, the first week that Mr. Kaepernick staged his protest, he had sat on the bench during the national anthem, and Mr. Boyer had taken him to task for his apparent disrespect for the nation and our service men and women. Messrs. Kaepernick and Boyer had their discussion not long thereafter. I found this quote attributed to Mr. Boyer, in which he described the players’ exchange after he understood what Mr. Kaepernick was actually intending to protest by his gesture:

“I expressed to him, maybe there’s a different way of demonstrating, where you’re showing more respect for those who laid down their lives for what that flag and anthem stand for. I suggested kneeling, because people kneel to pray; we’ll kneel in front of a fallen brother’s grave.”

Mr. Boyer makes clear that he disagrees with what Mr. Kaepernick did, but supports Mr. Kaepernick’s right to do it. A link to his recent op-ed is posted below.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-america-how-military-service-influenced-my-ncna906956

Link to Senior Administration Official’s Anonymous NYT Op-Ed

It is likely that everyone that has an interest has already read the anonymous op-ed piece published today in the New York Times authored by a senior political appointee of the Administration (i.e., an official that cannot be labeled a part of the President’s fantasized “deep state”). Nonetheless, this was worth posting in the event that there is anyone having an interest that wishes to access it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

McCain’s Final Message

Although I suspect that most that care to have already read this, there is no better summation of America’s place in the world and current struggles than Sen. McCain’s last message.

My fellow Americans, whom I have gratefully served for sixty years, and especially my fellow Arizonans,

Thank you for the privilege of serving you and for the rewarding life that service in uniform and in public office has allowed me to lead. I have tried to serve our country honorably. I have made mistakes, but I hope my love for America will be weighed favorably against them.

I have often observed that I am the luckiest person on earth. I feel that way even now as I prepare for the end of my life. I have loved my life, all of it. I have had experiences, adventures and friendships enough for ten satisfying lives, and I am so thankful. Like most people, I have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good or bad times, for the best day of anyone else’s.

I owe that satisfaction to the love of my family. No man ever had a more loving wife or children he was prouder of than I am of mine. And I owe it to America. To be connected to America’s causes – liberty, equal justice, respect for the dignity of all people – brings happiness more sublime than life’s fleeting pleasures. Our identities and sense of worth are not circumscribed but enlarged by serving good causes bigger than ourselves.

“Fellow Americans” – that association has meant more to me than any other. I lived and died a proud American. We are citizens of the world’s greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil. We are blessed and are a blessing to humanity when we uphold and advance those ideals at home and in the world. We have helped liberate more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have acquired great wealth and power in the process.

We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.

We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do.

Ten years ago, I had the privilege to concede defeat in the election for president. I want to end my farewell to you with the heartfelt faith in Americans that I felt so powerfully that evening.

I feel it powerfully still.

Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.

Farewell, fellow Americans. God bless you, and God bless America.

A Monday’s Sundry Thoughts

Of assorted items in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

An Op-Ed piece by Mike Solon, former adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, entitled, “Tax Cuts Bust ‘Secular Stagnation’,” in which Mr. Solon asserts that the 4.1% second quarter GDP growth “… should finally discredit three popular claims made by opponents of the president’s policies: that tax cuts would blow a hole in the deficit, that corporate tax cuts would serve only rich investors, and that secular stagnation was a valid excuse for the slow growth of the Obama era.”

That we have had recent and fast economic growth is a fact. I’m a bit surprised that Mr. Solon is willing to claim lasting vindication for the Republican measures so quickly. A significant majority of the economists quoted in Journal pieces over the last six months have opined that the tax cut and attendant spending bill have given us a short-term economic boost akin to one’s feeling after downing an expresso … while they fear we will have a similar economic letdown as the burst wears off. That said, this is an instance where the long term score will be what it is. I intend to paperclip this piece to my January calendar for each of the next few years to see how Mr. Solon’s assertions bear out over time.

An article entitled, “China Says It Isn’t to Blame for Failure of NXP-Qualcomm Deal,” citing China’s State Administration for Market Regulation’s recent failure to approve Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP – which the regulator claims was due to its concerns with the deal’s anti-competitive aspects. The piece indicates that the regulator denies that its failure to approve the acquisition was related to the U.S.- China trade friction. The account included the following: “[Despite the regulator’s denial,] people with knowledge of the situation have told the Journal that the friction is the main reason for [the regulator’s withholding of approval].” The article added the following observation by a China economist: “For Beijing, which is seeking to develop its own semi-conductor industry, blocking the NXP acquisition pays an added dividend: It hinders the growth of Qualcomm, which has a commanding position in cutting-edge chip technology.”

I can’t fault China for utilizing legal (or at least colorably legal) measures that serve as counter-measures to our retaliatory tariffs and/or slow our advancement in a strategic industry; it’s Foreign Policy 101: “You make a move, then I make a move.” As per a post I made a while back, I do question the Trump Administration for literally saving China telecom giant ZTE, whose activities in this country create national security issues for us and better enable China to compete against the U.S. in the race to 5G technology. The billion dollar fine that the Administration has assessed against ZTE is pittance in the scheme of things.

Yet, I would submit that the most noteworthy item was a story in the middle of the paper entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Sees Signs of Peace.” The piece is not really very long, but manages to state all of the following in neutral terms: Afghanistan’s “beleaguered” soldiers have failed to recapture significant new ground from the Taliban; civilian deaths have hit historic highs; Afghanistan is struggling to build a reliable air force and expand its elite fighters; the number of Afghan districts controlled by the government has dropped from about a half to a third in the last six months; our troops want the Afghans to close some remote check points because they’re easy targets for the Taliban; a suicide bomber killed at least 20 people at the entrance to an airport a few hours before our Gen. Joseph Votel, who oversees U.S. Afghan war operations, arrived there; “[i]n western Afghanistan, local officials warned the American commander that the Taliban were making gains with the help of neighboring Iran”; “U.S. officials in southern Afghanistan said they needed more time to prop up an Afghan military capable of securing the country without American help”; and “[NATO] allies in the north warned that internal Afghan political divisions posed as big a risk to stability as the Taliban.” [My italics].

At the same time, as the account dutifully records the above facts, it reports that American officials “don’t believe that the numbers tell the whole story”; that U.S. and Afghan officials have stated that the Taliban have shown a new willingness to negotiate; and that Gen. Votel indicates that the U.S. forces’ assessment “… has to account for both an objective and subjective evaluation of the situation,” that “[i]f we only focus on objectives aspects, you will miss something,” that “[w]e’re seeing some things that are moving in the right direction,” and that the state of play still leaves him feeling “cautiously optimistic.”

What follows is in no way a criticism of President Trump; I would submit that he inherited an untenable situation created by President George W. Bush that might well have been better handled subsequently by President Obama. It’s most certainly not intended as a criticism of Gen. Votel or the American command; they’ve been given a mission, and no one ever effectively executed an endeavor by being pessimistic. However, the juxtaposition of objective facts and American statements in this piece (which I recommend be read by anyone able to access it) sounded for me – and perhaps would for others with longer memories – unnerving echoes of 1960s’ accounts of the Vietnam War. This is one area in which I suspect that Mr. Trump and I might privately agree: it’s hard to see how we can achieve stable and durable conditions in Afghanistan enabling us to depart; if we can’t secure the situation, our people are sacrificing to simply postpone the inevitable; like the North Vietnamese, the Taliban and other Afghan factions understand that we’re fighting in their homeland, undoubtedly recognize that we’re weary, and realize that they can win by simply waiting us out; but – unlike the Vietnam conflict, where the North Vietnamese were simply satisfied to have us leave – it’s hard to see how any agreement enabling us to withdraw won’t ultimately facilitate terror’s following us home. A terrible dilemma; an area in which I have genuine sympathy for the President, and heartache for our people fighting this battle …

Letter to U.S. Rep. Pocan, re: His bill to Abolish ICE

A letter I’ve just mailed [I cling to the old hard copy approach 🙂 ] to Mr. Pocan, the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s Second Congressional District:

Dear Representative Pocan:

I am writing to express my deep disappointment at your ill-considered introduction of a bill to terminate the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). While I abhor both the policy under which we separated parents and children at the border and our apparent treatment of many of those reaching our border as rabble rather than human beings, the fact remains that we need enforcement of our immigration laws. I’m confident that ICE agents undertake dangerous and difficult responsibilities on a daily basis that those of us in our ivory towers prefer not to think about. Your meat-axe approach seems to lack any substantive solution to the immigration enforcement challenges we face. I assume that you are feeling suitable embarrassment if, as The Wall Street Journal reports, you intend to vote against your own bill if the House Republican leadership submits it for a vote.

On a less important level, liberals seem determined to be their own worst political enemies. Our state and a number of other states and districts are closely divided. Judging by the President’s polling numbers, he’s lost support during his time in office. Today, it seems likely that few of those that voted for Secretary Clinton would vote Republican, while a significantly higher number of the more centrist voters that ultimately voted for the President rue their vote. Right now, Democrats are on the Republican side of the 50-yard line. While it may be exhilarating to strike a gesture for a party’s most ardent supporters by taking actions like you did, it’s not the way to win elections. There’s no need to stoke the enthusiasm of Democratic loyalists; their fervor against the President and Republican policies is so strong that they’ll come out and vote. What you and other Democratic office holders should do – if you wish to win, and not simply feel exhilaration — is focus on earning the confidence of those 2016 Republican voters that have developed misgivings about the Republican actions over the last 18 months. Many of these voters fear that their values no longer have a place in our country, have the impression that our immigration policies are too lax, fear crime, etc., etc. To vote for Democrats, they must be assured that their justifiable concerns will be taken seriously by Democratic office holders. If Democratic Party strategists advise that providing these sorts of assurances will require the party to renounce the societal openness it also champions … then the party needs new strategists.

In an early chapter in his book, The Best and The Brightest, David Halberstam wrote the following about John F. Kennedy’s assessment of his chances for winning the Democratic Party nomination in 1960:

“[The liberal intellectual wing of the party was] not only dubious of [Kennedy] but staunchly loyal to Adlai Stevenson after those two gallant and exhilarating defeats. That very exhilaration had left the Kennedys, particularly Robert Kennedy, with a vague suspicion that liberals would rather lose gallantly than win pragmatically, that they valued the irony and charm of Stevenson’s election-night concessions more than they valued the power and patronage of victory. [My emphasis].”

Although it is unusual for me to align with House Speaker Paul Ryan on domestic issues, I agree with his comment quoted in this weekend’s Journal: “[Democrats advocating abolishing ICE] are tripping over themselves to move too far to the left.”

Will it be exhilaration or pragmatism? Has the party learned anything over the last 60 years?

Initial Reactions to the Kavanaugh Nomination

Back in February, I entered a long note on the two-factor methodology that I believe should govern a Senator’s decision whether to vote to confirm a President’s nominee to the Supreme Court [including edited versions of letters I had previously sent to Sens. Charles Grassley and Tammy Baldwin respectively related to the nominations of Judge Merrick Garland and then-Judge Neil Gorsuch — to which letters, alas, neither Senator paid any heed ;)]. The approach that I believe should be adopted is straightforward: Is the nominee judicially qualified? If so, is there any other objective reason why s/he should not be confirmed (criminal indictment, substantiated drug abuse problem, etc.)? I do not believe that the candidate’s substantive views on any issue should play a role in whether s/he should be confirmed. The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and appoint federal judges; the Senate should promptly discharge its duty to consent to qualified nominees, and to withhold its consent from those that are not.

As I stated in my letter to Sen. Baldwin, I consider the Senate Republicans’ refusal to promptly hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination (and – unless unexpected issues had been uncovered – to have confirmed him) a dereliction of their duty. It frankly grates on me that Senate Republicans flouted by procedural tactic and with partisan malice what I consider their constitutional duty to have fairly and promptly assessed the merits of an apparently qualified nominee put before them (by the way, put before them by a President elected by over 50% of the votes cast, with almost a year left in his term). The Senate Republicans’ actions can be viewed as even that much more galling since Judge Garland was in effect replaced on the Court by a judge (albeit indisputably qualified) of a different philosophy nominated by a President who, while validly elected, didn’t even receive the most votes cast – let alone 50%.

Having vented my spleen at the disreputable behavior of Senate Republicans toward Judge Garland’s nomination (for what I would wager will not be the last time), I would assert that any citizen that claims respect for our system and belief in fair play doesn’t get to pick and choose when s/he supports those principles. Our constitutional officers and we as a people need to stop answering one partisan act with another. Assuming that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is as qualified a jurist as early accounts make it appear, I would if a Senator vote to confirm him to the United States Supreme Court unless some other objective reason (of the type noted above) indicating his unfitness surfaces during the Senate confirmation process. Those that espouse the need to have respect for our processes … should respect those processes. We have the President we have, and he has lawfully exercised his power to make the nomination he has made.

The Time for Outrage is Past: MAAA

Although I’ve been tied up with other pursuits the last couple of weeks, ongoing events have caused me to consult my American Heritage Dictionary. It defines “shock” in part as follows:

“[An] unexpected blow … A severe offense to one’s sense of propriety or decency; an outrage.…”

I would suggest that although our institutions are so far holding fast, they are under the greatest internal strain since the civil war. Every day, President Trump assaults our basic foundations purely for his own self-aggrandizement. His enablers support him to protect their own interests. It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past. I would submit that every citizen has a duty to think critically about where we are going as a country … and what s/he is going to do about it.

Mr. Trump lies chronically – indeed, promiscuously. I assume that even those that support his substantive policies recognize this. Truth – what is – is more important than the substance of any issue. Our republic cannot indefinitely survive breathing the carbon dioxide exhaled by the President.

The President and his allies engage by turns in an unceasing and unwarranted attack on the courts, law enforcement, and the mainstream media. While clearly none are perfect, the rule of law and freedom of speech have supported our way of life over this nation’s history. The President seeks to trample them for his own purposes, with his sycophants shamefully and cowardly abetting him.

Mr. Trump incites racial and religious hate. Using broad strokes to label immigrants and Muslims as our enemies manifests a malevolent disregard of what this country stands for. The vast majority of Americans – including him – are descended from immigrants. The right to freely practice one’s faith is a cornerstone of this Republic. His constant reference to gangs such as M-13 when discussing southern migrants seeks to create an inference of a general criminal invasion that the relative numbers show is absurd. Separating parents and children at the border is inhumane. Making children pawns in a legislative negotiation for his border wall is monstrous. He stokes his followers’ fears and encourages their darker emotions because it helps him, not them.

A transgression that to me is as destructive as those above is the way the President is letting his own supporters down … and they seemingly don’t recognize it. I would offer that the way he manipulates the millions that believe in him is as cruel as his treatment of his adversaries.

His massive tax cut predominantly benefited big corporations and the rich, at a time when unemployment was already steadily dropping and The Wall Street Journal was reporting the U.S. economy to be in the forefront of worldwide economic growth. Economists unanimously expect the tax cut to aggravate deficits that will in turn more quickly endanger entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This threat won’t much matter to Mr. Trump, his family and friends – they’re rich. It will matter to the great percentage of the President’s supporters who do and will rely on these programs.

His attempt to protect legacy industries such as coal mining and certain of our manufacturing segments are as if Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to protect horse buggy manufacturers while slapping tariffs on materials Henry Ford needed to build cars. Through his phrases, Mr. Trump assures his financially desperate supporters that it isn’t their fault that their fortunes have deteriorated over the last decades. While a serious physical condition may not be the patient’s fault, there is no return to health by blaming others or administering outdated care plans. He’s lulling them with a pipe dream. Challenges created by automation, globalization, an aging population, etc., etc., aren’t going away. Instead of alerting his followers to their and our nation’s need to focus on the industries, technologies, and opportunities of the future, he’s giving them Leave it to Beaver.

Perhaps the most remarkable: It is now undisputed that the President dictated the statement that Donald Trump, Jr., initially issued in the summer of 2017 indicating that Trump Campaign officials’ meeting with Russians in the summer of 2016 did not involve a campaign issue. It would have taken no prescience for the President to realize that if the truth came out – which it did, in a matter of days – the false statement would be putting a bull’s eye on his son for an obstruction of justice charge. Who endangers one’s own child?

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan summarized some of the challenges we will be facing in the coming months in a piece she published in May, 2017:

“The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated … that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability.”

Although I obviously consider Mr. Trump to have shown his unsuitability in the areas listed by Ms. Noonan, I would offer that he has demonstrated his unsuitability in two areas that matter even more: his apparent lack of moral compass and his selfish disregard for the well-being of the people he has sworn to serve. It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past. Although I will give the President credit in the future when I think he deserves it, now is the time to devote energy, within the bounds of law, morals, and ethics, to the electoral contests ahead.

It’s time to Make America … America Again …

Letter to WSJ Editor, re: Sen. Hatch’s “Protect Mueller, but Not Like This”

Ever persistent, I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to The Wall Street Journal in response to Sen. Hatch’s cited article:

While asserting in “Protect Mueller, but Not Like This” (Opinion, April 25), that a bill being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to constrain the president from firing special counsel Robert Mueller is unconstitutional, Sen. Orrin Hatch indicated in several ways that he believes that Mr. Muller’s investigation should be allowed to run its course. Mr. Hatch went so far as to say that if the president dismisses Mr. Mueller, it would “trigger … possibly even impeachment.” He concluded with a ringing affirmation that the rule of law cannot be protected by “… violating the supreme law of the land.”

About 20 years ago, conservative commentator Ann Coulter argued in one of her books that the Founding Fathers did not consider grounds for impeachment in the American system to be limited to legally criminal behavior, and that the standard was simply that the official “behave amiss.” Sen. Hatch is presumably as aware of these authorities as Ms. Coulter. The senator’s expressions would have had a greater ring of sincerity – and potentially a greater impact on the president’s behavior — if he had concluded his essay by stating that if President Trump does dismiss Mr. Mueller without cause, Mr. Hatch will vote to impeach Mr. Trump if an article of impeachment citing the dismissal comes before the Senate while Mr. Hatch remains a member.

Letter to Wi State Journal: Walker Tweet

What is set forth below is a Letter to the Editor I just forwarded to the Wisconsin State Journal; I have categorized as “U.S. Domestic Policy” rather than “Politics” because I consider the discord that currently exists and is being sown amongst our people to have risen from a question of politics to a substantive domestic issue:

In your editorial expressing support for Judge Dallet’s victory, you mentioned Gov. Walker’s subsequent tweet – in which he said, in part, “The Far Left is driven by anger & hatred.” Such vitriol seems intended to send a message to his supporters that those that oppose him are angry at and hate them. I am no fan of the Governor, but what I detest is any implication that my deep disagreements with his stewardship in any way equate to any ill feelings toward his supporters (some of whom are beloved family members). No party or group is the font of all wisdom and virtue nor the pit of all ignorance and depravity. Although obviously not the first to make this point, I suggest that this should be our central theme in the coming electoral cycle: whether we Wisconsinites are Republican, Democrat, or other, most of us are Packer fans, appreciate fish fries, cheese and beer, enjoy our beautiful seasons, and would prefer our politicians to compromise rather than confront. No matter our substantive views, we all need to recognize and reject any attempt by any politician of any stripe to sow venom in order to gain political advantage.