“Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Michael G. Mullen: I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.
In his first weeks in office, President Trump has outlined plans to reorganize the White House’s National Security Council. This is in keeping with tradition: New presidents regularly reconfigure the council to fit their management style and national security priorities. Some of Mr. Trump’s plans, such as including the director of the C.I.A. as a full voting member of the council, are welcome.
But some of Mr. Trump’s other plans are unsettling and should be remedied as soon as possible — in particular the role he has given to his top political adviser, Stephen K. Bannon. [..]
Having Mr. Bannon as a voting member of the principals committee will have a negative influence on what is supposed to be candid, nonpartisan deliberation. I fear that it will have a chilling effect on deliberations and, potentially, diminish the authority and the prerogatives to which Senate-confirmed cabinet officials are entitled. They, unlike Mr. Bannon, are accountable for the advice they give and the policies they execute.
Consistent though Mr. Bannon’s presence may be with the predilections of our new president, it results in a blurring of presidential responsibilities — Republican Party leader and commander in chief — that is unhealthy for the republic.
Paul Krugman: Springtime for Scammers
People keep saying that Donald Trump is a populist. I do not think that word means what they think it means.
OK, it’s true that our so-called president — hey, if he can say that about a judge who ruled against him, surely we can say that about him — is channeling the racism and bigotry of some ordinary Americans, and in so doing sticking it to squeamish elites that take the Constitution both seriously and literally. But so far his economic policies are all about empowering ethically challenged businesses to cheat and exploit the little guy. [..]
Last week Mr. Trump released a memorandum calling on the Department of Labor to reconsider its new “fiduciary rule,” which requires financial advisers to act in their clients’ best interests — as opposed to, say, steering them into investments on which the advisers get big commissions. He also issued an executive order designed to weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reform, enacted in 2010 in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Both moves are very much in line with the priorities of congressional Republicans and, of course, the financial industry. For both groups really, really hate financial regulation, especially when it helps protect families against sharp practice.
Charles M. Blow: A Lesson in Black History
Last week at a supposed Black History Month “listening session” at the White House, Donald Trump made this baffling statement: “I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice.”
It sounded a bit like he thought the inimitable Douglass, who died in 1895, was some lesser-known black leader who was still alive.
When Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked what Trump meant by his Douglass comments, Spicer responded:
“I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made. And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he’s going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more.”
Assuming that the “he” in that sentence refers to Douglass, these numbskulls are actually referring to him as a living person and have absolutely no clue who Douglass is and what he means to America.
Robert Kuttner: The March To Impeachment
There are already plenty of grounds to impeach Donald Trump. The really interesting question is when key Republicans will decide that he’s more of a liability than an asset.
If Trump keeps sucking up to Vladimir Putin, it could happen sooner than you think.
The first potential count is Trump’s war with the courts. The Supreme Court is likely to give expedited review to the order by the 9th Circuit upholding Judge James Robart’s order that tossed out Trump’s bans on immigrants or refugees from seven countries, even permanent US residents and others with valid green cards.
It’s encouraging that the agencies of government, such as the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, immediately deferred to the court order, not to a president who thinks he can govern by decree.
But suppose the Supreme Court finds against Trump? Will he try to defy the high court? That would be a first-class impeachable offense. Even Richard Nixon deferred to a Supreme Court order to turn over the Watergate tapes.
Phillip Ratner: Why Democrats Must Oppose Gorsuch
Democrats in the Senate should do whatever they can to block the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. They will almost certainly lose this battle, but they should fight it anyway. To those who oppose Gorsuch on strictly ideological grounds, this may seem obvious. But it is more complicated than that.
Once upon a time the Supreme Court confirmation process was governed by a set of unwritten but nevertheless clearly understood rules. Most senators believed that elections mattered, and that therefore a president was entitled to select a nominee who was aligned with the president’s political and judicial philosophy so long as the nominee satisfied certain fundamental criteria. [..]
As admirable as those unwritten rules might have been, and as much as we might wish for their return, they were thrown out the window by Senate Republicans last year.
The Republicans’ refusal to even consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland changed the game. Their invocation of a non-existent “rule” or “precedent” against confirming Supreme Court nominations during the last year of a presidential term was nothing more than a fraudulent pretext.
Recent Comments