Krugman's Idiotic Op-Ed: "Kavanaugh Will Kill the Constitution"

Supposedly, "The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is on the line." Uh... Evidence please!

Here's the left-wing farce of the day: Kavanaugh Will Kill the Constitution

> So who is Brett Kavanaugh? If he looks like a right-wing apparatchik and quacks like a right-wing apparatchik, hes almost surely a right-wing apparatchik. Which brings us to the coming constitutional crises.

> The immediate question is how the court will handle Donald Trumps obstruction of justice, which is likely to reach epic levels very soon. If you think Kavanaugh wouldnt completely support Trump, I have some miracle dietary supplements you might want to buy.

> Beyond that, what will happen if we eventually get a Democratic Congress and president, who try to move forward with a center-left agenda? What I mean by that, by the way, are things like expanding health coverage and raising taxes on high incomes things that arent radical, and in fact have broad popular support.

> Theres every reason to believe that a court including Kavanaugh would strike down everything elected officials tried to do. Policy substance aside, this would destroy the courts legitimacy, making its naked partisanship based, again, on two stolen seats clear to all. But it would probably happen anyway.

> In fact, the constitutional carnage might well begin as soon as next year.

> So let me make a last-minute appeal to Republican senators who care about Americas future, if there are any left: Dont do this. A vote for Kavanaugh will be a vote to destroy the legitimacy of one of the last federal institutions standing.

Evidence Please!

Krugman spends one paragraph on Kavanaugh's 12 years on the bench.

Generally, Krugman characterizes Kavanaugh as anti-environment, anti-labor, and pro-discrimination, but does not back it up with discussion of a single opinion.

Of course, its not exactly unusual for conservatives to be more reserved on these issues.

Threat to the Constitution?

What a hoot.

And the pro-discrimination point has no backup at all.

Irony in Krugman's Stupidity

Should enough senators fail to confirm Kavanaugh, it's a near certainty Trump would pick someone even more conservative.

On that basis, the Left ought to be cheering for Kavanaugh like mad.

I am pro-choice. So I was initially against Kavanaugh. But we really do not know how he will vote.

I have many difference with Trump, notably on trade and Iran, but Trump's Supreme Court picks have been quite good.

If Krugman gets his way, I strongly suspect we will know with far more certainty how the next nominee will vote.

So not only is Krugman full of "s***" regarding the alleged "constitutional crisis", he is not even bright enough to ponder the result if he actually gets what he asks.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

No. 1-18

It should be obvious that the Left and the rest of the establishment will not stop at anything to continue policies that brought us to this point. Other than Trump being blinded by patriotism, allowing the military industrial complex to pull the wool over his eyes, he is trying to reverse policies that have not strengthened the US economy.

There may be only one solution -

joseph zadeh
joseph zadeh

5th Circuit ruling is here:

joseph zadeh
joseph zadeh

The reason Krugman's POV is absurd is that we don't have a constitution. Take a look at my lawsuit against Texas Medical Board personnel:

The details of the incident over which I sued are here:

The 5th Circuit found my civil rights were violated, found that damages were done, but awarded me no money even for attorney's fees because there was no established law that determined there was an expectation of privacy in a doctor's office, and medical board personnel has qualified immunity. The patient who sued with me also got no money at all. This was after five years and six figures spent on legal fees and trust me proving a civil rights violation is no walk in the park. Whenever anyone hears of the DEA doing a search of my office, the first thing people think is, "Hmm, what did you do wrong?", and that is exactly how the 5th Circuit thought.

With no authority at all and after not identifying themselves, DEA investigators went into my conference room, propped their feet up on the desk, and went through patient files like they were the Sunday paper after asking for and getting a subpoena from the Texas Medical Board. Who signed the subpoena? Who knows, and the 5th Circuit didn't seem to care. Why didn't the DEA get a warrant? Because they didn't have probable cause.

They searched patient records illegally and then asked if they could have them with their own subpoena. When I said no, the DEA took me to court and a district court ruled in the DEA's favor. To its credit, the 5th Circuit voided the decision, but the it also ordered me to produce the charts albeit with some retractions. The DEA in essence had a warrant produced again without probable cause. With the latest lawsuit, the 5th Circuit had new evidence of the DEA's conduct and now saw the error of their ways. Did the 5th Circuit allow the DEA to legally search patient records after these same records had been illegally searched by the DEA already? Yep.

One thing that really bothered me is that the courts rarely rule in your favor if there evidence you are a criminal, so the Texas medical board came after me with both barrels doing all they could to get me criminally charged, and they did get me dinged with a civil violation. When I asked for a motion to stay a proceeding based on the civil rights lawsuit, it was denied. These executive branch personnel who hear these cases are called judges for some reason, and they decided that the Constitution and civil rights didn't apply to this case.

The quasi-judicial proceeding Texas uses to evaluate doctors is a joke. "TMB's most recently available records reflect that in the 10 years from 2007 to 2016, charges were dismissed in less than 1% of the contested cases"; Hitler and Stalin would have given said proceedings their seal of approval.

What was going on was that someone was using my name to obtain controlled substances illegally. Whoever that someone is didn't go to jail. Why? Because an illegal search was done, and the US attorney prosecuting the case would have gone before the public, and I think the public would have more pissed at the DEA than the criminal. From what I have seen, anytime the public is not looking, the courts rule for the executive branch like they did here.

A police officer told me, "Doc, the reason the DEA came after you is that it's just easier for them to convict you than anyone in the public." Criminals may have the right to remain silent but doctors don't.

The military has a rule only fired when fired upon, but a police officer can shoot and kill you if he fears for his life (whatever that means) and get away with it via qualified immunity. A prosecutor with no evidence at all can call you a pedophile and get away with it because he has absolute immunity from any slander or libel suits.

Who gave the executive branch this qualified and absolute immunity crap? Not the public/people. Not Congress. The court made that up all by themselves, and Mish you have fallen in the trap. You seem to think abortion is more important than immunity? Why? Any woman who wants an abortion these days can take a few pills and have one. People seem to think the only time the courts made up law was with Roe v. Wad when in reality they do it all the time.

Hell, the courts took away our civil rights and no one seems to notice. Anytime anyone mentions a civil rights violation, we have been trained to think that person is guilty.

Only civil right we have left is the second amendment, and the second amendment was put into place to make sure all the other civil rights were followed. For the first time in my life, I am actually thinking about buying a gun.

To summarize, Krugman was wrong about a Constitutional crisis because we don't have a Constitution. If you read the 5th Circuit ruling, the irony is that Judge Willett after ruling against me seemed to be pleading with me and my attorney to push my case forward to the Supreme Court. How screwed up is that? Are the nation's civil rights really being left in my hands?


The work "apparatchik" with all of its connotations describes PERFECTLY the functioning of the NYT these days. Political engineering, not investigating or reporting. Krugman is just another cog in their agenda.


IT is fashionable and profitable to ride the "bash the right crazy train ". This divisiveness obfuscates the real issues we should be addressing. Krugmans bread and butter is dependent on being left leaning.