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

Comments (39)
No. 1-18
Curious-Cat
Curious-Cat

"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."

It is a rare public figure who looks further than the end of her nose these days. No concern about public, consumer, corporate debt. No plan for dealing with an economy that will naturally shrink because our fertility rate has been below the replacement rate since the early 70s. No concern that the 40% who back the current administration will not magically disappear even in the Dems take back both houses. And worst of all, no one, Democrat or Republican, has the slightest idea how to deal with our issues. (In fairness, neither do I.)

Sechel
Sechel

what annoys me most about krugman is how much he strays from his core competency. his specialty is economics , specifically international trade. That hasn't stopped him from discussing modern monetary theory or the constitution and the fact he's straying from his domain knowledge shows often and it shows loudly

Schaap60
Schaap60

Krugman's Idiotic...now that's a tautology. From economist to constitutional scholar. Does Krugman really think the SC is going to block future tax increases, increases that occurred in 3 of the last 4 administrations and will already happen when current rates sunset out? Didn't an already "conservative" court effectively uphold Obama Care? Kavanaugh is replacing Scalia, who I don't recall as a strong supporter of Roe in any event. I hope Kavanaugh doesn't vote to overturn Roe and reopen that can of worms (though I'm not sure there are four other votes if the case gets there), but he is hardly a controversial pick for a Republican.

Bam_Man
Bam_Man

Krugman is a "useful idiot" to the Neo-Bolsheviks on the Left.

RonJ
RonJ

Krugman said the market would tank when Trump became President and never recover. Krugman is not an economist, he is a leftist propagandist. That is all he is doing in opining about Kavanaugh. Krugman is destroying his credibility.

Krugman doesn't care about the Constitution. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz spoke in support of certain presidential powers that Trump has per the Constitution and you would never find Krugman backing Dershowitz up on that. Dershowitz said that Trump had the power to fire Comey and it was not illegal for Trump to contribute any amount to his own campaign.

Krugman is silent on the obstruction of justice by the DOJ and FBI in the Hillary server case, in which Comey said that if anyone else did in the future what Hillary did, they should not expect to go unpunished. It was an effective admission by Comey that the FBI considered Hillary had committed a crime. Thus the wordsmithing of reckless disregard, a crime, into extreme carelessness, to make it appear as if she had committed no crime.

According to a Zero Hedge headline today, a secret grand jury has been empaneled on McCabe. Don't expect Krugman to be talking about that inconvenient fact.

gliderdude
gliderdude

It is an illogical fallacy that because some fool (Krugman) calls another (Kavanaugh) "bad", then it must be that later individual is instead good. Mish is a conservative corporatist so has an easy time looking past "pro choice" moral issue for more important matters. The fact that Trump chose this man assures me he is an asshole. Just as it was the take of Repugs regarding the pick Obama should have been able to make. All politics of course. Dems, playing their role of "good cop", but not really giving a shit about their electorate base, don't fight like Repugs do for their paying clients, precisely because they have the same paying clients. The electorate is what you brainwash with your paying client's money. That is what being an American politician is in our corporate oligarchy.

I do agree Trump would just present another asshole if Bret is not confirmed. But so what, would that have stopped Repugs? For another take on Kav, you could try Nader's article that does reference a couple studies. It would also be helpful to call for the release of Kavs records so one could have more to reference.

Brian1
Brian1

If you think its bad now wait until Trump gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's going to be glorious.

MntGoat
MntGoat

The guy is never going to cause a change to Roe Wade on this planet, ever, for crying out loud. Don't you know that is purely a Dem hysteria PR fear tactic just to delay this somehow and buy time?

BillSanDiego
BillSanDiego

This is the kind of trash you are always going to get from Paul Krugman. He has training and education as an economist, but his ideology has taken him into lala land. He pretends expertise in matters for which he has neither education or experience, such as matters of law and social science. He has become completely unmoored from reality.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

Gliderdude: "The fact that Trump chose this man assures me he is an asshole."

Wow -Talk about admitting 100% bias. You totally discredited yourself. No one is always wrong. Heck, I think Krugman is right 20% of the time.

To discard everyone without even looking at the argunments makes you a huge part of the problem.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

Irony:

"It is an illogical fallacy that because some fool (Krugman) calls another (Kavanaugh) "bad", then it must be that later individual is instead good."

Gliderdude does just what he says but in the opposite sense. Assuming everything is bad just because Trump supports it.

Gliterdude, you are a hypocrite and a fool.

ML1
ML1

Krugman has NO clue about what he is spouting about. Trump also has NO clue who he is nominating as Supreme Court justices...

Trump being clueless buffoon that he is has been "advised" on Supreme Court picks by Whitehouse lawyer Donald McGahn.

Trump's cabinet is full of NEVER-Trumpers, Kochies like VP Pence (huge amount of Pence's political career has been funded by donations from Koch Brothers and they only donate to candidates who advance more illegal immigration, more wage dumping and amnesty for illegals) and Bushies.

The same Donald McGahn that just surprised Trump by revealing that he talked for 30 hours with Mueller is the one who has in reality PICKED both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Gorsuch already has shown himself to be an unhinged Liberal because Gorsuch voted with Supreme Court liberals in 5-4 decision to make it IMPOSSIBLE to deport many immigrants convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary unless House and Senate amend the law and list these crimes specifically as grounds for deportation.

Since this amendment of the law will NOT happen thanks to Democrats NOT supporting it that means that the "celebrated" Gorsuch made it IMPOSSIBLE to deport many immigrants convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary.

Gorsuch's IDIOTIC reasoning went along the lines of Scalia opposing laws that would have punished AMERICANS for crimes without clearly stating the crimes in detailed way.

DEPORTATION is not a punishment, it is an administrative decision to keep United States safer AFTER the convicted criminal immigrant has served his sentence that is his actual punishment.

Gorsuch is a DISAPPOINTMENT and is responsible for logical gymnastics that are FLAWED and IDIOTIC and those Gorsuch ideological gymnastics led to Gorsuch voting with Supreme Court liberals to make DEPORTATION of immigrant criminals convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary IMPOSSIBLE.

Gorsuch was a FAILURE as Supreme Court pick and with Gorsuch's ideological gymnastics Gorsuch will be siding with Supreme Court Liberals for the next 30-40 years making deportation of violent criminal immigrants more difficult and making sensible immigration policies harder to achieve...

Webej
Webej

If a pre-condition to be on the Supreme Court is that you will find against Trump on some fictional obstruction charge, Krugman is actually proving that the Court is already completely political and compromised, not a last institution standing. The fact that abortion rights all hang on decisions by a court on a document written 200 years ago by people who were all against abortion also shows how illegitimate the whole thing is. Pass legislation, like they do in other countries, when a change in the law is desired !! Change the electoral system. This hanging on to some seemingly sacred thing 200 years ago in a completely disfunctional system shows what an impasse American society has reached. It's normal to change a consitution or amend the laws or recalibrate the electoral system to changed circumstances.

thimk
thimk

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.

aqualech
aqualech

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.

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"; https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-03-16/medical-board-loses-a-case-and-attacks-the-judge/ 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?

joseph zadeh
joseph zadeh

5th Circuit ruling is here:

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

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 -