Politically Speaking — July 5, 2022
Last Tuesday Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump’s ex Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, gave her testimony during the last minute hearing in the afternoon. She recounted her experiences in the White House during the days around the January 6 riot.
She made several bombshell revelations about Trump’s behavior, one in which Trump was involved in a physical altercation with his security detail. Unfortunately, during this time frame the only one who reported seeing Trump grab the steering wheel was Ms. Hutchinson. Every one of the Secret Service agents, including the driver, said it didn’t happen. As for me, I’m still trying to figure out what former President Donald Trump would accomplish by grabbing the steering wheel from the back seat. In my opinion, it didn’t happen.
As the days go by, according to NBC News reports, Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony is coming under increased scrutiny. And to top it all off, officials from the U.S. Secret Service have announced that Tony Ornato and the driver, Bobby Engel, the agents named in Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, are willing to testify before the January 6 committee and dispute Hutchinson’s account of an alleged incident involving then President Trump. Sounds like Ms. Hutchinson has an axe to grind!
Backing up to last week’s column when I talked about the U.S. Senate’s advanced significant gun legislation, in this bill was funding for crisis centers and so called red flag laws.
What are red flag laws? Red flag laws allow police, family members or even doctors to petition a court to take away someone’s firearms for up to a year if they feel that person is a threat to themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia, including two Republican-controlled states, Florida and Indiana, have some form of this law on the books.
Hopefully the above answers the question for those that have asked, “What’s the Red Flag Law?”
On to Rich Lowry.
No, the Conservative Justices Didn’t Lie
By Rich Lowry, Editor of the National Review—
The left simply lost the intellectual and political fight over the direction of the Supreme Court but can’t bear to admit it.
Progressives tell themselves instead that they’ve been undone by a series of dirty deeds, including the alleged deceit of conservative justices who lied to the U.S. Senate about their commitment to preserving Roe v. Wade.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes that impeachment proceedings should be in play.
What the perjury case against the justices in the Dobbs majority lacks is any evidence of assurances made under oath or otherwise that they would vote to uphold a ruling of the court that had, justly, been under withering assault since it was handed down 50 years ago.
This shouldn’t have been hard to figure out. Any judge who considers himself or herself an originalist was going to believe that Roe was bad law because there wasn’t remotely colorable warrant for it under the Constitution. There might have been varying views on what deference was owed to precedent, or other tactical questions; there wasn’t any meaningful disagreement on the core matter.
The dance that went on is that Democrats would try to get conservative nominees to say that Roe had been a precedent for a long time. The nominees would agree, while not going any further. They’d often cite — correctly — the refusal to comment on contested questions going back to Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s confirmation hearings.
Typical was an exchange between Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Amy Coney Barrett during her hearings. Klobuchar pressed Barrett whether Roe was a “super precedent,” or a ruling that no one thinks is in play anymore. Barrett demurred, “I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.”
This wasn’t deception — it was clearly saying, if obliquely, that Roe was vulnerable to challenge. I’d prefer if nominees were less lawyerly, but they are experts in subtle distinctions and the longstanding politicization of the confirmation process puts a premium on indirection.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been a particular target for post-Dobbs attack. Pro-choice Republican Sen. Susan Collins told The New York Times that she feels he mislead her in a private meeting.
The Times story doesn’t say that Collins asked Kavanaugh directly if he’d overturn Roe — presumably for good reason. The senator would have known such a question would have been highly improper. In fact, she praised Neil Gorsuch during his 2017 confirmation for saying he would have left the room if someone asked him for a commitment to overturn Roe.
It is doubtful that Kavanaugh told Collins anything in private that he didn’t say in his sworn public testimony as well. If he was playing some sort of double game, Collins should have felt an obligation to call Kavanaugh out on it. She didn’t. In fact, she gladly voted for him.
It is true that in his hearings Kavanaugh leaned heavily on the notion that Roe was precedent and that it had been reaffirmed in Casey, what he called “a precedent on precedent.” Yet, other supporters of Roe weren’t inclined to overinterpret this. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told Kavanaugh at the outset of the hearings, “Your own words make clear you do not really believe Roe v. Wade is settled law since the Court, as you said, ‘can always overrule its precedent.’’’
In her dramatic floor statement supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination, Collins made it clear that she also understood that his commitment to precedent was not absolute. It would give way, she explained, “in those rare circumstances where a decision is ‘grievously wrong’ or ‘deeply inconsistent with the law.’”
The Court held in Dobbs that Roe was, indeed, egregiously wrong. Collins might be disappointed, but she shouldn’t feel ill-used.
Roe never deserved to be written into law in the first place. The conservative justices never said they would preserve it, and they’ve done their duty to the Constitution by finally abandoning it.
Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review.
© 2022 King Features Synd., Inc.
To comment on this or any column in The Weekly, please mail to: Editor, P.O. Box 1223, Centralia IL 62801, email to email@example.com or drop it off at the office on 301 E. Broadway. In order for your letter to be considered for publication, you must provide your signature and an address and phone number where you can be reached. Addresses and phone numbers will not be published.