JUDY WOODRUFF: Now we turn to the analysis
of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated
columnist Mark Shields and New York Times
columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you. So much to talk about
this week. I guess that's the way it always
is lately.
But, Mark, let's start with these two big
Supreme Court rulings this week. Yesterday,
the court ruled in favor of young immigrants
who came to the U.S. illegally. Earlier in
the week, they -- the ruling was in favor
of LGBTQ rights, saying that they were covered
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In both cases, one or more of the more conservative
justices sided with the liberals. The president
responded by saying he wants new justices
on the court. I guess my question is, what
do these rulings say about the court? And
is it in step with the country?
MARK SHIELDS: I think the court is in step
with the country, Judy.
Ironically, the LGBTQ decision was a historical
imperative from the 164 Civil Rights Act,
when Judge Howard Smith, a segregationist
from Virginia, chairman of the Rules Committee,
inserted, after color, race, creed and national
origin in the civil rights bill, sex, and
hoping to submarine the bill, sabotage it.
But it sailed through with sex there, and
that was where, of course, Justice Gorsuch
found the justification for changing the absolutely
contradictory ruling that had been prevalent
in the United States that a couple could get
married on a Sunday legally, same-sex, and
the bride or the groom could be fired on Monday
for having been married, revealed to be an
LGBTQ, a member of that community.
So I think, in that sense, there was almost
an important -- a historical direction to
it.
And, as far as -- I do not understand Donald
Trump on the question of DACA, of children
who came here, who were brought here without
their will, not even involved in their will,
raised, have gone on to college, have served
in the United States Marine Corps or the United
States Army, have no criminal record.
Somewhere between seven out of 10 and eight
out of 10 Americans believe those people should
remain in the country. I don't know where
he sees the mean streak in the American electorate
that wants these people, who have only lived
in the United States, who have served their
country, and who are abiding by good citizenship
rules, to be exported, and to a country and
culture they do not know.
And I just think he's on the losing side of
this issue in public opinion and on justice
and decency.
JUDY WOODRUFF: David, what about these two
cases? What do they say?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, when you don't have a
functional Congress, then the power of the
branch of government that is actually functioning
is going to take control.
And that's sort of what's happened here. As
Mark said, both in DACA and the LGBTQ case,
overwhelming majorities, 80 percent, 70 percent,
think it's a terrible idea to be able to fire
somebody on the basis of their sexual orientation.
They support DACA.
And Congress is unable to act, when you have
got gigantic majorities. And so the Supreme
Court acted. I'm not sure it was judicial,
what they did. It looks a little legislative
to me, if you look at the decisions.
But the country moves with the people. And
the people have moved on both these issues.
And the court is now the only functioning
branch of government we have.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And the president saying on
the young immigrants that they're going to
try to come up with new language, but remains
to be seen whether they can do that.
Mark, another piece of bad news the president
got this week came in the form of John Bolton's
book, his former national security adviser,
the title of the book, in -- "The Room Where
It Happened," and that's a lot of what's in
the book, embarrassing for the president,
saying that he asked the Chinese leader to
help him with his reelection, that he didn't
know Norway wasn't part of Russia, and just
a lot more.
The White House denying it all. But how much
of this is damaging, Mark, do you think, to
the president, and what does it say about
John Bolton?
MARK SHIELDS: What it says about John Bolton
is, you can him a truth-teller. You can call
it a snitch or a rat fink. You really can't
call him a patriot.
I mean, John Bolton, obviously, in reading
this book, or looking at it, has concluded
that Donald Trump is intellectually unqualified,
morally bankrupt, and ethically handicapped.
But he refused to testify, did not volunteer
to testify at the impeachment hearing, and
-- this past February, very kind of artfully
skirted around it.
I think it could come back to bite some of
the Republicans who voted against witnesses,
Joni Ernst and Steve Daines and Thom Tillis
and Lindsey Graham, who voted against witnesses,
given this. His testimony then might very
well have fallen into a partisan maw and just
been chewed up.
But now it's the center. And I would say the
first person that owes us an apology is the
University of Pennsylvania for turning out
a graduate who did not know that Finland was
not part of Russia, did not know that the
third nation in the world to get the nuclear
power was the United Kingdom, some 64 years
before he was elected.
So, I think, in that sense -- but the point
you raised, Judy, is the key one, and that
is China, that -- going to run against Joe
Biden on China, that Joe Biden was too chummy
to China? And what John Bolton tells us is
that Donald Trump was asking China to give
him a hand in the reelection by buying soybeans,
so it would help him get reelected, and had
no qualms at all, gave a moral green light
to the millions Uyghurs, Muslims in China
being put into concentration camps.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm glad you corrected me,
Mark. I met Finland. I said Norway, but it
was Finland that the president was -- asked
about whether it was part of Russia.
But, David, what about the book? What does
it say about the president? Does it change
opinions of the president?
DAVID BROOKS: I don't think it really changes
our opinion.
I mean, he uses the office for personal gain.
I think that's the portrait that gets -- we
get from the whole book, certainly get from
the excerpts. And that's the definition of
corruption, not using the office to serve
the public good, but to serve Donald Trump's
good.
I think, if he had said -- the one thing,
the story that stuck out that I did not know
about was the tele -- the Chinese telecom
company GTE -- or ZTE, which, apparently,
Trump offered to give them a break on the
investigation of their apparent breakage of
the Iran blockade.
And Trump said: I could go light on that investigation.
And that's true corruption. That's what a
president is not supposed to do. If Bolton
had come out with that story in the middle
of the impeachment process, it would have
been a gigantic story. Would it have ended
in impeachment? I doubt it. But it would have
been a very big story, and we wouldn't know
a lot more about what exactly happened.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to come back with both
of you to the -- so much discussion in the
country lately about race relations, treatment
of black Americans.
That had a lot to do, I'm sure, with Amy Klobuchar's
statement last night in a TV interview, Mark,
that she wanted to be taken out of the running.
I guess she had called Vice President Biden
earlier. She wanted to be taken out of the
running to be his vice presidential running
mate, then saying she's urging him to choose
an African-American woman.
How much pressure is on Joe Biden to choose
a woman of color?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, the pressure on Joe Biden
is self-administered.
He volunteered, of course, he was going to
pick a woman in an unpressured debate situation
with Bernie Sanders. So, there he is. And,
obviously, events have given greater impetus
and support to a woman of color joining the
ticket.
I'd say this, Judy. The polls are not unimportant.
The wider the gap between Joe Biden and Donald
Trump, and if it does continue to widen in
the polls between now and the 1st of August,
it gives him a lot more latitude on whom he
chooses.
Most decisions for vice president are made
on who can help me. I need that help. But
I would say right now that the chances of
a woman -- a woman of color being chosen are
pretty good.
One leading Democrat said to me this week,
"I wish he could choose Elizabeth Warren."
And I -- "Why?"
And he said: "Well, because Elizabeth Warren
in 10 minutes took $350 million of Mike Bloomberg
and a public career of distinguished achievements
and reduced it to rubble, in 10 minutes. And
what she would do to Mike Pence, the Humane
Society would have to intervene to stop the
carnage."
But the problem is that you want Elizabeth
Warren there on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November. And I guess that's
the dilemma to some degree that Joe Biden
faces.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Referring back to how she handled
Mike Bloomberg during the primary debates.
But, David, what about Joe Biden and his coming
decision, whenever it comes?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
Well, first of all, I think it's unfortunate
that, if you were a prosecutor, that's now
a problem to be the Democratic nominee -- to
be a nominee for vice president. And that's
true of Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris. Being
a prosecutor is a necessary and a noble public
function.
And I don't think it was -- it turned out
to be a negative for her. And I think that's
unfortunate.
If I'm Joe Biden, I don't think the vice presidential
pick matters that much in getting elected
or not elected. What it really matters is
in governing. He needs someone who can help
him govern. He needs someone who can make
sure that there is no gigantic civil war between
moderates and people on the left within his
administration.
He needs somebody who maybe can take over
on a moment's notice. And so I would focus
on that. Now, are there women color who can
do that? Obviously. Maybe Mayor Bottoms. I
don't know. I think there's a -- there's a
lot of people who could fit that bill.
And so I think he has a lot of great options.
But I just would say it's about governing,
not about running.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, of course, a lot of people
bring up the point that, if Joe Biden's elected,
he would be the oldest person ever to occupy
or ever to take office as president of the
United States.
We have only got about a minute, so just in
a few seconds to both of you.
Juneteenth, Mark, it's a day we were aware
of, but now, in a way, never before. What
does it say about this country, in just a
few seconds?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, Judy, it's remarkable.
I mean, if you think of January 1, 1863, the
Emancipation Proclamation, and then two-and-a-half
years later, the word finally gets, after
some two-and-a-half months after the end of
the war, gets to Galveston, Texas, that slavery
is abolished, its end, in one day.
I mean, what a remarkable transformation,
and what a day to celebrate. And I just -- I
think our dawning awareness of it is important.
And I think it ought to be nationally institutionalized.
And it's a positive, it really is, that we
do fulfill the Declaration of Independence
that all men are created equal.
JUDY WOODRUFF: David, in just a few seconds.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I'm struck by, for many
decades, the pioneer experience was the defining
American experience. And then the immigrant
experience was the defining American experience.
Now the struggle for racial justice is the
defining American experience. And it's natural
that a holiday about that rises in prominence.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Today is Juneteenth.
And we thank both of you, Mark Shields, David
Brooks. We will see you next Friday.
