David Brooks is the ultimate RINO. As the ‘conservative’ columnist at the New York Times, Brooks has never met a Democrat he didn’t like or a liberal policy he didn’t endorse.
And yet, even he can see what an outrageous thing it is for four unelected judges to interfere in the 2024 election by taking Trump off the ballot.
Brooks commented on this during an appearance on taxpayer-funded PBS.
Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
AMNA NAWAZ, PBS NEWSHOUR: I do want to get you both to weigh in on the issue out of Colorado as well, the Supreme Court there weighing in and basically saying Mr. Trump is not eligible to appear on their primary ballot, citing the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
We know there’s similar legal efforts under way in a number of states. So this is likely headed for the Supreme Court… You agree with that, David?
DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: No.
NAWAZ: What should happen here?
BROOKS: Yes.
Well, why is Donald Trump, why did he become president? Why are there populist movements across every Western country? It’s because a lot of people in a lot of these countries, me included, think a highly educated cohort of, in this case Americans, have created a hereditary meritocratic class. They have too — they have a lot of education. They now have a lot of cultural power. They control the media. They control the universities. They increasingly control the courts.
And a lot of Americans say they have too much power. We’re going to be populists. We’re going to have an uprising. And then you have a series of judges with their Ivy League law degrees who come in and say, sorry, we’re taking your guy off the ballot? That would explode this country and, in my view, explode it under the most dubious possible circumstances, for kicking off for the Insurrection Act.
This video is cued to start at the 8:22 mark:
It’s amazing that Brooks got this right, but he definitely did.
Post a Comment