Editorial Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

March 22

The Detroit News on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch:

After two days of often hostile hearings, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is proving himself an even-tempered, deeply knowledgeable nominee who should be confirmed by the Senate.

Gorsuch calmly turned back attempts by Democrats on the Judicial Committee to paint him as an extremist whose rulings as an appeals court judge heavily favored corporate and big money special interest, the evidence to support that charge is flimsy.

At the start of Tuesday's session, Gorsuch deflated the claims that he is a threat to women by stating the Roe v. Wade precedent "has been reaffirmed many times."

And through often accusatory questioning aimed at distorting his record, he forcefully defended his rulings on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals while schooling senators on the law. He reminded the senators that "97 percent of the 2,700 cases I've decided were decided unanimously - and that I've been in the majority 99 percent of the time."

Hardly the record of an extremist, out of the mainstream jurist.

Gorsuch is coming across in the hearings as the very image of a thoughtful jurist. He's displayed an impressive depth of knowledge, and admirable patience. And he's carefully followed past practice of judicial nominees in refusing to say how he'd rule on specific issues.

Democratic committee members have not been able to rattle him or walk him onto land mine.

The hearings confirm that Gorsuch is imminently qualified, and there is nothing radical in his judicial history. But Democrats want the confirmation of this mainstream, accomplished nominee to be a demonstration of their resistance to President Donald Trump.

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, repeatedly pressed Gorsuch to comment on remarks made by Reince Priebus, Trump's chief of staff, and his adviser Steven Bannon. The nominee appropriately refused to be drawn into the partisan fight.

Many Democratic senators see this as an opportunity to pay back Republicans for refusing to give a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia, who died more than a year ago.

We agreed that Garland should have had a hearing, and a vote. He was a fine candidate for the court for many of the same reasons that recommend Gorsuch. Republicans were wrong to block him.

But it is a safe bet that Democrats would have done the same thing had a vacancy occurred in the final year of the Bush presidency and, in fact, then Sen. Joe Biden said as much.

Republicans did give Obama his first two nominees to the court without mounting a filibuster.

And Trump will get Gorsuch. Republicans understand that if they allow Democrats to use the 60-vote rule to block Gorsuch, no nominee from this president will get through the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be forced to bust the rule, just as his predecessor Harry Reid did to help Obama pack the lower courts with friendly justices.

Neil Gorsuch is heading to the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate that he has to endure the congressional kangaroo court on his way

Online:

https://www.detroitnews.com

___

March 21

The Orange County Register on the FBI investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections:

FBI Director James Comey revealed that the bureau is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections, but he offered no details or evidence of wrongdoing.

That left room for each party to try to bend news of the FBI probe to its own purposes - which Democrats and Republicans both did.

It is good to know that Russia's apparent effort to help Donald Trump's presidential campaign is being investigated. And it is good to know that leaks about the potential scandal from the U.S. intelligence community are being investigated.

But will Americans end up knowing what did or didn't happen? Or will the probes and the interpretation of the conclusions be politicized like everything else?

Comey's disclosure, made during a House Intelligence Committee hearing Monday, was the first time he publicly acknowledged the existence of such an investigation, which has apparently been under way since July.

Comey previously drew strong criticism from Democrats for publicly announcing an investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails during the waning days of the campaign.

Some Democrats have seized on the investigation to suggest Russian interference tipped the scales of the election and handed Trump the presidency, but both Comey and National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers said there is no evidence that the Russians compromised vote tallies in battleground states.

The more serious allegation from Democrats is that the Trump campaign may have conspired with an enemy nation.

Republicans have chosen to use the hearings as a forum to complain about leaks from intelligence agencies. "We aim to determine who has leaked or facilitated leaks of classified information so that these individuals can be brought to justice," said Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Tulare.

It is certainly possible that this is all much ado about nothing, and is merely being used as a power play in a struggle for political influence.

Both sides have a point. There is enough circumstantial evidence to conduct an investigation, as exemplified by the leak that revealed that former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn lied when he said publicly, and to Vice President Mike Pence, that he did not discuss the Obama administration's sanctions on Russia when he spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak shortly before Trump took office. (This led to Flynn's resignation.)

The Russia investigation, already eight months old, should be conducted as expeditiously as practicable to clear the names of innocent parties and minimize politicization.

And there are understandable concerns about the leaking of sensitive information, particularly in an era when the government, and especially the intelligence community, has unprecedented power to obtain private information about people. But we should not be too quick to prosecute whistleblowers except in the most extreme cases, where national security is truly jeopardized.

The Obama administration infamously used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute more whistleblowers and leakers than all other administrations combined. Continuing such a precedent would be chilling to the ability of insiders, with the aid of the press, to reveal wrongdoing by the government.

Online:

https://www.ocregister.com

___

March 21

The San Francisco Chronicle on Ivanka Trump's role in the White House:

The Trump family's tangle of wealth and privilege has an additional complication. Ivanka Trump is getting an inner-circle White House office and security clearance, making her the most powerful first daughter in recent times.

She's serving without pay and is promising to abide by the rules covering top federal employees. But it's a voluntary arrangement, meaning it can be scrapped at any time, and handcrafted to cover her fashion business, from which she's not fully divested.

Why it matters is because she's playing an increasingly powerful and public role with no clear authority or specific duties. Her latest appearance was in a seat next to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and followed similar sessions with other heads of state and top business leaders.

The charitable view is that she humanizes her father's policies on family issues. She has shown none of her father's choleric brand of bullying and lying.

But like the president, she's making up the rules as she goes along. It's not clear what her duties might be or, unbound by the legal constraints that apply to White House staffers, the extent to which she will isolate herself from potential conflicts of interest.

Online:

http://www.sfchronicle.com

___

March 21

The Telegraph, UK, on banning laptops, tablets and DVD players on certain passenger flights:

On the day the death was announced of a former IRA leader whose terror campaign rocked Britain for more than two decades came a further reminder of the threat that took its place. Martin McGuinness and his fellow republicans may have given up violence but the jihadis intent on causing maximum carnage remain a deadly menace.

Ever since the September 11 attacks on America 16 years ago, militant Islamists have been seeking to replicate that atrocity by targeting airlines. Many plots have been thwarted, including one to detonate bombs in a succession of planes over the Atlantic.

As a result, airline security is now intense. Liquids are banned from the cabin as are, understandably, sharp implements that could be used to attack crew. Most of us accept the inconvenience of airport checks with varying degrees of good grace: if our lives are at stake then why would we not give up time in a queue in order to ensure security is as watertight as possible?

Now comes another measure which promises to have a significant impact on travelers. In common with the United States, Britain is imposing a cabin baggage ban on laptops, tablets and DVD players on certain passenger flights. Planes travelling from half a dozen countries, including Turkey, are included in the laptop ban, affecting 14 UK and overseas carriers.

The decision is based on intelligence reports that jihadis are seeking to smuggle bombs on board airlines that they can detonate on mid-air. This is not an idle threat: last year, a suicide bomber on a Somalian plane set off a device hidden in a laptop and blew a hole in the fuselage but killed only himself. The device was sophisticated enough to go through airport X-ray scanners undetected.

There is, therefore, a serious issue here yet the response is puzzling. The Americans have introduced a similar prohibition but it affects travelers from 10 specified airports in eight countries. Why the approach adopted by the US and the UK should be different is unclear. Moreover, would a terrorist not go via another airport or country to avoid the ban - so why is it not applied to all planes?

Inevitably, critics of President Trump have tried to make out that this is another anti-immigration law when it is justified on security grounds. But passengers are entitled to a consistent approach if they are to retain confidence in airline security.

Online:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

___

March 20

New York Post on the death of billionaire businessman David Rockefeller:

David Rockefeller, who died Monday at 101, was the last surviving grandson of Standard Oil pioneer John D. Rockefeller and spent 25 years at the helm of Chase Manhattan Bank. But that barely scratches the surface of his profound legacy.

Born to great wealth, Rockefeller (like his four brothers) used it for public service that went far beyond just writing $900 million in charitable checks over his lifetime.

A statesman whose influence was felt 'round the world, his connections in business, philanthropy and politics were "unequaled," notes his biographer, Ron Chernow.

Yet it was in New York that his influence and activity were most keenly felt.

"No individual has contributed more to the commercial and civic life of New York City over a longer period of time," said former Mayor Mike Bloomberg. And it's no exaggeration.

In the 1950s he personally sparked the rebirth of Lower Manhattan, then a decaying area, by insisting on building Chase's new headquarters there instead of Midtown.

Others followed: From 1960 to 1972, some 45 new office buildings went up in the area. He also helped drive the building of the World Trade Center and Battery Park City.

Then, during New York's mid-'70s fiscal crisis, Rockefeller took the lead in recruiting the private sector to help craft a rescue plan that allowed the city to escape bankruptcy.

He endowed museums and founded the New York City Partnership, which both funds public-interest projects (including thousands of units of affordable housing) and works to keep the city the center of global commerce and culture.

David Rockefeller was the last of a bygone era. "No one can step into his shoes," said a longtime friend, "because it's just a different world." RIP.

Online:

http://nypost.com

___

March 19

The Tuscaloosa News on U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' approach to drugs:

Our nation is in the grips of an opioid epidemic unlike anything we've seen before. Just a few short years ago, heroin was thought to be a drug of past decades. Now, people are overdosing and dying in record numbers.

Substance abuse and the far-reaching impact it has on our nation, our communities and our families is nothing new in the American experience. It has been around since the dawn of our nation. Social experiments in our efforts to address the problem have usually centered on strong government control, increasingly harsh criminal penalties for those who dare stray against the strong arm of the law, and prohibition.

Different approaches, from prohibition and incarceration to less punitive measures that focus on treatment instead of criminality, have been taken over the years to greater or lesser extremes. Much of that is up for debate and should be debated.

But there are three points that new U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions made about the problem of substance abuse this week that show he is incredibly out of touch. The former U.S. senator from Alabama was speaking Wednesday in Richmond, Virginia when he said that medical marijuana is overhyped. He then said marijuana is "only slightly less awful than heroin." He also said the answer to our nation's drug problems is a return to the 1980s abstinence programs, when our government urged people to "Just Say No" to drug use.

He couldn't be any more wrong on all points.

Regardless of your opinion on whether marijuana is good or bad, it is simply not factually correct to say that recent discoveries on how it can legitimately help a wide range of medical issues are anything less than significant.

To say marijuana is slightly less bad than heroin is absolutely bizarre. According to the Centers for Disease Control, national death rates attributed to heroin overdoses have increased by greater than 50 percent since 2010. "The rapid rise in heroin overdose deaths follows nearly 2 decades of increasing drug overdose deaths in the United States primarily driven by" prescription opioid pain relievers, according to a CDC report from 2014. There has never been an overdose death attributed to marijuana.

To compare the two harkens back to the anti-marijuana propaganda that was built upon lies. When Sessions uses that same tired rhetoric, it makes people, particularly young people, distrust anything the government says about the dangers of particular drugs.

Meanwhile, "Just Say No" preceded one of the darkest periods in our nation's history with regard to drug abuse. Without a doubt, abstinence efforts were massive failures that did little to nothing to curb drug abuse but did much to lead to mass incarceration.

We're faced with a serious problem. People are dying in record numbers because of heroin and abuse of legal prescription opioid medications. Sessions' answer is to double down on misinformation and policies that have failed for decades.

Online:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com

___

March 17

The Los Angeles Times on U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and North Korea:

The Trump administration has every reason to be exasperated by North Korea's continued acceleration of its nuclear weapons program, which poses a threat not only to South Korea but also to other countries in Asia and potentially to the United States. But Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went too far during his current swing through Asia by seeming to suggest that the United States might engage in a preemptive military strike against North Korea.

"Certainly we do not want things to get to a military conflict," Tillerson told reporters in Seoul. But he added that "if North Korea takes actions that threaten the South Korean forces or our own forces, then that will be met with an appropriate response. If they elevate the threat of their weapons program to a level that we believe requires action, that option is on the table."

There's nothing new about the idea that the U.S. would defend South Korea against an attack from the North. But Tillerson seemed to be raising the possibility of a pre-emptive strike. If that was his meaning, the threat was premature, because the U.S. has other ways to deter North Korea. But the ambiguity of his words was itself a problem. Its vagueness recalled former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's warning earlier this year that he was putting Iran "on notice."

At the same time, Tillerson seemed to rule out resuming negotiations with the North even if the North agreed that the goal of the talks would be denuclearization. "The policy of strategic patience has ended," Tillerson said, referring to the Obama administration's strategy of hoping that economic sanctions would force Pyongyang to resume negotiations.

We don't fault Tillerson or President Trump for responding to recent North Korean missile tests. The U.S. is installing a missile-defense system in South Korea despite complaints by China that its sophisticated radar would thwart Chinese defenses, and the same system could also be deployed in Japan. Presumably the U.S. is also continuing cyber-attacks against the North Korean nuclear program. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to urge China to put more pressure on North Korea.

Nor was Trump wrong when he tweeted on Friday that "North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been 'playing' the United States for years." North Korea has made commitments not only to the U.S. but to other nations and then reneged on them, and the U.S. shouldn't engage it in negotiations until Pyongyang makes it clear that it is serious about giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. But as the U.S. explores what Tillerson calls a "new approach" to North Korea, it should leave open the door to negotiations.

Meanwhile, it's important that the president and the secretary of State not engage in what sounds like saber-rattling.

Online:

http://www.latimes.com/