Picture a female jurist who has consistently defied social expectations imposed on women and whose legal thinking is closely bound up with her faith. No, I’m not talking about Amy Coney Barrett, reported to top President Trump’s list of candidates to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. I’m talking about Ginsburg herself.

Ginsburg believed fervently that conventional expectations shouldn’t hinder women as they seek their full, fair share of public life. Nor was she shy about how her Jewish faith shaped her judicial mind. In an essay for the American Jewish Committee published in 1993, she wrote: “Laws as protectors of the oppressed, the poor, the loner, is evident in the work of my Jewish predecessors. . . . The biblical command ‘Justice, justice shalt thou pursue’ is a strand that ties them together.”

By those criteria, Barrett would make a most worthy successor to RBG. In nominating the 48-year-old Louisianan, the president would present the nation with an inspiring vision of what it means to be an American woman in 2020 — one that could by turns surprise and captivate the suburban women Trump is keen to court while also delivering for the GOP base.

Enlarge Image Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrettvia REUTERS“Amy represents an opportunity to showcase a generationally brilliant, special intellect — who also is a mom,” says O. Carter Snead, Barrett’s longtime faculty colleague at the Notre Dame law school, where Barrett also received her law degree.

Her rare combination of hyper-intelligence and humility is a matter of bipartisan consensus. “The smartest person in the room and also the most humble” was how Snead and two other sources intimately familiar with Barrett described her, echoing each other almost verbatim.

Harvard Law School prof Noah Feldman — a liberal who testified before Congress in favor of ­impeaching the president — hailed her as “a truly brilliant lawyer” in a 2018 column. Feldman should know. He and Barrett were members of the same class of Supreme Court clerks in 1998.

(more…)

In 2016 I wrote in the name of Rep. Paul Ryan for president. I knew that the policies Hillary Clinton advocated were detrimental to the nation, but I simply couldn’t bring myself to vote for her rival. I found Donald Trump boorish and misogynistic, and I was dumbfounded that he had captured the GOP nomination. When the dust settled in November 2016, I was glad Mrs. Clinton was defeated. But I winced whenever I heard the president-elect speak.

Back then I thought I was a Never Trumper. Now I realize I was wrong. If the election took place today, I would vote to re-elect President Trump.

I still find Mr. Trump’s style grating, and I cringe at his narcissism. Some of his junior subordinates are wanting in talent or experience. His friendliness with the dictators of Russia and North Korea is wrong-headed, even dangerous. As for ethics, I believe he hasn’t sufficiently ensured that his hotel empire derives no profit from hosting U.S. and foreign government officials. And I think the president clearly doesn’t understand the principle of mutual gains from trade.

Notwithstanding these weaknesses, I believe that the Trump presidency has been, to a large extent, successful. Mr. Trump survived a politicized, even somewhat corrupt impeachment campaign. He has confronted a once-in-a-century virus of foreign origin in good faith and with candor. Despite often-contemptuous hostility by the elite press, and outright civil disobedience by several federal judges, the president has performed his duties and genuinely tried to keep his promises.

He not only insisted that immigration conform to the rule of law, but advocated for and (where legally permitted) built a border wall. The president has appointed more than 200 federal judges, most of whom are superb and committed to finding the law, not making it up. He has followed through on his promise to reduce taxes and to begin deregulating the economy, creating a remarkable boom that reduced unemployment for minorities to the lowest rates ever recorded.

(more…)

Not since May 1948, when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union recognized the state of Israel in the critical weeks of its war for independence, has Israel had a diplomatic month like this. On Aug. 13, the United Arab Emirates and Israel signed an agreement to normalize relations, with the formal ceremony to be held Tuesday in Washington with President Trump. On Sept. 11, Bahrain followed suit. The Palestinian Authority, holding the rotating chair of the Arab League, introduced a resolution condemning the U.A.E. move at a Zoom session of Arab foreign ministers, but in a shocking departure from past practice, the motion failed to pass. On Sept. 13 another Arab nation, Oman, issued a statement of support for Bahrain’s decision to normalize relations.