New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join William Brangham to discuss the week in politics, including a Supreme Court ruling over access to guns, President Biden's latest order protecting migrants and Donald Trump's mixed messages on immigration.
Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.
William Brangham:
This morning's Supreme Court ruling marks a major moment for a country divided over access to guns.
On that and more, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
Gentleman, happy Friday. So nice to see you both.
Jonathan Capehart:
Hey, William.
William Brangham:
Jonathan, about this — the Rahimi case that I mentioned, this marks really the first time that the court has affirmed a gun control measure after a very long stretch of moving in the opposite direction.
What are your takeaways of this?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, this is one of those cases where a sigh of relief, I think, could be heard throughout the country, especially for a court where people have been so geared up waiting for the worst, waiting for the worst decisions to come out.
And on this one, in particular, especially after the Heller decision from, I think, it was 2022, which decimated New York City's gun safety laws, the idea that people actually thought the United States Supreme Court would say, it's OK to be a domestic abuser and keep your gun, the fact that people thought that was a possibility shows you just how far the court has swung to the right and how low, in terms of esteem, lots of people hold the court.
But the court made the right decision. And, clearly, it was one, at an 8-1 decision, right, it was — clearly, it was the right thing to do morally, but also the right thing to do legally.
William Brangham:
The Heller decision that Jonathan mentions, that was Justice Antonin Scalia, a devoted gun rights activist, who said, yes, there is — the Second Amendment confers a right to own a gun.
But he also said in that ruling that governments can put these restrictions in place, and the court seemed to echo that today. I mean, do you think that this opens the door, that the court could be more open to this kind of thing going forward?
David Brooks:
Yes, so if you're a Martian, you land and you think, oh, the United States has decided not to allow people who beat their partners, throw them under the windshields of cars, shoot into houses, we're not going to allow that person to have a gun, you think, is this a hard call? Like…
William Brangham:
Right. Right.
David Brooks:
It's astonishing to me that this is even a case, and it shows how far we have gone. I don't know if the court will go further back.
I'm a little disturbed by the larger precedent that they're arguing over the historical pattern.
William Brangham:
Right. This is the Bruen decision that Thomas enshrined.
David Brooks:
Right.
And so there are a lot of historical patterns that I don't really like.
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
Agreed.
David Brooks:
And you might agree.
And so to say that the status quo has a preference is like — seems to me like stare decisis on stilts. And would they have said that before the Dobbs decision? Oh, well, there's a historical pattern, and there's been an abortion — right to abortion, we're going to go with the historical pattern?
It just seems to me it's biasing the court toward whatever is. And that's just really not for the court to decide. It's whether it was lawful. I get that. But whatever is? That seems to be stepping beyond the bounds.
William Brangham:
Yes, I mean, even the idea that there was pre-1900 the idea of spousal abuse, that a man could — I mean, the laws about this did not exist.
Anyway, let's turn to immigration. This week we saw President Biden issue this executive order that allowed some undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens to get a faster track to stay here in this country.
Separate from what you think about this politically, Jonathan. Does this feel like smart, sane policy to you?
Jonathan Capehart:
In absence of congressional action, yes.
What we're talking about are families that I call status-discordant, where one is here either fully naturalized or green card or something, and someone else in the family or multiple people in the family are here as undocumented. The level of insecurity, instability, fear that runs through that household is immeasurable.
But, also, we have to remember that those households, they're contributing to their communities. They're working. They're going to school. They're every much a part of the American fabric as if they were full-on citizens.
And so, in absence of any kind of congressional action, I think it's right that the president moved to bring them fully legally into the fold. It would be great if Congress were functioning and rational and able to have a nice, substantive, rational debate where you could come up a terrific comprehensive immigration bill that would fold all these folks in.
But I remember, when President Obama was in the White House, the Senate passed a terrific immigration bill, and Speaker John Boehner just sat on it. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Speaker Boehner hadn't…
William Brangham:
And same thing recently…
Jonathan Capehart:
Right.
William Brangham:
… where Congress, Republicans and Democrats got together, and President Trump picked up the phone and said, kill it.
Jonathan Capehart:
Kill it.
William Brangham:
And it died.
Jonathan Capehart:
Yes.
William Brangham:
Do you think that this helps offset, David, some of the concerns that Democrats and immigrants rights activists had for President Biden's previous executive order that really closed off asylum seekers' access?
David Brooks:
Yes, I went to Jonathan on the status of this thing. It just doesn't seem right to break up families. If an American marries you, I think you should pretty much count as an American.
So — but as for the politics of this, I just think the president is looking reactive. It looked like we're way behind in the polls, we have got to be tough on the border. So a couple of weeks ago, he's tough on the border. And then all the activist groups are upset with us and probably a lot of the junior staff is upset. And so now we got to faint this way.
And, to me, it's just — set aside the substance of it. The politics of it, I think, are self-destructive, that the immigration issue is one of the top issues in the world today. And you just have to have a simple rule. I believe in immigration, we're going to control the border. That has to be it.
And the British Labor Party is hitting the British Conservative Party from the right on this issue.
William Brangham:
Right.
David Brooks:
And so that's to me where Biden has — his job is to get reelected right now. And so, to me, it's simple, secure border, secure border, secure border. And I would not muddy that message.
William Brangham:
We have seen from President — former President Trump some rather strange mixed messaging on this. He has both said, I'm going to round up everybody.
I see you're already starting to smile. You can't control yourself here.
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
Finish your question, William.
William Brangham:
You know what I'm going to say, that he said, I'm going to round up millions of people and throw them out of the country. And then just this past few days, he floats the idea of green cards for everyone who's here illegally to — who graduates from college.
What is going on there?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, if I understand it, is, if you are going to one of the elite universities, or even not an elite university, but you're in school and you graduate, you should automatically get a green card with your diploma.
Buckle up, America, because he's correct.
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
He is absolutely right. It doesn't make sense that you get all of this talent coming in, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and then they graduate and then they have to leave? Donald Trump is right.
But, but I don't believe him for one minute, for one minute. He made the same promise when he was president, did nothing about it, and was draconian in his immigration views and policies. So I don't believe that he is actually going to do this.
And I would love it if it — at the debate on Thursday if they ask him about that and see if he sticks with it, because I doubt — I don't believe — I do not believe him.
William Brangham:
Do you believe him?
David Brooks:
I sort of believe him.
(Crosstalk)
Jonathan Capehart:
Oh, come on.
William Brangham:
Because it feels like, as Jonathan is saying, common sense that, if you're educated here, like, be an American.
David Brooks:
Well, that's not why I believe him, because it's common sense.
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
I believe him because he's a business executive. He was in conversation at that moment with two tech executives. And that's their number one issue.
And so he's, A, an executive. Immigration is good for business.
William Brangham:
Right.
David Brooks:
B…
William Brangham:
Educate them, put them into the work force.
David Brooks:
B, he's talking — he's a politician, even though he pretends not to be, and he's saying the things that will make the people — the rich guys he's talking to as happy as it's possible to be.
Third, I observe the phenomenon that MAGA has moved a lot in the last three or four years further to the right, way further to the right than it was and way further to the right than Donald Trump is. And that's true on abortion. That's true on immigration. That's true on a range of issues. So he is now looking a lot more flexible on all sorts of issues than his movement.
And I think this is a pattern we're going to see.
Jonathan Capehart:
I — one additional thing.
Let's say he actually tries to follow through. I would like to know, from where?
William Brangham:
From which universities, you mean?
(Crosstalk)
Jonathan Capehart:
No, no, no. From which countries?
Because I wouldn't put it past Donald Trump saying, if you're from Asia, South East Asia, no, you can't. You're not a part of this. If you're from Africa, no, you're not a part of this. If you're from Latin America, no, you're not a part of this. This does not apply to you.
There's lots of evidence, lots of audio, lots of stories about how Donald Trump feels about countries that are not European, and specifically Northern Europe.
William Brangham:
Lastly, Jonathan, you mentioned this debate.
David, I'm curious what you think. There are a lot of Democrats who are openly worried about how President Biden is going to perform in this debate with Donald Trump. Van Jones, the political commentator on CNN, the other day said, if Biden blows it, it is game over.
How substantive, how important is this debate?
David Brooks:
Well, I think it's a much bigger risk for Biden. Yes, I agree. I don't know if it's game over, but the rumblings to replace him would be massive. And I think maybe they could still try to do that. But so Biden really is laying it all on the line.
Having said that, I understood why Biden wanted to debate this early. I think he needs a momentum shift more than Trump does. And I'm a little surprised that Trump went with all the rules that he went with, like cutting off the microphones when it's not your turn.
William Brangham:
Right.
David Brooks:
Donald Trump's M.O. is interruption.
And so I'm sure, during the debate, he will actually be shouting at Donald — Joe Biden, but he will just see his mouth moving, I guess. Maybe we won't even — we will hear a little through Biden's microphone. So I'm a little surprised that Trump agreed to do this, because he's got some costs here too.
William Brangham:
I mean, all along, he's just said, I will debate you anywhere. I will meet you in the street corner and I will do it.
So, anyway, something we will all be watching for next week.
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, great to see you both. Thank you.
Jonathan Capehart:
Thanks, William.
