a big bum for harris as well. let's bring in wall street journal columnist. >> to big development i think this week. biden is back to the field of the polls number one and number two elizabeth were beginning to edge ahead of bernie sanders as the favorite of the left but let's take biden first. how much trouble is he in? >> he is in a lot of trouble. here is why. if you look at the numbers after the debate what you see is that the people who were up there on the stage where the fighters and landing the punches are the ones that have come up on top and in particular, kamali harris who went after joe biden of this question of his position on busing and segregation. we do not come out of this doing much more about how a president harris would govern but the one thing that all democrats want is they want a fighter and someone will take it to trump and that's a warning for biden and for sanders who both came out of that looking . paul: jason, she attacked harris attacked his policies on busing essentially a racial issue. this was from the 1970s, i guess, or 80s but was that the reason biden has suffered? or is it the way he looked at responded - showing his age? >> i think probably the latter. he looked flat-footed and it was a line of attack he should've been prepared for or better prepared for. paul: you could see that coming from [inaudible] - >> i think biden wanted to keep the focus on president trump. he needs to find a way to effectively deflect these people coming after him and turn the attention back to the president and remind voters that he is the person who can take on the president and beat him. he failed to do that. he got sucked in with the back-and-forth and harris ate his lunch. i don't think on the substance she was right i think it was an unfair attack in fact but i think she looked like a fighter and look like someone who could stand on the stage with president trump and go blow for blow and that's what she was trying to protect. paul: but if biden tried to bump the frame and hope to be able to focus on trump and not have to focus on the others but if the others go after him one, two, three or four things and they have to get in there and mix it up to show he can take on trump and to show he's tough enough to take on these attacks. >> that is right. one argument for joe biden is the so-called moderate. the idea was that biden would stand up to the progressives because presumably a lot of democrats out there across the country want a more moderate voice than elizabeth warren and of bernie sanders are selling but he did not do that and did not stand up to him. do you know what, paul? i don't think there's evidence he will stand up to them in the way people are talking about. joe biden has reputation for pandering to that thing and do that on title ix in the sexual abuse guidelines during the obama ministration but joe biden is a politicians who can be whatever he needs to be but on that stage you got to decide will he stand up to the progressives and be a true moderate candidate or try to square the circle with all the elements of the democratic party which at the moment is impossible. paul: kim, what's the recipe if there is one for biden to make a comeback or can he make a comeback or are we watching a spiral down here? >> he's got to get out of this crouch. he can wish that this will be about president trump but it's not. it's officially about him. he's got to quit apologizing for things he's done in the past and turn it around and require some candidate to follow their own logic out in the attack they are putting on him. for instance on busing, his answer there should've been it was a really controversial issue in the 1970s and just as controversial as it is now but do you really support busing thomas senator harris? out there in the african-american committees that in unsettled issue. he will have to go on offense on some of these people if you want to turn it back on them and look like a fighter he needs to look like. paul: do you agree that? >> i think so. will have to do a better job of responding and he looked like he was not expecting the question and had no way to respond. paul: does he have to take on the left? does he have to say your for medicare for all and that's wrong and here is why. you go into election for donald trump for medicare for all you will lose. >> i think he does need to do that, paul. especially if he's making a play for the midwestern and swing voters and that essentially is why he's in this race. he is going to push back and i'm a little surprised that kamala harris is playing the race card this early in this often. i don't recall, say president obama, doing it this early and in the contest but one reason is if you're playing in the progressive lane there is little else to distinguish you other than playing the gender card or race card and so forth. that's why she's out there doing it and it seems to be working. paul: dan, quickly, elizabeth warren surpassing bernie sanders and some of the polls. why? >> because elizabeth warren is present in herself with plans and a lot of ideas she wants to quote unquote, reform corporate america. bernie sanders is now clearly running as a purebred socialist, capitalist socialist. that is making a lot of people, including democrats nervous that bernie would have no way to form a government or enact the stuff he's proposing about. warren does have a plan, 20 of them. paul: thank you, dan. up next, u.s. economy has a milestone with the expansion of the longest on record economist art lever joins us with a look at how we got here and the possible risks ahead. >> we have the number one economy in the world and a lot of that is tax cuts and a lot of it is regulation cuts. ♪ limu emu & doug what do all these people have in common, limu? [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪ paul: u.s. economy reaching a major milestone the secret money market 121st month since the recession ended in 2009. it made it the longest stretchin of economic expansion in modern u.s. history. economists arthur lepper is the founder and chairman of the associates. enqueue and let me congratulate you on the presidential medal of freedom. well deserved. >> thank you, paul. paul: ri don't think it's well-deserved but i'm not .etting it back paul: okay, good. let's talk about this expansion. y long, longest in history, but it's also very slow. one of the worst stretches of growth for an expansion in american history, and i think the longest stretch certainly since they've been keeping records of less than 3% growth or less, longer than ten years before it happened in 2018. how do you explain that? >> well, i think we've had very bad policies at the beginning of this recession. mean, 2008-2009 you had all the stimulussing spending which was nothing other than a tax increase by both w. and obama, and it led to a very, very slow recovery. i don't know why it hasn't picked up more than it has, but it sure has picked up with trump. and i think maybe what we're doing is hitting some supply constraints as we go along, but i think we're in for a lot longer, you know, expansion than just 121 months. i don't see any policy changes that would make this worse. paul: well, okay. so but are you worried at all about the slowdown in growth, particularly the slowdown in the last six months or so in corporate investment? business investment? >> no, i really am not. i mean, look, you may get a second quarter that's lower than we would like to have it, we had a good first quarter, what was it, 3.1? paul: yep. >> but with the stock market doing what it has done in the first six months of this year, that's a harbinger of really great things to come. and i would expect to see the economy doing very well for the year as a whole. i would hope well above 3% -- paul: above 3%? >> above 3 for the year, yeah. paul: wow. okay. so you were going to make a point about growth rates? because you're an outlier here if you're predicting 3% or well above 3% for this year. there aren't many people doing that. >> well, i don't mean 8% -- paul: i know, but -- >> 3% for the year, 3 plus. paul: look, art, i'm going to -- >> 3 or a little plus. you don't get a stock market like this, paul, without good economic growth in the future. you just plain don't, and this stock market's amazing for the first six months. we have very low interest rates, which is great, we have no inflation. i mean, this is a perfect, this is a goldilocks economy right now. the policies and the transparency, paul, and the medical sector, you know, that's probably a little less than 20% of the economy, we're finally bringing it back into the market economy. i mean, people are going to know what the prices are of products and what the quality is of those products. you're going to get a drop in medical prices, i think a lot over the next year, and this is really a huge deal. paul: all right. let me ask you about trade policy because as i talk to business people, they -- this is the thing that they point to as the reason for caution. they say this has created uncertainty about where to invest in their supply lines, it has contributed to a global slowdown in the growth of trade and to particularly a downturn in manufacturing which, as you know, is now on the cusp of whether or not it's going to be an actual downturn. so how big a problem, in your view, is the trade uncertainty? >> well, trade is really, really important, and the freer the trade, the better the economy, period. i mean, i was in the white house from 1970-'72 when nixon did a 10% import surcharge, he devalued the dollar, he had the job development credit which excluded foreign-made capital. all of that led to a sharp drop in the stock market and a very big slowdown, worst one since the great depression at that time. if you look at the great depression, smoot-holly did that, the market fell by 90%, so trade is really important and let me just make that very clear. now, the question is whether this administration, are they negotiating for having tariffs, or are they negotiating to get tariffs in non-tariff areas removed? i believe it's the latter. i believe trump's strategy is to get freer trade, not more protectionism, and i think he's succeeding quite well. i'm quite optimistic about trade, but i am a full believer in full trade, and i think the tactics he's using are reasonable tactics. paul: well, let's ask about china in particular, because i know the president is trying to use trade to get better terms of trade with china and fewer predatory abuses. but let's say you can't get a deal and you've got those 25% tariffs currently on a couple hundred billion worth of products, they last right through the election year? that's going to be -- >> that's not good. paul: no, that'd be a problem, and you've still got that threat of the hangover of imposing tariffs on european automobiles of 25%. that's also a potential problem. if the president called you and said, art, what should i do about that, what would you tell him? >> well, you know i'm for free trade, but i don't know anything about negotiating with countries like china or north korea. it's way above my pay grade, paul. but he does know how to do these negotiations, and he's doing a darn good job. the canada-mexico-u.s. deal was okay, i think the south korea thing, i think he's moving along very well with china. i'm not one to second guess him on his strategy, but i think higher tariffs would hurt the economy, the world economy, and i think that would be the wrong thing to do unless you can get a much better deal, and i'm hoping that he does get a much better deal and i really expect it. paul: okay. are you anticipating that the federal reserve is going to cut rates a couple of times in 2019, and do you think that's a good idea? >> they have to. i mean, the fed has always followed rights, it's never led them, and it shouldn't lead them, and the rates have been falling dramatically. when the rates fall dramatically, the fed should lower rates. it's right in accordance with their policies historically. i see nothing inconsistent with the fed lowering rates say right on the same policy that they've done. i think the two new members of the fed the president is proposing are both good. i think judy shelton's spectacular, to be honest with you. i think she'll add a fresh breath of air in the fed board, and i expect the fed to lower rates a fatherly sizable amount. i mean, there's no inflation -- a fairly sizable amount. the ten-year bond yield is less than 2%. paul: that's astonishing. how do you explain that? >> well, i explain it because there's no inflation and, you know, there's not been a policy here that has allowed inflation to come back, thank goodness. and i think i also explain it because the rest of the world's not doing nearly as well as the u.s., and there is a global marketplace for bonds and interest rates and inflation, and i think the u.s. is being helped -- well,st it is being helped by lower inflation than the rest of the world, and negative interest rates in of these countries, but we are the prime, shining light of the global community, and we're getting benefits of low interest rates and low inflation, which is wonderful. paul: all right, art, thanks for being here. >> when reagan -- [inaudible] paul: we gotta go, art, but thanks. >> sure. hey, thank you, paul. paul: instead of is celebrating economic expansion, the democratic candidates are sounding the alarm, issuing dire warnings about inequality and proposing really radical plans to fix it. so is it a smart strategy for whoever winds up taking on president trump in the general election? >> we are is the necessity of not only beating trump, but doing what has to be done to transform this country and create an economy that works for all of us. i didn't really know anything about my family history. went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not. ♪ ♪ paul: the u.s. economy may be mark its longest expansion on record, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the democratic presidential candidates who have taken to campaign trail and the debate stage to present a grim picture of an economy that is not working for the average american. >> who is this economy really working for? it's doing great for thinner and thinner slices at the top. >> this economy has got to work for everyone, and right now we know that it isn't. i live in a low income black and brown community. i see every single day that this economy is not working for average americans. >> this economy is not working for working people. for too long is rules have been written in the favor of the people who have the most and not in favor of the people who work the most. paul: we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and jason riley. dan, just one quick point, the last two years, in fact, the income gains have been going up at a faster clip. it's a factual point, for people who are the up skilled workers -- unskilled workers, for actually non-supervisory positions. so factually, they've got to get their head out of -- this economy isn't 2016 anymore. [laughter] >> right. or even 1939. i mean, also, you know, black unemployment, hispanic unemployment is the lowest level since back to 1960s which means, i think, paul, that a lot of minorities do have jobs now that didn't have them from 2008-2016. so it raises the question what are these people talking about? and as you're suggesting, i think they've got to push a little bit beyond simply this rhetorical platitude just dumping on the american economy and make an argument about what exactly their problem is inside that economy. elizabeth warren, for instance, is bellowing about oil companies and oil company profits. if you go into the towns where energy has come back, paul, it is booming with jobs for workers, blue collar, middle class people. that's who has been benefiting. paul: jason, there's a real turn to left on health care policy. it's medicare for all instead of obamacare. student loans, write 'em all off and free college instead of just subsidies. on immigration it's pretty close now to let 'em all in and give 'em all free health care as opposed to balance security with legal immigration. there's other examples you can give. how do you explain this turn left? >> i think that the democrats are misreading anti-trump sentiment and seeing it as a green light for every progressive idea they've ever had -- paul: but these aren't -- these are smart people. [laughter] why would they be doing this if they can read the polls and the public would be with them? >> because i think, you know, nancy pelosi may be the head of the democratic party, but the person or the people with the will in the democratic party now are the progressives. and i think they are running the show, and their agenda is getting played up not only in terms of congress, but also in the media which i think is giving them a lot of fuel here. so that is, i think it's a poorly thought out strategy because i don't think that that is where most democrats are, let alone most americans. but right now it is the progressives that are ascendant on the left. paul: how much of this is due to bernie sanders' relative success in 2016 with all those bernie brigades and young people and the millennial generation that is, i think in every poll, i much more liberal than earlier generations? this is that kind of leading democrats to go this route? >> well, that's a really important part of it, paul. remember, for many of those democrats out there they still remain very angry at the dem crack national committee who -- democratic national committee who they felt stacked the deck against bernie last time around, and they believe the fact that clinton lost is because she was not radical enough in her policies. now, that's crazy. she lost because of an immense amount of baggage that she carried around and because is she wasn't a good campaigner. but they've taken another message out of this, and that particular crew also has a ton of millennials who are the snowflake generation -- [laughter] who haven't ever seen necessarily what happens when you have very, very bad economic policies, what it can do to an economy and so are, you know, pushing for some of these very outlandish proposals. >> and, paul, i think putting aside the general election, i think this could hurt some democrats in the primary. if you look at the primary electorate, it tends to skew older. 60% of primary voters back in 2016 were over 25, and the group over 60 is larger than the group under 30. do people want to see 70% marginal rates? do people aging want to see their private health care snatched away? are they for slavery operations and felon voting and phasing out gas-powered cars? i don't think they're primary voters. >> i agree with that, but that as it it may, if you are in politics today, your marinating in social media and media, and i think the tail is wagging the donkey because it is the only conversation democrats can have is about these summits, and there is no conversation -- subjects, and there is no conversation about the more moderate policy that, say, former congressman john delaney tried to raise in those debates or john hickenlooper. paul: you think it's a social media phenomenon? >> i absolutely do. paul: is that because of fundraising or the energy they provide or that there's a reinforcing message? if jason's right, if those aren't going to be the people that decide the primary if, that's a bad bet. >> pete buttigieg raised $24 million in the last quarter, a lot of it's being done with social media, small donors. the big democratic donors are sitting on the sidelines at the moment. maybe if they get back in the game, you can get more of a conversation about moderate democratic policy. paul: all right, thank you all. still ahead, trump doctrine. the president's brand of diplomacy was on full display in asia, but can the president use that same strategy to engage with an increasingly aggressive iran? >> they know what they're doing, they know what they're playing with, and i think they're playing with fire. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ♪ ♪ paul paul president trump's signature brand of diplomacy on full display last weekend as he revived trade talks with chinese president xi jinping and met with north korean leader kim jong un at the demilitarized. the president hoping that personal engagement will produce a foreign policy victory as he heads into a re-election campaign. but as iran becomes increasingly aggressive and continues to violate the 2015 nuclear accord, will the president's personal diplomacy be enough? let's ask retired four-star army general jack keane who is a fox news senior strategic analyst. general, welcome again. good to have you here. after this week of diplomacy with north korea and that historic moment on the dmz, where do we stand with the north right now? has anything really changed substantively? >> well, yes, to a certain degree. clearly, what happened to us is after the hanoi summit sort of blew up and kim jong un went home empty-handed, because he clearly has an objective to get sanction relief -- paul: right. >> -- and long train ride home, and face saving is what he undertook and trying to regain leverage for the enshoing number ofs -- ensuing number of months. i think president trump recognized that north north korn were not coming back to table. we reached out to them through our personal envoy, secretary of state, still not coming to table, so he used personal diplomacy to help restart the talks. he took a gamble there, a chance, and i think it worked. so i think we should give him credit for that. now, the other thing is that they've agreed to work at the staff level in groups certainly trying to deal with the major issues before heads of state have to grapple with those issues as they have done in the previous two summittings. that is a good thing, paul -- summittings. because as you know, the north koreans have not put on the table yet anything that comes close to denuclearization, and yet they want some relief from us on the sanctions. so we're going to work that out on the working level, and there's a possibility we can make some progress. we'll have to see. paul: yeah, well, i think that's the key. north koreans, they're willing to make some concessions, you know, close the site, for example, what they're doing there, but, of course, they've already done that once in a prove administration, but they want with sanctions relief before anything else, and that's the rub. i don't see any if substantive change on that so far. >> yeah. i think there has been a shift in the administration. they've made two major shifts. remember, in the beginning they wanted to get this done during president trump's first term. paul: right. >> now, no rush. major change. the second change is taking place inside the national security team, and that is the recognition that this has to be a step-by-step the process, that to think that north korea will give us all of their weapons, nuclear and ballistic missiles and then we would give them sanction relief is not realistic. they've come the that understanding. so i see we don't necessarily have to make major sanction relief in terms of concessions to them. we can help them with humanitarian things. i mean, they've got 400 miles of paved rod, that's it -- road, that's it. there's so many things that north korea needs that would not take away from the imposition of the sanctions, which is what brought north korea to table. also at some point, i think if the north koreans are serious here, we'll get to point where we'll end the so-called korean war if end the armistice which is an enabler to move forward also because security, while economic prosperity is something that kim jong un is interested in -- and i think that is the difference between his grandfather and father -- security guarantee is absolutely crucial. i think that's job one for him. and we'll have to make some steps in that direction. there's a huge question mark here, as we all know -- paul: right. >> -- if we're going to be successful here or not. paul: let's turn to iran because it's been widely reported that you, your counsel to be cautious about the military strike was heeded by the president when he decided not to respond to the drone shootdown by iran. but now iran has moved ahead, and they're saying we're no longer going to obey crucial terms of the 2015 accord. we're going to enrich uranium above the 3.6% limit, and they're going to create new stockpiles, and they even open up the arak nuclear facility. so what is donald trump's next move? >> well, first of all, let's see what, what the iranians are actually doing. i suspect that there'll be some increase in their enrichment program and maybe opening up the hard water facility. i don't think it'll be with significant because what do they really want here? what they're seeking is for the united kingdom, germany and france to provide them some economic relief. and they're using this as leverage to get it. in other words, increasing the enrichment program. i think they're saying to them privately, look, we'll go back and abide by the restrictions if you provide us this economic relief because of what the united states is doing to us with the crippling sanctionings. that's the play. paul: but, general, the europeans are not in position to provide that relief as long as the u.s. sanctions are in place. >> well, you know that they tried to work outside -- paul: yes. >> -- of the dollar financial system that drives the world and try to find another mechanism to do it. they have not been successful, although they certainly have the will, and they're certainly frustrating this administration. the good news is they are pushing back on iranians. they're telling them not to increase the enrichment program, and that -- we'll see. the iranians, clearly, are trying to provocation, we saw that, sabotaging ships in the gulf, taking our drone down. it's questionable whether they really intended to do that or not. paul: right. >> but they got caught at the sabotaging, and that's the one thing they wanted to avoid. we'll see how much of that they're going to do. what is a fact is the iranians have never been in a situation they're in in 39 years with the pressure they have on them. they are the most determined foe i believe that we're dealing with, and their tendency is not to give up, but to lash out. and we have to be prepared for that. paul: all right, general, thanks for that. we'll see what happens. still ahead, the pelosi congress, the speaker recently caught between her progressive caucus and her more moderate members as she struggles to get her agenda passed. so what does she have to show for the first six months of the 116th congress? ♪ ♪ you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. ♪ ♪ >> today i'm signing a bill to deliver $4.6 billion in humanitarian assistance to our southern border. this includes funding for medical care, shelters and increased housing for minors through the department of health and human services. for many weeks democrats were giving us a hard time, but i tell you, it became a biif partisan bill, and -- a bipartisan bill, and we're very happy about it. paul: president trump this week taking a victory lap as he signed a $4.6 billion aid package to help the federal government cope with the surge of central american migrants at the southern border. house speaker nancy pelosi was forced to accept the republican-controlled senate's version of the aid package last week, frustrating the more liberal members of her caucus. it's an increasingly common dynamic as calls for president trump's impeachment. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and jason riley. so, kim, how much of control is nancy pelosi still able to exercise over her conference? or is she in? -- is she in charge? >> not when it comes to controversial issues. if you look at their record this year, they've done very few things that have actually made it to trump's desk. i mean, they passed legislation to reopen the government after it closed, they had this disaster aid bill, i think a resolution to end u.s. involvement in yemen, but that's about it. and what we're seeing here, it reminds me of john boehner and paul ryan, the problems they had on anything that's remotely controversial where there is a split in her party, it's usually the liberal wing that is now winning and refusing to give the requisite votes, and it's hamstringing her ability to govern. paul: yeah, it's fascinating, jason. it's ocasio-cortez has -- [laughter] and others have learned the lesson of the freedom caucus, right? >> right. paul: which is if you go outside and agitate, you gin up support on the left, the rachel maddows and the others on msnbc and social media, you can i put real pressure on the speaker to go your way. >> sure. and nancy pelosi knows that it is not the election of people like ocasio-cortez that gave democrats the house majority, and that's her dilemma. she would much rather focus on issues like health care which she thinks helped democrats win back control of the house. she has a bunch of members that come from swing districts, they want to go back home and run on something. and the problem is you have the ocasio-cortez wing of the party who wants to focus on impeachment and the mueller investigation and russia and trump's tax returns. they just want to investigate this administration, and that is why it's been such heavy lifting for nancy pelosi. >> you know the contrast, dan, between nancy pelosi in this iteration and when she ran the house first with george w. bush in his last two years when he was still president, pretty striking. by this time i think they were closed to passing a stimulus bill. it was not a good one, but it was a bill. close to moving ahead on a big energy package among other things. this time right now nothing. >> well, no, that's right and what has changed since then? again, it's something we've been talking about on this program a lot, and that's the rise since the end of the last election, 2016, of the progressoff left in the democratic -- progressive left of the democratic party. and now you've got the progressive caucus inside the house of representatives led by ocasio-cortez and ilhan omar, the rest of them who now feel they have taken a page from conservatives and trump which is to be on offense all the time, to be agitating for your ideas. and in the border funding bill, it was very interesting because there's another caucus inside the house called the problem solvers caucus. those are the moderates. and as jason was suggesting, they want to go back and run this year on problem solving, little of which is happening in the house. the progressive caucus mocked the problemsoevers and the moderates for -- problem sol veries, they didn't want to give trump that victory, and we're back to point where nancy pelosi punted on approving the new trade deal with canada and mexico. this is hanging in the balance, and the question is, is she going to be able to get substantive issues like that through this divided house. paul: i want to answer that, kim, answer dan's question. is there a prospect for working together at all here, or is the dominant theme going to be we don't want to give trump a victory? >> that is the dominant theme, and that is what will prevail all the way until 2020. and it's funny, you know, you mentioned boehner and ryan and this problem that they had and the freedom caucus. you know, that changed the first two years of the trump administration, the freedom caucus actually did come together, work with them, they got the tax package passed, they actually passed health care changes, but they only did that because they had suffered some losses. and i think that's going to end up being the ultimate only thing that makes democrats figure out how to get unified, is that they suffer some blowback for all of this at the polls. paul: well, i mean, there was some talk about the price cooperation, reducing infrastructure, certainly the usmca that dan mentioned, but are they really going to say, no, no, never? >> i believe that progressive wing is going to dig in. they believe they were sent to washington to obstruct this president, not work with him. they think they're there to be a check on donald trump, and i don't see them giving up. if. >> yeah. well, or they were working together pretty well before the border funding bill. the progressives got very explicit in attacking the moderates for supporting that bill, so there's some real bad blood in the water down there in the house right now. paul: all right, when we come back, fresh off that controversial decision on the census, the supreme court tees up another major term in the fall. what to expect when the justices take up a high stakes religious liberty case as well as the trump administration's efforts to end obama-era protections for dreamers. ♪ ♪ >> i have a lot of respect for justice roberts, but he didn't like it, but he did say come back. essentially, he said come back. we're spending $15-20 billion on a census. we're finding out everything about everybody. think of it. $15-20 billion, and you're not allowed to ask 'em are you a citizen. paul: that was president trump this week still smarting from the supreme court's decision to block him from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census. the president indicating that the fight is not over yet. the justices wrapped up their last week with that controversial 5-4 decision and set the stage for another blockbuster term in the fall, announcing that they will hear arguments over whether president trump can end obama-era protections for young immigrants known as dreamers. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and jason riley. jason, we don't know what'll happen with the citizenship question, but what does that tell us, that 5-4 call, tell us about the supreme court and justice john roberts? >> well, he's the swing vote. [laughter] we know that brett kavanaugh replaced justice kennedy, previous king vote, but kavanaugh's not going to be the person -- [laughter] who decides these 5-4 decisions. it's probably going to be john roberts going forward. paul: what do you think, though, about -- was his decision justified or not? >> well, i think the question before the court was whether the administration had the authority to do this. and they clearly do. and for justice, chief justice roberts to get into the motives, i think, is not something that was really part of what should have been under consideration. and that's a very slippery slope when you go down that route, because a lot of these decisions made by administrations are politically motivated. and so if they're going to get into discussions of what the administration was thinking or strategizing about, i don't know where that leads them. paul: he did the same thing he did on obamacare, which is to give the conservatives some of the law, but he gave the liberals on the court the policy victory, which is what those liberals really wanted, and that is kicking the census, citizenship question out. does that mean that justice roberts is just too political as a justice? >> well, the irony is that he was with the majority in the gerrymander case which said that the state -- courts would not get involved in overseeing state jerry handers or state redistricting plans because that would politicize the courts, and there's no, as he said, no real legal standard to define fairness. paul: right. >> so that was the right decision. don't get the courts too involved in these political battles. and yet as jason's just describing, he goes in the other direction on this census question, and this is the heart of it as justice clarence thomas said, they've opened a pandora's box. that obamacare decision was a one-off. this one opens the door to constant court challenges to administrative decisions on the basis of what they were thinking -- paul: motives. yeah, that's right. >> so he can't have it both ways. paul: so, kim, let's talk a little bit about gorsuch, neil gorsuch versus brett kavanaugh, the two new justices. how different are they? what have you noticed about their decision, their writing? >> well, this is one of the most notable things to come out of this term, because remember, go back to last fall when kavanaugh was about to be approved to go to court and we were hearing this railing from the left that you were going to have this solid 5-4 conservative bloc on case after case. and, of course, actually, we got a very intellectually diverse number of rulings. and what we found out is that not all conservative justices, whether you call them textualists or constitutionalists, are the same. so kavanaugh was a little bit more careful, administrative in some of his decisions. you know, whereas gorsuch, we're seeing his sort of libertarian streak, as it were. he was particularly great on a lot of free speech and liberty issues. and those are some very big differences between these two justices. paul: he's also more willing, like clarence thomas, to overturn precedents. [laughter] you can see clarence thomas saying, laying out essentially here's my argument for how we ought to think about precedents, and it isn't the way that john roberts thinks about them. >> well, i think if you voted for donald trump because he promised to nominate conservative justices, you're pretty happy with this term, paul. i think we got a nice decision on religious freedom -- paul: right. >> -- involved displaying a public cross to honor world war i veterans. we got a nice ruling on redistricting and whether courts should be deciding, making these political decisions for legislatures, and they should not. i think on balance it was a pretty good term, you'd think it's a good term if you're conservative. paul: and next year could be very, very interesting with the court taking up the state blaine amendments which were anti-catholic amendments that blocked aid to religious schools and the daca decision. what are you looking forward to. >> well, the blaine amendment especially, the anti-catholic amendment. i think that could get overturned by the five conservative majority because we were just talking about neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, they've both shown a lot of sympathy to religious liberty. and my guess is the blaine amendments go back into the early part of the 20th century -- paul: 19th, late 19th century. >> so i think they're going to be overturned. daca will be more interesting over the rights of the young immigrants who came here under no, you know, parents brought them here. so that one's a little harder fur me to predict. paul: yeah, on the daca, the dreamers, dan -- jason, i think this is going to be one that is going to hang with justice roberts. it's highly political, and it's impossible for me to figure out, kim, i don't know where john roberts could come out on this particular issue because it's going to be so highly political, and i think you're going to see what happened on this census thing happen again, which is the left in the media is going to go right at john roberts and say if you go the other direction, you are compromising the integrity of the court. >> yeah. this is a complicated one too because just on the idea of the merits of the law, the idea that the executive can suspend the law, that seems tough to uphold, but john roberts is getting good at this stuff, so we'll see. paul: we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ ♪ ♪ i want it that way... i can't believe it. that karl brought his karaoke machine? ♪ ain't nothing but a heartache... ♪ no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ♪ i never wanna hear you say... ♪ no, kevin... no, kevin! believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. paul: time now for hits and misses of the week. kim, start us off. >> an enormous miss to nike for withdrawing its betsy ross flag sneakers at the direction of failed nfl player colin kaepernick who is now somehow claiming the iconic flag is a symbol of oppression and slavery. this is the same nike that honored him for taking a knee during the national anthem. i think average americans are getting sick and tired of these false controversies, especially t a time when we're celebrating our great nation. paul: jason? >> paul, children in new york city public schools can choose their gender, including for purposes of playing on sports teams at school and regardless of what it says on their birth certificate. i would like to point out that most kids in new york city public schools can't read or do math at their grade level. i have a radical idea, why don't we focus on teaching the kids the basics and less than turning them into social experiments. paul: dan? >> this is the biggest backyard barbecue weekend of the year. to be able to do that, the first thing you need is a backyard. well, it turns out that increasing numbers of young couples are deciding that's what they want, a home in the suburbs. the "wall street journal" was reporting this week that many young couples deciding that life in the city is becoming too expensive and moving out to the suburbs, more space, less expense. a big hit to the all american suburb, hot dogs, cheeseburgers and the rest. paul: thanks dan. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel. thanks to you for watching. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here, next week. [cheers] >> that's it! usa wins their fourth world cup! >> the united states women's national soccer team has won the fifa world cup. team usa defeating the netherlands by a score of 2-nothing. or 2 nil as they would say in soccer terms. i'm mike emmanuel in for eric shawn. welcome to a brand new hour inside america's news headquarters. arthel: i'm arthel neville. today's victory marks the second consecutive time the women's team has hoisted the trophy and a record fourth time

Related Keywords

Germany , New York , United States , Iran , Washington , China , Hanoi , Ha N I , Vietnam , Republic Of , Yemen , California , Daca , Tinh Vinh Phuc , As Iran , , North Korea , Canada , Russia , Americans , America , North Korean , North Koreans , American , Iranians , Kamali Harris , Liberty , Brett Kavanaugh , Elizabeth Warren , John Hickenlooper Paul , Nancy Pelosi , John Roberts , Joe Biden , Riley Dan , Dan Henninger , Jason Riley , Betsy Ross , Ilhan Omar , Clarence Thomas , Judy Shelton , Pete Buttigieg , John Boehner , Dan Jason , Paul , Arthur Lepper , Mike Emmanuel , Jack Keane , Bernie Sanders ,