Supreme Court decisions sadly invite the deepest divisions in American civic life today. A simple tonic to this endless divide would be for Americans to actually read the decisions they protest and fight about so much.
Do you consider yourself to be a warrior in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">pro-life movement</a>? Is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf">religious liberty</a> and the increasing domain of secularization a central concern to you? Do you consider the rise of the “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">administrative state</a>” to be a form of soft tyranny that is incompatible with representative democracy?
Or, do you feel like <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf">the Second Amendment</a> is either outdated or under endless assault by Blue America?
No matter which issue concerns you the most, chances are we Americans are debating it in some fashion. Thus, here is a suggestion that will significantly improve the state of American civic discourse. I know it’s abundantly optimistic and maybe a bit naive, but here it is: pick at least one Supreme Court decision from this year’s consequential term and take an hour to read it.
I’m serious.
Don’t treat these decisions and the entire judicial branch as arenas for gladiatorial legal throw-downs. In reality, as Woodrow Wilson once observed, the Supreme Court is “a constitutional convention in continuous session.” Every year, nine extraordinary and unique legal minds have an extended conversation amongst themselves about the meaning of the Constitution on a variety of issues.
This year it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states">abortion</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions">gun rights</a> and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-is-just-incredible-to-know-that-i-did-nothing-wrong-joseph-kennedy-celebrates-scotus-win-for-religious-freedom">free exercise of religion</a>. Next year it will be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/briefing/supreme-court-abortion.html">affirmative action and election law.</a> And unlike the other two branches, the judicial branch does something utterly extraordinary: it bestows a civic gift to the American people, a gift we rarely unwrap. The Supreme Court justices go to great lengths to explain why they do what they do and why they think the way they think. As Americans, we have the opportunity to drink from the jurisprudential trough of their insights.
But instead, we often engage in shallow knee-jerk political cheerleading.
We can do better. The decisions are actually quite easy to read. Yes, there is some legalistic lingo to navigate (supra, stare decisis, writ of certiorari), endless citations to previous decisions, and there are a variety of opinions being offered at the same time (the majority opinion, the dissent, concurring opinions, etc.). But on balance, the average literate American can easily comprehend the arguments being made in the decisions.
<h4>Justices Are Actually Good Writers </h4>
Most of the justices on the Supreme Court are exceptional writers. While few will ever capture the verve and vim of Antonin Scalia, whose opinions were laced with both high-minded legal reasoning and snappy one-liners (he once <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/justice-antonin-scalia-dead-supreme-court-opinion-lines-pure-applesauce">assailed</a> a majority opinion as “pure applesauce”), the justices aim for clarity because they aren’t simply writing to modern-day America.
They are writing to posterity and the likes of the Harvard Law Class of 2055. They know their arguments will be studied, critiqued, and either celebrated or condemned by future students and scholars long after they are gone. They would much rather be regarded as a John Marshall Harlan, whose sole dissenting voice in Plessy v. Ferguson was used to overturn the decision decades later in Brown, than a Roger Taney, who penned the worst decision in American history, Dred Scott.    
<h4>You Might Learn Something </h4>
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">decision</a> is a perfect illustration of why Americans should read Supreme Court opinions.
Many Americans dislike the Roe and Casey decisions because they dislike abortion. But it would be wise to understand why so many consider Roe a grievous constitutional mistake. It is also important to learn how the majority behaved akin to a quasi-legislature in its 1973 written opinion, and why even the likes of <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7108099e-f5a0-11ec-9394-f7680161c067.html">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> thought it was a poorly reasoned and executed decision. In the Dobbs decision, Justice Alito explains all of this with utter clarity.Moreover, a reader would learn about the evolution of the Court’s thinking on reproductive rights and how the 1992 Casey decision jettisoned earlier claims of privacy in favor of a broad argument about substantive due process and the “undue burden” test.
Most Americans do not know how close the Court came to overturning Roe thirty years ago in Casey, when <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/09/04/justice-kennedys-flip/17eb4e0b-72f6-4678-b5bb-7a3e8f79b395/">Justice Anthony Kennedy flipped his vote</a>, purportedly causing Scalia to drive to Kennedy’s house to argue with him about the matter. Alito lays out in the Dobbs decision why arguments grounded in substantive due process do not apply to abortion. In his concurrence, Clarence Thomas lays waste to the entire doctrine of “substantive due process” itself.
Finally,  people who are down on John Roberts these days might become more sympathetic to his judicial posture if they took the time to read his dissent. Judicial conservatism has more branches than simple originalism or textualism. It also includes an appreciation for social stability, a resistance to activism, a preference for judicial incrementalism, and an acknowledgement that even incorrectly-decided decisions should be upheld if they have been woven into the fabric of American civil society. Roberts would have preferred it if the Court had simply upheld the Mississippi law in question by rejecting “the viability rule” without courting the controversy overturning Roe would invite. As he writes, “The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.”
<h4>You Might Change Your Mind, Reinforce Your Convictions, Or Find Empathy  </h4>
As citizens, it is important to know our own convictions, but it’s also important to understand why we believe what we believe.
As a college student, I remember raging at the Supreme Court for declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional because, in those days of youthful self-righteousness, I was adamantly against earmarks and pork barrel legislation. And yet, when I read <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/417/">the Court’s decision</a> on the matter, I realized the justices were right and that the nature of Article II executive power did not comport with the extension of the president’s veto power.
Likewise, the Dobbs dissent is thoughtful, noting, ”As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare.” It is no small thing in a rights-based society to rescind a right, even if one believes it was incorrectly granted in the first place.
George Washington foresaw this constitutional conundrum before the United States was even a union, <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp">writing</a>, “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. … It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved.”     
Appreciating the perspectives of those with whom we disagree isn’t simply a pleasant gesture, it’s an essential quality of good citizenship. Let’s start to practice it.  
Jeremy S. Adams is the author of the recently-released Amazon best-selling book Hollowed Out: A Warning About America&#8217;s Next Generation. He has taught American civics for 24 years in Bakersfield, California and was the 2014 California Teacher of the Year (DAR). You can follow him on Twitter @JeremyAdams6.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v3 Adams – Read The Decision Before You Rage or Strut

Here’s An Idea: Read The Decision Before You Rage Or Strut

Anthony Kennedy

Antonin Scalia

Readers Pass

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Woodrow Wilson

An NBC News report on a supposed secret backroom deal between Donald Trump and soon-to-be-retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has prompted more Trump-directed outrage from celebrities online, even after NBC retracted its claims.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32846/nbc-backpedals-garbage-report-trump-kennedy-deal-james-barrett">reported</a> Tuesday, NBC News&#8217; Leigh Ann Caldwell claimed online that Trump and Kennedy had worked out an agreement months ago for Trump to name Kavanaugh as Kennedy&#8217;s replacement.
&#8220;Kennedy and Trump/WH had been in negotiations for months over Kennedy&#8217;s replacement,&#8221; Caldwell alleged in a series of tweets Tuesday. &#8220;Once Kennedy received assurances it would be Kavanaugh, his former law clerk, Kennedy felt comfortable retiring, according to a source who was told of the discussions. Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source. In other words: the decision has been baked for a while.&#8221;
Caldwell felt nervous enough about the claim to add a qualifier later: &#8220;To be clear: This is from one source and dont have any info on whether potus talked to kennedy about a possible replacement.&#8221;
After strong pushback online to the Trump-Kennedy conspiracy theory, Caldwell deleted her initial tweet about the &#8220;negotiations&#8221; and a few hours later, issued a retraction: &#8220;I&#8217;ve deleted this tweet because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy&#8217;s replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements. Kavanaugh was the only one who was thought conservative enough to consider, I&#8217;m told. They added Kavanaugh &#8211; and 4 other names &#8211; to the public Federalist list that Trump would choose from in November. We are continuing to report this story.&#8221;
But, as pointed out by <a href="https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/07/10/alyssa-milano-debra-messing-missing-reporters-important-clarification-that-his-story-was-bogus/">Twitchy</a>, the &#8220;fake news&#8221; did its work among some Hollywood liberals, including full-time Twitter activist and sometime actress Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing (warning: some hyperbolic language):
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The fucking corruption is endless.
And I won&#8217;t let my daughter&#8217;s reproductive rights be negotiated away by corruption. <a href="https://t.co/Breaqnfyuk">https://t.co/Breaqnfyuk</a>
&#8212; Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1016690734752296960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If this is true, our SUPREME COURT has been bought and sold. Independence is a thing of the past. I wish there was an emoji that is a flag at half mast. <a href="https://t.co/VzNiOWEnC6">https://t.co/VzNiOWEnC6</a>
&#8212; Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) <a href="https://twitter.com/DebraMessing/status/1016809688963342337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
A few responses to the actresses&#8217; tweets:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Why is it corruption to discuss a departure. And if they didn&#8217;t talk, if it&#8217;s even true, how would the result be different? 
More silly outrage from the left.
&#8212; Ryan (@CaptainComput3r) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaptainComput3r/status/1016691408147832832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This article has been corrected. <a href="https://t.co/c8OeYla77A">pic.twitter.com/c8OeYla77A</a>
&#8212; Merry Wimble (@merry_wimble) <a href="https://twitter.com/merry_wimble/status/1016784178678059013?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Apparently Supreme Court Justices can hand pick their successors for lifetime appointments. I was under the impression <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/America?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#America</a> was a democracy or republic.
&#8212; alina apodaca (@alinamercedes) <a href="https://twitter.com/alinamercedes/status/1016822622720385025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It&#8217;s a Republic, and Bennett has already retracted the story as having no merit.
&#8212; RemoteDesktopSupport (@InfernalDante86) <a href="https://twitter.com/InfernalDante86/status/1016848522770034690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8216;If this is true&#8217; shouldn&#8217;t be the beginning of any tweet&#8230;try doing a bit of independent research instead of just sheeping out anything you read.
&#8212; Diane Davis (@JolieBloue) <a href="https://twitter.com/JolieBloue/status/1016824333233262593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://t.co/wtn3i3BT9y">https://t.co/wtn3i3BT9y</a>
&#8212; Tena C N (@Roxymom26) <a href="https://twitter.com/Roxymom26/status/1016843901821317121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Related:
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/31553/alyssa-milano-tweets-about-constitution-again-james-barrett">Alyssa Milano Tweets About The Constitution Again. Internet Melts Down.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32846/nbc-backpedals-garbage-report-trump-kennedy-deal-james-barrett">NBC Backpedals On &#8216;Garbage&#8217; Report On Trump-Kennedy Deal For Kavanaugh</a>

Celebrities Lose Their Minds Over NBC Trump-SCOTUS Report. There’s Just One Problem.

Alyssa Milano

Brett Kavanaugh

Donald Trump

Fake News

NBC News

Sen. Tom Cotton ripped the &#8220;extreme rhetoric&#8221; and the &#8220;laughable political game&#8221; that the Democratic Party is playing to keep President Donald Trump&#8217;s Supreme Court nominee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32813/breaking-trump-announces-supreme-court-nominee-ryan-saavedra">Judge Brett Kavanaugh</a> off the bench. 
In an interview on Monday, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked the Arkansas Republican if he believed the conspiracy theory that retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy made a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32856/no-justice-kennedy-didnt-make-ridiculous-deal-ben-shapiro">deal</a> to put Kavanaugh on the high court.
&#8220;Hugh, no, that&#8217;s the first I&#8217;ve heard of such a deal,&#8221; Cotton said. &#8220;And I&#8217;ll evaluate this nomination on its merits, on Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s record and his character and his jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy served our country for a very long time, and we should thank him for that service. But he&#8217;s going to take senior status now, and what we have to do as senators is evaluate Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s record, and Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s jurisprudence when we vote on his nomination. The relationship between the President and Justice Kennedy, in my opinion, is really not relevant to that consideration.&#8221;
Later, Cotton criticized the Democrats&#8217; grandstanding on the selection of Kavanaugh. 
&#8220;The Democrats in the Senate have kind of gone around the bend already on Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s nomination if you look at some of the extreme rhetoric, or my favorite part was some of the senators standing out in front of the Supreme Court last night protesting the nomination,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;And you could see in the background they had signs premade not just for stopping Kavanaugh, but stop Barrett and stop Hardiman and stop Kethledge as well. So it&#8217;s clear they&#8217;re just playing a somewhat laughable political game, and they would have opposed for partisan reasons anyone that President Trump nominated.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/10/sen_tom_cotton_democrats_opposition_to_kavanaugh_a_laughable_political_game.html">H/T RealClearPolitics</a>

Sen. Tom Cotton: Democrats Using “Extreme Rhetoric” Against SCOTUS Nominee

Conservatism

Democratic Party

Hugh Hewitt

Republican Party

Tom Cotton

Trump Administration

With President Trump&#8217;s selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the nation&#8217;s highest court, the Left has entered into a stirring battle with the five stages of grief. Their first order of business: conspiratorial denial. Thus, <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/10/nbc-hear-single-source-kennedy-negotiated-retirement-get-kavanaugh/">NBC reported on Tuesday morning</a> that President Trump had only picked Kavanaugh because Kennedy pledged to resign only if Kavanaugh replaced him. That report was based on one unnamed source.
Now, none of that makes sense.
Why would Kennedy pledge to step down for Kavanaugh, a far more conservative figure? Why would Leftists be upset about such a deal even if it were true, given the fact that they liked Kennedy, and presumably would favor Kennedy&#8217;s pick over Trump&#8217;s tabula rasa pick? Furthermore, what kind of stupid deal would this be, considering that Trump could easily reverse course and just pick who he wants? What would Kennedy do, un-retire?
But that&#8217;s not the extent of the conspiratorial thinking. Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress posits that Kennedy stepped down because Kennedy Jr. works at Deutsche Bank, which lent Trump a fair bit of money. But how does that logic work, exactly? If my kid lent you money, you&#8217;d owe my kid and/or me a favor, not the other way around. And if you really did have leverage over me, why wouldn&#8217;t you keep me in place and blackmail me to achieve specific decisions?
Now, it&#8217;s probably true that Kennedy liked Kavanaugh &#8212; he was a former clerk, and they had a good relationship. And it&#8217;s probably true that Kennedy told Trump he liked Kavanaugh. But so the hell what? That&#8217;s not corrupt in any way. I would have preferred Trump consult with Thomas or Gorsuch, but Trump can ask for advice from whoever he wants.
As it turns out, Kavanaugh&#8217;s final selection took until Sunday night &#8212; and within the White House, confusion reigned even into Monday. So the story was false. But the media ran with it anyway. As per the usual arrangement.

No, Justice Kennedy Didn’t Make A Ridiculous Deal With Trump To Choose His Successor

The blowback to claims by an NBC News reporter about a supposed &#8220;deal&#8221; between retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has come swift and strong, prompting a partial retraction and a &#8220;clarification.&#8221;
In claims highlighted by Hot Air&#8217;s <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/10/nbc-hear-single-source-kennedy-negotiated-retirement-get-kavanaugh/">Ed Morrissey</a>, NBC News&#8217; Leigh Ann Caldwell said she heard that the last few weeks was all a big show because Trump and Kennedy had worked out a deal way back in November to replace him with Kavanaugh.
&#8220;Kennedy and Trump/WH had been in negotiations for months over Kennedy&#8217;s replacement,&#8221; Caldwell tweeted Tuesday. &#8220;Once Kennedy received assurances it would be Kavanaugh, his former law clerk, Kennedy felt comfortable retiring, according to a source who was told of the discussions.&#8221;
&#8220;Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source. In other words: the decision has been baked for a while,&#8221; she added, citing fellow NBC&#8217;s Frank Thorp as a co-reporter.
Caldwell then added a qualifier: &#8220;To be clear: This is from one source and dont have any info on whether potus talked to kennedy about a possible replacement.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Furthermore, the five names Trump added to his list of Federalist Approved judges last November was to get Kavanaugh on that list. The other four names were considered cover, per source.
In other words: the decision has been baked for a while: 
W/ <a href="https://twitter.com/frankthorp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@frankthorp</a>
&#8212; Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1016642082981777408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
To be clear: This is from one source and dont have any info on whether potus talked to kennedy about a possible replacement.
&#8212; Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1016651528659243008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
She also tweeted an article by <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-trump-private-meeting-706137">Politico</a> partly echoing the claim:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Here&#8217;s Politico&#8217;s version: <a href="https://t.co/aBAPQ8fvaq">https://t.co/aBAPQ8fvaq</a>
&#8212; Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1016666678510456833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
In other words, it was all a big charade based on an inside deal between Kennedy and Trump . . .
&#8220;That is garbage,&#8221; Leonard Leo, who presided over the deliberations on Trump&#8217;s justice nominee, told Hugh Hewitt. &#8220;No way that is possible,&#8221; he added. &#8220;That is insulting to Justice Kennedy.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;That is garbage&#8230;no way that is possible. That is insulting to Justice Kennedy.&#8221; Leonard Leo to me just now on resorts Justice Kennedy struck a deal for Judge Kavanaugh.
&#8212; Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/1016656860886323200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Morrissey agrees that the claim seems &#8220;a little fantastical&#8221; on its face:
<blockquote>
This single-source report seems a little fantastical, if for no other reason than Kennedy had more than one former clerk in the mix; Raymond Kethledge is another of his proteges, and there are likely a few more on Trump&#8217;s longer list. More to the point, Kennedy has clearly developed an independent reputation as a jurist on the nation&#8217;s top court. Kavanaugh&#8217;s track record, after all, suggests that the court may revisit cases like Casey and perhaps even put limits on Obergefell that favor a broader exercise of religious liberty, the very outcome that has LGBT activists spitting nails over Kennedy&#8217;s decision to retire with Trump in the White House. Would Kennedy have risked his legacy to make a shabby deal on his way out just to ensure that someone significantly more conservative than he became ended up with his seat?
</blockquote>
Caldwell has since backpedaled furiously on the claim, deleting the first tweet and issuing an explanation, which notes that her source was &#8220;not directly part of the talks&#8221; and the premise of the initial claim was false.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve deleted this tweet because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy&#8217;s replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;Kavanaugh was the only one who was thought conservative enough to consider, I&#8217;m told. They added Kavanaugh &#8211; and 4 other names &#8211; to the public Federalist list that Trump would choose from in November. We are continuing to report this story.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I&#8217;ve deleted this tweet because it incorrectly implies a transactional nature in Kennedy&#8217;s replacement. I am told by a source who was not directly part of the talks that Kennedy provided Pres. Trump/ WH a list of acceptable replacements. (1/2) <a href="https://t.co/ptxJmrbH9S">pic.twitter.com/ptxJmrbH9S</a>
&#8212; Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1016703464137723904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kavanaugh was the only one who was thought conservative enough to consider, I&#8217;m told. They added Kavanaugh &#8211; and 4 other names &#8211; to the public Federalist list that Trump would choose from in November. We are continuing to report this story. (2/2)
&#8212; Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1016703569356120064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32856/no-justice-kennedy-didnt-make-ridiculous-deal-ben-shapiro">SHAPIRO: No, Justice Kennedy Didn&#8217;t Make A Ridiculous Deal With Trump To Choose His Successor</a>

NBC Backpedals On ‘Garbage’ Report On Trump-Kennedy Deal For Kavanaugh

Panicked over the thought of President Donald Trump replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired from the Supreme Court after the Court&#8217;s 2017-2018 session, leftists are digging through the dirt, looking for evidence that Kennedy has been blackmailed, or that the Trump White House has concocted a complex financial scheme to reward the aging Justice for abandoning his seat.
The New York Times kicked off speculation that Trump had unduly influenced Kennedy&#8217;s decision last week with an article <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html">suggesting the White House &#8220;nudged</a>&#8221; Kennedy off the bench. Unmoored to reality, dedicated leftist media took it from there.
<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/trump-justin-anthony-kennedy-deutsche-bank-scotus-4ba95e7ce0be/?utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter">According to leftist rag, Think Progress</a>, Democrat Members of Congress should look into what they believe is a &#8220;suspicious business relationship&#8221; between Kennedy&#8217;s son, who works for Deutch Bank, and the Trump family, who got a loan from Deutch Bank after being turned down from several other international money-lending groups.
<a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149496/trumps-relationship-justice-kennedy-sounds-shady-new-report">The New Republic</a>, now famous for calling for Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders&#8217; ouster from the progressive movement, followed up on the Think Progress report, declaring the relationship &#8220;shady,&#8221; even though there&#8217;s no evidence that Kennedy&#8217;s son had anything to do with Deutch Bank&#8217;s decision to lend money to the Trump organization.
Even the Center for American Progress got in on the act:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Just to state this: Justice Kennedy&#8217;s son gave a billion dollar loan to Trump when no one would give him a dime, and Justice Kennedy has been ruling in favor of the Trump Administration position for 2 years as the Court decides 5-4 case after 5-4 case.
&#8212; Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) <a href="https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1012665534297624577?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2018</a></blockquote>
But the theory that Trump used Kennedy&#8217;s familiar relations to force a resignation reads a bit like South Park&#8217;s &#8220;Underpants Gnome&#8221; theory on how stealing underpants from small children would result in a profit: step one, borrow money from Deutch Bank; step two, ???; step three, new Supreme Court Justice.
For starters, Kennedy and his family doesn&#8217;t profit from the relationship at all. There&#8217;s no incentive for Kennedy or his son to follow through on any promise. Trump only wins in the scenario: he gets a loan and a new Supreme Court Justice, and Kennedy&#8217;s family gets an amorphous promise that the court will react favorably to any case involving Deutch Bank &#8212; a promise that could go sour swiftly, given that there are nine members of the Supreme Court.
Not to mention, Kennedy&#8217;s son left the bank in 2009.
The theory is so bad <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/anthony-kennedy-conspiracy-theories-are-a-liberal-delusion.html">that even Slate, normally a left-leaning publication, is embarrassed</a>. Justice Kennedy is 80 years old, and with the next election as yet unpredictable, he&#8217;s more than happy to be replaced by a Republican president.

Panicked Over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement, Leftists Resort To Conspiracy Theories

Leftism

The Democrats just keep getting disappointing Supreme Court news. Before the dust had settled on a series of significant rulings last week, &#8220;swing vote&#8221; Justice Anthony Kennedy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32387/breaking-supreme-court-swing-vote-justice-anthony-ben-shapiro">announced</a> that he was retiring effective July 31, handing Donald Trump his second Supreme Court pick in a year and a half. The Democrats have responded to that devastating news by vowing to somehow, some way, block the vote until after the midterms.
In yet more bad news for the resistance, however, a new <a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/survey-methodology/">NBC News/Survey Monkey poll</a> found that a strong majority of Americans aren&#8217;t with the Democrats on the issue.
In a result that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/nbc-news-poll-most-want-vote-trump-supreme-court-nominee-n888451">NBC</a> admits &#8220;undercut[s] the Democratic argument&#8221; that the vote should be delayed until after the midterm elections, greater than six in 10 Americans (62%) say the Senate should vote on Trump&#8217;s nominee for the Supreme Court before the elections. Only a third (33%) believe the Senate should wait to confirm or reject the candidate until after the elections.
An overwhelming majority of Republicans (85%) and a strong majority of Independents (61%) believe the vote should take place before the midterms, while a majority (55%) of Democrats say the vote should wait.
NBC also asked Americans how much Trump&#8217;s nominee would factor into their midterm votes: A majority of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (60%) say it would be an important factor, while only 46% of Independents say it would influence their vote.
As for the political and ideological leanings of Kennedy&#8217;s replacement, majorities of both Democrats (53%) and Independents (65%) say they want a &#8220;moderate,&#8221; while 65% of Republicans want a &#8220;conservative.&#8221; NBC underscores that a solid majority (61%) want a new justice that would uphold Roe v. Wade.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32546/report-trump-narrows-scotus-pick-two-judges-heres-james-barrett">Report: Trump Narrows SCOTUS Pick To Two Judges. Here&#8217;s What You Need To Know About Them.</a>

Poll: Should SCOTUS Vote Come Before Or After Midterms? Democrats Won’t Like The Results.

Abortion

Since Justice Anthony Kennedy dropped a bomb on the still shell-shocked Democrats after a series of conservative Supreme Court rulings Wednesday, many have asked in either hope or fear if a more strongly-conservative majority in the court would actually overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), which enshrined &#8220;the right to abortion&#8221; based on what is widely-considered constitutionally precarious arguments.
Though the constitutionality of an issue has nothing to do with public opinion, how would the American people feel about overturning the polarizing ruling? The <a href="http://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/further-findings-from-kaisers-june-health-tracking-poll-womens-issues">Kaiser Family Foundation</a> looked into the issue recently and found that a strong majority &#8212; almost exactly two-thirds (67%) in fact &#8212; would not want to see the decision reversed, while less than a third (29%) would like it overturned.
The amount of support for the ruling was about the same among men (68%) and women (65%), while more women of reproductive age (74%) want it to stand.
While a slight majority (53%) of Republicans would like to see the landmark ruling overturned, stronger majorities of Democrats (81%) and Independents (73%) would not.
The new survey&#8217;s findings align closely with a January 2017 <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/03/about-seven-in-ten-americans-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/">Pew Research Center</a> poll, which found that 69% of Americans supported the ruling:
<blockquote>
More than 40 years after the Supreme Court&#8217;s Roe v. Wade decision, 69% of Americans say the historic ruling, which established a woman&#8217;s constitutional right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, should not be completely overturned. Nearly three-in-ten (28%), by contrast, would like to see it overturned.
Public opinion about the 1973 case has held relatively steady in recent decades, though the share saying the decision should not be overturned is up slightly from four years ago, Pew Research Center&#8217;s December survey found. In January 2013, 63% said this, which was similar to views measured in surveys conducted over the prior two decades.
</blockquote>
A few more details from the Kaiser poll, which was conducted earlier this month and included 1,492 adult respondents:
<blockquote>
The public overall is split on how easily they think women can access abortion services in their communities today &#8211; with major differences in perceptions by party. About a quarter (27%) say it is &#8220;too easy&#8221; for women to get these services, while one in five (22%) say it is &#8220;too difficult&#8221; and about a third (35%) say it is &#8220;about right.&#8221; Half (51%) of Republicans say it is too easy, while nearly four in 10 (37%) Democrats say &#8220;too difficult.&#8221; &#8230;
Most of the public (57%) say they oppose new Title X regulations proposed by the Trump Administration that would block federal family planning funds from going to organizations like Planned Parenthood, which also provide abortions, even though the money can&#8217;t be used for abortion. Nearly four in 10 (38%) say they favor those proposed regulations.
</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/32411/run-down-heres-what-you-need-know-about-trumps-top-ben-shapiro">SHAPIRO: Here&#8217;s What You Need To Know About Trump&#8217;s Top 5 Possible Nominees</a>

Poll: How Do Americans Feel About Roe V. Wade?

As recently as yesterday morning, I said that I couldn&#8217;t foresee America descending into a full-blown civil war. I may have to slightly amend that statement. The retirement of Justice Kennedy and the very real (though far from certain) possibility that Roe could be overturned changes the equation somewhat. I still can&#8217;t imagine a civil war along the lines of the first one &#8212; two sides, complete with uniforms, meeting for organized combat on the battlefield &#8212; but I think that the chances of chaos in the streets and violent clashes across the country just rose considerably.
Abortion is the Left&#8217;s high sacrament. It has built its entire movement upon this bloody altar. With abortion, it claims a godlike power over life and death. Leftists, through abortion, make life itself relative to their whims and desires. Life begins whenever the mother wants it to begin, the Left proclaims. And oh, what power! Who would claim such power and then give it up willingly? Especially when this power protects and fortifies your hassle-free, responsibility-free, consequence-free sex life. To give up abortion is to give up power, to give up convenience, to give up relativism, to give up your self-centered approach to sex and life in general. The Left will not go gently into that good night. They will rage, and rage, and rage, against the dying of the light.
What will their raging consist of? I don&#8217;t know. I fear that it could be quite violent. History has shown that the oppressors will rarely retreat from their oppression peacefully. They would much rather kill and destroy to reestablish their superiority and the way of life that was made so much easier by that superiority. Will the same thing happen here? Perhaps.
Whatever happens, we must remember that the pro-life fight does not end with the overturning of Roe. Rather, it begins with the overturning of Roe. Everything up until that moment is preparation for what comes after it. Today, we fight against abortion with the understanding that we cannot actually end it. But when ending it becomes a real possibility, a feasible objective, then the fight is really on. And the butchers of children will go to any lengths in that fight. There is nothing they won&#8217;t do. Lie. Cheat. Steal. Kill. They have done it all to preserve the &#8220;right&#8221; to abortion. They will kick it into overdrive when that &#8220;right&#8221; is finally and truly threatened.
And if that&#8217;s how things go, so be it. When it comes to ending this historic atrocity, there is no price too high to pay. History shows that the oppressors will do anything to hang onto power. And history also shows that the liberators, if they stand firm and unafraid, very often prevail.

WALSH: Things Are About To Get Very, Very Ugly

MSNBC&#8217;s Chris Matthews said on Wednesday that Democrats need to battle tenaciously in the &#8220;fight of the century&#8221; over President Donald Trump&#8217;s forthcoming Supreme Court justice nominee, later likening the situation to the Spanish Civil War.
Matthews fretted that anyone who is not conservative will think that the courts are partisan against them if Trump gets to pick another Supreme Court justice, <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/chris-matthews-scotus-confirmation-fight-kennedys-successor-going-like-spanish-civil-war-stuff/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> noted.
&#8220;So I would say, I think this is going to be the fight of the century,&#8221; Matthews told MSNBC host Ali Velshi. &#8220;I think the Democrats have to say &#8216;No way, none pasario, no one passes this line.'&#8221;
Matthews then eluded to a potential armed conflict breaking out.
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s going to be almost like Spanish Civil War stuff,&#8221; Matthews continued. &#8220;You watch the next few months.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/39j52lI3d8Y" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: MSNBC’s Matthews Says Conflict Over Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee Will Be ‘Like Spanish Civil War’

Ali Velshi

Chris Matthews

Now that swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement, the question now lingers as to who will replace him.
Within moments of Justice Kennedy&#8217;s epic bombshell, the Trump administration stated they will be seeking his replacement immediately and will be picking from a list of potential nominees. Who are the top contenders? The names provided by the White House last year provides a good indication. From <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/the-list-president-donald-trumps-potential-supreme-court-nominees-for-replacing-justice-anthony-kennedy/">Mediaite</a>:
<blockquote>
Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida
Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator
Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah
Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa
Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.)
Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas
Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
</blockquote>
The first name on the list, Amy Coney Barrett, became a household name among conservatives in 2017 when her devout Catholic beliefs were held to severe scrutiny by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who infamously said, &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/watch-feinstein-attacks-catholic-judicial-nominee-hank-berrien">the dogma lives loudly within you</a>&#8221; during a confirmation hearing.
With the vacancy of Justice Kennedy, the question on every leftist&#8217;s mind will be the fate of Roe v. Wade, which Kennedy upheld in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Should President Trump nominate a hardcore conservative (which is expected), abortion &#8220;rights&#8221; could face its first real threat in nearly 50 years.

Here’s The List Of Trump’s Potential SCOTUS Replacements

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement, which means leftists everywhere are shouting &#8220;code red.&#8221; In fact, &#8220;code red&#8221; was the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-justice-retiring_us_594c3abae4b0da2c731a7b36">actual headline</a> at Huffington Post. The looming question: what will become of Roe v. Wade.
&#8220;Among the key issues at stake is the constitutional right to an <a data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="4" data-v9y="1" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:4;elm:context_link;itc:0" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/abortion">abortion</a>, as upheld in the Supreme Court&#8217;s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade,&#8221; lamented HuffPo. &#8220;With a conservative replacing Kennedy, anti-abortion activists are likely to shepherd a challenge to that ruling up to the Supreme Court.&#8221;
NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue also feared that the moral scourge of abortion has been put in jeopardy.
&#8220;For decades, a multi-million-dollar, extreme, anti-choice movement has quietly and aggressively chipped away at that right in state legislatures, in lower courts, and now from within the Trump administration,&#8221; Hogue said. &#8220;Their stated goal, clearly and loudly, is overturning Roe v. Wade (the landmark Supreme Court decision which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman&#8217;s right to make her own personal medical decisions, including the decision to have an abortion).&#8221;
&#8220;Our country faces a moment of deep crisis&#8212;a crisis of rights, of values, and of leadership. The deeply-divided decisions from the Supreme Court this week are a clear warning that our most cherished values are in jeopardy, and now hang in the balance. Women will not go back to the days when abortion was illegal in this country,&#8221; she concluded.
Similarly, Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said, &#8220;President Trump has promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. That promise should set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about women&#8212;and the Constitution.&#8221;
&#8220;The stakes of the coming nomination fight are extraordinary. The future of reproductive rights is on the line,&#8221; Northup concluded.
Former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards tweeted that Kennedy&#8217;s replacement be stalled until future elections:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This week we&#8217;ve seen power of SCOTUS to unravel voting rights, women&#8217;s rights, religious liberty and rights to organize. No confirmation vote should take place until the American people go to the polls in November.
&#8212; Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) <a href="https://twitter.com/CecileRichards/status/1012054962258546698?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It is essential to call your US senators 202-224-3121 and demand no vote on a new SCOTUS Justice until after November. Let the people speak.
&#8212; Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) <a href="https://twitter.com/CecileRichards/status/1012055607623471105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

Menu