Ep. 181 - BREAKING: Leftists Really Mad About _________ !
The Left is furious about Judge Fill-In-The-Blank. The MSM reports that Judge Fill-In-The-Blank is the most egregious Supreme Court nominee in U.S. history, and they are certain that he or she will ensure the destruction of the republic. We will analyze the SCOTUS pick, the fall-out, and how Republicans should react. Then, what the nomination means for the midterms and Democrats’ central problem.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
More specifically, the left is furious about Judge fill-in-the-blank.
We're receiving reports right now from NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, CNN, that Judge fill-in-the-blank is the most dangerous and egregious Supreme Court nominee in all of U.S. history, and they are certain that he or she will ensure the destruction of the republic.
We will analyze the SCOTUS pick, the fallout, and how republicans should react.
Then, what the nomination means for the midterms and Democrats' central problem.
I'm here to help as the leading expert on the Democrat Party, writing the most important political tome on the Democrat Party.
I will explain to you Democrats your problem.
All that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
So many thoughts on this nomination, what the nomination means for the court, what it means for the White House, and also just what the reaction means, because that's really the best part of all of this.
That's why we're all here, isn't it?
Before we get to that, got to make a little money, honey, and I might make you a little bit of money with Lending Club.
Lending Club is a great opportunity for you.
For decades, Credit cards have been telling you to buy it now, pay for it later with interest.
And not just a little bit of interest.
A lot of interest.
Despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control very fast.
With Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt.
You can pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Don't do it.
So many people are smart about a lot of things, but they're stupid about money.
Don't be stupid about money.
Don't keep paying really high interest credit card fees.
Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with an affordable fixed-rate personal loan.
No trips to the bank, no high-interest credit cards.
You go to LendingClub.com, you tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow, you pick the terms that are right for you.
If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
This is very important for millennials because we don't want to go anywhere.
You just kind of sit and then the money shows up.
Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion, billion with a B, in loans issued.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to $40,000.
That is LendingClub.com slash Knowles.
I should do that because, obviously, Shapiro doesn't pay me.
Maybe I could pay my rent that way.
If I go to LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. All loans made by WebBank member FDIC, equal housing lender.
President Trump, you know, say what you will about him.
That guy is so good for civics, for the civics education of the United States.
Think about the reality showness of this nomination.
First of all, how many Supreme Court potential nominees?
You know, names that had been floated, possible judges that could go up to the Supreme Court.
How many in history did you ever know about?
None.
Maybe the nominee.
Maybe.
And maybe, like, one name, maybe one other name.
Not the case with President Trump, because President Trump is the master of reality television.
So for days now, we've just been on the edge of our seats.
Ooh, is he gonna pick Amy?
I like Amy.
She's really good-looking, and she has seven kids, and she's super Catholic, and I really wish it were Amy.
Damn it!
We'll talk about that in a second.
Or, you know, is it going to be Ray Kethledge?
Or is it going to be Kavanaugh, Brett Kavanaugh?
Or is it going to be Hardiman?
Is it going to be Pryor?
And we're all tuned into this.
This is actually a good thing for American civics.
Because now that Donald Trump, in large part, has made politics replace entertainment, we're paying attention to it.
And we actually learn a few things.
Even, you know, the Joe Schmo on the street is picking up a few things because it's dominating all of our media.
So that, I think, is a good aspect of it.
It's like edutainment.
That's what they say about Bill Nye, except Bill Nye is terrible.
You know, Donald Trump is like the good Bill Nye.
He wears loud clothing.
You know, he's been on television since we were all kids.
But he's like the good version.
He does good things and Bill Nye just spouts nonsense.
So let's get into it.
I've already shown my hand a little bit with the Amy Barrett whiff.
Some, especially cultural conservatives, We're really hoping for Amy Coney Barrett, who's a federal judge who was nominated last year and confirmed under President Trump.
And I will say a little bit of this is just the reality TV-ness of it.
Because before three months ago, what did you know about any of these judges?
Nothing?
Nothing.
Of course not.
And what do you know now?
Probably not very much, though.
You've read a little bit.
I mean, it has kind of seeped in a little bit, osmosis.
Maybe you've read some decisions or you've read about some decisions.
So the cultural right was a little upset that they whiffed on Amy Coney Barrett.
She was a clerk for Scalia.
She's written about originalism pretty explicitly.
Judge Kavanaugh, who was ultimately nominated, they thought, oh, he's got ties to the Bush family.
Oh, he talks a little bit about precedent.
I don't know about this.
But it's worth pointing out.
Intense, hardline, rock-ribbed cultural organizations on the right have come out in favor, pretty vocally, of Brett Kavanaugh.
It's not like Kavanaugh is Justice Kennedy or Souter or something like that.
That's ridiculous.
National Right to Life says that he has a good record as an originalist.
The Susan B. Anthony list, pro-life list, says that he's an outstanding choice.
Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council said, That's pretty good.
I'm not saying this is the perfect nominee ever, but that's pretty good.
We really don't have a lot to complain about.
And remember...
We thought it was going to be Hillary, so now it would just be awful and our constitution would be ripped to shreds.
And then when Trump got it, there were a number of us, myself included, who thought, well, he might be like a Democrat.
He's been a Democrat at points of his life.
He's said very left-wing things at various points.
He might, oh, maybe the best we could hope for is Kennedy.
And that's not true.
We're getting much more originalist, much more textualist, more conservative lowercase c justices, including Brett Kavanaugh.
That's pretty good.
You can't really complain about that.
I also don't want to become one of these, like, never-Trump people, even for two seconds.
And that is what The Hill ran this headline today.
Hashtag never-Trumpers dominate media despite Trump party loyalty at historic high.
And you might have noticed that if you have tuned in at all to the mainstream media, which I have not.
But they get all these guys on television, like Bill Kristol, Steve Schmidt, former GOP, you know, who left Jennifer Rubin.
I don't know that she was ever actually a Republican, but she plays one on TV. Anna Navarro.
And they just go, they're on TV all the time.
Except, what's so strange about that is that David Brooks, Brett Stevens, I mean, it goes on and on and on.
David Frum.
What's so strange about that is, according to Gallup, right now President Trump has record high approval within his own party.
87%.
The polls show anywhere from 83% to 90% approval within his own party.
This beats everybody.
This beats Ronald Reagan.
There's one minor exception.
After 9-11, President Bush had a comparable or higher approval rating within his own party, but that waned shortly after 9-11.
Right now, approval among Republicans of Donald Trump is higher than approval of Ronald Reagan at his 500-day mark in office.
That is pretty good.
The one caveat to...
I'll say my worries about Kavanaugh, and then we'll get into just celebrating it because the leftist tears are too much and we'll drown if we don't celebrate and start guzzling them quickly.
The thing with Kavanaugh is...
He better have some hard ribs.
He really better show up because this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
You've got a Republican Senate.
You've got the swing vote, the major swing vote, resigning.
And you've got this conservative Republican president in office.
You've got the simple majority to confirm the Supreme Court justice.
So we were like, you know, I kind of wanted Attila the Hun.
I was campaigning for Justice Hun or Justice Khan.
Justice Genghis Khan, I thought he might be good too.
You really want somebody who is hardcore, like a Mike Lee, or apparently like a Justice Amy Barrett, Judge Amy Barrett, because you want to make sure that we can undo some of the havoc that the left has wrought on the American legal system.
In particular, Roe vs.
Wade.
But many other cases that emanate from that.
And I think a lot of cultural conservatives are a little nervous because the The anti-Roe v.
Wade bona fides of Brett Kavanaugh are slightly in question.
I don't want to overstate this.
There are just certain things that make us feel a little uneasy.
We know that Justice Roberts gave us an absurd opinion in Obamacare.
We've been burned before.
We've been burned by Roberts a little bit, certainly by Kennedy, definitely by Souter, very much by Souter.
So we just don't want to get burned again.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
I hope it works out, because if it doesn't work out, the cultural right is just never going to forgive the establishment right, and it is going to create real fissures in this party, and it's going to make the nominating process even harder than it was before.
So let's hope it works out.
My last worry is about Judge Kavanaugh.
I'll show you a little bit just in the clip of his remarks last night, and then we'll get down to celebrating.
Here's future justice Brett Kavanaugh.
A judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.
My law clerks come from diverse backgrounds and points of view.
I am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women.
Okay, those were two remarks that stuck out to me.
Doesn't seem like a huge deal.
What, Michael?
You don't like women?
I love women.
Look, I was kind of hoping a woman would be nominated to the court this time.
I just found those remarks a little worrying because he said the text has to be interpreted by what the text plainly means, what it meant at the time of ratification, by tradition, and precedent.
And what we're assuming is this was just a line he threw away for the Democrats during the nominating process so they can point to it and say, no, he accepts precedent.
He accepts story decisis.
Justice Scalia himself, no less a man than the great Justice Scalia, said that he was a faint-hearted originalist because there is a role for story decisis.
There is a role for precedent in jurisprudence.
You just get a little worried.
You just think, what does that mean?
I don't know what that means.
And then the women remark, he said, I'm proud that most of my clerks have been women.
I just sort of thought, like, why?
Why are you proud of that?
I don't...
Why do you care one way or the other?
If the whole idea is that the clerks and the justices are supposed to interpret the texts as they mean, what does their sex have anything to do with it?
It just...
Now, look, I know why he did it.
He's kind of throwing out these lines to make him more palatable to Democrats.
I just think...
Are we going to play that game?
It sounds a little squishy.
It's like the binder is full of women.
I'm so proud that most of my employees are women.
Why?
Who cares?
It's fine if most of your employees are women.
It's fine if most of your employees are men.
I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
Those were the two things.
I don't know about that.
Now we'll get to all the good stuff.
Before we do that, we've got to make a little more money.
We have to.
Look, this is a capitalist show.
This is a capitalist country.
We're conservatives here, you know?
Thrive Market.
And what is more conservative than organic groceries?
ThriveMarket.com slash Michael.
M-I-C-H-A-E-L. I really want to thank our sponsors at Thrive Market because I love their products.
I use it all the time.
You can get great savings on all of their products you need to live a healthy life.
I am actually really serious about this.
I think there's this...
This idea, this caricature of some conservatives as like, you know, just eating sludge out of the street, which is, oh, I don't need, like, good food.
I don't need blah, blah, blah.
What are you talking about?
Think of, like, Winston Churchill or something.
You know, I think he probably ate Ronald Reagan.
If they, you know, they treated themselves well, you should too.
Thrive Market is a revolutionary online marketplace on a mission to make healthy living easy and affordable for everyone.
You can shop for thousands of the best-selling non-GMO foods and natural products, always at 25% to 50% below traditional retail prices.
Check out the Thrive Market brand products.
They are the highest quality ingredients at even more affordable prices than the current premium products carried on the site.
I use a ton of their products all the time.
I use their Pignoli.
I use their olive oil.
It's all superb quality.
You won't get better quality and a really good price.
They offer a curated catalog, which means maybe you find three or four choices for whatever you want to buy because they have picked out the best.
Makes it a lot easier.
I go to the grocery store on a rare occasion, and I just am overwhelmed.
I break out in hives.
Don't do that.
Make your life easy.
More than 70% of the Thrive Market catalog cannot be found on Amazon.
It's the largest retailer in the country that sells exclusively non-GMO groceries.
It's really, really good.
Users right now, don't say I never did nothing for you, will get $60 of free organic groceries plus free shipping and a 30-day free trial.
Only my listeners, though.
Users will get $20 off their first three orders of $49 or more plus free shipping, but you're going to spend more than $49 anyway.
They have such good products.
Do the math.
You spend $49, Thrive automatically gives you back $20, so your total purchase becomes $30.
You get this deal three times in a row.
I'm no math major, but that is a good deal.
Go to ThriveMarket.com slash Michael.
Get your instant $60 off groceries.
ThriveMarket.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. All right, let's get to the good stuff.
Can we?
I'm done fretting.
I just wanted to get that off my chest.
If today we had some Genghis Khan, Justice Khan were about to take control of the court and just obliterate Roe v.
Wade and just crash the administrative state, overturn Chevron deference, I'd be dancing on my desk.
But this is pretty good, too.
This isn't so bad.
One thing I know that we have to do, now that I've gotten that off my chest, is conservatives and Republicans have to unify behind Brett Kavanaugh.
We need to unify behind this pick for a number of reasons.
One, he's a good pick.
He's a good pick.
The main objection to him from some quarters that he was a Bushy, he worked for George Bush, that's ridiculous.
If you're a young legal star in the last quarter century, you're going to work for a Bush.
That's just how the Bushes have been the previous two Republican presidents.
That's who you're going to work for.
He's a good pick.
He's got a long record, too.
This was kind of the argument which I felt about Judge Barrett.
She seems great.
She seems so rock-ribbed to work for Scalia, but she's only been a judge for a year, so there's not a lot of record there.
I actually did have this thought.
I thought, you know, if Judge Barrett gets it...
And she turns out to not be really rock-ribbed or originalist down the road.
I'll feel kind of bad because we're making a little bit of a bet here.
It was only one year that she's been a judge.
This guy's been a judge for a dozen years.
That's pretty good.
Also, the president should have some leeway.
The president has been good so far.
He's been really good for conservatives.
He's been the most conservative president in most ways that I've, certainly in my lifetime, and that I could even imagine, really.
So that's pretty good.
And the final reason why we need to unify, because you know the left is going to rip him apart.
They're already trying to rip apart Judge fill-in-the-blank.
The main reason we have to unify and support Judge Kavanaugh These tears are just so delicious.
They're just so good.
I can't...
Do you really want to deprive yourself of these?
Because I don't think I could do it.
The left is generically outraged.
They're not particularly outraged because they don't know anything about this guy.
And they were already outraged before the pick came out.
But they're generically outraged.
And that makes today so, so yummy.
Very good.
There was this major protest outside of the Supreme Court last night, and I kid you not, there were journalists who caught photos of the people.
They just showed up with fill-in-the-blank protest signs.
They say, we need to stop blank.
Judge blank.
Stop blank's nomination.
Blank is a racist.
Blank is a sexist.
Whatever.
Blank is going to destroy women or something like that.
You just think, guys, you're so transparent in your just partisan hackery.
You didn't even go into a little corner and fill in.
No, you just showed up with a fill-in-the-blank sign.
And then the other great one, if you sign up on political websites and you have an email inbox, and I'm sure you saw this yesterday, a bunch of these left-wing organizations sent out their generic fill-in-the-blank email, and they forgot to fill in the blank.
This was the Women's March statement on Trump's extremist SCOTUS nominee.
That was the headline of this press release.
Quote, A response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Women's March released the following statement.
It's not like X-mas, you know, Christmas, like it stands in.
I don't think that works for Brett Kavanaugh.
It's just, they probably wrote it a week ago.
They say, this is terrible.
It really takes the wind out of their sails.
It really makes their argument a little incredible.
Democracy for America, another one of these left-wing groups, sends out this message.
SCOTUS, DFA, will fight Kavanaugh.
Says she represents a generational assault on justice, freedom, and core democratic values.
Now, did you catch that?
Did you catch what happened there?
They thought it was going to be Barrett.
So they wrote, they just assumed they put the pronoun she.
I can't believe, by the way, Democracy for America, they didn't even ask Judge Kavanaugh his preferred pronoun.
Did they assume his gender?
You have to ask your preferred pronoun.
Just totally weak hackery.
But it wasn't just them.
You know, it was everybody.
It was all of these activists at the Supreme Court.
Shannon Breen for Fox was out there.
She was going to do a show, a live show, at the Supreme Court.
They had to shut it down because she felt unsafe.
She said, I've never really felt unsafe reporting on the ground.
This is insane.
Way worse than the Gorsuch nomination.
Which is funny because it seems like Gorsuch is a more rock-ribbed nominee.
I'm not entirely sure that's fair.
It's really hard to rank.
Judges on scales of conservatism or originalism because there are just so many issues that come before them.
But yeah, apparently the protests against this guy, Kavanaugh, were much, much worse than against Gorsuch.
Why is that?
It's just all fake, astroturfed, election year nonsense.
So let's get to what really matters.
Because the Democrat activists weighed in, that's fine.
The Democrat PACs weighed in, that's fine.
But the real leaders of that party, the real spokesmen, are the celebrities.
They're my neighbors here in sunny Hollywood.
And the things they tweeted were both, they were disingenuous, they were fill-in-the-blank, and they were also just like...
Very stupid.
As is always the case in Hollywood.
It's why my Tumblr is especially full this morning.
I know some of you in the center of the country and on the East Coast, you don't get to enjoy quite as many salty tears as I do.
Joss Whedon, the director, tweets out, even considering this nomination will cement the first American dictatorship.
Kavanaugh!
Get it?
His name's Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh!
So, it will cement the first American dictatorship.
I don't think there's ever been an American dictator.
If there had, would it be Donald Trump, the guy who's lowered taxes, increased religious liberty, decreased regulation?
Would it be that guy?
Or the one who remained president for the entire rest of his life, four terms, interned Japanese Americans, just put a bunch of Americans into prison camps, tried to stack the court, overturn the constitutional order, create blatantly anti-constitutional government programs?
Which one would it be?
Would it be that guy, the great Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt, or would it be Donald Trump, who despite all of the press releases and all of the Democrat hullabaloo to the contrary, is not authoritarian at all?
Has not shown any authoritarian tendencies whatsoever?
Great question, Joss Whedon.
Maybe his historical knowledge only goes back to like 98.
It's like, yeah, but you gotta go back a little further, man.
So, Ron Perlman, another one.
He was in Hellboy.
Hellboy.
Ron Perlman tweets out, okay, ladies and gentlemen, who care for and respect ladies, it is official.
The move back to medieval values.
Sharia law, even.
Where old, bitter men get to tell women what is best for their bodies, lives, and well-being is as done a deal as this is.
Unless we say, no!
No!
No!
Medieval values.
I actually love medieval values.
I don't know that he totally understands medieval values, scholasticism, all that great height for the Catholic Church.
But I do love this.
I've noticed that the left does this sometimes.
When they're attacking, they tell us Islam is the religion of peace.
Islam is wonderful.
They call people who question some aspects of Islamic doctrine or history, they call us Islamophobic.
They say Islam is a wonderful religion of peace.
And then the minute they want to insult Christianity, they compare it to Islam.
Ha ha!
Christianity is so bad, it's like Sharia law.
But yes, you were just defending Sharia law.
Weren't you just saying, no, yeah, but yesterday Sharia law was good, but now it's bad.
So it is a really fun little place they put themselves in, because the best way to attack Christianity is to admit that Islam might not be a perfect religion of peace.
So, great job.
Thanks for that, Hellboy.
Next one up from Rob Reiner from Meathead himself.
Meathead tweets out, it's official.
Trump, who is under investigation for obstruction of justice and conspiring with an enemy...
By the way, random capitalization throughout all of that.
They always knock Trump for randomly capitalizing things.
He does the exact same thing.
He goes on.
whether he can be forced to testify, be indicted, or pardon himself.
Autocracy, here we come.
Vote!
So, that isn't true.
The indictment thing.
We'll get to that.
Actually, John Cryer puts this in stark light.
So it was just...
I mean, that was basically what Rob Reiner said is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Because what he was saying just referenced things And that is the question that they seem to have settled on, even though it was answered hundreds of years ago.
Can a president, a sitting president, be indicted?
John Cryer, who was on that CBS show, the one with Charlie Sheen's sidekick, John Cryer, tweets out, quote, the first question...
Every Democratic senator should ask Kavanaugh, will you recuse yourself from any case involving whether the president can be subject to criminal investigation, required to testify, or indicted?
Why would he recuse himself?
Why would that happen?
What Cryer, I think, is suggesting is because Judge Kavanaugh has an opinion on that, has written about that issue, that he should recuse himself.
Just follow the logic of that for a second.
If judges who have written opinions about public matters...
Recuse themselves when those matters came up to higher courts.
There wouldn't be any judges anymore because that's their job.
That's what they do.
They write opinions on public matters.
Having an opinion on a public matter is not grounds for recusing yourself.
You recuse yourself if there's some conflict of interest or something.
If Judge Kavanaugh were Donald Trump's son, perhaps he shouldn't recuse himself because he had an opinion about it.
That's the premise of the judiciary.
But no one's ever blamed network sitcom actors for being too precise in their historical knowledge.
The other question here is that Rob Reiner brings up, John Cryer brings up, all these guys are bringing up, can the president be indicted?
The Democrats are focusing in on this line of attack.
They're going to say, Kavanaugh is really there to help Trump not be indicted for whatever.
Like, The President can't be indicted.
The sitting President of the United States can't be indicted.
This is not a debated legal question.
This is not a really difficult one to figure out.
If you have Google, you'll figure it out.
Alexander Hamilton settled the question pretty clearly in Federalist 69.
He wrote, quote, The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office, and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
So, Donald Trump could be indicted for something, but President Trump could not.
In order to indict the president, what you have to first do is impeach him, try him, find him guilty, convict him, remove him from office, and then you can deal with indicting him or whatever you want to do.
I guess they've never read The Federalist.
Obviously, Democrats have never read the Federalist Papers.
If they had, they'd be Republicans.
But they don't understand that this is a simple matter.
The question of these celebrities is...
Look, celebrities are always dummies.
They always say stupid things.
The mainstream media are really to blame here because they should know better.
They are so focused on this line of attack...
This secret backroom deal and it's a machination and Trump colluded with the Federalist Society or whatever.
They probably think the Federalist Society is like an arm of the KGB in Moscow or something.
Leanne Caldwell at MSNBC reported...
That there was a secret backroom deal for months of negotiations that Justice Kennedy would name his successor and only then would he retire and this and none of that makes any sense.
But what was really interesting about that report from NBC is that it's based on nothing.
Even NBC had to sort of walk it back.
But the way they do it, of course, is they say some outrageous, ridiculous, stupid thing without any sourcing.
And then everyone tweets it, and that spreads everywhere.
And it's out in the ether.
And then a little later on, they say, oh, but maybe we weren't right.
But nobody tweets that one.
Nobody tweets the correction.
Nobody tweets the retraction.
So what Leanne Coldwell at NBC reported is there were these assurances, these backroom deals.
There was all this haggling with Justice Kennedy, which, of course, makes no sense if you look at the incentives for any of that to happen.
But she based that on one source that didn't hear firsthand any of that happening.
He heard it as a secondhand rumor from someone else who also isn't named.
So their source, not corroborated by anybody, is just like gossip in the children's cafeteria.
That's NBC. That's what they've reduced themselves to.
But they're just hacks at this point, right?
They're not actually doing investigative journalism.
They've just become hacks.
I wish they knew something here because it would make it sort of more interesting to grab hold of and argue with them.
But it is really entertaining that they don't know anything.
At this point, I actually think President Trump could have nominated Merrick Garland and they would find a way to attack him.
They would say, well, it was a backroom deal with Garland.
Garland's now a Republican or something.
It doesn't make any sense.
All of the lefties who know nothing...
There is one lefty, whom I actually know, who knows something because he's a leading expert on constitutional law, and that is Yale professor Akhil Amar.
He wrote a big piece in the New York Times today defending Judge Kavanaugh.
And Professor Amar is a lefty.
There is no doubt about it.
He was a professor while I was in college.
He was always very nice whenever I would speak to him, very cordial.
I sat in on a number of his lectures.
Very, very sharp guy, but decidedly a left winger.
And, you know, I think even when he was in college, he was the head of the liberal party of the debating society.
He wrote this piece, A Vocal Defense, of Judge Kavanaugh.
And it's really interesting because I think the conservatives should hone in on that and use that to separate the Lefty hacks from vaguely serious lefties.
He writes in the New York Times.
The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court Justice is President Trump's finest hour, his classiest move.
I know, I'm as worried as you are at this point reading this from a former lefty professor, but nevertheless, he's a sharp guy.
Listen to his logic.
He says, Last week, the President promised to select someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.
In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he's done just that.
In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court Judge Merrick Garland.
But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it's hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.
He goes on, Democrats could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible.
This would be a mistake.
Judge Kavanaugh, again, is a superb nominee.
Really strong words from a leading light of a leading left-wing legal scholar and a really prominent figure.
There was some talk of him possibly being nominated to the court by President Obama.
This is a big guy and a big deal.
And he's right.
He's really right.
If there is a political strategy here, which of course there is to the nomination of Kavanaugh, it's that it will make Democrats look foolish.
You know, the political idea behind nominating Justice Barrett is it would become this religious fight.
You'd have Democrats ripping apart religion on national television and it wouldn't play well in Peoria and they'd lose the midterms.
This one is good too, though, because he's this...
Basically, unimpeachable candidate.
He's not the furthest, most hardcore originalist or conservative on the court among the names that were floated.
And so it will just make them look foolish when he goes up there during the confirmation process.
Kavanaugh also is, by all accounts, So smart and will sail through because I think his IQ is about 17 standard deviations higher than the congressional IQ on average.
But we should take a look on that because Professor Amar, he concludes this piece.
He says, well, we should, the Democrats should push for a compromise.
Vote yes.
Senate Democrats should vote yes on Kavanaugh or clearly state two better nominees who even possibly could have been nominated by this administration, by a Republican administration.
Vote yes or state two better people.
And of course, no Senate Democrat could do that.
They probably couldn't name three federal judges, period.
And in exchange for that, Kavanaugh would answer all of the questions fairly.
In that case, the reasoning here is that Judge Kavanaugh could be nominated or confirmed by 90-plus votes instead of the 50 or 51 votes that he's going to get to be confirmed.
That would be nice.
It would be good in the United States to have some sense that not everything is just some bitter partisan battle and some hacked battle, you know, that there actually is some consensus over what the role of government is, what the role of the executive is, how the Senate can play a role in that to advise and consent from these justices.
It would be smart for Democrats to do that.
So you know what that means.
They're not going to do it.
They're certainly not going to do it.
And I think Professor Ammar knows they're not going to do it.
He's pleading with them in the New York Times, but it just isn't going to happen because this is a bitter, bitter fight.
And it also will back some Democrats into a corner in these red states, states that President Trump won by a landslide.
It's really going to put them in a tough spot.
It's going to either rip them off their base or rip them off of the broader electorate.
New polling supports this.
This is the good news.
Do I have to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube?
I do.
Oh, let's...
Oh, I was just gonna...
We're gonna get into, like, the central problem of the Democrat Party and why this still spells really good news for Republicans in November.
But, I'm sorry.
If you're on Facebook or YouTube, go to dailywire.com right now.
Why?
Forget it.
You know, you get the shows, you can ask questions in the mailbag, whatever.
We've got the conversation coming up, by the way, next one with the Supreme Lord of the Multiverse, Andrew Klavan.
Just forget all of that today.
Forget all of it.
Forget getting the Ben Shapiro's Wife as a Doctor t-shirt on Amazon right now.
Forget anything in the Daily Wire orbit other than this.
You're going to need this to get through the confirmation hearings.
You won't survive.
You're going to get borked.
You're going to get, like, stick a bork in him.
You're done.
You're going to be dead if you don't have your leftist years tumbler because you will drown.
Go to dailywire.com right now.
Right now, we'll be right back.
So what does this mean for the midterms?
It looks like we're going to be able to get Judge Kavanaugh through the confirmation process before the midterm elections.
That would be a very good thing.
It would make it much easier to do that.
Will the GOP hold the Senate?
Will the GOP lose the Senate?
I don't know.
Historically speaking, again, the party that's in power, the party that holds the White House, is at a great disadvantage in Congress.
A new major batch of polls from Axios shows that Republicans are likely to hold the Senate 52 to 48.
So actually we would gain momentum in the Senate.
I'm loathe to report that because I don't want anybody getting comfortable.
This is going to be a tight election and history is against us, but we could hold that.
That would be very good news because then we could push another justice at some point.
Obviously, no one wishes ill of any of the left-wing justices.
But, you know, if Father Time retires them or they choose to retire sometime during the Trump administration, we could push a conservative and an originalist and a textual judge through.
The polling looks good for Republicans, but not great.
There is a specific polling on this issue.
The Terrence Group has a poll out that shows the majority of voters in battleground states want the nominee confirmed.
They want President Trump's nominee confirmed by fair majorities.
In Florida, it's 56%.
Indiana, I think it's also 56%.
Missouri, 57%.
North Dakota, 68%.
West Virginia, 59%.
They want this to go through.
Now, what does that mean for guys like Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill, people who are Democrats, nominal Democrats at least, in these battleground states?
Are they going to have to vote for the nominee?
It's going to put them in a real pickle, and probably that's the case.
Also, interesting finding on this poll from Terrence Group is that the majority of people in these battleground states want abortion to be decided by the legislature, not by an activist group.
This is a big deal, because we've been talking about Roe v.
Wade a lot this week.
This is a huge deal.
This is a shift in public opinion, not just on the question of abortion, which has moved in the pro-life direction since the Roe v.
Wade decision.
Now the country's split 50-50, and when you really drill down, I think it's probably more pro-life.
But this is a big split on federalism.
This is a big split on separation of powers, on the different roles of government.
Because Roe v.
Wade, it isn't just about abortion.
It's about what the court gets to do.
Does the court get to write laws?
Does the legislature have a say?
Do the people have a say?
Do the states have a say in the laws that govern them?
Or do the courts, just nine black-robed kings and dictators, do they get to say what goes on?
This small oligarchy.
Well, it seems that public opinion is shifting in favor of separation of powers, of the legislature actually doing what it's supposed to do.
That's a really great move.
Now, with all of these numbers going against them, all of this tide turning against them, the deluge of leftist tears flowing down upon us, what are the Democrats doing?
What do you think they're going to do?
Do you think they're maybe going to moderate a little?
Do you think maybe they're going to try to get on board, come up with some new...
No, they're going to nominate Hillary!
They're going to nominate Hillary Clinton!
She's running again.
She's at least running now.
Who knows if she'll ever officially declare that she's running.
She might peter out eventually.
But she is behaving as though she is running for president.
She's going to major events.
She went to an event for the American Federation of Teachers, gave speeches with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.
There's big 2020 contenders, Democrat contenders for president.
Their combined age is 7,000 or something, 750,000.
Hillary also has this super PAC now that she's running onward together.
This is being run by Brian Fallon, her former campaign press secretary.
And why is she spending all this money?
Why is she raising money?
Why is she spending money?
because she's behaving as though she's running for president.
The other options are Pocahontas and Bernie Sanders.
Crazy old Bernie.
This goes back to a strategy from Democrats in 2006 when Howard Dean took over that party.
And he said, I'm from the Democrat wing of the Democrat party and we're going to run left.
We're going to move far left.
And what the Democrats did is they doubled down on their most radical base.
They doubled down on these latte-sipping lefties who have disdain for their fellow countrymen.
And it sort of worked for them in the short term.
But it's moved them away from other key aspects of their coalition, specifically on base issues.
On the question of do you believe in God.
These are like very essential bedrock questions of politics.
Politics is downstream of culture.
Culture is downstream of the cult, of what we worship.
On that base issue, the vast majority of white Democrats are practical atheists.
They don't believe in a God that resembles the God of the Bible.
The vast majority.
And yet the vast majority of Hispanic Democrats and black Democrats do believe in God.
This creates a big issue.
On fundamental questions, first principles questions like that, the Hispanic and black voters, what the Democrats would call the coalition of the ascendant, this kind of intersectional coalition of various demographic groups who might not share ideology, but they should share some combined grievance or something, they more closely resemble Republicans.
And you're seeing a shift away from the Democratic Party.
The Great Walkaway, this was trending on Twitter the other day, This is great news for Republicans.
Really, really stupid for Democrats.
And that central problem that they have, that they've had now for at least 12 years, but probably many, many more decades than that, is the Democrats have no imagination.
That's their problem.
They have no imagination.
2020, they just get clobbered by President Covfefe.
You know, they get clobbered by this guy who was a reality TV star.
They thought he was going to be the easiest candidate to beat ever.
And what do they do?
They say, maybe we'll nominate Hillary again.
Or that lady who looks exactly like Hillary but says that she's an Indian.
Or that guy who kind of looks like Hillary too, but has that voice from Seinfeld.
Maybe...
Or Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Maybe that's what we should do.
These decrepit old people, they don't have any imagination.
They don't have any new idea.
What is their new idea?
What is the big move that Alexandria Cortez is pushing, the Democrat nominee for Congress in Queens, that Bernie Sanders is pushing, that Liz Warren is pushing, that Kirsten Gillibrand is pushing?
They're pushing...
Socialism.
Is there anything more old and decrepit and unimaginative than socialism?
Socialism in its modern form has been around since the 1820s.
That's their new idea?
Are you kidding me?
That's pathetic.
That is pathetic.
But they're a party of decrepit old people and decrepit old ideas.
And they're doubling down on it.
It's really good.
You see it in the signs.
At the protest, those blank signs, that shows you the Democrat party.
They have no imagination.
It's just blank.
It's just fill in the blank.
We must oppose the extremist, racist, sexist, violent, misogynist, judge, blank.
It's like a template.
They didn't even move a couple words around or something.
They say, these Republicans, you're all racists and sexists.
Cabot Phillips from Campus Reform, he went out before the nominee was picked, and he just asked these NYU students on the street, he said, hey, what do you think of Trump's new nominee, who had not yet been picked?
And they said, oh, yeah, very racist, very dangerous, very sexist.
Just making it up.
They're like robots.
They're automatons that are just programmed to repeat these tired old lines.
And it's part of that ideology.
It's because when you're in that very ideological mindset, you just kind of get broken down a little bit.
You go on autopilot.
You don't see things around you.
Ideologues don't see the world.
They just see these narrow takes on the world.
They don't have...
They're not really perceiving things in real time.
And it's good news for us because the Trump era is anti-ideological, isn't it?
I mean, he was not a checklist conservative candidate.
He didn't check most of the boxes.
But he's delivered some of the best conservative public policy, judicial nominations.
We're just in like the age of Covfefe.
This is really good.
By the way, I'm doing this tour with YAF.
It's coming up this fall at Young America's Foundation.
We're going to be doing all of this, the Covfefe on campus tour, and we'll be taking on a lot of issues.
I will define what Covfefe is.
People seem not to understand what Covfefe is.
I'll give you the real definition.
You You'll finally learn.
But you see it in the Trump era, in the age of Covfefe, that this Thinking outside the box, to borrow a cliche, this cracking old checklists and cracking old ideologies actually allows you to affect your political vision much more easily.
And the Democrats are falling into that trap.
They have nothing new about them, nothing imaginative, nothing fresh, nothing alive about them.
I hope that Republicans are able to maintain this.
And one way we're going to be able to do it is rallying around this judge, even if he's not our favorite pick, you know.
Really, it's only because of the age of Covfefe that we even knew there were other picks available.
We were really even thinking about them because of this reality TV show, because of this right-wing exuberance.
And we've got to rally around it for no other reason.
One, because it's important to protect our liberty.
Another one, because it's important to win more elections and keep the momentum going in this liberty movement.
The other one is just these tears, man.
You just need it.
If you're missing out on this, You're missing out on the singular political delight of our lifetimes.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
Don't let, you know, be talking to your grandkid in 50 years and say, Grandpa, what were you doing during the age of Covfefe?
Oh, I was thirsty.
I was parched.
I was parched.
What can I say?
It didn't occur to me.
I'm sorry now.
It was a different time.
We didn't know.
Don't do that.
Don't say that.
You want to be able to look your grandkids square in the eye and say, your great-granddaddy was guzzling leftist tears and I was 80% saline.
I turned into a pillar of salt like Lot's wife.
That's our show for today.
Come back tomorrow.
Get your mailbag questions in.
There's a lot more to talk about, but I really wanted to go in a little bit on what this judge means today.
Sip them up.
Enjoy them.
We're going to have a nice couple salty cocktails later on today, and I will see you tomorrow.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Jim Nickel.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
