Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death at 87 sparks partisan fury as Democrats threaten riots over Trump’s potential conservative replacement—strategically timed to avoid a Republican pick before the election. Ginsburg, a reliable liberal vote, opposed court-packing yet Democrats now push for expanding the Court to 13 seats, risking backlash after her legacy. Trump’s nominee, likely Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa, could energize his base if Democrats reject them, mirroring 2018’s Kavanaugh fallout. Pollack calls her a legal tactician but not a transformative justice, warning of a "red for socialism" vs. Trump choice. Past protests, like the 48-hour siege on McConnell’s home, hint at escalating violence—while Canada’s media-Liberal alliance avoids scrutiny, its selective outrage mirrors U.S. partisan extremes. [Automatically generated summary]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 87-year-old Supreme Court justice in the States, passed away.
A strange overreaction from Canadian politicians, who I don't think could name a single judgment she wrote.
But I think it's a symbol of the power struggle in America, obviously.
I'll show you some interesting clips and quotes.
Let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus because you see what I'm going to let you hear in this podcast.
You'll hear lots of clips from confirmations of judges in the states, but I want you to see it.
I want you to see some riot scenes.
And the way to see it is to get Rebel News Plus, which is the video version of this podcast.
You also get videos from Sheila Gunrid and David Menzies every week.
They're TV-length shows too.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
I think it's worth every penny.
I would say so, but I think a lot of people agree.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a U.S. Supreme Court judge dies, and the left threatens riots if Trump replaces her.
It's September 21st, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government house just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Why People on the Left Liked Her00:15:02
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died at age 87, was a hero to the left.
She was a trailblazer, a woman judge, a feminist judge, but she wasn't the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.
That was Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated by Republican Ronald Reagan.
She wasn't the first Jew on the court.
That was Lewis Brandeis more than a century ago.
So why was she so beloved by the left?
Why did they make movies about her and t-shirts about her?
Why did otherwise normal people wear tattoos of her?
Well, because she was very left-wing, I suppose.
More liberal than left-wing.
Not on everything.
Justice Ginsburg, how do you feel about San Francisco 49ers player Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players who have basically refused to stand for the national anthem?
What do I think?
I think it's really dumb of them.
Would I arrest them for doing it?
No.
It's dumb and disrespectful.
The same, I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag birding.
I said, I think it's a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn't lock a person up.
And while she was a leftist in some ways, she wasn't a partisan Democrat.
Here she dismisses a Democrat idea to pack the court, which would mean the Democrats, if they ever had the power, would take the court, which has nine seats on it, and greatly expand it so they would just appoint a ton of liberals to dilute and water down and swamp the five conservatives who are on the bench right now.
I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges.
I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court.
His plan was for every justice who stays on the court past the age of 70, the president would have authority to nominate another justice.
If that plan had been effective, the court's number would have swelled immediately from 9 to 15.
And the president would have six appointments to make.
You mentioned before the court appearing partisan.
Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan, it would be that one side saying, when we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we will have more people who will vote the way we want them to.
So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation.
So she was left-wing, I think more liberal than left-wing.
I think the main reason why the left liked her, now that I think about it, she wasn't that left-wing.
She was a feminist, and she was for abortion on demand.
And then she was like several other liberal members of the court.
I mean, the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade was back in 1973.
She really had nothing to do with that.
I think, if I may, what people on the left liked about her was that she was old and that they hoped she would get very old in that her seat would outlast Donald Trump so that a Democratic president could replace her, not Trump.
That's what they liked about her.
Every time she was in the hospital, which was quite frequent, it was news, not just news in itself.
I'm not sure how newsy any given Supreme Court judge in the hospital would be.
I suppose as newsy as a cabinet secretary or a senator, but it was that the left was rooting for her to outlive Trump.
Elizabeth May, the Canadian Green Party celebrity, framed her death that way, then deleted it, as she has deleted so many of her drunk tweets, but it was an issue, and she made it an issue.
See, in Canada, judges must retire at age 75, same as senators.
Now, that's age discrimination, I'm sure.
But in Canada, judges and senators are appointed, so there's no natural tool to get rid of judges or senators who aren't that sharp anymore.
There's no such limit on MPs because presumably voters could decide if someone is still with it, as indeed many people are into their late 70s and 80s.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 when she passed away.
Was she really with it in all those final years?
I don't really know.
I don't know if we'll ever know.
Judges have clerks, usually the brightest law graduates from across the country, the brightest of the brightest who want to work at the Supreme Court.
So perhaps they were doing much of the thinking and writing for her.
We'll never really know.
That happens in Canada too with the clerks, but judges are retired at age 75 no matter what.
By staying as long as she could, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a choice.
I mean, she could have retired four years ago and let Barack Obama fill her seat four years ago.
She was 83.
She had been on the court for 23 years back then.
Wasn't that enough?
There were plenty of Democrats who were worried, who wanted her to step down.
I know it's crass, but that's politics, especially court politics, but she just wouldn't leave.
And now she has left all of us, and it's absolute and total political war in America.
Here's Chuck Schumer, the highly partisan New York Democrat senator.
His very first tweet after her death mentioned politics.
A few minutes later, some aide probably convinced him to maybe do a tweet that was more human and less political.
So he did.
But there was a rage on the left when she died.
I understand mourning someone's life, especially a long and successful and important public life.
I bet you a dollar, though, that few Democrats could name a single court ruling she wrote.
I mean, seriously, but look at some of this.
You guys!
I'm driving your car, but I just got a notification that Ruth Bader Gensberg died!
You just had to make it to 2021!
What on earth is that?
That's rage that, you know, the duly elected president of the United States will do his job and nominate a judge and that the Senate will vote on that judge's suitability.
That's how it's outlined in the U.S. Constitution, except that the president is Trump, and the Senate is run by a Republican named Mitch McConnell.
And for all his flaws, and there are many appointing judges, well, he's probably been the best senator on that ever, really.
I don't know what else the Senate does these days, but it approves judges, strong conservative judges, vetted by a conservative group called the Federalist Society.
Maybe the greatest surprise of the Trump presidency is just how Principal Trump's judge picks have been, much more than any other Republican in recent memory, certainly better than either of the Bush presidents.
Look at this upset headline in NBC.
Oh, they're so mad.
McConnell reaches milestone on judges by filling final circuit court vacancy.
Trump and McConnell have confirmed more judges at a faster rate than any recent administration other than Jimmy Carter's when the judiciary was greatly expanded.
McConnell has confirmed 53 circuit court judges appointed by Trump in three and a half years.
Obama confirmed 55 in all eight years of his presidency.
For all judges, Trump has now confirmed 200.
George W. Bush follows with 197 at this point in his presidency and Bill Clinton with 186.
Yeah, and they're not just judges.
I mean, Stephen Harper appointed a large number of judges too, just numerically.
He actually appointed eight Supreme Court judges, five of whom are still sitting.
You wouldn't know it, though.
For whatever reason, Harper just didn't really care.
He delegated choosing judges to leftists or Reds or globalists or progressives.
You really can't tell the difference between that Stephen Harper judge and a Justin Trudeau judge.
Maybe there's one exception on the bench.
Like I say, who would have expected Trump to be so good?
Well, the left knows it, which is why they've gone just nuts, just crazy, talking about rioting, talking about doing bad things that they've never done before, which is puzzling to me.
I mean, they impeached Trump.
They've been rioting all summer.
What exactly would the left add to what they're doing already?
And the crazy part is they're demanding that Trump not follow the Constitution, that he not follow the law.
If he follows the law, they say they will break the law.
Not very compelling either to Trump or to voters.
Canadians were getting into it too, which is really weird.
Here's a super gross professor from the University of Waterloo, a professor, a CBC pundit, a Trudeau policy advisor.
But of course, those things go together.
And he said, burn down the Congress.
What?
He's an academic.
He's a professor.
Presumably he's read the U.S. Constitution.
He knows it's the president's job to nominate a judge, and it's the Senate's job to confirm the judge or not confirm it.
And he's calling for people, I don't know, Americans maybe, to riot and commit arson.
What's wrong with them?
Imagine being a student in his class.
Let's say you're a 19-year-old female student going to college and maybe you happen to be a little bit conservative, maybe even support Trump.
Do you dare to open your mouth for fear of being attacked by this raging man or him, I don't know, threatening you with violence?
God forbid.
What a weirdo.
What a stupid professor.
I was completely unsurprised to see that someone sent poisonous ricin to the White House and that investigators believe it came from Canada.
We don't have the name of the suspect as I read this.
Of course, it came from Canada.
I mean, our media led by the CBC is obsessed with hating Trump.
I wonder if they helped radicalize whoever sent the poison.
We don't know yet.
Anyways, it's so weird.
Justin Trudeau, who hates Trump, felt the need to weigh in with not one but two tweets about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which is odd.
He never met her that I know of.
Obviously, he couldn't name a thing she ever wrote a ruled on.
He just knows she's a Democrat and she's a contrary to Trump, so he had to weigh in.
I noticed that on that same day, Canada's John Turner, the long-serving MP, cabinet minister, briefly prime minister, passed away.
He was a liberal, I'm not.
But you must acknowledge the man's public-spiritedness and his long service.
Trudeau didn't.
It fell to Christia Freeland to put out a statement about it.
Trudeau had lots to say about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It wasn't until about a day later that someone on Trudeau's staff just put something on his Twitter feed.
It was so gross, so gross.
What's wrong with Trudeau?
So what's going to happen?
Well, I'm afraid Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to get their way.
And I'm only half joking by that because, of course, they were in the same position exactly four years ago.
It was an election year, but there was a vacancy.
Obama and Biden tweeted that the Senate had to confirm, needed the court to work.
They wanted the court to work.
There was no such thing as waiting until after the election.
That's a made-up thing.
That's not in the Constitution, they said.
I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation progress process as chairman, even a few months before presidential election.
Yeah, look, that's the rule.
President gets to a point.
I'm with Obama and Biden.
So what we have here is a tantrum in advance, a warning.
If Trump nominates and the Senate confirms, there will be riots, which is exactly what the Democrats are telegraphing they will do and will be their reaction if they lose the election 42 days from now.
They refuse to accept the rules.
They're rigging the rules when they can, but saying quite clearly that if they lose by the rules, they will simply ignore the rules.
They're saying that about the vote.
Now they're saying it about a nomination of a judge.
We saw how insane they were during the last nomination for a judge, Brett Kavanaugh.
It's just crazy to even say it, but they literally accused him of being a serial rapist in college.
They actually said that.
Michael Avenatti was the lawyer who dredged up all sorts of witnesses who claimed it, though none of them could actually remember anything nor explain why they waited dozens of years to even mention it.
It was a sham.
Avenatti, I should tell you, is in prison now for extortion, but that's what the Democrats did.
They were literally banging on the doors of the court trying to smash them in.
Nancy Pelosi was on TV the other day saying if Trump goes ahead, she might impeach him again.
What can you do then?
Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session that you and the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.
Well, we have our options.
We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now.
Do you get the people that these people don't play by the rules?
But I'm excited by it.
I see the quality of the candidates being bandied about.
Trump says he'll appoint a woman.
I don't like identity politics, but I don't think he's doing it for that reason.
I think he's doing it partly because otherwise there'll be another hundred fake rape claims.
You can't really do that to a woman candidate, but they can do other things, mainly call them racist, or something even worse, apparently, a Christian.
Do you consider yourself an Orthodox Catholic?
I am a Catholic, Senator de Durvin.
The dogma lives loudly within you.
And that's of concern.
That's Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump three years ago to serve on the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court in the Midwest.
Very senior judge, very conservative.
Boy, do the Democrats hate her, as you can see.
But she already had her Senate hearings, as you saw, and she won the vote, as you saw.
She's the same judge now as she was three years ago.
Do you really need full hearings for her again?
Same thing with Barbara Lagoa, a Cuban-American judge Trump elevated to the appeals circuit in the Southeast.
She was voted on by the Senate less than a year ago.
She was confirmed by a vote of 80 to 15.
Why even bother having another hearing for her?
There was just a hearing on these judges months ago.
They both passed.
Just go straight to the vote again.
I don't know if I would care that much other than on judges.
Trump has been amazing, probably the single best file he's had.
I bet Trump appoints Lagoa.
He wants to lock in Florida.
He wants to get Hispanic votes.
How would the Democrats fight her?
The rapist charge wouldn't work.
I don't think the racist charge would work.
Big win for everyone.
Part of me does want the awful, awful hearings run by the worst people in the world, the smears, who literally called Brett Kavanaugh a rapist in front of his family who were sitting there based on cooked up lies of that criminal Avenatti.
It was horrific.
But you know, I don't know if you remember this.
That was right before the last elections, the midterm.
Trump was in a slump.
He was definitely behind, and the Democrats smelled blood, but they couldn't control themselves.
Vile Attacks and Supreme Court Battles00:02:33
They went too far.
And Americans, normal Americans, independent Americans, moderates, even the more normal Democrats, they couldn't believe what was going on.
The vile attacks on Kavanaugh not only gave Trump's campaign some energy, it shocked and grossed out so many moderate Democrats.
In fact, far from hurting Republicans, check this out.
Look at this.
Four Democrats lost the Senate.
Kavanaugh's revenge.
Every Democratic senator in a competitive midterm race who voted against Brett Kavanaugh lost.
Let me read the facts.
Every Democratic senator who voted against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the nation's highest court lost in their competitive reelection bids.
The Democratic senators who voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation then lost their seats during Tuesday's midterm elections included Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Bill Nelson of Florida.
Look at those places.
North Dakota, very normal people.
Indiana, normal.
Missouri, sort of normal.
Florida, okay, definitely not normal, but very evenly matched Republican-Democrat.
Americans saw this.
Americans saw that and said, no, thank you.
The attackers and shriekers are the nutty ones.
That's why I'm a little bit optimistic about the election 42 days from now, because that kind of shrieking and screaming, that's been the only message the Democrats and the media party have had all summer.
Riots, Black Lives Matter extremism, burning cities, and now the same scorched earth approach to a court nomination.
I don't want a hearing.
I just want the judges.
But you know what?
Let the Democrats show Americans who they really are and let that be the last thought on the minds of millions of Americans as they go to vote.
Stay with us.
We'll have more about this with our friend Joe Pollard.
Welcome back.
Well, I'm hardly a scholar of the Supreme Court of the United States, but reviewing Ruth Mader-Ginsburg, I think that the chief reason Democrats have put so many of their hopes in her succession is not that she was a particularly powerful jurist.
I'm not saying she was by any minds inconsequential, but she wasn't a scalia.
Democrats' Supreme Court Strategy00:14:47
She wasn't the Clarence Thomas.
I think she's simply a seat of power for the Democrats that they don't want to give to Trump.
I don't think anyone's that passionate about the woman herself other than the symbol that she was a Democrat appointee who was, in their minds, hopefully going to outlive Trump.
And I think the rage you're seeing at her passing is not about her life or her work, but about the thought that the 2016 election has consequences, including that Trump will appoint another judge.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Let's go to an expert, at least certainly more expert than me, our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
I don't know if you're a Supreme Court scholar, Joel, but you're certainly a much closer follower than me.
Was she a great judge, or was she just great in the minds of liberals because she was a Democrat who refused to go away?
Well, she was a brilliant lawyer.
I think that's beyond dispute.
She was the first, not the first, but the only woman in her class at Harvard Law School back in the 1950s, which tells you something about the kind of obstacles she faced.
And she went on to graduate from Columbia and then have a very successful legal career.
Much of that career involved challenging gender discrimination in American law.
And she won almost every case she argued before the Supreme Court.
So she was a very accomplished lawyer and a passionate advocate of women's rights.
So you grant that to her.
On the court, she made less of an impact.
And as you suggest, she was more a reliable liberal vote than a real thought leader.
She did not have the stature, for example, of an Antonin Scalia who really defined conservative judicial philosophy for a generation, maybe two generations of conservative lawyers and legal scholars.
So she wasn't important in terms of her ideas.
She hasn't left us too many opinions that stand out in the mind or in the memory.
But she was a reliable liberal vote, and you're correct that that's the reason many in the Democratic Party and on the left were particularly enthusiastic about her.
She simply was also tenacious in a physical sense.
She died at age 87.
She was determined to outlast Donald Trump, and she very nearly made it, assuming, for, you know, if you don't assume that he's re-elected, but she really had a kind of physical strength that belied her very small frame.
And interestingly enough, she was also broad-minded enough to have Antonin Scalia as a close friend.
So she was quite sad when he passed away four years ago, also during an election year.
And she was critical of things like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the anthem.
She was not a fan of kneeling for the national anthem.
So she represents a kind of old liberalism associated with the women's rights movement and so forth, not quite on board with the new woke thought in the Democratic Party or on the left.
And she was disturbed in recent years by the increasing attacks on members of the judiciary by the left.
So in that sense, she wasn't quite on board with what Democrats are trying to do.
She was very much in favor of President Obama being allowed to nominate a justice in 2016, but she was against court packing, which is what the left wants to do now.
This is the new scheme that the Democrats are floating to add justices to the nine-member Supreme Court.
Right now, it has a 5-4 conservative majority, temporarily 5-3.
It could have a 6-3 conservative majority if Trump is able to put his appointee on the court.
And Democrats say, well, we're going to negate your 6-3 majority.
If we get power again, if Joe Biden wins the presidency and we win the Senate and we keep the House, we're going to expand the number of Supreme Court justices to 13 and then quickly confirm four new justices so that we have a 7-6 majority.
You don't have a 6-3 majority.
So that's where things stand.
You know, you mentioned how Ruth Beta Ginsburg was against the radical identity politics of Kaepernick.
I think that would come as a surprise to some of her more woke mourners today.
But here's a clip of her saying that she does not want the court packed and she fears that that would turn the court in the eyes of the public into a partisan instrument.
Take a look at this.
Past the age of 70, the president would have authority to nominate another justice.
If that plan had been effective, the court's number would have swelled immediately from 9 to 15.
And the president would have six appointments to make.
You mentioned before the court appearing partisan.
Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan, it would be that.
One side saying, when we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges.
So we will have more people who will vote the way we want them to.
So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation.
Very calm, speaking slowly, as you say, minute physically, but still all there mentally.
It's interesting that she has a big enough view of the world that although she's a down-the-line liberal, she sees the problems with a clearly partisan trick.
And I think that the fact that she was against that kind of trickery, Joel, and the Democrat Party wants that kind of trickery now, is very similar to the Democratic Party right now saying, well, we're going to have mail-in ballots.
We're going to keep counting them after the official voting day.
We're not going to concede no matter what.
It strikes me that she's fair-minded enough a judge to see rule rigging or an attempt to change the rules by the Democrats.
And she's grown up enough to blow the whistle on it.
I think the calls to pack the court by the Democrats are of the same species of trickery as their mail-in voting and their other plans not to concede if they lose.
That's right.
The Democrats have all kinds of ways of changing the rules when they don't win.
And they should perhaps change the name of their party because they don't seem to like democracy very much.
They lost the last election and still haven't gotten over it.
Now, the Democrats are accusing Republicans of changing their mind about the rules because Republicans said you should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice in an election year.
That was the argument Republicans used to keep Merritt Garland off the Supreme Court when Obama nominated him in the last year of his second term.
But the situation there was somewhat different.
You had the opposition controlling the Senate.
And so these two sides, the presidency with Obama on the left and Senate with Republicans on the right, they weren't really going to see eye to eye about much of anything.
And Obama had by then established such a clear preference for the left.
And he had really a bad track record of ignoring the Constitution, especially on things like the Iran deal and Obamacare and so forth, DACA.
I think that Senate Republicans were on firm ground.
They're now being accused of hypocrisy because they want to give a vote to whoever President Trump nominates later this week.
I don't know that it really matters.
Democrats can also be accused of hypocrisy because, of course, they put out all kinds of statements in 2016 that the Senate has to do its duty.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about presidential election years blocking justices.
We've had almost 30 judges appointed or justices appointed during election years.
I think there have been 29 vacancies over the last two centuries and a half during an election year.
So this is all going to be very interesting.
We don't know how it's going to go.
Maybe it'll depend on who President Trump nominates.
He's committed to nominating a woman.
He's going to nominate one of a list of five right now.
We don't know who exactly is on the list, but Trump has at least released two potential lists of candidates.
Joe Biden is refusing to release a list, even though Biden said he was working on one in June.
He said he was going to nominate an African-American woman to the court and that he would shortly have a list for us, and we have never seen that list.
So Trump at least is in an advantageous position with regard to transparency.
He has told the public that there are two lists now of candidates for the Supreme Court.
He's going to choose from those lists.
He won't confine his choices to those lists, but those lists give you some idea of who the candidates might be.
And the odds on favorite right now is a woman named Amy Coney Barrett.
She is an appellate judge who is known for conservative legal opinions.
There are several others on the list who he could choose.
So this is a very exciting moment in a way, even though it's also very divisive.
I mean, had we not had the riots and George Floyd and all of that, I would have said this is potentially the most divisive thing to happen.
And in fact, I did say many months ago that I wanted Ruth Bader Ginsburg to survive at least past the election because I couldn't imagine a more divisive thing happening than for her seat to become vacant in the middle of an election.
But now that we've seen, you know, much more radical divisions and rioting and violence, it doesn't seem quite as bad.
So I think we can actually handle this one.
Yeah, we're talking with Joel Pollock.
He's also the author of Red November.
Will the country vote red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
We'll find out in just 42 days.
I was thinking about Trump's statement that he's going to nominate a woman.
And that feels like Democrat Party identity politics.
But I actually think it's a pragmatic move by Trump because if it was a man, you know that the Michael Avenattis of the world, he's in jail, but someone else like him, would concoct sexual harassment claims out of thin air.
It's less likely they would do that about a woman candidate.
I actually think that's the number one reason he's going to nominate a woman candidate.
Now, obviously, you know enough about Democrats that the next charge would be racism.
So that's why I think that he might nominate, for example, there's a Cuban-American Court of Appeals judge at our level.
Yeah, she was the first female Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, and she was quickly elevated to, I believe, the 11th circuit on the appellate court.
So we'll see.
I mean, she's got a very short track record there, but that's a good thing, usually, for judges these days, because you don't want too many people knowing too much of what you think.
So, yes, especially before an election where Trump is competing for the Latino vote, that could be very important.
He could have a stronger chance, you might argue, in Florida if he nominated her.
We shall see.
But I do think the strongest factor in nominating a woman is simply that the outrage on the left and perhaps beyond the left, if he replaced one of the court's first female justices with a male justice, would be pretty hard to ignore.
So I think he's going to stick with the tradition of keeping a woman in that particular seat.
And he's got many good candidates, and many of them are good conservative candidates.
So we'll see what happens.
Democrats are starting to talk about violence, by the way.
This is no longer simply tolerating violence, but actually encouraging violence if the Trump pick goes through.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said this event should radicalize America.
So they are gunning for this, even though, as you and I have discussed many times before, this is something Democrats were talking about doing long before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away.
You and I talked, I believe, on June 30th about Democrats planning to pack the courts or planning to eliminate the filibuster to make it easier for them to do things like that.
We were talking about it in June already.
So the Democrats now are floating the idea.
In fact, Joe Biden explicitly said that now we're going to take drastic action.
Or I think it was Chuck Schumer said, if Republicans go ahead with this, then packing the courts is on the table.
Well, it was already on the table.
It's been on the table for months.
And, you know, you heard it here first.
I mean, the Rebel and Breitbart, these are two outlets that said this was coming.
And now everyone's trying to pretend it's a surprise.
But this has been coming for a long time.
Democrats are planning to expand their power and the power of the federal government dramatically if they win the election.
Let me ask you one last question.
I'm always grateful for your time, Joel.
I remember Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.
It's the most brutal thing I've ever seen.
It made the Clarence Thomas high-tech lynching look like a baby shower.
Literally accusing a man of being a serial rapist based on clearly manufactured wisps of gossip.
I've never seen anything like it, and that wasn't even the worst of it.
Screaming at senators in the hallways of the Senate, smashing the doors of the beautiful Supreme Court carved.
Like, it was a premonition of the riots we've seen this year.
And it was so shocking to behold.
But I wasn't the only one who felt that way.
Obviously, a lot of middle Americans, independent Americans did, because in fact, senators who voted against Kavanaugh were turfed.
I think it energized the Republican base.
And so although I don't want to see that kind of personal destruction, part of me says let the people have a final reminder in these last 42 days of what the opponent looks like, of the viciousness, because I don't think the Democrats will be able to control themselves.
If it's Amy Coney Barrett, I think they'll see full-blown anti-Christian, anti-Catholic bigotry.
I think you'll see such bad behavior that it might actually, ironically, paradoxically, put Trump over the top.
What do you think of that?
Remote Hearings, Remote Controversy00:03:35
It's possible.
It's also possible that knowing that, Democrats will eventually try to reel it in.
You're not going to have those kinds of confrontations in the Senate because of the COVID restrictions.
So, you know, I think any of these hearings and so forth, and even the votes, will be taking place remotely to some extent.
But you're correct.
There's always the potential for that.
And we'll see.
Certainly, protests are shifting from D.C. to the homes of the senators.
There have been protesters for the last 48 hours outside of Senator Mitch McConnell's home in Kentucky, I believe in Kentucky or wherever he's living.
Could be his D.C. residence.
I'm not sure, actually.
But, you know, that's the kind of thing we'll see.
And we'll see more of it if Democrats win.
But I do think that Trump is going to nominate someone.
He said he would do so by the end of the week.
And Mitch McConnell is promising a vote.
Even if that vote fails, the public will know the kind of person Trump wants to put forward.
And that could also have an effect on the electorate.
Because if voters see that Democrats are turning down a woman, they're turning down perhaps a Latino woman, a Catholic woman, whoever, that's going to create a negative impression, no matter how wild it gets.
Simply the fact that Democrats would try to block someone like that.
Obama used the Merrick Garland pick, I think, in a failed attempt to do something similar.
Obama wanted to show that if he chose a white guy who was sort of thought of as a moderate in some ways, that Republicans would prove their own intolerance of Obama by blocking Merrick Garland.
It turned out the public was also pretty sick of Obama at that stage, so it kind of backfired.
But I think Trump could do well by putting up a nominee who presents the most attractive, and I don't use that term in a gendered way, but sort of the most attractive candidate to a broad swath of the electorate and daring the Democrats to vote against that person, I think, is probably a good move heading into an election.
Very interesting.
Joel, thanks so much for making time for us.
I know these next 42 days are very intense.
It's always great to grab some of your time.
Good luck out there.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it, Joel Pollock.
And let me remind you of Joel's new book called Red November.
Will the country vote red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
The stakes couldn't be higher.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue Friday on Marcy Ian, running for the Liberal Party.
John writes, no qualifications.
Yep, she'd make a perfect liberal.
You know, I learned after I did my monologue that she was involved with the We Day charity.
It's perfect.
So is Bill Mourneau, who quit in disgrace.
She'll fit right in.
Scott writes, these women on the social are ultra-woke.
They live in affluent areas and are clueless to what the majority of society face every day.
Yeah, but it's selective wokeness.
I told you that Lainey Louie wrote some really weird and gross sexual racist comments about Janet Jackson, and that was okay, but not Jessica Mulroney having a feud with another African-American.
I don't even understand the rules.
It's no rules.
It's canceled culture, and that's the media party.
All right, media party or liberal party, a distinction without a difference in Canada.
Oh, you bet.
I've said that the media party is the auxiliary of the Liberal Party.
And it's much more effective because it's not labeled with a warning.
That little L for liberal sign tells you, beware, liars are here.