Editor’s note: Our audience paid close attention to the news that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement gave President Donald Trump a second opportunity to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court. He did so 12 days later. Here’s a sampling of the early response. Send your own views to [email protected]—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: Everyone is talking (and with good reason) about the Democrats’ digging up dirt on President Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who is praised by John Malcolm and Elizabeth Slattery in their commentary (“Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh”). My advice is to start praying now.
Pray for a complete approval from Congress, and a nation that will approve Judge Kavanaugh and honor him and the position he has been nominated to. God works wonders.—Peggy Morgan
And now we know what a barrage of baloney will start from liberals, Democrats, and the media. Hold on tight. The fight is on from this moment. I hope we will have another excellent judge on the Supreme Court.—Ellen Husel
— John Malcolm (@malcolm_john) July 10, 2018
Putting this man on the Supreme Court would be a bad decision because he’s just another Anthony Kennedy or worse, and his record proves that point. I hope he’s just a sacrificial lamb to get Amy Coney Barrett in as the best qualified.—Bob Shoemaker
A true constitutionalist is just what we need. Now the trouble doubles. Let’s hope our Republicans in the Senate have more guts than they have shown.—Ed Wilson, Deptford, N.J.
— Genevieve Wood (@genevievewood) July 10, 2018
Getting to Know Brett Kavanaugh
Dear Daily Signal: Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent choice (“8 Things to Know About Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh”). When approved for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed by a 21-vote margin by the Senate.
It will be interesting to see which senators who voted yes might now be saying no and complaining. They are the problem, not Kavanaugh.—Mike Engel
President Trump must have hit a nerve because the Democrats, fake news media, and assorted left-wing loons are collectively weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth.
They even had (fill in the blank) opposition signs printed ahead of time. And in the end, Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed.—Chris Cush, Greensboro, N.C.
Akhil Reed Amar, a liberal professor at Yale Law School who once taught Kavanaugh, came out with support for him. Here’s how the left responded. https://t.co/3tbMOHAbl6
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) July 10, 2018
The Left Willing to Eat Its Own Over Kavanaugh
Dear Daily Signal: You can’t be a free thinker on the left, as Jarrett Stepman’s commentary shows (“Liberal Professor Comes Out in Favor of Kavanaugh, Left Pounces”). Just fall in line and do what you’re told. Democrats are experts at controlling people mentally and physically.—Kyle Szewczyk
Trust me, this will not fly with the American people. Every time a Democrat opens his mouth, another Republican is born. Keep talking, you communists.—Phil Esposito
The Democrats aren’t afraid of conservative judges; they fear the Constitution.—Lance Svendsen
All you people on the left pay attention to this. These people eat their own if you have the slightest disagreement with their hateful agenda.—Bob Sieben
— Chris Woodward (@afncwoodward) June 28, 2018
The Left Flips Out Over Justice Kennedy’s News
Dear Daily Signal: The Senate confirmation hearings, particularly if Trump nominates a devoted Catholic to the Supreme Court, will give a lot more fodder for the Republican National Committee commercials (“23 Tweets From the Left on Justice Kennedy’s Retirement”). They probably got hours of soundbites on reactions to Kennedy’s retirement.
The left just doesn’t know what isn’t a good look to everyone outside their bubble. They make thousands of converts daily—not in the direction they want.—Joe Izquierda
This was THE reason No. 45 is President Donald Trump, if there were any reason. May God bless and guide our leaders in this nomination process.—Tom Antoine
Liberals are on the side of ideology with abortion, conservatives are on the side of science. Abortion is the slavery ideology of our day, and finally allowing the states to decide has been a 40-year, 50-million death slog. Most of those killed were minorities.
This will be a stain on our history, just as slavery was. History will record that the Democrats stood staunchly in favor of abortion, just like slavery.—Anita Gummer, San Francisco
Wow, the wickedness of the left speaks volumes. Get your abortions now? What kind of person would say such a thing?—Delilah Fleharty
The integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake.
If a person is selected who sees the Constitution as a living document subject to change at the will of the people, we will lose our moorings. If it’s someone who lacks respect for the sanctity of human life, we will continue to see the consequences of the abortion of 60 million babies.
For the past 45 years, we’ve been required to bring in immigrants to fill the positions in the labor force that would have been filled by our own children.
However, if a person is selected who embraces life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, we will restore the values that made America great in the first place. God help us!—Wes Potts
Gee, overturning the murdering of unborn children seems like a major problem for come commenters. They have no idea what waits for them on Judgment Day.—Phil Esposito
— Fred Lucas (@FredLucasWH) July 9, 2018
The Left Is Back to Talking About Packing the Court
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Jarrett Stepman’s commentary, “Even Before Nominee Named, Left Turns to Court-Packing to Save ‘Democracy’”: It’s the leftist creed. “If you can’t win by playing by the rules … change the rules.”—Sandy Kramer
Let me be clear to all in the media and those who think they have read the Constitution of the United States. This country is not a democracy. The nation was not set up like that.
If you had read the Constitution, you would find that nowhere in it does it say that we are. It says we are a constitutional republic.—Douglas MacMurray
I’m not sure why this is so hard. Pick a judge that upholds the Constitution, not a political party.—Shawn Kelly
FDR tried packing the court, and was roundly struck down by the Supreme Court, of all things.—Bill Armour
— Chad Connelly (@ChadConnelly) July 5, 2018
What the Left Misrepresents About the Vacancy in 2016
Dear Daily Signal: The Democrats are grasping at straws, is my comment on Thomas Jipping’s commentary, “Liberals’ Misleading Spin on Senate Republicans’ 2016 Supreme Court Confirmation Approach.” They have lost their influence because they are so negative and unruly.
They have no credibility, since they’ve made it their main agenda to reject the Trump presidency. The country doesn’t need or want their kind of leadership.—Wes Potts
A lame-duck president shouldn’t have authority to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Barack Obama tried and still is trying to get America to accept his bosses’ idea of a global entity.
This upcoming election is not a presidential one, and Trump has authority to select a Supreme Court justice who will be best for America.—Gary Hull
At the rate the Democrats want, a president would be able to fill a Supreme Court vacancy only in his first or third year.
Democrats think that they will regain the majority in November and just expect to ram their kind of nominee through. I’m afraid to disappoint those nitwits. It is not happening.—Patrick Zdunich
The Democrats should really research the topics they spout off about before opening their mouths. In doing so they would not appear to be so stupid, nor would they have to retract their statements (not that they do that).
All it amounts to is more obstructionism. Get a grip, Democrats. You lost. Think and act to Make America Great Again rather than being the obstructionists that you are.—Marion E. Daniels-Price, Manahawkin, N.J.
I remember Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan admitting (to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings) that she doesn’t recognize the self-evident fact that we have natural rights. That instantly disqualified her from holding any position in any federal branch.—Karl Landgren
There used to be a World Wrestling Entertainment wrestler whose motto was lie, cheat, steal. That is the motto of the Democrats today.
Sad, isn’t it, that a political party thinks that is the only way that they think they will win? And the constituents that follow them.—Jeffy Pearson
Obama had the power to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not strip that power from him, and Obama did nominate D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland.
The president’s power to appoint is different from his power to nominate. Appointment comes after the Senate’s confirmation. No confirmation, no appointment. There was no confirmation, so there could be no appointment.—Drew Page
— Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) July 6, 2018
Senate Democrats Signal Their Delay Tactics
Dear Daily Signal: This is so sweet. The Democrats used the state to attack their political opponents (“Democrats Are Using Shallow Arguments to Hold Up the Next Supreme Court Nominee”). They believe their cause is so big that they can use any means necessary to beat down the racist demons who oppose them.
They took down the threshold in the Senate from 60 to 50 percent for federal judges. When we won back that power, we responded by doing the same for Supreme Court judges. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Now we must decide whether we will use the FBI, IRS, HUD, and the rest of the government to smash the Democrats, or to dismantle these institutions. Whatever Trump decides on this point, I back him fully. I’d much prefer the latter, to dismantle these corrupt institutions.
However, if Trump uses them to attack Democrats, I hope he hits back double. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.—Joey Smith
It seems obvious that the Democrats have no interest in confirming a Supreme Court justice who is honest, steeped in constitutional knowledge, never rules on his/her personal political views, and keeps the court out of acting on social issues.
Obviously, the Democrats’ only purpose is to refuse confirmation of any person chosen by the current president, regardless of the harm such actions do to our country. So, if any of them wonder why we dislike, distrust, and consider them unscrupulous, this is one of the reasons.—Marilyn Griffin
All of this obstructionism is just one more reason why I believe that no leftist should ever be allowed to hold a seat of power, especially as a judge. They do not believe in our Constitution because it prevents them from establishing their socialist tyranny.—Randy Leyendecker, Kerrville, Texas
Meet the Man Who Will Be Advising Trump on Kennedy’s Replacement https://t.co/7hzwnkGuFc
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) June 27, 2018
Awaiting the Nomination and Meeting the Adviser
Dear Daily Signal: If President Trump does nothing else (and he has done an incredible job so far), getting two or three conservative justices on the Supreme Court will make it all worth it for all citizens who pay taxes and respect the law (“Meet the Man Advising Trump on Kennedy’s Replacement”). Go, Trump.—Chris Hoyt
I think the next Supreme Court is in good hands. Now, to end Roe v. Wade forever, make this pick in his or her 30s for longevity. No more baby-killing.
The left doesn’t want separation of children from parents at the border. I want to end the murder of close to 70 million children in America.—Rick Stanley
Not Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. We need him in the Senate. Not Brett Kavanaugh. He clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and likely has been infected with Kennedy’s disregard of duly enacted laws. Don Willett would be great.—Mike Crognale, Norfolk, Va.
I pity whoever Trump nominates. Character assassination will be taken to levels we’ve never seen before, way beyond what Judge Robert Bork experienced.—Rick Redner
The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to make law, that is Congress’s function. Justices on the court are to determine whether a law fits within the wording and intent of our Constitution. In that context, selecting a “constitutionalist” is critical, I think.—Ron Colvin, Fresno, Calif.
The left is having a collective meltdown. This is their worst nightmare.
President Trump can appoint another conservative justice along the lines of Neil Gorsuch. And thanks to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s getting rid of the 60-vote precedent, Democrats can’t stop it.—Chris Cush, Greensboro, N.C.
— Nile Gardiner (@NileGardiner) July 5, 2018
The President’s Short List for the High Court
Dear Daily Signal: Wow! What a stellar group of judges profiled by John Malcolm and Elizabeth Slattery (“Meet the 6 Stellar Judges Leading the Pack on Trump’s Supreme Court Short List”).
Validation of my decision to vote against Hillary Clinton because of Supreme Court nominees. President Trump has exceeded my expectations in many other areas.—Dale Murrish, Troy, Mich.
The younger the better. I am older than the first on this list. I don’t mind feeling old if it leads to many years of service as a justice.—Patrick J. Hartman
Only the two that clerked for Antonin Scalia are really worth considering. Clerked for Anthony Kennedy why? We know what we got with Kennedy.—Chris Yau
Joan Larsen, because she was alongside Antonin Scalia and she most likely can uphold our Constitution like he did.—Victor Aviles, Clarksburg, Md.
Stay away from anyone the Bush people push; we do not need another David Souter.—Andy King
— Ken McIntyre (@KenMac55) June 28, 2018
A Blow to Unions at the Supreme Court
Dear Daily Signal: About Kevin Mooney’s report on Mark Janus and his case at the Supreme Court (“Government Employee Who Beat Unions at Supreme Court Sees End to Their ‘Free Ride’”): I have to thank unions for providing safe working environments, ending child labor, providing us with 40-hour work weeks, health benefits, etc., but unions have outlived their usefulness.
Now these benefits are the norm of the land and are provided with or without union representation. Unions have been forcing their demands on we the people for too long, driving costs and taxes up to provide higher wages, retirement benefits, and cream-of-the-crop health benefits to their members.
Thanks, but no thanks. I have to save for my own retirement and pay for my own health benefits. How is it fair that I have to pay for the same for union members out of my taxes?
Three cheers to the Supreme Court for deciding in favor of the taxpayers and overturning Abood, which has been an unfair burden on us for decades.—Marion E. Daniels-Price, Manahawkin, N.J.
No public union should be allowed to be involved in supporting or contributing to any political party or political action committee, based on conflict of interest alone.
This should be an individual responsibility, not a union one that affects spending tax money on their members to secure monetary advantage through a party or government officials.
Also, no government employee should work full or part time for a union and receive pay from the government with full benefits. Their job is working for the public that pays them.—John Skoufis
What needs to happen now is all of the nonunion workers who have been getting ripped off need to file a class action lawsuit for a refund of all of the money taken from them. With interest.—Jim Scofield
Public employee unions haven’t been broken. They will continue to keep their rank and file if they are there to negotiate working conditions, salaries, and benefits.
No longer will union bosses be able to force political agendas on their members.
Politicians will now have to represent their constituents based on winning their confidence, not by which unions lined their pockets.—Regina Murphy Awtry, San Pedro, Calif.
This new ruling does not stop anyone from joining a union, but lets people get out if they don’t want to join. That’s freedom, my friends.—Jea Kete
Jeremiah Poff helped to compile this column.