Democrats Can't Make Gorsuch Into a Monster Because He's Too Humble

March 21, 2017

WRITER

Democrats are doing their best to come up with something on Judge Neil Gorsuch to derail his nomination as a Supreme Court Justice. Today, the first day of questioning, they tried to use an unsubstantiated --- and now debunked --- claim from a former law student in an ethics class.

"The image they want to create for him just doesn't work because he's a humble person. He's a restrained person. He's got 3,000 opinions. He's got liberals who are endorsing him because they think he's just such a good person," said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, who joined Glenn Tuesday on radio.

To watch the Gorsuch confirmation hearings and get analysis, go to TrumpNominee.com, a website created by Shackelford’s organization.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Kelly Shackelford. How are you?

KELLY: Good. Great to be on, Glenn.

GLENN: Kelly has all the information at TrumpNominee.com. TrumpNominee.com, where you can follow it, see the videos, and get all of the background on Gorsuch.

What did you think, Kelly?

KELLY: You know, what I expected. A lot of preening. Speeches given by senators. Really, today is when it started. It already has started, the hearing. And that's when they're going to try to catch him. And, of course, they dropped their bomb -- the best they could do today. NPR dropped a story attacking him having some student that was in his class making claims that now all the other students are saying are false.

GLENN: What were the claims?

KELLY: That he teaches a class at the University of Colorado Law School. And they said that in the class he -- this one student said that he had said something about women taking advantage of maternity leave in the workplace. And a number of other students just totally disputed that. It's an ethics class. And he was talking about the different things that people are pressured by. And he gave that amongst many other examples. And then gave the arguments and counterarguments for both sides. But the attacker that was used by NPR didn't bother to say that.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

KELLY: So, you know, they don't really have much on him. So the attacks are very weak. And they almost always fall apart within seconds. But that's -- I think their only hope is during the questioning and answering, you know, which has already started already today, that they can catch him saying something. Otherwise, I think they're really in an uphill battle.

STU: I was looking at the article you mentioned, which I had not seen, Kelly, from NPR, which begins now with this: Editor's note, since the story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk's political affiliations. And those political affiliations are she used to work for a Democratic senator. That's the person who is accusing Gorsuch of this. A staffer of Democratic senator Mark Udall of Colorado.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: So this is, you know, nonsensical.

GLENN: Well, first of all, it's in an ethics class. Of course, you're going to say things that are unethical in an ethics class. You're exploring ethics.

KELLY: Yeah, the Socratic method is kind of what you do when you're teaching these sort of classes.

GLENN: Yes.

KELLY: And, by the way, one of the people that came forward supporting Judge Gorsuch was a very liberal Democrat student who totally disagreed with what NPR was saying. So I guess that's why they are updating it. They've even got people who are on the far left wing.

I do find some irony in the fact that NPR -- you know, meanwhile, we have President Trump cutting some of the money to NPR and these types of groups. And here they are, a somewhat government-funded entity that is attacking, you know, somebody to be on the Supreme Court. There's some -- I don't know. There's something really bizarre about all of that. And I think it gives extra credence to why maybe government money shouldn't go to groups who are going to do that.

GLENN: Let me -- let me ask -- the question that was asked of me over and over again yesterday was how -- how nasty is this going to get. Is this going to go to the nuclear option or not?

And I think we touched on this yesterday. I can't imagine they're going to do that because he's not -- I mean, if you listen to him yesterday, he's a very reasoned, soft-spoken -- he sounds like books on tape. He's just not that kind of a caricature, that I think the American people will be afraid of. And, you know, Chuck Schumer yesterday was calling for chaos in the streets. I mean, this is nuts.

Are --

KELLY: I agree with you, Glenn. I think he's -- they can make him a Bork. They can't make him somebody into -- the image they want to create for him just doesn't work because he's a humble person. He's a restrained person. He's got 3,000 opinions. He's got liberals who are endorsing him because they think he's just such a good person.

You know, one of Obama's head solicitor general came out and endorsed him. Said, you have all these people that recognize what anybody does when you look at him, which is not this monster that they would like to create. So I think they're in a struggle though. I think the base really wants these Democratic senators to bring out the knives. So I think that's why we see them saying some of these things. But when push comes to shove, you have all these senators that were in states that were carried by Trump. And when they vote, that could cost them their seat. Because their seat is coming up. A third of the Senate is coming up in this next election. And a number of those were carried by Trump, those states. So I don't think we are going to see the filibuster.

Now, I think many conservatives kind of hope we do. Because if there is a filibuster, it's so unreasonable in this situation, that I think most people think that they will use the nuclear option, what they call the nuclear option and just change the rules and say, "Okay. There's no need for a filibuster. This is abusive." And that will make the way for the next time when it is going to be a huge battle about who controls the court, not using the filibuster. So many people kind of hope they do overplay their hand, but I just don't think they will.

GLENN: So, Kelly, do you think that the American people are going to sit through -- for instance, what Schumer is talking about is he's said, this is -- all the stuff that's going on with Trump. And he brings up -- he ends up with immigration reform. And he said, "You know, if this -- if this isn't solved -- you know, you want to build the wall. Maybe we should say, we're going to shut down the government." This is a quote, "We're going to shut down the government. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform."

Well, wait a minute. That is exactly what they said was irresponsible and was anti-government. Do you think people are even going to remember that, or do you think people will call bullcrap on both parties for playing this game?

KELLY: I think at this point -- I think people, you know, voted for some pretty dramatic change. They felt like the government was broken. And they wanted to see something get done. So they did something pretty drastic. And I think somebody just obstructing for obstruction's sake doesn't go over well right now. I think that's sort of the politics that people are tired of.

So I think that -- I really think that people like Schumer are playing to their base, which want them to do this kind of thing, but I think with the regular American, it's not something they like. And, again, they look at Gorsuch, and they think, this is the kind of guy I want on the court, you know. He's very mild mannered. He seems to want to do the right thing, just follow the law. So I think they're going to have a real hard time. You know, I'll tell people, Glenn. Watch for themselves. At TrumpNominee.com, where we've got our website there, the first link is just watch the hearings. And I think you'll see pretty quickly why they're having a hard time.

But that's their only hope, again, in my opinion -- their only hope is to catch him in something in these hearings. And, again, I think that would be a surprise to a lot of people, but I think that's what they're hoping for, knowing that otherwise, their arguments really do seem to fall apart whenever they really start because they just don't have much.

GLENN: Anything in particular we should watch for today?

KELLY: I just watch the Democratic senators -- obviously the Republican senators are going to say nice things, prop him up, do that. I'd watch the Democratic senators and see -- you might have some ask him about judicial philosophy, which might be very educational to people. But I think the real thing are the Democratic senators are going to try to go after him. They're going to try to force him to state where he stands on abortion and a number of issues which I would guess he's not going to answer. Because judges typically don't answer about policy issues that might come before them. They would want to see the facts of a particular case. So they don't want to prejudice themselves or look like they're prejudiced. So my guess is they're going to try to force him to answer, and they're going to complain. And he's not going to take the bait. And we're going to have a couple of days of this. And then eventually in, what? Three weeks? Four weeks? or whatever, we'll have Gorsuch on the court.

GLENN: Great. Kelly, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep