Trump's Leading Candidate for the Supreme Court Wrote Law Cited for Advancing Transgender Regulations

Two religious liberty cases have sparked an internal war among conservatives over Judge William H. Pryor, the leading candidate to take Judge Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.

Both the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation approved Pryor as one of 20 candidates on President-elect Trump's list for Supreme Court nominees, but second thoughts are seeping in. Additionally, Dr. James Dobson and Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council have raised concerns about a law crafted by Pryor that various Obama administration agencies --- including the Departments of Justice, Labor and Education --- began citing as their justification for advancing transgendered litigation and regulations.

"We cannot afford to have anyone chip away on religious liberty," Glenn said.

It's critical that the judge chosen to replace Scalia serve as a conservative benchmark on the court.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Two religious liberty cases have sparked an internal war among conservatives over Judge William H. Pryor. Stu.

PAT: Is Pryor one of the -- is he one of the main considerations?

GLENN: He is the main. He's the leading candidate.

PAT: Is he really?

STU: Yeah, and he's been talked about in Republican circles for a long time for a Supreme Court seat. I've heard problems from Libertarians with him. Although, the problems you're describing here are not really from that angle.

GLENN: Right. Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation put him on the list. Both of them did.

However, there is a problem. And the problem was found by The Federalist Society, and it started to ripple around that community. And they were like, "Oh, crap, we put this guy on the list." And members of the Federalist Society were like, "Yeah, I know you did."

And now the ripples are going through the Heritage Foundation, and no one is willing to say anything about it.

But you need to know about it. Everybody loves him because his judicial record. 2003 Senate confirmation, he said, "Roe vs. Wade is the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Big.

PAT: Love that. It's great.

GLENN: Now, let me see.

No one in the conservative movement or the religious movement care to say anything about this, except James Dobson and the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins.

They have now circulated and are persistently open about their concerns with Pryor. One of the cases that concerns them is Keaton versus Anderson-Wiley. It involved a Christian counseling student, whom a state college expelled after she refused to agree to a remediation measure, such as one of her choices, she could attend a gay pride parade intended to change her views on homosexuality.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: When she said no, she was suspended from school. A three-day -- or, I'm sorry, a three-judge panel, including Pryor, ruled the school did not discriminate against the student because the school would treat anyone with her belief the same way.

PAT: Well, then they would discriminate against anyone. Right?

GLENN: Right. They would discriminate against anyone who would believe that.

PAT: That's unbelievable. Wow.

GLENN: More problematic is the majority opinion in Glenn versus Brumby. Brumby. A case involving a biological male fired after he wanted to dress as a woman and begin medical treatments.

Pryor again concurred with the circuit court's liberal former Judge Rosemary Barkett, ruling that the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution protected the employee from discrimination based on sex, which the court interpreted to include gender identity.

So now, he is saying that sex is whatever you decide it to be. Slate -- Slate called the opinion absolutely revolutionary for transgendered employment rights.

PAT: How did this guy get recommended by the Heritage Society?


GLENN: Right.

Various Obama administration agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Education began citing Glenn as their justification -- as their justification for advancing transgendered litigation and regulations.

So he's the guy who wrote the -- the current law --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- that allows them to say, "Bathrooms."

STU: You know, look, that's -- those are a couple of cases. And, you know -- you know, there's a lot of good with Pryor. He is -- you know, here's -- this is --

PAT: That's what they said about Stephen Breyer too.

STU: But you have hundreds -- hundreds and hundreds of cases, can you find a couple that are going to --

GLENN: Are those pretty big.

STU: But let me give you this: This is from SCOTUS blog, talking about religion.

Pryor has consistently, although not uniformly, ruled in favor of parties raising religious liberty claims.

And so that's -- he's --

GLENN: We cannot afford to have anyone chip away on religious liberty.

PAT: No, we can't. No, we can't.

STU: Exactly.

GLENN: We can't afford it.

STU: Especially when there are people on that list that you probably could say have uniformly --

PAT: Yes. You've got the Lee brothers. So many guys on there who would be consistent.

GLENN: You have 20. There are three that are unacceptable. Pryor is one of them.

STU: You think unacceptable is the right term for Pryor? I feel like that's going too far honestly.

GLENN: I think when you have Scalia -- you're replacing Scalia.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay?

PAT: In that context, he is unacceptable, I think.

GLENN: He's unacceptable. You have no one holding the benchmark. It's like, if you're replacing Ginsburg, you would replace Ginsburg -- I mean, I wouldn't, you wouldn't, but they would replace Ginsburg -- and if it was the only one, they would not roll the dice. We have no one --

PAT: And they would replace her with someone more radical than she is.


PAT: We never do that.

GLENN: We never do it. We never do it.

PAT: We never do it.

POLL: Should Universities allow pro-Hamas protests?

Joseph Prezioso / Contributor | Getty Images

Just one day after Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel, which left over 1,400 people Israelis dead, 34 different student groups from Harvard University wrote a joint statement pinning the blame of Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel. In the following days after publishing this callous statement, these students staged a walkout and rallied in support of the Palestinians. As Glenn has discussed, this is not an isolated event, and campuses across the country have hosted similar rallies where antisemitic jargon like "we don't want no Jew state" and "globalize the intifada" is freely spewed.

Should Universities allow pro-Hamas protests?

While the Universities have not officially backed any of these rallies or student groups that organized them, they haven't stopped them either, which raises the question: should they? On one hand, these are American students in American Universities, who are protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, history tells us how dangerous antisemitism is if left unchecked; and what of the rights of Jewish students to be safe on the campuses they pay to attend? Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Should Universities allow pro-Hamas protests? 

Would you feel safe if your child attended a University that allowed pro-Hamas protests?

 Should Universities allow pro-Israel protests?

Is pro-Hamas rhetoric protected by the First Amendment?

POLL: What do YOU think Israel should do about Gaza?

SAID KHATIB / Contributor | Getty Images

Should Israel take over Gaza after defeating Hamas? This contentious historical question has resurfaced amid Israel's retaliatory airstrikes in Gaza following Hamas' terror attacks, which resulted in the greatest death of Jews since the Holocaust. Biden and the global elites have warned Israel against occupation of the Palestinian territory. When asked on 60 Minutes if he would support the Israeli occupation of Gaza, Biden said, “I think it would be a big mistake.” Today Glenn responded to Biden’s answer: “I don't think it's a mistake to occupy."

This has been a long-standing, polarizing issue that is now more relevant than ever, and we want to hear YOUR thoughts. Let us know in the poll below:

Would you support an Israeli occupation of Gaza?

Do you think the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza are justified?

Do you think a two-state solution is still possible?

Funding IRAN?! Here are the TOP 5 reasons Joe Biden should be IMPEACHED

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On September 12th, the House announced an official impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden with allegations of abuse of power, obstruction, and corruption. Naturally, the media quickly jumped to the President’s aid claiming that “there is no evidence to support these claims” and that the whole affair is a witch hunt.

If you’ve been listening to Glenn, you know that this is simply not the case. Biden has been committing impeachment-worthy deeds before he even stepped foot into the Oval Office—there’s no shortage of evidence to justify this inquiry. Here are 5 scathing reasons why Biden should be impeached:

He was responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster.

Click here for full video

The Biden administration began with the US's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Under his watch, Biden left thousands of US citizens and allies stranded in the Taliban's hostile regime. Countless Afghan allies have been murdered by the Taliban due to the Biden administration's negligence.

He was involved with Hunter Biden's illicit foreign business dealings.

Click here for full video

There is clear evidence that Joe Biden was more than aware of his son Hunter's foreign business dealings. From suspicious money laundering through the Biden family's accounts to Joe's involvement with important business meetings within Hunter's company, there is mounting evidence to warrant an impeachment inquiry.

He lied about his involvement with Hunter's business dealings.

Click here for full video

Not only did Biden involve himself with his son's less-than-legal foreign business ventures, but he lied to the American people about it too, claiming he had NO KNOWLEDGE of what was going on.

He failed to protect the Southern border, and actively made it worse.

Click here for full video

Biden singlehandedly turned the Southern border into the worst illegal immigration crisis in US history. He reversed many policies set in place by the Trump administration, resulting in 2.3 million illegal immigrants flooding into the US under his watch, a historic high.


Click here for full video

Biden reversed the Trump-era policy that halted all funds going into Iran. The Wall Street Journal revealed the smoking-gun evidence proving that Iran trained AND funded Hamas before its gruesome terror attacks against Israel. Moreover, shortly before the attacks, the Biden administration unfroze $6 BILLION dollars of Iran's assets as a part of a prisoner swap. On top of this, Biden resumed $200 million worth of "humanitarian aid" to Gaza that Trump had ended—because the money was being used to buy weapons for Hamas.

Top 5 economic milestones that show HOW BAD Bidenomics has made the economy

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

From groceries to house prices, everything seems to get more expensive, and you can thank Biden for that. Glenn recently exposed the truth about 'Bidenomics' and the havoc it has wrought on the American economy. Here are five economic milestones during the Biden administration that expose the glaring track record of "Bidenomics:"

In July 2022, the inflation rate hit 9.1 percent, a 40-year record high.

In June 2022, gas hit an all time record high of $5 a gallon for the national average.

61 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck as of this September.

Interest rates reached a 15-year high at 5.25 percent and are still increasing.

Americans have $1 trillion in collective credit card debt, in part due to food/staple pieces being very high.