Will Democrats Filibuster the Gorsuch Nomination?

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch have been quite boring by typical standards --- and Democrats have been unable to land a punch. Gorsuch has been unflappable, providing zero ammunition for the opposition. Friday on radio, Glenn talked with Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute and founder of, about the Democrats plan to filibuster the confirmation. Are they bluffing or will they pull it off? Most importantly, what impact, if any, will it have on Gorsuch becoming the next Supreme Court Justice?

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford who is at the liberty institute fighting for religious freedom and really one of the guys on the front lines and has developed just so people can pay attention and see everything about Gorsuch, watch the hearings, and read all the important facts that you might need to know to make a decision. Kelly Shackelford, welcome to the program. How are you?

KELLY: Good, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: This has been a really quite uninteresting hearing week. I mean, it's been good. Unflappable. But "FOX 11 News" fireworks until we found out yesterday from Chuck Schumer that he was not groomed by the Federalist Society. And he hasn't shown any daylight between them. And he's an extremist. Am I hearing Schumer right that he's saying the Democrats are going to filibuster?

KELLY: That's what everybody's reporting. That's what he said. But I have a hard time believing that. We'll see. It will be an incredibly foolish move. You've got Gorsuch here, as you said they couldn't land a punch on at all. And they've got to make him extreme. I mean, to filibuster, you know, they try to filibuster Alito and got 25 votes and Alito had statements against Roe v. Wade. They have nothing really on Gorsuch. He's about three -- almost 3,000 opinions, 2700 or so that he was a part of. And this is the thing, Glenn, this is so funny when you look at this. 97 percent of his opinions were unanimous. 99 percent he was in the majority.

So it's hard to make him into something crazy. And yet that's where they would want to fight and die over the filibuster. Because if they do, I think the odds are great that even the moderate Republicans say here reed took out on the lower court judges, we're going to take them out on the Supreme Court. There's no reason to have this filibuster anymore.

GLENN: Is there any reason, is there anything that gives you any doubt that Gorsuch gets in, and he's John Roberts? He -- you know, when it comes down to it, he screws us in the end?

KELLY: Well, you just never know with anybody because they can be the right person, have the right opinions, have the right philosophy. But then when push comes to shove, do they have courage? Do they have courage to do the right thing when the pressure's on? And that's tremendous pressure. Like, if we're talking about overturning Roe v. Wade or something like that, if you get the numbers where that's the case and that's the vote. Obviously, with his whole life work of originalism and his opinions and everything, he gets an opinion, and he says this isn't in the constitution, that's what he's going to say. Absent like you say John Roberts.

I know a couple of people -- I say a couple. There were people that were concerned about what he said on the last day, which was that the opinion, same-sex marriage opinion was settled law. And a lot of people say whoa. He admitted it's settled law. And I just didn't take that as something huge. He's a Court of Appeals judge. For him, it was settled law. I mean, he had to follow it because it was a higher court. That doesn't mean that, you know, everything that's already decided on settled law now that when he got a new case with facts and allowed him to analyze it with a proper judicial approach that he wouldn't have a different opinion. So we won't know until we see. He's got the philosophy, the approach of Scalia and the conservatives on the court.

I do think, the first part of your question, Glenn, I do just he's going to be on the court. They're having a vote on April 3rd, and then will go -- I think the idea is for them to get that out of committee and then have a vote on the floor of the senate and then be done on the recess of April 7th. So I think it's highly likely by April 7th, he's going to be justice Gorsuch. We'll see, but that looks like the schedule. And the only question is what you're asking about. Are they going to filibuster? And if they do, I think all they're doing is ending the filibuster, which politically would not be smart because the next battle is probably going to be even more ferocious because it's really about the control of the court.

GLENN: And that's the one where a lot of people will really care.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That's the one where they'll be able to ratchet it up because you're going to lose a liberal on the court. And so all of the TV, you know, spots and everything else. And if they get rid of the filibuster then, it will look very unfair and everything else. If they filibuster now and the Republicans are, like, fine. We're just -- you nuked us before. We nuke you. We don't need this anymore. We're just moving forward, nobody will really care at this point. But they'll have a chance to that being real fire against the Republicans the next time.

KELLY: I agree. That's why it really doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, the only rationale for this is that the base is so extreme and that people like Schumer feel like they have to placate their base that they're doing things even incredibly foolish.

We're assuming something. We're assuming that 52 -- at least 50 Republicans will hold strong and say "Well, this is so outrageous that of course we're going to end this filibuster." And Harry Reid ended on all of these other things anyway. We're assuming that will happen.

Sometimes we get surprised by the Republicans and what they do, so we'll have to wait and see.

GLENN: Tell me what the Federalist Society is and what you know about it.

KELLY: It's conservative and really what they do is hold meetings all over the country with lawyers, really the top lawyers or the top judges around the country, and they bring them in, and there's always two sides. They always have two of the top intellectuals or four of the top intellectuals debating whatever very mundane but particular constitutional or statutory or legal issue and sort of -- it's somewhat of a meeting where people gather, they hear intellectual discourse from two opposite sides and, you know, it's considered the more conservative one because they're actually fair. There's a liberal one that doesn't do the same thing, but it's considered the conservative one. And because of that, I think usually if they're national meetings, they have one big national meeting amongst local ones around the country, usually four or five of the Supreme Court justices, the more conservative ones will show up and speak at those as well.

GLENN: Right but they meet in secret, and they're all wearing cowls; right?

KELLY: No, it's all public. People can come. They don't ask you what your beliefs are. It's nothing like that. It's really a group that values, you know, things like what is the law? What does the constitution say? And, again, they're very fair in that they always have a equal number of people on each side in these debates because they want to learn what the thoughts are. What the arguments are. But as a result of actually trying what the law is, it's more conservative.

STU: How do you think Neil Gorsuch would rule on Glenn Beck having Coca-Cola and M&Ms for breakfast today? Wee approve of that?

GLENN: I don't know what that has anything to do. Just talking about a group of people who take a boat, fill it with golden babies, send it across the pond and offer it to the owl god.

STU: I don't know how you got exactly there.

GLENN: I don't know how you got to the other.

STU: What others think of that choice.

GLENN: Kelly, god bless. Thank you so much. Kelly Shackelford. Go to


Let’s thank the Pilgrims for defeating Socialism this Thanksgiving

This year marks the four hundredth anniversary of the first Thanksgiving celebrated by the Pilgrims and their Wampanoag allies in 1621. Tragically, nearly half of the Pilgrims had died by famine and disease during their first year. However, they had been met by native Americans such as Samoset and Squanto who miraculously spoke English and taught the Pilgrims how to survive in the New World. That fall the Pilgrims, despite all the hardships, found much to praise God for and they were joined by Chief Massasoit and his ninety braves came who feasted and celebrated for three days with the fifty or so surviving Pilgrims.

It is often forgotten, however, that after the first Thanksgiving everything was not smooth sailing for the Pilgrims. Indeed, shortly thereafter they endured a time of crop failure and extreme difficulties including starvation and general lack. But why did this happen? Well, at that time the Pilgrims operated under what is called the "common storehouse" system. In its essence it was basically socialism. People were assigned jobs and the fruits of their labor would be redistributed throughout the people not based on how much work you did but how much you supposedly needed.

The problem with this mode of economics is that it only fails every time. Even the Pilgrims, who were a small group with relatively homogeneous beliefs were unable to successfully operate under a socialistic system without starvation and death being only moments away. Governor William Bradford explained that under the common storehouse the people began to "allege weakness and inability" because no matter how much or how little work someone did they still were given the same amount of food. Unsurprisingly this, "was found to breed much confusion and discontent."[1]

The Pilgrims, however, were not the type of people to keep doing what does not work. And so, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery."[2] And, "after much debate of things" the Pilgrims under the direction of William Bradford, decided that each family ought to "trust to themselves" and keep what they produced instead of putting it into a common storehouse.[3] In essence, the Pilgrims decided to abandon the socialism which had led them to starvation and instead adopt the tenants of the free market.

And what was the result of this change? Well, according to Bradford, this change of course, "had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."[4] Eventually, the Pilgrims became a fiscally successful colony, paid off their enormous debt, and founded some of the earliest trading posts with the surrounding Indian tribes including the Aptucxet, Metteneque, and Cushnoc locations. In short, it represented one of the most significant economic revolutions which determined the early characteristics of the American nation.

The Pilgrims, of course, did not simply invent these ideas out of thin air but they instead grew out of the intimate familiarity the Pilgrims had with the Bible. The Scriptures provide clear principles for establishing a successful economic system which the Pilgrims looked to. For example, Proverbs 12:11 says, "He that tills his land shall be satisfied with bread." So the Pilgrims purchased land from the Indians and designated lots for every family to individually grow food for themselves. After all, 1 Timothy 5:8 declares, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

We often think that the battle against Socialism is a new fight sprouting out of the writings of Karl Marx which are so blindly and foolishly followed today by those deceived by leftist irrationality. However, America's fight against the evil of socialism goes back even to our very founding during the colonial period. Thankfully, our forefathers decided to reject the tenants of socialism and instead build their new colony upon the ideology of freedom, liberty, hard work, and individual responsibility.

So, this Thanksgiving, let's thank the Pilgrims for defeating socialism and let us look to their example today in our ongoing struggle for freedom.

[1] William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1856), 135.

[2] William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1856), 134.

[3] William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1856), 134.

[4] William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1856), 135.


EcoHealth Alliance's Peter Daszak: Hero or Villain? | Matt Ridley | Ep 126

Like most people, science journalist Matt Ridley just wants the truth. When it comes to the origin of COVID-19, that is a tall order. Was it human-made? Did it leak from a laboratory? What is the role of gain-of-function research? Why China, why now? Ridley's latest book, "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19," is a scientific quest to answer these questions and more. A year ago, you would have been kicked off Facebook for suggesting COVID originated in a lab. For most of the pandemic, the Left practically worshipped Anthony Fauci. But lately, people have been poking around. And one of the names that appears again and again is Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a longtime collaborator and funder of the virus-hunting work at Wuhan Institute of Virology. In this episode of the Glenn Beck Podcast, Matt reveals the whole tangled web.


RENEWING KINDNESS: The Power of One and the Way Forward

I have one simple rule for anyone who wants to restore our nation. We will not settle for private patriotism and public compliance. The tyranny ends with us. Anyone who believes in the truth, please join me.


Crimes or Cover-Up? Exposing the World’s Most Dangerous Lie

COVID-19 changed everything. The way we live our lives, how we operate our businesses, how we see each other. And now, the federal government is sinking its tendrils even deeper, threatening the fabric not only of our bodily autonomy, but of the republic.

Our American way of life may never be the same. To save it, we must understand the key fundamentals of the pandemic that transfigured our society into the nightmare it is today. What is the COVID-19 origin story? Who are its top players in government and science, pulling the strings? What was their REAL response in the first days of the pandemic? The answers to these questions are frightening.

Emails, documents, and federal contracts tell a dark story that is still dominating our lives. It's time to cast a light on the shocking truth. Because only with the truth can we emerge from the darkness of this "pandemic" and take back the liberty stolen from us.

This is Glenn Beck's most important chalkboard of his life. And the most pivotal time in yours.

Watch the full special below:

View the research and supporting documents for this special here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.