WHAT'S NEXT: Could packing the Supreme Court END America?

Thanks to the recent leak of a drafted Roe v Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will ‘never be the same,’ Kelly Shackelford tells Glenn. ‘I just think it’s going to damage the court permanently,’ the President & CEO of First Liberty Institute explains. ‘We’ve crossed that Rubicon now.’ So, with a ‘damaged’ court, what comes next? Well the left already is pushing to pack the Supreme Court — something Shackelford says could be the END of America as we know it: ‘When [court packing] happens, that first time, you’re done. You’re tyranny.’


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty. How are you, sir?

KELLY: Great, Glenn. It's great to be you with you.

GLENN: First of all, is it illegal to leak this document?

KELLY: I'm not aware of any criminal violation.

GLENN: Okay.

KELLY: Obviously, it's -- it's a really, it's an attack upon the institution of the court. And I don't know if people understand. I mean, the court will never be the same.

I don't know what they're going to have to do now, but the ability of all the justices to have -- these are some of the brightest young attorneys in the country. They bring in new ones.

And the ability just with your own clerks. The opinions you're working on.

I mean, I just think it's going to damage the court permanently. And there's a reason why this has been never happened.

And it's -- we've crossed that Rubicon now. And the court will never be the same.

GLENN: I'm not sure it will change forever, if they put the hammer down on anything that was involved. Wouldn't that send a strong enough message to bring it back?

KELLY: I hope. I mean, number one, are they going to figure out, who it is? I think it's highly likely to be one of the 12 clerks, or the three liberal justices.

I mean, you know, what if, God forbid, it ended up being involved with the justice.

I mean, to me, I think that's impeachable. I just think that people don't understand the -- this is why sort of shooting a rocket, at the Supreme Court, is -- it is something that could -- that we might not return from, as far as the court being able to be what it is.

Which is the ability for justices. I don't know if people know this, Glenn. But what happens is, there's a majority a a dissent. And they voted, just a few days after the argument. They vote. And they start to write on the opinion. The majority writes there. And they share votes.

And people end up being convinced. This is the marketplace of ideas in a different way. It's very important. They want to know what the law is. What does the law really say?

Oh, my gosh. I didn't really think of that. And people switch.

And there's lots to that, that's happened. Where people go to a concurrence, or a consent, or a consent to the majority. And if you can't share the opinions and have that discussion, without people, you know, taking what's being written and taking it out in public, to try to use it as a political tool. I mean, you just destroyed the internal deliberation, going on, and the exchange of ideas.

It's a really horrible thing, what this person did.

GLENN: What about -- what about the idea that it might have been a conservative clerical, that thought maybe they're going to switch to the other side. This will lock them into position.

KELLY: It doesn't make sense on a lot of levels. I understand people think it's really, really cute. Because it locks them in.

Number one, the whole point is that conservatives don't do that. Conservative justices actually restrain themselves -- and no matter what I believe, I'm going to follow what works. What is the original meaning?

The whole philosophy of those people, is not just warp the court into what they want it to be. That's a liberal approach.

GLENN: Right. And that is clear in this -- in this ruling. I mean, that is mentioned several times. That we're not a political body. We can't acquiesce. We have no idea what this is going to do with the American people. But we can't care about that. We have to do what our job is.

And that is to interpret the law against the Constitution.

VOICE: And here's the thing about that, Glenn. Nobody talks about that.

This is a deal. Talk about populism. This is a massive return of power to the people. And away from a few oligarchs who control everything. In a darkroom in the Supreme Court. They weren't supposed to.

It's not the Constitution.

So this is a huge return of power, to people, at the United States. To make their decision, to decide what they think is right or wrong. And not have just a handful of people, tell them what morality is. So it's not talked about that way. But it really should be. This is what the Founders meant.

GLENN: It really is incredible. Because I saw signs last night. Power belongs to the people. And they were protesting. No. That's -- that's what this document says! Now, can -- can this go to -- we know it can now go back to states, as it should be. And they can vote and do whatever they want.

Does this -- can this also just go back to Congress, and have a federal law?

KELLY: They can. They can, if they can pass it. Because, again, the Constitution doesn't speak to it, and therefore it's up to the people. So they can pass a law. But they would -- they would have to do one of two things. They would have to -- you know, in the Senate, get 60 votes. In order to -- it's called filibuster. It's really cloture. They can either get 60 votes. Which they will not be able to do. Or they can destroy the filibuster. And that will be a permanent damaging of the Senate. I mean, the last time they didn't have a filibuster was before Thomas Edison. You know, invented the lightbulb.

So we're talking about. This would be -- change the Senate forever.

Because the reason the Senate is considered probably the most well-known deliberative body in the world. Is because you can't just pass it with raw political power. You have to get some consensus of the other side.

It takes that 60 votes. And it slows things down.

So you only have one party taking over, flipping the country, one major direction to the other. The Senate kind of stops that and makes there be some consensus.

If you take -- if you destroy the filibuster, we're going to see court packing. We're going to see Puerto Rico becoming a state. DC. I mean, we're not going to recognize our country.

I think I've mentioned this before, with your audience, even, Glenn. But if people don't understand -- once you do court packing once, your country is over.

So this is the kind of stuff that would happen, if they do get rid of the filibuster, as Bernie Sanders and others are advocating today. Because they know they'll have to do that, if they're going to push through a new law. A new Roe v. Wade by federal mandate.

GLENN: And is court packing just one justice? Or does there have to be several? I don't know who would go five to five.

KELLY: It's four. They already filed a bill to add four justices to the Supreme Court.

So it would add four. Which would then make the liberals have the majority. And they would just start doing whatever -- basically, like a super legislature. But the problem is within once you do it, the court is over. It's just a subsidiary of the majority party in power. And there's no rule of law anymore. And you don't have any rights anymore. You have whatever right the majority party wishes for you to keep, and that's why --

GLENN: And you never really go back.

KELLY: You don't. You look at -- and people wonder what happened to Venezuela. That's what happened.

Argentina. We can go through lots of countries. People don't understand. But when it happens, that first time, you're done. You're tyranny.

And really, a dictatorship is where you go. So it's something they tried in 1936, '37. FDR did. Because he did not like the fact that they were not getting his new deal through. But even his own party turned against him, before it was over.

And said, this is tyranny. We're not going to do this in this country, and it failed.

But it's very dangerous. And it's something they can only do. If they destroyed the filibuster, which would be what they had to do to pass a Roe v. Wade in federal statute.

GLENN: So that is the thing that, you know -- you know, I'm looking at here.

I'm not sure they released this to do anything, but to pour fuel on the fire, right now.

Why wait until summer? Power fuel on the fire right now. To get court packing done. And the end of a filibuster. I think it has more to do with that, than the judgment from the court. Would you agree?

I think it's both. Probably. They're hoping that they can intimidate one of the justices. This is the beginning of what I've been predicting for months. I think we were just together recently.

And I said, this is coming in June. When these decisions start coming down.

And I think they're going to go for court packing in a frenzy. I think this is going to be their new election approach. Because they obviously are not working well under the current polling, and et cetera.

And I think this is going to be their attempt. And we're seeing just a sort of release of that. In addition to, I hope they can intimidate one of the five justices, that supposedly are on this opinion.

It only says Alito, but, again, part of the leak was that four other justices, not the chief. But four of the other with them. So my hope, is that they can pick off a Kavanaugh, or a Barrett, who will lose their nerve. I don't think that will happen. I think this would entrench them even more. It will just destroy. Everybody would know that they changed their -- their principled opinion, because of pressure.

So I don't think that's going to happen. So I agree with you. Long-term, this is their strategy, and this is what they're going to do.

GLENN: Kelly, can you hang on for just a second?

I want to talk to you about the other cases that are coming up in June, and the impact that they will have.

We will do that in 60 seconds.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford is on the board of trustees of the United States Supreme Court historical society.

He's earned his law degree from Baylor University.

And he's also the president and CEO of First Liberty Institute.

If you are thinking about donating money to any cause, I can highly recommend First Liberty Institute. They can use your money, and they are winning and actually leaving permanent marks.

It's So, Kelly, we have been in front of the Supreme Court. We were talking. And you said to me, we're probably more free. By the end of the summer, we will be more free, religiously speaking, than we have been in our lifetime.

You also said, because of Roe vs. Wade, and the other opinions that you think are coming down the pike, that the left is going to lose their mind. What are the other cases?

Well, obviously you've got Dobbs. Which is the Roe v. wade, which we're now seeing the precursors too. And, by the way, the way this works, is the court issues all of its opinions by June, because the session will end. And they will mostly leave the country and speak and teach and stuff. Other places. So the opinions are out by the end of June. You would expect Dobbs to be issued that last week, probably.

GLENN: Hang on. Let me ask you a question. Why don't they just finish it now, and make it official?

KELLY: They might. They might. I don't know how far along they are. Because what we saw was an early draft. But if I'm the chief, I think I might move it along now. And say, we'll get this out quickly. So all this nonsense will stop. But it normally will be late. But in addition to Dobbs. You've got a Second Amendment case, which will be -- I think in favor of the Second Amendment. And against the New York restrictions. On guns.

GLENN: Which will do -- which will do what?

KELLY: It will just bolster the Second Amendment, and say that these types of restrictions are unconstitutional. Because there is a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And this violates that fundamental right. I think you're going to get that kind of -- I think we're going to -- we argue it's a major school choice decision in September. And, you know, it's expected, the way the argument thing. That we're going to win that case.

GLENN: Which would mean, what?

KELLY: Which means any time, there's any school choice program, anywhere in the country, you cannot exclude religious schools or religious choices from the parents.

And that will make clear, that school choice has to be fair. And that everywhere it's going on. And there's a lot of programs out there. The exclusion of the religious schools is over. And so at a -- that will cause a lot of religious schools to come into being, because now there will be resources, that the parents have to choose what they think is best for their kids.

So that will be a big decision. Because the Kennedy case, which we just argued a week ago, Monday. That's a huge case. And it looks like, it's going to be even bigger than expected. Depending upon how they write the opinion.

Again, this is a coach. She was fired for going to a knee after the game, to say a 20-second prayer, thanking God for the privilege to coach the young men, he coached. It's the first time the court has ever had a case, on the free exercise. Or religious freedom rights, of a teacher. A coach. Anyone. So there's never been a decision on this. So it will affect a lot of people that way. But what people didn't expect. During the oral argument within the court the bottom into a discussion about possibly ending the Lemon case. Which has been around for 50 years. And if people wonder why our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes, and menorahs, and veterans memorials with religious symbols. And Ten Commandments monuments, and all that.

It's not because the Founders said anything about that. It's because of this really bad case 50 years ago. And it's been the weapon of choice. For secularists now. For 50 years. To wipe our society clean of religion. And it's pretty clear that maybe a majority of the justices are about to say, that's over. And that's a sea change. If that happens as well.

GLENN: Jeez.

KELLY: So those are just a handful. And there's some others as well.

Finance. There's the border case that was argued this last week. So all this stuff is coming down, at the end of June. And my guess is, the Marxist left is not going to like these things.

GLENN: It is amazing to me, as -- as we are traveling down this road, where the country seems -- the government seems to be going in entirely the wrong direction.

And you're kind of losing hope.

That the Supreme Court now rides in, and is doing remarkable things, that, quite honestly, I think would find favor in the eyes of good. It's -- I mean, hopefully it buys us some time.

KELLY: Yeah. And, you know, what it's doing -- is these justices aren't themselves. Politicians. They don't go one way or another. But they're going back to the original meaning of the texts of the Constitution. Which takes us to our founding.

GLENN: Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute. You can find it and donate at

I highly recommend that. That's the thing about constitutional judges, it doesn't always cut your way. Because it's all about freedom, and rule of law.


Debunking Outrageous LIES from the New Hulu Series, ‘The 1619 Project’ | Ep 247

Remember this quote from George Orwell’s “1984”? “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” The Left is trying to erase the truth of our past to control our lives NOW.

For example, did you know there was also a white, European slave trade? That Thomas Jefferson intended to get rid of slavery during America’s founding? That only two colonies voted against including the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Independence? Glenn sets the record straight on some of the history forgotten by "The 1619 Project" — a “project” that evolved from “journalism” by Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times into curriculum for school districts in all fifty states and into a documentary series airing on Hulu.

"The 1619 Project's" premise is that America was founded and built on slavery alone and continues to suffer because of this ultra-racist foundation. It dovetails perfectly with the critical race theory blanketing America’s education system, for which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is being raked over the coals this week after blocking a high school Advanced Placement course on African-American studies.

"The 1619 Project" is a political agenda dressed up as history and gets so many historical facts absolutely WRONG. Glenn takes you into the American Journey Experience vault to reveal artifacts from one of the largest private collections of pilgrim and Jamestown history. He’s joined by Elijah O’Neal, the head of the education department at the American Journey Experience, who brings the evidence to debunk the LIES about America being pumped out in the news, in our classrooms, and now in our living rooms.


Biden sends Ukraine TANKS. Does he WANT war with Russia?

Why would President Biden send U.S. tanks to Ukraine? Tanks are an offensive tool, not a defensive one, and this latest move from Biden (and Europe) will only bring us one step closer to World War 3 with Russia. In this clip, Glenn explains why this decision makes NO SENSE...unless there’s a reason Biden and the far-left may actually WANT to engage in war. And as we face the ‘inevitable’ fall of the West, Glenn explains, there is one, big reason why several global superpowers may want world conflict to cover their tracks…


How a HORRIFIC COVID mask dispute in Canada led to this woman's DEATH

Denise Warriner is on a mission to find justice for her sister’s awful, 2020 death. Recently released CCTV footage shows 43-year-old Stephanie Warriner sitting in a wheelchair in a Canadian hospital. Warriner, who suffered from COPD, lowered her COVID mask because she was struggling to breathe. A horrific confrontation then occurred between Warriner and several hospital security guards. The men then move her seemingly lifeless body to another area of the hospital. She died two weeks later. Denise, who for THREE YEARS has been urging Canadian officials to try those responsible for her sister’s passing, joins Glenn to detail her efforts and the lack of action from Canada she’s seen as a result. Plus, she explains how YOU can get involved…

The back story

Prior to Denise's on-air interview, Glenn's producer contacted Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey, and University Health Network CEO Dr. Kevin Smith. She inquired what was being done regarding Stephanie's death, including the security guard who dragged Stephanie down the hospital hallway, and the security guard who altered the security cameras to avoid capturing the confrontation.

Their responses were disappointing, to say the least. Premier Ford's office did not respond. The University Health Network, the hospital chain where Stephanie's death occurred, simply wrote:

UHN will not comment on a court's decision nor on matters of individual employment or discipline.

The response indicates that the hospital network won't do anything proactive regarding the staff responsible for Stephanie's death.

Screenshot of email correspondence between Glenn's producer and UHNCourtesy Glenn Beck staff

The office of Ontario's Attorney General, Doug Downey essentially "wiped their hands" of any responsibility regarding Stephanie's death.

Screenshot of email correspondence between Glenn's producer and Attorney General Doug Downey's officeCourtesy Glenn Beck staff

As Glenn said, the response is simply from a "weasel" who wants to avert any responsibility from his office.

Though these offices attempt to divert responsibility, Glenn puts it simply: Stephanie Warriner was "killed for improper mask wear..." in a hospital, where she should have received treatment for her underlying condition. Instead, she was pinned against the wall, dragged through the hallway, and died.

We have to hold these parties responsible.

Graphic showing contact information of Doug Ford, Doug Downey, Dr. Kevin Smith, and Justice Sean Dunphy.Glenn Beck / Staff, International Insolvency Institute, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, University Health Network


Glenn: Far-left is RUINING COMEDY

The far-left ruins nearly everything is touches. Thankfully, as proven in a recently released statement from M&Ms, large corporations are beginning to learn that consumers are tired of their woke policies. But there’s still one, major component of society that’s at risk of succumbing to the far-left’s cold, evil touch: Comedy. In this clip, Glenn explains how the left is RUINING comedy because it makes you happy and they HATE that you can enjoy life with them…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about the loss of meaning. This is one reason, I just when we such high suicidal rates now. Is because nothing is true. Nothing means anything.


Nothing. Nothing.

And the things that are given meaning, are ridiculous. Okay?

Like, for instance, race. It's ridiculous. Why are we arguing about race?

Race doesn't make a difference. Nothing. Nothing.

It's the -- the merit inside of each of us. It is what you do with your life.

Everything that is given power today, is meaningless. And it's all part of that woke culture.

Last year, and I can't -- I can't take this. And I'm going to be going to address this once. Last year, the M&M spokescandies. There's no such thing as a spokes candy.

Got a refreshed look to reflect today's society. I don't know about you.

But as I'm getting ready to watch a movie, and I see the M&M guys strapped to that rocket, about to go off, all I'm thinking is, can we stop with this stupid commercial?

I've got my box of M&Ms. I want to watch the movie. I don't ever really fear for their life. But maybe that's me. Yesterday, the M&M brand continues, quote, to evolve, to reflect a more dynamic progressive world, that we live in.

Now, our lives were destroyed by, you know, the women -- you know, the womanly green M&M. And our life has been made much richer, when she became nonbinary. I don't know about you. Yesterday, the M&M Mars company made a statement announcing an indefinite pause on their spokes candies. Because they realize that even a candied shoe can be polarizing. Which is the last thing that M&Ms wanted, because they were just trying to bring people together. Really?

So their new spokesperson is Maya Rudolph, who spent three years on Saturday Night Live. You can find her funny or not find her funny. You know, whatever. The company says, they chose her, because they want to make things fun again. And she's still inclusive. Really?

Because here's the problem. You could have Jesus. But the minute Jesus comes down and your candy company says, say these lines, and they're woke lines, you know, a lot of people will be turned off by that. So you really stopped being inclusive. Name one figure that is inclusive right now, that's not polarizing to at least half the country.


The reason why, because you have to play the game. If you're going to work for these companies, you have to have the right words, acronyms, slogans, you know, race.

This is inherently noninclusive. But I digress. So they're making this statement. And what a surprise. Right before the Super Bowl. And companies are learning, go woke. Go broke.

We're tired of companies trying to do more, than what we're asking them to do. When it comes to M&Ms. Here's what I want you to do: Make a yummy chocolate candy.

I don't even care if it melts in my hand. Because I got past that lie of yours, when I was seven. They do melt in my hand.

But they're yummy. You and your stupid spokes candy make no difference in my life, or the life of anyone in the world.

Your candy might. But the spokes candy doesn't.

No one ever, anywhere, in all of time, will say, you know, I was a once a little girl who thought I couldn't make it. But then that candy company put their yellow M&M, in comfortable sling back shoes, instead of the go-go boots. And I realized, I can do it. I am important.

It's not going to happen.

Now, go woke, go broke. Also applies to comedy.

The new woke Velma, people are surprised this is a disaster. I didn't even have to watch it. I could have told you, it was a disaster.

This is the HBO Scooby-Doo spin-off, which do not even include Scooby-Doo. Shaggy has been replaced by a black man named Norville. Fred is the only white character. So he's evil. He's a privileged misogynist. Who can't dress or feed himself.

Velma is a black Asian. And Daphne is half Asian and half white. And they're both bisexual. Obviously, there's more than one lesbian kissing scene.

Another scene features teenage boys kissing. And there's plenty examples of doinks. Sexualizing children.

So what happens when you let woke bullies take control of what should be considered funny?

See, they do what they always do. They don't write comedy. Because they don't believe comedy is funny.

They believe comedy -- you're not supposed to laugh. You're supposed to clap angrily. Yes! Finally!

They're making out. Yes. That's what their comedy is.

Now, I'm not against satire. Laughter is the test of truth. A joke is playful judgment.

It conceals the ugliness of the world. And it uncovers the ugliness of the world.

And leftists. Boy, they are not a group winning many beauty contests lately.

This is literally the subplot of one of the Velma episodes. Now, weird thing is that even the left, doesn't like the Velma show.

They don't like it. They got making out lesbians, and the white guys -- they don't like it. The telegraph called it the most hated TV series on TV.

It has four episodes out. Velma is already -- already the worst rated TV show in IMDB history. Its audience score is six.

But as always, the left isn't taking responsibility for their bad behavior. A review in Forbes said that Velma is so bad, in fact, that it's spawning conspiracy theories, that creator Mindy Kaling, made what is essentially a parody of what the right-wing thinks left comedy is really like.

What? What a stupid plan that would be. It's a common tactic, if a woke comedy fails, which it always does. They blame us. Conspiracy theorist.

The left loves to whine about the dangers of right-wing humor. I don't know if you saw this. But the European Union just released an 18-page report. The European Union. That's a government body, by the way.

An 18-page report, on how right-wing comedy is a weapon.

Now, if a conservative, or a comedian just accidentally stumbles on a conservative joke, even by accident. Wait a minute. I didn't mean that.

No. I voted for Obama.

The left immediately destroys that person. And that joke, he meant that literally. He meant that.

When -- when he was drawing Yosemite Sam, and he was shooting. He meant that all people are like Yosemite Sam, and they should kill all people that are not like Yosemite Sam. What are you talking about?

The gist of their right-wing comedy argument is conservatives shouldn't be allowed to make jokes.

Because their humor is actually a complex. And when they say complex, they mean a mental illness. Literally, it's a mental illness.

And all they're doing is calling for violence. Ironically, a Pew study from 2020 proves kind of the opposite. I'm quoting.

White liberals disproportionately suffer from mental illness. Let me tell you, it's not even a competition. Masks? That has become a mental illness. There is -- there is no reason to wear a mask. That -- that fraud has been exposed long ago. Why are you still wearing a mask?

You have a mental illness at this point. They claim that conservatism is incompatible with political humor. And that liberalism suits it quite nicely. They say conservatism supports institutions. Which is ridiculous. Because at this point, the leftists are the institutions.

You know, they're at a drunk, at a karaoke bar. I can sing.

I'm so much better than you can sing.

I mean, they think they are capable of humor, because as the author about the book of right-wing comedy wrote, liberals are inherently free thinking. So here's what all of this is really all about.

Liberals don't like the fact that you can laugh. You know, what they hated about Ronald Reagan the most? He was happy.

He was funny. He was normal. They hated that.

Hated that. He makes jokes.

Oh, my gosh. They hate -- you can have fun, without them. That you can be successful, without them.

They hate what makes you happy. They hate what gives you meaning in life.

They hate what would give them meaning in life.

They really hate that we can laugh about ourselves.

They don't do a lot of laughing. I don't know if you've known that. I don't think I've seen many of them really laugh. I've seen them, ha, ha, ha, that's right. You stick it to them. I have seen that a lot.

Lorne Michaels, the creator of Saturday Night Live. He said in an interview, the reason why SNL tends to roast conservatives more than liberals, is, quote Republicans are easier than Democrats.

Democrats tend to take it personally. Republicans think it's funny.

There is nothing funnier, to me, than someone wrecking me.

You'll hear that a lot on the show. I pay these guys a lot of money. If it bothered me, it would stop, would it not stop, Stu?

STU: Oh, yeah. I built my career, on making fun of you.

GLENN: Exactly right. And who encourages it more than anybody else?

STU: You do.

GLENN: Exactly right. If you can't laugh at yourself, then what -- who are you?

Who do you think you are? The M&M Mars company?

With their dopey spokes candy? That's important.

That's really important. You know, so we're going to give them a message of hope and inspiration and fun.

See, conservatives think that their sincerity on their spokes candy, is funny.

They don't get the joke