The Daily Signal - Ep. 311: Kavanaugh Fight Shows Supreme Court Is Too Important

Episode Date: October 5, 2018

The fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is nearing a verdict. But it’s worth taking a step back and considering why this fight became so ugly, so brutal, and what it says about the Supreme Court's role in our society. We discuss with Kim Holmes, executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation. Plus: We’ll take a look at the liberal group that trains protesters to harass Republicans.We also cover these stories:--The FBI report on Brett Kavanaugh is out. Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the document found no hint of misconduct and said, “It’s time to vote. I’ll be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”--Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, signal satisfaction with FBI report.--Vice President Mike Pence put China on warning in a speech Thursday, suggesting the nation was trying to interfere with United States politics.--A town in Minnesota is struggling with, no joke, drunk birds. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You and Santa? Best rappers out there. But Reesas wants to know, what about the best unwrapping moment? Reese's peanut butter cups put your unwrapping skills to the test. And with three cups of creamy peanut butter and smooth chocolate per pack, you get your practice in. Experiencing that sweet and salty satisfaction again and again and again. Santa gets cookies. You get Rees.

Nothing else is Rees. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, October 5th. I'm Kate Trincoe. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, as the week comes to a close, the fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is nearing a verdict. But it's worth taking a step back and considering why this fight became so ugly, so brutal, and what it says about the Supreme Court's role in our society. We'll discuss that question today with Kim Holmes, Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation. Plus, we'll take a look at the liberal group that trains protesters.

to harass Republicans. But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. Well, the FBI report on Brett Kavanaugh is out, though you won't find it online. A single copy of the report was given to senators, and they spent all day Thursday filing in and out of a secured room to review the document. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the document found no hint of misconduct and said, quote, it's time to vote. I'll be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

The White House echoed that support for Kavanaugh saying it remains fully confident that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. So how do the crucial swing vote senators feel after the report? Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who requested the FBI investigation, told reporters that, quote, I wanted this pause. We've had this pause. We've had the professionals, the FBI determined, given the scope that we gave them current credible allegations, to go and do their review, which they've done. And thus far, we've seen no new credible corroboration, no new corroboration at all. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said, quote,

it appears to be a very thorough investigation, but I'm going back later to personally read the interviews, end quote. But on the Red State Democrat side, Senator Heidi Heitkamp has announced she's a no vote on Kavanaugh. She stated that in an interview with North Dakota Station W-D-A-Y. It's expected that the Senate will have a procedural vote today on Kavanaugh. Well, in the midst of all the talk of Brett Kavanaugh's past, what he drank in high school, etc. A video of Barack Obama surfaced from way back in 2001 in which he shared unsavory details from his youth. I played a lot of basketball. I didn't take school that seriously.

I got into fights. I drank and did and consumed substances that weren't always legal. And, you know, I think generally was acting out in ways that when I look back on it, when I look back on it, I understand. So just interesting that, you know, we're hearing a lot now about from Democrats uproar over uncorroborated allegations, but they were pretty quick to overlook dirt from Obama's had passed that he admitted to. Well, but he didn't admit to throwing ice.

So how bad can he be? Well, Vice President Mike Pence put China on warning in a speech Thursday at the Hudson Institute, suggesting the nation was trying to interfere with United States politics. China has initiated an unprecedented effort to influence American public opinion, the 2018 elections, and the environment leading into the 2020 presidential elections. To put it bluntly, President Trump's leadership is working, and China wants a different American president. Well, the Justice Department has indicted seven Russian intelligence officers,

officers, accusing them of hacking, wire fraud, identity theft, and money laundering. The Department says these illegal activities were part of a Russian effort to distract from the state-sponsored doping scandal, which caused the Russian Olympic team to be banned from the 2018 Olympics. The Justice Department says that the defendants launched cyber attacks against anti-doping agencies and officials, sporting federations, and roughly 250 athletes from other countries. Part of the allegation is that they promoted false information that other non-Russian athletes had used performance-enhancing drugs. John Demers, the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division of the Justice Department, said that he hopes that through these charges we can, quote, further educate ourselves as to the scope of the Russian government's disinformation and influence campaigns.

On Thursday, about 25 women who know Judge Kavanaugh went to the Senate to advocate for him. Our own Kelsey Harkness and Lauren Evans captured this emotional moment. I am American by choice, and I can't believe that anybody could do away with... I'm sorry, it's just not right. We agree. We agree. The elimination of due process. And to be guilty by accusation, like, what the hell?

Who does that? You know? I mean, I believe him. I believe Judge Kavanaugh. We do too. Thank you. Be your business. Thank you.

The women delivered letters to senators seen as critical yes votes, explaining how their knowledge of Kavanaugh made them think he is a good man. Well, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa joined our podcast and spoke with Rob Bluey about her support for Brett Kavanaugh. We'll have that full interview for you on Monday's episode. But until then, here's a quick taste. You've stated your support for Judge Kavanaugh. Why do you believe that he should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court? Well, he is an incredible jurist.

We know that from his many, many opinions, his writings through the past number of years. He has served his country admirably. He's served here in the D.C. Circuit Court. So we know that he is well qualified. He's more than well qualified to serve on the United States. Supreme Court. So I do believe that there has been some trauma that Dr. Ford has experienced in her past, but it cannot be corroborated or tied to Brett Kavanaugh. So we have to look at the facts as presented, and the facts as presented is that there is no connection between the two. So

understanding that, we need to move forward. Look at his wonderful career. at the fact that he is an upstanding man in his community, and I think move forward to confirm him. Again, I'll be reviewing the information from that supplemental investigation, but if Dr. Ford's story cannot be corroborated, I will be supporting Judge Kavanaugh. So at this time of so much serious news, there's a little bit of relief coming from Gilbert, Minnesota. They're having a problem with, I am not making this up, drunk birds. An actual release from the Chief of Police over there, Ty Tetchar, says, quote,

the Gilbert Police Department has received several reports of birds that appear to be under the influence flying into windows, cars, and acting confused. The reason behind this occurrence is certain berries we have in our area have fermented earlier than usual due to an early frost, which in turn has expedited the fermenting process. He explains that, I guess, younger birds can't have. handle this. So they're flying around a little bit inebriated. He goes on to say there is no need to call law enforcement about these birds as they should sober up within a short period of time. But he goes on to give some reasons why you should call the police. And one of them is if you see your birds eating Taco Bell after midnight. So if you're in Gilbert, Minnesota, please let us know if these birds are really acting this ridiculous. I've never heard about anything like this ever.

I haven't either, but I mean, this, I. Flying into windows and acting confused. I think the key thing is none of these birds can be appointed to the Supreme Court. That's probably the main takeaway. Key. Well, upcoming, we'll talk to Kim Holmes, Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, about Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation fight and what it says about our country. Did you know you can now listen to all of our events through SoundCloud

or just by visiting our events page on heritage.org? You now have access to hundreds of events and compelling discussions on policy issues from your car, on the train, or the comfort of your own home. Visit heritage.org slash events for more information or search for the Heritage Foundation on SoundCloud. Well, today we have the pleasure of being joined by Dr. Kim Holmes. He's the executive vice president of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Holmes served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs during three years of the Bush administration. And he's author of the new book that came out earlier this year, The Closing of the Liberal Mind. Dr. Holmes, thanks for joining us.

Great to be with you. Thanks for having me. So you have a new piece out in The Daily Signal in which you discuss the Kavanaugh situation that we've been experiencing these last couple weeks. And in the context of the Supreme Court and the changes that it's undergone in the role that it plays in our society. Can you just give us your initial diagnosis of what is this debacle, this Kavanaugh, controversy reflect about the court and the way we see it? Well, it occurred to me that every few years or so when we get into a confirmation fight for Supreme Court justice, it's like the whole country comes to a stop.

And it's almost as if the two polarized halves of the country go to war against one another. And it seems to tell me that there's something pretty important at stake that actually engages people at that level. And it occurred to me that, since I know a little bit about American history, I know that that was not what the founders and the writers of the Constitution intended certainly for the Supreme Court, but not for the courts in general. And I just think that what we're seeing in not only the Kavanaugh, the confirmation controversies, but in past ones, going all the way back to Anita Hill and Judge Bork and the like, is the fact the Supreme Court is just simply gotten too powerful. It's assumed a role that it was never intended by

the founders to really substitute for policy decisions and even to substitute itself for legislation. And I think that's fundamentally undemocratic. It's allowing a small number of people on a body the Supreme Court deciding what should be decided legislatively. We see that with abortion, we see it with gay rights, a whole number of other controversy. issues that otherwise should be decided by Congresses or state legislatures is being decided by this small body of men and women, nine judges, rather than the legislatures. So one of the lines in your piece that I was most intrigued by is you wrote, ever since at least the 1960s, and frankly even before, we have increasingly allowed the Supreme Court to decide

controversial issues we have been unwilling to solve legislatively. I think, like, many Americans, you know, I'm of course familiar with Roe v. Wade and how abortion was essentially decided by the Supreme Court, but you indicate the problem goes further back. How did this begin? Well, I don't want to go too far back, but it actually goes back to the early 19th century because the original idea for the Supreme Court was not what we call today judicial review. That is to simply decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not. but it was in Marbury v. Madison in the early 19th century, it was decided by Judge Marshall

that the Supreme Court would review the laws to see if they were constitutional. And frankly, it worked fairly well for about 130 or 40 years. But what happened is that in the 20th century, particularly after the 1960s, after the cultural revolutions of the 60s and the divisions over civil rights, over race, over gender, over sexual politics and the like, that the increasingly powerful Supreme Court was being empowered, mainly by liberal activist judges, to decide controversial issues like abortion

or like later on gay rights because they couldn't get a democratic majority in the Congress, and so they would go to the courts or the Supreme Court and say, well, this policy is. now a constitutional right. And of course, if you go back and look at the judgment on Roe v. Wade, you'll see there very clearly that there wasn't a lot of sophisticated constitutional thinking going on there. It was pretty much pulling out of whole cloth. And so it wasn't really about judicial review anymore. It was about trying to establish as a constitutional right, a policy preference for which they could not get a majority in the Congress or in the state legislatures.

and it worked with Roe v. Wade, and that became a model for other issues over the last 30 or 40 years. So this is not something that came out of nowhere, but it's getting worse. And as the social divisions over a whole host of cultural issues are getting worse, increasingly, mostly liberal activist judges and liberal activist groups and liberal activist politicians are turning to the court

and trying to control the court to control the outcome of these policy, preferences that they have. Well, earlier on, you mentioned how, you know, every Supreme Court nominee, the country comes to a stand still, and it's almost as though two sides line up against each other. And it's interesting to see an entire branch of government really become a campaign issue every two to four years, you know, and I wonder, you write in your piece about how seeing judges, particularly as ideological, threatens the rule of law. And you say it's actually similar to the way authoritarian regimes operate. Can you flesh out what you mean?

Well, if you go to any authoritarian regime in the world, Russia, Egypt, or even some of the worst ones in Iran and the like, you will find that the court systems there are thoroughly and completely politicized. They operate, there's a certain part of the courts that will deal with law and order issues, you know, murders and bank robbers and the like. But this was certainly the case in the Soviet Union. the courts were highly politicized in order to enforce a certain kind of political regime. And so I use the term political tribunals. So you will be judged in a political tribunal not just upon whether you may be guilty of something, but whether or not you have the right political attitude or you belong to the right political party. Or in China, increasingly, for example, of whether or not you have certain kind of attributes that the,

communist regime in China favors. And so the courts become a mechanism of enforcing conformity policy and political conformity on the people and making sure they all have the same ideology. This is quite common in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. The great genius of the American system is that the rule of law was supposed to be politically neutral. It was supposed to be about due process. It was going to be about rules and regulations that would weigh evidence to see to make sure that the rule of law and the rules were the same for everybody, which what you're seeing clearly in the case of the Kavanaugh confirmation, and with a Me Too movement specifically,

is that they're trying to turn the rule of law process that you are innocent until proven guilty completely on its head. That's the essence of the American legal system, and it's not just something that's in a court of law in a criminal case, that it's pretty much part of our whole legal culture, is that's the way we operate. But what you're seeing in the Me Too movement is they're trying to carve out an exception to that rule

on these cases of sexual assault, where actually no, there have to be different rules of evidence, and you would actually assume that the person who's being accused is guilty until proven innocent. And this is sort of an example of perverting the rule of law, because I happen to believe, and most Americans believe, rules apply equally to everybody to men and to women because there can be cases when women can

be falsely accused of something. You want the same rules to apply to them and not have it being divided just on the basis of your gender. So that's a really interesting claim that you just made there that you said the belief that innocent until proven guilty is very foundational for our legal system. And of course, you're absolutely right. You know, a lot of MeToo advocates say that it is better to believe all women rather than search for due process, et cetera. What are the implications beyond cases of sexual assault if we stop, if we don't have that belief anymore, that innocent until proven guilty? How could that affect our country and a ripple effect? Well, it will further politicize the whole idea of the rule of law.

I mean, if you make an exception in this case, in the case of sexual assault accusations, and you say, well, the rules are applied differently there, then what's to say that you may find some other political or social issues? that you want to weigh in on and have the courts weigh in on and have a different set of rules for that. The point is that the rules are only legitimate if they apply to everybody under all circumstances. And if you start carving out special cases, then the whole edifice comes collapsing and comes falling down. And the irony, I think, is that many of our liberal friends claim to be big Democrats. It's not, I don't mean just big D, but I mean small D. They believe in liberal democracy.

And what they mean by that is supposedly the rule of the people, that the people have a voice. And yet they are choosing a tactic that is fundamentally anti-democratic that is allowing insular courts, in some cases, in the case of the Supreme Court, these people are not elected at all. I mean, they go through a process by which the constitutional system appoints them and then confirms them. But they are not as close to the people as the members of the House of Representatives. that's where the true democratic heart of the American people are, is actually the Congress. And that's the way the founders, particularly Madison and Jefferson and others, always believed that the Congress should be the most important branch of the government in terms of expressing and reflecting the will of the people.

And the courts at that time, particularly early on, were just to, they were like referees to make sure that the system was fair. But now the Supreme Court has become a supremely important policymaking body as important as more important in some cases than the Congress, or at least as important in some cases as the president of the United States. You know, the founders expected the different branches to compete for turf and to there to be that tension between them so that there would be checks and balances. But right now you see half of the Senate, almost half of the Senate Democrats. willing to hand over its legislative power to the judicial branch in the same way that's been doing for decades now. And I guess you see that too with the administrative state handing over power to them. Why do you think politicians have been willing to do that? Well, here's a very interesting

thing about what may happen with Democrats. Democrats have been banking increasingly with good reason over the last 40 or 50 years of moving in the direction where they are confident they're going to control the courts. And so they've been happy to pursue this strategy because they think they control them. But if you ever got a situation where the Supreme Court was not ruling in their favor for a generation, they would come up with it, probably come up with a different strategy. Because this is ultimately about power. It's not about anything else except who controls what happens with people and the government. I believe it was our favorite, Michael Avinati, who suggested the Supreme Court should get 11 justices. So they're working on the backup plan.

Raytan lawyer. Yeah. So what do you think that alternative strategy would be if the Democrats would cook up? I don't know. It actually worked quite well for them because they know they can't get. They always saw themselves as the avant-garde of the cultural revolution. So they were like 10 or 20 years ahead of the American people. So they couldn't get the American people to give them what they wanted.

So they go to the courts. And the courts being smaller and more controllable. And very often you could find a lot of liberal activists. judges to go on the courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit, but others as well, it was working quite well for them. If this, I mean, probably in my lifetime, it won't change. Maybe the Supreme Court might become more conservative, but they have many other instances in the federal court levels to try to get what they want. So you mentioned that, you know, this process has gotten uglier and uglier. You know, you first wrote about this with Gorsuch. Of course, Kavanaugh has brought

unprecedented. I think that's fair to say. Even compared to Thomas and Bork levels of hostility, do you want to wager any predictions as to what happens when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires? Well, yeah, it will be, I call this a battle royal. That'll be Armageddon. I mean, it will Of course, it could be someone else, I'm just assuming. Well, I mean, we don't know who who that might be, but I'm sorry, I forgot the name of the woman who is being proposed. Oh, Amy Coney Barrett. Yeah, right. For example, if she's nominated, she's apparently quite conservative, and so therefore the whole

line of attack on her would be entirely different from the one we see on Kavanaugh, but there will be a line of attack, and we'll find probably more of this happening. But I just, you know, want to step back and say, I really don't know, unfortunately, what the solution is here because we've been doing this for so long and so many people are used to it. But our political system and legal system is out of whack. It's out of balance. And even if you compare it to the way the Europeans do things. I mean, the Europeans, I was talking to an Italian diplomat the other day, and I says, how did you handle abortion issue? Which is they did a national referendum. And they passed a national, I said, well, at least you did it democratically. You didn't do it through the back door,

through a court ruling. And it says, yeah, and as a result of that, it's not that what they decided to do in Italy is not that controversial. So the method that liberals have used is created this backlash that is almost unique to the United States. Well, it's not often you hear someone from the Heritage Foundation say we should be more like Europe. I didn't say that.

I was only presenting an alternative way. It's okay. It looks like we're taking an interesting turn here. If you put the issue of abortion or gay rights to a referendum in the United States, would probably have been a different outcome. Well, I know there was a lot of hope after President Trump was elected that the left would rediscover federalism. Maybe this will make them rediscover how the courts should behave. I don't know.

Probably not a term. But one can only hope. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Holman. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Do you have an opinion that you'd like to share? I'm Rob Blewey, editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal. and I'm inviting you to share your thoughts with us. Leave us a voicemail at 202-608-6205 or email us at

Letters atdailySignal.com. Yours could be featured on the Daily Signal podcast. So we're going to play a clip with Senator David Perdue, Republican from Georgia. This is from earlier this week at Reagan National Airport in the Washington, D.C. area. To give you some background, since, of course, you can't actually see it, This video starts with Purdue being on an escalator surrounded by these young women and ends with him walking into a bathroom. Here's the audio. Well, Senator, don't you think it's important for you to talk to constituents about how you're voting?

Senator, there are millions of women who have come out about their sexual assault. There are millions of women who have come out about their sexual assault and you don't feel you have to ask any questions. You don't feel that you have to answer any questions. I'd like to people who have come out about these sexual assault. Senator. Senator, yes, sir. Last week, definitely a call for an FBI investigation. We'd like to know how you stand on that investigation.

Senator, would you support a full of All of Representatives. I'm State Representative Issela Blanc? I'm in touch you, sir. You aren't being touched, sir. We're asking for five months. We're asking you to stand up for justice. We are asking you to do the right thing.

How can you not talk to women who have been assaulted? How can you ignore our pleas? Senator. I'm going to time for you to stand up and do the right thing, Senator. Senator, you represent not just your state's voice, but every American in this country and every person that's vulnerable. This is a legacy and a moment in history that will not be forgotten. So at the end, they're literally shouting at the entrance to the men's bathroom at the airport.

Surprise they didn't change their gender on the spot and walk into the bathroom. Well, they didn't. In a New York Magazine report, it details that this is no random effort but instead is spearheaded by an organization called the Center for Popular Democracy. And yes, they were behind the woman who talked to Senator Flake about sexual assault in an elevator last Friday, seemingly affecting his decision to ask for the FBI investigation. New York Magazine reports, quote, members of the CPD and other activists have confronted several lawmakers, including Republican senators, Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker and Ted Cruz, and Democratic senators, Angus King, Richard Blumenthal, among others. And quote, and back to quote, and although these meetings may seem spontaneous, they are in fact the result of a year of mobilization and training by the CPD and other organizations

who have determined that this aggressive, in-your-face approach known as bird-dogging, is one of the most effective ways right now to get their message across. Okay, so this is no accident. Another politician who's been affected, Senator Rand Paul, who was also assailed at Reagan National Airport this week. His wife, Kelly Paul, wrote in a letter to Senator Cory Booker on CNN. Earlier this week, Rand was besieged in the airport by activists getting up in his face, as you, Senator Booker, encouraged them to do a few months ago, preventing someone from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in their face, screaming vitriol.

Is this the way to express concern or enact change? or does it only incite unstable people to violence, making them feel that assaulting a person is somehow politically justifiable? So, Daniel, are you excited for your next airport trip? Thankfully, I'm not famous enough at all to be recognized by anyone. You don't know. Maybe if you say something. I'm listening to my voice. They don't know my face unless they really start digging.

But, no, I mean, to think, I mean, this is becoming really common. but at the same time it's not that new. Folks on the far left have been doing this for decades. I mean, I remember looking through Solowensky's rules for radicals, which there's 13 rules that all the left-wing radicals need to learn, to agitate and to put pressure on people and to take over institutions. I was just looking up one of them actually. Number 13, I'm quoting here from Solowensky,

pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. You have to cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions. People hurt faster than institutions. You know, they're just, you know, approaching Senator Perdue, making it personal saying, like, if you don't listen to us, you are ignoring all women who have ever had a sexual assault. This has never been about whether or not senators will vote for justice. This has been about whether or not what happened in the allegations that were alleged were true. And they haven't been corroborated.

And so is, you know, is Purdue supposed to say, well, in order to stand with all women who have been sexually assaulted, I'm going to vote no on this nomination? Well, it's also, it's just, it's just so rude. I mean, there are so many ways to contact a senator. You know, I mean, they all have offices with public ways to contact them. You know, there's social media. There's, I mean, you can make your voice heard. There is no need to personally go up. And I think that even if the left has been doing this, I think they are trying to use these videos for social media.

Yes. We're trying to provoke a response so that they can get a sound bite or a video clip of the senator reacting and so that they can make it go viral. Yeah. And I have to say, I watched the video of Purdue and I watched the video of Rand Paul. And they just made me feel just very uncomfortable for them. Like, no, I don't believe that there was any touching, but it's just a lot of hostility very close to you. Actually, ironically, I once was on the same plane with Rand Paul. My mother was very excited and took a picture with him at the luggage place. Nice. But anyway, it was sort of weird seeing someone that I had followed on the trail and normally has a lot of handlers just by himself traveling.

And you can see why they would see this as a prime opportunity to try to get senators. But it's also like they're human beings too. They're just minding their own business. They're just trying to get from their gate to out of the airport. I it's really distasteful yeah you know I to be honest I was on the same plane once as Senator Dick Durbin we are so cool and saw him at the baggage claim yeah a baggage claim that was the term I couldn't remember yeah and thought about walking over and asking him why he is in favor of killing babies um through abortion but I decided not to because because of civility so you're going to be

a bird dogger on the right no I said I decided not to do that no but I mean I think you bring up an interesting point and that yeah I think there are things that the right sees is really morally abhorrent in the left's positions, but I don't think, like, that's not a persuasive way. That's not persuasive. Like, maybe it jinns up certain people, but it doesn't persuade people who disagree with you. It doesn't persuade the senator. It doesn't, like, it's not affected.

Unless you're in Jeff Flake, then you're totally persuaded. Yes. Ambushed in the elevator. To be fair, we certainly learned a lot more about how organized they are. But, yeah, I mean, and the other important thing is, of course, Not all women think the same. Not all women who have been sexually assaulted think the same. There are women on both sides of virtually every question.

Kellyanne Conway admitted that she had been a victim of sexual assault. Right. And as you said, a lot of this comes down to, did Kavanaugh do anything? And the evidence is not there. We have an allegation. It has been treated seriously. It has been looked into. There is no corroboration.

And it comes 36 years after the fact. Well, if all of this agitating and public ambushing doesn't pay off for the left, that would be interesting to see that vote go through. And we'll be watching over the weekend to see that final vote tally. Sure, well. Well, thanks so much for listening to The Daily Signal Podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud. And please leave us a review or rating on iTunes, but don't come up to us at an airport to give us any feedback. Yeah, that would not be great.

Rob and Jenny will be with you on Monday. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.