How to Confirm a Supreme Court Justice with Mike Davis

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Charlie Kirk Show

Episode: How to Confirm a Supreme Court Justice with Mike Davis
Host: Charlie Kirk
Guest: Mike Davis (Head of Article 3 Project)
Date: October 2, 2020

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Charlie Kirk is joined by Mike Davis, head of the Article 3 Project, to discuss the process and significance of confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. Drawing upon Davis's extensive experience in previous Supreme Court nomination battles, including those of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the conversation goes deep into judicial philosophy, the mechanics of Senate confirmation, and the political and cultural battles surrounding Supreme Court nominees. The episode is decidedly conservative in tone, highlighting the urgency and stakes of this Supreme Court appointment.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Mike Davis’s Background and the Nastiness of Supreme Court Fights

• Davis’s Experience: Worked on four Republican Supreme Court confirmation fights, including as a top advisor for Gorsuch and staff leader for Kavanaugh.
• Escalating Hostility: Davis suggests Barrett’s confirmation will be even more contentious than Kavanaugh’s.
  • Quote:
    “If you thought that Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation fight was ugly, just wait till this one. It's going to make Justice Kavanaugh's look like a walk in the park.” (02:57, Mike Davis)

2. Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett and Her Family

• Discussion of Rhetoric: The hosts describe attacks from left-wing figures, notably accusations related to Barrett’s adoption of Haitian children.
• Highlight:
  • Quote:
    “Dr. Ibram X Kendi said that Amy Coney Barrett and her family are white colonizers for adopting Haitian children.” (03:23, Charlie Kirk)

3. Barrett's Judicial Philosophy: Originalism and Textualism

• Central Qualities:
  • Notre Dame Law graduate, number one in her class
  • Clerked for Antonin Scalia
  • Professor at Notre Dame for 18 years
  • Committed to textualism (interpreting law by original text) and originalism (by original public meaning)
  • Widely respected across ideological lines
• Philosophy Explained:
  • Judging is about interpreting, not rewriting law; strict separation of powers is vital to protect liberty from “mob rule” or governmental overreach.
  • Quote:
    “She is a top scholar, a leading professor, very well liked and respected. And she is no doubt a conservative jurist who understands that a judge's modest but critical role is to follow the law, not rewrite the law.” (05:33, Mike Davis)

4. Contrast with ‘Activist’ Judicial Philosophies

• Distinction Drawn:
  • Conservative/originalist judges vs. liberal/activist judges
  • Cites examples of alleged judicial overreach by Democratic appointees
• On Dangers of Judicial Overreach:
  • Quote:
    “It is so dangerous when you give judges too much power because if judges have this power they can take away your rights.” (09:39, Mike Davis)

5. Why Constitutionalism Matters

• Protection of Minority Rights: The judiciary’s role is to safeguard dissenting opinions and minority rights.
• Governing by Persuasion vs. Force:
  • Quote:
    “There are two ways to govern human beings, the first of which is by persuasion, speaking and talking. The second of which is by force.” (11:15, Charlie Kirk paraphrasing Dr. Larry Arne)

6. Shift in American Judiciary

• Court’s Political Alignment:
  • Discussion of how court has shifted toward originalist majority despite broader cultural liberalization.
• Trump’s Influence:
  • Trump’s appointments have transformed circuit courts and Supreme Court, flipping several circuits to “Republican appointed” majorities.
  • Quote:
    “President Trump has delivered on his promise to the American people that he would transform the federal judiciary with constitutionalist, originalist, textualist judges in the mold of Justice Scalia.” (13:30, Mike Davis)

7. The Nomination & Confirmation Process Detailed

• Constitutional Mechanics:
  • President nominates; Senate provides “advice and consent”
  • Nominee undergoes intense vetting, including questionnaires, meetings, hearings, and answering written questions
• Hearing Prep:
  • Barrett is preparing for hearings on October 12-15, reviewing academic and judicial records, bracing for attacks (especially regarding her Catholic faith)
  • Quote:
    “They’re going to question her about her Catholic faith like they did last time during her 7th Circuit hearing, which is just utterly preposterous... it is a violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.” (21:31, Mike Davis)
• Question Deluge:
  • Kavanaugh received 1,287 written questions post-hearing (a record); Barrett can expect similar treatment.
  • Quote:
    “Justice Kavanaugh. He got after his hearing... 1,287 written questions for the record after his hearing. This is more than every Supreme Court nominee before him combined.” (22:39, Mike Davis)

8. Political Tactics & Procedural Obstacles

• Obstruction & Court Packing:
  • Davis warns Democrats may try to delay the process, hoping to win the election and possibly pack the Supreme Court.
  • Quote:
    “Democrats have been advocating for packing the Supreme Court long before this nomination. It is in their 2020 Democrat platform.” (28:31, Mike Davis)
  • Reference to the late Justice Ginsburg's opposition to expanding the Court.

9. Defense of the Process and Article 3 Project’s Role

• The Article 3 Project mobilizes a team for communications, legal strategy, rapid response, and positive advocacy for Barrett.
  • Quote:
    “We have a team of 21 of us right now...making the positive case for Judge Barrett as she goes through this process. We're going on Fox News, we're coming on Charlie Kirk show... We're defending Judge Barrett against the attacks.” (26:21, Mike Davis)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the scale of the confirmation fight:
  “If you thought that Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation fight was ugly, just wait till this one. It's going to make Justice Kavanaugh's look like a walk in the park.”
  (03:00, Mike Davis)

• On judicial philosophy:
  “A judge's modest but critical role is to follow the law, not rewrite the law.... She understands that federal judges are the last line of defense that protects all Americans from mob rule and government overrule.”
  (05:33, Mike Davis)

• On the danger of activist judges:
  “It is so dangerous when you give judges too much power because if judges have this power, they can take away your rights...”
  (09:39, Mike Davis)

• On Senate questioning about Barrett's religion:
  “They're going to question her about her Catholic faith... it is a violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution...”
  (21:31, Mike Davis)

• On the stakes for the country:
  “If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris pack the Supreme Court with left wing radicals, they're going to come after you. They're going to come after your right to speak on campus and elsewhere. They're going to come after your right to worship. They're going to come after your right to own guns. They're going to come after all of your rights are going to come after you.”
  (28:46, Mike Davis, paraphrasing consequences of court packing)

---

Important Timestamps

• 02:09 — Mike Davis introduces his background in Supreme Court fights
• 03:00 — Prediction of Barrett confirmation being more aggressive than Kavanaugh’s
• 04:00 — Amy Coney Barrett’s academic and professional background
• 05:33 — What makes Barrett a standout nominee
• 06:43 – 10:00 — Conversation about constitutionalism, separation of powers, and judicial restraint
• 12:58 – 16:32 — Trump’s reshaping of the courts, circuit court changes, and what's at stake
• 18:07 — Breakdown of the "advise and consent" process and behind-the-scenes prep
• 21:31 — Discussion of anti-Catholic bigotry in confirmation hearings
• 22:39 — The volume and strategy of post-hearing Senate questioning
• 26:21 — Article 3 Project’s strategy for supporting Barrett
• 28:31 — The threat of court packing
• 29:34 — Final calls to action and thank-you’s

---

Flow, Tone, and Takeaways

The conversation is high-energy, candid, and unapologetically conservative, focusing on the threat posed by judicial activism and the crucial role of an originalist Supreme Court. The stakes are repeatedly emphasized—not just for the courts, but for the future of American freedoms as the right sees them. The episode details the strategy, process, and political combat expected and underway, with Davis providing granular insight and repeated calls for activism and vigilance.

Listeners gain:

• A behind-the-scenes understanding of how Supreme Court confirmations work
• Clear articulation of the originalist judicial philosophy and why it matters to conservatives
• The strategic and cultural significance of judicial appointments in the broader “culture war” context

---

Additional Resources

• Article 3 Project (referenced for judiciary tracker and advocacy)
• Turning Point USA (organization founded by Charlie Kirk)

---

This summary captures the essence and detailed arguments of the episode, providing a comprehensive guide for listeners and non-listeners alike.

Transcript

[A]

Thank you for listening to this Podcast 1 production now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast 1, Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Hey everybody, it's time to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. We have the inside scoop of past confirmation fights from Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch from the one and only Mike Davis from the Article 3 Project. Please email us your questions. Freedom charliekirk.com if you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com as we do our important work on thousands of high school and college campuses across the country. Tpusa.com tpusa.com if we have impacted you at all at the Charlie Kirk show, Please go to charliekirk.comSupport charliekirk.comSupport Mike Davis is here with the inside scoop on Amy Coney Barrett. Buckle up, everybody.

[B]

Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.

[C]

I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

[B]

Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

[D]

I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.

[A]

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we

[B]

are going to fight for freedom on

[A]

campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Hey everybody. Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. I am joined today by by Mike Davis, head of the Article 3 project, A3P for short. He was intimately involved in the last couple Supreme Court nomination fights with Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch. And if those two fights were any indicator, my goodness, this next one is going to be even more Mike. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

[E]

Thanks for having me on, Charlie.

[B]

Great. So can you tell us just first

[A]

of all about your experience in Supreme Court fights, How nasty the other side can be, the lengths that they're willing to go to. What are some of the big lessons from the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh fight that we can learn from and apply to confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett?

[E]

Yeah, so I have worked on the last four confirmation fights for Republican presidents. I worked on the Robertson Alito confirmations when I worked in the Bush 43 White House. I helped lead the Gorsuch confirmation fight as his top outside advisor. During his confirmation, he called me the General. And then I went to work on the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress for my former boss and home state senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress. And that's where I was the staff leader for the fight to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. And I would say this, if you thought that Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation fight was ugly, just wait till this one. It's going to make Justice Kavanaugh's look

[C]

like a walk in the park. And we're already starting to see that with the attacks against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a superb Supreme Court nominee, and her family with her, with her seven children, five of them biological kids, one with down syndrome, two of them adopted from Haiti. We're already seeing the vicious attacks against Judge Barrett and her family.

[A]

Yeah. Dr. Ibram X Kendi said that Amy Coney Barrett and her family are white colonizers for adopting Haitian children. He was named one of the top time 100 people. And he is also very close with a lot of people in mainstream Democrat politics. In fact, Jack Dorsey from Twitter donated to him. So that kind of goes to show just some of the attacks that they're already going after with Judge Barrett. Can you tell us more about Judge Barrett's interpretation of the Constitution? What is her guiding philosophy, and what do you think makes her an exceptional choice to fill this Supreme Court vacancy?

[E]

Yeah. So Judge Amy Coney Barrett is right out of central casting for the Supreme Court. Like I said, when I was the staff leader, her nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress, we actually handled her confirmation then for the 7th Circuit. This was over three years ago. And what you're getting with a Judge Barrett is someone who has been a. She went to Notre Dame Law School, where she graduated number one in her class. She served as the executive editor of the Law Review. She has been a Notre Dame actually. After law school, she clerked for two very prestigious judges, including the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, where she was schooled in the judicial philosophies of textualism and originalism. What that means is that as a judge, you follow what the law actually says, the text, and what that law means to the what that law meant to the public when that text was written. So there is a fixed meaning to the law. And so you don't have these liberal judicial activists coming in and rewriting the law based upon their policy preferences. So she clerked for Charter Justice Scalia, and then she went on. She's been a Notre Dame law professor for the last 18 years. She's still a Notre Dame law professor. Even as a 7th Circuit judge at Notre Dame, she was widely renowned by Faculty and students alike. And we're seeing these with the letters of support, the other testimonials for her. She is a top scholar, a leading professor, very well liked and respected. And she is no doubt a conservative

[C]

jurist who understands that a judge's modest but critical role is to follow the law, not rewrite the law. And she understands that federal judges are the last line of defense when we have that protects all Americans from mob rule and government overrules. She is a phenomenal pick by President Trump to the Supreme Court.

[A]

Can you contrast her philosophy that she'd bring to the court to that of Sotomayor or Kagan, that it's kind of this revisionist way of viewing the law, Very activist, if you will. Can you kind of detail for our listeners that are younger, that are new to these Supreme Court fights, why it is so important to have an originalist view, a constitutionalist view? Even Antonin Scalia said he made decisions, and I'm paraphrasing here, that he knew was the right interpretation of the law, but he didn't actually agree with what he knew the consequences would be. I'm paraphrasing. And you would be able to fill that in better, but you have to abide strictly to what the text says. Can you build out those differences more for some of our younger listeners that are new to these kind of Supreme Court fights?

[E]

Yeah, this is critically important. It goes to our founding as a country. Our founding fathers escaped tyranny. They came here because of religious persecution, other tyranny to America. And they were very skeptical of centralized government power because they know that centralized government power leads to tyranny.

[C]

When power is in too few hands, it leads to tyranny.

[E]

And so what they did is divided power among the three branches of government. The Congress writes the laws. The executive branch, Article two enforces the laws. And Article three, which is supposed to be the least powerful, the least dangerous branch, is the one that interprets the laws. And then they also divided power between the federal government and the states and the people. So if the Constitution. Think about our Constitution as a loan agreement. We the people, loan the federal government power through this Constitution. And in exchange for them, for our loaning of them of this power, they need to protect us. They need to protect our liberty, protect us from mob rule, protect us from government overreach. And so what is so important is that these government actors understand their proper role in our constitutional system and stay within their lanes.

[C]

Right?

[E]

And that's what a conservative judge does. They understand that they have a very

[C]

Limited but critical role.

[E]

And that is to interpret the law

[C]

as written and understood by the people

[E]

at the time of its enactment.

[C]

Textualism.

[E]

And originally compare that to Democrats, Democrat

[C]

appointed judges who are liberal judicial activists. They see that the acquisition of power is the ends in itself that they want to. Democrats seek power just for the sake of having power. Right. And so you appoint these judges, these liberal activist judges on the court who will ignore the law, rewrite the law, do whatever it takes to get to that ultimate end, which is to give Democrats more power. And it's just, it's a wrong judicial philosophy because it leads to tyranny. It leads to instances like we're seeing right now where Judge Emmett Sullivan, a Clinton appointed judge on the District Court and D.C. is persecuting General Michael Flynn, a good man, a four star general and persecuting him even, even after the federal government and it's their decision that the executive branch has decided not to pursue charges against General Michael Flynn based upon the Obama Biden made up collusion against him. The false charges that were brought against Michael Flynn, this Democrat appointed judge, this Obama, excuse me, this Clinton appointed judge on the D.C. district Court is abusing his power and that's being litigated right now. But it is so dangerous when you give judges too much power because if judges have this power they can take away your rights for young people, for the people on college campuses. I went to a liberal school. I went to the University of Iowa, it's a state school. So we had First Amendment rights and I was glad that we did because I did things that were controversial as a conservative and I needed those First Amendment protections from faculty members, from school administrators would have loved to have thrown me off campus. It is so important that we have judges who follow the law without fear of favor.

[B]

I want to tell you guys about Good Ranchers. Are you hungry? And if you are hungry, that's okay. Don't go to the grocery store. Instead get something that tastes good. I want to tell you about good ranchers. It's 100% American born, raised and harvested meat and they delivered to families across America.

[A]

This vision was instilled into them from

[B]

their grandparents that owned community grocery stores and believed in trust, charity and American values. GoodRanchers.com partners directly only with American ranchers from across the United States to bring the highest quality meat straight to your door. Goodranchers.com you get 100% American raised beef to your door. Beef the way it used to be. Get America's best grass fed beef finished right to Your door and shipping is always free. Goodranchers.com 100% American beef, chicken and more Support American farmers and support the American economy. Skip the grocery store mystery meat and buy direct from good ranchers.com great meals start with good ranchers get 100% American born raised harvested beef and chicken. I put my name behind the stuff you send. It's awesome. Good ranchers with an S.com promo code Charlie $20 off your purchase. Good ranchers.com promo code Charlie

[A]

that's really well said. And it's supposed to protect the rights of the minority. It's supposed to protect the rights of, of those that might have dissenting opinion, which actually, if you look throughout American history, the rights of the minority actually ends up being on the right of truth and the right side of the argument. But you must protect that right of expression. And you know, as Dr. Larry Arne from Hillsdale said so well, there are two ways to govern human beings, the first of which is by persuasion, speaking and talking. The second of which is by force. I actually kind of like that division. I mean, it's probably overly simplified, but it's really true. And if you do not have the capacity to be able to speak or to disagree or to get in a marketplace and sort out your differences, I should say a commonplace where you're able to sort out your differences, then you're going to descend into force. And what we have seen, and I would love your thought on this. And it's very interesting. As America was more conservative in the 1960s and 70s, the court was actually more liberal. I think that the court was misaligned to the American kind of political identity back in the 60s and 70s, the

[B]

Warren Court and the Burger Court in particular.

[A]

Now we are seeing as America in some ways has become more left or more leftist, at least in certain states which are predominantly populated states. I still think we're a center right country in electoral college, you know, an electoral college sense. The court actually has a chance to become more conservative. How is it that conservatives have been able to make these phenomenal gains? I don't like using that word conservative. Let's just say constitutionalists. How is it that constitutionalists have been able to make such significant gains when the country's actually in some ways become more culturally liberal?

[E]

I think that President Trump has been a driving factor for this transformation. We saw when President Trump, then candidate Trump, ran for office in 2016, he promised that he would appoint justices and judges in the mold of the late great Justice Scalia. Judges who, and I think you're exactly right, Charlie, about calling them constitutionalist as opposed to conservatives.

[C]

Because you know what?

[E]

It's not our job. It's not the job of a judge to get to a liberal result, and it's not the job of a judge

[C]

to get to a conservative result.

[E]

It's their job to follow the law wherever it leads it. If it is a liberal law, then it's the job of the judge to

[C]

apply that liberal law and let the

[E]

chips follow it where they may. We do not want to legitimize judicial activism on either side. And President Trump, if you go look. So I run the Article 3 project, Article3project.org and as part of what we have on our website, we have a feature there called judiciarytracker.com judiciarytracker.com and it shows you where the judiciary stood when President Trump was inaugurated, and it shows you where the judiciary stands now and what you're seeing with President Trump. He has delivered on his promise to the American people that he would transform the federal judiciary with constitutionalist, originalist, textualist judges in the mold of Justice Scalia. If you look at the Supreme Court, he solidified a Republican appointed majority on the Supreme Court with the appointments of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh. He, he's about to transform the Supreme Court from the five to four John Roberts court to the six to three Clarence Thomas courts with the appointments of Judge Amy Coney Barrett from the 7th Circuit.

[C]

If you look at the critically important federal courts of appeals, these are the courts of appeals that divide up federal appeals across the country. And there are 13 federal courts, I'm sorry, 12 federal courts of appeals around the country, the 1st through the 11th, plus the D.C. circuit. And they divide up again, they divide up all the appeals around the country based upon region. And they are the last stop for the appeals and more than 99% of cases because the Supreme Court largely has discretionary review, meaning the Supreme Court gets to decide what cases they take and decide what cases they don't take. And they only decide to take about 100 cases a year. It's not a heavy workload because they're deciding the most important cases that we face, the most controversial cases that we face. And the courts of appeals are the last stop. They are critically important. Of these 12 circuits, President Trump has flipped the second, third and 11th from majority Democrat appointed to majority Republican appointed in less than four years on the Ninth Circuit. The liberal out of whack Ninth Circuit, as it's called, the 29th seat out of whack Ninth Circus. President Trump. When President Trump started, there were 11 more Democrat appointed judges than Republicans. That is down to just three. And when President Trump wins reelection, he could do something that was unthinkable for a Republican president, and that is flip the 9th Circuit along with flipping every circuit in this country, all 12 regional circuits in this country to majority Republican appointments. This is what's so important about this.

[E]

President Trump's judges are not your typical, you know, country club Republican judges. These are true constitutionalist, originalist judges who

[C]

aren't going to work in a wimp out.

[B]

I'm going to be really direct with you. If your cellular plan is Verizon 18T or T mobile, you are simply paying way too much for the exact same coverage you'd be getting right now with Pure Talk. Look at your cell phone bill where it shows data usage. The average person who switches to peer talk is using less than four gigs of data a month. But the big carriers are charging you for unlimited data. It's like paying for an entire row of an airplane, but only needing one seat. That's how peer talk saves the average person over $400 a year on their wireless service. Unlimited Talk, text and two gigs of data, all for just $20 a month. And if you go over on data usage, they don't charge you for it. People are switching to Pure Talk in massive numbers. It's a grassroots movement and an easy decision that you'll make today. Grab your mobile phone and dial £250 and say Charlie Kirk. When you do, you'll save 50% off your first month. Dial £250 and say the keyword Charlie Kirk. Pure Talk, Simply smarter Wireless.

[A]

It's such an important point. And for any of the people out there that might not like Trump's tone or style, these results are incredible. I mean, a reshaping of the federal judiciary back to constitutional roots is absolutely transformational. And you look at what Hillary Clinton would have done versus what Donald Trump has done on the court. I mean, three justices in four years, that has to be some kind of record in the modern era. I mean, you know the history better than I do. But the. I mean, I know Obama got two in his first term.

[C]

Six.

[E]

Nixon.

[A]

It's the most since Nixon. Yeah, and Obama got two. And he nominated a third, Merrick Garland, which did not transpire. It's absolutely incredible to see how the President has reshaped the judiciary. So can you walk us through the process of advising consent? So it says in the Constitution, clearly the President makes the selection to fill a vacancy. The United States Senate then goes through advise and consent. Senator Mitch McConnell has been phenomenal in his courage and his conviction. I am a critic of Senator McConnell on certain things, but I will praise him when he says, I will not bail out states. I will not fund mail in voting and confirm any Coney Barrett, he is a hero for what he's doing to fill this seat. What is for people out there that just kind of casually watch politics? What is the process? And also, can you just give us a little behind the scenes look? What's the kind of homework that goes into it, the kind of stuff, the preparation, the gotcha questions you've been through with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? What can we expect? And what's kind of some of the inside baseball that viewers don't always see?

[E]

Yeah, so I have unique experience here because I've worked on Supreme Court nominations from the White House, the Justice Department, from a Supreme Court nominee's perspective with Justice Gorsuch, and then as the staff leader for Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. So I've been through all these fights. What happens is the president nominates, which he's already done with. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, they have to go through a bunch of procedural hoops to get to a hearing. And the procedural hoops include a Senate Judiciary questionnaire that is standard that goes out to all Supreme Court nominees where they have to answer a bunch of questions and turn over a bunch of documents. Judge Barrett has done that. The two headlines from her questionnaire that she just submitted yesterday, number one, she is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. There's no question about that. The American Bar association, the liberal American Bar association, had had no choice but to rate her as well qualified to serve for the 7th Circuit. They're going to have no choice but to rate her as well qualified to serve again on the Supreme Court. The other headline is that if you look at towards the back of it, I actually think it's on the last page of the answers on the questionnaire. She makes it very crystal clear that she had no discussions with anyone, no promises to the President, no promises to any senators, no promises to any outside groups, no backroom deals on how she's gonna rule on any case, whether it's the American or whether it's the Obamacare, whether it's Roe versus Wade, whether it's any case. She's not doing that. She's been a judge for three years. She has integrity. She's not gonna violate her ethical duties by Promising how she's gonna vote on cases in exchange for her nomination or confirmation vote. So those are the two headlines that

[C]

come out of that from yesterday.

[E]

Now she's meeting with senators. She met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. She met with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham. She'll meet with other senators who want

[C]

to meet with her in the coming days and have private discussions with those senators. She also has to prepare for her hearing that set for October 12th, 13th and 14th. And then there's another day of hearing with her outside witnesses and the Democrats witnesses on the 14th, excuse me, on the 15th. So preparing for her hearing, she has to go through her record, all of her academic writings from when she was a professor at Notre Dame for 100 cases that she's written or joined on the bench on the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

[E]

She has to be ready for the

[C]

questioning, be ready for the Democrats attacks like they attacked her last time. They're going to question her about her Catholic faith like they did last time during her 7th Circuit hearing, which is just utterly preposterous. Just the thought that you're going to, that you're going to grill someone over their Catholic faith or any faith they wouldn't question. And they shouldn't question a Jewish nominee or a Muslim nominee. They definitely should not be questioning judicial nominees about their religious faith. It is a violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution, which says that there cannot be a religious test for officers of the United States. So when these senators question a nominee, it's anti Catholic bigotry when they do it explicitly, it's dog whistling when they do it quietly. But nonetheless, it is a constitutional violation and a violation of their oath as senators. But they're going to prepare these. They're going to prepare Judge Barrett for her Supreme Court hearing. After her hearing, she's going to. These senators submit written questions for the record. And these are tedious and oftentimes sent just to try to trip up the nominee.

[E]

With judge, with Justice Kavanaugh.

[C]

He got after his hearing, he had 1200. This is before the Michael Avenatti serial gang rape hearing. This was the first hearing he had. Democrat senators sent him 1287 written questions for the record after his hearing. This is more than every Supreme Court nominee before him combined. So they have to. So Judge Barrett has to be prepared for answering these questions. And then they have committee meetings to discuss their nomination. Then they have a committee votes. They'll probably have the committee meeting around October 15th, the first meeting, and then they'll have the votes. Probably around October 22nd. And I fully expect that Judge Barrett will become Justice Barrett by the end of October.

[B]

That's incredible.

[A]

So they send this deluge of questions to her. Does she have to answer all of them?

[E]

It's up to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. She has people who help her. She has people. She brings her team of supporters. This is what I did for Gorsuch. I helped, you know, we had a team of people who helped him with his, with his questions. And man, that confirmation battle was intense. But I just, I mean, that was nothing compared to what Kavanaugh went through. And it's going to be nothing for what Barrett's going to have to go through. And, you know, she has people at the White House Counsel's office who help her with these answers, and she has people at the Justice Department who help her.

[B]

Look, there's a serious problem out there.

[A]

Our heroes have to pay out of

[B]

pocket to do their job. Hunting for military first responder discounts has historically required going from one website to another, creating multiple accounts and logins to make purchases, and jumping through various hoops to verify your service. Don't you wish there was one place you could visit where you didn't need to go from one place to the other one place? Well, that is govx.com youm see, at govx works directly with brands to negotiate the best prices possible because you deserve the gear you need at the prices you've earned. Plus you can trust that the gear you're ordering is 100% authentic, direct from the manufacturer, a huge collection of gear and apparel from popular brands all in one convenient location. So right now go to govx.com tell them that our show sent you the the Charlie Kirk Show.

[A]

And it's amazing the discounts.

[B]

If you're an American of service, a current or former member of the military, go right now to govx.com use the promo code. Charlie.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I can't imagine the process, how arduous that is and just to go through it. And so she also has to, on top of all of it, you know, maintain her composure against ad hominen attacks, against the protesters in the streets, massive amounts of money coming in from the left trying to smear her family because just one thing that you could say wrong will be used against you. I don't think this is going to be as fickle of a hearing where if Amy Coney Barrett says one comma wrong, I don't think it's going to be it was Brett Kavanaugh. That was a Real fragile balance. That he was in the majority wasn't as much. You couldn't afford to lose as many votes. And Brett Kavanaugh, God bless him for what he did for our country, holding the line there.

[B]

So can you just kind of tell

[A]

us in closing here what you guys are doing at the Article 3 project to help get Amy Coney Barrett to become justice? Amy Coney Barrett. And then finally, what else can we expect from the level of nastiness from the left? Are there any sort of procedural things that they can do? I mean, they're talking about impeachment. They're talking about court packing.

[B]

Do you think that the Democrats learned

[A]

their lesson or are they gonna go after the throat, the metaphorical throat again?

[E]

Well, so what we're doing@the article3project, article3project.org and we're on Twitter @rticle3projecticle3project. So you can follow us there. What we're doing, we have a team of 21 of us right now for the Supreme Court by communicators, lawyers, researchers. And we are making the positive case for Judge Barrett as she goes through this process. We're going on Fox News, we're coming on Charlie Kirk show. We're talking to a bunch of reporters. We're putting out content, digital ads on our website, digital ads on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter. And we're making the positive case for Judge Barrett. We are defending Judge Barrett against the attacks.

[C]

We're already starting to see the attacks on her Catholic faith.

[E]

We saw this last time. We're seeing it again. We have people who, we have left wing lunatics, leading Democrat operatives on Twitter who are saying that Judge Barrett and her husband are racist because they adopted two kids from Haiti, vicious attacks on their children. We have people again who are dog whistling about Judge Barrett's Catholic faith or even saying it explicitly with her anti Catholic bigotry, saying that she's too Catholic, whatever the hell that means, that she's too Catholic to serve on the court. She's proven over the last more than three years on the 7th Circuit that she can separate her faith from her judicial decision making.

[C]

And for people to attack her is nothing more than anti Catholic bigotry. And it is a violation of the constitution for these senators to do this. So we're making the that we're defending Judge Barrett as she goes through this process. We're also defending the process which is so important because the Democrats are already arguing Eli Mistol is who is just a complete woke clown, just came out today and did an interview saying that they are going to put out there, that the Republicans, they want to try to delay this process as long as they can obstruct the process until after the election. So they can use that as an excuse to pack the Supreme Court. Democrats have been advocating for packing the Supreme Court long before this nomination. It is in their 2020 Democrat platform.

[E]

And I think it's really important for your listeners to understand what that means.

[C]

That means that they want to add

[E]

new justices to the Supreme Court, something

[C]

that has not been done for over 150 years, since right after the Civil War.

[E]

The late Justice Ginsburg took the unusual

[C]

step of coming out and publicly denouncing this is too radical. What this means for your listeners is your viewers is that if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris pack the Supreme Court with left wing radicals, they're going to come after you. They're going to come after your right to speak on campus and elsewhere. They're going to come after your right to worship. They're going to come after your right to own guns. They're going to come after all of your rights are going to come after you. These woke mobs that we're seeing on the streets, they're going to be unleashed on Americans. And so it's so important. This election is so important because if Joe Biden wins, the Democrats are going to win the senate and they're 100% going to pack the Supreme Court. Joe Biden refused to denounce that plan in the debate last night because he knows he's going to do it.

[A]

Well, everyone help out. Article 3 project number 3.org thank you for the insight, Mike, and thank you for all that you do. And we have your back. Let's get this done.

[E]

Thank you very much for having me on.

[B]

You bet.

[A]

See you soon. What a great conversation it was with Mike Davis. Please, please email us your questions. Freedomarliekirk.com, freedomarliekirk.com, get involved with turningpointusatpusa.com and if you want a signed copy of the MAGA doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk show to your podcast provider. Hit subscribe, give us a 5 star review, screenshot it and email it to us@freedom charliekirk.com, freedomarlick.com thanks so much for listening, everybody. Talk to you soon. God bless.