A Conversation With Mollie Hemingway
As the man who authored the famous decision that spelled the end of the deeply flawed and forever controversial Roe v. Wade ruling, Samuel Alito certainly warrants the in-depth scrutiny he receives in the latest book crafted by author/editor/pundit Mollie Hemingway, who believes Alito is today the most important and influential Justice on the Supreme Court.
Ms. Hemingway was the featured speaker at the most recent Reagan Ranch Roundtable luncheon at the Young Americans Foundation (YAF) Center on lower State Street on Friday, May 15. The series is supported by former Santa Barbara News-Press publisher Wendy McCaw.
Before going forward with my interview, you should know that Ms. Hemingway is a favorite of mine. Whenever her name is mentioned on a FOX News program, whether it be Kudlow, Mornings With Maria, Fox and Friends, Varney & Co., you name it, I’m sure to record it and not miss her appearance. She brings clarity and understanding to every subject she is invited to discuss. And she never pulls cliches or talking points out of her purse to help her out. She always has something dependably refreshing and original to say about an issue. I put her in the same rarified league as Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel.
With that in mind, what follows is an edited version of our hour-long conversation after her own speech and Q&A session at the Reagan Ranch Center.
Q. You refer to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as a giant. Why?
A. Alito’s colleagues call him a giant on the court. They understand how important he is in a way that many other people might not realize. He is very strategic and thinks deeply about what each case will be and what the issues will be that it will be decided upon. He [seeks to ensure] that it is worth the court’s time, whether it will move things in a better direction for the country, not just, “Am I interested in this?” or “Would I like to hear this case?”
And he’s very good at holding a majority together, which not everybody wants to do or cares about.
How does a case reach the Supreme Court?
They get asked to hear thousands of cases a term, but they only hear about seventy. There are different ways a case can work its way to the court, but when there are competing rulings from different regions on a constitutional issue, that’s close to a guarantee that the Supreme Court will hear it.
You made a couple comments about California’s untenable election process in your talk. Is there anything we can look forward to in rectifying that situation?
No, it’s a complete mess, but I would say that the court seems to be more willing to listen to election-related issues than they have been in the past. The courts don’t like to hear election administration or election-related disputes, mainly because it often takes a decade or longer for a case to reach the court, and most election issues [become moot before any kind of decision can be determined]. I also think that the Supreme Court’s involvement in 2000 is still a painful memory.
Let’s talk Supreme Court. Do you have the names of jurists you’d like to see on the Supreme Court?
I have many names. If Chief Justice John Roberts were to go, there is this awesome judge on the DC Circuit named Greg Katsas. He’s just great. Amul Thapar is very good out of Kentucky; there’s Andy Oldham, who’s on the Fifth Circuit. I also like Mike Lee, who’s the senator from Utah. He was a clerk for Alito, and his son was a clerk for Alito. His dad was Solicitor General under Reagan. He (his dad) started the BYU Law School. People have mentioned others like Ron DeSantis or Ted Cruz, and that used to be the type of person they would put on the court. Earl Warren got it simply because he dropped out of the presidential primary in a way that helped Eisenhower out. So, Eisenhower’s like, “Why don’t you become chief?”
How did President Trump put together his list of judicial appointments, which, by some accounts, helped him win the 2016 election?
I wrote about that with Carrie Severino in “Justice on Trial,” and how that list was developed, which was through the input of a variety of different groups, including people associated with the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo-type people, people at Heritage, and others.
Having that list made everybody feel very comfortable. Trump updated it, but he stuck to it in a way that people would say, “Okay, I could handle literally any of the names on this list.” It’s a big reason why he won.
Any thoughts about the three liberal Justices – Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ketanji-Jackson – who seem to vote in lockstep?
I tell a lot in the book about each of them. I would say Justice Kagan is respected by her colleagues; she does a great job in oral argument, like Alito. But the newest Justice, Ketanji-Jackson, is seemingly not doing so well with impressing the legal community or her colleagues. She’s loquacious to the extreme without having much of anything to say.
What’s frustrating, I think, for many people is that the treatment from the outside world differs dramatically based on whether you’re on the left or on the right. Neil Gorsuch’s questions are really smart, and good, whereas Ketanji-Jackson’s questions – particularly when she freestyles – don’t impress anybody.
The three liberal justices have very little power on the court, but from the media and from the law schools, they act like they are the queens of the court. The conservative justices can’t really go out to dinner on their own without fear of being killed. They can’t go to law schools in most places because the law schools are so crazy left wing.
Having said that, they all get along pretty well.
Really?
Yes. It’s much better to get along and be civil, so they have developed these habits over time; they always shake hands before they go out on the bench, and they shake hands when they are meeting just the nine of them. Way back, like 200 years ago, they all lived together, because they would have a short term and they would just come from wherever they were, and live in the same house in DC.
We’re coming up upon some important primaries and the mid-terms, so let’s talk politics. Here in California, for example, do you think Spencer Pratt, who is running for mayor of Los Angeles, can pull it off?
No. I’m not giving up hope yet, but the Republican machine should work on moving ballots to the boxes. I’m not a fan of any part of [ballot harvesting], but if those are the rules, you’ve got to play by the rules as they are, and you must understand that you get counted based on ballots, so focus on that.
You live in Virginia, what are your thoughts about your new governor, Abigail Spanberger?
Well, she ran as a moderate and she has been so radical…
…Almost immediately, correct?
…Immediately. I like to remind people that a few months ago Virginia had a Republican governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general. She [Spanberger] ran saying that she wanted to be a bipartisan person She pretended to not believe anything she believed to get elected, whether it’s transitioning of kids, crime issues, or immigration, she’s hostile to enforcement of the law. We’ve got a big problem in Virginia with crime associated with some illegal immigration populations and she’s just been basically AWOL. She’s trying to go after people’s guns, and wants to raise taxes, so pretty much across the board she’s not been moderate.
Do you have a favorite in the California gubernatorial race?
I do not. I think very highly of both Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco. I don’t know either of them well, but I know both, and I like them. I assume that because of the jungle primary, you’re going to see continued hits against anyone who poses a threat to two Democrats being the top two vote getters. I assume that’s what took Eric Swalwell out.
We were all pleased to see Swalwell go. He’s such a rat.
I have one more question for you: What’s going to happen to the filibuster?
Well, nothing’s going to happen to it officially now. Everyone says we have to save the filibuster, but we never use the filibuster. The whole idea is, if someone just says they’re going to filibuster, that’s the equivalent of doing it.
When was the last time they literally had any debate in the Senate? I honestly don’t remember. Why not just debate? For instance, they say, “Oh, we only have this many votes for the Save America Act, and it will get filibustered.” Let them filibuster. Let them explain why they don’t want anyone to have to prove citizenship or that they don’t need voter ID. Let them do it, and maybe you lose, but I want to hear the arguments. I want to hear what your best arguments are for how to counter that. I would rather see the filibuster used than what we have now, which is to have it but not use it.
If Republicans were to get rid of it, they would need to pass the Save America Act, and all the other legislation that should be passed, like bills dealing with reducing fraud and waste, and to deporting illegal immigrants. So, if the Senate could work with the House and accomplish conservative governance and do it quickly, I would be for getting rid of the filibuster. But I don’t trust Republicans in the Senate to do anything. Sorry, but if they knew how to use their power when they have it, that would be a different argument.
Then the argument would be?
I have to imagine Democrats are going to do everything they claim they’re going to do. They’re saying they’re going to make Puerto Rico a state. They’re saying they’ll make DC a state. They say they are going to blow up the electoral college. They say they’re going to pack the Supreme Court. I don’t see them holding back. If they win the House, they’re going to go crazy – and I think the odds that they get the House are still pretty high – and they will just make life miserable.
So, when Democrats take the Senate, they’ll do away with the filibuster?
Yes.
Community Calendar:
Got a Santa Barbara event for our community calendar? Fenkner@sbcurrent.com
Great interview Jim, with a stellar journalist, Mollie Hemingway. Her acumen with the High Court is spot on.
SCOTUS has become somewhat of a microcosm of society, in that the competent do the heavy lifting while others slack and make noise. Of the liberals on the Court, Kagan is a true legal scholar, Sotomayor a liberal stalwart past her prime and Jackson, a Small Claims Judge trying to make it in the Big Leagues.
Future SCOTUS? Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, John Yoo, Jonathan Turley all worthy candidates. Mike Davis from Article 3 Project for AG, a true buzz saw which is what we need.
Very pleased with last night’s primary results. Massie, Cassidy out, Cornyn hopefully soon to be out.
As Steve Bannon says on his intro of his daily podcast “time to go medieval!”
I have been fan of Mollie Hemingway's brilliant and insightful political analysis for many years. Always a class act. She is a gifted and talented journalist...of which there are very few.
Her insightful co-authorship of the book "Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court" masterfully further exposed the Democrat's ongoing dark and dirty immoral tactics to achieve their goals. Injecting the sociopathic Christine Blasey Ford with a completely made-up story to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation was brilliantly covered. Shades of Clarence Thomas, Former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to name just a few.
Great interview Jim...must have a been treat to engage her.