GLENN: President Trump may just be the master media manipulator he is after all. I have to tell you, I'm watching this in awe and sometimes aghast from both sides. I'm just watching this as a casual observer of history, and I can't believe what I'm seeing.
And I haven't figured it out yet. It could be that Donald Trump is the -- is the best watch the other hand guy I've ever seen. Remember, we used to say that about Barack Obama. Right, right, right. Stop arguing about that. What is the other hand doing?
We'll see. But also, he is overwhelming the system. Exactly what happened last time with Barack Obama, to the -- to the right, Donald Trump is doing to the left. There's no way you can keep up with all of this.
Tonight, at 8 o'clock, he's announcing his SCOTUS pick. In typical Trump fashion, don't miss must-see TV, Wednesday night. Is it Wednesday today? Or is it Tuesday?
STU: Tuesday. It is Tuesday. At least for the whole day.
GLENN: It's Tuesday? Wow. Wow. It's only been -- really? Yesterday was only 24 hours. It seemed like 48.
So tonight, don't miss. Ensuring as many eyeballs are possible on him tomorrow night, according to the sources close to our program, out of the 21 candidates that Trump has released prior to the election, it's down to three, and more likely, it's between two of the three men.
But here are the three finalists and what their nominations could mean to the future of the Supreme Court. Coming three at number three is William Pryor, the partisan, if you will. He is right of Alito and left of Clarence Thomas. And Pryor is the judge from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. He's the oldest of the possible choices, but he's still only 54. He still has a long career ahead of him on the bench.
However, he is by far the most outspoken of the three and the -- and definitely the least liked by the Democrats. Choosing Pryor would fit the mold of Trump about not caring about what anybody says, but the president would be in for a fight, if he was going to get him confirmed.
Chances are, he'll get him three, but he would spend an awful lot of political capital, which remains to be seen, if that even matters for this administration.
One sticking point for the evangelicals was when he, as attorney general of Alabama, had judge Roy Moore ousted for refusing to obey a federal court order and removed the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building.
Pryor said at the time, I'm just following the court's order. But this was a knock on him for the far right, and they have held on to that. As well as his recent support for transgendered rights.
He is not afraid to say what he believes, which is why the left calls him a bomb-thrower and considers him a cultural warrior. Many on the right see him as a rising conservative star, and he is a fierce critic of Roe vs. Wade. He has upheld the Georgia voter ID law and has called for sectarian prayers for opening a local commission meeting constitutional. He's probably not Scalia in waiting, but who is?
He is more in the mold of Alito, but all of this may be moot if the reports are correct, because he is, out of the three, the one who is really on the outside looking in.
Second one, the centrist, Thomas Hardiman. He is left of Roberts. Wow. Let's think about that one for a second, Stu. Left of Roberts.
STU: Yeah, I've been thinking about it.
GLENN: And right of Kennedy.
STU: And you might say to yourself, why the heck would Donald Trump appoint a centrist? Well, you know, there's a lot of reasons for it. But the one they're talking about now, as far as the way these games work is the rest of the court, they believe, will take a signal by -- as to who Trump nominates here as to how Trump is going to treat this situation. So if he goes for someone who is really right-wing and crazy, then people like Kennedy might say, "Well, I don't want to retire and let him name another crazy person to the bench."
So they're thinking -- the thought is -- and, again, this is all crazy inside-the-Beltway speculation, but the thought is, if he were to name a centrist, then Kennedy would feel more comfortable in his departure. And then if he departed, they could name a conservative to replace him.
I know that's a lot of --
GLENN: You know what that sound like? Honestly, you know what that sounds like to me? If I were sitting in the seat of the Oval Office, I would say, "Progressive BSer, get behind me."
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: That sounds like something that a progressive would say to an incoming president who is really trying to get the president to pick a centrist.
STU: Right.
GLENN: Look, I'm telling you, if you do this, this time, what will happen next time -- I mean, that just sounds like bullcrap.
STU: Right. But the question is, which progressive are you talking about? If that progressive happens to be Anthony Kennedy, then it might be a viable thing. I would not risk it.
GLENN: I wouldn't either.
STU: If you lose a Scalia and replace him with someone who as this article talks about, left of Roberts, you're in -- you're in for some trouble there. That's not a good sign. And if Kennedy doesn't step down, you have no conservative rulings potentially --
GLENN: Yeah, you have nothing. You have nothing.
STU: That's a huge problem. You think with Trump too, all his progressive sort of things with executive orders and all these big changes he wants to make, the last thing he wants to do is put the Supreme Court up to risk. There was obviously a reason that a lot of people who were very skeptical of him voted for him anyway. So, I mean, going for a centrist here is risky.
The one thing about this, which is -- we mentioned it I think yesterday is that he works with Trump's sister. Trump's sister knows him very well, and --
GLENN: I bet you this is the guy. I bet you this is the guy.
JEFFY: That's a big in. That's a big in.
GLENN: Yeah, that's a huge in.
STU: Because that was his initial reaction, right? I would name my sister. She would be a great judge.
And then obviously, over time, he kind of realized that that was just reactionary.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: But here's a kind of way you can do it. He's got to have inside information on this person from his sister.
GLENN: Yep.
STU: He's going to know -- now, assuming his sister likes him. Maybe his sister hates him. But he's lasted this long on this list. You think he's got to be fairly well liked. They sided together on a lot of major decisions. So, you know, this one is -- it's interesting. He was not really one of the ones talked about, up until the last couple of weeks.
GLENN: I bet you it's him.
STU: It could be.
JEFFY: That's a good bet.
GLENN: This is exactly the kind of guy that every Republican president always nominates.
STU: I know, but that's not supposed to be what Trump does. Right? So maybe he won't.
GLENN: I know. I know. All right.
So the name again is Thomas Hardiman. I hope this isn't the guy. More moderate than the other choices. He's left of Roberts. Right of Kennedy.
Many conservatives are wary, after Kennedy and Roberts haven't turned out the way they hoped. He is only one of the candidates or sitting members of the bench without an Ivy League pedigree. He grew up in public schools, blue-collar family. Went to Notre Dame -- or, Notre Dame. And put himself through law school at Georgetown by driving a cab.
Is he the Catholic of the group? Can you find out if he's Catholic?
STU: Sure.
GLENN: He fits the bill with pro-life stance. He's strong on the Second Amendment. But he is seen as government-friendly. He has sided with Big Brother on censorship issues. He's 51 and would have influence for decades to come. He might be the most confirmable of the three, having been confirmed 95 to zero on the appellate court, receiving votes from Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein. Stein. Stein.
Former -- he's a former trial judge who has been serving on the Third Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Happens to be the same court as President Trump's sister. He receives a glowing recommendation from her, and he is thought to have -- and she is thought to have significant influence on her brother.
This may be the nominee.
The number one pick, according to GlennBeck.com, is Neil Gorsuch. He's a Libertarian. He is -- listen to this -- right of Scalia and left of Clarence Thomas.
STU: I'm comfortable with that. If that description is accurate, I am comfortable with that.
GLENN: I am so comfortable with this. This would be the guy. Out of these three, this would be the guy.
Gorsuch is not a name that many people know outside of political junky circles. He has quickly risen to the top of the list over the past couple of weeks. He's 49 years old. So he has the best chance theoretically of having the longest lasting influence. He is pro-life. He has sided against assisted suicide, but he has yet to rule on an abortion case. But they believe because he has stated pro-life and he has gone against assisted suicide -- which I don't understand how a Libertarian does that. A Libertarian should be for -- should be pro-life, if they think it's murder. Which I do. So it should be protecting -- the rights of the unborn child. But then to protect the rights of the living, should be able to say, "What you do with your own life is your business."
STU: And I don't know that he's -- I think they're describing him as a Libertarian. I don't know that he's stated that I am a Libertarian. You know --
GLENN: Well, I doubt he's stated he's a Libertarian. You're not going to get elected.
STU: Right.
GLENN: This might help win some votes from the Democrats, while conservatives can still feel relatively comfortable on where he stands. His lack of record makes him less likely to be borked than the Pryor nomination could.
I will tell you that where we get in trouble is people saying, "Hey, he doesn't have a record on these things," and so we guess on what their record is going to be.
STU: Yeah, that is an issue. And, by the way, also, a big issue with Hardiman -- I mean, I think his record is even thinner than Gorsuch. You know, they're both on the younger side, as far as justices go. They don't necessarily have the really long record of an older judge. But, I mean, you look at the -- there's a sentence in the longer profile of Hardiman, which says he's never had any abortion rulings either. So the only one -- you can be pretty darn sure that Pryor is going to be on the right side of that one, of these three.
And I think Gorsuch, reading in context, I mean, he has ruled in cases that would -- you know, one of the big things about Gorsuch, which I liked was, this was the guy we talked about who is -- he doesn't seem to be friendly to things that aren't in the Constitution.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: The Dormant Clauses, like the Dormant Privacy Clause, which leads to abortion or the Dormant Commerce Clause. And that's why there's a large indication that he would be pro-life. But it's true. The record is not extensive on the topic.
GLENN: If you look at his record that we know -- and there are some disturbing things in there, but if you look at the record of the things that we know, he has the best chance I think of being game-changing for the Supreme Court.
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: Let me finish.
Let's see: He has sided with Hobby Lobby. He also sided with Little Sisters of the Poor, in upholding their right to follow their religious belief when it came to mandatory birth control for the nuns. And he's believed to have the Libertarian streak of Scalia and the style of Roberts. He has stated that he's an originalist, meaning he believes in the interpretation of the Constitution as written, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.
STU: It's amazing that there's another side to that argument: Have a written or how you might think it might be because of your political views -- which one do you think? How should we rule on this? Ugh.
GLENN: I know. Right.
So we don't know. You know, there's speculation that Justice Roberts was blackmailed at the last hour. That is something that I would really like to hear some -- if there are any good facts on that one. Because that ruling from Justice Roberts was just bizarre.
STU: Bizarre.
GLENN: Bizarre. And the fact that he showed up with puffy red eyes -- it was obvious that he rewrote it in the middle of the night because of the way it was written. It shows that he was actually on the other side and then just changed things. But it was rushed so quickly, he didn't change all of it. It was just bizarre.
But, anyway, he is a champion of small government conservatism like Antonin Scalia. Chances are the nominee will stand in the vast shadow of his legacy and never eclipse the works that he was able to accomplish. That being said, there will be a nominee, and it appears to be one of these three.
According to conservative circles, Hardiman is the least liked. Pryor is beloved by some, questioned by others.
And when the dust settles, Donald Trump lands on Neil Gorsuch. Conservatives could do much worse. But let's see what happens.
STU: Yeah, that's all up on GlennBeck.com, by the way. You can read that whole analysis.
GLENN: Right.
STU: And this is assuming, by the way, the purports are right. Who knows? Maybe Trump goes a totally different direction.
GLENN: Yeah. And it will be interesting because this is the one the religious community said, "This is the most important." And they put all of their eggs in this basket and had been telling him, "We want our pick." And it is not Hardiman. Let's see if it's paid off.
I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.
Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.
Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:
Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.
Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.
It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.
He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.
We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.
Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.
The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.
On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?
Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.
He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.
At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.
Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images
Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.
I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.
Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.
Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.
That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.
This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.
This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.
The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.
Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.
Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.
This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.
John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images
Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.
Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
