The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Filling the Swamp
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When Donald Trump started running for the Republican nomination for president in June 2015, he began by attacking the Republican establishment in Washington, and he began his attack by calling the establishment “the swamp.”

His real target was the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington. These entities hover around power centers no matter which party is in power.

Beneath the swamp, Trump argued, lies the deep state. This is a loose collection of career government officials who operate outside ordinary legal and constitutional frameworks and use the levers of government power to favor their own, affect public policy and stay in power. Though I did not vote for Trump — I voted for the Libertarian candidate — a part of me rejoiced at his election because I accepted his often repeated words that he would be a stumbling block to the deep state and he’d drain the swamp.

On Monday night, he rewarded the swamp denizens and deep state outliers by nominating one of their own to the Supreme Court.

Here is the back story.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia — my friend during the final 10 years of his life — and his neighbor and colleague Justice Anthony Kennedy often remarked to each other during the Obama years that each would like to leave the Supreme Court upon the election of a Republican president. Scalia’s untimely death in February 2016 denied him that choice, but Kennedy bided his time.

When Trump was elected president, Kennedy told friends that he needed to await Trump’s nominee to replace Scalia to gauge whether the judicially untested Trump could be counted upon to choose a nominee of Kennedy’s liking and Scalia’s standing.

Trump knew Kennedy’s thinking, and that guided him in choosing Neil Gorsuch for Scalia’s seat. Gorsuch believes in the primacy of the individual and natural rights and is generally skeptical of government regulators. He is also a former Kennedy clerk.

So the Gorsuch selection was intended to serve two purposes. The first was to pick a Scalia-like thinker for the court as candidate Trump had promised, and the second was to give Kennedy a comfort level so he could retire and give President Trump a second nominee. It worked.

When Kennedy paid an unprecedented visit to the Oval Office two weeks ago, ostensibly to tell the president of his intention to retire, he also had a secret purpose — to recommend his replacement. The announcement of Kennedy’s departure began a firestorm of lobbying in behalf of four people from a list of 25 potential nominees that Trump had published when searching for Scalia’s replacement.


The idea of a published list is novel. But it cemented loyalty from conservatives to Trump, who, of course, had no track record in evaluating or appointing judicial nominees. The standards used to put names on the list involved examining academic credentials and published works and, with the exception of one person, requiring judicial experience with a traditionalist bent, even if brief.

Social and religious conservatives pushed the president to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a fiercely Catholic mother of seven and former Notre Dame Law School professor who is a known opponent of abortion. Intellectual conservatives pushed for Judge Raymond Kethledge, a philosopher like Justice Gorsuch who believes in the primacy of the individual and who recognizes natural rights. The president’s sister Judge Maryanne Trump Barry had her brother convinced that her colleague Judge Thomas Hardiman, a blue-collar diamond-in-the-rough conservative, would fulfill his promise to his base.

But at the last minute, a gaggle of Washington lawyers and lobbyists — called the establishment when you agree with them and the swamp when you don’t — persuaded the president to reject his commitment to his sister and nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is the man Justice Kennedy had asked the president to nominate and is another former Kennedy clerk.

The suspense over all this was palpable earlier this week. The showman in the president beat a drum so effectively last weekend that we all watched with excited pulse rates on Monday night. I was and remain extremely disappointed. Donald Trump — whatever you think of him as a president — has been utterly faithful to his campaign promises in foreign and domestic policy. Until now.

Now he has given us a nominee to the highest court in the land who typifies the culture he railed against when he claimed he’d drain the swamp. This man and this culture accept cutting holes in the Fourth Amendment because they don’t believe that it should protect privacy. This man and this culture accept unlimited spying on innocent Americans by the National Security Agency because they don’t believe that the NSA is subject to the Constitution.

This man and this culture even looked the other way in the face of deep state shenanigans against President Trump himself. This man and this culture accept the federal regulation of health care and its command that everyone buy health insurance, called Obamacare. This man and this culture embrace the Nixonian mantra that if the president does it, it is not illegal.

What happened here?

The Kavanaugh nomination is not a question of his qualifications; it is a question of his values. It is dangerous for judges to embrace values that diminish personal freedom rather than expand it. When they do that, they reveal their view that freedom comes from the government, not from within us. Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers profoundly rejected the government-as-source-of-freedom argument, but Judge Kavanaugh accepts it.

Jefferson once remarked that unless you pick someone’s pocket or break someone’s leg, no one should care how you exercise your freedom or pursue happiness. I wish the president had nominated a person who believes that, as well. But he didn’t.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Supreme Court 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    If one hasn’t carefully read Mr. Napolitano’s Establishmentarian columns published here since last November, this one sounds pretty good.

    “His real target was the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington. These entities hover around power centers no matter which party is in power.”

    “This man and this culture even looked the other way in the face of deep state shenanigans against President Trump himself.”

    But this comes from a columnist who’s been licking his St. Mueller like a lollipop.

  2. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    I doubt that Mr. Napolitano could keep from yawning as he recycled this Beltway Bilge. Ever notice that each and every nomination is so purportedly pivotal? I posted this under one of Mr. Sailer’s, and Mr. Buchanan’s, but it is just as pertinent here:

    I think it makes little difference. Look back at how disappointingly Establishmentarian so many “conservative” nominees proved to be.

    The 5-4 votes, “blistering dissents” of Justice Scalia, and all of the political machinations and chatter around each nomination are part of the puppet show to distract from the arrogation of power via national governance. Why did women’s suffrage require a formal amendment ratified by a supermajority of the states, but the imposition of same sex marriage on the states spring forth from the written opinion of five people that those affected never even voted for? Because we’ve become all the more ruled from Washington in the meantime.

    When has “SCOTUS” said or done anything since 1945 to address Big War, which has operated without declaration under the Constitution?

    But if you still like to think that the Court is there to check and balance the Congress and the Executive with the Constitution, have at it.

  3. Bartolo says:

    Kavanaugh is solid on immigration, the others were not (at all).
    Nothing else matters.

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  4. I can see why a Libertarian wouldn’t like this pick. The problem is the court is way to political and therefore way to powerful. It should be replaced by a jury.

    In the meantime I don’t care who Trump chooses as long as it is Trump choosing. This because I have a theory that every time Trump chooses a white male Supreme Court Justice the SJWs loose a year of life expectancy.

  5. Bubba says:

    Donald Trump — whatever you think of him as a president — has been utterly faithful to his campaign promises in foreign and domestic policy.

    What!?! President Trump got elected for promising to build a wall along the Mexican border and having Mexico pay for it. This was by far the most popular line at every rally he had in 2016. However, President Trump has done nothing on the wall and he’s done little on immigration to stop the flow of millions pouring over the Mexican border into America.

  6. @Bartolo

    Indeed, Hardiman braggged about volunteering at an immigration legal aid clinic in Washington, D.C. in his 2003 confirmation, so Cuckservatives and open-border LoLbertarians were salivating over him. Somehow these two groups of alleged Constitution-fetishists forgot the Constitution’s preamble applying to “to ourselves and our Posterity,” which means to the signers “one united people, descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” (John Jay, Federalist Papers No. 2)

    And since Napolitano just had to name-drop Jefferson, we need address Jefferson’s view on blacks that runs counter to Napolitano’s, as follows:

    “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography)

  7. Echoes of History: Oh, dear me, not the end of white patriarchy. Tant pis, poor baby.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS