The FRONTLINE Interviews
Josh Holmes
Second Interview with the Former Chief of Staff for Mitch McConnell
Josh Holmes is a Republican consultant and a former chief of staff and campaign manager for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
This interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Jim Gilmore on October 27, 2020. It has been edited for clarity and length. You can see an earlier interview with Josh Holmes here.
This interview appears in:
TOP
Josh Holmes
Chapters
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
The Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Let's start with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Her death, of course—this was a significant seat on the court.What's the significance of her death?What did it unleash in Washington before an election coming up with so much at stake?Lay it out and what the significance of her death was.
Well, look, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health had been the topic of a discussion for years, and there had been a lot of speculation going back into the spring and into the early summer about basically where she was in her continuing fight against cancer, and knowing that there was a possibility that you could have a vacancy here in an election year.And so this was a discussion that had been happening across the ideological spectrum, right?I mean, this is the worst nightmare if you're a liberal; and this is, you know, potentially an opportunity at a Supreme Court seat and a shifting of the court that you don't get for conservatives once but a generation.
And certainly Senator [Mitch] McConnell was keenly interested in this, and soon, on the day of her death, he came out and basically confirmed that the Senate would move forward with a nominee that the president, sort of, would define, and that they would get this done before the election.Talk a little bit about the importance of this decision.This is a lifelong mission for McConnell.What's he thinking?Why does he act and act so quickly?
Well, Senator McConnell puts the importance of the judiciary, everything from federal court judges, District Court judges, appellate court judges and then ultimately the Supreme Court, as amongst the highest priorities that the Senate has.And so his members frequently are briefed by him on the importance of doing their job, with regards to confirming judges.And so this is a conversation that he has been having with his members, at this point, for a year or more.There was an awful lot of speculation in the press about what Republicans would do if presented with the opportunity to fill this particular seat, and McConnell made it very clear to his colleagues, going back all the way to January of 2020, if not before, that if there is a vacancy, whomever that vacancy is presented by, we will fill it.And this is a conversation that his members not only had in, like, lunches, in briefings, but also one-on-one.And that had happened all the way through the summer, without regards to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her health or anything else.It was reminding the conference that if they were given the opportunity to fill a Supreme Court justice in 2020, they were going to take advantage of it.And he had member calls with individual senators throughout August, into September, without any premonition of the opportunity actually coming forward.But ultimately having the options prevailed, so his conference could take advantage of it, if it were to come.
So what's the argument that he makes to the public immediately on this, certainly what becomes a contentious issue, especially because of [Merrick] Garland previously?What's his argument?How does he make it, and what are his motivations?
The argument about how important the court is to American society had long since been made and bought, largely by the Republican Conference.They believed everything McConnell had been saying for years about how important this court is to preserving the rule of law in America, so that part needed no education.The question was more of a process argument.There had been a—he knew that there was going to be a chaos unleashed in the news media about the appropriateness of filling this seat, and the argument to his members is basically: "Look, did you come here to make a difference, or did you come here just to put on a show?And if you're coming here to make a difference, this is the biggest difference you may ever make in your entire career, and it doesn't really matter how long you stay," right?He's been there for a long time, since 1985.He's watched the entire course play out of the judicial wars.This is the moment where conservatives can cement a conservative majority for generations.
Why did he move so quickly?Why the need to do it before the election?
Well, you have—as a leader, you have to fill the void.So immediately the questions begin, right?Within moments of the news of the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, every news outlet in America is wondering what happens next.At that point, there is a void entirely by the administration, by Senate Republicans, by Democrats.You know the battle is happening.Someone needs to go set the battle plan.And one of the lessons that Senator McConnell learned from the fight with—after the passing of Justice [Antonin] Scalia, was that by getting out in front right away and laying down exactly what the road map was going to be, he helped focus not only his members but the administration on how they were going to fill this vacancy.There wasn't any speculation; there wasn't any doubt.It didn't give members time to, sort of, pontificate about the appropriateness of going forward or not going forward.They had a game plan, and they were ready to execute it.… Can I say—I've got one little piece of color that I think would be good.
Yeah, sure.
So if you recall, right after—when the news broke that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away, the president was on stage at a rally in Minnesota.And McConnell was trying to get a hold of him, and he couldn't, because he was on stage.He turned on the TV and found, there was the president on stage.And it was a surreal moment where something country-changing was happening, and you have the president of the United States standing on stage unaware, basically, of this development.Knowing the pivotal role that the president and Senator McConnell were going to play, and the story was already beginning to be told, getting a hold of each other was a pretty important thing to do.
So sometime after the president walked out of the rally, and I think was surprised by the cameras and the news that Justice Ginsburg had passed away, they got—they talked, and McConnell told him two things.He said: "First, I'm going to put out a statement that says we're going to fill the vacancy.I have to do it.It's very important for our conference.We've got to begin moving forward."The president agreed with that, indicated himself he wouldn't make any comments as to process at this point, was just going to basically talk about his condolences to the Ginsburg family.
Second, he said, "You've got to nominate Amy Coney Barrett."And the reason for that, from McConnell's perspective, is that he had watched Amy Coney Barrett navigate very contentious appellate court hearings, where Democrats had come unglued at attacking her, in many respects—coming very close to attacking her faith.Watching her handle that situation and continue to dispense with very sound legal reasoning in the face of what appeared to be pretty unfair lines of questioning gave him the confidence in knowing, not only is this woman terrific in terms of her legal acumen, but she has got what it takes to stand in that fire, which is inevitably going to be hotter than anything any nominee has ever faced, and deliver.And sure enough, she did.
Was the conversation with McConnell immediately after he got off the stage?Before that snippet, there's a small 30 seconds—
I think it was after that snippet. I think it was when he got on the plane.… And McConnell followed up several more times, saying, "If you're going to do something other than Amy Coney Barrett, call me back, because I want to make my case for Amy Coney Barrett as many times as I possibly can."And the president assured him that he's going to look at other names, but if for some reason he feels like he's going in a different direction, he would call Mitch McConnell back and let him make one last pitch.He never needed to make one last pitch.The president met with Amy Coney Barrett, was wildly impressed, and within a week we had a new nominee.
The memorials around Ginsburg's death, of course, were historic in a lot of ways, in the way they were viewed, and certainly by Democrats.Mitch McConnell didn't show up to any of them.Do you have any insight into that?Was that politics?Was that just because of the nature of the fight that was going on?What was going on there?
Well, you know, he didn't go to the Rose Garden ceremony announcing Amy Coney Barrett either.And I think it has everything to do with COVID. I mean, frankly, he and a lot of his members understood that if they weren't 100% healthy at the end of October, there was going to be no Supreme Court to fill.You had a zero-vote margin.I think one of the most underappreciated facts of the six weeks from the nomination to the confirmation was that they were working with zero margin for error.You knew that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski had dealt themself out on the process argument at the beginning.So at 51 votes, you really couldn't lose but one vote and actually get a Supreme Court justice.Now, that is a tall order when you're dealing with a national epidemic, a pandemic, a global pandemic.In fact, it became much more complicated by the fact that three of his members contracted COVID in that interim period.Fortunately for Republicans, they quickly recovered from their illness and were able to participate in the hearings.
But that just goes to show, when you have a conference, some of which the members are in a very dangerous age for COVID-19, it is high-stakes poker to try to make sure that you keep everybody as healthy as possible and in attendance for that ultimate vote.So you saw Senator McConnell and many of the members of the Republican Conference avoid large gatherings.They didn't go to the Amy Coney Barrett Rose Garden unveil.They didn't go to all of the RBG ceremonies.Wasn't out of a lack of respect; what it was was an understanding that they're going to have to be as careful as they could possibly be in order to get the job done.
Talk a little bit about the nomination event at the White House.Who was there?How important that was; what was the goal of it?… Of course we know it was a problem because of spreading some illness afterwards, but what's your overview of that event?
I think the goal of the event was to try to make this as normal-looking a process as possible, right, something that had been done time and time again by presidents throughout history, the unveiling of their nominee.Republicans also had an advantage here, in many ways, in that their nominee was an incredibly compelling figure.This was an incredibly well-educated, very articulate, incredibly accomplished woman, serving on the courts, had been previously confirmed and had this beautiful family that, for the first time, America was going to see.And the significance of the optics of that were incredibly important to Republicans; because, remember, they had basically made Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh a caricature by the end of that nomination hearing.There was—it was obvious to everybody the first time you see Amy Coney Barrett and her family, you're not going to caricature this crew.This was an incredibly compelling family with really strong stories to tell.And that was the unveiling.
Justice Barrett’s Confirmation Hearing
… Let's talk about the hearings a little bit.The beginning of the hearings is unusual.Senator [Lindsey] Graham's speech, for instance, or his opening comments, where he basically said: "Listen, we understand that the Republicans are all going to vote for this nominee.The Democrats are all going to vote against.The purpose we are here for is to confirm this nominee."It seems an unusual—very different than past hearings, where advice and consent, which was the reason for the Senate's obligation for these hearing[s] exists. …
So normally speaking, when a president nominates somebody for the Supreme Court, you get a bunch of statements from senators, something like, "We look forward to reviewing the credentials of the nominee to ensure that they are capable of filling a seat on the Supreme Court."In Justice Kavanaugh's case, that changed, where you had at least half of the Democrats on day one announce their opposition.When Amy Coney Barrett was nominated, half of that went to all but a handful.The statements that you had out of Senate Democrats, at that point, were almost universal opposition to her nomination.Now, it was mostly on a process argument; it wasn't on a substantive argument.But it was opposition nevertheless.And Senator Graham has a very colloquial, very folksy way of cutting to the absolute bottom line in hearings like this.Did it very well during the Kavanaugh hearings.And he just opened with it, with Amy Coney Barrett, basically saying: "Look, I know that you're going to oppose this nominee.You may try to invent a reason to do it, but opposition is coming.My job is to try to confirm this nominee, and I've got the votes to do it, if I do my job right."And he just laid it out in the very beginning.And the hearing was entirely dictated with that framework in mind.They weren't trying to persuade the unpersuadable.They were trying to basically hand the microphone to Amy Coney Barrett and say, "It's your show; are you able to do it?"And they were incredibly impressed, within a matter of moments, at how she was able to dictate the cadence of that line of questioning from Democrats throughout the course of the hearing.
The Kavanaugh Hearings
You talked about Kavanaugh, so let's talk about Kavanaugh for a second.The Kavanaugh hearings: Some people say it was a point of no return, in some ways, when it comes to the politics of what was going on.What had changed for both Democrats and Republicans? …
Well, this is part of an escalation that really started in 1986 and was set on fire in 2003, when Democrats begin to filibuster circuit court nominees.That escalated then to a filibuster of now-Justice [Samuel] Alito, who was ultimately confirmed.President Obama had a relatively easy time confirming [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan, and the hope was that we would return to a more bipartisan process.Well, the first nominee out of the gate with Justice [Neil] Gorsuch was also filibustered, which ultimately led to the changing of the rules to a simple majority vote to confirm Justice Gorsuch.
So now you get to Kavanaugh.And the funny thing about the Kavanaugh hearings were the actual hearings themselves were pretty straightforward; they seemed like a pretty bipartisan line of questioning.You could, at the end of the day, see Democrats supporting Justice Kavanaugh based on the first three days of that hearing.Then, of course, comes the allegations of sexual assault and the like.And I think what, from a Republican point of view, what we were seeing was Democrats willing to go to the unthinkable ends to try to prevent a justice from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.Justice Kavanaugh was very well known in Washington, D.C., circles to both Republicans and Democrats.He was respected as a jurist, but he was really respected as a man.This is a guy who spent a lot of time in the community and spent a lot of time on kids' softball teams and basketball teams, and both Republicans and Democrats knew him pretty well.The idea that this man was somebody that you would accuse in public of serial gang rape, of all things, was an echelon of escalation that was previously unthinkable in American politics.And Republicans, I think typified perfectly by Lindsey Graham's speech in that committee hearing, were outraged.They were outraged.Simultaneously wanted to get the facts of what the allegations pertained to with Justice Kavanaugh, but they were outraged by the Michael Avenatti pile-ons, the tabloid-like allegations, the going through of his yearbook and trying to pull out what different words could potentially mean as him, you know, being some sort of a serial sex offender.It was nonsense.And Republicans, it irritated them to no end.And you saw a huge base movement amongst conservatives to try to fight back at that point.
How has it changed the future?Was this a point of no return in a lot of ways?
Well, I think it certainly was a point of demarcation, right?It is a line of demarcation, where nothing will ever be exactly the same.What we saw with Amy Coney Barrett in the hearings themselves—I'm not talking about the ultimate confirmation vote that was along partisan lines, but the hearings themselves—actually reverted back to a more respectful affair.They certainly had their moments, but for the most part, the lines of questioning were fair, the answers were substantive, and we were measuring the qualifications of this judge to be elevated to the Supreme Court.That, in and of itself, is what those hearings have always been intended to do.
Now, the outcome is different, in that it was preordained, and Democratic opposition to this nomination was going to happen regardless of whether that hearing went on for 10 seconds or 10 days.
The Politicization of the Court
At the end of them, Senator [Sheldon] Whitehouse made a pretty emotional statement, where he basically said Republicans will "rue the day," that this has defined the fact that decisions are now made, quote/unquote, "because we can."If you've got the power, if you've got the numbers, then this is a political decision.It was a fascinating statement.I'd like to get your opinion on it, but also the irony, to some extent, that it—in some ways, it's similar to a statement by McConnell back after Bork … where he basically said to the Democrats, "The decisions you have made here, the way you've done this, you will rue the day, because we will come back, and when we have the power, we will use it."Talk a little bit about that irony of those two statements, and begin it with what Whitehouse had to say.
Sure.Senate Democrats have been haunted by two statements that Senator McConnell has made, one in 1986, the other one in 2013. The first statement about Bork and essentially what they were doing to him, and if Republicans got their hands on power, they'd be surprised at how that shoe fits.The second was a very specific reference at the end of the debate, when Harry Reid was changing the filibuster rules on the judiciary.McConnell said, "You are going to regret this, and you're probably going to regret it sooner than you think."That was over three appellate court judges to the D.C. Circuit.Since that day, Republicans have put 300 judges on the federal judiciary.If ever there was a moment where they regretted a decision, that was it.And so what you see Senator Whitehouse, Senator [Charles] Schumer and others picking up on is trying to get out from underneath this haunting that they have experienced for years, as a repercussion of the decisions that they made to escalate judicial wars to unprecedented lengths, starting with Bork and going through the 2000s with Miguel Estrada and a host of appellate court nominees, Justice Alito, ultimately Justice Gorsuch, and then Justice Kavanaugh.We're now seeing that play out.
And what they're trying to do is suggest court packing.What Senator Whitehouse is not saying here is, "You're going to give us the license to court pack."Now, what—the reason that's not a more persuasive argument for Republicans is that Senator Schumer had been talking about court packing back in April, and there was a ton of Senate Democratic candidates all across the country that were campaigning in part on the idea that they were going to remake the federal judiciary simply by passing laws to open it up, expanding the number of justices, expanding the number of appellate court seats.They were already talking about this well before the vacancy of RBG. And so that threat ran completely hollow.Oh, of course, yeah, you told us you were going to do that already.So most Republican senators had absolutely no reaction to the threat because it's been a threat all along.
… Take us to that moment on Sunday, which was unbelievable to watch, where he basically says … that legislation could go away tomorrow.He almost, in some ways—some people viewed it as an admission that he thought that there was a good chance that the Senate and the White House might go to the Democrats in the coming election.Talk about the power of that moment, and when you were watching it, what did you see about Senator McConnell, a man that you know very well?What did you see about that statement, the truth behind it, and the situation in general?
Well, I saw a man who was putting an exclamation point on his legacy.This has been a focus of his for decades.He has been working towards this moment his entire professional career, and it was all coming to fruition.All of the judicial wars that started with Robert Bork and Justice [Clarence] Thomas and Miguel Estrada, and all through the 2000s, up and down and all around, filibusters ending, ultimately the Kavanaugh situation, now was the moment that he finally got what he came for.And you could see the argument that he made was basically the argument that he's been making for 30 years, and this is the most important thing that we could possibly do here.And his members, if you noticed, in the Senate chamber—when you see it on C-SPAN, you only get the picture of him, and he's—but he spent the majority of his speech turned around.He wasn't facing forward, as is customary in the Senate, speaking directly to the Senate president, the clock overhead and the C-SPAN camera squared up.He spent the majority of this turned completely around, looking at his members in the eyes, talking about the precipice of this accomplishment that they were standing on and how significant it would be for—and the reasons why they came there in the first place.
The Court and a Biden Administration
… If Biden wins, what does he face now, as far as the Supreme Court, the court fights that will probably come up, that we know that will come up, the progressives pushing him to court pack and pack the court?Talk a little bit about if Biden is actually the president when we air, what will he be facing as he walks in the door?
So there's a small minority of the Democratic progressive base that is absolutely insistent on the idea of court packing.That is the nuclear of all nuclear explosions, when it comes to the judicial wars. It is of a magnitude that is 1,000 times everything that's happened up to this point.Everything has been process-oriented, basically about how the Senate conducts itself, who's in the majority, long precedents of Joe Biden himself saying that he wouldn't fill the nominees of a Republican president in the last year.Plenty of precedent for everything that's happened up to this point.
Court packing is in an entirely different level.I think, if we get to a point in a Biden administration where that is taken off the table, where we're pretty much moved beyond the idea that we are going to put additional justices on the court, I think you could see a—albeit extremely animated—debate over justices and judges, something that returns closer to normal.I don't think we'll ever get back to where we were pre-Bork, for example, but you could see some iterations of the Bush years and the Obama years, which is certainly a huge step forward from where we've been with the considerations of nominees for the last four years.
If the Senate also goes to the Democrats, and they put forward new legislat[ion] and pushing more progressively, what do they face with this new Supreme Court?
You mean in terms of oversight, legislative oversight?
The power that the court has and how they've increased it.What are the battles coming over the horizon that one can foresee with this new Supreme Court, even if Biden wins, even if Democrats have the Senate?
I mean, the funny thing about conservative justice, which is very different than a liberal interpretation of the judiciary, is you really don't know what you're going to get.You're ultimately going to get justices who follow what they think is the explicit written text of the law and its application to the Constitution.Sometimes that works for you; sometimes it doesn't.The Trump administration itself has had an incredible amount of trouble with the Supreme Court and higher appellate courts, many of whom have a huge number of Trump appointees ultimately ruling against them in things like immigration cases, as we've seen throughout the years.So I don't know, if you're Joe Biden and you walk into a new agenda, that you can anticipate problems with the courts.You can certainly anticipate problems with the courts when you start having unconstitutional provisions, or at least taking liberties with what our constitutional principles that you know are going to get you in trouble with justices who are textualists and originalists, as the last three on the court have been and have talked widely about.
So do they try to test that?I don't know.I mean, there is a school of thought that, if you are trying to figure out how to pack the court, that you basically begin a course of passing legislation that you know is very challengeable from a constitutional standpoint, in the hopes that it is reversed.And, therefore, that gives you your opportunity to do it.I think that's a huge mistake, and I think one of the reasons it's a huge mistake is, it's very difficult to explain why it is that what will ultimately be incredibly partisan pieces of legislation are good enough to destroy a third branch of government over.That has always been where parties overreach; Republicans and Democrats have always gotten to this point where they talk about institutional degrading, and as soon as you get in that, you see these weird wave elections in midterms.Both Republicans and Democrats have had it happen to them, where the public just simply thinks they overreach.And I think if they go down that path, that is a very real outcome.
Justice Barrett’s Swearing-In Ceremony
… Last night, the swearing-in ceremony, take us to what was occurring there.Who was there?The idea that Justice Thomas was the one that did the swearing-in, the ceremony of it and the walking out with the president—tell us a little bit about what you saw and what's the significance of it.
The swearing-in was noteworthy in one significant respect.It was one week from Election Day.One week.This was new territory.You're dealing with politics that are at their absolute peak in terms of intensity, in terms of electorate awareness, in terms of consuming of information and news.This was a historic event that was happening literally in the shadow of an election, and that, in that respect, it doesn't get any bigger than that.
Did it show that the court is now wholly in the grasps of politics?
No.Look, I have no doubt that Democrats will look at that and say, "This is a political statement," because, again, it's seven days removed from an election.Democrats are going to interpret that as a political move.But what we found out time and time again is, conservative jurisprudence isn't political; by nature it isn't political.You saw just last year a whole bunch of rulings come out of the Supreme Court on a 5-4 basis, with conservatives ruling with liberals because of the application of the law.Conservative jurisprudence, if you are an originalist and you are a constitutionalist and you are a textualist, it doesn't matter what your politics are.If you come before that court, you'd better have your ducks in line and your legal arguments, because that's the only thing that matters.
And so I think a good warning to conservatives who are looking at a now 6-3 majority on a Supreme Court is, man, you're not going to get every outcome that you want, right?This is not a Justice Kagan: "We know how you're going to rule before the arguments are made."These are justices whose only commitment is to the rule of law, the textualist nature of the law, and the Constitution and its application within.So you—there's no guarantees in this, you know?And it frustrates conservatives to no end that they don't have just this very predictable majority one way or another.But that's conservative jurisprudence; that's the way it works.
But the vote for Barrett was totally on party lines.First time in 151 years, I guess.What's the significance of that?
Well, it's unfortunate, but it's not—look, when you're having a confirmation vote one week before Election Day, it's very predictable that it's going to be partisan.It's very predictable that any vote one week before Election Day is going to be partisan.I thought Democratic senators took great pains to talk about the process, to talk about their objections to even holding the vote at all, and not about Amy Coney Barrett.There was precious few who made their opposition contingent upon her legal philosophy or her ability to do the job of a Supreme Court justice.Basically everybody conceded that, which in and of itself I think was a real statement for the hearings that Chairman Graham conducted and that Amy Coney Barrett dominated, really.But ultimately, that vote was preordained.Like we said, the Democratic opposition was complete before the nomination was made.There was going to be unanimous opposition.The question the whole time was whether Republicans were going to be able to get 51 to carry it through.And they did.
The significance of Justice Thomas being the one who swore her in.Of course, the history with Thomas goes back.He was pretty irritated at the Democrats and at Joe Biden and everyone else about the way his hearings were dealt with.What's the significance of him being the one that actually swore her in?
It is significant that a justice who was at the forefront of the judicial wars, somebody who conservatives feel like suffered great indignities in their confirmation process, was the one to ultimately administer the oath on a 6-3 majority.This was basically a capstone of the judicial wars that, in many ways, began with what Justice Thomas suffered through in those hearings that were chaired by Joe Biden.
… How important was the [RBG] seat?… How important is it, and what kind of things could it have an impact on?
As far as McConnell's concerned, any seat that counts itself as a part of a liberal bloc that vacates and gives an opportunity for him to fill with a conservative is an equally important seat.I think the RBG seat was different because of its symbolic importance to liberals.So I think, you know, the elevation of RBG and how she had sort of become a cult hero amongst liberals across the country had a much more significant impact on Democrats than it did on Republicans.For Republicans, it didn't matter if it was the RBG seat or any of the other three seats that liberals had.It's the balance of the court that makes the biggest difference.
Now, he had a lot of respect for Justice Ginsburg—I mean, a lot of respect.He'd spoken to Justice Scalia about his friendship with her.I think he felt like, although he disagreed with absolutely everything that she ruled upon, that she did it with total integrity, she did it with total conviction, and she acquitted herself incredibly well in terms of the role of the courts.So from that standpoint, look, it was a very, very big seat to fill, no matter what.But I think it was elevated largely because of its symbolic nature to Democrats more so than what it meant to Republicans.
And as far as the balance, how important was it?
Hugely important.I mean, hugely important.You've seen in recent years Justice Roberts begin to migrate center-left on some key decisions.And so what on paper has looked like a 5-4 conservative majority in many respects has been a total toss-up, depending upon the issue.By moving to a 6-3 majority, you've moved beyond where Justice Roberts currently is ideologically and come at it with a much stronger base of conservative justices at the beginning of these important rulings.
My last question: If you could help us at the very end, we'll have watched the Bork moment and Leader McConnell through these various court battles.And when you look back over, after this final confirmation, what has he accomplished?What does it reveal about him, about what has happened since that first time, when he gives that speech after Robert Bork?
Yeah, look, if you look at Mitch McConnell's shaping of the federal judiciary, of confirmations, of nominations, of the entire fight from the mid-80s to today, it's hard to say that the ultimate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett was anything less than a Mount Rushmore moment for conservatives, for Mitch McConnell.His legacy is going to be revered for generations by conservative legal scholars.Impossible to overstate the significance of his leadership on this issue, because again, it's not that inherently judges are more important to conservatives than they are to liberals.They're more important to conservatives than liberals because Mitch McConnell made it that way.And the fact that this has become so significant and such a huge win for conservatives across the nation, I think, is in large part because of what Mitch McConnell has accomplished over the last 30 years.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
