The news media turned to Heritage experts to give sober, conservative analysis of last weekend’s terrorist attacks in New York.

Peter Brookes discussed the attacks with HLN’s Nancy Grace.

While Heritage’s James Carafano talked to the BBC:

Why do you believe terror attacks like these are increasing in the United States?

Heritage’s Cully Stimson went on Fox News to explain what led to hundreds of immigrants — who had been ordered deported — being given citizenship by mistake:

Do you agree with Stimson when he says that “the desire to grant citizenship trumped the core competency to make the data available in a timely way”?

Writing in The Daily Signal, Heritage’s David Inserra reminds us that terrorism remains a threat:

A series of bombings in New Jersey and New York City, along with a mass stabbing at a mall outside Minneapolis, have many Americans rightly concerned today.

…these incidents remind us that constant vigilance is necessary. We cannot become complacent as the threat of terrorism rises around the world. Instead, we must continue to ensure that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement organizations at federal, state, and local levels have thetools and information they need to stop terrorism before it strikes.

Heritage has published recommendations on how to prevent future domestic terrorist attacks.

What should our nation’s response be to these attacks?

Recently, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made clear what conservatives have long known: The Left is engaged in a highly orchestrated campaign to pack the court system with radically liberal judges to implement changes they can’t get elected members of Congress to pass.

Here’s what Schumer told a policy conference hosted by Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network:

My number one goal, should I become majority leader with your help, is to get a progressive Supreme Court. A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader, I will make it happen.

Conservatives can stop this, either in the majority or by mounting a filibuster against liberal nominees. Liberals have a plan for that too: eliminate the filibuster.

Even though Republicans currently hold the Senate majority, that has not stopped liberals from gaining control of 70% of US appeals courts. This marks a significant shift, since liberals only controlled one of 13 circuit courts when Obama took office. 

And soon, the Senate may approve even more liberal judges, even though the practice has been to stop nominee approvals in the final months of a presidency. And liberals are even hoping to approve Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in a lame duck session of Congress after the election.

Why are liberals doing this? Because as Congress has abdicated its proper role of limiting the powers of the presidency, and as lawmakers now wait on the Supreme Court to decide controversial issues, the court system has become more powerful at creating new laws and curtailing constitutional rights. In fact, liberals are openly dreaming of a court that ends your second amendment rights, curtails religious freedom, and enacts new liberal policies on abortion, immigration, and labor unions.

Conservatives should defend the filibuster to block bad judges

Conservatives have warned for years about the dangers of removing the filibuster as an important check on the growth of government and the loss of freedom. Heritage President Jim DeMint explains four reasons to protect the filibuster

  1. Eliminating the filibuster this way won’t actually bring order to the Senate.
  2. Eliminating the filibuster will create a class of “super senators”—and second-class senators.  
  3. Nobody is in the majority forever.
  4. Getting rid of the filibuster enables favor-trading and backroom deals

The stakes are high in the filibuster fight. Heritage scholars John Malcolm and Tiffany Bates recently warned that the future of the courts may be up to the next president and the next Senate to decide:

On the day our next president takes the oath of office, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 83, Anthony Kennedy (long considered the pivotal swing vote on the court) will be 80, and Stephen Breyer will be 78 years. All three have already exceeded the average life expectancy for men and women in this country. Other courts are at stake, as well.

Heritage also just released a new pamphlet you can download, SUPREME CONSEQUENCES: How A President’s Bad Judicial Appointments Threaten Your Liberty”. It includes information on how the left has used the court system to ram through an unpopular agenda they couldn’t get Congress to pass and how conservatives can approach these issues.

What do you think the conservative response to this attack on the courts should be?

Watch Heritage’s Peter Brooks on FBN discussing the security implications of North Korea’s fifth nuclear test:

Heritage’s Bruce Klinger explains why the government should pressure China to rein in North Korea.

I also encourage you to watch Heritage’s documentary on missile defense, 33 Minutes. It’s a compelling explanation of the dangers we face from missiles fired by rogue states like North Korea.

How should the United States respond to this latest nuclear test by North Korea?

« Older Entries