Dan McLaughlin

David French’s defense of Kamala Harris’s plan to replace conservative Supreme Court justices can’t conceal what it’s about.

Three of the conservative justices might side with the ATF in a case that shouldn’t be close.

Transgenderism, guns, age limits online, and more are on this year’s Supreme Court docket.

The reality of women dying from the abortion pill shows how Democrats are complicit in their deaths.

Kamala Harris and ProPublica are lying to you about why Amber Nicole Thurman died.

The latest leaks show the Court’s vulnerability to insiders using the press to wage war on it as an institution.

When the judiciary makes rules of procedure, it shouldn’t endorse partisan attacks on the courts.

Lower your expectations and be clear-eyed about what a second Trump term would mean.

Walz’s reelection in 2022 against a weak opponent showed that he lost the rural and small-town voters who used to see him as one of them.

Under Tim Walz, Minnesota went from a pro-choice state to a radically pro-abortion state at the expense of pregnant women.

From FDR to Kamala Harris, modern VP picks have changed our history a lot, and many of them were bad ideas.

The Biden-Harris Supreme Court plan attacks the most fundamental basis of the American system.

We should not write off the menace of a Kamala Harris presidency simply because she has proven herself shallow and inept as a vice president.

Sometimes, doing the right thing turns out to be the wrong move.

The failed, sprawling Georgia indictment of Trump could have been very different in competent hands.

A new book brings to life the war in the South.

The Court was right that some presidential acts can’t be criminalized. But it pushed that principle too far, and its application not far enough.

The Court was right to be skeptical of the parties trying to shift their litigating positions on the fly but could have given clarity to federal law.

The Court struck another blow for the right to a jury and exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the liberal dissenters.

By allowing the executive branch to use diffuse pressure to regulate speech in ways that Congress could not by law, the Court expands the imperial power of the president to stifle dissent.

The Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States sends an unambiguous message against watering down the rights of the accused.

The Court’s decision in U.S. v. Rahimi empowers the government to limit the gun rights of violent people, but dodges questions about due process of law.

The Supreme Court turned back an effort to define when income is realized for tax purposes, but left the big questions for another day.

The text of the statute used in January 6 cases supports the government’s arguments.

The justice’s dissent was a train wreck of bad reasoning.

Secretly recorded conversations with Justice Alito and his wife tell us mostly that the justice worries about polarization and his wife handles the flags.

Instead of returning to the Constitution to end litigation over redistricting, the Supreme Court applied more rigor to such lawsuits.

A hit job on Justice Alito’s wife not only misses the mark, it misrepresents the justice’s record.

Did a spending program for the elderly reassign state standards of medical care and abortion law to the ‘medical community’?

In a new nationwide rule, Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission has discarded its legal restraints.