One Senate Republican has crafted a blueprint for how conservatives can take on Democrats in the courts and win.
Before he was in Washington, D.C., Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. served as Missouri’s attorney general during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. And during that time, he filed lawsuit after lawsuit challenging the Biden administration, Dr. Anthony Fauci and even going so far as to sue China.
And more often than not, be it through uncovering discrepancies during the discovery process or winning multibillion-dollar settlements, Schmitt was mostly successful in challenging Democratic ‘lawfare.’
‘The fact of the matter is, what our fights were, were about restoring individual liberty and pulling back the expanse of government,’ Schmitt told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘What the Left is trying to do now with their lawfare machine was, number one, they’re trying to put their opponents in jail, but then also to defend the expanse of government, to defend the administrative state. And I think if we have the right arguments, we can win.’
Schmitt detailed how to secure those winning arguments through his own experiences in his latest book ‘The Last Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left in Court.’
He described the book as ‘a field manual from the front lines of the battles that were fought against the left-wing law machine.’ Indeed, Schmitt outlined a guide for attorneys general across the country to take on challenges at all levels, from local to federal.
‘Our playbook really is… really in response to what their playbook was, to create a manufactured emergency, a real or manufactured emergency, to aggregate power, to exercise it in ways that never were imagined to other folks who disagree and silence dissent,’ Schmitt said. ‘That’s what they were really trying to do.’
In some cases, he went beyond the country’s borders and sued a foreign country, as Schmitt did to China. He argued in the book that the Chinese Communist Party had withheld information on the COVID-19 virus, and was actively hoarding high-quality personal protective equipment (PPE) while producing and selling lower-quality PPE for the rest of the world. That case resulted in an eventual $24 billion judgment earlier this year.
From there, Schmitt challenged former President Joe Biden’s student loan debt cancellation plan by focusing his case on a local student loan servicing company, a plan that was ultimately blocked by the Supreme Court just months into Schmitt’s first year as a lawmaker in 2023.
Through it all, the pandemic was the ‘inflection point,’ Schmitt said, and his biggest target became Fauci.
He got an opportunity to depose Fauci, who served as the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and medical advisor to Biden, as part of his lawsuit taking on censorship and suppression by social media platforms like Facebook.
‘He wanted to silence anybody who talked about it being a lab leak,’ Schmitt said. ‘Which, of course, we know is that’s exactly what it was now. It wasn’t some bat mating with a penguin, you know, this was actually in the Wuhan Institute of Virology is where this thing came from.’
Schmitt, who is a fan of both Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia — particularly Scalia’s usage of originalism, or interpreting the Constitution as it was written rather than as a living document — noted in the book that there has been a ‘complete shift’ in the courts.
In particular, conservative-leaning justices have the majority on the Supreme Court, and courts across the country are being filled, albeit slowly, with President Donald Trump’s picks.
When asked if he was at all concerned about partisan politicking coming to the bench, Schmitt countered that courts are returning to a legal system that had been ‘disrupted by the progressive era, beginning with Woodrow Wilson and the rise of the administrative state, FDR, who threatened to pack the court.’
‘The Constitution means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less, just like our laws,’ he said. ‘They mean what they say, nothing more, nothing less.’
‘I don’t want a judge to necessarily agree with my politics,’ he continued. ‘I just want a judge to adhere to the Constitution.’