Accountability Now: Why Taibleson Is the Wrong Pick for the Seventh Circuit
I will explain why accountability must run both ways, examine Rebecca Taibleson’s record and donations, and argue why conservatives should reject nominees who undermine core values. I will place this fight in the broader cultural battle over law, truth, and public safety. I will close with a clear call for seriousness from Republican leaders about judges who will shape our future.
President Trump was right to demand accountability at the Department of Justice when leadership failed the public, and conservatives should hold themselves to the same standard. That same spirit of accountability must apply to judicial nominees who will sit on appellate benches for decades. One recent pick raises red flags that cannot be shrugged off as mere politics.
Rebecca Taibleson, nominated to the Seventh Circuit, has given money to ActBlue and supported Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and Kamala Harris’ 2015 Senate run. Those facts alone make her nomination a gamble for conservative legal goals. Confirming someone with those ties risks redefining precedent in ways that will frustrate conservative governance for a generation.
Her age, 42, makes this even more consequential, because an appellate judge confirmed now can influence law for half a century. That reality should sharpen our scrutiny rather than soften it. The stakes are not abstract; they are institutional and long-term.
If Republicans want durable wins, judicial appointments must be battlefield-tested and ideologically reliable. Picking nominees with public support for the other side erodes confidence among voters who expect the White House to defend conservative law and order. We cannot paper over those compromises while pretending to advance a distinct conservative agenda.
Taibleson’s associations extend beyond partisan donations into cultural territory many conservatives reject. Critics point to her support for organizations that promote transgender ideology and to the rabbi who officiated her wedding. In a nation wrestling with questions of public safety, family structure, and the law, those ties are not neutral details.
If we will not get serious now, with the blood of a martyr fresh on the ground, then we never will.
The timing of this nomination matters in a way that is both symbolic and practical. This pick came before Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and in its wake the choice looks even worse to many Americans who see a pattern of cultural decay. The public is watching whether Republican leaders will match rhetoric about values with real, consequential decisions.
When violence and disorder stain our streets, voters ask who is protecting families and traditions. Rewarding figures linked to the cultural movements many see as dangerous signals weakness, not resolve. That matters at the ballot box and in the courtroom.
Charlie Kirk offered : “Get married, have children, build a legacy, pass down your values, pursue the eternal, seek true joy.” Those words call for a politics that preserves institutions and transmits values, not one that abandons the field to cultural revolutionaries. Taibleson’s worldview, as presented by critics, appears aligned with the forces conservatives resist.
This nomination is not an isolated misstep; it’s part of a broader pattern where elites in universities, media, and parts of the legal world ignore the demands of normal Americans. When institutions lose their moorings and mock transcendent truth, the law becomes another tool for ideological enforcement. Conservatives must confront that reality honestly.
COVID policy mistakes and the rise of gender ideology showed the consequences of trusting technocrats who cut ties to moral foundations. When public experts act divorced from long-standing values, liberty and social cohesion suffer. Nominees who seem comfortable in that world should not be handed lifetime power to reinterpret rights and responsibilities.
We have been losing ground for decades because of a cautious, triangulating approach that dines with the opposition and then wonders why the policies collapse. Half-measures have consequences, and the courthouse is one of the places where those consequences are solidified. Electing principled leaders means appointing principled judges.
Conservatives must insist that judicial nominees defend natural institutions and free speech, respect religious liberty, and recognize the role of law in preserving ordered freedom. Judges who have signaled sympathy for movements that dismantle those institutions are a poor fit for appellate seats. This is not a call for purity tests but for reasonable guarantees that nominees will not actively promote the opposition’s cultural agenda from the bench.
Look at the broader picture: universities, media, and many inside the legal establishment regularly push ideas that offend the common-sense moral order. Confirming a judge who has financially and socially supported that ecosystem hands the keys to the people who helped create the problem. The conservative response should be to fortify institutions, not surrender them.
As C.S. Lewis reminded us, “The man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” That line is about courage to correct course, and it applies to political nominations as well. If Republican leaders want to change the trajectory of our country, they must be willing to turn back from nominees who accelerate the disorder.
No more rewards for those who despise the truth. If we will not get serious now, with the blood of a martyr fresh on the ground, then we never will. The moment calls for clarity, not compromise.
