Last week, while testifying before Congress in support of additional funding for Supreme Court security, Justice Amy Coney Barrett described how escalating threats against the justices have affected her family.

She recalled that her then-12-year-old son once asked why she needed to wear a bulletproof vest.

Barrett should not have to defend her integrity because her children are frightened. She did not take an oath to place her family in danger.

Some commentators seized on the story as evidence that threats may have altered Barrett’s judicial outlook. They suggest that fear for her life — and the lives of her family members — has compromised her objectivity or influenced how she approaches cases before the court.

That claim does not withstand scrutiny.

The critics are searching for an explanation for the occasions when Barrett has diverged from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. They point to her positions in cases involving birthright citizenship, Mississippi ballot deadlines, and tariffs.

Those disagreements are fair subjects for criticism. But any serious assessment of Barrett’s record must consider the full body of her work, not a handful of outcomes that frustrated conservatives.

Barrett has frequently joined her conservative colleagues. She was part of the majority in Slaughter, an important constitutional decision affirming executive authority. She has stood firmly behind protections for women’s and girls’ sports. She has also joined decisions upholding immigration enforcement.

Critics may challenge any justice’s reasoning in any case. They should not invent a psychological explanation that ignores the justice’s broader record.

The suggestion that threats have softened Barrett’s jurisprudence also rests on a false comparison.

Some argue that military personnel and law-enforcement officers routinely accept danger as part of their work, so Supreme Court justices should do the same. But soldiers and police officers enter professions in which physical danger is expected. Supreme Court justices do not.

RELATED: Justice Amy Coney Barrett describes SWATTING attack against her family

Eric Lee/Getty Images

Context is crucial. Children of military personnel or law-enforcement officers generally understand that their parents’ work carries risk. My father served on a Secret Service protective detail. When he came home and hung his bulletproof vest in the closet, it did not seem unusual.

My mother taught nursery school. Had she been forced to wear a bulletproof vest because of threats against her classroom, that would have been deeply unsettling.

Barrett’s children did not grow up believing that their mother’s judicial service would make her a target. No one should expect them to remain unfazed when she comes home from the Supreme Court wearing body armor. Nor should anyone condemn Barrett for discussing their fear in public.

The underlying situation is disgraceful.

No justice should need a bulletproof vest to perform the duties of the office. Sadly, the days when Justice Antonin Scalia could attend daily Mass alone on Capitol Hill, unnoticed and unbothered, are gone.

Congress will probably approve the court’s request for additional security funding. It should.

Congress can also do more to reduce the political pressure placed on the judiciary.

For decades, lawmakers have avoided difficult policy decisions and allowed major national disputes to migrate into the courts. Congress increasingly leaves questions involving immigration, elections, executive power, abortion, and social policy to judges rather than resolving them through legislation.

That abdication turns every Supreme Court term into a national political showdown. It raises the stakes of each vacancy, each argument, and each ruling. It also encourages activists to treat justices as unelected legislators rather than judges interpreting the law.

Congress cannot eliminate threats by passing more bills. It can, however, reclaim its constitutional responsibility and stop forcing the court to settle every dispute elected lawmakers lack the courage to address.

Resolving contentious questions through the legislative process would not remove controversy from public life. It would reduce the pressure on nine justices to decide matters that properly belong to elected representatives.

Until Congress changes course, the court and its members will need more protection.

Barrett should not have to defend her integrity because her children are frightened. She did not take an oath to place her family in danger. A mother’s concern for her children does not prove judicial weakness.

It proves only that the threats are real.

​Immigration enforcement, Justice amy coney barrett, Secret service, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, Congress, Lawmakers, Opinion & analysis 

For more than two decades, LeBron James and Tom Brady defined excellence in their respective sports. But according to BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock, their current pursuits reveal a deeper struggle than winning championships or breaking records.

As James continues to tease retirement and Brady ventures into increasingly bizarre publicity stunts, Whitlock sees two icons wrestling with the same question: Who are you when the game is over?

“Let’s be honest about what we’re watching. LeBron has been the most documented athlete in human history. 20-plus years. Every summer is a cliff-hanger. Every decision gets a TV special, a hashtag, a rollout. The man turned free agency into a genre, but this time it’s different,” Whitlock says.

“And I think he feels it because for the first time, the show is almost over, and there’s no next contract that fixes that. So, what does he do? He stretches it. He teases the retirement. He dangles the last ride,” he continues.

“He’s squeezing every last drop out of his 15 minutes because he’s figured out that when the buzzer sounds on the career, it sounds on the relevance too,” he adds.

And Tom Brady is no different.

“Now, what’s Brady doing?” Whitlock asks. “Publicity stunts, slap fights with Logan Paul, flirting with a WWE storyline. The greatest quarterback alive is auditioning to be a pro-wrestling angle.”

“Brady’s chasing the same adrenaline, the same eyeballs, the same purpose, and he can’t find it because nobody ever taught these guys that the game ends,” he explains. “Now, here’s the part that should make you sit up because Brady’s flailing isn’t random. It’s managed.”

“The man pulling those strings is Ari Emanuel,” Whitlock says, describing Emanuel as a “super-agent, runs TKO, which runs the WWE and the UFC.”

“You think that’s Tom Brady expressing himself? No, that’s Tom Brady being inventory. A face on a poster to sell a show for the machine that owns him,” he says.

Whitlock likens the lives of James and Brady to Truman from the famous movie “The Truman Show,” which follows a man who was unwittingly the star of a reality TV show based on his life.

“When the lights come down, all they’ve got left to sell is personality and a willingness to be used, to be the face, to push the product, to carry the agenda for whoever owns the ring. Brady’s already on the ride. LeBron’s just stalling at the turnstile,” he explains. “That’s ‘The Truman Show.’”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Jason whitlock, Lebron james, Quarterback, Sports, Tom brady, Ufc, Wrestling, The truman show, Ari emanuel, Wwe, Logan paul, Fearless with jason whitlock 

President Donald Trump was finally able to pass his SAVE America Act through the U.S. House, but it may not make it through the Senate.

The House narrowly passed a massive $1.15 trillion defense spending bill on a 216-212 vote with the SAVE America Act as a rider.

‘In an increasingly dangerous world, we are reminded of President Reagan’s admonition that freedom is not passed along in the bloodstream.’

Six Democrats voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, and seven Republicans voted against it.

The bill will raise service member pay by 5% to 7%, increase education and child care availability for military families, and spend $1.8 billion for barracks and housing costs.

Republican Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana praised the bill by claiming it would “ensure America maintains the most lethal, most dynamic, most capable fighting force in the world.”

Senate Democrats were able to block one version of the bill last week.

“In an increasingly dangerous world, we are reminded of President Reagan’s admonition that freedom is not passed along in the bloodstream,” Johnson continued. “It must be fought for and protected so the next generation may enjoy the same level of security and opportunity we have known. And that starts in Congress.”

One sticking point in the bill was the expansion of collaboration between the Israel’s defense forces and the U.S. military on weapons and intelligence development.

Progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) excoriated the bill in a scathing statement.

RELATED: Trump team slams ‘b***h’ Democrat for floating bizarre conspiracy theory on housing bill delay

“Time and again we are seeing from this administration, and their Republican yes-men in Congress, that they simply do not care that working people are struggling,” she said.

“I refuse to support that agenda and will continue working to stop this funding and actually invest in our people and our communities,” she added.

If the bill is approved by the Senate, it will go to Trump’s desk for approval.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​President donald trump, Save act, National defense authorization act, Us house, Military, Politics 

July 13 was shaping up to be a big day in the life of a 9-year-old Arizona boy named Hunter.

You see, on that day Hunter entered the Mesa Bank of America with his grandmother, Colette, to open his very first checking account, KNXV-TV reported.

‘You can’t let your fear guide you; you have to meet it head-on.’

Hunter — a bespectacled, blond-haired kid headed into the fourth grade — had spent the week doing work at his grandparents’ house and earned just under $200, the station said, adding that his grandmom suggested they deposit Hunter’s cash in the bank.

But it turns out Hunter’s big day also would be unforgettable for a rather scary reason.

KNXV said Hunter spotted someone entering the bank wearing a mask — but instead of panicking, Hunter reacted with courage well beyond his years.

“He just walked up and tapped me on the shoulder,” Colette told KNXV, adding that she noticed “the calmness in his demeanor, it was surreal. I just turned my head and saw the teller there with something pointed at her head.”

That something was a knife, KNXV reported.

With that, Hunter and his grandmother got under a desk for safety and didn’t hear the suspect say anything during the robbery, the station said.

“I did not hear anything; All I heard was my Nana’s breathing really hard,” Hunter recalled to KNXV.

Truth be told, the station said Hunter also was thinking about his hard-earned cash — $160 of his own money plus $27 in change from Colette.

“If I lose it, $160 down the drain!” Hunter explained to KNXV.

That same day, Mesa police arrested a woman who tried to rob the bank, the station said, adding that she was booked on charges of felony armed robbery, aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct. Police said no one was injured, KNXV reported.

RELATED: Blaze News original: 10 inspiring examples of Good Samaritans who ran toward danger to help others, often defeating bad guys

After giving police a statement, Hunter and his grandmother returned to the Bank of America the very next day to open his checking account, the station said.

“You can’t let your fear guide you; you have to meet it head-on,” Colette told KNXV.

When the station asked Hunter what his first debit card purchase would be, he replied that he wants to buy his grandmother a new keyboard — and maybe soon a computer for himself.

But when KNXV asked him what he would say to the bank robber, Hunter’s reply was blunt: “Get a job.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Arizona, Mesa, Armed robbery, Bank of america, Crime 

The cost of generic drugs will likely change drastically after the latest tariff announcement from President Donald Trump.

The president said in a post on Truth Social that he would allow generic drug imports to have zero tariffs for two years, then face two large hikes afterward.

‘The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States.’

Trump said the tariffs were designed to encourage drug companies to move their manufacturing operations back to the U.S.

“Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter,” he wrote.

“The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States,” Trump added.

Generic drugs account for 90% of the prescriptions in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration, and half of generic drugs are manufactured in India. China, on the other hand, is the source for 95% of imported ibuprofen and 70% of imported acetaminophen.

White House spokesman Kush Desai cited other efforts from the administration to reshore manufacturing in comments to CBS News.

“The President’s resounding success securing firm reshoring plans from global drugmakers as part of our most-favored-nations deals and Section 232 tariff program for branded drugs is proof that this administration has a track record of success to get critical manufacturing back into the United States,” Desai said in an email.

RELATED: The hidden danger in Trump’s drug-price plan

Experts indicated to CBS News that manufacturers were likely to pass on the tariff costs to consumers but that the already low prices meant the cost increases could be modest.

However, some manufacturers may choose to pull out of the U.S. market altogether and cause drug shortages.

“Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump concluded.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Big pharma, Generic drugs, President donald trump, Tariffs, Politics