Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Civic education bridges ideological divide for two justices

Civic education bridges ideological divide for two justices

Two Supreme Court justices who often disagree in their decisions at work came together to discuss their shared passions for civic education and civic duty.

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett spoke with Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar during a seminar hosted by The Ronald Reagan Institute. They talked about everything from family and ethics to bridging polarization in America and within the Supreme Court. The conversation gave insights into what these two justices think about education and the future of the nation.


During the hour, the pair highlighted a number of commonalities — specifically their shared passions for civic education for American youth and civic duty for citizens. Both Sotomayor and Coney Barrett attributed their professional successes to their academic paths.

They emphasized the importance of civic education, its ability to teach youth how to become a “good citizen” and its key role in upholding America’s democracy.

“Most people think about civics like learning about the government, how it functions and what each branch of the government does,” said Sotomayor. “When I think about civics, it's not just ‘how does the government work’ but ‘how does our society work?’”

When asked how she models good citizenship for young people, Sotomayor cited not just her time spent at seminars and responding to letters, but her ability to stay grounded and motivated to try and help others.

“I truly believe that the greatest model of citizenship is not the work you do for pay, but it's the work that you elect to do for free,” she remarked. She believes people can be themselves “as long as [they’re] finding ways to better the world.”

Coney Barrett reflected on encouraging her own children to participate in community service and voting.

“Educating our young people to be good citizens is crucial,” she said. “And part of being a good citizen is learning to care for the needs of others.”

She credited civic education in giving youth the ability to learn about the government and providing a sense of civic duty — a key component of getting individuals to vote and support democracy.

The justices also reflected on the Court’s unique ability to see past individuals’ political viewpoints and show appreciation for the person they know their colleague to be. Both justices divulged the regard and admiration they hold for one another, revealing that all the justices are close friends.

Sotomayor acknowledged the ideological differences between her and Coney Barrett; however, she revealed that “disagreements on political issues and important constitutional issues doesn’t diminish the value of who Justice Amy Coney Barrett is,” and Sotomayor hardly ever shys away from having difficult conversations with the other justices.

Coney Barrett imparted strong advice on combating polarization: “I think finding ways to see people for who they are and not just for the opinions they hold helps bridge gaps and bridge differences.”

Watch the full video here.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less