David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund
Democracy depends on educated voters. Yet too often people don’t vote because they don’t know where candidates stand on various issues and are confused about how to find out. The widespread political cynicism, disinformation, and spin that citizens are bombarded with contributes to the lack of information available to voters so they can make reasoned decisions.
To combat this problem a non-partisan group called guides.vote has created voter guides to provide a concise and credible way to compare where candidates stand on critical issues and to make clear why voting matters.
Previously, we focused on the Virginia legislature and the Kentucky governor’s race. Today we focus on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court race between Republican Carolyn Carluccio and Democrat Daniel McCaffery.
A seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is up for election on November 7, 2023. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has seven justices. Four are currently Democrats, and two are Republicans, with one open seat. This election won’t change the Democratic majority. But a Republican victory would strengthen their minority and make possible a Republican majority when the next seat is up for election. The Court’s last election was closely decided, won by less than 25,000 votes out of nearly 2.8 million cast.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decides questions of state law that often have a significant impact. In recent years, the Court:
- Reversed a lower court order that had halted 2020 general election results certification, allowing certification to proceed.
- Held that the 2011 congressional map drawn by the state legislature constituted an illegal, partisan gerrymander.
- Ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being forced to hand over their digital passwords.
- Overturned provisions of Pennsylvania’s shale drilling law.
- Ruled that election officials should reject most undated and wrong-dated absentee and mail-in ballots.
- Held that warrantless searches are unjustified if they are based solely on the smell of cannabis.
To help you decide this election, we’ve assembled background information about the candidates’ education and previous work experience, along with public statements and publicized endorsements, to indicate how they might rule on key issues in the future.
CAROLYN CARLUCCIO Carolyn Carluccio graduated from Dickinson College and earned a J.D. degree from Widener University School of Law. She has been a judge on the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas since 2010 and the President Judge since 2022. She served as Assistant United States Attorney from 1989 to 1997 and was the Montgomery County Chief Public Defender from 2002 to 2006. As a volunteer, she has taught sixth graders civic education for the past ten years.
· On LGBTQ rights, “was thrilled to be” officiating a same-sex marriage.
Carluccio’s endorsements include the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, Pro-Life Coalition of Pennsylvania, and the County Detectives Association of Pennsylvania. | DANIEL MCCAFFERY Daniel McCaffery graduated from Temple University and earned a JD degree from Temple University School of Law. He has been a judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania since 2020 and a judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from 2014 to 2019, and was an Assistant District Attorney from 1991 to 1996. He was in private practice from 1997 to 2013. He served in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve and was honorably discharged. As a volunteer for the Democratic Party, he participated in more than 50 political campaigns.
· On his judicial philosophy, “The law is the vehicle that drives society toward a more level playing field.” A Justice’s “real role is to define the relationships between government and citizens.”
McCaffery’s endorsements include the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood, the Pennsylvania State Building & Construction Trades Council, Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters, and the Pennsylvania Professional Firefighters Association. |
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.