Latest / Uncensored Objection / [Podcast Episode] The Erosion of Due Process in America

Transcript

[Podcast Episode] The Erosion of Due Process in America · Uncensored Objection

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_01: Welcome.
• 0:01
  SPEAKER_01: You're joining us for a deep dive,
• 0:02
  SPEAKER_01: and today we're really aiming to cut through some of the noise.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, there's a lot out there.
• 0:08
  SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
• 0:09
  We know people want to stay informed,
• 0:11
  but maybe without getting totally overwhelmed.
• 0:13
  SPEAKER_00: It's tough to keep up.
• 0:15
  So we're focusing today,
• 0:16
  we're taking a close look at a really timely piece.
• 0:20
  SPEAKER_01: It's from attorney Mitch Jackson's substack, Uncensored Objection.
• 0:24
  SPEAKER_00: Ah, OK.
• 0:26
  SPEAKER_00: I've seen some of his work.
• 0:27
  He's digging into some pretty big political headlines,
• 0:30
  things making waves right now.
• 0:32
  SPEAKER_01: But he's doing it through the lens of like a fundamental principle.
• 0:36
  SPEAKER_00: Due process.
• 0:37
  SPEAKER_01: That's the one.
• 0:38
  So our mission really is to understand his core argument about
• 0:42
  due process,
• 0:43
  SPEAKER_01: specifically in the current climate under President Trump.
• 0:45
  SPEAKER_01: What's he saying?
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_01: Why does it matter?
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_00: And it's useful because,
• 0:48
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 0:48
  SPEAKER_00: if you're following the news,
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_00: you might wonder about the deeper currents.
• 0:52
  SPEAKER_00: This piece offers a perspective.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_01: So maybe start with the basics.
• 0:55
  SPEAKER_01: What is due process in simple terms?
• 0:58
  SPEAKER_00: Sure.
• 0:58
  SPEAKER_00: Well,
• 0:59
  SPEAKER_00: at its heart,
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_00: it's it's about fairness,
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_00: fairness in how the government deals with people legally and otherwise.
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_00: Think of it like a set of rules,
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_00: safeguards,
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_00: really,
• 1:10
  SPEAKER_00: to protect individuals from,
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_00: arbitrary government power.
• 1:14
  Just the basic guarantee things will be done properly according
• 1:17
  to the rules.
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_01: Got it.
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_01: OK, so let's unpack what Mitch Jackson is arguing in this article.
• 1:23
  SPEAKER_01: It definitely grabs your attention.
• 1:24
  His main worry seems to be that this very idea due process is
• 1:29
  while facing headwinds.
• 1:31
  SPEAKER_00: Serious ones, he suggests.
• 1:32
  Yeah,
• 1:33
  he talks about the idea that no one is above the law,
• 1:35
  maybe losing some significance.
• 1:36
  He uses pretty strong language,
• 1:38
  suggesting it feels like a drift maybe towards authoritarianism.
• 1:41
  SPEAKER_01: That's the word he uses.
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_01: It makes you pause, doesn't it?
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: And he doesn't just state the concern.
• 1:46
  SPEAKER_00: He gives examples.
• 1:47
  SPEAKER_00: That's what makes it concrete.
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_01: What specifically does he point to?
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: Well,
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: one big one is his claim about individuals being detained,
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_00: even deported,
• 1:57
  SPEAKER_00: without what most of us think of as basic legal steps.
• 2:00
  SPEAKER_01: Like what?
• 2:01
  Like no formal charges filed,
• 2:02
  no hearing where they can make their case,
• 2:05
  no judge involved.
• 2:06
  SPEAKER_01: Just based on what?
• 2:08
  SPEAKER_00: He mentions it being based solely on a signature on a piece of paper.
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_00: The idea is that this bypasses the usual checks and balances we expect.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 2:17
  That sounds,
• 2:17
  yeah,
• 2:18
  that challenges the idea of a fair process immediately.
• 2:20
  SPEAKER_00: It really does.
• 2:20
  SPEAKER_00: And it's not just in, say, immigration context.
• 2:23
  SPEAKER_01: No.
• 2:24
  SPEAKER_01: What else?
• 2:24
  SPEAKER_00: He also brings up federal workers, including veterans, he notes.
• 2:29
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 2:29
  SPEAKER_00: And the claim is they're allegedly being, well, stripped of their jobs.
• 2:34
  SPEAKER_00: Without cause given, no warning, no real review or oversight.
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 2:39
  SPEAKER_01: Just like that.
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_00: The article frames it as the president determining fraud, and that's it.
• 2:44
  SPEAKER_00: Job gone.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_00: No hearing, no appeal.
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_01: That sounds incredibly harsh, especially for public servants, veterans.
• 2:49
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, you expect certain protections, right?
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 2:52
  SPEAKER_00: Civil service protections exist precisely to prevent abrupt,
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_00: maybe politically motivated dismissals.
• 2:58
  So the suggestion this could happen based on one determination,
• 3:02
  no process.
• 3:03
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 3:04
  SPEAKER_00: It raises serious due process questions for those employees.
• 3:07
  SPEAKER_01: It makes you think about job security, fairness, all of that.
• 3:10
  SPEAKER_00: Definitely.
• 3:11
  SPEAKER_00: And the scope broadens, too.
• 3:12
  SPEAKER_00: He points to the use of executive orders.
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_01: Ah, OK.
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_01: We hear a lot about those.
• 3:16
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_00: And the concern isn't necessarily the orders themselves or the policies.
• 3:21
  SPEAKER_01: But the way they're being used.
• 3:23
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 3:24
  SPEAKER_00: To reshape really big areas,
• 3:26
  SPEAKER_00: national security,
• 3:27
  SPEAKER_00: finance,
• 3:28
  SPEAKER_00: environment,
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_00: trade things that affect everyone.
• 3:30
  SPEAKER_01: Without maybe the usual debate.
• 3:33
  SPEAKER_00: That's the argument.
• 3:34
  SPEAKER_00: That these sweeping changes are often happening via executive order,
• 3:38
  SPEAKER_00: bypassing open debate,
• 3:41
  SPEAKER_00: bipartisan compromise.
• 3:43
  SPEAKER_00: The usual legislative pathways for major shifts.
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_00: He calls it unilateral action.
• 3:48
  SPEAKER_01: So it sidesteps some checks and balances.
• 3:51
  SPEAKER_00: That seems to be the concern raised.
• 3:53
  SPEAKER_00: Again, it ties back to the process.
• 3:54
  SPEAKER_00: How are major decisions being made?
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_00: Are the established procedures being followed or circumvented?
• 4:00
  SPEAKER_01: You know, while executive orders are a tool presidents have always used.
• 4:04
  SPEAKER_00: Of course.
• 4:04
  The argument here is about the maybe the scale and the lack of
• 4:08
  legislative input on
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_01: some of these really big things.
• 4:10
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that's a fair summary of the concern.
• 4:12
  SPEAKER_00: It makes you wonder where the concentration of power.
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_01: Then there's another point he makes that's frankly pretty unsettling.
• 4:18
  SPEAKER_01: The attacks on judges.
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_00: Ah, yes.
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_00: That's a major theme.
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_01: He argues that when judges do their job,
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_01: uphold the Constitution,
• 4:26
  SPEAKER_01: apply the law,
• 4:28
  SPEAKER_01: they're facing insults.
• 4:30
  SPEAKER_01: threats, even being called enemies of the people.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: By the president and allies, according to the article.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 4:35
  SPEAKER_01: And the author, Mitch Jackson, is very clear.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_01: This shouldn't be normalized.
• 4:39
  SPEAKER_01: It shouldn't just slide.
• 4:41
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely not.
• 4:41
  Because an independent judiciary is,
• 4:43
  I mean,
• 4:45
  it's fundamental to due process.
• 4:46
  SPEAKER_00: If judges fear backlash for ruling based on law...
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_01: Then the whole system is undermined, isn't it?
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 4:53
  SPEAKER_00: It erodes the idea of impartial justice.
• 4:55
  You start to question if decisions are based on law or
• 4:59
  political pressure.
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_01: He really hammers this home.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_01: That due process isn't a luxury.
• 5:03
  SPEAKER_00: No, he calls it the bedrock, the essential shield.
• 5:06
  SPEAKER_01: Protecting everyone, especially the vulnerable, from unchecked power.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_01: Without it, democracy feels hollow.
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_00: That's the implication.
• 5:14
  SPEAKER_00: And he uses history to back this up.
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 5:16
  SPEAKER_01: The historical examples.
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_01: Those were powerful, like the women's suffrage movement.
• 5:19
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 5:20
  Reminding us that denying the vote to half the population was
• 5:23
  essentially denying
• 5:24
  SPEAKER_00: them due process in shaping their own laws and leaders.
• 5:27
  SPEAKER_01: And the 19th Amendment wasn't just given.
• 5:29
  SPEAKER_01: It was demanded.
• 5:31
  SPEAKER_01: Fought for.
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_00: A long struggle.
• 5:33
  It shows achieving due process sometimes requires that kind of
• 5:36
  persistent demand.
• 5:37
  Then the really chilling example,
• 5:40
  the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
• 5:43
  SPEAKER_00: A terrible moment.
• 5:44
  SPEAKER_00: Due process just abandoned because of fear, racism, executive orders.
• 5:51
  SPEAKER_01: No trials, no defense.
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_01: It just lives ruined.
• 5:53
  SPEAKER_01: And it took decades for the country to even really acknowledge it.
• 5:56
  The stark reminder of how fragile these rights can be,
• 5:59
  especially in crises.
• 6:00
  SPEAKER_01: He also touches on McCarthyism, the Red Scare.
• 6:03
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 6:03
  SPEAKER_00: Lies destroyed by suspicion.
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_00: No due process.
• 6:06
  SPEAKER_00: Eventually, there was a pushback, a realization this was wrong.
• 6:09
  SPEAKER_01: Un-American, basically.
• 6:10
  SPEAKER_01: And the civil rights movement, too.
• 6:12
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely central.
• 6:13
  Activists fighting for basic due process within a system often
• 6:16
  stacked against them,
• 6:17
  SPEAKER_00: facing justice,
• 6:18
  SPEAKER_00: demanding fair treatment under law.
• 6:20
  SPEAKER_01: Even after 9-11, a time of huge pressure on rights.
• 6:23
  He notes that legal professionals were key in eventually
• 6:26
  restoring due process
• 6:27
  SPEAKER_00: protections that were challenged.
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_00: It wasn't automatic.
• 6:29
  So connecting all these historical moments,
• 6:32
  what's the takeaway for today?
• 6:33
  I think the author Mitch Jackson's point is that these aren't
• 6:36
  just history lessons.
• 6:38
  SPEAKER_00: He seems genuinely concerned that America might be,
• 6:42
  SPEAKER_00: as he puts it,
• 6:43
  SPEAKER_00: on the edge again,
• 6:44
  SPEAKER_00: facing similar threats.
• 6:45
  SPEAKER_01: And he argues this isn't about left versus right, is it?
• 6:49
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 6:49
  SPEAKER_00: He frames it explicitly as nonpartisan.
• 6:52
  It's about the future,
• 6:53
  he says,
• 6:54
  about the kind of country,
• 6:55
  the rights we pass down.
• 6:57
  SPEAKER_01: It's about the fundamental structure of how we govern ourselves.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_00: Which leads him to pose some really tough questions.
• 7:03
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, those were stark.
• 7:04
  SPEAKER_01: Like, will loyalty to a leader override the law?
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_00: Will we get used to governance by decree, bypassing checks and balances?
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_01: Will we accept rights being conditional, justice being optional?
• 7:15
  SPEAKER_00: Heavy questions.
• 7:17
  SPEAKER_00: And he answers them for himself very directly.
• 7:19
  SPEAKER_01: He just says, I won't.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_00: Clear personal stance.
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_00: He insists due process is American and losing it hurts everyone.
• 7:26
  SPEAKER_01: It's a powerful declaration.
• 7:27
  SPEAKER_01: And from there, he moves to a call to action.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_00: A very direct one aimed at everyday people.
• 7:33
  SPEAKER_00: You know, us listeners.
• 7:35
  SPEAKER_01: What does he urge?
• 7:36
  SPEAKER_01: Speak up.
• 7:37
  SPEAKER_00: Show up.
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_00: Vote.
• 7:39
  SPEAKER_00: He says these things are critical when principles are challenged.
• 7:43
  SPEAKER_00: He uses strong words.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_00: We are the fix, the firewall.
• 7:47
  SPEAKER_01: It puts the responsibility back on citizens, doesn't it?
• 7:50
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 7:51
  It's a message about individual agency,
• 7:53
  collective power in protecting these rights.
• 7:55
  SPEAKER_01: And his final thought really sticks with you.
• 7:57
  SPEAKER_00: The Constitution doesn't defend itself.
• 7:59
  SPEAKER_00: It needs us.
• 8:00
  SPEAKER_01: And the time to act is now very direct.
• 8:04
  SPEAKER_00: So wrapping up our deep dive into this piece from Uncensored Objection,
• 8:10
  It really underscores the author's argument about the vital
• 8:12
  importance of due process,
• 8:14
  SPEAKER_00: especially now under President Trump.
• 8:16
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 8:17
  SPEAKER_01: He uses examples,
• 8:18
  SPEAKER_01: history,
• 8:19
  to make a case that these safeguards matter and that citizens
• 8:21
  need to be engaged.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_00: It's definitely a thought-provoking read.
• 8:24
  SPEAKER_00: It makes you consider these fundamental questions.
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 8:27
  SPEAKER_01: It really forces you to think about rights,
• 8:28
  SPEAKER_01: government power,
• 8:29
  SPEAKER_01: and how it all connects to our own lives.
• 8:31
  SPEAKER_01: It's not just abstract theory.
• 8:32
  SPEAKER_00: No, it has real-world implications.
• 8:34
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 8:35
  SPEAKER_00: And it leaves you with that question, doesn't it?
• 8:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_00: How do these principles impact my life?
• 8:39
  SPEAKER_01: And maybe, what can I do?
• 8:41
  SPEAKER_01: Even small things.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_01: How can we each respond to these concerns, help protect these rights?
• 8:46
  SPEAKER_00: It's something to mull over for sure.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_01: Well,
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_01: if this discussion sparked your interest,
• 8:50
  SPEAKER_01: we really encourage you to read the article yourself.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_01: Get the full context.
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_00: Definitely worth it.
• 8:55
  You can find it over at Attorney Mitch Jackson's Uncensored
• 8:58
  Objections Substack.
• 9:00
  SPEAKER_01: Just search for that.
• 9:01
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, easy to find.
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_01: And while you're there, consider subscribing to get his future insights.
• 9:05
  SPEAKER_01: Share the article if you found it valuable.
• 9:07
  SPEAKER_01: And leave a comment.
• 9:09
  SPEAKER_01: Join the conversation.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_01: It's an important one.
• 9:11
  SPEAKER_00: It really is.
• 9:11
  SPEAKER_00: Engaging with these ideas is crucial.