Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Hans von Spakovsky Talks SCOTUS

Transcript

Hans von Spakovsky Talks SCOTUS · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Time for the third hour of the Morning Show with
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Preston Scott creeping along. Here was Show five thousand, four
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: hundred and twenty four. He's Jose, I'm Preston, and joining
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: me is the manager the Election Law Reform Initiative and
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meses, the Third Center
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: for Legal and Judicial Studies. He's our friend, Hans von Spakowski. Hans,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: how are you, sir, Preston.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: I'm doing just great and join my summer so far
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: it's been a hot, hot time in Washington all summer, boy,
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: no kidding.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: I'm curious when the Supreme Court finished and basically got
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: everything done for the month of June, got its rulings
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: out there, and you step back from it a little
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: bit and you look at you know, rulings came out
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: long before June when they normally roll out. What do
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: you think We're the most consequential rulings of the first
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: first half of the year by the United States Supreme Court.
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: I think it was a very good session for Americans
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: who believe in the rule of law of the Constitution.
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: I mean just talking and frankly, if folks who want
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: to protect their children, I mean, look, two of the
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: most important decisions that came out were the scrematic case,
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: which was out of Tennessee, in which the Supreme Court
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: said that a law that Tennessee passed along with i
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: think almost two dozen other states, saying you cannot surgically
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: mutilate and do abusive drug treatments to children to supposedly
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: changed their gender, that that was perfectly acceptable and within
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: the power of state government. That's a decision protecting kids
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: all over the country. And then in the other one
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: similar one was a decision out of Maryland in which
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: are probably the most liberal school board in a country
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: had integrated basically transsexual and gay propaganda into the entire
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: curriculum and told the parents, you can't opt your kids
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: out of this. We're not going to allow that. And
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court said you cannot do that. You cannot
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: basically infuse sexual propaganda into kids. And we're not talking
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: about high school kids. They were doing this all the
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: way down to pre kindergarten kit. I think those I
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: think those two in terms of protecting Americans in the family,
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: were probably the two most important decisions they made.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: One of the things that we've paid attention to on
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: this show is obviously district court rulings that created nationwide injunctions,
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: which which on the surface just seemed obset or to
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: even people that are not invested in the law as
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: a profession or even as a hobby, for Pete's sake,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court ruled on it. Yet we still
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: see judges saying, ah, that doesn't apply to me. So
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: what first tell us the status of things like that?
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: When we still see district courts creating nationwide injunctions?
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: What? What is a court? What's the Supreme Court to do?
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: What are we to do? Well?
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: The mistake that they made, and it was a huge mistake,
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: and it was pointed out by Justice Alito. You know,
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court came out six to three and said
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: universal or nationwide injunctions are outside the authority of federal courts. Uh,
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: there's one exception of that, and Justice Alito said, well,
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: we've ruled correctly, but we have failed to deal with
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: that exception. The exception is if a judge determines that
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: a particular group of plaintiffs are a class, that they
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: represent an entire class of people across the United States. Now,
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: there are very strict rules that a judge is supposed
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: to follow before he does that. But because the Supreme
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: Court didn't talk about that, didn't emphasize that, what happened
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: was that all these same judges now have been saying, oh, okay, well,
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: all I have to do is certify these plaintiffs as
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: a class and boom, I can issue a nationwide injunction.
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: And they've been doing it willy nilly without actually following
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: the rules. That's not going to stop until the Supreme
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: Court takes up this matter again.
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: He's smarter than we are.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: That's my best way of introducing for our second segment here,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: Hans von Spakowski with a heritage foundation. Aren't we treading
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: on dangerous territory when courts seem to be just ignoring
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: what the High Court says and that's what it appears?
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: Oh oh absolutely, yes? Uh what what we're what we're
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: seeing as a judicial rebellion and judicial tyranny. The best
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: example of that is the judge in Massachusetts who recently,
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: after after the big Beautiful Bill was passed by Congress,
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: signed in the law by the President, and you have
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: a federal judge in Massachusetts saying, oh no, you can't
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: you can't reduce or cut off money to planned parenthood.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: You can't do that, mister President. You have to keep
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: funding them. Congress, No, you have to keep providing them
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: with money. How in the world is a federal dis
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: court judge thinking that she's got the power to override
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: the constitutional authority of Congress to decide how to spend
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: taxpayer money. Now, fortunately, the Supreme Court recently stepped in
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: and issued an emergency stay or suspension of her order.
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: But the fact that you have a judge like that
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: in the federal court system is illustrative of the problem
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: we have unfortunately throughout the judiciary branch and President you
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: know the reason for this. The reason for this is
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: that Joe Biden, and this is a Biden judge, Joe
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: Biden appointed to the federal judiciary, and Chuck Schumer got confirmed,
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: the most left wing, radical ideologues that have ever sat
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: on the federal bench in the entire history of the
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: United States.
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: So what's the country to do about it?
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: Well, the only thing that can be done is to
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: make sure that Donald Trump gets his judges confirmed, and
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: in particular gets them confirmed into open Court of Appeals
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: slots so they can frankly overrule these nutty judges, and
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: we have got to maintain the majority on the Supreme Court.
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: And listen. Another great example of this is just within
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: the last day or two the US Court of Appeals
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: for the Fifth Circuit, that's a great court. They cover
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: Texas just throughout a absolutely nutty decision, again by a
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: federal district court judge who had said that the law
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: that Texas passed, which said, hey, if you're going to
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: vote by absentee ballot, you've got to provide a copy
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: of either your ID or your driver's license number or
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: the last word, he said, oh, you can't do that,
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: that's discriminatory. Well, fortunately the Fifth Circuit just threw that
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: out and said, of course, it's not discriminatory, and it's
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: it's it's a way for the state to make sure
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: that the person getting the idea is actually the registered voter.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: Hanswatzpakowski with us from the Heritage Foundation. We're talking about
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court, in the federal court system in general, Hans,
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: is there any provision that and I'm going to put
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: this in really simplistic terms, when a district judge is
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: overruled multiple times that their judicial qualifications and come into question,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: and they can be removed from office, from the from
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: the court.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: Unfortunately, not so. The only way a federal judge can
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: be removed is if he is impeached. And in the
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: entire history of the US about a dozen federal judges
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: have been impeached, but almost always it's spin for things
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: like bry and really serious crimes. Just being a bad
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: judge who issues bad decisions, unfortunately, is not sufficient to
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: get you impeached.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: WFLA on your phone with the iHeart radio app and
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: on hundreds of devices like Alexa, Google Home, Xbox and Sonos, Yes,
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: and Ihearts radio station.
• 9:29
  Speaker 3: He is a Turn two guest.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: We turned to Hans von Spakowsky to try to better
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: understand what's going on with a lot of different issues,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: but notably in this visit the Supreme Court of the
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: United States, And Hans, what are a couple of cases
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: two or three that stand out that you think are
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: very consequential in the upcoming fall winter term. Are they
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: dealing with men in women's spaces? Are they dealing with elections?
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: What are we talking about?
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah? I think probably the most important case cases that
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: the Spring Court accept to were cases out of Idaho
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: and out of West Virginia. Those states, just like a
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: lot of states, past laws saying that if you're a
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: biological male, no matter what kind of drugs you're taking,
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: you cannot participate in women's sports. And unfortunately you had
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for Circuit
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: Court of Appeals, which is two of the worst courts
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: of appeal in the country, say that those laws violate
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: equal protection. So hopefully the Supreme Court is going to
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: come out and uphold states not allowing biological men and
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: women for participating women's sports. Very very important case. There's
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: also a big case coming up on redistricting, as you know,
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: as a big issue right now in Texas, and they
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: have a case out of Louise, Siana in which white
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: voters actually sued and said when the state legislature drew
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: up a second black district, a district which black voters
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: are majority, they impermissively and unconstitutionally used race as their
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: primary factor in doing that. That is racial discrimination and
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: it's unconstitutional. And that's a really important case because, as
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: you know, that's a big issue going on right right
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: now in Texas. So that that that could have all
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: kinds of effects. And then and then finally there's a
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: campaign finance case really involving the First Amendment, in which
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: the political parties are saying, the federal law that limits
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: the amount of money we can spend to support our
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: candidates and coordination with them violates our First Amendment rights. Again,
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: I think that's a very important case when it comes
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: to political association rights in the First Amendment.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Let me tie on to that. What about the case
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: involving ballot counting after an election?
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: Ah, well, the problem there is is that they didn't
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: take that case on the substantive issue simply on standing.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: What we're talking about is in Illinois, a member of
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: Congress sued saying, hey, the fact that Illinois has a
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: state law that allows ABSENTI bollos to come in after
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: election day and be counted violates the federal law that
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: sets the day for federal elections, as you know, the
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: first Tuesday after the first Monday November. He if the
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: courts there said, oh, you don't have standing to sue.
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: You can't even bring a claim. And you know my
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: reaction to that is if a candidate can't bring a claim, well,
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: who the heck can So what the Supreme Court accepted
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: was just the standing issue. I think what they're going
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: to do is simply say, well, of course a candidate
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: has standing. Then they'll send it back down to the
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: federal courts. Well, they will then look at the substantive issue.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: Do those kind of laws, the ones that allow ballots
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: to come in after election ate, do they violate federal law?
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals miss has already said
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: that that is a violation of the law. Are they
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: through out a Mississippi law that allowed that?
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: Boy, it's going to be interesting because I remember going
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: back to I think it was Texas that the Court
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: said did not have standing to challenge the results of
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty, wasn't it. Yeah, that's right, And in fact
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: I think the argument is, well, sure it does because
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: it's one of the states in the Union. It has
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: standing for no other reason. Tell me about what is
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: a what is shadow What is a shadow docket?
• 14:05
  Speaker 3: What is that? And why is it good or bad?
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: Well, the shadow docket is simply when UH an emergency
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: appeal is filed with Supreme Court to usually and this
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: is what's been happening over the past couple months to
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: stop a lower court decision. Uh, and they're not talking
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: about the substantive issue, like the case that I was
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: talking about with the Massachusetts judge saying, oh, you know,
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: you can't cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She issued
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: an injunction saying you've got to continue payment to plan
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: Parenthood while we have the trial and while this case
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: is going forward. The emergency docket, the shadow docket, was
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court stepping in and saying no, no injunction
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: while this court case is pending. So it will go
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: through the lower court, it'll go through the Court of Appeals,
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: it'll finally get to the Supreme Court. Well, they'll decide substantively,
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: you know, whether Planned Parenthood funding has to continue. But
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: while that's going on, there will be no injunction in place.
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: And I think there's not a problem with the Supreme
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: Court stepping in through this shadow dock and stopping these
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: lower courts from doing things they're not authorized to do
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: while a case is pending before them.
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: Nice. Thank you for that explanation. It helps a lot.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: Hans is always thank you for carbon time for us,
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: and we appreciate it.
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: Sure thing anytime.
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: Thank you Hans von Spakowski with us from the Heritage Foundation,
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: and now we know more about what has been, what
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: is happening, and what will be coming in the fall
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: Winner term. We're going to go over nine specific cases
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: in the coming days that are in the fall Winner term,
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: just a quick overview of what's coming. We just touched
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: on two or three of them there, but there's more
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: and we'll get to all of them in the coming
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: days here on The Morning Show with Preston Scott