Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked

Transcript

Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Good Monday morning.
• 0:02
  Speaker 2: Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you as always, and Senator We've got
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: a lot to talk about it today's show, including nationwide
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: injunctions against Donald Trump.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Well, this is the latest evolution of law fair and
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: state attorneys general, the plan from left wing activist groups
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: is sue, sue, sue, and go to left wing activist judges,
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: on the courts, and use them to try to shut
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: down the entirety of the Trump agenda. It's not going
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: to succeed, and it is unprecedented. We're going to do
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: deep dive and explain what's going on and how it
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: is so far out of step from what any other
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: president has faced. We're also going to talk about the
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: had his student visa revoke the Trump administration. President Trump
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: is serious that if you are an enemy of America,
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: they are going to remove you from this country. You
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: do not have an entitlement to have a student visa
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: and to be here, and to threaten other students to
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is shocking. We're going to dive into
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: all that in just a moment. I want to talk
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: to you real quick though, about the International Fellowship of
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: Christians and Jews and the work that they're doing and
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: the help that is needed for the people in Israel.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: After more than a year of war, tear and pain
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: in Israel, the need for security essentials and support for
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: the first responders is still critical. Even in times of ceasefire.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: Israel must be prepared for the next attack wherever it
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: all sides.
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: That is where you.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Come in, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: is working on the ground to continue to support those
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: that are in need the people of Israel with life
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: saving security essentials are so important right now, and your
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: security vehicles and armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flag jackets and
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: bulletproof vests, and so much more. Your generous donation today
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: will help ensure the people of Visrael are safe and
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: secure in the days to come. So give a gift
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: to bless Israel. Enter people by visiting support IFCJ dot org.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: That's one word support IFCJ dot org or call to
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: donate now eight at eight four eight eight IFCJ that's
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight at eight
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: four eight eight four three two five are SUPPORTIFCJ dot
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: org center. So let's remind people of how we got
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: to the point where this is like the new phase
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: of law fare. Democrats weaponize our government and the court
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump,
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: even raiding his home in mar Lago. But now that
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: to try to subvert democracy. Understand, the four times Trump
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy. This is
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks claiming to be
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: defending democracy. But the reason they brought those indictments is
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: they were terrified the voters were going to do what
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: they in fact did, which was reelect Donald Trump, and
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump,
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: the voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: Republican House, and the left they don't care. They're angry.
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: They're angry at the voters, and so they're going to
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: the courts to try to prevent the President and the
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now,
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: let me lay out some numbers to give you just
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: sort of a level of comparison in the entirety of
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: the George W. Bush administration two terms, the Barack Obama
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: administration two terms, and the Joe Biden administration. How many
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: since two thousand and one.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: I'm going to go like zero to one.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: No, No, there have been more than that. There have
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: been thirty two, thirty two against Bush, Obama, and Biden. Now,
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: in the first two months of the Trump presidency.
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: I'm gonna not even try to guess, because I know
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: I'm going to be wrong.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: Thirty seven.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Wow, So we've already outnumbered all those other presidencies combined
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: in essence.
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: So two months we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: years of Bush, eight years of Barack Obama, and four
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: years of Joe Biden. Now that in and of itself,
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: both of those are a huge shift from what it's
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: been historically. Now, in the entire twentieth century, how many
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: nationwide injunctions do you think there were? No clue? Twenty
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: seven wow. So in one hundred years there were twenty seven.
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: Then in twenty years of Bush, Obama and Biden there
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: were thirty two, and now in two months there have
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: been thirty seven. This is a dramatic shift. And look,
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: let's go back to the history before, before we had
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: the British the common law and in English equity, which
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: is before we had the founding of the United States,
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: you couldn't have injunctions against the crown. A judge could
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: not enjoin the crown because the Chancellor was part of
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: the crown. It was the same authority. And that continued
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: for the first one hundred and fifty years of the
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: United States. Now what happened. It used to be that
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal,
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: me ask you something, Ben, one of the two of
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: us has a law. Agree. Let me let me ask
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: An injunction is where a court steps and says you
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: can't do that. We are stopping you from doing what
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: you said you were going to do.
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: So that's actually that is quite good. At injunction is
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: ordering someone either to do something or not to do something.
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: But it is an order from the court for someone
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: to comply with its order. And and that is in
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: distinction to an order for damages. So so you think
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: about a civil suit. You know, if if if I
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: run over your cat and you sue me, the court
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: can say, all right, pay Ben one thousand dollars for
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: his for his cat. That would be an award in damages.
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: of the case. So, for example, if if I keep
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: running over your cats. If you have ten cats and
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: I run over a cat a week, that's it.
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: I have way too many one liners. Keep going, I
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: don't want to You're a cat guy. I gotta be
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: careful here.
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: No, I'm a daughter guy. Let's be clear. So I
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters,
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: and in particular I have my eldest daughter, so she
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: has three cats. And I love my daughters, and so
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: we have three cats in our home. You're a boy, dad,
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: and so cats are not a part of your life.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, and it's one of the best blessings
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: I've ever had from them.
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: Keep going, Well, an injunction could be let's say, a
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: court might order me to not drive my car within
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: five hundred yards of your house. That would be an
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: injunction against the parties of the case. Now what is different,
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: and by the way, so for example, and you would
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: have those injunctions against the government, but again they were
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: limited to the party. So for example, there were sixteen
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: hundred injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision,
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: this statutory provision, this processing taxed on me is contrary
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: to law. And sixteen hundred times judges agreed and ordered
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: the government don't enforce the law with respect to ben.
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: that law with respect to you, doesn't mean that I
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it,
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: I had to go to court too. So that used
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: to be the way it would happen. And then there
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: were judicial reforms in nineteen thirty seven that Congress took
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court.
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: So ordinarily in the federal courts you have district judges,
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: you have the U. S. Supreme Court. Well, Congress created
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court.
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: So it was three different judges, but they were a
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: district court, and if you were seeking injunctions against a
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: federal statute, you had to go to a three judge
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: district court, and then you had a direct appeal to
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, so it's skipped, it skipped the courts
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: of appeals altogether. However, that ended in nineteen seventy six,
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: had their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: to a federal Court's of appeals, and then the Supreme
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it,
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: they can that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: a three judge district court was no longer there to
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: limit how often an injunction would be given. And then
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: it has been really it's been the activist judges that
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: Obama and Biden have put on the courts that has
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: to say, this party in front of me, I'm issuing
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: an injunction concerning the government's conduct about ben. It's another
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: X against any person in the United States of America.
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: one single judge.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: So you look at this expansion and it's very clear
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: that this is now war, and it's war that's been
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: declared by these judges. Then what is the remedy here.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges. We've
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: heard that this is one of those moments where it's
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: in essence unpressing the number of judges that are trying
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: to have nationwide power instead of and really overstepping. What
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: is this strategy here and what does that look like
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: to fight because it's very frustrating. If you're a voter
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: and you're voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: majority of Americans support the agenda, and now you see
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: these judges who were in many cases elected by no one,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: who are now saying, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: in the entire country with one ruling.
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: Well, to be clear that the judges were not, in
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: many cases elected by no one, and they were in
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: every single case elected by no one. The mechanism that
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: every one of these judges became a judge is they
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: were appointed by the president, whoever the president was at
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: the time, and they were confirmed by the United States
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: Senate and so no federal judges elected. There are a
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: number of checks and balances on judges. One check and
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: balance is impeachment. However, impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: you why. Even if so impeachment would take it actually
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: the president or against an executive officer, which is the
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, it is
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: not removing the judge. It is the equivalent of bringing charges.
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts,
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: the same thing. And a majority of the House can
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: impeach any judge. If the House chose to do so,
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge.
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: But the chances that any of these judges would be
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are zero point zero
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: zero percent. Now why is that? The reason is because
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: occurs in the Senate, and in order to convict, whether
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge,
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: you need two thirds of the Senate. Now, we do
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: not have sixty seven Republicans in the Senate. We only
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: have fifty three. That means we would need at least
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: fourteen Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: chances of fourteen Democrats voting to convict any of these
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: and refused to applaud for the President, refuse to applaud
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refuse to
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: applaud for a thirteen year old kid fighting to overcome
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: brain cancer. The Democrats are not going that they're cheering
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness, and so impeachment
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: is not going to be effective now. Secondly, another remedy
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: is that Congress can restrict the jury urisdiction of the
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: federal courts, and Congress has brought authority to restrict the
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually, Congress could abolish the
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts.
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts,
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: the district courts, and the Courts of Appeals to process
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: the volume of cases. But Congress has brought authority to
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: overcome the filibuster, which means you would need sixty votes.
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: We have fifty three Republicans. The chances of any Senate
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero.
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean?
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: The remedies are the remedies are number one, Sunshine drawing
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: attention to it and listen. I am right. I am
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts,
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: Oversight Agency action and federal rights, and so I am
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: going to be sharing hearings focusing on this, focusing on remedies,
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: and one remedy to consider, should we return to a
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: system where you have a three judge district court to
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. I think
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again,
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: important to counteract law fair. And then I think the
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: real remedy is nominating and confirming good principal judges to
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: the federal courts, to the district courts, to the court's
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: appeals to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these adjunctions
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: on appeal the legal process. It's going to take the
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: right now. But the most likely mechanism to rein in
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: this abuse is going to be a Pellet review because
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: So when you look at this and there's just a
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: frustration and the frustration is how are they getting away
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: with this? And are is this going to be what
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: it's going to be like for the next four years?
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on?
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: And why is it that they don't have to play
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: by the same rules, like it seems like it's just
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: law fair running back and every time the American people
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: hear what you're saying, but for people that it was saying, well,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: is there any other option? Like how do we win
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: and yet we still lose?
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: Well, Look, there was a recent article in the Harvard
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: Law Review by a professor named Samuel Bray, and he
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: surveyed every nationwide and junk issued from nineteen sixty three
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: to twenty twenty three, so sixty years. In that period,
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty seven injunctions nationwide. Injunctions were issued.
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: during his first term, And if you break it down,
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: sixty four were issued against Trump, twelve were issued against Obama,
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: fourteen were issued against Biden. So those are the numbers
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: for the first term. And then, as I said, in
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: the first two months we've already had thirty seven, so
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: the numbers are are dramatic. Now here's an interesting stat
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: from Professor Bray's article. Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: of them do you think were issued by judges appointed
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: by a Republican?
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Oh, gosh, I'm going to say not as many as
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: the Democrats. But I could be wrong, because there's been
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: some Republican judges that shocked all of us recently.
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: Well that's true, But here the numbers are pretty encouraging.
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies,
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican,
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: Which means that ninety two zero point two percent of
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term against
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: his policies were issued by judges put on the court
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: by a Democrat ninety two percent. And the pattern is
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: very simple. H they're going and they're forum shopping. They're
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: looking for radicals who will hate the president and who
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: that they're forum shopping. It's frustrating, but there's a longer
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: the shorter term memory it is appeals and hopefully getting
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: the Court of Appeals to reverse it. And for example,
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: one case that's going on right now, it is a
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: case called Trump versus CASA, and in January, President Trump
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: issued an executive order revoking birth rights citizenship for illegal
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: courts issued preliminary injunctions and response, now, where were those courts?
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions,
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: and on March thirteenth, the Acting Solicitor General of the
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: of the states challenging the orders. So it should not
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating and
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: General's request by April fourth, So this is being litigated
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: right now. Now. It's possible the Supreme Court will decide
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: for full merits briefing, and that could take months or
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: So let me ask you one other question on this
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: just layman terms here. If there is a loss by
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: a judge who does with of these injunctions, does that
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: then have precedent over other judges around the country, or
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: can other judges then just say well, I'm going to
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: take up the torch and buy more time and be
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: an activist as well.
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it can definitely be the latter. And so
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: now it depends. It depends where the loss occurs. So
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: if a district judge issues an injunction and it gets
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: Appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: judges in that circuit, so their circuit's all over the country.
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: So for example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: are ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country.
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: So the real answer, hopefully is to get this to
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: is clearly something that is being abused and it is
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: So do you think that in the near future there's
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: a what are the odds this can go to the
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court and that this can at least have some
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: sort of like present on the countries that the president
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: can do his job.
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: at the Supreme Court right now. The question is are
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: there five justices willing to rein it in? And we
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: have seen in some of these early cases sometimes the
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. And so
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts. It's
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: going to come down to Justice Amy Cony, Barrett and
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanon. We'll see how how they rule.
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: I feel very confident that that that Clarence Thomas and
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: Samuel Alito are are more than ready to rein in
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: there are five justices or not.
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: Senator I want to move to the other story that
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier, and this goes in the category of
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: promises made, promises cap for Donald Trump. Another pro Haamas
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: college campus. This is making liberal heads explode. But this
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: is exactly what the President said he was going to do,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: and he's making good on that promise yet again.
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast.
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: You and I did at Seapack when we interviewed Pam
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: Bondi and we talked about the fact that the Trump
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: administration is going to go after these radical anti Semitic,
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: anti American, anti Israel protesters. And if you threaten violence
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you
• 24:49
  Speaker 2: have no entitlement to be allowed into this country. And
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: it's interesting you're seeing Democrats who are suddenly discovered free speech.
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: Mind you, when it comes to to Americans speaking, they
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: don't give a damn about free speech. When it comes
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech.
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: American citizens have no First Amendment rights, and the Democrats
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious anti Semite,
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and you're
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: not an American, well then suddenly they think you're protected.
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: And it is insane. So the latest radical who had
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: his visa revoked is a student at Cornell and he's
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: an individual named Mommodo Tal now Momodo Tal, according to
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: called for the destruction of the United States. Has celebrated
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: the October seventh attacks by Hamas and has said that
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: he takes his quote Q from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now,
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: who is Mammado Tal? He is a British and gam
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: being dual national, so he's not an American. And he
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: began studying in Cornell twenty twenty two on an F
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: one student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: and Tall received an email from the Department of Justice
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: that said ICE invites mister Tall and his counsel to
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: to appear and for mister Tall to surrender to ICE custody.
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: And of course what did Tall do? He engaged in
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: law fair and wet and final lawsuits seeking to block it.
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: Now what has Tall said? Tall has said, Number one,
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: He's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: from the arm resistance in Palisine, armed by the way,
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: not just resistance, armed resistance. He has also said, quote,
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: we are in solidarity with the arm resistance in Palestine
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: from the river to the sea. He also said just
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: after October seventh, hours after he said quote, the dialect
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: the dialect, Look, this guy is a communist, he's a Marxist.
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: We talked about how cultural Marxism they divide the world
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: into oppressors and victims, and they actively cheer on the
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: violent revolution of the so called victims against the so
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: called oppressors. Now, this is ours after October seventh. This
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: is as women and little girls are being raped, as
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: twelve hundred civilians are being murdered. And here is what
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression,
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: to the resistance. That's not all he said. When he
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: applied for his student visa, he wrote quote, and this
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: is on Twitter, the end of the US Empire in
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: our lifetime in shallah. Months later, the idiots in the
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: Biden administration gave him his student visa and he wrote,
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: student visa issued. We are going to America, baby alham
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: di lula. I don't know what that means, but I'm
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted my
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: hatred of the US Empire knows no bound Walahai. Again,
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing again
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: it is celebrating against America. One other thing he posted
• 28:46
  Speaker 2: quote when the enemy is US imperialism, then absolutely anyone
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: be clear, this anti American, anti Semitic radical who hates
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: America needs to get the hell out of our country.
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: He has no entitlement to be here, and we have
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: no obligation. We have no legal obligation, We have no
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey,
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: people who hate America, people who say quote anyone who
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: what if that's true, get your ass out of this country.
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: We don't need you here threatening Americans.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: college campuses. And we've seen anti semitism, for example, that
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: is just skyrocket on college campuses, and a lot of
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: this is well organized. We continue to see that a
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: and pre planning this around the country, and that has
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: to be very concerning. I think not only for college students,
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: these people in and this is what they're doing.
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: And understand the threats. Let me read you another tweet
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: that he sent quote, we are actually living in an
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: e fing alternative reality, although he did not abbreviate fing.
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: Zionists living comfortably in the US and Zionist Jewish students
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared,
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: four K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people,
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: and many of these same folks who claim to feel
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF BFFR.
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: a sick, sick individual and there can be no path
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally.
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: indeed the chosen people chosen for Hell. Now understand one
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: game that anti Semites play, which is many times they
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: use the word Zionist when what they mean is jew
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: and they just think it's It's like, oh, I'm pretending
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look,
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: they consider an ani Actually, at one point says Zionist
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: slash Jewish students, This is an anti Semite who hates
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism,
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: for Hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: to deport this radical leftists were protesting in support of him.
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat
• 32:13
  Speaker 2: in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa. No,
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: you had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: on Thursday and they were chanting hands off MoMA do,
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: ought to ask the Democrats do you believe we have
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: to give student visas to people who say they're enemies
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: of America and hate America. It's there's no legal basis
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: explain why they cheer on pro hamas radicals. But I
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: not swept up the in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Anger.
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: You gotta ask why Washington Democrats when they look at
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: October seventh, when they look at the radicals on campuses,
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: why the Democrats say we stand with Amas and we
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: stand with the PROPOMAUS protesters. That's got to make you
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat party.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: All right, don't forget. We do this show on Monday,
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday. So hit that subscriber, that auto download
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: button wherever you're listening, And if you'll help us grow
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: by sharing this podcast anywhere you're on social media. A
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: lot of you been doing that. We want to say
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: thank you. So if you're on Facebook or x or Instagram,
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: wherever you are true social share this this episode behind
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: that will Ford Arrow and it'll show up and help
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: reach new people in the center. And I will see
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: you back here on Wednesday morning.