072924 William Trachman

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Have you here on the show. It's a Monday edition
of the program News Talk six hundred K.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Cool. Everybody's good.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
I hope, I hope you're all feeling good about life, liberty,
the pursuit of happiness. All right, I want to bring
on my next guest, but before I do, let me
kind of set the stage. Breaking news this morning is
that Joe Biden has called for Supreme Court term limits,
a code of conduct, and also limits on presidential immunity.
He argues that the Supreme Court quote has undermined the

(00:29):
public's confidence. And you know it's all isn't that all
of Washington, d c. Undermined the public confidence? I mean,
you might want to look at the FBI and the
some of these in the Justice Department. What about the
public confidence there? Look at the polling data? What about Congress? Said?
You think maybe Congress has undermined the public confidence. But

(00:49):
you know, Joe Biden's picking on the old Supreme Court,
so let's talk about it. He's unveiling some of his
ideas today the LBJ Presidential Library in Texas, and it's
an anniversary of the civil rights movement. He says, we
got to fix the damn Supreme Court. Will TrackMan. William
TrackMan is the general counsel for Mountain States Legal Foundation,

(01:11):
and he's hopping on here with us on the program.
I will welcome to the program, sir, how are you
a good morning?

Speaker 3 (01:16):
Great? Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
I think it's interesting when someone says, well, something in
Washington is undermining the public confidence. Well, I think of
every time I hear Congresses in session. I kind of
think the same thing. But let's dive into this thing,
this proposal to revolutionize this revolutionize the Supreme Court. What
is in it that now that we've had the actual
proposal coming out this morning, Will TrackMan Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
Well, you know, guys, look in a mirror if you
think someone's undermining the Supreme Court, because he's doing it.
It's President Biden and Vice President Harris who are criticized
in the Supreme Court's ruling. So they're responsible for the
downtick the Supreme Court's popularity and trust. In any event,
this plan, if you can call it, that proposed eighteen
year term limits and a very search code of judicial

(02:04):
ethics and then also essentially amend the Constitution or force
evaluation of the recent case involving whether President Trump at
presidents generally are im mean from criminal prosecution for official
acts that they did in their presidential capacity during their terms.
So quite a few things, and definitely making ways on

(02:24):
the campaign trail.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
It's I'm trying to think, you know that I'm looking
at the Supreme Court rulings as of like, yeah, you
do have a split between the conservative block and the
left of block, but you have Amy Coney Barrett sometimes
siding with the left. You have John Roberts writing of
an affirmation for a decision that Elizabeth Warren praised.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
And so is this court as partisan all.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
The time as the administration likes to talk about it,
Because again, I'm kind of looking at some of the decisions,
not even some of the even smaller tots. It didn't
get as much headline, and you see quite a bit
of agreement between the factions of the court at times,
not always, but at times.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
Yeah, most decisions are not strict six to three partisan
appointment decisions. Most have at least one person from the
other side. Many have multiple people from different presidential administrations
in them, because most cases don't have a partisan valance.
And so if you've got a bankruptcy case or a
civil case of out courts. You're going to get away

(03:30):
from a lot of these political a balance issues. The
public perception of how partisan the Supreme Court is mostly
comes from politicians saying how partisan the Supreme Court is
and calling the Supreme Court reformers a little bit like
shattering a base on the ground and calling it based reform.
This would absolutely change the nature of our traditional system
and lead to greater and greater consequences for our rule

(03:54):
of laws. All negative.

Speaker 1 (03:57):
William TrackMan is my guess. He's a general counsel for
the Mountain State's Legal Foundation talking about the Biden proposal
this morning for reforming the Supreme Court. First of all,
this doesn't have a chance in heck this close to
an election cycle, because these are constitutional issues at constitutional
amendments in many instances. I mean, these take months, if
not years to get through. So give me your estimation

(04:20):
is just a polling somewhere that this is going to
help in the election. I just don't see it as
something that's a top priority for most Americans out there.
What do you think the motivation is proposing this and
talking about it and even taking up headlines for it
when I don't think most Americans see it as a
top priority.

Speaker 3 (04:38):
Well, it's a rally the base and to get the
conversation going. So in the Overton window of permissible topics
in polite society, court reform or court packing is pretty
far out there. And so with the Biden administration embracing this,
they can now get the media talking about whether it's
a good idea or a bad idea. They can move

(05:00):
into the mainstream. They can say, oh, yeah, it's a
bold proposal, just like the Green New Deal as a
bold proposal, and maybe won't get all the way there,
but we'll meet you in the middle. And so, yes,
this is not because it's going to pass between now
and November, although they do have arguments as to why
there's no constitutional amendment required. But no, there's no real
chance that this is going to go forward. They just

(05:21):
want to get the atmospherics. And of course if it
actually did pass, that would be crazy because President Trump,
if he won in November, would have the ability to
replace just the Sotomayora, and this is taking who are
to Obama appointees because their eighteen year term limits would
be up in twenty twenty seven and twenty twenty eight,
So I highly doubt that the proposal as it stands
would be enacted now with the November election Looking the way.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
It is the voice of William Chackman, General Council for
the Mountain States Legal Foundation. I'd like to put things
in historical perspective, a historic perspective, and there's an op
ed piece at Joe Biden. I'm sure one of the
staff wrote it. It's in the Washington Post today and
it says I served as a US Senator for thirty
six years, acting as chairman and ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee. I have overseeen more Supreme Court nominations as Senator,

(06:07):
vice president, and President than anyone living today. I have
a great respect for our institutions and powers and separation
of powers. What is happening now is not normal, and
it undermines the public's confidence. I would throw a yellow
flag on that myself, that what's happening now is not normal,
that this Court is acting any more any differently than

(06:28):
any other court. Give me your estimation when the President
says this court is not normal. You've watched a lot
of study the court through the years as well. Being
a general counsel for Mountain States Legal is it normal?
Is he making that up?

Speaker 3 (06:42):
Well, you've never seen conservatives call for court packing when
they're disappointed with Obamacare or a Bergafel, the marriage case,
or Roe v. Wade. Even in these are cases that
have riled up conservatives for generations that you've never seen
them calling for core pack in court reform, you know,

(07:02):
impeaching judges because of judicial ethics issues. This is a
very normal court because courts often decide controversial things and
in any one of these cases, there's going to be
a winner and a loser. And so if the issue
is really close, like a fifty to fifty issue, they
are going to be disappointed parties. And when they lash
out and say we need to change the way that

(07:23):
decisions are made, they end up tinkering with the very
rule of law. Because you need somebody to be the
final arbiter. So Congress is going to do with the
president is going to have a constituency. You need some
a political body to be the last word. And that's
why we have the Supreme Court. For better or worse.
They are final and so whether they're left or right,

(07:43):
you just have to have that body in a democracy,
otherwise you have pure majority rule. With no check on
the majority's power. That's a recipe for disaster.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
It is interesting to hear that you and have Congress
imposing term limits on another branch of government when they
don't even have turn limits on themselves. You know, people
have served like thirty six years, but Joe Biden telling
someone else, Hey, I can serve in the Senate for
thirty six years and in the government for fifty years,
but hey, you limited eighteen years. That seems to be

(08:14):
a little bit. First of all, I thought they were
separate but coequal branches of government. And it seems as
if maybe what would be good for the goose, good
for the gander, will do eighteen years if you'll do
eighteen years.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
I I'd like to say, Congress, yes.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
There to dream. I would love to have that conversation.
Of course, you know term limits are also controversial. But
you have never seen the Supreme Court say, well, in
order to preserve our republican form of government, which is
part of the Constitution, we must have term limits on Congress.
You don't see the Supreme Court trying to impose their
will on Congress when it comes to their terms of service.

(08:50):
But here you see the opposite. That Congress is or
I guess the one side of the aisle is trying
to tamper with another branch of government. And as we
remember from our our high school government classes, we have
a separation of powers for a reason.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Yeah, let me ask you.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
You mentioned the constitutionality of this and my estimation all
of this would require constitutional reform. You said, some people
argue otherwise, give me the what part of this is
a constitutional amendment required? What part of it is just
an edict by lawmakers? Because if you just can do
it like executive orders, if one Congress can pass it,

(09:27):
one Congress can undo it. If you're going to make
it a permanent part of the court, and you've got
to have that constitutional amendment.

Speaker 3 (09:33):
Right, So never doubt the ability of the last to
find a law professor who will parrot the talking point
and say there's no consercial amendment needed here. The plan,
as I understand it, is to force Supreme Court justices
to go senior, that is, to stop hearing cases generally
after eighteen years. So there's still technically a Supreme Court justice,

(09:56):
they're just on senior status that can take their salary
and they can sit in office and call themselves a
court justice, but generally they wouldn't sit on cases, which
of course is you know, one of the fundamental duties
of sitting on the Green Court. And then the Judicial
Ethics Code, they say, that's just part and parcel of
normal congressional oversight. You know, the Congress funds they're building

(10:17):
and funds their clerk budget, and so just one little
extra thing called the Judicial Ethics Code that Congress has
a right to do. And so they're going to claim
that no concerts element is required. And they might even
say we can break the filibuster and do this in
January if they have complete control of government.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
It's always interesting to see. I remember when Harry Reid
got rid of the filibuster requirements for judicial nominees, and
that ended up biting him on the booty because beware,
what's good for the goose good for the gander. And
I think you brought this up that if this goes
forward and Kamala Harris does not win the election in November,

(10:57):
this is going to give Donald Trump more power than
they ever wanted to give him over the Supreme Court.
And we've seen this happen. The Left has tinkered with
judicial appointments in the filibuster, they've tinkered with him before,
and it ends up. Let's say every action has an
equal and opposite reaction.

Speaker 3 (11:15):
Yeah, that's right. So if you think about it, by
twenty twenty eight, there will only be one Democratic presidential
appointee in the Supreme Court who hasn't been there eighteen years.
That would be the newly appointed Biden Justice, Justice Jackson.
And so this truly would be a boomerang if it
went forward and then all of a sudden President Trump

(11:35):
had four appointments, because he would then replace Chief Justice Roberts,
Justice Thomas, who might retire anyway, and then Justice Kagan
and Justice out of Maior. So that would then give
Trump the power to appoint essentially eight of the nine
justices on the Court, which would really be a wild
turn of events.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
Yeah, I wonder if I don't know if the media
is going to be asking Joe in that today, is
he presents this or Kamala Harris, who has come out
in favor of as well, that if by chance you
have a President Trump coming about in January, does he
still think this proposal would should be put into effect?
Is this a proposal only assuming that Kamala Harris wins

(12:18):
or does he think this ought to go into a
place even if Donald Trump wins.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
I wonder if any who will ask him that question today.

Speaker 3 (12:25):
Yeah, well, they can't say the quiet part out loud,
but obviously they expect to win either just of their
own ability or they expect this to help them win
in November, because I promise you they do not think
that President Trump ought to appoint eighth and nine justices
of the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (12:40):
I had a historian on last hour in our final
a couple of moments together and talked about after Franklin
Delano Roosevelt really kind of went after the Supreme Court
and tried court packing, and then he tried reduce their pensions.
And then because of that, some people couldn't retire that
he could replace. How they not reduced their pensions. I mean,
the drama of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Supreme Court,

(13:01):
and he ultimately did not get his way with court packing. However,
afterwards it seems like that same court was a little
bit more favorable to his policies and ideas and his
agencies and stuff. Is this sometimes is there a risk
that somehow the court gets intimidated by the executive branch
and this talk by the Biden administration about how unnormal

(13:22):
they are, and this is almost kind of like bullying
them to change their change their actions.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
There's absolutely that risk. You know, I'm a fan of
the justices lately not calling to that sort of public pressure.
But there is always on the back of a judge's
mind the idea of political capital. And because you have
no force and no will, you have no army and
no real budget to spend, you have nothing but your word,

(13:50):
and so you need institutional legitimacy. And so if you're
going to go really far in terms of coming against
public opinion, you actually do and danger you're legitimacy. And
so judges often think, is this decision going to meet
with a bunch of public public backlash. So I don't
think they've been to that lately, but there's absolutely that risk.

(14:12):
And Chief Justice Roberts, particularly in the past, has been
a little over concerning legitimacy in his decision making. So
there is that risk, and certainly that's one benefit that
the Democrats see in proposingness. Now, of course, there's the
other risk, you know, if the Republicans take power. This
is kind of you know, good good for the goose,

(14:34):
good for the gander. They could propose something like, well,
we need to add more justice judges to the lower courts,
and then President Trump could appoint those. So anytime you
start tinkering with the jugital branch, you end up with
a recipe for disaster.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:48):
The voice of William TrackMan, Mountain State's Legal Foundation, hopping
on the program just to respond to the proposal coming
out this morning in an op ed piece and a
presentation by Joe Biden today about Supreme Court reforms out there. Well,
it's fascinating that in the Justice Department, a lot of
people have said that the Justice Department itself has been weaponized.

(15:09):
And if you say that, you're, well, you're you're hurting
the foundations of our government. If you question election security,
you're not supposed to call into question any part of
our government and critique.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
And however, I guess it's in vogue that as long.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
As you're criticizing the Supreme Court and not election integrity
and not the Justice Department, that it's okay. It's you
pick and choose that which you're allowed to critique, and
it's amazing that the things that we might want to
critique on our side not allowed to do so because
that's undermining the foundations of our democracy supposedly.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
Yeah, quite an anomaly, don't you think. You know? When
folks are criticizing the decision in Justin Vershan's case in
New York about President Trump and business records, there is
criticism about Republican saying though that the jersey was biased
or the judge was biased. How dare you undermine the

(16:06):
rule of law in that way? And then we of
course have the flip side. If there is a question
about judicial bias or judicial video questioning of whether judges
are making the best decisions based on their political beliefs,
that is just fine as long as you're criticizing conservatives
who are making decisions on behalf of the Constitution. So

(16:27):
there is definitely this devil standard that is out there.
I wouldn't urge anyone to pay too much attention to it,
because that's certainly part of the political tactics involved here.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
William TrackMan Mountain State's Legal Foundation. If folks want to
learn more about Mountain States legal sir.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
Where do they go?

Speaker 3 (16:44):
Ms legal dot org. Where we are a nonprofit, liberty
minded organization. We litigate for the Constitution. If you've got
good ideas for us or want to support us, it's
MS legal dot org.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
MS legal dot org. Will TrackMan, General Counsel Legal dot org.
Thanks for hopping on the program last minute to break
down this proposal on the Supreme Court reformation. William TrackMan,
mslegal dot org. Lakey on the radio, Good Morning, Happy Monday, Colorado.
Six hundred KCl standby.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
More to come.