Judicial Tyranny

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, my friends, you want to go see Shenyan. Trust me,
it's this. I mean, it's the experience of a lifetime. Well,
you know what, for all the wonderful callers out there,
I want to do a little something for you. We're
giving away two free tickets right now. Be the first
caller at seven eight one three five zero seven zero

(00:24):
four five seven eight one three five zero seven zero
four five Be the first caller, and you will get
two free tickets to shen Yen. Treat yourself and your
loved ones to an unforgettable night at Shenyon. It is
a true celebration of beauty and heritage coming to Boston, Worcester,

(00:46):
Portland and Providence starting March twenty ninth. Get your tickets
now at shen Yon dot com. That's s h E
n yuin dot com. Brian and Bill Rica, thanks for
holding Brian and welcome.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
Good morning, Good morning, Jeff, thanks for taking the call.
Just a random thought before I get to my main point.
I don't know why in the heck, with all the
technology we have in this government and in this nation,
that we can't come up with our own internal signal
type app so we don't have to rely on an
outside organization to facilitate these communications. But the reason I

(01:31):
called is when I hear callers calling in and you
agree with them that we should just say the heck
with the courts and run roughshot over them, it makes
me physically nauseous. And I'll tell you why. I think
it's understandable that people just want to push ahead with

(01:52):
Trump's agenda, but I don't think people give it enough
thought that what could happen in the future if we
set this kind of precedent that, you know, if power
changes hands in this country, as it tends to do
every you know, four or eight years, how would people

(02:12):
feel if that president was set and then a new administration,
perhaps a democratic liberal administration, started doing the same thing.
I also think people should look a little bit at
the past too, and you look at how successfully President
Trump used the court system to essentially delay all these prosecutions.

(02:39):
And if the Biden administration had said the heck with
all these appeals and all this stuff, you know, I
can't keep them all straight. Trump would probably be in
jail right now. So just a word of caution. It's
understandable that people want to support his agenda. One to
one rough shot over the courts. But it's it's a

(03:01):
dangerous president. And it also plays right into the hands
of people who said Trump wants to be a dictator.
He wants to be a dictata. If we all loot him,
we're going to have a dictatorship. Agree, disagree?

Speaker 1 (03:15):
Oh I disagree, I respectfully, Brian, And I'll tell you why.
First of all, the precedent's already been said, Sez, It's
already been made. The president's already been at, already been
has already been laid down. You saw that with Joe Biden.
He was blocked by the courts repeatedly. He just ran
rough shot over him. He didn't care. Even when the

(03:36):
Supreme Court told him that his student loan forgiveness program
was illegal and unconstitutional, he kept doing it. He forgave
hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans unilaterally,
completely defying and ignoring the Supreme Court. Obama did it
dozens of times. So the Left and the Democrats don't

(03:57):
obey the courts. They only ope what they want to obey.
That's number one. Number two, we're not talking about legitimate
constitutional decisions. Everybody and myself included has a great respect
for the rule of law. We're talking about rogue activist
judges who are clearly violating separation of powers, who are

(04:21):
clearly usurping the authority of the executive branch. And this
is not even a close call. For example, for a
judge to tell Donald Trump that he has to release
billions of dollars in foreign eight, no judge has the
right to do that. It's blatantly unconstitutional for him to

(04:43):
do that. The president controls foreign aid, and when he
sees that foreign eight is going to a corrupt country
or for a corrupt purpose, or a corrupt entity, he
has every right to prevent it from being sent out. Now, furthermore,
that the president doesn't have the power to deport criminal

(05:05):
illegal aliens who are now designated as foreign terrorist organizations
like Trendo Aragua and MS thirteen. That a judge, a
district judge literally now has the powers to decide foreign policy,
and in fact, jurisdiction apparently reaches all the way into

(05:27):
outside the United States, into international airspace to order two
planeloads of terrorists and transnational criminals and saying you have
to turn the plane around.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
This guy's crazy he's crazy. It's a disgrace to the judiciary.
This guy's not a judge. Again, this is not even close.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
So it's not as if we're saying, oh, you don't
like the decision, just ignore it when it's an outrageous,
unconstitutional decision. And look again, this is the crisis we're in.
This is judicial tyranny. Forget the you know, the threats
of the left saying, oh, there's going to be a king,
he's a dictator. No, this is really literally fascist in

(06:13):
black robes. You know, if Boseberg doesn't like Trump's deportation policy,
then run for office, run for president, win the popular vote,
win the electoral college, win the swing states, and become president. Otherwise,
you're just supposed to interpret the constitution. You're not supposed

(06:37):
to legislate from the bench. And that's what he's doing.
And let me just add one more thing, Brian, and
I promise I'll give you the last word. This judge
is now literally going to you know, can you imagine
if he told Trump you can't deport ISIS or al Qaeda,
Egyptian al Qaeda or Afghanistan ISIS members who are in

(07:02):
our country illegally. It's outrageous. So they're grabbing power. It's
a power grab that they have no business grabbing. And
if they succeed, they will destroy the presidency itself.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Go, Brian, I think we have enough time here. They
debate all the different things back and forth. But I
got to believe, and I think I know in particular
on these you know the airplane there that was driving
is what the judge was saying was something about due

(07:39):
process and not that you can't deport these people, but
you do have to follow the process.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
No, you're right, you're right on that. You're right, Okay,
just as an exclamation point to Brian's call, and I
appreciate Brian's call very much, very thoughtful call. What Judge
Bosberg is arguing is not just that they have due
process rights. Again, remember, these are illegal aliens. They came
into our country illegally. They're criminals, many of them with

(08:07):
convictions before they even came in. It's his trend or
Aragua MS thirteen. These are now foreign terrorists, transnational criminals.
So to me, due process doesn't apply to them the constitution.
They have no constitutional rights. But even let that go.
He also said in his recent ruling, which is completely

(08:29):
outrageous that every single member of MS thirteen or trend
or Aragua has the right to appeal Trump's deportation and
the right to a quote unquote individualized case. So there's
not enough courts in the country. We're talking about, what

(08:49):
is it, fifteen million illegals. If everyone has the right
to a quote unquote appeal and an individual eyed case,
you're lucky if you get five hundred illegals to ported
in a year, I mean otherwd time, it's gonna it's
gonna you want to about backlogging the courts. It's gonna

(09:10):
clog the courts completely because it's going to be one
appeal after another after another. You can't even try him
as a group. You've got to try him person by person,
case by case, individual by individual through the appeals process.
Hey yay, And that's the intent. The intent of Bosberg

(09:33):
is to grind Trump's agenda to a halt and to
effectively block paralyze his deportations, in other words, to subvert
his presidency. Now, this is not Jeff Kooner saying this.
This is not some conservative constitutionalist saying this. Elena Kagan,

(09:55):
a principled liberal Supreme Court justice gave an interview two
three years ago, like I'm talking a couple of years ago,
and said, this practice of district court judges, which is
what Bolsburg is issuing a nationwide injunction, blocking nationwide policy,

(10:17):
she said, not only is unconstitutional, blatantly unconstitutional, she says
it's an actual existential threat to our constitutional system of
government because judges are now making themselves the facto presidents.
And she says, you don't understand, we don't elect judges

(10:37):
to legislate, and that's what they're doing. They're substituting their
will for the will of the people, the will of Congress,
and the will of the elected president of the United States.
That's not the role of the judiciary. Now, Elena Kagan
is saying this practice is outrageous and a mortal threat

(11:01):
to separation of powers and checks and balances, because obviously
it's the road to judicial tyranny. So it's not as
if conservatives like me or Trump supporters are saying, you know,
whatever a judge rules, run roughshot over it. No, if
it's a clearly extra constitutional, outrageous abuse and usurpation of power,

(11:25):
as this clearly is. Again, this is not a close call.
This is not uh, I can see it both ways.
This is you don't have the power to do that,
period full stop. It would be like him saying to
Congress you can't pass a budget. You'd be like, what, No,

(11:48):
you can't pass a budget. And then we got it
what and then we got to what. Litigate this and
litigate it and litigate it. So Congress is effectively paralyzed
from doing it's constitutionally delineated. As they say, plenary authority,
full powers to exercise its power. It's its authority. So

(12:08):
Congress cannot function as the Constitution intended it to function
because one crazy judge says, no, we have to stop
deifying judges, glorifying judges. This is not an oligarchy. This

(12:29):
is not a judicial dictatorship. It's a constitutional republic. And
Congress gives sorry, the Constitution gives Congress all of the
power to clip the wings of the judiciary. You know
again it bears repeating. You can limit the court's jurisdiction.
Congress can do that one piece of legislation. You can

(12:52):
defund a specific judge or a specific court. You can
defund an entire district court. You can impeach a judge.
I mean, there's many weapons at the disposal of Congress.
But the reason why these courts are becoming more activists
and usurping the role of both the legislative and the

(13:15):
executive branch is because Congress will not put the judicial
branch in its proper place, and that comes from a
lack of leadership and frankly cowardice. So it's time now
for you know, little Mike, Mini Mike, put on your
big boy pants, Mike, and legislate and put these rogue

(13:37):
activist judges in their place once and for all, because
I'm telling you, the people aren't going to stand for it.
Six one seven two six six sixty eight sixty eight agree, disagree.
Tom in New Hampshire, Thanks for holding, Tom, and welcome,
Hey Jeff, great show, Thank you Tom, Jeff.

Speaker 4 (14:00):
A couple of points and when I make I've talked
to you about this before. He has to again surrounding
himself with politicians, congressmen and high spots. I'm Walts Gabbitt,
dractate all ruvio us Senator. He can't trust any of them.

(14:22):
I've been calling you for years. What he has to
do he has to sign a special investigator put all
these people on leaves, all of them. I won't trust
any of them. Put them all leave. Hire a special investigator.
And why should he be, he asked, answering all these

(14:45):
questions to these people. He's right, these people, I'm loyal
to him.

Speaker 5 (14:50):
He should hire outside of.

Speaker 4 (14:53):
Washington, a person outside Washington and go over all their emails,
all the coresponds from the they they started their jobs.
That's what he should be doing. Now, why he's not
doing it?

Speaker 6 (15:08):
I don't and and and I mean he's at these
conferences and when he answers the questions the president and
he says, well, I asked Mike Walves, he shouldn't bet,
and he shouldn't be talking like that about about anybody
always said it. All he should be seeing as a.

Speaker 4 (15:25):
President is that I'm hiring a special investigator to look
at this. I mean, that was awful. I know what
you're seeing. Signal, they all use it. But think about this, Jeff.
They had a combat mission, right, they should have been
in a room together, no phones. Some of them use
personal phones.

Speaker 5 (15:47):
And you know why they.

Speaker 6 (15:47):
Weren't all together, Jeff, because it.

Speaker 4 (15:49):
Was on a Saturday, and some of them are befrobably
at the country club and they're not going to come
into Washington for this, and that's why he's on the
phone with all these people. It's a joke.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
Well, look, Tom, I agree with you. There's a situation room,
and there's a reason why there's a situation room. It's impenetrable.
Nobody can bug it, nobody can surveil it, nobody can
hack it. And I think that's where all these big
decisions need to be made. I completely agree. I think
we're becoming too reliant on all of this new technology

(16:24):
and we're getting burned. And this is an example, and
it's you're right, But I'm also fearing now that I
think they're listening in on everything. I think that's what
Trump needs to understand. I think Biden set them up.
I don't trust signal on anything in the government. I
don't CJ in Boston. Thanks for holding CJ and welcome.

Speaker 5 (16:47):
Good money shift. And what is Judge Bosburg is saying
to all Americans on behalf of the Democratic body is
we want these murderers and terrorists to remain in the
United States for as long as we can, because we'll
make this an issue to get Donald Trump out of office.
I believe the biggest mistake Trump and his administration can

(17:10):
make right now is to be silent on this and
this matter because he's being punched left and right, and
then now they're just not going after him, They're going
after his cabinet. They're gonna they're gonna make this issue
compet six, They're gonna make this a three ring circus.

(17:34):
And he's gotta get on this right away. He has
to find out who added that gentleman from the Atlantic
magazine to that to that list of people who got
those messages, and I'm sure Elon can do that in
about twenty four hours and then find out if there
are any any emails to this gentleman. And and that's

(17:56):
something I think should be done within a week's time.
But I think the President has to go on defense
here big time. I believe he should go on national
television and expose what is going on here by these
lower court judges, and this judge Bosberg was picked not
by coincidence but by the fact that he may be

(18:19):
impeached and they know that he will go after Trump.
That's the reason for this. And if they believe that
Trump and his administration are well within his rights to
deport these people. Then he should ignore, ignore like I say,
You just ignore like Biden did, and continue with these

(18:41):
policies until it reaches the Supreme Court. You would think
that Justice Roberts would step forward and tell these judges
that you don't have the authority to do what you're doing.

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Now.

Speaker 5 (18:51):
You know as well as I do. It'll take a
year and a half to two years to get the
Supreme Court unless they make these issues a priority, and
they should be a priority. They should be held within
a week's time to get hearings on this. And you're
absolutely right. They are making lower court judges. They are
the ones now running the country, not the president of

(19:11):
the United States. But Trump has to do something. He
has to go on national television, not just to defend himself,
but defend his cabinet members who are now under attack
and under suit. They are being sued. That's what he
needs to do. So, if Trump is really Trump and
he's hoping the Trump God, if what the Democrats say

(19:35):
is true, is no one above the law? This judge Brossberg,
I would confer with the Justice Department to see that
this judge if he cannot in the instance of trying
to start murderers and rapists and terrorists from leaving the
United States, that if he cannot be charged with obstruction,

(19:59):
because that's what these judges are doing, is obstructing justice
in America. And the Supreme Court is going to remain silent,
and Congress is silent up to this point, and the
United States we cannot allow this to happen because Trump
for the next two years four years, will be the

(20:21):
punching bag of the Democratic Party if he doesn't hit
this head on and put these people in their place,
including Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court, and have
him either tell these judges it's not within their authority
to do what they're doing, or just keep continuing what

(20:43):
he's doing. Indict every one of these lower court justices
for obstruction, and when it reaches the Supreme Court, if
it's found that they didn't have the authority, Okay, his justice,
the problem would be well within their rights to process acute.
These judges were Democrats. No one's above the law.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
I love it, CJ. I love it. Uh, And you're
completely right. If Trump's people are listening, and I know
they are, they're these lower court judges colluding with the
Democrats and the media and now clearly some in the
deep state they're looking to grind Trump's presidency into dust.
And you've got to stop them now because CJ is

(21:26):
completely right. The lower courts are going to be running
the country, not the president. CJ. Thank you very much
for that call. Jeff in Kentucky. Jeff, I hate to
do this to you. You've got one minute. The floor
is yours.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Goat Hey.

Speaker 7 (21:45):
I'm an issue with the signal, all right, and I
don't know if it's been touched on, but emails can
be tracked, money can be tracked, phone calls can be tracked.
Signa cannot. So if we're going to be the party
of right, we need to do the right thing and
not you something that's going to be hidden or that
can't be used because what did Biden's bad men do

(22:09):
If they use this, what do we know about now?
So that's what I got to say for that.

Speaker 6 (22:15):
I appreciate it, Jeff.

Speaker 1 (22:16):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (22:16):
Jeff.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
No, look, I agree with you. I think for many
many reasons they should stop using signal. I agree with you,
and look I'm old fashioned. Really sit down in a
situation room. I'm with Trump all the way on this.
Have people face to face, especially when you're deciding, for
God's sake, a military operation and you're going, you know

(22:38):
the pros and the cons. I don't think it should
be done on a messaging app or on cell phones
or now. I understand the realities of modern life. But
you know, we do have and we pay for it,
we taxpayers. We pay for this government communications networks that
are supposed to be impervious to penetration or hacking. So

(22:59):
have everybody then use a proper government communications network,