May 15, 2025 • 13 mins
Yes. There is a chance that today is one of the most important days in modern American history.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Brian Mudjoe podcast is driven by Brayman Motor Cars.
My family is a Brayman Motor Cars family. Your family
should be to visit Braymanmotorcars dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Brian Mud Show. Thanks for listening. Passion
plus talent is unstoppable. It's time for today's Top three takeaways.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
It is and happy Thursday, mid May, which is craziness already,
and it happens to be one of the most important
days in modern American history. Joel's still not looking at
me as though he's good. You're just you're not a
buyer on today being that important of it. Dy, you
(00:45):
didn't wake up this morning. What did you wake up
this morning thinking.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Joel Man, I really have to get up this early again.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And so it didn't hit you that today could be
like transformational, that can be one of the more important days.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
No, I really think about it until you've been mentioning.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
It, okay, And even then you're just kind of like.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
No, when you first mentioned it this morning, I thought
it was something else. I thought it was like, wait,
what was today in history?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
He actually mentioned something about like rainy season.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
No, I was joking about that. Yes, today is the
start of rainy season. But who cares as far as
from that standpoint.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, all right, so we'll see you think the reason
why today is one of the most important days in
modern American history has to do with this Fox's Jessica Rosenthal.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
The Supreme Court will hear arguments from three cases challenging
President Trump's executive order that ends birthright citizenship. Three judges
have blocked the order, one in Seattle, one in Massachusetts,
and one in Maryland. The judge in Seattle called the
president's order blatantly unconstitutional. The president's order says the Fourteenth
Amendments never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone
(01:59):
born here. The amendment says, all persons born or naturalized
here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yes, so bingo. And that takes me to my top takeaway,
which is the cases the cases themselves. So as I
frame today as potentially being one of the most important
days in modern American history, is that a bit of hyperbole?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
It could be, It could be, It absolutely could be.
I recognize this. Is it possible though?
Speaker 1 (02:34):
The answer is yes, It's absolutely possible, though, And that
is the thing. We won't know today, By the way,
we'll have a pretty good idea likely by the end
of today. It'll be whenever it is that the Supreme
Court decides to rule, which will be sometime before the
end of June.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
On today's festivities.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
But yeah, there really is a chance that today's one
of the most important days of modern American history. And
that is due to not one, not two, but three
landmark cases being solidated into one Supreme Court hearing, and
not just any cases, but cases that could redefine birthright citizenship,
although that is unlikely. They don't have to actually rule
(03:12):
on birth right citizenship at all. They could, they don't
have to, and they very well may not. But the
bigger ball wax here, what absolutely is going to be
addressed is the extent of executive authority and judicial authority
of lower federal courts that will be defined and doesn't
(03:35):
get much bigger than that. So yes, what happens at
the High Court has the potential to be that big
of a deal today. The crux of the cases before
the Court involve President Trump's Day one executive order protecting
the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which takes a
further define birthright citizenship. Under the president's order, a child
(03:57):
born in the United States would be a legal sit
if just one, just one of the mother or father
were permanent legal residents at the top of the child's birth.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Just give me one legal one.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
In this conversation, the three cases consolidated into one mega hearing.
Are these the first one Trump versus Sukasa actually just Kasa, Inc.
The case was brought by the left wing Asylum Seeker
Advocacy Projects on behalf of five pregnant asylum seekers living
(04:33):
in Maryland looking to have their future children recognized as
American citizens. Illegal challenge was filed on January twenty first,
one day after President Trump's executive order seeking to end
birthright citizenship for children born in this country to those
lacking again that the permanent legal status. A Maryland District
(04:53):
Court judge not only issued an emergency ruling in favor
of the plaintiffs, but also issued a nationwide injunction against
President Trump's executive order, saying doesn't stand anywhere, and that
takes us to the second case, Trump versus Washington and
in this case, which was brought by the ags of
(05:13):
Washington State, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, also on January twenty first,
argue that the president to order violates the citizenship clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. On February sixth, a District court
judge in Washington issued a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement a
President Trump's executive order, which was later uphild under an
(05:34):
emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In
the third case Trump versus New Jersey. Similar to the
second case, this legal challenge was brought by eighteen other
states and the District of Columbia to President Trump's Birthright
Citizenship executive order filed on January twenty first. Okay, so
(05:55):
basically every state that has a Democrat ag they're like, yeah,
us too, we want illegal immigrants to have kids here
and have them be citizens. That's what they're all fighting for, legally,
fighting every Democrat age in this country, legally fighting for
people who are not in this country legally to have
(06:16):
the benefit of having anchor babies so they become a
charge on you. As I mentioned yesterday, eighty eight percent
of these people end up on government assistants programs. Eighty
eight that's what they want to fight for, getting getting
them on government programs that you pay for as long
(06:37):
as they're here. That's the battle fighting for you, right,
Democrats always fighting for you. Now they're fighting for illegal
immigrants that you have to pay for, which takes me
to my second takeaway today. Good morning, by the way,
and what has the potential to be one of the
most important days in American history. If you're just joining
us as we walk through my top three takeaways, let's
(06:59):
go to kind of the layer of the onion, some
of the contextual stuff here with Fox's Tanya and j Powers.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
The issue before the justices is whether lower court judges
can block presidential policies nationwide with what are known as
universal injunctions. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by
dozens of these injunctions in recent months, argues that the
blocks are unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Right, So that is in the crossers here. How far
can any of these courts go? So, yes, there is
the obvious matter at hand regarding the birthright citizenship question
that the Supreme Court will be considering today or not considering.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
It's their choice.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
But even then there's the room for the nuance within
the considerations. More on some of those angles in a moment,
but what is every bit and really more important here
is the matter that brought these legal challenges to the forefront.
Whether these courts that issued their original orders actually had
any right to do so at all. Did these courts
(08:01):
retain any legal authority to issue nationwide injunctions? The use
of a nationwide injunction by district court judges, that is
the root of this. It has been argued by Team
Trump that it is absurd for a district court judge,
the lowest in the federal judicial system, the lowest level
(08:22):
of federal judge there is, to have the unilateral power
in the judiciary that is the equivalent to that of
the President of the United States. I mean, isn't that
fun to think that the lowest level federal judge could
unilaterally equal the power of.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
The president of the United States. Joe doesn't look convinced.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
No, it does seem like it's been working that way.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Well, it has been that way, yeah, I mean that
effectively from a legal standpoint, has been what we have seen.
You know, since the earliest days of President Trump's first administration,
the left has filed a tidal wave of lawsuits against
the Trump agenda, which Harry picked federal court judges that
have issued in federal injunctions striking down the agenda. And
(09:09):
this has been true from the southern border including construction
of the border wall, to Trump's remain in Mexico policy
during his first term, to ice detentions and deportations independent
of birthright citizenship in this term. I mean, you even
had the stupid injunction saying the President of the United
States couldn't fire his own employees. I mean, it's just
(09:31):
the most insane thing, most powerful person in the world
that you can't actually decide who gets to work for you.
What I mean, that is how lunatic ish. All this
is the absurdity of the absurdities here. Trump won well
over half of the cases. I've broken all this down,
as we've talked about various aspects of this in recent
(09:53):
months since the order. Trump won in his first term
well over half of everything that was brought a against him.
But it worked to delay. It worked to delay all
those things, even what he won on. It's the reason why,
for example, the southern border wall wasn't coompleted during his
first term, had it not been for the two and
(10:13):
a half year delay in the courts on the southern
border wall.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
It would have been done.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
The wall would have been there by the end of
his first term. It's why over a million additional bogus
asylum seekers were allowed into this country even during Trump's
first four years too, because he had to wait about
three years to get the rolling None remain in Mexico.
So there is a sense of urgency attached to the
president's agenda that is paramount, and these considerations before the
(10:41):
court today. That's why this is that important because if
Trump wins on this stuff, never again will a federal
judge be able to do what they've done all these years.
Yesterday was President Trump's one hundred and fourteenth day in office,
and two hundred and thirty four cases had been filed
against his administration, with only seven that have been closed.
(11:04):
That is how absurd all this is. There's a NonStop effort,
the rampant abuse of our legal system by the left.
That is what is on the agenda today, which takes
me to my third takeaway today.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
What to look for.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
This from Utah Senator and great constitutional attorney Mike Lee.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
He was on with Laura Ingram last night.
Speaker 6 (11:26):
They can slow it, and by doing that, they can
deny the president a substantial portion of his presidency through delay.
That's the problem, and that's what I hope and expect
to see the Court remedy after oral argument.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
That's it in a nutshell, And as is always the
case during oral arguments, the line of questioning by justices,
in addition to the occasional commentary, it's going to be
closely watched with each of the arguments at hand. And
as that reference, you got the room for nuanced responses
and eventual decisions as well. For example, they could choose
to do something with the citizenship question.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Or not even address it at all.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
They could choose to say that these federal judges couldn't
continue to issue nationwide injunctions, or they could say, you
can't even issue an injunction that applies to your entire district,
but only the case that is before you at that
moment in time.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
So that is the scope of what's on the table today.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
And as for whether it's likely to get big, the
reason that I have aired or heared on the side
of huge here the Supreme Court session ended two weeks ago.
They decided to go ahead and take this up right now,
when ordinarily they're just working on opinions for what they
already had in their spring session. They thought this was
(12:45):
too important to let it go until the fall session,
which wouldn't be decided until the end of the year.
They thought they had to expedite it by effectively another
six months to get to a decision on this stuff.
And so they don't do stuff like that if they're
just going to give a status quo ruling in judgment.
That's why something big is going to come out of this.
It's just a matter of what exactly that looks like.
(13:08):
Our White House correspondent John Decker, who also is able
to argue cases before the United States Supreme Court, will
be at this hearing today.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
I'll have a real good read on where we stand.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Plus walk John joining us on tomorrow's show, So stand
by for news
The Brian Mudjoe podcast is driven by Brayman Motor Cars.
My family is a Brayman Motor Cars family. Your family
should be to visit Braymanmotorcars dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Brian Mud Show. Thanks for listening. Passion
plus talent is unstoppable. It's time for today's Top three takeaways.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
It is and happy Thursday, mid May, which is craziness already,
and it happens to be one of the most important
days in modern American history. Joel's still not looking at
me as though he's good. You're just you're not a
buyer on today being that important of it. Dy, you
(00:45):
didn't wake up this morning. What did you wake up
this morning thinking.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Joel Man, I really have to get up this early again.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And so it didn't hit you that today could be
like transformational, that can be one of the more important days.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
No, I really think about it until you've been mentioning.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
It, okay, And even then you're just kind of like.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
No, when you first mentioned it this morning, I thought
it was something else. I thought it was like, wait,
what was today in history?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
He actually mentioned something about like rainy season.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
No, I was joking about that. Yes, today is the
start of rainy season. But who cares as far as
from that standpoint.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, all right, so we'll see you think the reason
why today is one of the most important days in
modern American history has to do with this Fox's Jessica Rosenthal.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
The Supreme Court will hear arguments from three cases challenging
President Trump's executive order that ends birthright citizenship. Three judges
have blocked the order, one in Seattle, one in Massachusetts,
and one in Maryland. The judge in Seattle called the
president's order blatantly unconstitutional. The president's order says the Fourteenth
Amendments never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone
(01:59):
born here. The amendment says, all persons born or naturalized
here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yes, so bingo. And that takes me to my top takeaway,
which is the cases the cases themselves. So as I
frame today as potentially being one of the most important
days in modern American history, is that a bit of hyperbole?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
It could be, It could be, It absolutely could be.
I recognize this. Is it possible though?
Speaker 1 (02:34):
The answer is yes, It's absolutely possible, though, And that
is the thing. We won't know today, By the way,
we'll have a pretty good idea likely by the end
of today. It'll be whenever it is that the Supreme
Court decides to rule, which will be sometime before the
end of June.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
On today's festivities.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
But yeah, there really is a chance that today's one
of the most important days of modern American history. And
that is due to not one, not two, but three
landmark cases being solidated into one Supreme Court hearing, and
not just any cases, but cases that could redefine birthright citizenship,
although that is unlikely. They don't have to actually rule
(03:12):
on birth right citizenship at all. They could, they don't
have to, and they very well may not. But the
bigger ball wax here, what absolutely is going to be
addressed is the extent of executive authority and judicial authority
of lower federal courts that will be defined and doesn't
(03:35):
get much bigger than that. So yes, what happens at
the High Court has the potential to be that big
of a deal today. The crux of the cases before
the Court involve President Trump's Day one executive order protecting
the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which takes a
further define birthright citizenship. Under the president's order, a child
(03:57):
born in the United States would be a legal sit
if just one, just one of the mother or father
were permanent legal residents at the top of the child's birth.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Just give me one legal one.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
In this conversation, the three cases consolidated into one mega hearing.
Are these the first one Trump versus Sukasa actually just Kasa, Inc.
The case was brought by the left wing Asylum Seeker
Advocacy Projects on behalf of five pregnant asylum seekers living
(04:33):
in Maryland looking to have their future children recognized as
American citizens. Illegal challenge was filed on January twenty first,
one day after President Trump's executive order seeking to end
birthright citizenship for children born in this country to those
lacking again that the permanent legal status. A Maryland District
(04:53):
Court judge not only issued an emergency ruling in favor
of the plaintiffs, but also issued a nationwide injunction against
President Trump's executive order, saying doesn't stand anywhere, and that
takes us to the second case, Trump versus Washington and
in this case, which was brought by the ags of
(05:13):
Washington State, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, also on January twenty first,
argue that the president to order violates the citizenship clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. On February sixth, a District court
judge in Washington issued a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement a
President Trump's executive order, which was later uphild under an
(05:34):
emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In
the third case Trump versus New Jersey. Similar to the
second case, this legal challenge was brought by eighteen other
states and the District of Columbia to President Trump's Birthright
Citizenship executive order filed on January twenty first. Okay, so
(05:55):
basically every state that has a Democrat ag they're like, yeah,
us too, we want illegal immigrants to have kids here
and have them be citizens. That's what they're all fighting for, legally,
fighting every Democrat age in this country, legally fighting for
people who are not in this country legally to have
(06:16):
the benefit of having anchor babies so they become a
charge on you. As I mentioned yesterday, eighty eight percent
of these people end up on government assistants programs. Eighty
eight that's what they want to fight for, getting getting
them on government programs that you pay for as long
(06:37):
as they're here. That's the battle fighting for you, right,
Democrats always fighting for you. Now they're fighting for illegal
immigrants that you have to pay for, which takes me
to my second takeaway today. Good morning, by the way,
and what has the potential to be one of the
most important days in American history. If you're just joining
us as we walk through my top three takeaways, let's
(06:59):
go to kind of the layer of the onion, some
of the contextual stuff here with Fox's Tanya and j Powers.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
The issue before the justices is whether lower court judges
can block presidential policies nationwide with what are known as
universal injunctions. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by
dozens of these injunctions in recent months, argues that the
blocks are unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Right, So that is in the crossers here. How far
can any of these courts go? So, yes, there is
the obvious matter at hand regarding the birthright citizenship question
that the Supreme Court will be considering today or not considering.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
It's their choice.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
But even then there's the room for the nuance within
the considerations. More on some of those angles in a moment,
but what is every bit and really more important here
is the matter that brought these legal challenges to the forefront.
Whether these courts that issued their original orders actually had
any right to do so at all. Did these courts
(08:01):
retain any legal authority to issue nationwide injunctions? The use
of a nationwide injunction by district court judges, that is
the root of this. It has been argued by Team
Trump that it is absurd for a district court judge,
the lowest in the federal judicial system, the lowest level
(08:22):
of federal judge there is, to have the unilateral power
in the judiciary that is the equivalent to that of
the President of the United States. I mean, isn't that
fun to think that the lowest level federal judge could
unilaterally equal the power of.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
The president of the United States. Joe doesn't look convinced.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
No, it does seem like it's been working that way.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Well, it has been that way, yeah, I mean that
effectively from a legal standpoint, has been what we have seen.
You know, since the earliest days of President Trump's first administration,
the left has filed a tidal wave of lawsuits against
the Trump agenda, which Harry picked federal court judges that
have issued in federal injunctions striking down the agenda. And
(09:09):
this has been true from the southern border including construction
of the border wall, to Trump's remain in Mexico policy
during his first term, to ice detentions and deportations independent
of birthright citizenship in this term. I mean, you even
had the stupid injunction saying the President of the United
States couldn't fire his own employees. I mean, it's just
(09:31):
the most insane thing, most powerful person in the world
that you can't actually decide who gets to work for you.
What I mean, that is how lunatic ish. All this
is the absurdity of the absurdities here. Trump won well
over half of the cases. I've broken all this down,
as we've talked about various aspects of this in recent
(09:53):
months since the order. Trump won in his first term
well over half of everything that was brought a against him.
But it worked to delay. It worked to delay all
those things, even what he won on. It's the reason why,
for example, the southern border wall wasn't coompleted during his
first term, had it not been for the two and
(10:13):
a half year delay in the courts on the southern
border wall.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
It would have been done.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
The wall would have been there by the end of
his first term. It's why over a million additional bogus
asylum seekers were allowed into this country even during Trump's
first four years too, because he had to wait about
three years to get the rolling None remain in Mexico.
So there is a sense of urgency attached to the
president's agenda that is paramount, and these considerations before the
(10:41):
court today. That's why this is that important because if
Trump wins on this stuff, never again will a federal
judge be able to do what they've done all these years.
Yesterday was President Trump's one hundred and fourteenth day in office,
and two hundred and thirty four cases had been filed
against his administration, with only seven that have been closed.
(11:04):
That is how absurd all this is. There's a NonStop effort,
the rampant abuse of our legal system by the left.
That is what is on the agenda today, which takes
me to my third takeaway today.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
What to look for.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
This from Utah Senator and great constitutional attorney Mike Lee.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
He was on with Laura Ingram last night.
Speaker 6 (11:26):
They can slow it, and by doing that, they can
deny the president a substantial portion of his presidency through delay.
That's the problem, and that's what I hope and expect
to see the Court remedy after oral argument.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
That's it in a nutshell, And as is always the
case during oral arguments, the line of questioning by justices,
in addition to the occasional commentary, it's going to be
closely watched with each of the arguments at hand. And
as that reference, you got the room for nuanced responses
and eventual decisions as well. For example, they could choose
to do something with the citizenship question.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Or not even address it at all.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
They could choose to say that these federal judges couldn't
continue to issue nationwide injunctions, or they could say, you
can't even issue an injunction that applies to your entire district,
but only the case that is before you at that
moment in time.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
So that is the scope of what's on the table today.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
And as for whether it's likely to get big, the
reason that I have aired or heared on the side
of huge here the Supreme Court session ended two weeks ago.
They decided to go ahead and take this up right now,
when ordinarily they're just working on opinions for what they
already had in their spring session. They thought this was
(12:45):
too important to let it go until the fall session,
which wouldn't be decided until the end of the year.
They thought they had to expedite it by effectively another
six months to get to a decision on this stuff.
And so they don't do stuff like that if they're
just going to give a status quo ruling in judgment.
That's why something big is going to come out of this.
It's just a matter of what exactly that looks like.
(13:08):
Our White House correspondent John Decker, who also is able
to argue cases before the United States Supreme Court, will
be at this hearing today.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
I'll have a real good read on where we stand.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Plus walk John joining us on tomorrow's show, So stand
by for news
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com