April 23, 2025 • 8 mins
When there’s what appears to be clear judicial overreach, it’s tempting to want your preferred politician to follow through with their agenda despite what the courts might say.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Brian Mudshow 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):
If you have questions, Brian has answers. It's time for
today's Q and A of today. This is the Brian Mudshow. Yeah,
today's Q TODA what would happen? And President Trump said,
you know what, forget it, I'm just going to ignore
some of these federal court orders. This is brought to
you by mom Listen Ashes, Checkmark Collections. Each day I
(00:35):
feature a listener of questions sent by one of these methods.
You may email me Brian Mud at iHeartMedia dot com,
hnd me up on social at Brian mud Radio, and
you may also use the iHeartRadio talk back feature. Just
go to w JNO or vera patriot inside of the
iHeartRadio app. We would love it if you would make
us your number one preset. That way, we're always there
(00:56):
for you. You can listen and demand anywhere you go
for free.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
And by the way, it'd be great if you also
made The Brian Mudshow podcast my podcast your number two
pre set right behind that. While you're in there. You'll
also see this little microphone button. You see it, it's happened.
You may lay out a message right there for us,
maybe a topic, a question for a future Q and A.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Just like the shellman, when you say.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
That the lower court judge doesn't have the authority to
override the president deporting illegal immigrants, why is he conforming
to the order and not continuing to deport?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Yeah, so why doesn't the president just go ahead and say,
you know what, I don't like these court orders. You
know some of these things I they don't have authority
over foreign policy decisions and certainly international security matters well.
And the most recent regulated ruling wasn't even with a
lower court. It happened to be a temporary stay by
(01:51):
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Here's the latest on that one.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
There was a ruling from the Supreme Court over the
weekend saying that the administration cannot continue with deportation of
criminal migrants from Venezuela. And the President has not given
any indication that he would stray from that or defy
any kind of order, but feels that public opinion is
on the administration's side.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Ma's Fox's Alexandria Hoff and so what about it. You know,
what if the president just said, screw it, I'm going
to do my job. And it is tempting, right, you know,
when there's appeared to what appears to be clear judicial overreach,
just to go forward with your preferred position, and if
it's your preferred politician, your preferred position on that issue
(02:33):
might be tempting for you to say, yeah, just go
do it. The term constitutional crisis, it's overused and abused
these days. However, what is risks by that train of thought,
if that path we're traveled down is what a real
constitutional crisis would look like.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
So there is a better than not chance.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Certainly, if you're listening to this show that you are
fully aware of the different branches of government and what
their functions are. Joel even has full command of this one.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
It would be executive, legislative, and judicial. Got it.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
There you go, nailed it. So yeah about that. But
even though you're familiar with these, let's just do kind
of like the real quick overview of kind of the
checks and balances that go along with them. So your
legislative brand, which is Congress, they're there to what they
have the authority to make laws. They write, debate, pass legislation.
(03:31):
They control the budget, right, they have the purse strings,
and they also have the power to declare war or
to impeach officials. So then you have your executive branch,
the president there to enforce laws, there to implement legislation,
to manage foreign policy, putting commanding. The military can veto
(03:55):
laws and can also issue executive orders, and that takes
to the judicial branch, headed up by the Supreme Court.
There to interpret laws, review laws and actions for constitutionality.
There to resolve disputes, and to ensure the laws that
are passed that align with the Constitution. So then you
(04:15):
take a look at the additional checks and balances of
each of those. On the other, the president can veto
laws the Congress passes, but then again Congress can also
override the president with the two thirds vote. The Supreme
Court can strike down laws, but Congress can then amend
the constitution. Congress approves budgets, but then the president is
(04:36):
the person who executes spending. So you see how it's
all intertwined. And that takes us to what would happen
if President Trump just said, yeah, what, I don't need
no stinking court orders. I don't like, so doing so
would trigger an actual constitutional crisis, as the executive branch
(04:57):
to find the judiciary does under mind the separation of powers.
In response, what would happen, Well, the judiciary would likely
issue contentrallings.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
If that were to happen.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Law enforcement under the Department of Justice would be tasked
with enforcement. But would they If Trump then turned round
to his own DOJ and said, doing you do this?
Congress could then respond with potential impeachment proceedings because that
would constitute high crime or misdemeanor.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
But would they?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
So?
Speaker 1 (05:27):
The bottom line is that it is just not a
ball of wax we want to be involved in. It's
not an outcome we should hope to see. And especially
if you know, if when we get to the point
where you have politicians you do not want of those positions,
You would not want to set this kind of precedent
and see where this thing would go. There is one example,
(05:47):
the closest in US history that is most closely tied
to testing the balance of powers in the judiciary specifically,
and actually coincides with one of the lowest points in
American history and the eighteenthies. President Andrew Jackson defied the
Supreme Courts ruling in Worcester versus Georgia. That was a
case in eighteen thirty two that declared that the State
(06:09):
of Georgia's laws over Cherokee lands were unconstitutional and that
only the federal government had authority over Native American tribes.
The court, which was led by Chief Justice John Marshall,
one of the most famous historically, ruled that the Cherokee
Nation was a sovereign entity and that Georgia's attempts to
(06:30):
seize their land and to enforce state laws allowing for
that violated federal treaties. So Jackson, who supported Indian removal,
is alleged to have said, there's no hard documentation on this,
but it's been well repeated over the years. It's been prevalent,
(06:50):
he said. John Marshall made his decision, Now let him
enforce it. In other words, I'm not going to Supreme
Court can say whatever they want to say, I'm not
going to enforce it. And so the closest we got
up to it is the Supreme Court ordered the federal
government to obstruct Georgia from taking action here. But Jackson's
(07:13):
administration just didn't do anything, and instead he rhetorically continued
to push for the removal of the Cherokee and other tribes,
culminating and what eventually passes the Indian Removal Act and
the force relocation that was known as the Trail of Tears.
So a constitutional crisis was avoided in that instance only
(07:34):
because the result of the defiance was in action just
choosing not to enforce the law. Not dissimilar to like Biden, right,
Biden did not enforce immigration laws open borders, so that
it would be a very analogous thing to where it's
not a you're taking action in direct defiance of a
(07:57):
court order. You're just not going to enforce the law.
So there are no historical examples of federal court rulings
that have been ignored by just continued action in defiance
of the judicial branch. It would be best that it
remains that way. So yeah, I mean, the answer to
judicial activism is what's happening right now, getting these matters
(08:17):
to the Supreme Court, having the Trump administration hopefully get
some wins there, and to reign in the lower court authority,
and then winning elections and appointing constitutionalists to the bench
as opposed to activists.
The Brian Mudshow 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):
If you have questions, Brian has answers. It's time for
today's Q and A of today. This is the Brian Mudshow. Yeah,
today's Q TODA what would happen? And President Trump said,
you know what, forget it, I'm just going to ignore
some of these federal court orders. This is brought to
you by mom Listen Ashes, Checkmark Collections. Each day I
(00:35):
feature a listener of questions sent by one of these methods.
You may email me Brian Mud at iHeartMedia dot com,
hnd me up on social at Brian mud Radio, and
you may also use the iHeartRadio talk back feature. Just
go to w JNO or vera patriot inside of the
iHeartRadio app. We would love it if you would make
us your number one preset. That way, we're always there
(00:56):
for you. You can listen and demand anywhere you go
for free.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
And by the way, it'd be great if you also
made The Brian Mudshow podcast my podcast your number two
pre set right behind that. While you're in there. You'll
also see this little microphone button. You see it, it's happened.
You may lay out a message right there for us,
maybe a topic, a question for a future Q and A.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Just like the shellman, when you say.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
That the lower court judge doesn't have the authority to
override the president deporting illegal immigrants, why is he conforming
to the order and not continuing to deport?
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Yeah, so why doesn't the president just go ahead and say,
you know what, I don't like these court orders. You
know some of these things I they don't have authority
over foreign policy decisions and certainly international security matters well.
And the most recent regulated ruling wasn't even with a
lower court. It happened to be a temporary stay by
(01:51):
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Here's the latest on that one.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
There was a ruling from the Supreme Court over the
weekend saying that the administration cannot continue with deportation of
criminal migrants from Venezuela. And the President has not given
any indication that he would stray from that or defy
any kind of order, but feels that public opinion is
on the administration's side.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Ma's Fox's Alexandria Hoff and so what about it. You know,
what if the president just said, screw it, I'm going
to do my job. And it is tempting, right, you know,
when there's appeared to what appears to be clear judicial overreach,
just to go forward with your preferred position, and if
it's your preferred politician, your preferred position on that issue
(02:33):
might be tempting for you to say, yeah, just go
do it. The term constitutional crisis, it's overused and abused
these days. However, what is risks by that train of thought,
if that path we're traveled down is what a real
constitutional crisis would look like.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
So there is a better than not chance.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Certainly, if you're listening to this show that you are
fully aware of the different branches of government and what
their functions are. Joel even has full command of this one.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
It would be executive, legislative, and judicial. Got it.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
There you go, nailed it. So yeah about that. But
even though you're familiar with these, let's just do kind
of like the real quick overview of kind of the
checks and balances that go along with them. So your
legislative brand, which is Congress, they're there to what they
have the authority to make laws. They write, debate, pass legislation.
(03:31):
They control the budget, right, they have the purse strings,
and they also have the power to declare war or
to impeach officials. So then you have your executive branch,
the president there to enforce laws, there to implement legislation,
to manage foreign policy, putting commanding. The military can veto
(03:55):
laws and can also issue executive orders, and that takes
to the judicial branch, headed up by the Supreme Court.
There to interpret laws, review laws and actions for constitutionality.
There to resolve disputes, and to ensure the laws that
are passed that align with the Constitution. So then you
(04:15):
take a look at the additional checks and balances of
each of those. On the other, the president can veto
laws the Congress passes, but then again Congress can also
override the president with the two thirds vote. The Supreme
Court can strike down laws, but Congress can then amend
the constitution. Congress approves budgets, but then the president is
(04:36):
the person who executes spending. So you see how it's
all intertwined. And that takes us to what would happen
if President Trump just said, yeah, what, I don't need
no stinking court orders. I don't like, so doing so
would trigger an actual constitutional crisis, as the executive branch
(04:57):
to find the judiciary does under mind the separation of powers.
In response, what would happen, Well, the judiciary would likely
issue contentrallings.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
If that were to happen.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Law enforcement under the Department of Justice would be tasked
with enforcement. But would they If Trump then turned round
to his own DOJ and said, doing you do this?
Congress could then respond with potential impeachment proceedings because that
would constitute high crime or misdemeanor.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
But would they?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
So?
Speaker 1 (05:27):
The bottom line is that it is just not a
ball of wax we want to be involved in. It's
not an outcome we should hope to see. And especially
if you know, if when we get to the point
where you have politicians you do not want of those positions,
You would not want to set this kind of precedent
and see where this thing would go. There is one example,
(05:47):
the closest in US history that is most closely tied
to testing the balance of powers in the judiciary specifically,
and actually coincides with one of the lowest points in
American history and the eighteenthies. President Andrew Jackson defied the
Supreme Courts ruling in Worcester versus Georgia. That was a
case in eighteen thirty two that declared that the State
(06:09):
of Georgia's laws over Cherokee lands were unconstitutional and that
only the federal government had authority over Native American tribes.
The court, which was led by Chief Justice John Marshall,
one of the most famous historically, ruled that the Cherokee
Nation was a sovereign entity and that Georgia's attempts to
(06:30):
seize their land and to enforce state laws allowing for
that violated federal treaties. So Jackson, who supported Indian removal,
is alleged to have said, there's no hard documentation on this,
but it's been well repeated over the years. It's been prevalent,
(06:50):
he said. John Marshall made his decision, Now let him
enforce it. In other words, I'm not going to Supreme
Court can say whatever they want to say, I'm not
going to enforce it. And so the closest we got
up to it is the Supreme Court ordered the federal
government to obstruct Georgia from taking action here. But Jackson's
(07:13):
administration just didn't do anything, and instead he rhetorically continued
to push for the removal of the Cherokee and other tribes,
culminating and what eventually passes the Indian Removal Act and
the force relocation that was known as the Trail of Tears.
So a constitutional crisis was avoided in that instance only
(07:34):
because the result of the defiance was in action just
choosing not to enforce the law. Not dissimilar to like Biden, right,
Biden did not enforce immigration laws open borders, so that
it would be a very analogous thing to where it's
not a you're taking action in direct defiance of a
(07:57):
court order. You're just not going to enforce the law.
So there are no historical examples of federal court rulings
that have been ignored by just continued action in defiance
of the judicial branch. It would be best that it
remains that way. So yeah, I mean, the answer to
judicial activism is what's happening right now, getting these matters
(08:17):
to the Supreme Court, having the Trump administration hopefully get
some wins there, and to reign in the lower court authority,
and then winning elections and appointing constitutionalists to the bench
as opposed to activists.
Popular Podcasts
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!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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