Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I want to talk a bit about, you know, using
my role as official lawyer talk show.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Hosts for the community of the San Joaquin.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Valley, I want to talk a little bit about these
deportation efforts that the Trump administration has undertaken for these
trende Aragua terrorists whom the Trump administration deported to Venezuela,
and they're seeming blowing off, maybe not blowing off, kind
(00:34):
of blowing off, sort of very much on the edge
of the Federal District Court judge James Boseberg from the
Federal District Court in Washington, d C. Who said, no,
you can't deport these people. Turn the planes around. He
actually issued his order apparently while there were airplanes in
the air deporting these people. And a lot of conservatives
have been outraged by this. I share the conservative outrage
(01:01):
over these federal District Court judges within the DC district
basically acting like they are the President of the United
States rather than the president being the President of the
United States.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
As well as the kind of the general.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Process that John Roberts really deserves blame for. John Roberts,
one person who really could have rained this in years
ago and who hasn't this whole concept of an individual
federal district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction to completely
stop a Trump administration policy from taking place throughout the
(01:43):
country because one federal judge and one district somewhere in
the United States issued a ruling to stop it.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
So I despise that whole process.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Nonetheless, let's talk about these deportation of these trend Agua
terrorists or designated as such. And this is one of
the difficulties with the Trump administration doing this. So right,
the Trump administration wants to get rid of criminals who
(02:17):
are in the country illegally, these Venezuelan aliens who were
claimed to be members of trend de Aragua, a Venezuelan
gang that I believe the Trump administration has designated a
terrorist organization. The Trump administration proclaimed that under the Alien
(02:45):
Enemies Act, they are able to deport these people. Now,
the Alien Enemies Act is a law. It's a federal
law that was passed by Congress.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
It delineates the power of the federal government, through the
executive of the federal government, to deport people.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Who are in the country.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
And part of some alien enemy group, some enemy group Okay.
The way that this law has been used, and it
hasn't been used very often. Really, this law has only
ever and by the way this law has passed in the.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Eighteenth century, like late seventeen hundreds.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
This law has only actually been used up to now
in situations where the United States was in a declared
war with another country. Okay, so I think it was
used in one of the World wars. It was, Yeah,
(04:08):
so it it's only use up to this point has
been in a situation where there was an actual declaration
of war and the United States was in a state
of war with somebody.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
We are not in a state of war with trend
de Aragua. And you say, oh, we're fighting this war
against drugs and we're fighting this war against illegal immigration,
they are well.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Okay, yeah, in a metaphorical sense, if you want to
say we're at war, okay, that's fine, but that's not
the legal war is an actual term that has an
actual legal meaning.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
It requires a certain kind of congressional action.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Now, this doesn't mean that it can't only be used
in a time when the United States is in declared
war with another entity. That's just the only times it
has been used. So I'm keeping things open to that,
but there are a lot of questions here. First of all,
(05:11):
do we know these guys are actually quote members of
trendy Aragua. That's a good question. One of the reporting
that's come out is that some of these guys who
were being deported had not actually been charged with the
crime yet, They hadn't had any notice or any sort
of like hearing about establishing are these guys actually members
(05:33):
of trendy Arragua.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
So, and it's also the other sort of situation.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Where people would say, okay, well it would be appropriate
to utilize.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
The Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Maybe you know, we haven't gotten to a point where
war has actually been declared yet, but you know, we've
had an invasion and Congress hasn't had time to act.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Well. First of all, Congress has had plenty of time
to act. These illegal aliens have been coming into the
country for a long time. But also.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Basically that there's so you could potentially say that, well,
they're invading the country, so we can start utilizing it.
Congress hasn't had time to act well. First of all,
Congress has had time. Deck Secondly, I guess I'm a
little unsure about the idea that trendy Aragua was engaged
in an invasion in the way that you know, I
(06:37):
don't know, Germany invaded France. Those are pretty clear, like
that's a different kind of whatever kind of invasion illegal
alien gangs are doing into the United States. And it
is very bad, and I don't like it, and I
think it's horrible. It's not really an invasion in the
(06:57):
same sense that you would normally think of an invasion
that we would normally understand it. Part of President Trump's
sort of executive order that led to this, he said,
I find in declare that Trende Aragua is perpetu is perpetrating,
attempting and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the
(07:18):
territory of the United States. Trende Aragua is undertaking hostile
actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the
United States, both directly and at the direction, clandestine or
otherwise of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Okay, So there might be some.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Sort of argument for this, And this is one of
the things that I've realized in doing like legal analysis
of news stories in the Trump era, it's hard to
talk about it intelligently, because basically the initial gut instinct
of any mainstream legal analysis is going to be anti Trump,
(07:58):
and usually there's a little bit more to the Trump
position than you would expect. So yesterday there was an
oral argument about all of this, where the Trump lawyers,
the lawyers from the Department of Justice, were trying to
(08:20):
explain their actions in front of a three judge federal
appellate court panel from the DC Circuit, and some of
the issues involved were at place. So the first was
the question of Okay, you're deporting all these guys, how
are you identifying them as actually being quote, members of
trendey aarragua. Have you firmly identified them as members of
(08:44):
trende Aragua. Secondly, do these guys whom you've so identified,
do they have the right to any kind of review
of your decision to classify them as members of trende Aragua?
Are they entitled to judicial review? And the Trump the
DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged through gritted teeth that yes,
(09:13):
they are entitled to judicial review. So even the Trump
attorneys have admitted, okay, they're entitled to contest the administration
classifying them as members of trend A Ragua, but ensign
is refusing to concede that they're entitled to any kind
(09:35):
of notice that they can contest, or notice that the
administration thinks they're covered by the proclamation before they're deported.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Which is a weird position to take.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
I mean, usually if you think someone is entitled to
contest some legal designation of themselves, they'd be entitled to
some sort of notice that they've been so identified and
that they can contest it. The Trump lawyers are sort
of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
But then there's sort of this broader question of why
(10:10):
are the courts involved at all? On one level, I
totally understand that critique. Okay, a series you know, foreign policy,
international control over security, control over security, immigration through a
(10:34):
series of Supreme Court cases. All of that is within
the reserve of the federal government. All that is within
the reserve of the presidency. Foreign policy is within the
control of the presidency. The idea that if these if
this trend Iragua gang is affiliated with the Maduro regime
in Venezuela, and I have no reason to question that,
(10:55):
then the president acting in defense of the country seems
like a very squarely executive funk. Well, the problem is
that this is a statute that the president is invoking. Here,
he's not actually invoking his inherent constitutional authority. He's invoking
a statute something that was passed by Congress, signed into
(11:19):
law by a president. Now, as a result, it seems
difficult for them to argue that this isn't something that
could be subject to judicial review. Okay, If it's a
statute that was passed by Congress saying the president may
(11:43):
expel from the country this class of persons, well, I
don't see how that won't be subject to some kind
of judicial review. Like, okay, is this does this person
fit within that class of persons that Congress says can
be expelled? Is there some sort of opportunity to have
(12:06):
a hearing about this? I mean, the Trump administration has
had to begrudgingly say yes, they have a right to
a hearing, but not any right to notice.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
On and on and on.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
You have to make sure that if Congress has given
the presidency the power to expel this group of people
from the country, we have to be sure that the
people the president is expelling actually fit.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
If I don't know if the United States was at
war with Italy during World War II. Was every Italian
American a fit person to be expelled under this law?
That might have been an abuse of the law. Italian
Americans would have been able to try and contest it.
(12:54):
Maybe they should have been able to try and contest it.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Now.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Obviously, these particular guys whom Trump is deporting fairly certain
seem like very very bad guys. But he's doing it
under the auspices of this certain law, then I think
he has to be open to some sort of review.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
So there has to be It seems like there.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Is an admission from the Trump people that some sort
of due process has to be followed. It can't just
be the Trump administration designates these guys that way, they
deport the guys, the guys have no opportunity for a hearing.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
That's apparently that's not it. So whether.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
The Trump administration is acting rightly here is one question.
The other question, though, is does a federal judge really
have the authority to tell the president to basically to
review and overturn the president's decisions here? It seems a
(14:11):
little difficult. And when we get back, when we return,
I'm going to discuss it about the whole concept of
judicial review and whether that would apply in a situation
like this. Now, I think what the outcome of this
is going to be is the DC Circuit is probably
going to say, no, you need to have a hearing
(14:32):
to establish whether or not these guys are actually members of.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
This criminal entity.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
And probably what will happen is the Trump administration will
find some other legal avenue for deporting these guys that'll
be simpler. So when we return, I want to talk
about do judges really have this power? And has the
Trump administration, by kind of blowing off the District Court
judge here enacted a quote constitutional crisis. That's next on
the John Groardy Show. One of the weird things about
(15:00):
looking at this question of can President Trump deport these
illegal aliens? Well, these persons from Venezuela, whom the Trump
administration has designated as terrorists and members of the trend
de Aragua gang affiliated with the Maduro regime. One of
the thorny questions about it is that they are doing so.
(15:22):
They are deporting these people under the auspices of the
Alien Enemies Act, a law that was passed in seventeen
ninety eight that authorizes the president to deport people who
are members who are alien enemies if the United States
has been invaded or subject to some sort of enemy
(15:46):
incursion or is at war or something. Now, that's sort
of the examples of times when it could be used.
I don't know if it's an exhaustive list of examples.
Is the way that trend de Aragua has infiltrated the
Unia States? Is that an invasion in the same sense
up for debate. However, it's a little dicey thinking that
(16:09):
a federal judge has the authority, has the right to
just tell the Trump administration, no, you can't do that. No,
your determination about who is an alien and enemy alien
for the.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Purposes of this law is subject to judicial review.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Why well, the whole concept of judicial review didn't even
get established until five years after the Alien Enemies Act
was passed. So the Alien Enemies Act was passed in
seventeen ninety eight Marberry versus Madison. The Supreme Court decision
that really established the whole concept of judicial review.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Wasn't until eighteen oh three.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And judicial review is the sort of concept within American
law that the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court has
the right authority to review laws passed by Congress, actions
(17:15):
affected by the executive and to determine if they are
consistent with the Constitution or with federal law, to issue
determinations on the same, and to expect that those determinations
be obeyed by the executive And honestly, it's a little
(17:35):
bit of a lacuna, a little bit of a gap
within our constitutional order, because, as Andrew Jackson once said
about one court decision that he didn't like, the Supreme
Court has issued its decision, let them enforce it. The
courts rely upon the good will of the executive branch
(18:00):
and the executive branch acquiescing in order for their judicial
determinations to actually be binding. Okay, the Supreme Court can
issue an injunction saying don't do this. If the actor
that they say don't do this to still does it,
(18:20):
then that actor would need to get arrested, prosecuted, whatever,
by the executive branch for defying a court order. Well,
what if that person who received that injunction is the
executive branch itself? What if that person is the president himself?
The president would have to the president effectively when he's
told no by the Supreme Court has to sort of
(18:42):
voluntarily agree that he is not going to do that thing. Now,
I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm not
saying Marberry versus madisone is right or wrong. But it
is the system that we have, the system that is
currently operative within our constitutional order. And there are some
(19:06):
decent argument, I think good arguments for saying that it's
an important development of our constitution. I think there's a
little bit of naivete of thinking that in any constitutional
order that well, Marbury versus Madison was after the Constitution,
(19:26):
it's not original. Well, okay, any constitutional order is going
to change develop over time.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
What exactly is the role of the courts?
Speaker 1 (19:39):
If the courts are just totally not to be listened
to and the executive can totally blow them off, what
are we talking.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
About here now?
Speaker 1 (19:48):
In spite of that, though, I think it is important
for this Alien Enemies Act situation.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
The Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
You know, Alien Enemies Act was passed before judicial review
was even really a staff published. So when Congress passed
the Alien Enemies Act, did they think that the president's
decision about this would be subject to review by a
bunch of courts and courts saying, well, did you actually
correctly identify this person as an alien enemy? Does this
(20:14):
person should have a hearing? And notice that within our
modern constitutional order as it exists today. Sure, it totally
makes sense, and I'm sure that's actually that that's going
to be the ruling from the DC Circuit. And you know,
maybe the Trump administration could have thought of a better system.
(20:36):
Maybe they figured this would be a quick way to
get these aliens deported. It turned out maybe not to
be such a quick way. But I think this is
where we're starting to push up against the idea of
a quote constitutional crisis. The left saying that Trump is
(20:58):
initiating a constitutional crisis, the right saying that these judges
are initiating constitutional crises. And I'll get to that when
we return on the John Girardi Show. Are we facing
a constitutional crisis? So the left is saying that Trump
is initiating a constitutional crisis? Why Trump tried to deport
(21:19):
these Venezuelans who the administration said were members of Trend
de Aragua. This is a criminal gang from Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
They have some affiliation with the Maduro regime.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
The Trump administrations characterizing them as terrorists and saying that
they're enemy aliens for the purposes of the Alien Enemies Act,
a seventeen ninety eight law which the Trump administration utilized
to claim they had the authority to deport these guys.
The Federal District Court judge in DC said, Hey, you
(21:51):
got to stop these deportations because you haven't demonstrated that
these guys are actually alien enemy.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Have you demonstrated these guys are actually members of this group.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
I don't know who these lawyers are who like fleeing
to the defense of these gangbangers, but yeah, I guess everyone.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Maybe they just hate the Trump administration and hate Trump
administration immigration policies. Anyway, the court says, hey, you need
to have some kind of hearing first to determine. You
need some sort of hearing to determine these guys are
actually members of trend Arragua. Some of these guys don't
even actually have a criminal charge against them, so you know,
(22:28):
you got to have some sort of hearing. The judge
issues that ruling and the Trump administrations is up too late.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
The flights have already left to deport them.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Well, now there's some factual dispute over that, well, some
of the flights were still in air and presumably could
have turned around some.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Of the flights.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Apparently there's some evidence some of the flights had not
even taken off yet and that they So the question is,
did the Trump administration ignore the judge's order, and by
ignoring a federal court order, does that initiate a constitutional crisis.
(23:07):
On the other hand, conservatives have I think very rightly
pointed out a bunch of federal district court judges have
issued completely absurd rulings to try to block and stop
various executive actions that I think are very squarely within
(23:27):
executive power. You had federal district court judges angrily trying
to order the Trump administration not to cut DEI programs
and having ridiculous rulings where they say.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
DEI programs are wonderful, where.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
It's like that is totally not your role as a
judge to talk about how good or bad a law is.
Your job is to look at whether the law is
lawful or whether the executive action to cut such a
program is lawful.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
The rulings by these judges about.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Whether the Trump administration has the authority to fire people
or cut off spending all this stuff that seems, many
of which has been so squarely within the power of
the executive branch, and you have one individual federal district
court judge issuing a ruling to shut off, to completely
halt a Trump administration policy for the whole nation.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Has been disaster.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I mean, even like the Trump administration said, we're going
to cut off this two billion dollars of USAID funding
that's flowing, this federal district court judge issued a TRO saying, no,
you have to spend the money, which, by the way,
for a temporary restraining order a TRO. The idea of
(24:53):
a TRO is no hold. It's a hold on a
minute ruling from a judge. An action is happening that
someone is claiming violates their rights. The judge issues a
TRO to say stop the action. Just stop the action
for a second until we have the ability to review this.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
So it's usually to prevent action from happening. That's usually
what an injunction is or a restraining order is to
stop action from happening. Stay at the status quo.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Well, when you're talking about spending money, the status quo is,
don't spend the money. The judge issues this toro to
say no, the money must affirmatively be spent at which
time the horse is out of the barn. The legal
issue becomes moot because the judge, in his apparently temporary
restraining order, ordered an affirmative act to let again, to
(25:51):
let the horse out of the barn. Now, there's no
point in having a lawsuit because you've you've just issued
a determination of it.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
That's not what a tro is supposed to be.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
So these fa over by the way, foreign aid spending,
the direction of foreign aid spending something that seems squarely
within the responsibility of the president who directs our foreign policy.
So on the one hand, you have liberals saying Trump
has initiated a constitutional crisis because.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
He ignored this ruling from this judge.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
On the other hand, you have Trump saying, by the way,
I think the Trump people, those of us on the right,
are totally correct that these federal district court judges are
initiating are trying to prompt a constitutional crisis because they
are like begging the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
To disobey their rulings.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Now, is Trump initiating a constitutional crisis by ignoring this
federal district court judge what people mean by constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
I keep saying that word. What does it mean? Okay?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Right now, as are institution stands, as it's interpreted, as
it functions, we have this process called judicial review. That
means that Congress passes a law, President enforces a law, and.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
The courts are able to review.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Either laws passed by Congress to see if they are
consistent with the Constitution itself, or they can review actions
by the executive to determine if those actions by the
executive are consistent with laws passed by Congress, regulations passed
by the executive itself, or with the Constitution itself. The
(27:38):
court's role is to review judicial review of actions by
the government or laws passed by Congress, with the expectation
that those rulings by those judges will be followed, even
when those rulings are against the president against the executive. Now,
(27:59):
as I mentioned in the last segment, there's always this
sort of this sort of unspoken tension there. There's this
sort of basically just an unwritten other than in Marbary
versus medicine, sort of this unwritten tradition about how this
whole thing is held together with something that's relatively weak,
which is the acquiescence of the executive to obey federal
(28:22):
court orders. Right again, Andrew Jackson once said, well, the
court has ruled. The court has issued its ruling. Let
the court enforce its own ruling. Does the court have
a police officers to enforce their rulings? Now, the president
has all the police officers. The president has all the troops.
(28:42):
The president has all the force with which to enforce
the law. The courts don't have that. The courts only
have moral authority. In a sense, when the court issues
an injunction against the president, the court has no authority
to force the president to do any There's no men
with guns ultimately to force the president to do the
(29:02):
thing that the court told them. The court relies on
the goodwill of the president and basically the president's fear
of political retribution for disobeying the court. And that's the
constitutional order that we have. If a president just starts
(29:24):
deciding that he's not going to follow decisions by judges,
federal district court judges, circuit courts, or the Supreme Court,
we're in a real pickle because that sort of does
(29:45):
upset the apple cart of the constitutional order.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
As we have it today.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Hence why people say constitutional crisis now, is the Trump team,
questionablyhether or not they blew off this judge and just
kept these you know, flights of Venezuelan dudes going. Is
that a constitutional crisis? Well, I don't know. I don't
(30:15):
think it quite is. I think it is the Trump administration.
The Trump administration is not claim that. There's a big difference,
even just for the sake of saving face, between saying
that you're complying and really you know, straining hairs and
going to the absolute limit of what the judge said
(30:35):
and possibly screwing up and going a little bit past it,
but saying you're trying to follow the court order and
flat out saying no, we are not going to comply
with this court's order. There's a difference between those two things.
(30:57):
The Trump administration did the former. They said, no, we're complying.
But when the court judges shoot is ruling the planes
were already in the sky and then we couldn't turn
them around, blah blah blah blah blah, and the issue
was already moved blah blah blah. They have all these
different arguments. Now, some of those arguments maybe bs, but
(31:17):
that's still a very big difference. There's a big difference
between saying the court does not have this authority to
tell me what to do, versus saying it's sort of
conceding that the court has authority to rule and saying
that you're trying to comply, but kind of fudging it
with how well you're complying. So do I think that's
a constitutional crisis? No, I don't think it is. I
think it's getting close. But this is the other side
(31:42):
of that coin. All of that is assuming that these
judges are issuing legitimate rulings. The system is predicated on
judges not acting like children.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
The system is predicated on judges.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Understanding their role and at least more or less sticking
to their role. I think these federal judges are pushing
against a constitutional crisis by doing things that are so
clearly outside their bounds, so clearly outside their scope as
(32:20):
to really render it questionable whether the Trump administration at
a certain point should say that you have exceeded the
bounds of your authority and therefore we're not going to
listen to you. And the Trump administration has floated this
in a couple of ways, Trump administration has floated this
(32:42):
with maybe some of these judges.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Should be impeached and removed.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Now, John Roberts, I thought, ridiculously got on his high
horse and saying no, the answer to bad rulings is
to appeal them.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
It's not to impeach judges.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Well, the question whether or not to impeach a judge
is a purely political question. I don't know what business
the chief Justice has to offer his political opinion about
a political question. I don't actually give a damn what
John Roberts thinks about that. If John Roberts no more
or less than I want to hear John Roberts' opinion
on tax policy and what good tax politicy should be.
(33:16):
I don't want to hear his opinion on the political
question of whether or not we should impeach and remove judges.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
John Roberts sometimes acts like it's his job to stick
up for all the federal judge Well.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Is that really your job?
Speaker 1 (33:34):
And by the way, impeaching and removing judges would be
within the structures of our constitutional order. It's permitted by
the Constitution if you get a majority in Congress and
two thirds majority in the Senate, you can impeach and
remove a judge. It's happened before, but usually it's only
happened because judges were clearly violating the law, taking bribes
(33:56):
and stuff like that. But I don't see why it
would be wrong to initiate that against a judge who's
wildly exceeding his or her authority.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Because it gets to this point.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
In wartime, the president directs the first Marine Battalion whatever
to go over here. Someone within that Marine battalion sues
files a lawsuit in the DC District saying, I don't
think it's a good idea for the president to do this.
I think it puts our lives at risk, and I
think it's it finds some statute to say that. Maybe
(34:30):
it's unlawful somehow, I don't know. And a federal district
court judge issues a temporary restraining orders as the Trump
administration's lawyers need to appear before us for a hearing
to justify whether they're legally entitled to move the first
Marine Battalion over there. Well, if that happened, the Trump
administration or any president would tell that judge to go
(34:51):
to hell, and they would be right. That would be
such a clear abuse of judicial authority that I think
the Trump administration should tell that judge to go to hell.
And there were moments in the Civil War where Lincoln
ignored judicial rulings arguably under similar circumstances. So I think
(35:17):
that's the problem, and a judge trying to do that
to a president that is a constitutionally critical thing. That's
a crisis level thing for our constitutional order for judges
to try to boss around a president for his core
executive functions.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
And that's what I'm saying when we say.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
That there is a constitutional crisis, I think it's every
bit as much coming from the left as this one
instance of these Venezuelan gang bangers or alleged Venezuelan gangbangers,
whether or not the Trump administration has the right to
deport them, whether or not the Trump administration kind of
blew off this federal judge. They said they didn't a bit.
(35:56):
There's a big difference there. I think is at a
constitutional crisis. I don't know that could be bad defendant,
bad behavior by a party in a lawsuit is I think,
different from the president challenging the entire constitutional order. People
have questionably followed judicial rulings before, while acknowledging the authority
(36:19):
of a judge to issue that ruling that that's not
exactly this is not exactly something novel. Judges basically thinking
they can rule the country in place of the executive
is differently bad, and i'd say worse. When we return
a presdent city council seat might come down to who
can cure the most ballots. Next on the John Gerardi Show,
(36:43):
so Brandon Vang is beating Elizabeth Jonathon Roses for this
president city Council District five seat.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
He is at fifty.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
Point one four percent of the vote, she's at thirty something.
If he gets over fifty percent, he automatically becomes the
city council member.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
There's no runoff.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
So now they're doing this thing where there's only like
I think like one hundred and fifty or so votes
left to about two hundred votes left, and they're counting
them right now, and it's like on a razor's edge.
Depending on how it goes, Vang might get slightly over
fifty percent and win right away, or might get slightly
under fifty percent and they'll have to have a runoff.
(37:26):
And then there's also the process of ballot curing. The
two sides can go to people who submitted their ballots
and had a problem on the ballot and get them
to quote cure their ballot and thereby pick up votes
for one side or the other. This is how California
Democrats win every close election. It's why John Duarte is
not in Congress anymore now. Adam Gray is. Adam Gray
(37:48):
was better at vote curing than Duarte was. So we
are on a razor's edge here seeing who is going
to be the next city council member for District five.
We will with bated breath and you will hear all
about it. I'm sure here on the valleys power talk,
John Girardi, I'm out see you next time.
I want to talk a bit about, you know, using
my role as official lawyer talk show.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Hosts for the community of the San Joaquin.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Valley, I want to talk a little bit about these
deportation efforts that the Trump administration has undertaken for these
trende Aragua terrorists whom the Trump administration deported to Venezuela,
and they're seeming blowing off, maybe not blowing off, kind
(00:34):
of blowing off, sort of very much on the edge
of the Federal District Court judge James Boseberg from the
Federal District Court in Washington, d C. Who said, no,
you can't deport these people. Turn the planes around. He
actually issued his order apparently while there were airplanes in
the air deporting these people. And a lot of conservatives
have been outraged by this. I share the conservative outrage
(01:01):
over these federal District Court judges within the DC district
basically acting like they are the President of the United
States rather than the president being the President of the
United States.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
As well as the kind of the general.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Process that John Roberts really deserves blame for. John Roberts,
one person who really could have rained this in years
ago and who hasn't this whole concept of an individual
federal district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction to completely
stop a Trump administration policy from taking place throughout the
(01:43):
country because one federal judge and one district somewhere in
the United States issued a ruling to stop it.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
So I despise that whole process.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Nonetheless, let's talk about these deportation of these trend Agua
terrorists or designated as such. And this is one of
the difficulties with the Trump administration doing this. So right,
the Trump administration wants to get rid of criminals who
(02:17):
are in the country illegally, these Venezuelan aliens who were
claimed to be members of trend de Aragua, a Venezuelan
gang that I believe the Trump administration has designated a
terrorist organization. The Trump administration proclaimed that under the Alien
(02:45):
Enemies Act, they are able to deport these people. Now,
the Alien Enemies Act is a law. It's a federal
law that was passed by Congress.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
It delineates the power of the federal government, through the
executive of the federal government, to deport people.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Who are in the country.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
And part of some alien enemy group, some enemy group Okay.
The way that this law has been used, and it
hasn't been used very often. Really, this law has only
ever and by the way this law has passed in the.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Eighteenth century, like late seventeen hundreds.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
This law has only actually been used up to now
in situations where the United States was in a declared
war with another country. Okay, so I think it was
used in one of the World wars. It was, Yeah,
(04:08):
so it it's only use up to this point has
been in a situation where there was an actual declaration
of war and the United States was in a state
of war with somebody.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
We are not in a state of war with trend
de Aragua. And you say, oh, we're fighting this war
against drugs and we're fighting this war against illegal immigration,
they are well.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Okay, yeah, in a metaphorical sense, if you want to
say we're at war, okay, that's fine, but that's not
the legal war is an actual term that has an
actual legal meaning.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
It requires a certain kind of congressional action.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Now, this doesn't mean that it can't only be used
in a time when the United States is in declared
war with another entity. That's just the only times it
has been used. So I'm keeping things open to that,
but there are a lot of questions here. First of all,
(05:11):
do we know these guys are actually quote members of
trendy Aragua. That's a good question. One of the reporting
that's come out is that some of these guys who
were being deported had not actually been charged with the
crime yet, They hadn't had any notice or any sort
of like hearing about establishing are these guys actually members
(05:33):
of trendy Arragua.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
So, and it's also the other sort of situation.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Where people would say, okay, well it would be appropriate
to utilize.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
The Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Maybe you know, we haven't gotten to a point where
war has actually been declared yet, but you know, we've
had an invasion and Congress hasn't had time to act.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Well. First of all, Congress has had plenty of time
to act. These illegal aliens have been coming into the
country for a long time. But also.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Basically that there's so you could potentially say that, well,
they're invading the country, so we can start utilizing it.
Congress hasn't had time to act well. First of all,
Congress has had time. Deck Secondly, I guess I'm a
little unsure about the idea that trendy Aragua was engaged
in an invasion in the way that you know, I
(06:37):
don't know, Germany invaded France. Those are pretty clear, like
that's a different kind of whatever kind of invasion illegal
alien gangs are doing into the United States. And it
is very bad, and I don't like it, and I
think it's horrible. It's not really an invasion in the
(06:57):
same sense that you would normally think of an invasion
that we would normally understand it. Part of President Trump's
sort of executive order that led to this, he said,
I find in declare that Trende Aragua is perpetu is perpetrating,
attempting and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the
(07:18):
territory of the United States. Trende Aragua is undertaking hostile
actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the
United States, both directly and at the direction, clandestine or
otherwise of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Okay, So there might be some.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Sort of argument for this, And this is one of
the things that I've realized in doing like legal analysis
of news stories in the Trump era, it's hard to
talk about it intelligently, because basically the initial gut instinct
of any mainstream legal analysis is going to be anti Trump,
(07:58):
and usually there's a little bit more to the Trump
position than you would expect. So yesterday there was an
oral argument about all of this, where the Trump lawyers,
the lawyers from the Department of Justice, were trying to
(08:20):
explain their actions in front of a three judge federal
appellate court panel from the DC Circuit, and some of
the issues involved were at place. So the first was
the question of Okay, you're deporting all these guys, how
are you identifying them as actually being quote, members of
trendey aarragua. Have you firmly identified them as members of
(08:44):
trende Aragua. Secondly, do these guys whom you've so identified,
do they have the right to any kind of review
of your decision to classify them as members of trende Aragua?
Are they entitled to judicial review? And the Trump the
DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged through gritted teeth that yes,
(09:13):
they are entitled to judicial review. So even the Trump
attorneys have admitted, okay, they're entitled to contest the administration
classifying them as members of trend A Ragua, but ensign
is refusing to concede that they're entitled to any kind
(09:35):
of notice that they can contest, or notice that the
administration thinks they're covered by the proclamation before they're deported.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Which is a weird position to take.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
I mean, usually if you think someone is entitled to
contest some legal designation of themselves, they'd be entitled to
some sort of notice that they've been so identified and
that they can contest it. The Trump lawyers are sort
of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
But then there's sort of this broader question of why
(10:10):
are the courts involved at all? On one level, I
totally understand that critique. Okay, a series you know, foreign policy,
international control over security, control over security, immigration through a
(10:34):
series of Supreme Court cases. All of that is within
the reserve of the federal government. All that is within
the reserve of the presidency. Foreign policy is within the
control of the presidency. The idea that if these if
this trend Iragua gang is affiliated with the Maduro regime
in Venezuela, and I have no reason to question that,
(10:55):
then the president acting in defense of the country seems
like a very squarely executive funk. Well, the problem is
that this is a statute that the president is invoking. Here,
he's not actually invoking his inherent constitutional authority. He's invoking
a statute something that was passed by Congress, signed into
(11:19):
law by a president. Now, as a result, it seems
difficult for them to argue that this isn't something that
could be subject to judicial review. Okay, If it's a
statute that was passed by Congress saying the president may
(11:43):
expel from the country this class of persons, well, I
don't see how that won't be subject to some kind
of judicial review. Like, okay, is this does this person
fit within that class of persons that Congress says can
be expelled? Is there some sort of opportunity to have
(12:06):
a hearing about this? I mean, the Trump administration has
had to begrudgingly say yes, they have a right to
a hearing, but not any right to notice.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
On and on and on.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
You have to make sure that if Congress has given
the presidency the power to expel this group of people
from the country, we have to be sure that the
people the president is expelling actually fit.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
If I don't know if the United States was at
war with Italy during World War II. Was every Italian
American a fit person to be expelled under this law?
That might have been an abuse of the law. Italian
Americans would have been able to try and contest it.
(12:54):
Maybe they should have been able to try and contest it.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Now.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Obviously, these particular guys whom Trump is deporting fairly certain
seem like very very bad guys. But he's doing it
under the auspices of this certain law, then I think
he has to be open to some sort of review.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
So there has to be It seems like there.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Is an admission from the Trump people that some sort
of due process has to be followed. It can't just
be the Trump administration designates these guys that way, they
deport the guys, the guys have no opportunity for a hearing.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
That's apparently that's not it. So whether.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
The Trump administration is acting rightly here is one question.
The other question, though, is does a federal judge really
have the authority to tell the president to basically to
review and overturn the president's decisions here? It seems a
(14:11):
little difficult. And when we get back, when we return,
I'm going to discuss it about the whole concept of
judicial review and whether that would apply in a situation
like this. Now, I think what the outcome of this
is going to be is the DC Circuit is probably
going to say, no, you need to have a hearing
(14:32):
to establish whether or not these guys are actually members of.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
This criminal entity.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
And probably what will happen is the Trump administration will
find some other legal avenue for deporting these guys that'll
be simpler. So when we return, I want to talk
about do judges really have this power? And has the
Trump administration, by kind of blowing off the District Court
judge here enacted a quote constitutional crisis. That's next on
the John Groardy Show. One of the weird things about
(15:00):
looking at this question of can President Trump deport these
illegal aliens? Well, these persons from Venezuela, whom the Trump
administration has designated as terrorists and members of the trend
de Aragua gang affiliated with the Maduro regime. One of
the thorny questions about it is that they are doing so.
(15:22):
They are deporting these people under the auspices of the
Alien Enemies Act, a law that was passed in seventeen
ninety eight that authorizes the president to deport people who
are members who are alien enemies if the United States
has been invaded or subject to some sort of enemy
(15:46):
incursion or is at war or something. Now, that's sort
of the examples of times when it could be used.
I don't know if it's an exhaustive list of examples.
Is the way that trend de Aragua has infiltrated the
Unia States? Is that an invasion in the same sense
up for debate. However, it's a little dicey thinking that
(16:09):
a federal judge has the authority, has the right to
just tell the Trump administration, no, you can't do that. No,
your determination about who is an alien and enemy alien
for the.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Purposes of this law is subject to judicial review.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Why well, the whole concept of judicial review didn't even
get established until five years after the Alien Enemies Act
was passed. So the Alien Enemies Act was passed in
seventeen ninety eight Marberry versus Madison. The Supreme Court decision
that really established the whole concept of judicial review.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Wasn't until eighteen oh three.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And judicial review is the sort of concept within American
law that the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court has
the right authority to review laws passed by Congress, actions
(17:15):
affected by the executive and to determine if they are
consistent with the Constitution or with federal law, to issue
determinations on the same, and to expect that those determinations
be obeyed by the executive And honestly, it's a little
(17:35):
bit of a lacuna, a little bit of a gap
within our constitutional order, because, as Andrew Jackson once said
about one court decision that he didn't like, the Supreme
Court has issued its decision, let them enforce it. The
courts rely upon the good will of the executive branch
(18:00):
and the executive branch acquiescing in order for their judicial
determinations to actually be binding. Okay, the Supreme Court can
issue an injunction saying don't do this. If the actor
that they say don't do this to still does it,
(18:20):
then that actor would need to get arrested, prosecuted, whatever,
by the executive branch for defying a court order. Well,
what if that person who received that injunction is the
executive branch itself? What if that person is the president himself?
The president would have to the president effectively when he's
told no by the Supreme Court has to sort of
(18:42):
voluntarily agree that he is not going to do that thing. Now,
I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm not
saying Marberry versus madisone is right or wrong. But it
is the system that we have, the system that is
currently operative within our constitutional order. And there are some
(19:06):
decent argument, I think good arguments for saying that it's
an important development of our constitution. I think there's a
little bit of naivete of thinking that in any constitutional
order that well, Marbury versus Madison was after the Constitution,
(19:26):
it's not original. Well, okay, any constitutional order is going
to change develop over time.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
What exactly is the role of the courts?
Speaker 1 (19:39):
If the courts are just totally not to be listened
to and the executive can totally blow them off, what
are we talking.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
About here now?
Speaker 1 (19:48):
In spite of that, though, I think it is important
for this Alien Enemies Act situation.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
The Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
You know, Alien Enemies Act was passed before judicial review
was even really a staff published. So when Congress passed
the Alien Enemies Act, did they think that the president's
decision about this would be subject to review by a
bunch of courts and courts saying, well, did you actually
correctly identify this person as an alien enemy? Does this
(20:14):
person should have a hearing? And notice that within our
modern constitutional order as it exists today. Sure, it totally
makes sense, and I'm sure that's actually that that's going
to be the ruling from the DC Circuit. And you know,
maybe the Trump administration could have thought of a better system.
(20:36):
Maybe they figured this would be a quick way to
get these aliens deported. It turned out maybe not to
be such a quick way. But I think this is
where we're starting to push up against the idea of
a quote constitutional crisis. The left saying that Trump is
(20:58):
initiating a constitutional crisis, the right saying that these judges
are initiating constitutional crises. And I'll get to that when
we return on the John Girardi Show. Are we facing
a constitutional crisis? So the left is saying that Trump
is initiating a constitutional crisis? Why Trump tried to deport
(21:19):
these Venezuelans who the administration said were members of Trend
de Aragua. This is a criminal gang from Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
They have some affiliation with the Maduro regime.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
The Trump administrations characterizing them as terrorists and saying that
they're enemy aliens for the purposes of the Alien Enemies Act,
a seventeen ninety eight law which the Trump administration utilized
to claim they had the authority to deport these guys.
The Federal District Court judge in DC said, Hey, you
(21:51):
got to stop these deportations because you haven't demonstrated that
these guys are actually alien enemy.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Have you demonstrated these guys are actually members of this group.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
I don't know who these lawyers are who like fleeing
to the defense of these gangbangers, but yeah, I guess everyone.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Maybe they just hate the Trump administration and hate Trump
administration immigration policies. Anyway, the court says, hey, you need
to have some kind of hearing first to determine. You
need some sort of hearing to determine these guys are
actually members of trend Arragua. Some of these guys don't
even actually have a criminal charge against them, so you know,
(22:28):
you got to have some sort of hearing. The judge
issues that ruling and the Trump administrations is up too late.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
The flights have already left to deport them.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Well, now there's some factual dispute over that, well, some
of the flights were still in air and presumably could
have turned around some.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Of the flights.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Apparently there's some evidence some of the flights had not
even taken off yet and that they So the question is,
did the Trump administration ignore the judge's order, and by
ignoring a federal court order, does that initiate a constitutional crisis.
(23:07):
On the other hand, conservatives have I think very rightly
pointed out a bunch of federal district court judges have
issued completely absurd rulings to try to block and stop
various executive actions that I think are very squarely within
(23:27):
executive power. You had federal district court judges angrily trying
to order the Trump administration not to cut DEI programs
and having ridiculous rulings where they say.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
DEI programs are wonderful, where.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
It's like that is totally not your role as a
judge to talk about how good or bad a law is.
Your job is to look at whether the law is
lawful or whether the executive action to cut such a
program is lawful.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
The rulings by these judges about.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Whether the Trump administration has the authority to fire people
or cut off spending all this stuff that seems, many
of which has been so squarely within the power of
the executive branch, and you have one individual federal district
court judge issuing a ruling to shut off, to completely
halt a Trump administration policy for the whole nation.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Has been disaster.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I mean, even like the Trump administration said, we're going
to cut off this two billion dollars of USAID funding
that's flowing, this federal district court judge issued a TRO saying, no,
you have to spend the money, which, by the way,
for a temporary restraining order a TRO. The idea of
(24:53):
a TRO is no hold. It's a hold on a
minute ruling from a judge. An action is happening that
someone is claiming violates their rights. The judge issues a
TRO to say stop the action. Just stop the action
for a second until we have the ability to review this.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
So it's usually to prevent action from happening. That's usually
what an injunction is or a restraining order is to
stop action from happening. Stay at the status quo.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Well, when you're talking about spending money, the status quo is,
don't spend the money. The judge issues this toro to
say no, the money must affirmatively be spent at which
time the horse is out of the barn. The legal
issue becomes moot because the judge, in his apparently temporary
restraining order, ordered an affirmative act to let again, to
(25:51):
let the horse out of the barn. Now, there's no
point in having a lawsuit because you've you've just issued
a determination of it.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
That's not what a tro is supposed to be.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
So these fa over by the way, foreign aid spending,
the direction of foreign aid spending something that seems squarely
within the responsibility of the president who directs our foreign policy.
So on the one hand, you have liberals saying Trump
has initiated a constitutional crisis because.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
He ignored this ruling from this judge.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
On the other hand, you have Trump saying, by the way,
I think the Trump people, those of us on the right,
are totally correct that these federal district court judges are
initiating are trying to prompt a constitutional crisis because they
are like begging the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
To disobey their rulings.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Now, is Trump initiating a constitutional crisis by ignoring this
federal district court judge what people mean by constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
I keep saying that word. What does it mean? Okay?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Right now, as are institution stands, as it's interpreted, as
it functions, we have this process called judicial review. That
means that Congress passes a law, President enforces a law, and.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
The courts are able to review.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Either laws passed by Congress to see if they are
consistent with the Constitution itself, or they can review actions
by the executive to determine if those actions by the
executive are consistent with laws passed by Congress, regulations passed
by the executive itself, or with the Constitution itself. The
(27:38):
court's role is to review judicial review of actions by
the government or laws passed by Congress, with the expectation
that those rulings by those judges will be followed, even
when those rulings are against the president against the executive. Now,
(27:59):
as I mentioned in the last segment, there's always this
sort of this sort of unspoken tension there. There's this
sort of basically just an unwritten other than in Marbary
versus medicine, sort of this unwritten tradition about how this
whole thing is held together with something that's relatively weak,
which is the acquiescence of the executive to obey federal
(28:22):
court orders. Right again, Andrew Jackson once said, well, the
court has ruled. The court has issued its ruling. Let
the court enforce its own ruling. Does the court have
a police officers to enforce their rulings? Now, the president
has all the police officers. The president has all the troops.
(28:42):
The president has all the force with which to enforce
the law. The courts don't have that. The courts only
have moral authority. In a sense, when the court issues
an injunction against the president, the court has no authority
to force the president to do any There's no men
with guns ultimately to force the president to do the
(29:02):
thing that the court told them. The court relies on
the goodwill of the president and basically the president's fear
of political retribution for disobeying the court. And that's the
constitutional order that we have. If a president just starts
(29:24):
deciding that he's not going to follow decisions by judges,
federal district court judges, circuit courts, or the Supreme Court,
we're in a real pickle because that sort of does
(29:45):
upset the apple cart of the constitutional order.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
As we have it today.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Hence why people say constitutional crisis now, is the Trump team,
questionablyhether or not they blew off this judge and just
kept these you know, flights of Venezuelan dudes going. Is
that a constitutional crisis? Well, I don't know. I don't
(30:15):
think it quite is. I think it is the Trump administration.
The Trump administration is not claim that. There's a big difference,
even just for the sake of saving face, between saying
that you're complying and really you know, straining hairs and
going to the absolute limit of what the judge said
(30:35):
and possibly screwing up and going a little bit past it,
but saying you're trying to follow the court order and
flat out saying no, we are not going to comply
with this court's order. There's a difference between those two things.
(30:57):
The Trump administration did the former. They said, no, we're complying.
But when the court judges shoot is ruling the planes
were already in the sky and then we couldn't turn
them around, blah blah blah blah blah, and the issue
was already moved blah blah blah. They have all these
different arguments. Now, some of those arguments maybe bs, but
(31:17):
that's still a very big difference. There's a big difference
between saying the court does not have this authority to
tell me what to do, versus saying it's sort of
conceding that the court has authority to rule and saying
that you're trying to comply, but kind of fudging it
with how well you're complying. So do I think that's
a constitutional crisis? No, I don't think it is. I
think it's getting close. But this is the other side
(31:42):
of that coin. All of that is assuming that these
judges are issuing legitimate rulings. The system is predicated on
judges not acting like children.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
The system is predicated on judges.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Understanding their role and at least more or less sticking
to their role. I think these federal judges are pushing
against a constitutional crisis by doing things that are so
clearly outside their bounds, so clearly outside their scope as
(32:20):
to really render it questionable whether the Trump administration at
a certain point should say that you have exceeded the
bounds of your authority and therefore we're not going to
listen to you. And the Trump administration has floated this
in a couple of ways, Trump administration has floated this
(32:42):
with maybe some of these judges.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Should be impeached and removed.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Now, John Roberts, I thought, ridiculously got on his high
horse and saying no, the answer to bad rulings is
to appeal them.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
It's not to impeach judges.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Well, the question whether or not to impeach a judge
is a purely political question. I don't know what business
the chief Justice has to offer his political opinion about
a political question. I don't actually give a damn what
John Roberts thinks about that. If John Roberts no more
or less than I want to hear John Roberts' opinion
on tax policy and what good tax politicy should be.
(33:16):
I don't want to hear his opinion on the political
question of whether or not we should impeach and remove judges.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
John Roberts sometimes acts like it's his job to stick
up for all the federal judge Well.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Is that really your job?
Speaker 1 (33:34):
And by the way, impeaching and removing judges would be
within the structures of our constitutional order. It's permitted by
the Constitution if you get a majority in Congress and
two thirds majority in the Senate, you can impeach and
remove a judge. It's happened before, but usually it's only
happened because judges were clearly violating the law, taking bribes
(33:56):
and stuff like that. But I don't see why it
would be wrong to initiate that against a judge who's
wildly exceeding his or her authority.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Because it gets to this point.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
In wartime, the president directs the first Marine Battalion whatever
to go over here. Someone within that Marine battalion sues
files a lawsuit in the DC District saying, I don't
think it's a good idea for the president to do this.
I think it puts our lives at risk, and I
think it's it finds some statute to say that. Maybe
(34:30):
it's unlawful somehow, I don't know. And a federal district
court judge issues a temporary restraining orders as the Trump
administration's lawyers need to appear before us for a hearing
to justify whether they're legally entitled to move the first
Marine Battalion over there. Well, if that happened, the Trump
administration or any president would tell that judge to go
(34:51):
to hell, and they would be right. That would be
such a clear abuse of judicial authority that I think
the Trump administration should tell that judge to go to hell.
And there were moments in the Civil War where Lincoln
ignored judicial rulings arguably under similar circumstances. So I think
(35:17):
that's the problem, and a judge trying to do that
to a president that is a constitutionally critical thing. That's
a crisis level thing for our constitutional order for judges
to try to boss around a president for his core
executive functions.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
And that's what I'm saying when we say.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
That there is a constitutional crisis, I think it's every
bit as much coming from the left as this one
instance of these Venezuelan gang bangers or alleged Venezuelan gangbangers,
whether or not the Trump administration has the right to
deport them, whether or not the Trump administration kind of
blew off this federal judge. They said they didn't a bit.
(35:56):
There's a big difference there. I think is at a
constitutional crisis. I don't know that could be bad defendant,
bad behavior by a party in a lawsuit is I think,
different from the president challenging the entire constitutional order. People
have questionably followed judicial rulings before, while acknowledging the authority
(36:19):
of a judge to issue that ruling that that's not
exactly this is not exactly something novel. Judges basically thinking
they can rule the country in place of the executive
is differently bad, and i'd say worse. When we return
a presdent city council seat might come down to who
can cure the most ballots. Next on the John Gerardi Show,
(36:43):
so Brandon Vang is beating Elizabeth Jonathon Roses for this
president city Council District five seat.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
He is at fifty.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
Point one four percent of the vote, she's at thirty something.
If he gets over fifty percent, he automatically becomes the
city council member.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
There's no runoff.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
So now they're doing this thing where there's only like
I think like one hundred and fifty or so votes
left to about two hundred votes left, and they're counting
them right now, and it's like on a razor's edge.
Depending on how it goes, Vang might get slightly over
fifty percent and win right away, or might get slightly
under fifty percent and they'll have to have a runoff.
(37:26):
And then there's also the process of ballot curing. The
two sides can go to people who submitted their ballots
and had a problem on the ballot and get them
to quote cure their ballot and thereby pick up votes
for one side or the other. This is how California
Democrats win every close election. It's why John Duarte is
not in Congress anymore now. Adam Gray is. Adam Gray
(37:48):
was better at vote curing than Duarte was. So we
are on a razor's edge here seeing who is going
to be the next city council member for District five.
We will with bated breath and you will hear all
about it. I'm sure here on the valleys power talk,
John Girardi, I'm out see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
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
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!