3-19-25 - 8am - A Judges Authority

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Could we have a goober Field trip and go watch
the view and sit there on our pink outfits and
scroll through our phones while we don't look at them.
But then every once in a while we can hold
up a paddle that says, whoopy lies joy is joyless
sunny as an idiot, and then walk out in the
middle of the show. I think it'd be.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Good as long as I can stand up and wave
my cane. That's right, I'll have to grow a pony Well,
you've already got the beer, but I want to grow
a ponytail. Get me a gold plated, you know, handled cane,
and then stand up and whoopy new bitty, shut up
and marry Yeah, I'll do that. Yeah whoope. You remember
when you used to be talented? Right? And then I

(00:43):
can get escorted out. You know they'll they'll have security
come and get me and escort me out. It'll make
all It'll be great for the program. It would be
great for the show. Yeah. I want to rather than
you know, we you know, like people go on tours.
You're like talk show will do you know, trips, like
some people will go to the Glopagus Islands, for example,

(01:05):
or maybe go to Kenya on a safari. I mean,
you know, not to hint about anything, But what if
instead Dragon go home and tell missus Redbeard that forget
ken you we're not gonna go on a safari. Forget
the glop. I guess we're not going to do that.
We're going to the Big Apple. We're going to the
place so nice they named it twice New York, New York,

(01:26):
and we're gonna go to see the view. Yeah, that'd
be cheaper, be a lot cheaper. In fact, we might
just do We could do all that without a travel agent.
We'll just do that ourselves. True. We'll put Alex in charge.
She can do all the organization. She can you know,
her idea, so she can organize it, get make you know,

(01:49):
collect all the deposits, buy all the plane tickets. Of
course I'll be in first class. Yuprs are back in
the back of the plane. But that's as it should be.
In fact, all you will pay my way like they don't,
like they normally do on the real trips that you take.
You know, that's what happened when you went to Egypt, right.

(02:10):
I paid for my Egypt trip, I know, and you
paid for his too. That's part of the deal. So
if it's good enough for those cruise outfits and tour outfits,
it's good enough for me. You Goober's pay for my trip.
We'll go to the View. Sure, we would have some

(02:31):
really good food though, I know, some really good I know,
the whole spectrum. Like, we'll go to some really classy
Italian places on the Upper East Side, and then we'll
go to Chinatown and we'll go into the place that
you'll think, has this ever passed a food inspection? But

(02:52):
it'll be the best Chinese the window, yes, exactly, the
ducks and the chicken and everything hanging in the window.
And we'll go in there and he'll be the best
Chinese food you ever have. Yeah, And then I'll take
you to Ground Zero. We'll do that. We'll go out
and see the Statue of Liberty and we'll we'll hold
a protest before the Statue of Liberty gets returned. Yes,
it'll be like, don't don't let liberty leave. You know.

(03:14):
We'll have a big we'll have packards made and everything,
and we'll do a little you know, on the ferry
out there. We'll hold a protest. Well, you don't know,
we'll be on w ABC. We'll be on Wins Wins.
You know, I'll only protest the statue of liberty if
I'm allowed to go up to the torch. I don't
think they're allowing anybody go to the torch. But maybe
I can pull some strength. Ye I want to see.

(03:35):
If I can't pull some strings, we'll go. Well, now
that you've lost weight, maybe you could go up to
the torch. Right, I'm not gonna break the arm. That's right.
It used to be a signed You can't. You have
to be this why to go up? You wouldn't have
passed through now you go through. Can a single federal
district judge stop the President of the United States and

(04:00):
forart his agenda and just say no, you can't do anything. Well.
The Trump administration has actually asked the Supreme Court to
resolve that last week. Now. They asked it last week
in response to a court order of blocking Trump's effort
to end birthright citizenship. Man, I can spend hours talking

(04:22):
about birthright citizenship. There is so much about the fourteenth
Minute that we could do it. I'm not gonna no,
I'm not gonna do I'm calling an audible on myself, right,
Now I'm not going to go down that that path.
But an issue is something called Now we've talked about

(04:49):
t ros. You know, that's a temporary restraining order which
is issued prior to a hearing about whether or not
to impose a perman that injunction. Well, what's happened is
courts have started issuing universal injunctions. Well what does that do? Well,

(05:11):
that allows all these I mean there's maybe it's not
a thousand, somewhere between seven hundred and one thousand federal
judges at the trial court level, and so they issued
these universal injunctions that prevent the president from either enforcing
policies not only against those bringing a case, but anyone

(05:33):
in it everywhere. In other words, a judge that it
hasn't happened yet. But let's just use Colorado. In the
Federal District Court of Colorado. Let's say that one judge
has before him. Well, let's take Noah or in car
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Center

(05:55):
for Atmospheric Research up in Boulder where they laid off
some people. So let's say they run to the Federal
District Court in Colorado and the judge issues an injunction
a temporary restraining order, but rather than because I want
you to understand this so important to understand, for that

(06:15):
judge in Colorado to have jurisdiction, that means he would
need some people who were actually fired from Noah or
in Car to be parties to the application for a
tro because they're the ones that have been fired. So

(06:37):
the judge would in almost any other situation if he
issued a temporary restraining order, it would be to affect
those people that are in his courtroom, the people from
Boulder that work at in Car or Noah that got terminated.

(07:00):
The problem is the judge in Denver. I'm using this
as a hypothetical. The federal district judge in Denver would
instead enjoin or stop the president from firing anybody that
works for Noah or in Car anywhere in the country,
even though they don't. That judge has no jurisdiction over

(07:20):
those people that work for Noah, say in Houston, or
that work for Noah in Boston. He doesn't have any
jurisdiction over them. They're not even in his court room.
The only parties in his courtroom are those plaintiffs from Boulder.
So that's what I mean by a universal injunction, and

(07:42):
these judges are entering these universal injunctions to prevent the
president from enforcing policies not only against those who actually
brought the case here in the hypothetical in Boulder, in
Federal District District Court in downtown Denver, but all over
the country. Now here's a little factoid that most people

(08:04):
don't think about. These universal injunctions were very rare, very
very rare until the first Trump administration. And that's when
they exploded because the Democrats and the progressives turned to
the courts, to the law fair that we've always talked
about to block many of US policies. In the early

(08:28):
days now of Trump two point zero course, have issued
those injunctions at a historic rate and with growing I
would say legalt, not not leg that's not the right word,
not legality, but with a lot larger effect. For example,
over the weekend, trying to suspend the deportation of TDA

(08:51):
members without a hearing during the month of February alone,
district court judges, most nominated by Democrats would just I
just want to be aware of that ordered fifteen such
universal injunctions. Fifteen that's more than Joe Biden faced during

(09:11):
his first three years as president at all courts everywhere
from DC to Washington State, all over the country. If
issued these injunctions in epidemic proportions now not only governing
the whole nation, but the whole world. I mean, they
think that they can control foreign policy. Do you know that?

(09:34):
Right now? The injunctions that have been issued are in
response to more than one hundred lawsuits that and I
think the critics argue correctly, mostly blue states. All these
progressive Marxists in goos and even former government officials are

(09:55):
all deliberately bringing before sympathetic judges in what's known among lawyers.
You've heard the term too. They're forum shopping. They're looking
for a state or in this case, a federal district
Colra happens to be one district, but they're looking for

(10:16):
a state and a district where they can find a
particular judge that they think they have the best chance
of getting that, so they just bring it in that forum.
They're judge shopping. Now both parties have employed that. Don't
get me wrong, and people do it all the time,
but this is taking it to a whole other level. Now.

(10:39):
Democrats and progressive legal scholars. They argue that the injunctions
are necessary because Trump's creating the so called constitutional crisis.
As I said last hour, I believe he really is
pushing the envelope in terms of Article two Laws one

(11:00):
of the Constitution that grants all executive authority to the president. Now,
is it a constitutional crisis? Not yet, But I want
you to just think about why do they use the
term constitutional crisis? Because isn't anything that challenges the constitutionality

(11:28):
of an action or a piece of legislation. Isn't that
a constitutional crisis because you're arguing that an individual has
violated your constitutional rights that's a violation of the constitution,
or that a government has done something that is a
violation of the constitution. Well, why is that a crisis?

(11:54):
It's certainly a constitutional issue, it's a constitutional legal problem.
Is it a crisis? Is if Trump does something or
they fail to prevent Trump from doing something, is it
the end of the world? If if Russia accidentally and

(12:20):
I picked Russia because they got all the nukes, if
Russia launches, I mean, you know what, what's the Red October?
So they launch or war or war games, there's a
launch don't know if it's real or not. But Trump

(12:41):
has to make a decision. They bring him the football,
they open it up, he's got the codes. Does he
launch or not launch? Is somebody going to run to
a federal district court somewhere and get him and join him?
And he basically says, f off, I make this decision.
Now it's an extreme example, but he's exercising his authority

(13:06):
as the commander in chief to protect the nation, to defend,
to literally physically defend the country. But here's what's really
going Here's what's really going on. It's not that dramatic,
but the universal injunctions they've been ordered so far are

(13:27):
hamstring this president. And they raise a lot of legal
and practical questions, some of which the president is. Department
of Justice actually raised its application to stay the birthright
citizenship injunction that was filed last week. Now what do what?
I know? I hate using these words like stay, but

(13:50):
they asked the court to alleviate or to eliminate the
effect of the injunction that's a stay, uh, stop the
district court from enforcing that injunction. So they're raising all
these questions, and they're raising questions about whether court's authority

(14:11):
is limited to ruling on cases and controversies concerning the
parties before it. That's the jurisdictional threshold that I don't
think they're that they have, or I think that's the
jurisdicial threshold threshold which they have unconstitutionally breached. Because if

(14:31):
if somebody from in car in Boulder sues to stop
the president from firing people an in car, and I'm
the only plaintiff in that case Brown v. Trump, well,
if the court wants to issue an injunction in my case,
how the hell does the judge have authority to grant

(14:53):
the injunction across the entire country, with all the other
judges that could potentially hear a case by an in
car employee, again located in Houston, Boston, wherever the hell
it might be. What gives that court the authority to
do that? The nation's the Supreme Court has been unwilling

(15:22):
to resolve these questions. Then yesterday Chief Justice Roberts. Now
I haven't checked today, but yesterday Chief Justice Roberts issued
a statement, a statement that says impeachment is not I'm
just neil. I want to state it specifically because this
is kind of interesting. Yesterday I asked the GROC, which

(15:47):
is the artificial intelligence the AI program on X. I
asked two questions. The first question was this, what is
the full text of Chief Chief Justice John Roberts's statement
on March eighteen, twenty twenty five regarding impeachment of federal judges?

(16:08):
And here's what the AI app on X says, based
on the available information, the full text of Chief Justice
John Robert's statement on March eighteen, twenty twenty five regarding
the impeachment of federal judges is as follows, quote quote
For more than two centuries, it has been established that

(16:30):
impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a
judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.
So I wasn't satisfied with that. I wanted to know
the source tell me where that statement exists. So I

(16:51):
asked GROC this question. You can again see all this
on X at Michael Brown USA. I asked GROC, following
that answer, where can I find the full original text
of Chief Justice John Robert's statement on March eighteen, twenty
twenty five regarding it peachment of federal judges. I get
another answer, it says. The full original text of Chief

(17:15):
Justice John Roberts statement on March eighteen, twenty twenty five,
regarding me peachment federal judges is not available in a
single definitive public source as an archived document directly from
the Supreme Court in the provided references. However, the statement
has been widely quoted in its entirety across multiple reputable

(17:38):
news outlets, consistently reported as a two sentence release issued
through the Supreme Court's Public Information Office. And they stay
and they give me the statement again, they cannot and
at least as of last night, you cannot find this
statement on the Supreme Court's website.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
I just love hearing Bernie about representing the working class
people Michael, when he indeed represents the non working class
and exploits us working stiffs. Going back to chat Schumer,
I want to keep my money because I work for it.
Somebody else wants my money they didn't work for exactly.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
I mean, it's such pathetic class warfare. It's true Marxism,
absolute Marxism. So let's go back to these. So I
checked again during the break on the Supreme Court website,
and there still is no official press release from the
Supreme Court about Justice Roberts statement yesterday. We'll get into

(18:43):
the meat of that statement, but the point is he
comes out and inserts himself into a political issue and
quite frankly, in my opinion, completely misses the boat and
makes things even worse, because impeachment is a political is

(19:03):
a political reason. Is the political method by I should say,
a political method by which the Congress can remove a judge.
They can impeach the judge, and that's a political process.
So I don't know what he was trying to do,
but he's inserted himself into a significant constitutional issue that

(19:28):
is facing the country, and that is the extent to
which can the executive really conduct the executive power. So far,
the Supreme Court seems to be unwilling to resolve all
those questions, despite the fact that Justice Thomas, Justice Gore
Such and Justice Leado I'll get to him in just

(19:48):
a second, have all said, in the sense in cases
that were brought during the Biden administration, we need to
be doing this, We need to be addressing these issues.
The Supreme Court's reticent was brought into really amazing focus
when a five to four majority issued a one page,

(20:09):
one page opinion involving a federal District court's universal injunction
that stopped the Trump administration's pause on foreign assistance. And
I emphasize foreign because that is a foreign policy decision.

(20:30):
You know, once once Congress authorizes for for an aid
to I don't care Turkey, just randomly pick a country Turkey,
the president has the authorities, the commander in chief, for
any reason or no reason, in my opinion, to withhold

(20:52):
that aid for either national security reasons foreign policy reasons.
They're involved that Turkey's done something that go back to Biden.
Did anybody ever stop and realize that what Biden was
doing when he went to Ukraine and said, Hey, I

(21:13):
got this billion dollar loan or aid or whatever it
is from usaid that I'm not going to give you
unless you fire this prosecutor. Did anybody ever say, wait
a minute, you can't do that now. I think he
was pretty blatant about it, and I think he was
doing it for probably an illegal or an ethical purpose.
But if Obama and Biden wanted to withhold aid from

(21:37):
Ukraine in order to get something done in terms of
foreign policy, I think they have the power to do that.
But this pause when you think about the one page
ruling from the Supreme Court, they didn't deal with the
merits of the case. They didn't even address the ability
of the trial judge to Microman and the president, and

(22:04):
the fact that it was one paid. This is where
I want to get to Justice Alito, because while it
was a one page decision, Alito wrote a seven page descent,
and in that dissent is where he said that he
was stunned that the court's majority had asserted that a
single district court judge has quote the unchecked power to

(22:29):
compel the government of the United States to pay out
and probably lose forever two billion taxpayer dollars. Think about
all of this is going on, and the court is
the US Supreme Court is reluctant to weigh in as

(22:50):
cases have worked their way through the lower courts, and
they've now left all three branches of government limbo and
increasingly at each other's throats. If anybody is creating a
so called constitutional crisis, I would say it is the
US Supreme Court, and certainly so in that five to
four decision. And I have and Trump has he has

(23:14):
the right to disagree with it. Now, remember how ballistic
everybody went when the Supreme Court ruled against Biden on
the student loans, and Biden said, oh, it's okay, I'll
just find another way to do it. And he did,
and I can argue that he didn't defy the Supreme

(23:36):
Court's ruling. He just went, oh, you said I can't
go through this door and do it, so I'm going
to go over here through this door and do it.
And at least the cabal and most Americans were like, well, okay,
no big deal. Right. So when the Trump administration accused
quote liberal district court judges of abusing their our close

(24:00):
quote by law un latterly just blocking the president's basic
executive authority. Now Congress is doing what I talked about earlier.
They're trying to pass legislation that would curtail universal injunctions
and make it harder to do this forum shopping. And
some members of Congress are even pursuing even more extreme

(24:23):
measures of actually impeaching the judges. And that's when Chief
Justice Roberts steps in and goes, oh, wait a minute,
impeachment is a you need to work through the appellate process. No,
if Congress, if Congress is given the power of impeachment

(24:43):
the House. If the House wants to impeach a judge
and they think the judge is acting, you know, way
too political. If they can get a majority of the
vote in the in the House to do that, then
it goes over to the Senate and there'll be a trial,
assuming that John Thune actually holds a trial, which I

(25:03):
think he probably would, and who knows. So I think
the Chief Justice was absolutely incorrect, so nowhere. So where
does that get us to where we are right now?
This dueling clash between Democrats and the president, and they
see the president as overreaching in pursuit of his agenda,

(25:24):
and then you have the You got that clash, and
you've got Republicans and a judiciary that they see is
overreaching while the Supreme Court just sits by and doesn't
do anything. Come months after, Justice Roberts issued a report
hailing the judicial independence and fretting about purported threats to it.

(25:47):
Do you know, hangout a second, right, I'm of them, Yeah, yeah,
you realize, of course that Congress is the one to
establish these courts. Right. Article three, The judicial power of
the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court Comma,

(26:13):
and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and established. So if you have
the power to establish the courts, these inferior courts, you
also have the power to take them away. Now that's
a pretty drastic measure, but Congress establishes. For example, if

(26:38):
if they want to make an argument that Colorado's population
has grown such that we need a new federal district
in Colorado, they could create the Western District, the Western
Slope District, and put a Federal District Court judge in
grand Junction. Or they could divide New New Mexico up

(27:01):
and say that we're going to create the Northern New
Mexico District and put a Federal district judge in Taos
or Ratone or someplace. Just as they can create those courts,
Congress can take away those courts. So, no matter what
the Supreme Court decides in the case they've been brought

(27:21):
by the chump administration, Congressional Republicans are actually starting to
take action and threatening impeachment. And you know what, we
may just do away with these courts. On March five,
about what we are talking about two weeks ago. Now,
the day that Alito issued that's scathing seven pages. Descent

(27:44):
Congressman Isa, a California Republican congressman he's been in and
out of Congress, brought his No Rogue Rulings Act of
twenty twenty five before the House Judiciary Committee. That legislation
would prohibit district courts from issuing injunctive relief beyond the
party that seeks it in a court. And his argument's

(28:05):
pretty simple that while Democrat and Republican presidents have been
stimy by universal injunction, none has found himself nearly as
constrained as Trump has been constrained. And while he was
speaking and introducing his bill, he had a chart showing
the number of decrees issued against every administration from that

(28:27):
of George W. Bush forward. Go to there's an April
twenty twenty four Harvard Law Review article court slapped the
first administration with sixty four universal injunctions, more than half
of all such injunctions entered between nineteen sixty three and

(28:48):
twenty twenty three. That is, over sixty years, Democrat nominated
judges issued eighty two percent, I'm sorry, ninety two percent
of those universal injunctions. And I think in remarkable cases.
The forty fifth president prevailed on appeal. Take Trump versus Hawaii.

(29:10):
That case overturned at the Supreme Court concerning Trump's executive
order restricting travel from nations of opposing terror threats, but
it took months of litigation to do so. Now stop
and think about what the case was about. Trump wanted
to impose a ban for people coming from countries that

(29:31):
were legally and historically involved in terrorism. Take the Houthis
for example, the Houthis who are currently attacking the US
Navy in the Middle East. What if Trump were to
impose a travel ban anybody coming to Yimmy, you can't
come to the United States. If your passport is Yeminy,

(29:55):
you can't come here. So some Yahoo runs to a
federal district court is somewhere in the country and gets
a universal injunction disavowing the band where it's clearly a
band based on the national security interests of the country.
And we're going to allow judges to do that. As

(30:19):
someone who is actually a strong supporter of the judiciary
and things that Marbury versus Madison, in which the Court
took to itself the power to rule on the constitutionality
of things going on in the country. I think it
was rightfully decided. I think that was the intent of
the founders. But I think here they have far overreached,

(30:39):
and I think they need to be reigned back in.

Speaker 3 (30:42):
Schumer is annoying, Sanders is super irritating.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
Maybe they can have a cage fight or something. I
don't know. Isn't Bernie and AOC coming to have they
already been here? They've either already been here or they're
coming tomorrow or Friday. I think sometime that sounds terrible.
So I think there's another road trip. There's another little
outing for the goobers, and you and me, we'll go

(31:10):
to the Bernie AOC rally. Man, Can you imagine being
in a group of people out there supporting them. First
of all, they'd all stink. They'd all stink, and they'd
all be a bunch of idiots, and they'd be yelling
and cheering and everything else. And then oh, they'd recognize
the red beard and they go, oh, it's you, and
I dash out and leave you standing there with the crowd.

(31:33):
I do kind of stand out in the crowd, don't I.
You kind of do. It'd be like, oh, there's that
red Beard, guy that works with Brownie. Oh my god,
you'd be dead meeting no time. So the Democrats are
apoplectic about this whole so called constitutional crisis. Do you

(31:55):
know that the Biden administration actually took the side of
not of Trump. How do I word this? The Biden
administration took the same legal position as the Trump administration
is currently taken when courts issued universal injunctions against their policies.

(32:17):
Just go back to December of last year. The Biden
administration has the Supreme Court to stop one such injunction,
halting enforcement of the so called not the so called
the actual called Corporate Transparency Act. I had no clue
what that case was, but the departing president endorsed both

(32:38):
Justice Thomas's and Justice gorse such as criticism of the
practice of these universal injunctions, and the Biden Department of
Justice actually asked the Supreme Court to consider ruling on
their legality, and the Court turned them down. The point
being the Biden Department of Justice as bad as an

(32:59):
age that I think Merrick Garland was. They saw the
dangers of these universal injunctions, and when they when a
court applied one to this Corporate Transparency Act and said, Hey,
I've got a company or an association in front of me,
but I'm going to apply the injunction across the entire country.

(33:22):
The Biden Justice Department of Justice said that's on constitution,
you can't do that, and the Supreme Court turned it down.
Let us stand. Now, let's go back to darryl Issa
for a moment to Congress from California. His bills come
out of committee with an amendment permitting a three judge
panel to issue a universal injunction should a case be
brought by two or more states located in different circuits.

(33:45):
It's kind of a It's kind of a Solomon Act here.
If we got different courts in different circuits deciding these
universal injunctions and one says yes and one says no.
Will somehow have a procedure to appoint a three judge
kind of a super repellent panel and we'll let them decide. Well, okay,

(34:14):
I kind of get what you're doing here, but it
doesn't solve the problem. The problem is you have rogue
judges who I believe are acting unconstitutionally, and you've got
a Supreme Court that is refusing so far to rule
on it. Now, I don't know the particulars about what
this particular Department of Justice. I don't know what Pam

(34:37):
Bondi or the Solicitor General are doing to speed things
up at the US Supreme Court. But whatever it is,
it's not enough. They need to do more. The chairman
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after the markup on this
bill from darryl Isa, he took to the Senate floor
to express concern about some of the recent orders from
individual district judges issued on an expedi a basis with

(35:01):
very broad nationwide impact. Grassley says that allowing a single
district judge to unilaterally micro manage the executive branch should
raise eyebrows, to say the least. He says, I have
serious questions about district court's recent use of generally non
appealable tros, which Justice Leader argue to deserve scrutiny, and

(35:23):
universal injunctions to put a leash on the executive branch,
and I think Congress ought to closely examine the issue.
Mike Lee, who I considered to be one of the
said it's constitutional experts, is working on a bill to
curtail the practice entirely. That's the kind of action they

(35:43):
need to do. That's the kind of action the Centment
needs to take, or the Congress needs to take. Just
outlaw universal injunction