9-13-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Why Are These Criminals Running Loose?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Fo Night, Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael
Brown broadcasting Life in Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Glad to have you joined the program today.
Text line is open as it always is, twenty four
hours a day, seven days a week. So if you
want to tell me anything or ask me anything on

(00:21):
your message app, the numbers three three one zero three
three three one zero three. Keyword is either Mike or Michael.
And you can believe me or not believe me, but
it's the truth. I read text messages all the time.
Sometimes you give me great ideas for topics. Sometimes you
make me think maybe I didn't explain that well enough.
I need to go through that again. But anyway, I

(00:42):
read all the text messages. I don't respond to many
of them, but I do read them all. Be sure
and follow me on X as I said earlier, which
I guess was kind of snobby of me, But if
you know, if Andrew Breitbart and Charlie Kirk follow me,
then you should be following me. Following me too. At
Michael Brown USA, At Michael Brown, USA, go do that

(01:04):
right now. It it should be self evident that a
society that requires more education or more training to sit
in judgments over federal citizens than it is to cut hair, Well,

(01:29):
let's go to West Virginia, because the opposite is true.
This when I talk about you know, I tend to
and I have gone through several artificial intelligence platforms. I've
done some legal and historical research. Because I refer to

(01:51):
the progressive left, which is not all Democrats but is
becoming the controlling portion of the Democrat Party. I refer
to them as Marxists. And I've thought long and hard
about that, about whether it's appropriate or not, and I've
come to the conclusion that when it comes to that

(02:14):
portion of the Democrat Party, that is, for example, zofram
mondan mom, mom, Donnie the guy running as the self
avowed socialist Marxist communist for mayor of New York, or
you take the squad Alexandria Cossio Cortez at All, you
take them, for that matter, you take Bernie Sanders, you

(02:36):
take Elizabeth Warren. They truly do want to destroy capitalism,
and they truly do believe that government ought to be
making more decisions. They believe in socialized, nationalized healthcare. They
believe in the government having enough regulatory control over business
that it becomes almost a communist, if not ironically fascist,

(02:59):
because we're we as Republicans, always accused of being fascist,
when in actuality it's the Marxism and the fascism of
the Democrat Party, of that wing of the party that
really believes in exercising so much control over our lives
that I do believe that the term Marxist is absolutely

(03:21):
correct for them. Now, if you're a moderate Democrat and
you actually believe in capitalism, and you think that we
shouldn't have like a progressive tax structure, we shouldn't have
income taxes, we should have, you know, sales taxes or
consumption taxes, then I don't think the term or the
label Marxist supplies to you. But show me that Democrat.

(03:42):
Show me that Democrat. It might have been Joe Mansion
one time from West Virginia, the former Senator, but I
don't know if there is one today because they have
all allowed that Marxist wing of their party to pull
them in that direction, and that's the direction they are headed.
Full steam ahead. So back to West Virginia because I

(04:06):
think this is a it's a fun yet disturbing example.
To become a barber in West Virginia, the government demands
one thousand, two hundred hours of schooling at a licensed
institution like a barber school, or double that two thousand,
four hundred hours as an apprentice. It also requires a

(04:29):
formal health certificate, and then you have to pass successfully
pass three separate examinations. Got it. That's just to cut
somebody's hair. Now, I want to know that when I
go to a barber that someone has and I've been

(04:49):
using the same barber for years and years. I want
to know that they know how to cut hair. But
do I ever look at their license? I don't know
that I've ever asked a barber do you have a
license to cut hair or not? I've usually asked for
a reference. Hey, I'm looking for a barber. Let's say

(05:12):
I'm traveling and I'm going to be gone for four weeks.
I really need a haircut. I'd probably ask the concierge
at the hotel. I'd ask a cowork in a meeting, Hey,
where do you get your haircut? Here? Who's a good barber,
because I'm going to rely more on their referral than
I am going from barbershop to barbershop to barbershop. Hey,

(05:35):
show me your license, show me your your grade from
the three separate examinations. If I'm in West Virginia, show
me your health certificate. No, I don't care about that.
I want to know that you can cut hair. I
want to know that you can take my hair and
make me look at least halfway decent. Now in West Virginia,

(05:56):
if you want to be a magistrate judge, the requirements
be twenty one years old, hold a high school diploma
or your ged, and don't have a felony reside in
the county where you're going to be the judge. To
be a magistrate judge to decide guilt and innocence, to

(06:20):
even adjudicate parking tickets or speeding tickets or anything else.
The barber's got to pass state law and practical exams.
But the magistrate judge who's going to set your bail,
who can issue an arrest warrant, who is going to
hear a criminal case, doesn't even need to go to
law school. Does he need to go to graduate school
or pass the bar. This is not a quirk of

(06:44):
West Virginia law either. I think it's a broader national
scandal that nobody's talking about. North Carolina, South Carolina, Arizona
all permit non lawyers to sit as magistrates. Now. Magistrate
is the lowest level of judges, because you have a
magistrate judge who does a lot of perfunctory ministerial duties

(07:08):
like determining bail, issuing an arrest, warrant, hearing maybe minor
criminal cases. You know, they probably wouldn't hear a murder case,
but they might hear other criminal cases in which you're
still entitled to, you know, maybe a jury. No. In
South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, non lawyers consider as magistrates. Now.

(07:31):
Their justification is usually that magistrates, well, they're just handling
minor cases. But when you look at the facts, you
find out that that justification is entirely wrong. Magistrates in
almost all fifty states regularly decide whether or not violent
felons remain behind bars or walk free. What do we

(07:55):
have a problem with in this country? We have a
serious problem of known criminals with lengthy criminal records running
free and doing things. Let me think of let's see.
Can I think of an example of that. Imagine if
you had someone who had fourteen convictions was facing current charges,

(08:20):
but the judge said, oh no, bay'll just show back
up on a certain day. And that dirt bag got
onto a light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina, and decided
to stab a Ukrainian refugee who was just trying to
get home from work. And it was all caught on
close circ at TV. Oh yeah, that's a real story.

(08:45):
So these magistrate judges, like in North Carolina have authority
that can alter the course of a person's life and
the life of that community. Yeah, the educational barrier to
entry is lower than what you need for a barber
to trim your beard or to cut your hair. It's

(09:08):
the Weekend with Michael Brown. The text line three three
one zero three keyword Micha or Michael go follow me
on X. If you haven't come on, get that done
at Michael Brown USA. I'll be right back. Hey, welcome
back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have
you with me. I appreciate you tuning in. If you

(09:28):
like what we do on the weekend, be sure and
subscribe to the podcast because By doing that, you get
all the weekday program too. On your podcast app, search
for this program, the Situation with Michael Brown. That's what
we call the Weekday Program, The Situation with Michael Brown.
When you find that, hit subscribe, leave a five star
review because that helps us get up higher in the rankings,

(09:49):
and then that will automatically download to your phone or
to your computer. That will download all five days of
the weekday program plus the weekend program, and you get
all of me that you need it, maybe more than
you need to, although I doubt that. So think about
all of these criminals running free, but I bet you've

(10:10):
never really stopped and thought about why why are these
judges doing it? Well? These magistrate judges, first and foremost
don't have the kind of legal education that I think
they need. Nor do they and because they don't have
the legal education, and I'm not saying you have to
have a lawyer to have this sense, but I think

(10:30):
it helps that you don't have a sense of exactly
how consequential some of your decisions can be. A barber
school student in West Virginia has got to spend hundreds
of hours learning about microbiology, anatomy, sanitation, customer relations. They
cannot touch ahead of your hair until they complete registration

(10:52):
with the state board, with the government. They have to
undergo a doctor's certification of health. They got to prove
mastery of infection control before they can even get the
license to cut one one hair on your head. A
magistrate judge, to contrast, can walk right into that courtroom

(11:17):
with no more preparation than a teenager fresh from high
school graduation. Now in West Virginia they require a rudimentary
law course, but it's it's just it would be the
equivalent of me going to a seminar. Go take the seminar,
and then you can be a magistrate judge. Isn't it

(11:39):
interesting that we kind of treat the barber's trade as
some sort of sacred trust that the government has to
regulate while justices had justice itself is handed out to
those with little more than a voter registration card. As
I said, the consequences are not theoretical. It was a
magistrate judge that released that violent felloon with a law

(12:00):
Kungs rap sheet on nothing more than just a promise
that you'll show back up in court on a particular day.
So he boarded a train to Charlotte stabbed that young
Ukrainian refugee, a woman who had fled war, only to
find death on American soil. This was not a clerical mistake.
It was a judicial decision, a decision made by somebody

(12:23):
entrusted with authority but did not have the training or
the discipline of the law. A lawyer with years of
legal education passing the bar, I would hope would have
understood the stakes. But putting a black robe on a

(12:43):
high school graduate does not guarantee if they're going to
understand that. Now, this is not just a bizarre example
that I wanted to pull out. It forces us to
ask what do we value more, what's more important? Go

(13:05):
back to my example of I've never ever looked at
a barber's license, And in fact, while I know the
barber I've been using four I don't know, probably ten
years now, while I know he probably has his license
probably you know, I'm sure in Colorado he's required to
post that license somewhere. I do know this. It's not

(13:26):
in the chair I sit where I get my hair cut,
because I'm facing the mirror and I've looked at the
wall and I don't see anything on the wall, except
you know some a couple of family pictures and stuff.
I've never seen a license. Maybe I better ask him. Hmm,
I need to know whether or not you've got a license.

(13:49):
But think about it in terms of values, tidy appearances
over justice. We care more about split ins and getting
the taper on your neck just right than we do
our constitutional rights. We've really kind of screwed up our priorities.

(14:12):
We entrust the most delicate question of liberty to the
least prepared employee of the government. We force somebody who
just wants to cut hair into years of training thousands
of dollars of expense before they can put their scissors
near my head. But we allow a magistrate to wield

(14:34):
the power of the gavel with nothing more than just
h you're a good person. If you defend this arrangement,
then you are. The defenders of this arrangement. Would argue
that these magistrates are supervised by the district judges and
that they're continuing education classes close the gap. But oversight

(14:58):
is not the same as competent and seminars are not
the same as law school. Imagine if you will, let's okay,
if if you if that's what you believe and you
think that we you know, it's okay, then how about
we just put in our hospitals high school graduates and
just tell the public don't worry about becoming a licensed doctor.

(15:19):
Uh you know, just you know, make sure that you
don't you put the stitches in right, don't get people infected.
You wouldn't accept that. There's no way you would accept that.
Why do we accept it? When it comes to justice.
If we pride ourselves on the rule of law, which

(15:40):
we do, that's not served by populating the courts with laymen.
It's undermine. Now you want if you want to make
the argument that I am making this argument because I
am a lawyer, then have at it, because I'll throw
right back in your face. Okay, Well, then do you

(16:01):
want to go to court with someone if you are
on trial for a murder? Do you want to be
the y'ahoo for example, that's defending himself against the attempted
Trump assassination in front of Judge Eileen Cannon in that
federal court down in West Palm Beach. How would you
like for that guy to be your lawyer? He's making

(16:22):
a fool of himself. What would you think if the
judge instead of Eileen Cannon was a magistrate without a
law degree who didn't have any experience in the law whatsoever.
The citizen who stands before a magistrate judge in West
Virginia ought to demand that they have a jurist, a

(16:44):
judge that is trained in the law and not an
amateur with a high school diploma. We have a right
to expect that the people who decide questions have bailed liberty, freedom,
criminal guilt or innocence have at least the same professional
preparation as those people that cut our hair. This is absurd,
It's ludicrous. It's absurd that barbered licensing in West Virginia

(17:09):
has more stringent requirements than to be a judge. It's
outrageous that you've got to have twelve hundred hours of
study to cut bangs, but not one single semester to
set bail, and we see the price that we pay
for it. Now, let me make clear I think we

(17:30):
need better judges at every level. We cannot rely on
uneducated Dei style appointments that prize diversity and quota is
over competence in the law. Non lawyers serving as magistrates
are issuing search warrants, authorizing arrests, setting bail, and two
often giving slaps on the wrist. And some of these

(17:51):
district judges are just as bad. I'll explain next tonight.
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of
talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing
a heck of a jug The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to

(18:12):
have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in text
line three to three Wednesdaero three keyword Micha or Michael.
Last segment, we were talking about how these magistrate judges,
like the one that set the thud free that killed
the Ukrainian woman on the light rail in North Carolina
and Charlotte, how we put more value on the regulation

(18:36):
of a barber than we do our values of justice. Well,
I've picked on these magistrate judges, which is the lowest
level of judge that you can imagine. Let's think about
the federal district courts. Now, just for basic understanding, these

(18:57):
are called Article three courts. If you read Art three
of the US Constitution Constitution and in essence says we
establish a Supreme Court of the United States to decide
judicial questions about statutes and constitutionality, and then such other
courts as Congress may from time to time prescribe. So

(19:23):
the appellate courts. You have the Supreme Court as the
top court. Below that, you have the appellate courts. You
have the first appellate, the first Circuit, you have the
second Circuit, the ninth Circuit, the tenth Circuit. Those are
appellate courts that cover different states. They cover a group

(19:44):
of states. Then you have the district courts, which lawyers
refer to as the trial court. That's where the trials start.
So for example, in Colorado, we have one district. We
have the District of Colorado. And let me think Oklahoma.

(20:04):
You you have two districts. I think you have the
Western District, which is pretty much western Oklahoma, and you
have the Northern District, which is kind of the northeast
corner of Oklahoma. Other states have numerous districts that you know,
Texas will have numerous districts because of its population in size.
All of those courts and the jurisdiction of those courts

(20:27):
are established by Congress. So that means Congress can eliminate
those courts their Article three courts. When Trump started his
second term, the Chief Justice John Roberts warned the Trump
administration about the dangers of ignoring Supreme Court orders. Now,

(20:50):
contrary to some media predictions, it was not the executive
but it was the lower courts, the trial courts, that
have been the ones that have been challenging the authority
of the US Supreme Court. These inferior courts, the trial
courts as we refer to them so designated by the Constitution,

(21:10):
they do serve a vital role, but they have to
comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court. The value
system in this country, whether it's like magistrate judges versus barbers,
we have a value system here where these lower inferior

(21:32):
trial courts are ignoring the rulings of the U. S.
Supreme Court. There's been a pattern that has emerged. Trial
court judges, particularly in coastal circuits, have been blocking the
Trump administration initiatives at a remarkable rate, sometimes issuing emergency
rulings within hours, often without the full breathing or the hearing.

(21:55):
Just boom, somebody comes in, they want an injunction, and boom,
they just give the injunction and then schedule a hearing,
you know, for two, three, four weeks later. Through procedural maneuvers,
those trial court orders could be insulated from being heard
by an appellate court for weeks. And of course, the

(22:16):
lawyers for the NGOs or the illegal aliens, whoever it
might be, are doing what's called forum shopping. They're trying
to find a favorable trial court judge that based on
everything they've read, learned, or heard about this judge through
their confirmation or their previous rulings or already anything else,

(22:37):
they think what is probably most likely going to rule
in our favor. So we'll run to them because we
also shop, or they shop for the most favorable appellate
court ruling. So, faced with this repeated obstruction by these
trial courts and the appellate courts, the Department of Justice,

(22:59):
the Trump administry, their only recourse was to the U. S.
Supreme Court. This gave rise to what's called a shadow docket,
sometimes referred to as the emergency docket. That's where the
Supreme Court's use of expedited orders to quickly and promptly
address this defiance at the lower court. What Justice Kavanaugh

(23:21):
called quote the interim before the interim, because without that
kind of intervention, the trial court judges effectively were having
the final word on executive power. Wait a minute, that's
a complete bastardization. That's a reversal of the design of
the constitution, wholly unconstitutional and absolutely in violation of the

(23:47):
values of justice that we have in our constitution. And
there have been three different kinds of cases that illustrate
what I'm talking about. The first one the power how
are the executive branch to deport? In a case called
Department of Homeland Security versus DVD of Boston District Court,

(24:08):
judge blocked deportations to South Sudan. They ordered the detained
aliens to remain at a military base in Djibouti. I'm
not going to tell you where Jibouti is. I bet
you don't know. Some of you probably do, but I
bet a lot of you don't. This planeload of properly

(24:30):
deported illegal aliens was on their way to South Sudan.
Now why South Sudan and say not Venezuela. Because the
illegal aliens argued that they would face persecution in Venezuela
and the law specifically says that if the deportee is
going to face persecution in their home country, they can

(24:50):
be deported to any other country. So the administration says, okay,
we have a treaty, we have an agreement with South Sudan.
Will take them to, say Sudan. The planes on the
way to South Sudan. The court rules, no, you're refuting
in Djibouti. Now. In Djibouti there were no facilities, no
place to hold them, no way to feed them or

(25:11):
anything else, just to military base. The trial court said,
stay in Djibouti. You can't go to South Sudan. Now
the Supreme Court swiftly reversed. But guess what the district judge.
The trial judge insisted that his earlier orders still stood

(25:34):
acclaim back by citing a dissent in the Supreme Court,
not the majority. This is like completely ignoring everything that
we as lawyers learned in law school and that you,
as a layman, should understand that when the Supreme Court

(25:56):
tells you a trial judge, no, then you have to
follow the majority ruling. You don't look to one of
the two or three dissenting judges and say, well, I
agree with what they said, not what the majority said.
Can you imagine that. Let's say that we didn't have
a that you didn't have to have a unanimous verdict
in a murder case, and so you could convince you know,

(26:21):
out of twelve jurors, you got three that find you innocent,
nine that want to find you guilty. And the judge says, well,
I think the three are right. I'm going to go
with the three. You would be appalled at that. No,
it's supposed to be unanimous, or even if it's a
civil case. And the judge said, well, the majority found
against you, but I agree with these three jurors that

(26:43):
were for you, so I'm going to find for you too.
The Supreme Court had to reassert. They had to reassert
themselves twice, reversing the same judge in Boston two weeks
in a row. Even one of the dissenting justice that
the trial judge was relying on, Justice Kagan, said, wait

(27:06):
a minute, you can't do this. The majority spoke. You
have to follow what the majority said, not what I said.
I made my argument, but I lost. You have to
follow the majority. The trial judges are out of control.
That's the first group of cases. The second group of
cases involved the removal authority of the president. For over

(27:29):
a decade now, the Supreme Court has supported broad executive
removal powers, Yet the lord these trial court judges repeatedly
blocked Trump's attempts to fire certain executive officers, sometimes even
ordering them to be reinstated. So let's get to the
Supreme Court. In a case called Trump v. Wilcox, the

(27:51):
president ruled I'm sorry. The court ruled that the president
could remove board members, but a Maria and judge disregard
to the Supreme Court, prompting yet another Supreme Court intervention
and a direct order. Now the cases were not meaningfully different.
The lower courts must comply. So when it came to

(28:14):
the president being able to remove people, I mean, think
about it. We have a unified executive who's in charge
of the executive branch, whether it's the Department of Commerce
or it's the FCC, the president is. We don't have
a fourth branch of government out there. We kind of
euphemistically refer to the media as the fourth branch, but

(28:34):
they're not a branch of government. These trial judges are
freaking out of control. So you've got the cases of
the power to deport, the power to remove, and next
I want to talk about the power of spending in
the jurisdiction of the court. That's next. I'll be right back. Hey,

(29:00):
you've been listening to the Weekend with Michael Brown, and
I really do appreciate it. I appreciate you tuning in.
I don't take this audience for granted whatsoever. I appreciate
the text messages. I appreciate the follow the follows on
X at Michael Brown USA. And I appreciate you telling
other friends and family and your enemies about this program.
I like it when people hate listen. Their text messages

(29:21):
are always the best. So we're talking about these out
of controlled trial judges, and I've told you that there
were there are three major cases. There's the executive power
of the president's power to deport, which is in shrine
and statute. There's the president's authority to fire people. That's

(29:41):
because he's the he's at the apex of the executive branch.
He's the head honcho, he's the boss. And even if
you're an independent agency like the FCC or the FAA,
nonetheless you are a part of the executive branch. And
then there's a third case, and that's federal spending and
the court's jurisdiction. So Trump's efforts to cut government spending

(30:08):
caused some of these blue states, these Democrat controlled states
to sue in favorable forums. And again Boston, crazy people
in Boston. What's going on out there? They sued in Boston.
And the reason I say what's going on out there
is because if you're going to sue, if the State
of Illinois is going to sue Trump overcutting spending, Congress

(30:36):
established what's called the Court of Federal Claims, that's where
you take your case. But they keep going to Boston
because they got a crazy, dumbass federal judge out there
that apparently has serious case of Trump derangement syndrome and
is always ruling against Trump. Well, the Supreme Court comes
in and redirects those cases to the proper venue. In

(30:59):
a case called Department of Education versus California. Now, some
district judges refused, they continue to order payouts, and what
do they do. Like in the case about removal of employees,
they were citing the dissent as the precedent, not the majority.

(31:20):
So what happened that prompted the Supreme Court to issue
further clarifications, reiterating that lower courts cannot circumvent high court rulings.
This is where Justice more Such wrote a scathing sentence
that basically said, you don't have the power to do this.

(31:42):
We're the final say and you must do what we say.
Which leads me to what I want you to think about.
What explains this disregard, What explains this absolute disregard for
the constitutional order, the constitutional system that we have that

(32:07):
I would say, I would argue that it wasn't even
this bad during Biden or during Obama. Now there's always
been forum shopping, but there's never been this defiance of
the Supreme Court. Historically, courts accord a presumpt what's called
a presumption of regularity to executive actions, to executive decisions,

(32:30):
a presumption that's and that presumption of regularity is you
start with the premise that the executive branch has the
power to do what it's doing. So you start from
that premise and then you start working backwards. Is is
it legitimate? Is it? Does he have that authority? So
that takes time. You start with presumption the president has

(32:52):
the authority. So if you're a trial court you're a
trial judge, you start with the presumption of regularity. You
don't start with the presumption to it and issue an
injunction and then force the Supreme Court to issue an
emergency order. That presumption of regularity was completely withdrawn and
ignored from President Trump in these lower court rulings. But

(33:17):
I don't care whether the president's a Republican or Democrats.
I don't care if it's Joe Biden. No president should
lose that presumption because it is based on what it's
based on the legitimacy of our elections, not political opinion.
Now this breakdown has triggered emergency appeals, and now we

(33:39):
have this epidemic of lower court decisions that are contradicting
Supreme Court orders. Do you know there's nearly two dozen
of these cases just to score such to quote him verbatim,
When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent
that commands the respect in lower court courts may not

(34:01):
so easily circumvent precedent. So the Supreme Court's interventions, yeah,
they're reluctant, but they're necessary. The lower court resistance to
precedent is more dangerous for the rule of law than
concerns about executive overreach, because if the pattern persists, that

(34:23):
ends up creating chaos and undermines judicial legitimacy. I specifically
tell you that it risks chaos for a reason. Why,
Because if you understand Cloward and Piven, if you understand

(34:43):
the Lensky's rules for radicals, you understand that radical Marxist
Democrats want to sow chaos because they think that's how
they bring about the revolution. The framers the Constitution placed
lower courts beneath the Supreme Court in order to maintain

(35:06):
legal order, unity, and to avoid chaos. So this is
not about which party is in power. It's about whether
the integrity of our system that's rooted in respect for
binding precedent can endure. It is absolutely critical that lower
court judges rediscover the presumption of judicial regularity and faithfully

(35:29):
follow the Supreme Court's guidance, or this country will fail.
So while we've got the violence on the streets, we've
got all the NGOs, we've got George Soros and all
these people fighting us at every turn, we now have
the courts doing exactly the same thing. We should actually
be grateful that people like Justice Kagan, who dissents. In

(35:53):
most of these cases, she herself says stop it. Stop
it when a so called air quote here liberal judge
tells the trial court judges, stop your insanity. We lost.
I'm in the minority on this decision. You must follow

(36:14):
the majority. You know, it's gotten pretty bad. We should
be grateful that recent Supreme Court interventions have for it,
at least now halted this failure of this lower court revolt.
And the Justice Kagan, whom I almost always disagree with,
has stepped up and said the judicial hierarchy matters and

(36:38):
the rule of law depends on it. Put that in
your pipe and smoke it this weekend. Thanks for tuning
into the Weekend with Michael Brown. Everybody, have a great weekend.
I'll see you next weekend.