March 27, 2025 • 20 mins
"Liberty and Prosperity president, Brian Fitzherbert, joins Anne Baker on the radio to discuss leftist federal judges attempting to micro-manage the Trump presidency."
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Good morning, everyone.
This is Anne Baker on Talking with Anne,
and I'm here with my with my buddy,
Brian. Good morning, sir. It's Herbert Friday.
Good morning, Anne. I'm doing well. Thanks for
having me.
It's always my pleasure and pleasure of my
my listening audience
as well,
to listen to what you have to say.
(00:22):
One of the things that I am really
concerned about, and I believe you probably are
as well,
are these federal judges blocking president Trump's agenda.
Every step that he takes, they're throwing something
at him to keep him from doing what
is necessary for what is best for us,
(00:43):
for our country, and for its citizens. And
these people
are blocking
his agenda,
put there, by the way, by Democrats
who wanted them there to block Donald Trump's
agenda.
So what do you think we can do?
What do you think we should be doing?
(01:05):
Well, I think this is a good exercise
for all your listeners and all the voters
out there to brush up on the constitution
and what the difference between article two and
article three is, which is the breakdown
of the executive branch and the judicial branch.
And what's happening now is these
district court judges,
these federal district court judges, there's about 700
(01:25):
of them across the country. They are making
these nationwide,
for lack of better terms, injunctions to prevent
Donald Trump from implementing
his agenda as the chief executive
and as the commander in chief. Now what's
gonna happen is this is gonna go to
the Supreme Court, and ultimately, Trump and his
team will prevail. But in the meantime, this
is another stall tactic by the left to
(01:47):
try to prevent Donald Trump's agenda. And what's
an easy way to think about this if
you're talking with your friends, remember, there's always
the third
member of the conversation
that is listening.
You may not necessarily be able to convince
the person you are speaking with, but there
is always somebody else listening. And that's who
you want to convince. And what it comes
down to is use the analogy of, does
(02:09):
the Supreme Court
ultimately have, say,
as an equal branch of government
to have a check and balance on the
executive branch. We know that. Yes.
Now the lower court judges,
can they stop
the executive branch, in this case, president Trump
as commander in chief, from firing rockets and
missiles to kill the Houthis?
(02:31):
No. He can't do that because it has
to do with foreign policy. It has to
do with being commander in chief and the
national security.
You can't just stop something because you don't
like it. And that's unfortunately what these judges
are doing
on,
the federal standpoint
because they think they can. And, unfortunately,
because we've never seen a constitutional crisis driven
(02:51):
by the left and these lunatic left wing
judges
where the Supreme Court actually has to reinforce
that they cannot do this. And what's happening
is they're like, for instance, let's use the
example that you're probably referring to. There were
three planes that were bound for South America
of
of,
gang members and deportees from The United States.
(03:13):
And a judge tried to stop that from
happening.
We lost you.
So now we have the left wing and
the liberals and ACLU protecting rapists, gang members,
murderers, and everything else in between,
to try and keep them in the country
with American citizens who follow the law. And
so these three planes, these this idiot judge
(03:36):
made the comment that they needed to be
turned around without any question with regard to
how far away they were. Were they in
international airspace?
Was there enough fuel to turn the the
the flight around?
What about the the time associated with those
that were accompanying this aircraft? Notwithstanding at the
fact that Donald Trump has every power to
(03:56):
deport any individual for any reason
under the already congressionally approved
immigration naturalization act and anything that supplemented that
in the past. And they can't seem to
get this through their thick skull that Trump
can do this. So I'm using the analogy
that they a federal judge can't go and
stop Trump from firing rockets and missiles to
(04:16):
kill Houthis.
Why can he stop anything with regard to
deportations?
It's the same thing. It's national security. It's
foreign policy, and all of that is reserved
under article two, which defines the executive branch,
the president, his powers, the responsibilities,
and everything else from a commander in chief
standpoint. So for the for the time being,
I would suggest that everyone brush up on
(04:38):
article two and article three, what they can
and do.
Obviously, they're equal branches. However,
we've already seen and if anyone has not
seen
Miller or Stephen Miller's
unbelievable
obliteration of a CNN host with regard to
why Trump has this power. And,
again, it ties back. He can now deport
(05:00):
people. He's activating,
and, of course, the left is accusing, oh,
this is a two hundred year law that
no one's only enacted during,
wartime and three times. Well, guess what? The
entire country functions
on a piece of paper that is two
almost 250 years old. So that argument doesn't
work if a law is 200 years old,
and we haven't we only use it three
times. Now those three times that have been
(05:22):
used were during World War one, World War
two. And, however, as Stephen Miller has pointed
out,
the other two things, it's not an and
statement. It's an or statement, meaning you have
three options where the commander in chief can
activate
basically,
deportations
because of an invasion
that he publicly declares. It does not have
(05:43):
to be anything else. He can proclaim
it, which is, again, under article two,
executive powers that president Trump can can exercise.
And then there's the declaring of the war,
which is a congressional action,
which is another option,
or the fourth one, which is an incursion
into United States, again,
(06:03):
reserved for article two, the president. So what
does this all mean? That means that any
one of those three
could be stand alone. We've only seen a
Supreme Court ruling reinforce it on one of
those three, but the likelihood of Supreme Court
will reinforce again if this goes to Supreme
Court, if they keep trying to tie this
up because Donald Trump as president
(06:25):
has proclaimed
that there's an invasion at the southern border
from various countries and that there's an incursion
into our country of these illegal immigrants.
So each and every one of these, he
can now deport
without
a court hearing
because he has the power to do so
because of this founding law that our founders
(06:47):
had put in place
to deal with
those
potential,
invaders
or executioners of an incursion or
a declared war on The United States or
vice versa.
Painful.
It's it's painful to see
what these judges will try to do
(07:08):
to keep Donald Trump's policies from being put
in place.
Who do you think is best able to
handle this when we see that we every
once in a while, we're getting these things
from John John Roberts,
the head of the Supreme Court,
from the gentleman,
the Supreme Court justice who recently retired.
(07:29):
And they're they're sort of,
throwing shade at this.
What do we do? Do we just continue
to wait until it works its way through
the courts
to get to the Supreme Court? Because that's
apparently
what is
being thought will be done.
Yeah. So remember, this is political theater no
(07:50):
matter what it is, no matter who's participating.
And the fact that they are all of
a sudden reacting to Alien Enemies Act that,
oh, it's it's a 1798
law. It's 200 years old. Again, I just
say push off. Look at the constitution. That's
how we operate two hundred fifty years later.
And what I would suggest is
make sure your representatives
know. Obviously, congressman Van Drew is I would
(08:12):
presume is on board with regards to this
and and bring the political
fight
to it because
why would Roberts all of a sudden get
involved and comment on this? He doesn't want
to be in a situation where he has
to respond
to,
what ultimately happens here, and
and that's that's that's where it goes. You
(08:33):
have to have it go through the wickets
of the system.
Well, apparently,
it was,
justice Roberts
who, put him onto the FISA court
when,
Donald Trump was having such difficulty during his
first term.
And so it's almost like they're they're friends,
(08:53):
and he didn't wanna see this man,
out there as a judge and the president
saying he deserves to be impeached,
though maybe he does.
Well, so here's the thing. Everyone's all upset
about whether or not Trump and or judges
or whomever can do anything. We have a
constitutional remedy for that. It's called impeachment.
(09:15):
And if impeachment carries through,
then you have,
a trial in the senate and then removal.
That's the process.
So, again,
they're they're gonna make the accusations with regard
to Trump and impeachment. Why can't it be
the same thing with regard to this judge
who's clearly
lost his
his collective mind from a judicial standpoint? And
(09:35):
the fact that Roberts came out to try
to give him shade and cover,
is is, again, this is the DC swamp,
with regard to, you know, protecting their own.
And, ultimately,
what's going to happen here, it it's gonna
get to the Supreme Court, and it'll probably
be a five four decisions.
Roberts will probably side with the Liberals, and
(09:57):
I would presume
Amy Coney Barrett would side with
the remaining four,
conservative appointed or original intent judges.
But the fact that we have to go
through these wickets, the fact that there's a
political
aspect where people are speaking out, we shouldn't
go after or threaten impeachment on judges
who,
you disagree with. But this is beyond disagreement.
(10:18):
This is a and if you read the
transcript
of this judge,
I think it's Boseberg or Broseberg or something.
Mhmm. If you read the transcript,
this guy thinks
he's more powerful than the president of The
United States in the way he says my
order. You would not follow my order. You
do not do this. You do not do
that. And, again,
(10:39):
the left is accusing Trump of a constitutional
crisis. This judge is enacting one because he's
not knowledgeable
or educated enough to know that the Aliens
Enemy Act has already been
reinforced by the Supreme Court
hundred plus years ago that this is in
fact the commander in chief's power.
(11:02):
And the fact that again, circle back to
Roberts. The fact that Roberts is coming out,
there's something else there because not only your
supreme court justices in general, not much less
the chief justice, rarely say things, but why
would he engage in political
Yeah.
Theater
in response to this unless there's something else
(11:23):
that he doesn't wanna deal with or that
he's trying to steer the conversate? Again, everything
is manipulation. Everything's political. Everything
you have to look through the political lens
why these things happen. Just because they wear
a black robe doesn't mean jack. Yeah. Yeah.
I'm afraid that the chief political,
justice
is political. Yeah. Yeah. There is absolutely
(11:46):
nothing else you can you can make from
what he said about,
this, judge that he seems to wanna protect.
This is something Ron DeSantis read,
said. Are we ruled by the consent of
the governed under elections and under a written
constitution,
or are we ruled by a district judge
(12:07):
in DC,
Hawaii,
wherever the hell they can shop for a
judge to find somebody?
And then that trumps everything that is in
the constitution
in terms of executive powers because
that's what they'll keep doing if you let
that happen.
Now that was from governor DeSantis,
and he's right.
(12:29):
He's a % right because we know this
is happening because why are,
in this case, the ACLU and others? Number
one, why is the Democrats and the left
choosing to defend
rapists, murderers,
other illegal aliens, gang members, Trendy
Agra. I mean, you name it. Why are
they taking this position?
(12:51):
Whether they're the a ACLU, these judges
to try and use the again, they have
no leader. They have no message. They're trying
to find something that's sick to the wall.
And DeSantis is a % correct because if
one of the 700 plus or minus,
federal judges can just stop
statewide, countrywide.
The president of The United States, we don't
(13:11):
have anything other than,
you know, a constitutional republic. We have an
autocratic
bureaucracy
that tries to control and stop. And this
is all the Democrats on the left have,
and yet this is who they're choosing. I
mean, they seem to be
completely content with the notion
that for a long period of time, much
(13:32):
like the twelve years of the Reagan Bush
years, they're gonna be in the political wilderness
if they continue
this nonsense.
And the fact that
forget public polling or any polling for that
matter. I mean, it's not even it's not
even like it's a a 40 or 50%
approval rating. It's in the seventies and eighties
with regard to what Trump is doing with
regard to securing the border and making deportations,
(13:55):
and it's happening
every day.
So, again,
this this is gonna be a political fight.
You have to go through the wickets. And
what I would, just give the summary that
Trump has to continue
doing this fast and furious,
moving fast, break things, and and go on
to the next thing because
there's only so many resources that the opposition
(14:18):
can do, and they're gonna have to pick
and choose. And granted, they're picking and choosing
probably the most politically,
ridiculous ones ever because all they're gonna do
is shrink what the the Democrat,
approval rating or Democrat,
favorability rating. Is it 2828%
for one of the two major political parties?
Yeah. That's that's ridiculous.
(14:40):
That's how bad they have been,
and what they've done,
that has become pretty clear, I think, to
the people about what has happened
to Donald Trump over the last ten years,
how he really has been persecuted,
with the,
mindless,
lame prosecutions
(15:01):
that have come to nothing.
And you're talking
about,
judge Roberts. I mean,
I I always worry
about the fact that blackmail
can be used to keep people from speaking
out for what is right and just.
And when I see John Roberts going with
(15:22):
judge Boasberg
about something that is so incredibly
constitutional
and in the purview of the,
the constitution for the president,
I think to myself, there is something else
going on.
This man really possibly needs to be investigated,
and perhaps impeachment
(15:43):
may, in fact, come to the head of
the Supreme Court.
Yeah. And,
again, everything
when you try to get someone to do
something, right, you try to find forcing functions
to get a certain reaction, a behavior, or
something. Sometimes it's political speech.
Sometimes it's threats behind closed doors. Sometimes it's
(16:06):
like you allude to, black finding something
in order to get someone to stand down
on something, blackmailing, whatever that may be.
And we see this all the time. We
see this, with politics at every single level
because if someone wants a desired outcome, but
there is someone else that's in the way,
how do you create a forcing function to
(16:27):
get what you want? Or can you? And
is that forcing function
gonna blow up in your face because you're
trying to get something
or try to leverage something that you just
don't stand any chance against. And that's where
all this happens. This is the political gamesmanship
that continues to happen. That's why Donald Trump
is one of these rare,
(16:48):
political animals be because think back,
to 2017.
He had Paul Ryan lied to his face
multiple times about getting him wall funding to
secure the border. And he had Mitch McConnell,
who for the most part, you know, I
give him one piece of credit getting judicial
nominees through kudos, but everything else, you know,
McCarthy, not McCarthy, McConnell, you're a complete utter
(17:09):
failure and a waste of space. And now
you've got,
two different gentlemen that are running the house
and the senate that are fully on board
with Trump's agenda.
And any of these never Trumpers have been
expunged
from the caucus, and it is Trump's party
now. And he's finally able to flex that
political muscle
(17:30):
that truthfully
should happen every time there's an elected,
regardless of party, elected president
and the
government
and or anything else. The the the challenge
is to
this is what drives me up up a
wall.
We have article three or article two and
article one for the three equal branches of
(17:51):
government to reign in when things are violated,
not to use it as a political tool
to slow down an agenda because you don't
agree with it. And that's what's happening. Trump
already has these powers. Supreme Court has already
emphasized
and stated that the executive
has these powers and has even acknowledged
that there is potential
(18:13):
for abuse, but we cannot curtail
what's in the constitution or the executive branch.
And that's that's already been discussed, and that's
why this is so frustrating because
this isn't new. And a lot of stuff,
you know, remain in Mexico
and and travel bans and everything else has
already been litigated in the first Trump administration,
which is good. He doesn't have to go
(18:34):
through that again. But the fact that we
haven't done something in recent memory,
well, it could be this. It could be
that. And try to get fancy with the
words. Again, control the language, control the argument,
control the outcome. And that's the only tool
the left has. They have no majorities. They
have no,
there's only three on the Supreme Court. There's
the federal judges, which to your point, they're
(18:54):
judge shopping. What does that mean? It means
that all these organizations and there are people
who are suing the Trump administration
are doing it in a district where they
know there's an Obama or Biden appointed judge
that is likely to sway their way. And
this is the idea that there is no
nonpartisan judge anymore because everyone has an opinion
and everyone has a principles or value system,
(19:16):
any political party that they're aligned to. Because
guess what? If they weren't aligned to one
political party or another, they would never be
in that position to begin with to be
nominated and approved for.
That's right. It's the friends that you make
as you are, involved in politics
determines whether or not you go forward
(19:37):
or whether you are forgotten.
And it's,
it's true even in, in our own communities.
You know? It it doesn't matter. We're we're
talking about big time. We're talking about planes,
some judge
who is out of his mind, incorrect,
wanting to turn these planes back so that
(19:59):
we take back these criminals
that have committed horrific crimes against,
our own citizens. And you think to yourself,
there's a judge out there that would allow
that to happen.
What do you make of that?
You really
you know, politics is a dirty game, Brian,
and, I think you've elucidated well the fact
(20:19):
that we have to continue to go back
to the constitution
to make sure that things don't get out
of hand and that they stay legal
for all of us.
Good morning, everyone.
This is Anne Baker on Talking with Anne,
and I'm here with my with my buddy,
Brian. Good morning, sir. It's Herbert Friday.
Good morning, Anne. I'm doing well. Thanks for
having me.
It's always my pleasure and pleasure of my
my listening audience
as well,
to listen to what you have to say.
(00:22):
One of the things that I am really
concerned about, and I believe you probably are
as well,
are these federal judges blocking president Trump's agenda.
Every step that he takes, they're throwing something
at him to keep him from doing what
is necessary for what is best for us,
(00:43):
for our country, and for its citizens. And
these people
are blocking
his agenda,
put there, by the way, by Democrats
who wanted them there to block Donald Trump's
agenda.
So what do you think we can do?
What do you think we should be doing?
(01:05):
Well, I think this is a good exercise
for all your listeners and all the voters
out there to brush up on the constitution
and what the difference between article two and
article three is, which is the breakdown
of the executive branch and the judicial branch.
And what's happening now is these
district court judges,
these federal district court judges, there's about 700
(01:25):
of them across the country. They are making
these nationwide,
for lack of better terms, injunctions to prevent
Donald Trump from implementing
his agenda as the chief executive
and as the commander in chief. Now what's
gonna happen is this is gonna go to
the Supreme Court, and ultimately, Trump and his
team will prevail. But in the meantime, this
is another stall tactic by the left to
(01:47):
try to prevent Donald Trump's agenda. And what's
an easy way to think about this if
you're talking with your friends, remember, there's always
the third
member of the conversation
that is listening.
You may not necessarily be able to convince
the person you are speaking with, but there
is always somebody else listening. And that's who
you want to convince. And what it comes
down to is use the analogy of, does
(02:09):
the Supreme Court
ultimately have, say,
as an equal branch of government
to have a check and balance on the
executive branch. We know that. Yes.
Now the lower court judges,
can they stop
the executive branch, in this case, president Trump
as commander in chief, from firing rockets and
missiles to kill the Houthis?
(02:31):
No. He can't do that because it has
to do with foreign policy. It has to
do with being commander in chief and the
national security.
You can't just stop something because you don't
like it. And that's unfortunately what these judges
are doing
on,
the federal standpoint
because they think they can. And, unfortunately,
because we've never seen a constitutional crisis driven
(02:51):
by the left and these lunatic left wing
judges
where the Supreme Court actually has to reinforce
that they cannot do this. And what's happening
is they're like, for instance, let's use the
example that you're probably referring to. There were
three planes that were bound for South America
of
of,
gang members and deportees from The United States.
(03:13):
And a judge tried to stop that from
happening.
We lost you.
So now we have the left wing and
the liberals and ACLU protecting rapists, gang members,
murderers, and everything else in between,
to try and keep them in the country
with American citizens who follow the law. And
so these three planes, these this idiot judge
(03:36):
made the comment that they needed to be
turned around without any question with regard to
how far away they were. Were they in
international airspace?
Was there enough fuel to turn the the
the flight around?
What about the the time associated with those
that were accompanying this aircraft? Notwithstanding at the
fact that Donald Trump has every power to
(03:56):
deport any individual for any reason
under the already congressionally approved
immigration naturalization act and anything that supplemented that
in the past. And they can't seem to
get this through their thick skull that Trump
can do this. So I'm using the analogy
that they a federal judge can't go and
stop Trump from firing rockets and missiles to
(04:16):
kill Houthis.
Why can he stop anything with regard to
deportations?
It's the same thing. It's national security. It's
foreign policy, and all of that is reserved
under article two, which defines the executive branch,
the president, his powers, the responsibilities,
and everything else from a commander in chief
standpoint. So for the for the time being,
I would suggest that everyone brush up on
(04:38):
article two and article three, what they can
and do.
Obviously, they're equal branches. However,
we've already seen and if anyone has not
seen
Miller or Stephen Miller's
unbelievable
obliteration of a CNN host with regard to
why Trump has this power. And,
again, it ties back. He can now deport
(05:00):
people. He's activating,
and, of course, the left is accusing, oh,
this is a two hundred year law that
no one's only enacted during,
wartime and three times. Well, guess what? The
entire country functions
on a piece of paper that is two
almost 250 years old. So that argument doesn't
work if a law is 200 years old,
and we haven't we only use it three
times. Now those three times that have been
(05:22):
used were during World War one, World War
two. And, however, as Stephen Miller has pointed
out,
the other two things, it's not an and
statement. It's an or statement, meaning you have
three options where the commander in chief can
activate
basically,
deportations
because of an invasion
that he publicly declares. It does not have
(05:43):
to be anything else. He can proclaim
it, which is, again, under article two,
executive powers that president Trump can can exercise.
And then there's the declaring of the war,
which is a congressional action,
which is another option,
or the fourth one, which is an incursion
into United States, again,
(06:03):
reserved for article two, the president. So what
does this all mean? That means that any
one of those three
could be stand alone. We've only seen a
Supreme Court ruling reinforce it on one of
those three, but the likelihood of Supreme Court
will reinforce again if this goes to Supreme
Court, if they keep trying to tie this
up because Donald Trump as president
(06:25):
has proclaimed
that there's an invasion at the southern border
from various countries and that there's an incursion
into our country of these illegal immigrants.
So each and every one of these, he
can now deport
without
a court hearing
because he has the power to do so
because of this founding law that our founders
(06:47):
had put in place
to deal with
those
potential,
invaders
or executioners of an incursion or
a declared war on The United States or
vice versa.
Painful.
It's it's painful to see
what these judges will try to do
(07:08):
to keep Donald Trump's policies from being put
in place.
Who do you think is best able to
handle this when we see that we every
once in a while, we're getting these things
from John John Roberts,
the head of the Supreme Court,
from the gentleman,
the Supreme Court justice who recently retired.
(07:29):
And they're they're sort of,
throwing shade at this.
What do we do? Do we just continue
to wait until it works its way through
the courts
to get to the Supreme Court? Because that's
apparently
what is
being thought will be done.
Yeah. So remember, this is political theater no
(07:50):
matter what it is, no matter who's participating.
And the fact that they are all of
a sudden reacting to Alien Enemies Act that,
oh, it's it's a 1798
law. It's 200 years old. Again, I just
say push off. Look at the constitution. That's
how we operate two hundred fifty years later.
And what I would suggest is
make sure your representatives
know. Obviously, congressman Van Drew is I would
(08:12):
presume is on board with regards to this
and and bring the political
fight
to it because
why would Roberts all of a sudden get
involved and comment on this? He doesn't want
to be in a situation where he has
to respond
to,
what ultimately happens here, and
and that's that's that's where it goes. You
(08:33):
have to have it go through the wickets
of the system.
Well, apparently,
it was,
justice Roberts
who, put him onto the FISA court
when,
Donald Trump was having such difficulty during his
first term.
And so it's almost like they're they're friends,
(08:53):
and he didn't wanna see this man,
out there as a judge and the president
saying he deserves to be impeached,
though maybe he does.
Well, so here's the thing. Everyone's all upset
about whether or not Trump and or judges
or whomever can do anything. We have a
constitutional remedy for that. It's called impeachment.
(09:15):
And if impeachment carries through,
then you have,
a trial in the senate and then removal.
That's the process.
So, again,
they're they're gonna make the accusations with regard
to Trump and impeachment. Why can't it be
the same thing with regard to this judge
who's clearly
lost his
his collective mind from a judicial standpoint? And
(09:35):
the fact that Roberts came out to try
to give him shade and cover,
is is, again, this is the DC swamp,
with regard to, you know, protecting their own.
And, ultimately,
what's going to happen here, it it's gonna
get to the Supreme Court, and it'll probably
be a five four decisions.
Roberts will probably side with the Liberals, and
(09:57):
I would presume
Amy Coney Barrett would side with
the remaining four,
conservative appointed or original intent judges.
But the fact that we have to go
through these wickets, the fact that there's a
political
aspect where people are speaking out, we shouldn't
go after or threaten impeachment on judges
who,
you disagree with. But this is beyond disagreement.
(10:18):
This is a and if you read the
transcript
of this judge,
I think it's Boseberg or Broseberg or something.
Mhmm. If you read the transcript,
this guy thinks
he's more powerful than the president of The
United States in the way he says my
order. You would not follow my order. You
do not do this. You do not do
that. And, again,
(10:39):
the left is accusing Trump of a constitutional
crisis. This judge is enacting one because he's
not knowledgeable
or educated enough to know that the Aliens
Enemy Act has already been
reinforced by the Supreme Court
hundred plus years ago that this is in
fact the commander in chief's power.
(11:02):
And the fact that again, circle back to
Roberts. The fact that Roberts is coming out,
there's something else there because not only your
supreme court justices in general, not much less
the chief justice, rarely say things, but why
would he engage in political
Yeah.
Theater
in response to this unless there's something else
(11:23):
that he doesn't wanna deal with or that
he's trying to steer the conversate? Again, everything
is manipulation. Everything's political. Everything
you have to look through the political lens
why these things happen. Just because they wear
a black robe doesn't mean jack. Yeah. Yeah.
I'm afraid that the chief political,
justice
is political. Yeah. Yeah. There is absolutely
(11:46):
nothing else you can you can make from
what he said about,
this, judge that he seems to wanna protect.
This is something Ron DeSantis read,
said. Are we ruled by the consent of
the governed under elections and under a written
constitution,
or are we ruled by a district judge
(12:07):
in DC,
Hawaii,
wherever the hell they can shop for a
judge to find somebody?
And then that trumps everything that is in
the constitution
in terms of executive powers because
that's what they'll keep doing if you let
that happen.
Now that was from governor DeSantis,
and he's right.
(12:29):
He's a % right because we know this
is happening because why are,
in this case, the ACLU and others? Number
one, why is the Democrats and the left
choosing to defend
rapists, murderers,
other illegal aliens, gang members, Trendy
Agra. I mean, you name it. Why are
they taking this position?
(12:51):
Whether they're the a ACLU, these judges
to try and use the again, they have
no leader. They have no message. They're trying
to find something that's sick to the wall.
And DeSantis is a % correct because if
one of the 700 plus or minus,
federal judges can just stop
statewide, countrywide.
The president of The United States, we don't
(13:11):
have anything other than,
you know, a constitutional republic. We have an
autocratic
bureaucracy
that tries to control and stop. And this
is all the Democrats on the left have,
and yet this is who they're choosing. I
mean, they seem to be
completely content with the notion
that for a long period of time, much
(13:32):
like the twelve years of the Reagan Bush
years, they're gonna be in the political wilderness
if they continue
this nonsense.
And the fact that
forget public polling or any polling for that
matter. I mean, it's not even it's not
even like it's a a 40 or 50%
approval rating. It's in the seventies and eighties
with regard to what Trump is doing with
regard to securing the border and making deportations,
(13:55):
and it's happening
every day.
So, again,
this this is gonna be a political fight.
You have to go through the wickets. And
what I would, just give the summary that
Trump has to continue
doing this fast and furious,
moving fast, break things, and and go on
to the next thing because
there's only so many resources that the opposition
(14:18):
can do, and they're gonna have to pick
and choose. And granted, they're picking and choosing
probably the most politically,
ridiculous ones ever because all they're gonna do
is shrink what the the Democrat,
approval rating or Democrat,
favorability rating. Is it 2828%
for one of the two major political parties?
Yeah. That's that's ridiculous.
(14:40):
That's how bad they have been,
and what they've done,
that has become pretty clear, I think, to
the people about what has happened
to Donald Trump over the last ten years,
how he really has been persecuted,
with the,
mindless,
lame prosecutions
(15:01):
that have come to nothing.
And you're talking
about,
judge Roberts. I mean,
I I always worry
about the fact that blackmail
can be used to keep people from speaking
out for what is right and just.
And when I see John Roberts going with
(15:22):
judge Boasberg
about something that is so incredibly
constitutional
and in the purview of the,
the constitution for the president,
I think to myself, there is something else
going on.
This man really possibly needs to be investigated,
and perhaps impeachment
(15:43):
may, in fact, come to the head of
the Supreme Court.
Yeah. And,
again, everything
when you try to get someone to do
something, right, you try to find forcing functions
to get a certain reaction, a behavior, or
something. Sometimes it's political speech.
Sometimes it's threats behind closed doors. Sometimes it's
(16:06):
like you allude to, black finding something
in order to get someone to stand down
on something, blackmailing, whatever that may be.
And we see this all the time. We
see this, with politics at every single level
because if someone wants a desired outcome, but
there is someone else that's in the way,
how do you create a forcing function to
(16:27):
get what you want? Or can you? And
is that forcing function
gonna blow up in your face because you're
trying to get something
or try to leverage something that you just
don't stand any chance against. And that's where
all this happens. This is the political gamesmanship
that continues to happen. That's why Donald Trump
is one of these rare,
(16:48):
political animals be because think back,
to 2017.
He had Paul Ryan lied to his face
multiple times about getting him wall funding to
secure the border. And he had Mitch McConnell,
who for the most part, you know, I
give him one piece of credit getting judicial
nominees through kudos, but everything else, you know,
McCarthy, not McCarthy, McConnell, you're a complete utter
(17:09):
failure and a waste of space. And now
you've got,
two different gentlemen that are running the house
and the senate that are fully on board
with Trump's agenda.
And any of these never Trumpers have been
expunged
from the caucus, and it is Trump's party
now. And he's finally able to flex that
political muscle
(17:30):
that truthfully
should happen every time there's an elected,
regardless of party, elected president
and the
government
and or anything else. The the the challenge
is to
this is what drives me up up a
wall.
We have article three or article two and
article one for the three equal branches of
(17:51):
government to reign in when things are violated,
not to use it as a political tool
to slow down an agenda because you don't
agree with it. And that's what's happening. Trump
already has these powers. Supreme Court has already
emphasized
and stated that the executive
has these powers and has even acknowledged
that there is potential
(18:13):
for abuse, but we cannot curtail
what's in the constitution or the executive branch.
And that's that's already been discussed, and that's
why this is so frustrating because
this isn't new. And a lot of stuff,
you know, remain in Mexico
and and travel bans and everything else has
already been litigated in the first Trump administration,
which is good. He doesn't have to go
(18:34):
through that again. But the fact that we
haven't done something in recent memory,
well, it could be this. It could be
that. And try to get fancy with the
words. Again, control the language, control the argument,
control the outcome. And that's the only tool
the left has. They have no majorities. They
have no,
there's only three on the Supreme Court. There's
the federal judges, which to your point, they're
(18:54):
judge shopping. What does that mean? It means
that all these organizations and there are people
who are suing the Trump administration
are doing it in a district where they
know there's an Obama or Biden appointed judge
that is likely to sway their way. And
this is the idea that there is no
nonpartisan judge anymore because everyone has an opinion
and everyone has a principles or value system,
(19:16):
any political party that they're aligned to. Because
guess what? If they weren't aligned to one
political party or another, they would never be
in that position to begin with to be
nominated and approved for.
That's right. It's the friends that you make
as you are, involved in politics
determines whether or not you go forward
(19:37):
or whether you are forgotten.
And it's,
it's true even in, in our own communities.
You know? It it doesn't matter. We're we're
talking about big time. We're talking about planes,
some judge
who is out of his mind, incorrect,
wanting to turn these planes back so that
(19:59):
we take back these criminals
that have committed horrific crimes against,
our own citizens. And you think to yourself,
there's a judge out there that would allow
that to happen.
What do you make of that?
You really
you know, politics is a dirty game, Brian,
and, I think you've elucidated well the fact
(20:19):
that we have to continue to go back
to the constitution
to make sure that things don't get out
of hand and that they stay legal
for all of us.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com