Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, hopefully there's not a much heartbreak for the Trump administrations.
A lot of the port rulings are going to come
out of this Supreme Court joining us to talk about
Kerrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, former Clerk
for Justice Clarence Thomas. Before we get to that, though,
I saw Ewan Fox, I think it was yesterday, Carrie
talking about this sentence that was handed down for the
(00:20):
would be a Brent Kavanaugh assassin eight years eight years,
and I guess the judge used the excuse of the
assassin himself for herself. I'm not sure which being a
transgender was concerned because of the Trump ruling on prison
segregation based on sex, that somehow this transgender individual will
(00:43):
be in dangered.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Absolutely. I mean, this is not a normal sentencing factor
that you consider. There's a lot of calculation that goes
into the recommended sentence, which was thirty years, by the way,
not eight years. Thirty years. The defend himself as to
for just eight years, and that's effectually what he got
thanks to this judge, and she talked about how he
(01:08):
had accepted responsibility. That's all great, that's part of that calculation.
That's why it was only thirty years, because otherwise he
could have gotten up to life in prison. So this
is really outrageous that she's giving that in a time
of rising political violence, giving such a slap on the
wrist level sentence for someone who wanted to assassinate not
(01:30):
even just one Supreme Court justice, but said he wanted
to get three Supreme Court justices that day. And I
think it sets a really bad example. Apparently, if you
want to bargain down for a better sentence, claiming that
your transgender is now get out a jail.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Free card literally, or at least claiming you're a progressive,
or proving yourself to be a progressive, ifor in front
of a Biden judge, well.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, I mean I hope that that didn't factor into
it her own proposition to this, but it was really disturbing.
I mean, she was sort of celebrating, well, it was
so wonderful that this has been at least an opportunity
for you to come out to your family and have
some closure on this issue. I'm like, oh my gosh,
this is not a therapy session. This is a sentencing
(02:13):
hearing for someone who tried to kill a Supreme Court justice.
It's really it's really disturbing. It's something that I know
the government is going to be appealing this sentence, but
you know, the Fourth Circuit is a pretty liberal circuit.
We'll see how successful they are. I think people need
to realize how important it is to have sound judges
at all levels. It's great that the Supreme Court is
(02:36):
so conservative and so originalist at this point, but all
the way down there's a lot of mischief that can
be done by a district court judge, and unfortunately, these
last year or so, we've seen a lot of that.
This is just the latest example.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
You're so all right about that. All right, let's get
into the session itself. What do you see as the
top let's say, the top two cases that could have
an impact on the Trump administration going forward. Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
So there, he already has a couple of big cases
dealing with his particular agenda items, and that is one
on the They actually maybe three. This is the tariff's case,
having to do with whether he can implement tariffs under
the emergency provisions in that Act, and then also whether
he has the ability to fire members of supposedly independent commissions.
(03:25):
These have long been assumed to be oh, well, you know,
Congress said they have such and such terms, so the
president can't kick them out before that term unless they
have actual cause there. But there's a lot of constitutional
problems with that where if they're part of the executive brands,
and I think that's ostensible as they are, they're surely
not judges, they're not members of Congress, then he has
to be able to have the authority over that branch
(03:45):
and so, and that's an issue that's been percolating for
a long time. Biden fired a lot of people under
this assumption and now Trump we're going to get the
final call on can Trump do the same thing as well?
And I think it's also you know, they're also going
to probably have a hearing on the birthrights isenship issue
and that that's going to be really important. So big issues,
and that's just the ones that deal with to Trump administration.
(04:06):
There's also important issues dealing with other things, including men
and women's sports, and including the case that we're hearing
about today with free speech attacks within Colorado having to
do with it's so called conversion therapy.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Well, you know, you're right. I mean, there's some amazing
social issues that are at work here you were a
clerk for Clarence Thomas. How does this process work? How
does the Supreme Court make its decisions on which cases
they're going to release first? There's an order. I know
they hear them in. I don't think that though, that
the rulings, the ultimate rulings, necessarily come out in that order,
(04:43):
do they.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
No, They get them done as they can. So typically
the first cases that you'll get the decisions from each
year are going to be the unanimous cases. Easier the
case is, the faster quickly they can get it done.
So you know, they they obviously started start hearing them,
started hearing them yesterday, and they'll hear them throughout the year.
So the earlier ones are going to often come out first.
(05:06):
But if you have a really controversial case the first
day of the term, it might take until the end
to get it because what happens is the person who's
assigned the case, they vote on who what the outcome is.
Then someone gets assigned to write the opinion. You know,
that might take them longer on a more complicated case
or on a more controversial case, and then after that
opinion is circulated, the other justices in descent have to reply,
(05:27):
so they'll they'll write their dessense. Then they might have
stuff in the majority opinion they need to respond to,
and then that gets circulated. Then the majority says, now
wait a minute, we're not going to leave that as
it is. We need to respond to the response. And
so that back and forth tensem has take a long
time on these really big, really complicated cases, and that's
why sometimes they'll get out of order. Some justices are
(05:47):
also known to be faster writers or others, So you
get assigned to a faster justice, your case might come
out earlier. If you get assigned to one of the
justices that takes his or her time, then you might
have to wait a little longer for the decision.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Fascinating. Thanks Ery, good to talk to you. Take care.
President of the Judicial Crisis Network, that's Carrie Severino,