December 5, 2025 • 9 mins
Together, they discuss concerns about United States circuit court judges stepping beyond their roles - making decisions based on politics rather than the law. Jarrett and Rosato analyze the implications of judicial activism and its impact on the legal system.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now more of the Mark Simone Show on seven to
ten or filling in for Mark. Here again is Ken Rosado.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
And good to be with you on your Friday. Here
is a news commentator, author at attorney who serves as
a legal and political analyst on Fox News Channel. He
spent many years himself as an anchor and a trial lawyer.
Busy man, we say good morning to you, Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Hey Cam, good to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I've been a huge fan, by the way, forever I've
been you know, I was on Channel seven for twenty years,
but I always watched you guys over at Fox News Channel,
and I'm a huge, huge fan. So I'm a little starspart.
Forgive me, forgive it a little shaken here, Greg. First off,
how serious is it? Let's talk about the Jack Smith subpoena?
How serious is the Jack Smith subpoena? For all? Is
it all for show? Do you think you think there's
(00:47):
a shot that we're actually going to see a conviction
and jail time out of all this?
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Well, it's too early to make that prediction, but I
will say that there is a grand jury convenient some
thirty subpoenas apparently have gone out among them Jack Smith
as special counsel, and they're looking into an ongoing criminal
conspiracy how government officials weaponized the law classic sort of
(01:18):
lawfair against Trump or anybody in his orbit. And with
respect to Jack Smith, they're looking into the two federal
criminal cases he brought against Trump in both Florida and Washington,
d C. Those were dismissed. But this Arctic Frost investigation
(01:39):
that included, you know, secretly surreptitiously obtaining phone records of
members of Congress, including United States Senators, and then seeking
a court order from Judge James Bosberg in Washington to
defy the law and not note the members of Congress
(02:03):
that their records were being seized and studied. You know,
there's a provision in the federal statutes that if you're
going to do that, you have to give those people notice,
and they didn't do that, and Bozburg signed off on it.
So you know, this is an investigation into Jack Smith's
(02:25):
conduct and whether it crossed the line into criminality.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Seven to ten, wo are the Voice of New York.
This is the Marx Simone Show. Ken Rossano went from
Mark on a Friday along with Greg Jarrett from Fox
News Channel. Look, it is amazing how much arrogance we
see from Judge Boseburg. And the question is, do you
have the authority of the judicial branch running a muck
(02:53):
right now? Because to see every little US district judge
imparting their opinion, where it's going to end up getting overturned.
It seems in almost every case it gets overturned by
the Supreme Court. Who has authority over them? Is it
the Justice Department? Is it the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court? Or does Congress have to step in? We
(03:14):
have three co equal branches, So I guess that gets
a little harry there. But at some point we have
to say enough, we have an executive in charge right now,
who is elected, who's doing the constitutional job that he has.
Why do these US district judges get in the way
every step of the way.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Well, I think because they have, in the age of Trump,
politicized their positions, and you know, they are no longer
many of them making rulings based on the law rather
on politics. And you know, both Brigant particular has been
slapped down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. In one notable case,
(03:57):
he's surped the power of Texas jurisdiction by issuing an
immigration deportation ruling that he had no power to make.
And you know, the Spring Court told him so. Bothford
nevertheless persists. But I think the most important authority is
(04:20):
indeed the Spring Court and the seminal ruling they issued
Long Overdue several months ago, when the High Court finally said,
you know, district court judges are not empowered to issue
nationwide injunctions. They have authority over their small districts and
(04:42):
that's it. And so I think that, as I say,
Long Overdue is helping to rein in all of these
injunctions that have been issued. You know, why should a
judge in say San Jose, California, be able to issue
an injunction that affects the entire nation. The Supreme Court said,
(05:05):
you can't. You're exceeding your authority, and they should have
done it a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Greg. I think in many cases, so many of these
judges know that they're going to be overturned, but yet
they go ahead and make their order. It's like they're
trying to throw an impediment just to slow things down.
Why can't they get slapped for that? If it can
be proven that the judge is clearly acting above and
beyond their jurisdiction. Then is there any kind of consequence
(05:33):
for the judge? Will there be any kind of punishment?
I mean, two three strikes, you're out. You do that
two or three times, we're going to have you remove
from the bench at some point. I think if that
happens to one judge, then they won't be issuing these silly,
frivolous rulings.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
The only way to remove a federal judge constitutionally is
through impeachment. And it's the same standards that apply to
other top ten federal officials, including the President of the
United States. Trees and bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. And
the last section is sort of fungible. What does that
(06:11):
really mean? It can mean anything. And in fact, in
the past, over the last two or fifty years, you know,
there have been federal judges who have been impeached for
deliberately abusing and misusing the law. But you know, it's
a very difficult thing to do. You know, it used
(06:35):
to be that federal district court judges would make decisions
not only based on the law, but with an eye
to getting overturned, and nobody wanted to get overturned, so
they were cautious in their ruling. So all of that
is now gone. And you know, I think people like
Bozburg know they're going to get overturned, but they do
it anyway because you know, they're stricken with a severe
(07:00):
your psychopathology called Trump derangement syndrome PDSs, and you know,
and they just can't help themselves.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, clearly. And it's just so infuriating because you would
think that if you're in that position, you understand the
law better than others, and instead it feels like he
is playing us with the law more than others. With
just about a minute left, and I know that should
we should be giving you more time on this, But
in the Luigi Mangoni murder trial, I've had heard so
(07:29):
many bad arguments on behalf of Mangoni regarding when he
was read as Miranda, riots, etc. In this case, though,
the argument is that some of this evidence could be
thrown out by the judge. What is your opinion on
what you're hearing?
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Well, I doubt it will happen. You know. Look, it's
a standard move by defense attorneys and I used to
do it. As a trial attorney myself is you challenge
the seizure of evidence that's incriminating and try to get
it tossed out under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
Most of the time it doesn't succeed. And here, for example,
(08:03):
you know, the arresting officers, you know, looked into the bag.
Well they have to, you know, the gun, the manifesto
was in the bag, highly incriminating. They had to do that.
When you take somebody into custody, you know, you pat
them down to make sure they don't have a weapon.
And you know, in this particular case, looking inside his
(08:24):
backpack was merited. You know, you don't know if he's
got a weapon or a bumb In fact, he did
have a weapon in that bag. So I think that'll
survive scrutiny and in the end be admissible evidence.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
There you go, all right, Fox News Channel legal and
political analyst Greg Jarrett, thank you so much for coming
on this morning. Happy holidays.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Do you thank you same to you can't thanks appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Seven ten wore the Voice of New York I. Number
is eight hundred three to two one zero seven ten,
eight hundred three to two one zero seven ten we're
going to take your calls next year seven ten WO
r
Now more of the Mark Simone Show on seven to
ten or filling in for Mark. Here again is Ken Rosado.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
And good to be with you on your Friday. Here
is a news commentator, author at attorney who serves as
a legal and political analyst on Fox News Channel. He
spent many years himself as an anchor and a trial lawyer.
Busy man, we say good morning to you, Greg Jarrett.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Hey Cam, good to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I've been a huge fan, by the way, forever I've
been you know, I was on Channel seven for twenty years,
but I always watched you guys over at Fox News Channel,
and I'm a huge, huge fan. So I'm a little starspart.
Forgive me, forgive it a little shaken here, Greg. First off,
how serious is it? Let's talk about the Jack Smith subpoena?
How serious is the Jack Smith subpoena? For all? Is
it all for show? Do you think you think there's
(00:47):
a shot that we're actually going to see a conviction
and jail time out of all this?
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Well, it's too early to make that prediction, but I
will say that there is a grand jury convenient some
thirty subpoenas apparently have gone out among them Jack Smith
as special counsel, and they're looking into an ongoing criminal
conspiracy how government officials weaponized the law classic sort of
(01:18):
lawfair against Trump or anybody in his orbit. And with
respect to Jack Smith, they're looking into the two federal
criminal cases he brought against Trump in both Florida and Washington,
d C. Those were dismissed. But this Arctic Frost investigation
(01:39):
that included, you know, secretly surreptitiously obtaining phone records of
members of Congress, including United States Senators, and then seeking
a court order from Judge James Bosberg in Washington to
defy the law and not note the members of Congress
(02:03):
that their records were being seized and studied. You know,
there's a provision in the federal statutes that if you're
going to do that, you have to give those people notice,
and they didn't do that, and Bozburg signed off on it.
So you know, this is an investigation into Jack Smith's
(02:25):
conduct and whether it crossed the line into criminality.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Seven to ten, wo are the Voice of New York.
This is the Marx Simone Show. Ken Rossano went from
Mark on a Friday along with Greg Jarrett from Fox
News Channel. Look, it is amazing how much arrogance we
see from Judge Boseburg. And the question is, do you
have the authority of the judicial branch running a muck
(02:53):
right now? Because to see every little US district judge
imparting their opinion, where it's going to end up getting overturned.
It seems in almost every case it gets overturned by
the Supreme Court. Who has authority over them? Is it
the Justice Department? Is it the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court? Or does Congress have to step in? We
(03:14):
have three co equal branches, So I guess that gets
a little harry there. But at some point we have
to say enough, we have an executive in charge right now,
who is elected, who's doing the constitutional job that he has.
Why do these US district judges get in the way
every step of the way.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Well, I think because they have, in the age of Trump,
politicized their positions, and you know, they are no longer
many of them making rulings based on the law rather
on politics. And you know, both Brigant particular has been
slapped down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. In one notable case,
(03:57):
he's surped the power of Texas jurisdiction by issuing an
immigration deportation ruling that he had no power to make.
And you know, the Spring Court told him so. Bothford
nevertheless persists. But I think the most important authority is
(04:20):
indeed the Spring Court and the seminal ruling they issued
Long Overdue several months ago, when the High Court finally said,
you know, district court judges are not empowered to issue
nationwide injunctions. They have authority over their small districts and
(04:42):
that's it. And so I think that, as I say,
Long Overdue is helping to rein in all of these
injunctions that have been issued. You know, why should a
judge in say San Jose, California, be able to issue
an injunction that affects the entire nation. The Supreme Court said,
(05:05):
you can't. You're exceeding your authority, and they should have
done it a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Greg. I think in many cases, so many of these
judges know that they're going to be overturned, but yet
they go ahead and make their order. It's like they're
trying to throw an impediment just to slow things down.
Why can't they get slapped for that? If it can
be proven that the judge is clearly acting above and
beyond their jurisdiction. Then is there any kind of consequence
(05:33):
for the judge? Will there be any kind of punishment?
I mean, two three strikes, you're out. You do that
two or three times, we're going to have you remove
from the bench at some point. I think if that
happens to one judge, then they won't be issuing these silly,
frivolous rulings.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
The only way to remove a federal judge constitutionally is
through impeachment. And it's the same standards that apply to
other top ten federal officials, including the President of the
United States. Trees and bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. And
the last section is sort of fungible. What does that
(06:11):
really mean? It can mean anything. And in fact, in
the past, over the last two or fifty years, you know,
there have been federal judges who have been impeached for
deliberately abusing and misusing the law. But you know, it's
a very difficult thing to do. You know, it used
(06:35):
to be that federal district court judges would make decisions
not only based on the law, but with an eye
to getting overturned, and nobody wanted to get overturned, so
they were cautious in their ruling. So all of that
is now gone. And you know, I think people like
Bozburg know they're going to get overturned, but they do
it anyway because you know, they're stricken with a severe
(07:00):
your psychopathology called Trump derangement syndrome PDSs, and you know,
and they just can't help themselves.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, clearly. And it's just so infuriating because you would
think that if you're in that position, you understand the
law better than others, and instead it feels like he
is playing us with the law more than others. With
just about a minute left, and I know that should
we should be giving you more time on this, But
in the Luigi Mangoni murder trial, I've had heard so
(07:29):
many bad arguments on behalf of Mangoni regarding when he
was read as Miranda, riots, etc. In this case, though,
the argument is that some of this evidence could be
thrown out by the judge. What is your opinion on
what you're hearing?
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Well, I doubt it will happen. You know. Look, it's
a standard move by defense attorneys and I used to
do it. As a trial attorney myself is you challenge
the seizure of evidence that's incriminating and try to get
it tossed out under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
Most of the time it doesn't succeed. And here, for example,
(08:03):
you know, the arresting officers, you know, looked into the bag.
Well they have to, you know, the gun, the manifesto
was in the bag, highly incriminating. They had to do that.
When you take somebody into custody, you know, you pat
them down to make sure they don't have a weapon.
And you know, in this particular case, looking inside his
(08:24):
backpack was merited. You know, you don't know if he's
got a weapon or a bumb In fact, he did
have a weapon in that bag. So I think that'll
survive scrutiny and in the end be admissible evidence.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
There you go, all right, Fox News Channel legal and
political analyst Greg Jarrett, thank you so much for coming
on this morning. Happy holidays.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Do you thank you same to you can't thanks appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Seven ten wore the Voice of New York I. Number
is eight hundred three to two one zero seven ten,
eight hundred three to two one zero seven ten we're
going to take your calls next year seven ten WO
r
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.