10-11-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Why Are These Criminals Running Loose?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To 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 as 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 messy japp 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 following me too. At Michael
Brown USA, at Michael Brown USA, go do that right now.

(01:06):
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, let's

(01:26):
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 the

(01:49):
progressive left, which is not all Democrats but is becoming
the controlling portion of the Democrat Party. I refer to
them as more Marxist 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

(02:12):
portion of the Democrat Party, that is, for example, Zofram Mom, Mom,
Donnie the guy running as the self avowed socialist Marxist
communist for mayor of New York, or you take the
squad Alexandria Cassia Cortez at all, you take them for
that matter, you take Bernie Sanders, you take Elizabeth Warren.

(02:36):
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, because we as

(02:58):
Republicans are always accused of being fascist when an 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 correct for them. Now,

(03:21):
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. Show me that Democrat. It

(03:44):
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 think this is a

(04:05):
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.

(04:26):
It also requires a 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 using the same barber for years

(04:49):
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.

(05:10):
Let's say 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

(05:31):
barbershop to barbershop. Hey, 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.

(05:52):
Now in West Virginia, if you want to be a
magistrate judge, here are 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

(06:15):
decide guilt and innocence, to even adjudicate parking tickets or
a 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

(06:36):
need to go to graduate school or pass the bar.
This is not a quirk of 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,

(07:01):
because you have a magistrate judge who does a lot
of perfunctory ministerial duties 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

(07:26):
lawyers consider as magistrates. Now. 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

(07:47):
not violent felons remain behind bars or walk free. What
do we have a problem with in this country? We
have a serious problem of no 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.

(08:09):
Imagine if you had someone who had fourteen convictions was
facing current charges, 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,

(08:29):
and decided to stab a Ukrainian refugee who was just
trying to get home from work, and it was all
caught on close sor to TV. Oh yeah, that's a
real story. So these magistrate judges, like in North Carolina
have authority that can alter the course of a person's

(08:52):
life and the life of that community. Yet the educational
barrier to entry is law than what you need for
a barber to trim your beard or to cut your hair.
It's 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

(09:13):
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 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,

(09:36):
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,
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

(09:57):
all of me that you need. It may be more
than you need to, although I doubt that. So think
about all of these criminals running free, but I bet
you never really stopped and thought about why why are
these judges doing it? Well? These magistrate judges, first and

(10:17):
foremost don't have the kind of legal education that I
think they need. Nor do they 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
it helps that you don't have a sense of exactly
how consequential some of your decisions can be. A barber

(10:39):
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
with the state board, with the government. They have to
undergo a doctor's certification of health. They got to proved
mastery of infection control before they can even get the

(11:00):
license to cut one one hair on your head. A
magistrate judge, to contrast, can walk right into that courtroom
with no more preparation than a teenager fresh from high
school graduation. Now in West Virginia they require a rudimentary

(11:26):
law course, but it's not. 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 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

(11:48):
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 fellon with a
long 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 stab that young
Ukrainian refugee, a woman who had fled war, only to

(12:12):
find death on American soil. This was not a clerical mistake.
It was a judicial decision, a decision made by somebody
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

(12:37):
understood the stakes. But putting a black robe on a
high school graduate does not guarantee that they're going to
understand that. Now, this is not just a bizarre example
that I wanted to pull out. It forces us to

(12:58):
ask what we value more, what's more important. Go 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 for I don't know, probably ten years now,
while I know he probably has his license, probably you know,

(13:20):
I'm sure in Colorado he's required to post that license somewhere.
I do know this. It's not 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

(13:43):
to know whether or not you've got a license. But
think about it in terms of values, tidy appearances over justice.
We care more about split ins and getting the taper

(14:03):
on your neck just right then we do our constitutional rights.
We've really kind of screwed it our priorities. 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

(14:25):
of expense before they can put their scissors near my head.
But we allow a magistrate to wield the power of
the gavel with nothing more than just well, you're a
good person. If you defend this arrangement, then you are.
The defenders of this arrangement. Would argue that these magistrates

(14:49):
are supervised by the district judges and that they're continuing
education classes close the gap. But oversight is not the
same as competence, 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

(15:11):
put in our hospitals high school graduates and just tell
the public don't worry about becoming a licensed doctor. 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.

(15:32):
Why do we accept it? When it comes to justice.
If we pride ourselves on the rule of law, which
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'm making this argument because I am

(15:53):
a lawyer, then have at it, because I'll throw right
back in your face. Okay, Well, then do you want
to go to court with someone if you are on
trial for murder? Do you want to be the yahoo
for example, that's defending himself against the attempted Trump assassination
in front of Judge Eileen Cannon in that federal court

(16:15):
down in West Palm Beach. How would you like for
that guy to be your lawyer? He's making 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

(16:38):
citizen who stands before a magistrate judge in West Virginia
ought to demand that they have a jurist, a 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

(16:59):
preparation as those people that cut our hair. This is absurd,
It's ludicrous. It's absurd that barbered licensing in West Virginia
has more stringent requirements than to be a genant. It's
outrageous that you've got to have twelve hundred hours of
study to cut bangs, but not one single semester to

(17:20):
set bail, and we see the price that we pay
for it. Now, let me make clear I think we
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

(17:43):
are issuing search warrants, authorizing arrests, setting bail and two
often giving slaps on the wrist. And some of these
district judges are just as bad. I'll explain Next to night,
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of

(18:05):
talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing
a heck of a job The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in text
line three to three wednes ero three keyword Michael, Michael.
Last segment, we were talking about how these magistrate judges,
like the one that set the the thug free that

(18:27):
killed the Ukrainian woman on the light rail in North
Carolina and Charlotte, how we put more value on the
regulation 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

(18:51):
the federal district courts now, just for basic understanding, these
are called Article three courts. If you read Article three
of the US constitu Constitution, and in essence says we
establish a Supreme Court of the United States to decide

(19:11):
judicial questions about statutes and constitutionality, and then such other
courts as Congress may from time to time prescribe. So
the appellate courts. You have the Supreme Court as the
top court. Below that, you have the appellate courts. You

(19:33):
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
of states. Then you have the district courts, which lawyers
refer to as the trial court. That's where the trials start.

(19:56):
So for example, in Colorado, we have one district. We
have the District of Colorado. And let me think Oklahoma.
You you have two districts. I think you have the
Western District, which is pretty much western Oklahoma, and then
you have the Northern District, which is kind of the
northeast corner of Oklahoma. Other states have numerous districts that

(20:19):
you know, Texas will have numerous districts because of its
population in size. All of those courts and the jurisdiction
of those courts are established by Congress, so that means
Congress can eliminate those courts their Article three courts. When

(20:39):
Trump started his second term, the Chief Justice John Roberts
warned the Trump administration about the dangers of ignoring Supreme
Court orders. Now, 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

(21:01):
challenging the authority of the US Supreme Court. These inferior courts,
the trial courts as we refer to them, so designated
by the Constitution, they do serve a vital role, but
they have to comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court.

(21:21):
The value system in this country, whether it's like magistrate
judges versus barbers, we have a value system here where
these lower inferior 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

(21:47):
been blocking the Trump administration initiatives at a remarkable rate,
sometimes issuing emergency rulings within hours, often without the full
breathing or the hearing. Just boom, somebody comes in, they
want an injunction, and 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

(22:12):
be insulated from being heard by an appellate court for weeks.
And of course the 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

(22:33):
about this judge through their confirmation or their previous rulings
or already anything else, they think 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

(22:54):
obstruction by these trial courts and the appellate courts, the
Department of Justice, the Trump administration, their only recourse was
to the US 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

(23:17):
quickly and promptly address this defiance at the lower court
what Justice Kavanaugh 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

(23:40):
the design of the constitution, wholly unconstitutional and absolutely in
violation of the 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

(24:01):
the power of the executive branch to deport. In a
case called Department of Homeland Security versus DVD of Boston,
Distry court 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 Wherejibouti is. I bet

(24:22):
you don't know. Some of you probably do, but I
bet a lot of you don't. This planeload of properly
deported illegal aliens was on their way to South Sudan.
Now why South Sudan, and say not Venezuela because the
illegal aliens argue that they would face persecution in Venezuela.

(24:44):
And the law specifically says that if the deportee is
going to face persecution in their home country. They can
be deported to any other country. So the administration says, okay,
we have a treaty, we have an agreement with South Sudan.
We'll take them to South Sudan. The planes on the
way to South Sudan. The court rules, no, you're refueling

(25:06):
in Djibouti. Now. In Djibouti there were no facilities, no
place to hold them, no way to feed them or
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.

(25:30):
The trial judge insisted that his earlier orders still stood
acclaim back by citing a dissent in the Supreme Court,
not the majority. This is like completely ignoring everything that

(25:50):
we as lawyers learned in law school and that you,
as a layman, should understand that when the Supreme Court
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.

(26:12):
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,
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,

(26:34):
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
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

(26:57):
in a row. Even one of the dissenting justices that
the trial judge was relying on. Justice Kagan said, wait
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.

(27:22):
That's the first group of cases. The second group of
cases involved the removal authority of the president for over
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

(27:45):
ordering them to be reinstated. So let's get to the
Supreme Court. In a case called Trump v. Wilcox, the
president ruled I'm sorry. The court ruled that the president
could remove board members, but a Maryland judge disregard of
the Supreme Court, prompting yet another Supreme Court intervention and

(28:07):
a direct order. Now, the cases were not meaningfuly different.
The lower courts must comply. So when it came to
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

(28:29):
a fourth branch of government out there. We kind of
euphemistically refer to the media as the fourth branch, but
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

(28:49):
I want to talk about the power of spending in
the jurisdiction of the court. That's next. We'll be right back. Hey,
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

(29:09):
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
are always the best. So we're talking about these out
of control trial judges, and I've told you that there
were there are three major cases. There's the executive power,

(29:34):
the president's power to deport, which is enshrine and statute.
There's the president's authority to fire people. That's 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

(29:56):
you are a part of the executive branch. And then
there's a third te and that's federal spending and the
Court's jurisdiction. So Trump's efforts to cut government spending caused
some of these blue states, these Democrat controlled states to
sue in favorable forms. And again Boston, crazy people in Boston.

(30:19):
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 established
what's called the Court of Federal Claims, that's where you

(30:42):
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 case to the proper venue in a
case called Department of Education versus California. Now, some district

(31:06):
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.
So what happened That prompted the Supreme Court to issue

(31:28):
further clarifications reiterating that lower courts cannot circumvent high court rulings.
This is where justice scores such wrote a scathing sentence
that basically said, you don't have the power to do this.
We're the final say and you must do what we say.

(31:50):
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
I would say, I would argue that it wasn't even

(32:12):
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 a court a presumpt what's
called a presumption of regularity to executive actions, to executive decisions,

(32:32):
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

(32:54):
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. No, we can do it
an 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

(33:16):
court rulings. But I don't care whether the president's 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

(33:41):
now we 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 courts.

(34:03):
Courts may not 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

(34:23):
pattern persists, that 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

(34:46):
Olenski's rules for radicals, you understand that radical Marxist Democrats
want to sow chaos because they think that's how they
bring about the rebel. The framers of the Constitution placed
lower courts beneath the Supreme Court in order to maintain

(35:08):
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

(35:32):
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

(35:55):
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

(36:17):
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

(36:40):
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.