May 20, 2025 • 24 mins
A Political Talk Show with Dennis “Sonar” Greene dives into the heart of America’s most pressing legal and political issues with sharp insight and fearless commentary. In this episode, Sonar is joined by attorney James M. Vasselli, a seasoned municipal law expert and regular legal commentator, to unpack the recent U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the 14th Amendment. Together, they explore the implications of Trump v. CASA, the potential redefinition of birthright citizenship, and the broader constitutional stakes involving nationwide injunctions. Whether it's constitutional law or courtroom drama, Sonar and Vasselli bring clarity, wit, and critical analysis to the debate. Always informed, never intimidated—this is political talk that cuts through the noise.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Welcome back to a political talk show on w r
m N. My name is Dennis Son R. Green. I
am talking all about some very delicious uh justice and
some great legal I guess historic type of decisions in here.
(00:53):
When we talk about the Supreme Court, it is usually historic.
They're the ones that choose a lot of the cases
that they would like to talk about, and even then
they get to decide how much they would like to reveal.
We've seen a few decisions where they kind of keep
us guessing because they may want us to figure out
(01:14):
what the what the holes are and so that they
can go on from there. But the Supreme Court has
been very busy, especially with this Fourteenth Amendment side, and
we wanted to bring on our legal contributor here for
WRMN Legal and otherwise contributor. I've heard some great movie
(01:34):
quotes from this guy too. This is James Vicelli, season
attorney with over twenty years of experience in municipal law,
real estate, public finance, and land use, founding partner of
Vesselli Law l LC. You can go to jmv Chicago
Law dot com to find out more or give them
(01:55):
a call at six' three to oh nine three one
eight two two, five Mister, vesali thanks for being here, again.
BUDDY i appreciate.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
It thanks for having. ME i really appreciate.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It, yeah as soon as this came, UP i talked to,
you at least sent you a. MESSAGE i think it
was last, week AND i was, LIKE i don't want
to necessarily get into this too much on the. AIR
i want to savor a little bit of this and
see where the dominoes actually. Fall but let's get started
with the big piece of, it and that is the Fourteenth.
(02:30):
Amendment hearing there were two big pieces of this thing
was Fourteenth amendment on the, merits and then they also
wanted to talk about universal. Injunction so let's just talk
about the. Merits. First that was with what is it
it's stay or, no it Is Solicitor general. Right Solicitor
(02:51):
GENERAL D John sower is putting that ahead of right.
Now and his argument is that the Fourteenth amendment is
four or freeing the slaves because of the phrase subject
to jurisdiction, thereof can you explain his argument a little
(03:11):
bit off.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Of this so to me in reading this, argument and
it's not one THAT i necessarily here. Too if that's
okay to, say.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Oh of, course, yeah law is great like that, is
it doesn't have to be. Political it's really just you
AND i trying to understand what the law, says which
is WHAT i really like about.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It no, agreed and that IS i don't KNOW i
would say it a better, way but it's the beauty of, it,
Right it's the ability to interpret and we move on
and see where we. Go and a lot of really
smart people. Disagree and that's why we have court rooms as,
well we have you, know judicial precedent to. Follow but
(03:51):
the idea is that his idea is that the Fourteenth
amendment is very narrowly construed to that, issue and that
the Fourth amount is always excluded from birthright citizens persons
who were born in The United, states but the subject
of the, jurisdiction they're, ab which is what you. Stated
(04:13):
and then it states that the categories of the individuals
born in The United, states and that subject to the,
jurisdiction they're. Ab the Privileged United states citizensship does not
automatically extend to the categories of persons excluded from citizenship
from the. Order that is essentially to, me it's a politicized.
Argument it is taking that language to advance a cause
(04:38):
that is one that is, novel and it's always been
recognized that birthright citizenship. Is it's just understood AND i
have never seen an argument like this.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Before and even then he also said it doesn't stand
on the. Merits he's, like, yeah it's still a little,
shaky even if you LIKE i think it was like
two and a half hours that they had the entire,
Hearing but even in, That Solicitor General sour was, like,
(05:12):
yeah we kind of really wanted to use this as a.
Vehicle and that's really where the big ENCHILADA i think hits, Here,
jimmy is this right? Here is with the universal, INJUNCTIONS
i think is really the biggest hit because they were
arguing almost to the point where if you wanted to
(05:35):
have or be a part of a the protection of the,
injunction that you would almost have to join a class
action lawsuit to actually benefit from any injunction that anybody
put on the. Government is that the argument that THAT
i Guess thomas or even The Solicitor general is kind
(05:59):
of putting four with. THIS i can GET i absolutely
understand twenty million or so court sessions to figure out
who's supposed to be here is, daunting but so is
everybody having to lawyer.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Up, agreed and it is something that actually is not
a new. Argument it is hitting the news and becoming
more of a poignant issue. Now but both political plants
or parties have argued that national or nationwide universal injunctions
(06:36):
from a district, court one judge and a district court
is something that needs to be, reviewed and it has
gone on before because you could have one judge in
let's Say Rhode island or one judge in let's Say
oregon making a ruling that would have jurisdiction over everyone throughout.
(06:58):
There and it's kind of like what you said in the.
Beginning it is an interesting concept because can one judge
have the full breath of The United states to issue
an order on and so far it. Has there is
legislation that's being introduced to rain that in for lack
(07:21):
of a better, WORD i don't know if it's going
to pass, through, because LIKE i, said it has been
talked about. Before but the argument is that one district
court judge shouldn't have so much jurisdiction to control outside of.
It it was bound outside of the geographical. Region AND
(07:43):
i don't mean to, ramble but the one interesting part
of it is the judiciary is controlled by legislative controls
and constraints other than The Supreme, Court so there can
be constraints that are put on. This it's kind of
an known thing or not commonly, known that the federal
(08:03):
judiciary is subject to. Legislation but they can, issue you,
know a statue can be passed that can reign that
in and make it three judge, panels for, example to
have the breath of a national a nationwid.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Injunction, well and like you, said this is something that
has burnt both, parties and both parties have used as
a crudgel. Too we want to talk about what was
it myth of pristone as far as that one, IN
i think it was The texas judge on that, Side
SO i absolutely understand. That but where do we draw the?
(08:42):
Line is it is it a you are going to
have all jurisdiction or you're going to have no jurisdiction
or or i'm, sorry injunctions universal or just specific or
would it be more of a districtwide is because you're
going to district judges right for for these injunctions so
(09:04):
would it just be district wide because of that particular
judge said. It but then you're back to the argument
of now they're, Ruling so is this how we get
kings and? LORDS i could never figure out how we got,
those and this must be the formula that.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
IS i, MEAN i think AND i know you're, right
AND i think that it's a great. POINT i think
that you REALLY i don't see how we can go
any other way than the way we have been going
because it's.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Sloppy BUT i think we need it just as as
a pump in the, breaks.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right you, KNOW i always harken back to The i'm
going to butcher the, quote But churchill said that democracy
is the worst form of government except for all the other.
Ones sometimes these our, message, Right sometimes we don't like
to see how the sausage gets. Made but in this,
(10:06):
circumstance people on the federal judiciary are not. Unqualified they
go through a rigorous challenge. Process they are appointed through
the highest levels of. Government this isn't you, Know JOHN.
Q lawyer that just gets picked out of a. Hat
because you're going to be a federal, judge so you've
(10:28):
got to give them some level of leeway to make.
Rulings and if not for, them who's going to make these?
Decisions and you, KNOW i think you started out by
saying it's The Supreme court is one of important policy
decisions and historic. Influence AND i think it's a great
point because these aren't issues on their. Own they're important
(10:53):
issues on their own, merits but they're also important issues
because they're scape they're scoping the way that we do.
Governance and we always you AND i always talk about
with our listeners the The american, experiments and this is
a new era of. It it is it is an
executive branch that seems to, be you, know kind of
(11:15):
something it knows at the judiciary and we won't enforce.
Orders this is how we think we should do. Things
this is how we interpret them to advance our policy,
goals WHICH i, get and that's what all that's what
all executive branches. Do but in this, circumstance we are
literally changing the way that the judiciary, operates and.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
It almost seems retro retrofitting it as opposed to we've
got a thing. Here it's Like i'm going to do
WHATEVER i want to, do and then everybody else is
going to kind of get in line with whatever we're doing.
Now is that? Leadership is that sick a? Fan it's
whatever it, Is but this is what's happening in front of.
Us Even Justice jackson raised the issue regarding the inconsistency of,
(12:02):
it because even with the Fourteenth amendment and the hospitals
now having to decide who's a citizen and who, isn't
we would also have without this universal injunction, side we
would have people that would have to bring multiple class
action lawsuits or you would have to get into a
class action lawsuit with. It it makes it. Messy is
(12:25):
the is one of the core foundations starting to erode
of rule of law of us just saying the law is?
Final if that no hands or butts with making this
dance more. PUBLIC i think there.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
IS i think it's a good. POINT i think that
there is an attempt to erode the rule of law
and the you, know people talk about what changes came
through in the First trump, administration and to, me the
biggest change is the stocking of the. Judiciary there are
(13:06):
so many judicial appointments to the, period and so you
will see a change in how justice is, that how
orders our, issue how rule of law is made and
the concept of law being a finality that we are
as they, Say i've got all the cliches, today So
i'm really. Sorry but we are a country of, laws
(13:29):
and not of men or, women but of, laws and
the rule of law needs to control and there seems
to be some erosion of that. Fact and THAT'S i
hate to create, paranoia but that's the kind of scary,
circumstance is.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
It because we're speaking With Jimmy viselli Of Vicelli. Law
go TO Jmv Chicago law dot com or call them
at six' three oh nine three one eight two. Two
five and the REASON that i bring you, Over, here
jimmy IS because i think this is a concept of
us losing the meaning of some of, these things losing
(14:08):
the meaning of rule, of law losing the meaning of,
habeas corpus losing the meaning of what it means to
have free speech or a pursuitive happiness or whatever. It
is is is some of this our own faults of
not kind of keeping abreast with what we need to
(14:33):
know justice stay. Basic citizens can some of this rule
of law erosion and this misunderstanding of, The constitution can
we take some of.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
That, BLAME yeah i. THINK so i do. THINK so
i think that there's such a we always talk, about
this but the, constitutional, crisis right it's what are we
really how are we really? Doing THIS and i do,
THINK yeah i think that we can't take some complain.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
On, THAT yeah i think the biggest thing is is
the definitions when, we start when we start, consolidating, things
right when we start making them only cliches or making
them only buzzwords or. Bumper STICKERS like i can't tell
you how HOW mad i am about the whole defund
the police and all of this other stuff that's. Out
(15:28):
there it's like you're boiling down a much more complicated
concept into, three words and it's really hard to break
somebody away from those three words or that bumper sticker
or that whatever and get into the minutia. Of it
(15:48):
where can people go to kind of understand law a little?
Bit better is there a resource that we have as
the public where we can KIND of, I mean, I
know i can go down to, the library there's plenty
of books on what. Have you but is there a
resource that even you use to kind of brush up
(16:09):
on legalities or constitutional law or anything.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Like that YOU know I and i agree. With you
you can go down. THE library i think it's. Just
reading it's, a lot and, it's HEAVY and i think
you to. Be informed it takes time and it, takes
EFFORT and i think going down to the library or
libraries that are now our phones or our iPads or
(16:37):
our tablet of, you, know choice or laptop, of choice
that's really the ONLY way i can see to. Do it,
you know a lot of times people can listen to,
or watch, you know watch on different broadcasts of what's
going on With The. Supreme court. You know the ONE
thing i would say is just read the, opinions yourself
(17:00):
because it. Becomes editorialized you get. A secondhand there's no
way to not talk about these things and take a view.
On them it's just it's. Human Nature but i'm sorry,
to say but it's just a lot of. HARD work,
I mean i love coming on the SHOW because i
love talking about, these things but it's a lot of
(17:20):
hard work for. The public they have used, these, issues yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
Especially when a lot of it is complicated based off
of stuff that we thought was already. Established law what
Is a jewish prudence or something.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Like.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
That, JURISPRUDENCE yeah i Don't. Speak latin it's a it's
one of those things, of, like no we thought this
was already. Established law, Oh yeah well have you looked
at it? Like, this yeah it's the, same law just,
upside DOWN like i don't know what's. What's there so
here's one of the LAWS that i think they kind
(17:59):
of maybe put a little upside down, on THIS and
i think another branch is working. On it SO now
i think you've heard about this. One before this Is
The Milwaukee County Circuit Judge hannah dugan who's arrested and
indicted for the federal grand jury on charges of obstruction
(18:19):
of justice and concealing a person to. Prevent, arrest now
what's really remarkable, about this other than her, legal counsel
which INCLUDES Former Us Solicitor General. Paul clement what they're
arguing is that her actions were part of her official
(18:42):
judicial duties and protected under the doctrine of. Judicial immunity
and this is a reference To The supreme court's Decision
in Trump Versus, united states where the defense contends that
immunity is not a defense to, the prosecution to be
determined later by a Jury, or court it is an
(19:05):
absolute bar to the prosecution at, The onset so they're
saying it doesn't even need to be determined by, a
jury a. Court anything just like, executive immunity judicial immunity.
Stands too is there something for this or are they
just kind of thumbing their nose At The.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
SUPREME court i, you know it's not this has. Happened,
before okay this has happened, Before THERE but i do
think that there is some level, of you how do
(19:47):
you how do you have non judicial immunity for judges? Making?
ORDERS why i. Don't, understand like, to me it almost blows,
my Mind and i'm to GET if i found emotional.
ABOUT it i don't understand how you could have a
judge be liable for actions that are not. Wholly criminal, in,
(20:13):
mind obviously if a judge is taking a bride for
a case or something along, those lines yeah they should be.
Held liable but.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
To but using a, different door that's uh that you
might not necessarily want to arrest a judge for or
purf walk a. Judge for oh, my, GOODNESS.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
RIGHT i i just, to me it is, to me
it is just such an issue where you really need
to have the judiciary be able to do. Their jobs and,
you know it's kind OF and I maybe i'm seeing
parallels or a common theme here where there. Isn't ONE
(20:53):
but i just see that the judiciary is, under ASSAULT and.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
I think so You In justice kavanaugh the. Same side
he has also said that that it is it is,
under ATTACK and i wish. IT wasn't i wish we
could get to the rule of law and say that
is that. And GO but i think we've spent the
(21:17):
last ten years plus, attacking judges not just from fifteen or.
SIXTEEN over i think we may have been even doing.
THAT before, i mean it starts as a, little ripple
it starts as, something there and it may have been
as far back as when we were pulling and Tugging
(21:37):
with mitch McConnell on if we should have the appointments that.
Go THROUGH so i think this is. We're coming we're
sliding down the slope RATHER as i think is the
best WAY that i can. PUT it i don't think
we've hit, a BOTTOM but I think i think we're we're.
MID slide i think.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You're RIGHT and i think that when you pull it size,
the judiciary the, judiciary branch in, my mind is always the.
Weakest branch it's not the branch that, passes laws it's
not the branch that. Enforces laws it's the branch that.
Interprets LAWS and i think either the last time that
we were on or the second, last time we talked
about the fact that ju jitsuary does not enforce its.
(22:18):
Own orders judiciary needs the other branches to enforce its.
Own orders when you ARE the i, don't know the
philosophical branch, of government and that becomes, highly politicized and
it becomes something that people USE as i think you
use a good word. To cudgel it's a, it's problematic
(22:38):
and it's, really problematic and it's a shame because you
really need to know that a judge makes an order
and the. Order stands but now it does the order even?
Get enforced if a judge makes, an order does the judge?
GET arrested i mean means these Are not this is
not the WAY that i thought the law would EVOLVED
(23:00):
when i was a, wide, eyed bright optimistic young.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Law, school well we could we could always bring that
back as, as Well because i'm telling you the experiments
not OVER where i think this is. GROWING pains i
think THIS is i think we're testing the guardrails. For sure,
but honestly as long as the team continues to play by,
(23:24):
the rules the person running the scoreboard still continues to
play by, the rules the audience, Still, complain uh plays by.
THE rules i think we can still give some some
respect to. THE refs. I, agree yeah thank you for, Coming.
On jimmy how's your. Trip, going oh.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
It's fantastic so we have had a lot of good
meetings with developers and different mayors from the region and
beyond and just trying to get some more get some
more economic development for the region and. Some clients, and uh.
It's great thanks for taking. The time SORRY if i
(24:04):
was rambling a. Little, bit oh no objects for me.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Ramble ANYTIME That's. Am radio thanks a lot for, Being,
here jimmy and enjoy. Your trip That, Is JIMMY Viselli
Jmv chicago law. Dot com that's the place. To go
people can still get you at six three oh nine
three one eight two. Two, Five, right.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Jimmy absolutely, Thanks sir thank you.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Again six' three oh nine three one eight two Two
Five for viselli law able. Available, AND affable oh i
like that Hey stick around maria political talk show after
this
Welcome back to a political talk show on w r
m N. My name is Dennis Son R. Green. I
am talking all about some very delicious uh justice and
some great legal I guess historic type of decisions in here.
(00:53):
When we talk about the Supreme Court, it is usually historic.
They're the ones that choose a lot of the cases
that they would like to talk about, and even then
they get to decide how much they would like to reveal.
We've seen a few decisions where they kind of keep
us guessing because they may want us to figure out
(01:14):
what the what the holes are and so that they
can go on from there. But the Supreme Court has
been very busy, especially with this Fourteenth Amendment side, and
we wanted to bring on our legal contributor here for
WRMN Legal and otherwise contributor. I've heard some great movie
(01:34):
quotes from this guy too. This is James Vicelli, season
attorney with over twenty years of experience in municipal law,
real estate, public finance, and land use, founding partner of
Vesselli Law l LC. You can go to jmv Chicago
Law dot com to find out more or give them
(01:55):
a call at six' three to oh nine three one
eight two two, five Mister, vesali thanks for being here, again.
BUDDY i appreciate.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
It thanks for having. ME i really appreciate.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It, yeah as soon as this came, UP i talked to,
you at least sent you a. MESSAGE i think it
was last, week AND i was, LIKE i don't want
to necessarily get into this too much on the. AIR
i want to savor a little bit of this and
see where the dominoes actually. Fall but let's get started
with the big piece of, it and that is the Fourteenth.
(02:30):
Amendment hearing there were two big pieces of this thing
was Fourteenth amendment on the, merits and then they also
wanted to talk about universal. Injunction so let's just talk
about the. Merits. First that was with what is it
it's stay or, no it Is Solicitor general. Right Solicitor
(02:51):
GENERAL D John sower is putting that ahead of right.
Now and his argument is that the Fourteenth amendment is
four or freeing the slaves because of the phrase subject
to jurisdiction, thereof can you explain his argument a little
(03:11):
bit off.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Of this so to me in reading this, argument and
it's not one THAT i necessarily here. Too if that's
okay to, say.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Oh of, course, yeah law is great like that, is
it doesn't have to be. Political it's really just you
AND i trying to understand what the law, says which
is WHAT i really like about.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It no, agreed and that IS i don't KNOW i
would say it a better, way but it's the beauty of, it,
Right it's the ability to interpret and we move on
and see where we. Go and a lot of really
smart people. Disagree and that's why we have court rooms as,
well we have you, know judicial precedent to. Follow but
(03:51):
the idea is that his idea is that the Fourteenth
amendment is very narrowly construed to that, issue and that
the Fourth amount is always excluded from birthright citizens persons
who were born in The United, states but the subject
of the, jurisdiction they're, ab which is what you. Stated
(04:13):
and then it states that the categories of the individuals
born in The United, states and that subject to the,
jurisdiction they're. Ab the Privileged United states citizensship does not
automatically extend to the categories of persons excluded from citizenship
from the. Order that is essentially to, me it's a politicized.
Argument it is taking that language to advance a cause
(04:38):
that is one that is, novel and it's always been
recognized that birthright citizenship. Is it's just understood AND i
have never seen an argument like this.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Before and even then he also said it doesn't stand
on the. Merits he's, like, yeah it's still a little,
shaky even if you LIKE i think it was like
two and a half hours that they had the entire,
Hearing but even in, That Solicitor General sour was, like,
(05:12):
yeah we kind of really wanted to use this as a.
Vehicle and that's really where the big ENCHILADA i think hits, Here,
jimmy is this right? Here is with the universal, INJUNCTIONS
i think is really the biggest hit because they were
arguing almost to the point where if you wanted to
(05:35):
have or be a part of a the protection of the,
injunction that you would almost have to join a class
action lawsuit to actually benefit from any injunction that anybody
put on the. Government is that the argument that THAT
i Guess thomas or even The Solicitor general is kind
(05:59):
of putting four with. THIS i can GET i absolutely
understand twenty million or so court sessions to figure out
who's supposed to be here is, daunting but so is
everybody having to lawyer.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Up, agreed and it is something that actually is not
a new. Argument it is hitting the news and becoming
more of a poignant issue. Now but both political plants
or parties have argued that national or nationwide universal injunctions
(06:36):
from a district, court one judge and a district court
is something that needs to be, reviewed and it has
gone on before because you could have one judge in
let's Say Rhode island or one judge in let's Say
oregon making a ruling that would have jurisdiction over everyone throughout.
(06:58):
There and it's kind of like what you said in the.
Beginning it is an interesting concept because can one judge
have the full breath of The United states to issue
an order on and so far it. Has there is
legislation that's being introduced to rain that in for lack
(07:21):
of a better, WORD i don't know if it's going
to pass, through, because LIKE i, said it has been
talked about. Before but the argument is that one district
court judge shouldn't have so much jurisdiction to control outside of.
It it was bound outside of the geographical. Region AND
(07:43):
i don't mean to, ramble but the one interesting part
of it is the judiciary is controlled by legislative controls
and constraints other than The Supreme, Court so there can
be constraints that are put on. This it's kind of
an known thing or not commonly, known that the federal
(08:03):
judiciary is subject to. Legislation but they can, issue you,
know a statue can be passed that can reign that
in and make it three judge, panels for, example to
have the breath of a national a nationwid.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Injunction, well and like you, said this is something that
has burnt both, parties and both parties have used as
a crudgel. Too we want to talk about what was
it myth of pristone as far as that one, IN
i think it was The texas judge on that, Side
SO i absolutely understand. That but where do we draw the?
(08:42):
Line is it is it a you are going to
have all jurisdiction or you're going to have no jurisdiction
or or i'm, sorry injunctions universal or just specific or
would it be more of a districtwide is because you're
going to district judges right for for these injunctions so
(09:04):
would it just be district wide because of that particular
judge said. It but then you're back to the argument
of now they're, Ruling so is this how we get
kings and? LORDS i could never figure out how we got,
those and this must be the formula that.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
IS i, MEAN i think AND i know you're, right
AND i think that it's a great. POINT i think
that you REALLY i don't see how we can go
any other way than the way we have been going
because it's.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Sloppy BUT i think we need it just as as
a pump in the, breaks.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right you, KNOW i always harken back to The i'm
going to butcher the, quote But churchill said that democracy
is the worst form of government except for all the other.
Ones sometimes these our, message, Right sometimes we don't like
to see how the sausage gets. Made but in this,
(10:06):
circumstance people on the federal judiciary are not. Unqualified they
go through a rigorous challenge. Process they are appointed through
the highest levels of. Government this isn't you, Know JOHN.
Q lawyer that just gets picked out of a. Hat
because you're going to be a federal, judge so you've
(10:28):
got to give them some level of leeway to make.
Rulings and if not for, them who's going to make these?
Decisions and you, KNOW i think you started out by
saying it's The Supreme court is one of important policy
decisions and historic. Influence AND i think it's a great
point because these aren't issues on their. Own they're important
(10:53):
issues on their own, merits but they're also important issues
because they're scape they're scoping the way that we do.
Governance and we always you AND i always talk about
with our listeners the The american, experiments and this is
a new era of. It it is it is an
executive branch that seems to, be you, know kind of
(11:15):
something it knows at the judiciary and we won't enforce.
Orders this is how we think we should do. Things
this is how we interpret them to advance our policy,
goals WHICH i, get and that's what all that's what
all executive branches. Do but in this, circumstance we are
literally changing the way that the judiciary, operates and.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
It almost seems retro retrofitting it as opposed to we've
got a thing. Here it's Like i'm going to do
WHATEVER i want to, do and then everybody else is
going to kind of get in line with whatever we're doing.
Now is that? Leadership is that sick a? Fan it's
whatever it, Is but this is what's happening in front of.
Us Even Justice jackson raised the issue regarding the inconsistency of,
(12:02):
it because even with the Fourteenth amendment and the hospitals
now having to decide who's a citizen and who, isn't
we would also have without this universal injunction, side we
would have people that would have to bring multiple class
action lawsuits or you would have to get into a
class action lawsuit with. It it makes it. Messy is
(12:25):
the is one of the core foundations starting to erode
of rule of law of us just saying the law is?
Final if that no hands or butts with making this
dance more. PUBLIC i think there.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
IS i think it's a good. POINT i think that
there is an attempt to erode the rule of law
and the you, know people talk about what changes came
through in the First trump, administration and to, me the
biggest change is the stocking of the. Judiciary there are
(13:06):
so many judicial appointments to the, period and so you
will see a change in how justice is, that how
orders our, issue how rule of law is made and
the concept of law being a finality that we are
as they, Say i've got all the cliches, today So
i'm really. Sorry but we are a country of, laws
(13:29):
and not of men or, women but of, laws and
the rule of law needs to control and there seems
to be some erosion of that. Fact and THAT'S i
hate to create, paranoia but that's the kind of scary,
circumstance is.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
It because we're speaking With Jimmy viselli Of Vicelli. Law
go TO Jmv Chicago law dot com or call them
at six' three oh nine three one eight two. Two
five and the REASON that i bring you, Over, here
jimmy IS because i think this is a concept of
us losing the meaning of some of, these things losing
(14:08):
the meaning of rule, of law losing the meaning of,
habeas corpus losing the meaning of what it means to
have free speech or a pursuitive happiness or whatever. It
is is is some of this our own faults of
not kind of keeping abreast with what we need to
(14:33):
know justice stay. Basic citizens can some of this rule
of law erosion and this misunderstanding of, The constitution can
we take some of.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
That, BLAME yeah i. THINK so i do. THINK so
i think that there's such a we always talk, about
this but the, constitutional, crisis right it's what are we
really how are we really? Doing THIS and i do,
THINK yeah i think that we can't take some complain.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
On, THAT yeah i think the biggest thing is is
the definitions when, we start when we start, consolidating, things
right when we start making them only cliches or making
them only buzzwords or. Bumper STICKERS like i can't tell
you how HOW mad i am about the whole defund
the police and all of this other stuff that's. Out
(15:28):
there it's like you're boiling down a much more complicated
concept into, three words and it's really hard to break
somebody away from those three words or that bumper sticker
or that whatever and get into the minutia. Of it
(15:48):
where can people go to kind of understand law a little?
Bit better is there a resource that we have as
the public where we can KIND of, I mean, I
know i can go down to, the library there's plenty
of books on what. Have you but is there a
resource that even you use to kind of brush up
(16:09):
on legalities or constitutional law or anything.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Like that YOU know I and i agree. With you
you can go down. THE library i think it's. Just
reading it's, a lot and, it's HEAVY and i think
you to. Be informed it takes time and it, takes
EFFORT and i think going down to the library or
libraries that are now our phones or our iPads or
(16:37):
our tablet of, you, know choice or laptop, of choice
that's really the ONLY way i can see to. Do it,
you know a lot of times people can listen to,
or watch, you know watch on different broadcasts of what's
going on With The. Supreme court. You know the ONE
thing i would say is just read the, opinions yourself
(17:00):
because it. Becomes editorialized you get. A secondhand there's no
way to not talk about these things and take a view.
On them it's just it's. Human Nature but i'm sorry,
to say but it's just a lot of. HARD work,
I mean i love coming on the SHOW because i
love talking about, these things but it's a lot of
(17:20):
hard work for. The public they have used, these, issues yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
Especially when a lot of it is complicated based off
of stuff that we thought was already. Established law what
Is a jewish prudence or something.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Like.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
That, JURISPRUDENCE yeah i Don't. Speak latin it's a it's
one of those things, of, like no we thought this
was already. Established law, Oh yeah well have you looked
at it? Like, this yeah it's the, same law just,
upside DOWN like i don't know what's. What's there so
here's one of the LAWS that i think they kind
(17:59):
of maybe put a little upside down, on THIS and
i think another branch is working. On it SO now
i think you've heard about this. One before this Is
The Milwaukee County Circuit Judge hannah dugan who's arrested and
indicted for the federal grand jury on charges of obstruction
(18:19):
of justice and concealing a person to. Prevent, arrest now
what's really remarkable, about this other than her, legal counsel
which INCLUDES Former Us Solicitor General. Paul clement what they're
arguing is that her actions were part of her official
(18:42):
judicial duties and protected under the doctrine of. Judicial immunity
and this is a reference To The supreme court's Decision
in Trump Versus, united states where the defense contends that
immunity is not a defense to, the prosecution to be
determined later by a Jury, or court it is an
(19:05):
absolute bar to the prosecution at, The onset so they're
saying it doesn't even need to be determined by, a
jury a. Court anything just like, executive immunity judicial immunity.
Stands too is there something for this or are they
just kind of thumbing their nose At The.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
SUPREME court i, you know it's not this has. Happened,
before okay this has happened, Before THERE but i do
think that there is some level, of you how do
(19:47):
you how do you have non judicial immunity for judges? Making?
ORDERS why i. Don't, understand like, to me it almost blows,
my Mind and i'm to GET if i found emotional.
ABOUT it i don't understand how you could have a
judge be liable for actions that are not. Wholly criminal, in,
(20:13):
mind obviously if a judge is taking a bride for
a case or something along, those lines yeah they should be.
Held liable but.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
To but using a, different door that's uh that you
might not necessarily want to arrest a judge for or
purf walk a. Judge for oh, my, GOODNESS.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
RIGHT i i just, to me it is, to me
it is just such an issue where you really need
to have the judiciary be able to do. Their jobs and,
you know it's kind OF and I maybe i'm seeing
parallels or a common theme here where there. Isn't ONE
(20:53):
but i just see that the judiciary is, under ASSAULT and.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
I think so You In justice kavanaugh the. Same side
he has also said that that it is it is,
under ATTACK and i wish. IT wasn't i wish we
could get to the rule of law and say that
is that. And GO but i think we've spent the
(21:17):
last ten years plus, attacking judges not just from fifteen or.
SIXTEEN over i think we may have been even doing.
THAT before, i mean it starts as a, little ripple
it starts as, something there and it may have been
as far back as when we were pulling and Tugging
(21:37):
with mitch McConnell on if we should have the appointments that.
Go THROUGH so i think this is. We're coming we're
sliding down the slope RATHER as i think is the
best WAY that i can. PUT it i don't think
we've hit, a BOTTOM but I think i think we're we're.
MID slide i think.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You're RIGHT and i think that when you pull it size,
the judiciary the, judiciary branch in, my mind is always the.
Weakest branch it's not the branch that, passes laws it's
not the branch that. Enforces laws it's the branch that.
Interprets LAWS and i think either the last time that
we were on or the second, last time we talked
about the fact that ju jitsuary does not enforce its.
(22:18):
Own orders judiciary needs the other branches to enforce its.
Own orders when you ARE the i, don't know the
philosophical branch, of government and that becomes, highly politicized and
it becomes something that people USE as i think you
use a good word. To cudgel it's a, it's problematic
(22:38):
and it's, really problematic and it's a shame because you
really need to know that a judge makes an order
and the. Order stands but now it does the order even?
Get enforced if a judge makes, an order does the judge?
GET arrested i mean means these Are not this is
not the WAY that i thought the law would EVOLVED
(23:00):
when i was a, wide, eyed bright optimistic young.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Law, school well we could we could always bring that
back as, as Well because i'm telling you the experiments
not OVER where i think this is. GROWING pains i
think THIS is i think we're testing the guardrails. For sure,
but honestly as long as the team continues to play by,
(23:24):
the rules the person running the scoreboard still continues to
play by, the rules the audience, Still, complain uh plays by.
THE rules i think we can still give some some
respect to. THE refs. I, agree yeah thank you for, Coming.
On jimmy how's your. Trip, going oh.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
It's fantastic so we have had a lot of good
meetings with developers and different mayors from the region and
beyond and just trying to get some more get some
more economic development for the region and. Some clients, and uh.
It's great thanks for taking. The time SORRY if i
(24:04):
was rambling a. Little, bit oh no objects for me.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Ramble ANYTIME That's. Am radio thanks a lot for, Being,
here jimmy and enjoy. Your trip That, Is JIMMY Viselli
Jmv chicago law. Dot com that's the place. To go
people can still get you at six three oh nine
three one eight two. Two, Five, right.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Jimmy absolutely, Thanks sir thank you.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Again six' three oh nine three one eight two Two
Five for viselli law able. Available, AND affable oh i
like that Hey stick around maria political talk show after
this
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.