Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Kennon Spibick joins us now our attorney, executive entrepreneur to
talk about what's been happening with Donald Trump in the pushback.
Well say, it's coming in droves, like a tsunami of lawyers.
Every time he wakes up and tries to do something.
Here comes another lawsuit, Ken, and welcome in, Thanks for being.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Here, thanks for having me, good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Incredible. Over one hundred federal court judges now ruled against
Trump administration in a lot of different lawsuits here and
so is Donald Trump deserving of this because he steps
out the boundaries of constitutionality and law of federal laws?
Is he exercising and flexing his muscles too much? Does
he not need to be called on this? Or is
(00:40):
this politically motivated stuff?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
For both both all of the above. Like any president,
he sometimes exceeds his authority. And some of these lawsuits
are expected, and some of them are probably even right
or at least right under press, but not the tsunami
(01:02):
of lawsuits. Not hundreds of lawsuits have been filed. Depending
upon how you count, we're up to as many as
five hundred lawsuits and in the more than one hundred
decisions against him or his administration, a majority are just crazy.
(01:22):
They're based on feelings and political concerns and disagreement with policy.
Judges aren't supposed to rule on what's called political questions.
They don't even have the jurisdiction the power to rule
on political questions. They're supposed to say, go away. And
(01:46):
it's that part of these hundred plus decisions that are
so troubling.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
You know, we always say that the judges operate in
a vacuum and they look at nothing but law and
make decisions based on that. But there's always so much
emphasis when a president is in office. If a Supreme
Court justice retires or passes away, the push to balance
it or imbalance it comes from both sides. And look,
(02:12):
we better get a federally appointed judge from the Obama administration,
or we better get one brought in from the Trump administration,
and so on for years and decades. So with that said,
you really can't help as a judge, can you to
bring in your own personal gut feeling, And if there's
an opportunity for me to lean one way based on
(02:33):
my argument coming from that position, then I'm going to
do that.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yes, some extent, most conservative jurists don't do that, at
least they don't do that to the extent of making
up the law, making up the ruling using the launches
as an excuse. Now, of course some do, but most don't.
(03:01):
Maybe even most liberal judges don't. But the number and
percent of liberal activists, it's really the far left liberal
activist judges who do that is much more significant. And
there's a tradition of liberal activist judges doing that dating
to the nineteen fifties in the Earl War in Court.
(03:23):
Probably the most notable example of that was when Justice
Douglas on the Supreme Court found pen numbers emanating from
the Constitution. Roe v. Wade was one of these numbers,
the constitutional protection of abortion, and he decided that there
were rights that existed implicit in what the Constitution meant,
(03:47):
even if it never listed those rights. And what activist
judges are doing today is not quite that. What they're
doing instead is finding Really what they're doing is they're
making political decisions. They're deciding that when they balance the
factors on the two sides of the issue, that the
(04:07):
factors they find important. I can give you examples, but
the factors they find important should have governed the president's decision,
and so they simply make another decision and claim that
what he did violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which prohibits
capricious and arbor and arbitrary decisions, and which, by the way,
(04:32):
for the most part, doesn't govern the president's actions. It
governs the actions of the administrative apparatus. So they really
are ruling on feelings and ruling.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
On overreaching, overreaching, you know. And when I talked to
Democrats and they go, well, you know, you're supporting a
convicted felon, I said, hold on a minute, convicted for
over thirty counts. It's like who came after him in
who convicted him? And it's just it's got to be
people got to look at that whole discussion is a right,
(05:06):
I mean, just you got to discount that.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Correct. Now, we wrote off on a tangent two things
in which we don't want to take a lot of
time on. The brag prosecution was one of the most abysmal,
unfounded prosecutions that ever could have existed. I've written extensively
on it. You and I have discussed it in previous appearances.
(05:30):
Let me not spend time on that now. But even
if he was a convicted felon, and even if the
conviction was valid, that has absolutely nothing to do with
his powers as president of the United States and absolutely
nothing to do with what the federal court judges should
be doing in this litigation. You know what extreme. I
(05:53):
don't know how the Sercreme what's going to come out
on the tariffs or birthright citizenship. But all of the
cases involving the tar some birthright citizenship are normal federal
litigation over issues that they have every right to be deciding,
and that they're not really particularly deciding on an emotional basis.
(06:13):
There's a lot of emotion in the birthright citizenship cases,
but there's also precedent. There's also substantive issues there, and
they're discussing substantive issues the same thing tariffs. Is really
no emotion in the tariff decisions.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Go ahead, go ahead, I'm sorry no.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
So put those at one extreme, those are normal that
that litigation should be fought. Let me go an example
at the other extreme. A judge in San Francisco, Susan Elliston,
during the shutdown, held that the president couldn't lay off
any federal employees and she had discussed at length the
stress that federal employees have been under ever since Trump
(06:55):
was elected president and the trauma that they feel when
they were laid off. Now, maybe they're under stressed because
maybe they're liberal, and maybe it's traumatic to be laid off,
but layoffs happen every day, and the fact that they
may be under stress and the fact that it may
be traumatic doesn't mean the president lacked the right to
(07:18):
do what he did.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Absolutely one percent, one hundred percent, And I would imagine
this is not going to stop through his entire presidency,
and we'll see more and more of this. We will
certainly talk more about it. Kenn, thank you so much.
I appreciate you, buddy,
Kennon Spibick joins us now our attorney, executive entrepreneur to
talk about what's been happening with Donald Trump in the pushback.
Well say, it's coming in droves, like a tsunami of lawyers.
Every time he wakes up and tries to do something.
Here comes another lawsuit, Ken, and welcome in, Thanks for being.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Here, thanks for having me, good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Incredible. Over one hundred federal court judges now ruled against
Trump administration in a lot of different lawsuits here and
so is Donald Trump deserving of this because he steps
out the boundaries of constitutionality and law of federal laws?
Is he exercising and flexing his muscles too much? Does
he not need to be called on this? Or is
(00:40):
this politically motivated stuff?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
For both both all of the above. Like any president,
he sometimes exceeds his authority. And some of these lawsuits
are expected, and some of them are probably even right
or at least right under press, but not the tsunami
(01:02):
of lawsuits. Not hundreds of lawsuits have been filed. Depending
upon how you count, we're up to as many as
five hundred lawsuits and in the more than one hundred
decisions against him or his administration, a majority are just crazy.
(01:22):
They're based on feelings and political concerns and disagreement with policy.
Judges aren't supposed to rule on what's called political questions.
They don't even have the jurisdiction the power to rule
on political questions. They're supposed to say, go away. And
(01:46):
it's that part of these hundred plus decisions that are
so troubling.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
You know, we always say that the judges operate in
a vacuum and they look at nothing but law and
make decisions based on that. But there's always so much
emphasis when a president is in office. If a Supreme
Court justice retires or passes away, the push to balance
it or imbalance it comes from both sides. And look,
(02:12):
we better get a federally appointed judge from the Obama administration,
or we better get one brought in from the Trump administration,
and so on for years and decades. So with that said,
you really can't help as a judge, can you to
bring in your own personal gut feeling, And if there's
an opportunity for me to lean one way based on
(02:33):
my argument coming from that position, then I'm going to
do that.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yes, some extent, most conservative jurists don't do that, at
least they don't do that to the extent of making
up the law, making up the ruling using the launches
as an excuse. Now, of course some do, but most don't.
(03:01):
Maybe even most liberal judges don't. But the number and
percent of liberal activists, it's really the far left liberal
activist judges who do that is much more significant. And
there's a tradition of liberal activist judges doing that dating
to the nineteen fifties in the Earl War in Court.
(03:23):
Probably the most notable example of that was when Justice
Douglas on the Supreme Court found pen numbers emanating from
the Constitution. Roe v. Wade was one of these numbers,
the constitutional protection of abortion, and he decided that there
were rights that existed implicit in what the Constitution meant,
(03:47):
even if it never listed those rights. And what activist
judges are doing today is not quite that. What they're
doing instead is finding Really what they're doing is they're
making political decisions. They're deciding that when they balance the
factors on the two sides of the issue, that the
(04:07):
factors they find important. I can give you examples, but
the factors they find important should have governed the president's decision,
and so they simply make another decision and claim that
what he did violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which prohibits
capricious and arbor and arbitrary decisions, and which, by the way,
(04:32):
for the most part, doesn't govern the president's actions. It
governs the actions of the administrative apparatus. So they really
are ruling on feelings and ruling.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
On overreaching, overreaching, you know. And when I talked to
Democrats and they go, well, you know, you're supporting a
convicted felon, I said, hold on a minute, convicted for
over thirty counts. It's like who came after him in
who convicted him? And it's just it's got to be
people got to look at that whole discussion is a right,
(05:06):
I mean, just you got to discount that.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Correct. Now, we wrote off on a tangent two things
in which we don't want to take a lot of
time on. The brag prosecution was one of the most abysmal,
unfounded prosecutions that ever could have existed. I've written extensively
on it. You and I have discussed it in previous appearances.
(05:30):
Let me not spend time on that now. But even
if he was a convicted felon, and even if the
conviction was valid, that has absolutely nothing to do with
his powers as president of the United States and absolutely
nothing to do with what the federal court judges should
be doing in this litigation. You know what extreme. I
(05:53):
don't know how the Sercreme what's going to come out
on the tariffs or birthright citizenship. But all of the
cases involving the tar some birthright citizenship are normal federal
litigation over issues that they have every right to be deciding,
and that they're not really particularly deciding on an emotional basis.
(06:13):
There's a lot of emotion in the birthright citizenship cases,
but there's also precedent. There's also substantive issues there, and
they're discussing substantive issues the same thing tariffs. Is really
no emotion in the tariff decisions.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Go ahead, go ahead, I'm sorry no.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
So put those at one extreme, those are normal that
that litigation should be fought. Let me go an example
at the other extreme. A judge in San Francisco, Susan Elliston,
during the shutdown, held that the president couldn't lay off
any federal employees and she had discussed at length the
stress that federal employees have been under ever since Trump
(06:55):
was elected president and the trauma that they feel when
they were laid off. Now, maybe they're under stressed because
maybe they're liberal, and maybe it's traumatic to be laid off,
but layoffs happen every day, and the fact that they
may be under stress and the fact that it may
be traumatic doesn't mean the president lacked the right to
(07:18):
do what he did.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Absolutely one percent, one hundred percent, And I would imagine
this is not going to stop through his entire presidency,
and we'll see more and more of this. We will
certainly talk more about it. Kenn, thank you so much.
I appreciate you, buddy,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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
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.