January 13, 2023 • 19 mins
We continue to explore the different branches of government by learning all about the Judicial Branch. We're joined by Judge Don Willett to tell us what it does and how it all works.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Now this is the FCB Podcast Network, the Great US All Jaranys everything,
and they bought so Wayward America,Land of Hello and welcome back to the
(00:28):
Growing Patriot Podcast. I'm your hostAmelia Hamilton. In this episode, we
will continue to learn about the differentbranches of government by diving into the judicial
branch with one of the best guestsaround, my friend, Judge Don will
It. I'm Don will It.I'm a judge on the US Court of
(00:56):
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Asa judge, you know the judicial branch
pretty well. What does the judicialbranch do? What is their role in
the government. Well, judges likeme in courts like I serve on we
basically decide who is guilty and who'snot guilty if a crime has been committed.
(01:19):
And we decide maybe who was liableor who is not liable if somebody
committed a wrong against somebody else.We also decide whether what government is doing
is constitutional or not, whether itcomplies with kind of our supreme law of
(01:40):
the land. So that's really whatjudges do. We were these black robes
and set up on this bench andwe have all this snooty all these snooty
Latin phrases and legal lease, butwe are our goal. Unlike the political
branches, the other two branches,the executive branch, slative branch, they're
(02:00):
the so called political branches, andthey're elected and judges are meant to be
even handed. We're meant to beimpartial. We're not supposed to follow popular
opinion. We're supposed to be independent, high minded and just sort of do
(02:21):
what the law requires us to dowithout favoring anybody, without any thought to
what the consequences or the public reactionmight be. So we get in criminal
cases, did this person do ornot do what they're accused of? In
a civil case, is this personresponsible for something that happened to somebody else?
(02:44):
And also we try to figure outwhether what government is doing complies with
the constitution or Yes, we've definitelytalked a lot about the constitution, and
we just learned about the legislative branchin the last episode, so we can
see now how they pass the lawsand then it's up to the judicial branch
to figure out how it all worksin specific cases. Would that be a
(03:06):
good way to describe that, Yeah, that's perfect. So you know,
lawmakers, they pass laws and thepresident sort of executes or implements the law,
and the judges we decide whether theother two branches are doing things correctly
within kind of the guardrails that areput forward by the Constitution. All right,
(03:32):
Okay, so we've been talking alot about checks and balances, and
it sounds like maybe when you justthen, you were talking a little bit
about a check to make sure thatthey were doing things correctly. So how
does the judicial branch, how canthey check the other two Well, one
way we can check the other twobranches. We can declare something unconstitutional,
(03:54):
which I've done a few times,and it's a it's a really solid,
serious responsibility. We don't take itlightly. But sometimes the executive branch or
the legislative branch, they may takea shortcut, or they may not check
a box, or they may stumblein some fashion. But it's up to
(04:15):
us to say no, what youdo has to comply with the Constitution.
So I've written judicial opinions that declareactions that the other branches have taken.
I've declared those actions unconstitutional sometimes andurged them to go back and maybe try
again. But the Framers, youknow, when they gathered in Philadelphia way
(04:40):
back when they didn't tinker, Theydidn't sort of fiddle around the edges or
nibble incrementally. They really upbended things. This was an era of kings and
sultans around the globe, and theConstitution they put to other it really did
(05:01):
unveil this revolutionary design, these threeseparate and dependent, coequal branches of government
that are really sort of locked inthis synchronous orbit. Right. So I've
always joked that I think Isaac Newtonshould be an honorary founding father. And
(05:28):
I get that he was British andhe died even before James Madison, the
Father of the Constitution, was evenborn. But our constitution has this incredible
Newtonian genius to it, these threeseparate, independent branches that are kind of
locked into orbit, yeah snus orbit, and they're held there by competing interest.
(05:55):
I mean James Madison, again knownas the father of the Constitution.
It was a really ingenious design heand the other framers came up with,
but it rooted in that these branchesare each going to be ambitious, and
they're each going to flex and maybetry to seize power that is not rightly
(06:17):
theirs. And if the judiciary overreaches, the other two are expected to kind
of push back and guard their respectiveprerogatives. But he thought that every branch
would be ambitious and jealous of theirown respective kind of responsibility and sphere,
(06:39):
and when another branches sort of invades, you know, their space, the
thinking was they would push back andresist, and that is what sort of
keeps that synchronous orbit intact. Sowhat can those other two branches do when
if they think the legislative branch isgoing too far, how can they check
(07:01):
them back? Well, a president, if he doesn't like what the legislative
branch has passed, he can simplyveto it and say no. He has
a unilateral individual right to veto whateverlawmakers do. And then lawmakers can try
if they can muster the votes tooverride that veto, which is a pretty
(07:24):
high hurdle. Again, the judiciary, we can declare something even if it
gets passed, the legislature gets passed, you know, the president president signs
the bill, it becomes law.But that's not the end of it.
People may say, hey, thislaw, it may have passed, but
it doesn't pass muster, it doesn'thonor the Constitution and judges like me get
(07:49):
to decide whether something is constitutional ornot. So every branch has unique ways
that it can kind of push backand check the power of the other branches.
The frameworks were really nervous about concentratedpower. Yep, with good reasons,
that's right. They chose to separatepower so that not one branch becomes
(08:13):
two overwhelmingly powerful where they can kindof dictate how the country runs all by
themselves. So we talked about howthe laws get made and then come to
the judiciary. But what happens ifthe judges if they think a law is
kind of silly, or if maybeit's not constitutional, but they think it's
(08:35):
a really good law instead they likewhat it does. Does that ever happen
where your opinion just isn't the wayit's going to go. Yeah, there
are a lot of votes that Icast that are really like a punch in
the stomach where I really wish Icould vote the other way because I might
prefer the outcome to be different.But you know, the oath that I
(08:56):
took requires me not to put anykind of finger on the scale, not
to put my finger in the wind, not to try to imagine how the
public might respond to a vote thatI cast or an opinion that I write.
My paramount duty is to the Constitution, the oath that I swore as
(09:22):
to uphold the laws and the constitutionof the nation. And even if that
means I cast a vote that Imay not like, I cast a lot
of votes I don't like, ormy personal preference might run the other way.
But judges are duty bound, honorbound to vote the way the law
requires, without any thought to whetherthat makes them happy or said yep,
(09:50):
yep, that's the way it hasto be to stay fair. And we've
we've talked about, you know,about that a lot through the framing of
the Constitution. So we just talkedabout James Mattis Sin and going back even
further, who are some of thepeople who have influenced you to want to
be a judge and to do agood job to uphold that legacy of the
Constitution. This is kind of alonger answer, and it kind of goes
(10:15):
back to just kind of my personaljourney and story. So neither of my
parents finished high school, and Iwas adopted shortly after birth, and my
father passed away really young, hewas forty. I was six years old.
My mom, without a high schooldiploma, just did what a lot
of heroic mothers do, what probablymany of the moms of of the children
(10:39):
listening to this podcast did. Sheworked her heart out and she sacrificed to
support her family, my sister andme. My mom waited tables for fifty
five year. He was a waitress, mostly at the local truck stop that
ran along the interstate. So I'mthe first in my family to kind of
(11:01):
venture off beyond small town life andfinished high school and college. So it's
really kind of given me this profoundsense of gratitude, and it really kind
of kindled in me this desire tokind of pour myself out in public service.
So I've been a lawyer now forthirty years, but only two and
(11:26):
a half of that was in privatelaw practice. The rest has all been
in public service. So I've reallybeen fortunate. I've been able to work
for a Texas Attorney General, aTexas governor, a US Attorney General,
the President of the United States.For a couple of years, I was
on the Texas Supreme Court. Iwas a state Supreme Court justice for a
(11:50):
dozen years before I became a federalcourt of Appeals judge. So it is
a it's a life of public servicethat I've lived, and it's really been
spurred by this really deep and arich sense of gratitude I have. I'm
extravagantly fortunate, extravagantly blessed, andI don't think I'm cut out for the
(12:16):
hurly burly of the political branches,kind of the hyper partisan US versus them
approach of the Congress or the executivebranch. Judging kind of strikes me as
a really noble enterprise. It's justabout fulfilling a sworn legal duty. It's
(12:39):
not about ramming or jamming or crammingthrough your preferred policy or personal agenda.
It's just about getting the law rightand making sure people honor the Constitution.
And it just struck me judging isa noble way to serve and um,
(13:01):
it's high minded and it's goodhearted andit's civic spirited. And so that's how
I've chosen to to kind of pourmyself out in public service. That is
wonderful. I love that. Sowhat do you you talked about how it's
it's a noble profession, which Icertainly agree with. What do you think
that people get wrong about judges orthe judicial branch. I think a lot
(13:28):
of people view the courts as anotherpolitical branch of government that gets to impose
their own personal view. As wementioned earlier, there are a lot of
votes that I cast that I wishcould go the other way, but I
feel duty bound and honor bound tovote the way I do. There are
(13:52):
a lot of laws that Congress passes, maybe a lot of regulations that the
executive branch enacts that I think arereally dumb, that may be just foolish
or irrational, but it still maybe constitutional. Well they've done maybe maybe
(14:13):
silly, but it may be constitutional, perfectly legal, and I don't get
to strike it down because I thinkit's silly. And you know, Justice
Scalia used to joke that he oughtto have a stamp on his desk where
he can just stamp something dumb butconstitutional, And sometimes there are cases like
(14:37):
that. But you know, that'show the Constitution allocates power, is how
it divides power. Lawmakers get tomake laws, and judges we simply decide
whether the rules were followed correctly andwhether the Constitution was offended in some way,
(14:58):
and if not, then whatever Congressdid, they get to do.
Yep, all right, So aswe wrap up this episode, what is
the most important thing you want thekids to remember about the judicial branch That
judges like me, we don't havean agenda, We don't play favorites,
(15:26):
We don't, you know, putour finger on the scale to ensure that
a preferred group or cause gets towin. Our singular exclusive duty is to
the Constitution to making sure that thisgreat Charter of freedom is honored. I
(15:48):
mean, our founders they were imperfect, but they were inspired, and they
gave us a really rich civic inheritance. But at the bottom of all of
that is this really profound truth,which is that power ultimately doesn't reside in
(16:12):
judges like me. It doesn't residein members of Congress, it doesn't even
reside in the president. Ultimate sovereignty, ultimate power resides in the very first
three words of the Constitution, wethe people. It's not we the judges,
and it's not we the politicians.It's we the people. And that
(16:36):
was a radical notion back then thatpower is going to rest ultimately not in
government, but in the government.And so I want people to know that
this incredible gift we have, youknow, we live in the oldest republican
form of government on the planet.We have the oldest writtentional constitution on earth.
(17:03):
But self government is not self perpetuating. And it falls on each of
us and every generation to keep thisthing alive and vigorous and strong. And
those first three words we the people, and that is that's the secret sauce
of what makes America so unique inthe history of the world. And it
(17:29):
falls on each of your listeners todo their share. Yep, the big
responsibility, and I certainly appreciate everythingthat you are doing to uphold it.
Thanks f Amelia. That was sucha great overview of what the judicial branch
(17:56):
does, interpreting the laws created bythe legislation of branch and making sure that
everything is in line with the Constitution. And like Judge Willett said, it's
really important for a good judge notto let their personal opinion come into the
question. It's all about upholding thelaw, and that ultimate law is the
Constitution. We can't wait to seeyou next time when we do. The
(18:18):
third branch of government, the executivebranch, which you might know as the
President, can't wait to see younext time. The Great US solved the
granny everything, and they thought sowe working America. This has been a
(18:45):
presentation of the FCB podcast Network,where real talk lives. Visit us online
at FCB podcasts dot com.
Now this is the FCB Podcast Network, the Great US All Jaranys everything,
and they bought so Wayward America,Land of Hello and welcome back to the
(00:28):
Growing Patriot Podcast. I'm your hostAmelia Hamilton. In this episode, we
will continue to learn about the differentbranches of government by diving into the judicial
branch with one of the best guestsaround, my friend, Judge Don will
It. I'm Don will It.I'm a judge on the US Court of
(00:56):
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Asa judge, you know the judicial branch
pretty well. What does the judicialbranch do? What is their role in
the government. Well, judges likeme in courts like I serve on we
basically decide who is guilty and who'snot guilty if a crime has been committed.
(01:19):
And we decide maybe who was liableor who is not liable if somebody
committed a wrong against somebody else.We also decide whether what government is doing
is constitutional or not, whether itcomplies with kind of our supreme law of
(01:40):
the land. So that's really whatjudges do. We were these black robes
and set up on this bench andwe have all this snooty all these snooty
Latin phrases and legal lease, butwe are our goal. Unlike the political
branches, the other two branches,the executive branch, slative branch, they're
(02:00):
the so called political branches, andthey're elected and judges are meant to be
even handed. We're meant to beimpartial. We're not supposed to follow popular
opinion. We're supposed to be independent, high minded and just sort of do
(02:21):
what the law requires us to dowithout favoring anybody, without any thought to
what the consequences or the public reactionmight be. So we get in criminal
cases, did this person do ornot do what they're accused of? In
a civil case, is this personresponsible for something that happened to somebody else?
(02:44):
And also we try to figure outwhether what government is doing complies with
the constitution or Yes, we've definitelytalked a lot about the constitution, and
we just learned about the legislative branchin the last episode, so we can
see now how they pass the lawsand then it's up to the judicial branch
to figure out how it all worksin specific cases. Would that be a
(03:06):
good way to describe that, Yeah, that's perfect. So you know,
lawmakers, they pass laws and thepresident sort of executes or implements the law,
and the judges we decide whether theother two branches are doing things correctly
within kind of the guardrails that areput forward by the Constitution. All right,
(03:32):
Okay, so we've been talking alot about checks and balances, and
it sounds like maybe when you justthen, you were talking a little bit
about a check to make sure thatthey were doing things correctly. So how
does the judicial branch, how canthey check the other two Well, one
way we can check the other twobranches. We can declare something unconstitutional,
(03:54):
which I've done a few times,and it's a it's a really solid,
serious responsibility. We don't take itlightly. But sometimes the executive branch or
the legislative branch, they may takea shortcut, or they may not check
a box, or they may stumblein some fashion. But it's up to
(04:15):
us to say no, what youdo has to comply with the Constitution.
So I've written judicial opinions that declareactions that the other branches have taken.
I've declared those actions unconstitutional sometimes andurged them to go back and maybe try
again. But the Framers, youknow, when they gathered in Philadelphia way
(04:40):
back when they didn't tinker, Theydidn't sort of fiddle around the edges or
nibble incrementally. They really upbended things. This was an era of kings and
sultans around the globe, and theConstitution they put to other it really did
(05:01):
unveil this revolutionary design, these threeseparate and dependent, coequal branches of government
that are really sort of locked inthis synchronous orbit. Right. So I've
always joked that I think Isaac Newtonshould be an honorary founding father. And
(05:28):
I get that he was British andhe died even before James Madison, the
Father of the Constitution, was evenborn. But our constitution has this incredible
Newtonian genius to it, these threeseparate, independent branches that are kind of
locked into orbit, yeah snus orbit, and they're held there by competing interest.
(05:55):
I mean James Madison, again knownas the father of the Constitution.
It was a really ingenious design heand the other framers came up with,
but it rooted in that these branchesare each going to be ambitious, and
they're each going to flex and maybetry to seize power that is not rightly
(06:17):
theirs. And if the judiciary overreaches, the other two are expected to kind
of push back and guard their respectiveprerogatives. But he thought that every branch
would be ambitious and jealous of theirown respective kind of responsibility and sphere,
(06:39):
and when another branches sort of invades, you know, their space, the
thinking was they would push back andresist, and that is what sort of
keeps that synchronous orbit intact. Sowhat can those other two branches do when
if they think the legislative branch isgoing too far, how can they check
(07:01):
them back? Well, a president, if he doesn't like what the legislative
branch has passed, he can simplyveto it and say no. He has
a unilateral individual right to veto whateverlawmakers do. And then lawmakers can try
if they can muster the votes tooverride that veto, which is a pretty
(07:24):
high hurdle. Again, the judiciary, we can declare something even if it
gets passed, the legislature gets passed, you know, the president president signs
the bill, it becomes law.But that's not the end of it.
People may say, hey, thislaw, it may have passed, but
it doesn't pass muster, it doesn'thonor the Constitution and judges like me get
(07:49):
to decide whether something is constitutional ornot. So every branch has unique ways
that it can kind of push backand check the power of the other branches.
The frameworks were really nervous about concentratedpower. Yep, with good reasons,
that's right. They chose to separatepower so that not one branch becomes
(08:13):
two overwhelmingly powerful where they can kindof dictate how the country runs all by
themselves. So we talked about howthe laws get made and then come to
the judiciary. But what happens ifthe judges if they think a law is
kind of silly, or if maybeit's not constitutional, but they think it's
(08:35):
a really good law instead they likewhat it does. Does that ever happen
where your opinion just isn't the wayit's going to go. Yeah, there
are a lot of votes that Icast that are really like a punch in
the stomach where I really wish Icould vote the other way because I might
prefer the outcome to be different.But you know, the oath that I
(08:56):
took requires me not to put anykind of finger on the scale, not
to put my finger in the wind, not to try to imagine how the
public might respond to a vote thatI cast or an opinion that I write.
My paramount duty is to the Constitution, the oath that I swore as
(09:22):
to uphold the laws and the constitutionof the nation. And even if that
means I cast a vote that Imay not like, I cast a lot
of votes I don't like, ormy personal preference might run the other way.
But judges are duty bound, honorbound to vote the way the law
requires, without any thought to whetherthat makes them happy or said yep,
(09:50):
yep, that's the way it hasto be to stay fair. And we've
we've talked about, you know,about that a lot through the framing of
the Constitution. So we just talkedabout James Mattis Sin and going back even
further, who are some of thepeople who have influenced you to want to
be a judge and to do agood job to uphold that legacy of the
Constitution. This is kind of alonger answer, and it kind of goes
(10:15):
back to just kind of my personaljourney and story. So neither of my
parents finished high school, and Iwas adopted shortly after birth, and my
father passed away really young, hewas forty. I was six years old.
My mom, without a high schooldiploma, just did what a lot
of heroic mothers do, what probablymany of the moms of of the children
(10:39):
listening to this podcast did. Sheworked her heart out and she sacrificed to
support her family, my sister andme. My mom waited tables for fifty
five year. He was a waitress, mostly at the local truck stop that
ran along the interstate. So I'mthe first in my family to kind of
(11:01):
venture off beyond small town life andfinished high school and college. So it's
really kind of given me this profoundsense of gratitude, and it really kind
of kindled in me this desire tokind of pour myself out in public service.
So I've been a lawyer now forthirty years, but only two and
(11:26):
a half of that was in privatelaw practice. The rest has all been
in public service. So I've reallybeen fortunate. I've been able to work
for a Texas Attorney General, aTexas governor, a US Attorney General,
the President of the United States.For a couple of years, I was
on the Texas Supreme Court. Iwas a state Supreme Court justice for a
(11:50):
dozen years before I became a federalcourt of Appeals judge. So it is
a it's a life of public servicethat I've lived, and it's really been
spurred by this really deep and arich sense of gratitude I have. I'm
extravagantly fortunate, extravagantly blessed, andI don't think I'm cut out for the
(12:16):
hurly burly of the political branches,kind of the hyper partisan US versus them
approach of the Congress or the executivebranch. Judging kind of strikes me as
a really noble enterprise. It's justabout fulfilling a sworn legal duty. It's
(12:39):
not about ramming or jamming or crammingthrough your preferred policy or personal agenda.
It's just about getting the law rightand making sure people honor the Constitution.
And it just struck me judging isa noble way to serve and um,
(13:01):
it's high minded and it's goodhearted andit's civic spirited. And so that's how
I've chosen to to kind of pourmyself out in public service. That is
wonderful. I love that. Sowhat do you you talked about how it's
it's a noble profession, which Icertainly agree with. What do you think
that people get wrong about judges orthe judicial branch. I think a lot
(13:28):
of people view the courts as anotherpolitical branch of government that gets to impose
their own personal view. As wementioned earlier, there are a lot of
votes that I cast that I wishcould go the other way, but I
feel duty bound and honor bound tovote the way I do. There are
(13:52):
a lot of laws that Congress passes, maybe a lot of regulations that the
executive branch enacts that I think arereally dumb, that may be just foolish
or irrational, but it still maybe constitutional. Well they've done maybe maybe
(14:13):
silly, but it may be constitutional, perfectly legal, and I don't get
to strike it down because I thinkit's silly. And you know, Justice
Scalia used to joke that he oughtto have a stamp on his desk where
he can just stamp something dumb butconstitutional, And sometimes there are cases like
(14:37):
that. But you know, that'show the Constitution allocates power, is how
it divides power. Lawmakers get tomake laws, and judges we simply decide
whether the rules were followed correctly andwhether the Constitution was offended in some way,
(14:58):
and if not, then whatever Congressdid, they get to do.
Yep, all right, So aswe wrap up this episode, what is
the most important thing you want thekids to remember about the judicial branch That
judges like me, we don't havean agenda, We don't play favorites,
(15:26):
We don't, you know, putour finger on the scale to ensure that
a preferred group or cause gets towin. Our singular exclusive duty is to
the Constitution to making sure that thisgreat Charter of freedom is honored. I
(15:48):
mean, our founders they were imperfect, but they were inspired, and they
gave us a really rich civic inheritance. But at the bottom of all of
that is this really profound truth,which is that power ultimately doesn't reside in
(16:12):
judges like me. It doesn't residein members of Congress, it doesn't even
reside in the president. Ultimate sovereignty, ultimate power resides in the very first
three words of the Constitution, wethe people. It's not we the judges,
and it's not we the politicians.It's we the people. And that
(16:36):
was a radical notion back then thatpower is going to rest ultimately not in
government, but in the government.And so I want people to know that
this incredible gift we have, youknow, we live in the oldest republican
form of government on the planet.We have the oldest writtentional constitution on earth.
(17:03):
But self government is not self perpetuating. And it falls on each of
us and every generation to keep thisthing alive and vigorous and strong. And
those first three words we the people, and that is that's the secret sauce
of what makes America so unique inthe history of the world. And it
(17:29):
falls on each of your listeners todo their share. Yep, the big
responsibility, and I certainly appreciate everythingthat you are doing to uphold it.
Thanks f Amelia. That was sucha great overview of what the judicial branch
(17:56):
does, interpreting the laws created bythe legislation of branch and making sure that
everything is in line with the Constitution. And like Judge Willett said, it's
really important for a good judge notto let their personal opinion come into the
question. It's all about upholding thelaw, and that ultimate law is the
Constitution. We can't wait to seeyou next time when we do. The
(18:18):
third branch of government, the executivebranch, which you might know as the
President, can't wait to see younext time. The Great US solved the
granny everything, and they thought sowe working America. This has been a
(18:45):
presentation of the FCB podcast Network,where real talk lives. Visit us online
at FCB podcasts dot com.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
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.