September 12, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – Dark Clouds Surrounding SCOTUS
Seg 2 – Supreme Court Faces the Activists
Seg 3 – An All-New SCOTUS Season – Part 1
Seg 4 - An All-New SCOTUS Season – Part 2
Seg 2 – Supreme Court Faces the Activists
Seg 3 – An All-New SCOTUS Season – Part 1
Seg 4 - An All-New SCOTUS Season – Part 2
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, welome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelides.
Today we are talking Supreme Court, what's coming up on
the docket and what kind of things are happening in
the media that seek to derail the legitimacy of the
nation's highest court. Remember Liberty Nation radiosponsor by liberty Nation
dot Com. You can access podcast breaking news analysis and arrangement,
(00:56):
biting and but in shows to what your apsite for
freedom and your fondness for the great American Constitution. And
you're back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I remain your host, Mark
Aldis when we're very forgeed to have with us back
in the virtual studio, mister Scott Cassenza Esquire, Scott Decassenza, Esquire,
Liberty Nations, Legal Affairs Editor, Man about Town and found
(01:18):
of all things judicial. Scott, thanks for being here.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
And I'm joining you today from where it all happened, Mark,
the City of Brotherly Love, oh Las Vegas, Independence man.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Right, Sorry, of course, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, the streets of as
as the Bard once sang. So, Scott, I had to
drag you in. I know how incredibly busy you are,
following the legal trends that are happening across the country
and preserving liberty one generation at a time. But I
(01:50):
had to drag you in here because NBC came out
with this tell from a series of judges, a group
of judges. I'm not sure what the correct collective now
for that is. That's called it a gaggle of judges
or a murder. Well, they do wear the black like
the crowth. A murder of justices or judges and or
(02:14):
judges discussing their opinions on where the Supreme Court's going wrong. Scott,
tell me it ain't so. I thought that the whole
world accepted that, you know, the Supreme when it's the
final arbater of truth.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
When the Court does.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
What they like, it is, and when it doesn't what
they don't like, then obviously there's some issues that we
have to get into. Mark, And that's just the nature
of things, you know. That's why when Joe Biden was president,
we had to The impetus was to add justices to
the court. And maybe they'll try to take some away
now I don't know, but yeah, these things, you know,
they change with the headlines. And whether platters in fashion
(02:55):
or copy is good for you, It depends on you know,
who's making that call.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
They can tell a hawk from a hand, So if
the wind blows right, I think that's that's how they're saying,
isn't it. So how unusual is it? For now? I'm
sure judges in their personal life and perhaps even in
their regular writings make criticisms of Supreme Court decisions. But
to sort of ban together as a collective and then
(03:22):
speak to an outlet for a big exclusive a dozen judges,
how unusual is that?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Oh? Well, that's that is unusual.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
So, just to address your discussion of judges criticisms, lower
Court judges criticisms of the Supreme Court. Judges are free
to criticize Supreme Court decision making, and they very much
do so, and many of them the best of the
matter of fact, some of the best of the lower
court judges, the most highly regarded throughout history, were ones
(03:56):
that would take a part a Supreme Court case in
the right way through their exquisite legal analysis and force
of argument concerning the legal points, not on the more
you know, opiniony points or derangement kind of things, and
not as a political move.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
This was a political move by these judges.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
When a judge writes critically about a Supreme Court opinion
in their judging, if they have a case before them
that gives the court the opportunity to consider that argument,
they coun or they you know, they may or they
may not. But what that lower court judge may not
do is impose their own judgment that then overturns or
supersedes the Supreme Court's judgment in a place.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
So if the Supreme Court says has said that.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Women do have the right to an abortion or do
not have the right to an abortion per the ruling
and Row Vwaid, you know, lower Court judges, and we
all know, you know, it's a highly divisive issue, right,
so whatever way that opinion would go, you're going to
get a significant number of judges on either side who
would think the other way. They're free to write in
a decision about that, you know why they disagree with
the latest ruling from the court, but they're not free
(05:04):
to just enforce their own ruling.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
That is absolutely out.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Yes. So one of the the key comments I got
from that was that the justices on the Supreme Court
were being criticized and I quote, because they don't have
our backs, our backs being the collective judges. And to
me it seems now, I'm not a lawyer, and so
(05:29):
I have no station. And by the way, as I swear,
but it seems to me that a justice on the
Supreme Court having the back of a lower court justice
is not what the Supreme Court's for.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
The The Wire television series, which which I revere, has
a scene in it where this police officer is talking
to several people, and one of those folks as an attorney,
and the attorneys you're not a lawyer, and he says,
why would anybody pretend to be a lawyer who wasn't
one like it was the crossest thing in the world
(06:05):
of the base. I yes, I appreciate your non lawyer status. Mark, Yeah,
it's preposterous. This had your back thing is part of
the notion of people who want judges to do the
right thing, and not in the sense of doing the
right thing by upholding their oath to strictly apply the
Constitution to the laws and their enforcement, but meaning like
(06:28):
lookout for people. So if you consider, for instance, whether
or not the Constitution prohibits something that you might like
to not see, if you're helping each other out, you
may say, well, okay, we're going to allow this prohibition
even though it's not really in the text or the
other way around.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I'll take the opposite of do the right thing. For instance.
And this just popped up in the news.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
A week and a half ago was the flag burning
issue where Donald Trump put out a memorandum and a
lot of people and I'm one of those people, thought
that it likely infringed on our First Amendment right to
constitutionally protected free speech and justice. Scalia famously opposed flag burning,
thought that people shouldn't burn the flag, thought it was
(07:13):
an abomination, and also said that the Constitution protected us
from it. So for you could imagine somebody in his
circle saying, like, do the right thing help us out,
means let this thing that we want to be banned
continue to be banned. But his integrity forced him to say, no,
it's not okay to ban this. Now, that doesn't mean
this positively it is or it isn't free speech. Although
(07:35):
I do agree with Justice Scalia on the matter. But
this is also the case in many other instances where
it's like affirmative action, like, of course it violates the
Civil Rights Acts.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
He says, you.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Can't discriminate on race, and yet here we are discriminating
on race. So you invent this thing where actually we're
not talking about just racial discrimination. We're only talking about
beneficial discrimination. And that's the helping that conservatives and libertarians
typically a shoe.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
If the law needs to be.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Changed, the law should be changed the way it was
enacted by its authorship in the people's house, the legislature,
and then weighed in on by the executive. But it's
not up to the Supreme Court or any court we
would say, generally speaking to you know, to make laws.
It's just to decide whether they're lawful or lawfully enforced
or not.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
We're going to be back on this conversation this showbreak,
don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
And You'wbecca on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain Mark Anceeliti's
and we continue our conversation with Liberty Nations Legal affairs
editor mister Scott. The cossends aout Scott. Earlier in the show,
we were talking about the recent NBC exclusive regarding I
love that. By the way, I'm gonna.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Stop you right there. Mark.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
We were talking about the letter that these judges signed
that criticize the Supreme Court, and I have to stop
you because you described it as an exclusive.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
And what's the most important or not important?
Speaker 4 (09:14):
The most interesting aspect of that story to me is
how did this come about? How did these judges happened
to write this whole thing and have it published at
the NBC portal.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And you know you're the you're.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
The managing managing editor of Libertynation dot com ark where
you offered the exclusive right to publish this criticism of
the Supreme Court by these judges.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
So my best guess here Scott would be that these
civic minded judges across the country just coincidentally got it
into their head at the same time to send off
a letter to NBC and it all just happened to
jive together. And then some plucky young reporter in the
poll room said, hey, you know what I've got, these twelves,
(10:01):
let's put it together into an article. What do you think?
Speaker 4 (10:04):
We know that that's zero and the coordinated campaign of
it tells us all we need to know about it.
If it was one judge writing one letter, I would
feel a lot differently or think a lot differently about
it than I do now I know. I mean the
fact that that part about it wasn't even discussed in
the article, sure it tells you. I think everything we
need to know about it. This is just a court
(10:26):
you know. It's a coordinated campaign to move the needle,
not based on legal writings and scholarly work, but instead
politics and opinion. And of course I think those judges,
while they'll lose, you know, the respect of those of
us who thinks they should they should keep their trap
shut when it comes to politics, is because they're judges.
I'm sure that their dinner party Circuit is going to
(10:48):
be more filled than ever because of their open and
notorious hatred for you know, the anti progressive, anti Wok agenda.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Absolutely right. So there's really let's just clarify some things
of it. There's really nothing that the judges involved in
this can do right other than get themselves nominated to
the expanded Supreme Court. When a Democrat event, you know, Pow, when.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
You sent me some ideas for our discussion and you said,
the way you phrased it specifically is like, what can
they do to like? I wish I had it in
front of me because I thought of redress there, redress,
that's what you said for redress. And I thought, oh,
this is a perfect a perfectly a termed question because
we all have the same right to redress. When the
(11:37):
Supreme Court does something we don't like, we can try
to get a constitutional amendment and acted if they say
the Constitution established a certain thing, we can get below
that just federal law changed.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Also, we can, just like so many.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to do, get more
justices added to the court, change the composition of the court,
change their jurisdiction, vote a different party into office. Is gonna,
you know, change things. But but they cannot do anything
from their perch on the bench because without question, they
are lower status. They are nothing. They're you know what
(12:15):
they are. They are literally the people who do the
job that is beneath the Supreme Court. And I mean
that in terms of their judging. They do the bric
a brac, they do the every day the humdrum. You
want fries with that, that's what you get at the
district court level. It's the more advanced and for all
(12:36):
the foodies in the audience, Mark and I both are
and you know that is the Nichelin three star right
versus the fast food joint at the district court level.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
And that is a good sunned answer. So one of
the criticisms that they had, uh, and I can actually
see why this would resonate with a certain segment of
the audience for which it was was that the justices
aren't explaining their decisions in a way that these lower
(13:08):
court judges would like. Now for me, I could yeah,
I've got about fifteen reasons why and it doesn't take
a big a district judge to figure that out.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
But Scot you take the So these judges are brilliant people.
By the way, just because I don't like the way
they do their jobs and the things that they write,
doesn't mean that they're not wicked smart and they're very accomplished,
and you'd be wrong to think that anything they did
wasn't you know, by design or well considered. So, you know,
(13:40):
I think that one of the things that's interesting about
it is you said that for their audience, and we
don't even know who their audience is, Like, their audience
may be a dean at a law school they're trying
to impress to get a professorship or their their wife's whatever,
so that they don't get you know, so that they
get hero points for attacking you know, the Trump And
that's that. That's the thing that I just think is, uh,
(14:02):
it is kind of funny about it. And also, of
course as an investigative piece, i'd like to see who
the ring leader was. Somebody passed this around, you know,
this was a thing that you know, back to the
origin story of it all.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
So they're they're saying that the Supreme Court justices' they're
playing their cards too close to their chest when they're
giving out well when they're making rulings and reading between
the laws.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, I thought I answered your question, but maybe I didn't.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
They specifically mean in cases that go that tend to
favor Donald Trump is what they're talking about.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Yeah, but that's not true. My point was that these
district court judges and they know what the Supreme Court
and guidance on this is, and they're not following that
guidance because of any number of reasons. I would be
you know, it would be a bit speculation, but I
mean I do I suspect Trump arrangement syndrome. Yes, I
do suspect Trump with syndrome or just as such a wilfulness.
(15:03):
One of the things we saw during the end days
of the Biden administration was, I think, by a fair reading,
some fairly radical, leftist and progressive judges who it's a
real tragedy that we don't have minority participation in our
judge picking.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Meaning if the.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate, they just pushed
through whoever they want. And the same thing is true
with the Democrats and the old system, where the minority
had to at least be you know, discussed the choices,
and they had some veto so that the worst of
both sides didn't get in was I think way better
(15:44):
for the country.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
But now I.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
Think that maybe it's just if you looked at and
I've done this, I've written about it for the site
the Radicals, that they were able to just push through
and who knows, of course bringing up another topic, did
Joe Biden really know about these people or who is
the person who actually picked these judges and sent their
names to the Senate, you know, for for consideration. So
(16:09):
I just think Mark that they know what they're doing.
And I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't taken
the gloves off even more. And I suspect it is
one reason only, which is John Roberts wish to try.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
To go along to get along.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
He is very much of you know, he doesn't like
to move fast or you know, take big strides in
any any regard, I think, which is probably one thing.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
For a Chief Justice. One more question on this topic, Scott.
It seems to me the the recent writings in dissent,
usually by Justice Ktanji Brown Jackson, almost encouraging the lower
courts too. It's like almost like an invitation to call
(16:54):
Scott's legitimacy into question. Because she's she's lambasting her fellow
justices in the rulings.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Your take, Mark, I share the opinion that Justice Ktandy
Brown Jackson's rulings do seem.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
To do that.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
And I think that Jay, she's a baby justice. She
hasn't been on the court that long, and and she's
not that she doesn't have that conservative kind of institutionalist,
you know, mindset. And yeah, I think it's not cool
and she shouldn't do it, But you know, I wouldn't
call it a hanging offense. I just wish you would
(17:37):
stop because it invites this kind of thing which conservatives
and libertarians may actually get a benefit from it, because
what could happen is the pushback from the court could
actually shut down a significant amount of the play that
they have, they being the left who are district court justices.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (18:01):
It's like it's sort of like it's sort of like, okay,
you can talk quietly amongst yourself as long as you
can handle yourself. If you're the classroom, and if your
classrooms were like mine as a kid, inevitably the whispers
would grow to a roar, and then the teacher would
come in and say okay, now there's no talking at all.
You basically you've ruined it, you know, like your your
discretionary powers. And I could see that happening with the
court the courts in some significant way where the Supreme Court,
(18:24):
because if everybody doesn't know.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
The supre wort is the boss of the district.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
Courts in a certain way. They don't choose those judges.
That's done by the executives confirmed by the Senate. But
in terms of how they how they rule and make
their rulings and the rules that they follow, that's all
done basically. It's John Roberts and his colleagues on the
Court that determine all that.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
So dun'ton I was gonna use some unsuitable layers at
dunton Noy, the Chief Justice, if you're banking on his
support for anything until we'll be back with Scott after
this shortbreak.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
No, that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Andrewbecca on Limbity Nation radio head Coast to Coast on
the Radio America Network. I remain your host, Mark Antonti's
and we're continuing a lungful conversation with Scott Cassenzo, Esquire,
Liberty Nations Legal Affairs Editor. Thanks for sticking around, Scott,
so my pleasure. We've got to face it. It's almost October.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
We're get to face it, Mark, not got to face it.
Get to face it the new term.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Get to face it? What is this?
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Is this something new term of the United States Supreme Court?
The October term. Yeah, it's a new season.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It's pitchers and catchers report for those baseball maniacs or
spring training for football.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
So we've not got any new players on the court
this term, but we do have new cases and we
have quite a chunky emergency docket taking place. What are
you looking forward to the most in the coming court term, Scott?
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Okay, Well, so maybe we should explain the merits docket
versus the emergency docket since you brought it up, which
is Merritt's claims are case, He said, bubble up from
the lower courts. There's a dispute I. You know, my
local county government says I have to pay one hundred
dollars fine if I don't put my trash out on
(20:49):
Tuesday night. I don't do it, and I say, it's
my constitutional right to put it out whenever I like,
I sue. It goes through the district court or the
state court, district court, appellate court, and then if they
choose to take the case of the Supreme Court, that's
a merits dock. At the emergency docket is and we've
seen so much of it with Trump that that's what
we get. Is there's a district court ruling, and this
(21:09):
isn't where they all go, but just for instance, it
imposes a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration from enacting
some rule. And then they run to the appellate courts,
who say, leave the district court order in place while
we fight it out. And then the Supreme Court may
may say, okay, district Court, you cannot enforce the ban
(21:30):
on this while it's being fought out. And those are
the kind of things or the opposite, and having that challenged,
that's the emergency docket. It's the merits docket, though that
I think we're going to talk about the most and
there's a.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Few interesting cases.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
One case involves a Bible belt state attorney general going
after the donors of a pro abortion group to try
to attack them.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Oh no, wait, I'm sorry, Mark, I got the facts
wrong on that or of course, but.
Speaker 4 (22:12):
Instead it's a progressive attorney general who is attacking an
anti abortion group in New Jersey and trying to get
their donor lists, which that had been decided. Actually, I
don't have the site in front of me. I'm sorry,
but I think it was in the thirties, but in
a famous landmark case where it was in the South
(22:33):
and it was people trying to get the NAACP donor list,
which you might imagine is a graded position on free speech.
And the New Jersey authorities are notoriously hostile to those
who exhibit anti abortion messaging. And that case is First
Choice Woman's Resource Center. The plotkin so definitely.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Be what's the question before the court on that.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Well, the question is whether the attorney general rules.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Uh discovery demands are within the bounds of the Constitution
or without or they violate the free speech rights of
those who give money to First Choice Woman's Resource interview Plotkin.
He doesn't like their messaging. It was effective, and you know,
the claim is that that it was.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
I think misleading.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
But these these attorney general investigations that are political are
notoriously awful. And on both sides, Uh, the attorneys general
have almost yeah, their their power, I can unchecked.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Is maybe a bit rich, but boy, it seems like
it's closer.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
It's a broad sweet.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I think that that is an interesting case, that one,
because and this should be a shout from the rooftop
that what you do with your money is a form
of expression and therefore you know protected under the First
Amendment what you do with your well, let let's let's
not there are many things you can do with your
(24:02):
money that are not protected by the Constitution. But in terms.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Paying for speech though, yes, is hey, if you paid
for Libelis or Slanderer's speech, you would be liable for it, sure,
you know, so why wouldn't it be Why wouldn't you
be entitled to the protections from free speech if you're
paying for protected free speech. And the other thing is,
we can't pretend that there isn't this political reason behind it.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It is sought for, you know, it would be one thing.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
If it was the imposition the court often and now
maybe we'll see a revisit of this in the wake
of what's happened with the global pandemic that we just
went through. But if it's a medical reason, maybe you
get a more of an imposition rather than the nakedly
you know, infringing on people's free speech rights reason. So
(24:55):
we will track it.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
It's a very exciting case. What else are you looking
out for?
Speaker 4 (25:00):
Okay, Well, the trans youth cases in sports continue. I
wonder sometimes about how many years are going to be,
you know, sorting through these issues. But it's a West
Virginia case and it involves somebody who is a trans
woman who wishes to compete against biological women in I
(25:21):
think track and field or cross country. And the case
got to the Supreme Court to answer two questions. It's
the same question with respect to both laws. One is
the Civil Rights Act of something Title nine, excuse me,
Title nine, nineteen sixty four.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Sixty four.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
And the second one is whether the equal protection clause
of our Constitution a fourteenth Amendment, prohibits West Virginia or
allows West Virginia to delineate youth government school team sport
participation based on by logical sex determined birth.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
That is the question presented before the court.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
There with these particular types of cases, it seems there
are there are as many angles of legal legal there
as many legal avenues that will be explored over the months,
and yeah, as there are alleged genders to choose from.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
And almost that's still growing. Or have we reached a
peak peak peak peak peak gender much like those who
envisioned peak oil, it's never coming. There's there's never going
to be a peak on this.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
There's always more oil, there's always more genders.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Well, you know, if you if you depending on what
you believe, you know that's the gender is an identity
and everybody has an identity, and some people have more
than one, and therefore there's at least eight billion and
you know, I mean it's an argument I'm counting. Hopefully
they're not all going to be made at the Supreme
(27:03):
Court and there will be at some point a clear,
bright line ruling on what is and what is because
I think what happens now is things aren't getting done.
You know, everybody's too scared to go one way or
the other on both sides of the argument, and there's
(27:23):
a lot of activism on both sides of the argument
when what's really needed is this is the law of
the land. This is how it should be applied. And
for example, for example, something like the Bruin decision which
came out I think that was two years ago, the
Brewined decision came out and it broadly said things have
(27:47):
to work towards fulfilling what the Second Amendment says. So
anything that seems tangential, just stay away from it. Follow
the ruling for the Second Amendment, follow what the second
moment is. And I think something like that is needed.
Is something like that likely to occur, not necessarily in
this case, but on this topic.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
Yeah, that is so speculative, Mark, I don't know, there's
a you know, I would say to you that that
that Bruined guidance. That is how the court more typically
operates in terms of it nudgets rather than you know,
blocks in a more forceful way.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
And that's appropriate.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Meaning you don't want the court to be wildly swinging,
you know, you want it to be slow and steady
because of so much of how it so much of
what it does impacts every area of our of our existence.
That's part of the thing that conservatives of libertarians, you know,
kind of grouse about with the Court, with everything being
(28:52):
a court issue. Basically you have one or two justices
then controlling the republic in terms of what's legal, what's not,
how we bank, how we what we can watch on TV,
teach our kids, all this stuff. And Scalia, you know,
Scalia was great. You know, one of the things that
we don't have now much as are the private thoughts
(29:13):
of Supreme Court justice outside of the arguments and uh
uh and their opinions and uh that wasn't always true.
Justice Scalia would often appear on like PBS roundtables and
stuff like that. You can see a lot of it,
uh on YouTube. But he always argued that, you know,
he was not a great arbiter of how Americans should
you know, how the world should be basically, you know,
(29:33):
it's like this should be decided by uh, the elected representatives,
not a couple people at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Well, it's funny you mentioned that because there's a This
isn't an ad, by the way, uh for anybody. We
don't do ads on this, but there is The Daily
Wire has something with Clarence Thomas out. It's either out
now Tom recording what's coming soon about Clarence Thomas in
his own words. And I believe the Free Press got
(30:04):
quite a good interview with Justice Amy Coney Barrett this
last week, so that there there are we are seeing
more outreach to the general public, which either could be
a sign of the times or it could be in
response to this this NBC exclusive that we.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
You know, the best, the best revenge for a Supreme
Court does it doesn't say nothing. Keep like, look at
Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Who's who's got the best revenge? He never said a
peep about it. He just kept his mouth shut. And
now he's you know, he's living the dream.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
He's the terminator unleashed for his disapprovement judicial thought. I
guess we're gonna be back with Scott after this show break.
Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides.
Speaker 3 (31:06):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. Continue our conversation
with Liberty Nations, making the President to Scott Descenda Esquire. Scott,
we've been talking about the the upcoming cases for the
new Supreme Court term, and a couple of doozies so far.
If you haven't seen that segment, go back and watch it.
It's superb. But I suspect you're saving the best to
(31:26):
the last for me, Scott h.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Not necessarily No, the uh next case?
Speaker 3 (31:32):
What's that last segment? Twice?
Speaker 4 (31:36):
We're recording this the second weekend, the second week of September.
And one of the things we've seen in previous in
recent previous years is that the Supreme Court has added
some really blockbuster kind of cases after their return from
recess and before they they start in October or as
(31:57):
as the it's ongoing, so the best is not necessarily present,
but some interesting ones. This is the kind of case
that I really like because of the way it impacts
preconceived notions and politics. This Landor versus a Louisiana Department
of Corrections involves this mister Landor who was a Rastafarian
(32:22):
who did not cut his hair for I don't know
if those twenty or thirty years, but a significant length
of time, and then was transferred to a penitentiary in Louisiana,
and a guarter warden there decided that his hair was
not well kept and not commensurate with that institution's requirements
(32:44):
and ordered him to be restrained and have his hair
cut involuntarily from his body. And he gave the guy
who the decision maker in that little moment, maybe not
like the head of the thing that wasn't in the room,
but he provided a copy of a federal court order
that said that the Louisiana law that allowed that was
(33:06):
violative of his federal rights. And so he's got a claim.
Now here's what's kind of peculiar about this case. He's
suing individually.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
He wants to sue.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
The person who ordered it done, because basically, it's like
the giving of the order says, you've been presented with
this order, you've chosen to ignore it, so you willfully
violated the federal court ruling. I shouldn't just be limited
to suing the Louisiana Department of Corrections, for instance, but
I should be able to sue you personally, you the
(33:41):
employee who did this to me. And if you flip
the facts around, okay and make it a kind of
more conservative friendly exposition.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
So if it was a.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
Bureaucrat in New York City who denied somebody their gun permit,
it because they didn't like it even though the federal court.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Said you have to issue this or something like that.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
You know, we can think about these things on different
sides of the political spectrum. Would do we want the
ability to hold individuals personally liable when they violate the
rights of others in their roles as uh, you know,
as government actors. So I think that maybe we won't
in the end reach that decision on the merits something
(34:25):
we you know, might mention just because it's always good
to refresh people's understanding of the court. A lot of
times they don't get to the actual issue that we
might think is the issue of in the case, because
number one, they're motivated not to if they if they
don't have to extend themselves to change a law or
overturn something, they'd prefer not to.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
So if there's.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
A statutory or standing reason why land Or might not
get you know, get his wish like you expect that.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
But in any case, we'll we'll keep up on it.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
There's a case about political financing called National Republicans Senatorial
Committee versus the Federal Election Commission, which deals with whether
or not candidates and candidate whether candidate committees and the
candidates themselves may coordinate messaging with political parties. There's a
prohibition on doing so because of campaign finance law.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
JD. Vance and a number of other senators.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Sued, you know, obviously is back when he was a
senator to say this should be abolished. It's an imposition
on an impermissionble imposition in our free speech rates.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Why can't we collaborate as we message?
Speaker 4 (35:30):
And I think that it's a no brainer that almost
all these you know, we spoke earlier about money being
speech in some capacity, Well is where could it be
more speech than in a political campaign where we're literally
messaging about, you know, what we want to do with
the office that we're running for.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
The loss of liberty is never more than one generation away.
So Scott, I want to ask you about and you
might not have the details to hand here, so I
hope I'm not putting you too much on the spot.
But I know a lot of people are, and myself
are curious about what we know. Regarding Trump's efforts to
(36:08):
end so called birthright citizenship, he said that he's made
the case that people who are born to somebody who
is here temporarily or here illegally should not be a
US citizen, and you know, looking through the people actually
(36:30):
wrote to the Constitution, looking at their writings, he seems
to have a point, doesn't he That was their intent.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
You have opened up a discussion for a seminar class
on we looked at the plane language. I think, you know,
there are many philosophies and how we It's only the
Constitution says this is how you should examine whether a
law is constitutional or not. There are many ways in
which justices and others think that we should. I would
(36:58):
think that we should look to the planelaneguage. If the
plane language under the plainly understood terms of that language
at the time, then we're good. And if not, then
maybe we look to other things like intent, or we
just say it's undiscoverable and we'll have to start, you know,
come up with something new.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
But intent is not.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
Devoid of value. It's just way less value than what's
on the page. You can imagine if we were both
legislators looking at whether we were going to gote for
or against a build that's up for vote. Our intent
as to what that thing is maybe express or whatever.
But what's important is what the law sets, and we
(37:40):
may vote yes or No, not based on anything about
our intemp, but a specific you know, one word change
for instance. So that's the superior what's on the page,
whether it's the Constitution or federal laws or federal regulations,
what's on the page is what they should go with,
and then intent or any other judging should come behind it.
As far as the birthright citizenship thing goes on the intent,
(38:02):
I actually haven't looked at the intent much. It does
seem to me silly to think that the Founders would
have wanted like the British ambassador's children to be US
citizens by virtue of their birth here shortly after he
arrived in America, for instance. That you know, but we'll
be paying attention to the reporting on it on the
pages of Deliverynation dot com.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
And final question for you, Scott, do you think this
coming session of the Supreme Court epic will be as
interesting and fascinating as full as the last one?
Speaker 2 (38:35):
No?
Speaker 4 (38:35):
I don't think so, because I think there's more maturity
with the whole dealing with these Trump challenges, and I
think Katanji Brown Jackson will be a little bit more
reserved and mature in her justice saying. I guess we
could see Sony Soda on my own. Really, if the
derangement syndrome, you.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Know, goes off the rails with her, it could be fireworks.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
But yeah, I feel like there's there's been such movement
on such landmarks that there's always exciting things happening at
the Court. But in terms of like really blockbuster, like
are the ratings for this season going to outpace the
ratings for last season?
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Mark?
Speaker 3 (39:15):
I don't think so well. You know, seasons usually get
TV shows usually get pretty bad by about season three
or four, and we're much higher than that on the
Supreme Court. Scott, thanks for being here sure, as Mark.
And that's a wrap for this show of Liberty Nation
Radio Head Coast Coast on the Radio American Network. I've
been your host, Mark Anslidis. I like to thank our
guest today, Scott Cascenza, Liberty Nations, the Legal Affairs editor,
(39:38):
and of course thank you the listeners at home who
take the time each week to tune in and join
the fun. Please do remember Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, welome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelides.
Today we are talking Supreme Court, what's coming up on
the docket and what kind of things are happening in
the media that seek to derail the legitimacy of the
nation's highest court. Remember Liberty Nation radiosponsor by liberty Nation
dot Com. You can access podcast breaking news analysis and arrangement,
(00:56):
biting and but in shows to what your apsite for
freedom and your fondness for the great American Constitution. And
you're back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I remain your host, Mark
Aldis when we're very forgeed to have with us back
in the virtual studio, mister Scott Cassenza Esquire, Scott Decassenza, Esquire,
Liberty Nations, Legal Affairs Editor, Man about Town and found
(01:18):
of all things judicial. Scott, thanks for being here.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
And I'm joining you today from where it all happened, Mark,
the City of Brotherly Love, oh Las Vegas, Independence man.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Right, Sorry, of course, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, the streets of as
as the Bard once sang. So, Scott, I had to
drag you in. I know how incredibly busy you are,
following the legal trends that are happening across the country
and preserving liberty one generation at a time. But I
(01:50):
had to drag you in here because NBC came out
with this tell from a series of judges, a group
of judges. I'm not sure what the correct collective now
for that is. That's called it a gaggle of judges
or a murder. Well, they do wear the black like
the crowth. A murder of justices or judges and or
(02:14):
judges discussing their opinions on where the Supreme Court's going wrong. Scott,
tell me it ain't so. I thought that the whole
world accepted that, you know, the Supreme when it's the
final arbater of truth.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
When the Court does.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
What they like, it is, and when it doesn't what
they don't like, then obviously there's some issues that we
have to get into. Mark, And that's just the nature
of things, you know. That's why when Joe Biden was president,
we had to The impetus was to add justices to
the court. And maybe they'll try to take some away
now I don't know, but yeah, these things, you know,
they change with the headlines. And whether platters in fashion
(02:55):
or copy is good for you, It depends on you know,
who's making that call.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
They can tell a hawk from a hand, So if
the wind blows right, I think that's that's how they're saying,
isn't it. So how unusual is it? For now? I'm
sure judges in their personal life and perhaps even in
their regular writings make criticisms of Supreme Court decisions. But
to sort of ban together as a collective and then
(03:22):
speak to an outlet for a big exclusive a dozen judges,
how unusual is that?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Oh? Well, that's that is unusual.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
So, just to address your discussion of judges criticisms, lower
Court judges criticisms of the Supreme Court. Judges are free
to criticize Supreme Court decision making, and they very much
do so, and many of them the best of the
matter of fact, some of the best of the lower
court judges, the most highly regarded throughout history, were ones
(03:56):
that would take a part a Supreme Court case in
the right way through their exquisite legal analysis and force
of argument concerning the legal points, not on the more
you know, opiniony points or derangement kind of things, and
not as a political move.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
This was a political move by these judges.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
When a judge writes critically about a Supreme Court opinion
in their judging, if they have a case before them
that gives the court the opportunity to consider that argument,
they coun or they you know, they may or they
may not. But what that lower court judge may not
do is impose their own judgment that then overturns or
supersedes the Supreme Court's judgment in a place.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
So if the Supreme Court says has said that.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Women do have the right to an abortion or do
not have the right to an abortion per the ruling
and Row Vwaid, you know, lower Court judges, and we
all know, you know, it's a highly divisive issue, right,
so whatever way that opinion would go, you're going to
get a significant number of judges on either side who
would think the other way. They're free to write in
a decision about that, you know why they disagree with
the latest ruling from the court, but they're not free
(05:04):
to just enforce their own ruling.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
That is absolutely out.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Yes. So one of the the key comments I got
from that was that the justices on the Supreme Court
were being criticized and I quote, because they don't have
our backs, our backs being the collective judges. And to
me it seems now, I'm not a lawyer, and so
(05:29):
I have no station. And by the way, as I swear,
but it seems to me that a justice on the
Supreme Court having the back of a lower court justice
is not what the Supreme Court's for.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
The The Wire television series, which which I revere, has
a scene in it where this police officer is talking
to several people, and one of those folks as an attorney,
and the attorneys you're not a lawyer, and he says,
why would anybody pretend to be a lawyer who wasn't
one like it was the crossest thing in the world
(06:05):
of the base. I yes, I appreciate your non lawyer status. Mark, Yeah,
it's preposterous. This had your back thing is part of
the notion of people who want judges to do the
right thing, and not in the sense of doing the
right thing by upholding their oath to strictly apply the
Constitution to the laws and their enforcement, but meaning like
(06:28):
lookout for people. So if you consider, for instance, whether
or not the Constitution prohibits something that you might like
to not see, if you're helping each other out, you
may say, well, okay, we're going to allow this prohibition
even though it's not really in the text or the
other way around.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I'll take the opposite of do the right thing. For instance.
And this just popped up in the news.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
A week and a half ago was the flag burning
issue where Donald Trump put out a memorandum and a
lot of people and I'm one of those people, thought
that it likely infringed on our First Amendment right to
constitutionally protected free speech and justice. Scalia famously opposed flag burning,
thought that people shouldn't burn the flag, thought it was
(07:13):
an abomination, and also said that the Constitution protected us
from it. So for you could imagine somebody in his
circle saying, like, do the right thing help us out,
means let this thing that we want to be banned
continue to be banned. But his integrity forced him to say, no,
it's not okay to ban this. Now, that doesn't mean
this positively it is or it isn't free speech. Although
(07:35):
I do agree with Justice Scalia on the matter. But
this is also the case in many other instances where
it's like affirmative action, like, of course it violates the
Civil Rights Acts.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
He says, you.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Can't discriminate on race, and yet here we are discriminating
on race. So you invent this thing where actually we're
not talking about just racial discrimination. We're only talking about
beneficial discrimination. And that's the helping that conservatives and libertarians
typically a shoe.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
If the law needs to be.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Changed, the law should be changed the way it was
enacted by its authorship in the people's house, the legislature,
and then weighed in on by the executive. But it's
not up to the Supreme Court or any court we
would say, generally speaking to you know, to make laws.
It's just to decide whether they're lawful or lawfully enforced
or not.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
We're going to be back on this conversation this showbreak,
don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
And You'wbecca on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain Mark Anceeliti's
and we continue our conversation with Liberty Nations Legal affairs
editor mister Scott. The cossends aout Scott. Earlier in the show,
we were talking about the recent NBC exclusive regarding I
love that. By the way, I'm gonna.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Stop you right there. Mark.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
We were talking about the letter that these judges signed
that criticize the Supreme Court, and I have to stop
you because you described it as an exclusive.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
And what's the most important or not important?
Speaker 4 (09:14):
The most interesting aspect of that story to me is
how did this come about? How did these judges happened
to write this whole thing and have it published at
the NBC portal.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And you know you're the you're.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
The managing managing editor of Libertynation dot com ark where
you offered the exclusive right to publish this criticism of
the Supreme Court by these judges.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
So my best guess here Scott would be that these
civic minded judges across the country just coincidentally got it
into their head at the same time to send off
a letter to NBC and it all just happened to
jive together. And then some plucky young reporter in the
poll room said, hey, you know what I've got, these twelves,
(10:01):
let's put it together into an article. What do you think?
Speaker 4 (10:04):
We know that that's zero and the coordinated campaign of
it tells us all we need to know about it.
If it was one judge writing one letter, I would
feel a lot differently or think a lot differently about
it than I do now I know. I mean the
fact that that part about it wasn't even discussed in
the article, sure it tells you. I think everything we
need to know about it. This is just a court
(10:26):
you know. It's a coordinated campaign to move the needle,
not based on legal writings and scholarly work, but instead
politics and opinion. And of course I think those judges,
while they'll lose, you know, the respect of those of
us who thinks they should they should keep their trap
shut when it comes to politics, is because they're judges.
I'm sure that their dinner party Circuit is going to
(10:48):
be more filled than ever because of their open and
notorious hatred for you know, the anti progressive, anti Wok agenda.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Absolutely right. So there's really let's just clarify some things
of it. There's really nothing that the judges involved in
this can do right other than get themselves nominated to
the expanded Supreme Court. When a Democrat event, you know, Pow, when.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
You sent me some ideas for our discussion and you said,
the way you phrased it specifically is like, what can
they do to like? I wish I had it in
front of me because I thought of redress there, redress,
that's what you said for redress. And I thought, oh,
this is a perfect a perfectly a termed question because
we all have the same right to redress. When the
(11:37):
Supreme Court does something we don't like, we can try
to get a constitutional amendment and acted if they say
the Constitution established a certain thing, we can get below
that just federal law changed.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Also, we can, just like so many.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to do, get more
justices added to the court, change the composition of the court,
change their jurisdiction, vote a different party into office. Is gonna,
you know, change things. But but they cannot do anything
from their perch on the bench because without question, they
are lower status. They are nothing. They're you know what
(12:15):
they are. They are literally the people who do the
job that is beneath the Supreme Court. And I mean
that in terms of their judging. They do the bric
a brac, they do the every day the humdrum. You
want fries with that, that's what you get at the
district court level. It's the more advanced and for all
(12:36):
the foodies in the audience, Mark and I both are
and you know that is the Nichelin three star right
versus the fast food joint at the district court level.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
And that is a good sunned answer. So one of
the criticisms that they had, uh, and I can actually
see why this would resonate with a certain segment of
the audience for which it was was that the justices
aren't explaining their decisions in a way that these lower
(13:08):
court judges would like. Now for me, I could yeah,
I've got about fifteen reasons why and it doesn't take
a big a district judge to figure that out.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
But Scot you take the So these judges are brilliant people.
By the way, just because I don't like the way
they do their jobs and the things that they write,
doesn't mean that they're not wicked smart and they're very accomplished,
and you'd be wrong to think that anything they did
wasn't you know, by design or well considered. So, you know,
(13:40):
I think that one of the things that's interesting about
it is you said that for their audience, and we
don't even know who their audience is, Like, their audience
may be a dean at a law school they're trying
to impress to get a professorship or their their wife's whatever,
so that they don't get you know, so that they
get hero points for attacking you know, the Trump And
that's that. That's the thing that I just think is, uh,
(14:02):
it is kind of funny about it. And also, of
course as an investigative piece, i'd like to see who
the ring leader was. Somebody passed this around, you know,
this was a thing that you know, back to the
origin story of it all.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
So they're they're saying that the Supreme Court justices' they're
playing their cards too close to their chest when they're
giving out well when they're making rulings and reading between
the laws.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, I thought I answered your question, but maybe I didn't.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
They specifically mean in cases that go that tend to
favor Donald Trump is what they're talking about.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Yeah, but that's not true. My point was that these
district court judges and they know what the Supreme Court
and guidance on this is, and they're not following that
guidance because of any number of reasons. I would be
you know, it would be a bit speculation, but I
mean I do I suspect Trump arrangement syndrome. Yes, I
do suspect Trump with syndrome or just as such a wilfulness.
(15:03):
One of the things we saw during the end days
of the Biden administration was, I think, by a fair reading,
some fairly radical, leftist and progressive judges who it's a
real tragedy that we don't have minority participation in our
judge picking.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Meaning if the.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate, they just pushed
through whoever they want. And the same thing is true
with the Democrats and the old system, where the minority
had to at least be you know, discussed the choices,
and they had some veto so that the worst of
both sides didn't get in was I think way better
(15:44):
for the country.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
But now I.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
Think that maybe it's just if you looked at and
I've done this, I've written about it for the site
the Radicals, that they were able to just push through
and who knows, of course bringing up another topic, did
Joe Biden really know about these people or who is
the person who actually picked these judges and sent their
names to the Senate, you know, for for consideration. So
(16:09):
I just think Mark that they know what they're doing.
And I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't taken
the gloves off even more. And I suspect it is
one reason only, which is John Roberts wish to try.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
To go along to get along.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
He is very much of you know, he doesn't like
to move fast or you know, take big strides in
any any regard, I think, which is probably one thing.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
For a Chief Justice. One more question on this topic, Scott.
It seems to me the the recent writings in dissent,
usually by Justice Ktanji Brown Jackson, almost encouraging the lower
courts too. It's like almost like an invitation to call
(16:54):
Scott's legitimacy into question. Because she's she's lambasting her fellow
justices in the rulings.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Your take, Mark, I share the opinion that Justice Ktandy
Brown Jackson's rulings do seem.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
To do that.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
And I think that Jay, she's a baby justice. She
hasn't been on the court that long, and and she's
not that she doesn't have that conservative kind of institutionalist,
you know, mindset. And yeah, I think it's not cool
and she shouldn't do it, But you know, I wouldn't
call it a hanging offense. I just wish you would
(17:37):
stop because it invites this kind of thing which conservatives
and libertarians may actually get a benefit from it, because
what could happen is the pushback from the court could
actually shut down a significant amount of the play that
they have, they being the left who are district court justices.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (18:01):
It's like it's sort of like it's sort of like, okay,
you can talk quietly amongst yourself as long as you
can handle yourself. If you're the classroom, and if your
classrooms were like mine as a kid, inevitably the whispers
would grow to a roar, and then the teacher would
come in and say okay, now there's no talking at all.
You basically you've ruined it, you know, like your your
discretionary powers. And I could see that happening with the
court the courts in some significant way where the Supreme Court,
(18:24):
because if everybody doesn't know.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
The supre wort is the boss of the district.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
Courts in a certain way. They don't choose those judges.
That's done by the executives confirmed by the Senate. But
in terms of how they how they rule and make
their rulings and the rules that they follow, that's all
done basically. It's John Roberts and his colleagues on the
Court that determine all that.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
So dun'ton I was gonna use some unsuitable layers at
dunton Noy, the Chief Justice, if you're banking on his
support for anything until we'll be back with Scott after
this shortbreak.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
No, that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Andrewbecca on Limbity Nation radio head Coast to Coast on
the Radio America Network. I remain your host, Mark Antonti's
and we're continuing a lungful conversation with Scott Cassenzo, Esquire,
Liberty Nations Legal Affairs Editor. Thanks for sticking around, Scott,
so my pleasure. We've got to face it. It's almost October.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
We're get to face it, Mark, not got to face it.
Get to face it the new term.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Get to face it? What is this?
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Is this something new term of the United States Supreme Court?
The October term. Yeah, it's a new season.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It's pitchers and catchers report for those baseball maniacs or
spring training for football.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
So we've not got any new players on the court
this term, but we do have new cases and we
have quite a chunky emergency docket taking place. What are
you looking forward to the most in the coming court term, Scott?
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Okay, Well, so maybe we should explain the merits docket
versus the emergency docket since you brought it up, which
is Merritt's claims are case, He said, bubble up from
the lower courts. There's a dispute I. You know, my
local county government says I have to pay one hundred
dollars fine if I don't put my trash out on
(20:49):
Tuesday night. I don't do it, and I say, it's
my constitutional right to put it out whenever I like,
I sue. It goes through the district court or the
state court, district court, appellate court, and then if they
choose to take the case of the Supreme Court, that's
a merits dock. At the emergency docket is and we've
seen so much of it with Trump that that's what
we get. Is there's a district court ruling, and this
(21:09):
isn't where they all go, but just for instance, it
imposes a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration from enacting
some rule. And then they run to the appellate courts,
who say, leave the district court order in place while
we fight it out. And then the Supreme Court may
may say, okay, district Court, you cannot enforce the ban
(21:30):
on this while it's being fought out. And those are
the kind of things or the opposite, and having that challenged,
that's the emergency docket. It's the merits docket, though that
I think we're going to talk about the most and
there's a.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Few interesting cases.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
One case involves a Bible belt state attorney general going
after the donors of a pro abortion group to try
to attack them.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Oh no, wait, I'm sorry, Mark, I got the facts
wrong on that or of course, but.
Speaker 4 (22:12):
Instead it's a progressive attorney general who is attacking an
anti abortion group in New Jersey and trying to get
their donor lists, which that had been decided. Actually, I
don't have the site in front of me. I'm sorry,
but I think it was in the thirties, but in
a famous landmark case where it was in the South
(22:33):
and it was people trying to get the NAACP donor list,
which you might imagine is a graded position on free speech.
And the New Jersey authorities are notoriously hostile to those
who exhibit anti abortion messaging. And that case is First
Choice Woman's Resource Center. The plotkin so definitely.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Be what's the question before the court on that.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Well, the question is whether the attorney general rules.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Uh discovery demands are within the bounds of the Constitution
or without or they violate the free speech rights of
those who give money to First Choice Woman's Resource interview Plotkin.
He doesn't like their messaging. It was effective, and you know,
the claim is that that it was.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
I think misleading.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
But these these attorney general investigations that are political are
notoriously awful. And on both sides, Uh, the attorneys general
have almost yeah, their their power, I can unchecked.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Is maybe a bit rich, but boy, it seems like
it's closer.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
It's a broad sweet.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I think that that is an interesting case, that one,
because and this should be a shout from the rooftop
that what you do with your money is a form
of expression and therefore you know protected under the First
Amendment what you do with your well, let let's let's
not there are many things you can do with your
(24:02):
money that are not protected by the Constitution. But in terms.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Paying for speech though, yes, is hey, if you paid
for Libelis or Slanderer's speech, you would be liable for it, sure,
you know, so why wouldn't it be Why wouldn't you
be entitled to the protections from free speech if you're
paying for protected free speech. And the other thing is,
we can't pretend that there isn't this political reason behind it.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It is sought for, you know, it would be one thing.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
If it was the imposition the court often and now
maybe we'll see a revisit of this in the wake
of what's happened with the global pandemic that we just
went through. But if it's a medical reason, maybe you
get a more of an imposition rather than the nakedly
you know, infringing on people's free speech rights reason. So
(24:55):
we will track it.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
It's a very exciting case. What else are you looking
out for?
Speaker 4 (25:00):
Okay, Well, the trans youth cases in sports continue. I
wonder sometimes about how many years are going to be,
you know, sorting through these issues. But it's a West
Virginia case and it involves somebody who is a trans
woman who wishes to compete against biological women in I
(25:21):
think track and field or cross country. And the case
got to the Supreme Court to answer two questions. It's
the same question with respect to both laws. One is
the Civil Rights Act of something Title nine, excuse me,
Title nine, nineteen sixty four.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Sixty four.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
And the second one is whether the equal protection clause
of our Constitution a fourteenth Amendment, prohibits West Virginia or
allows West Virginia to delineate youth government school team sport
participation based on by logical sex determined birth.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
That is the question presented before the court.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
There with these particular types of cases, it seems there
are there are as many angles of legal legal there
as many legal avenues that will be explored over the months,
and yeah, as there are alleged genders to choose from.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
And almost that's still growing. Or have we reached a
peak peak peak peak peak gender much like those who
envisioned peak oil, it's never coming. There's there's never going
to be a peak on this.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
There's always more oil, there's always more genders.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Well, you know, if you if you depending on what
you believe, you know that's the gender is an identity
and everybody has an identity, and some people have more
than one, and therefore there's at least eight billion and
you know, I mean it's an argument I'm counting. Hopefully
they're not all going to be made at the Supreme
(27:03):
Court and there will be at some point a clear,
bright line ruling on what is and what is because
I think what happens now is things aren't getting done.
You know, everybody's too scared to go one way or
the other on both sides of the argument, and there's
(27:23):
a lot of activism on both sides of the argument
when what's really needed is this is the law of
the land. This is how it should be applied. And
for example, for example, something like the Bruin decision which
came out I think that was two years ago, the
Brewined decision came out and it broadly said things have
(27:47):
to work towards fulfilling what the Second Amendment says. So
anything that seems tangential, just stay away from it. Follow
the ruling for the Second Amendment, follow what the second
moment is. And I think something like that is needed.
Is something like that likely to occur, not necessarily in
this case, but on this topic.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
Yeah, that is so speculative, Mark, I don't know, there's
a you know, I would say to you that that
that Bruined guidance. That is how the court more typically
operates in terms of it nudgets rather than you know,
blocks in a more forceful way.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
And that's appropriate.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Meaning you don't want the court to be wildly swinging,
you know, you want it to be slow and steady
because of so much of how it so much of
what it does impacts every area of our of our existence.
That's part of the thing that conservatives of libertarians, you know,
kind of grouse about with the Court, with everything being
(28:52):
a court issue. Basically you have one or two justices
then controlling the republic in terms of what's legal, what's not,
how we bank, how we what we can watch on TV,
teach our kids, all this stuff. And Scalia, you know,
Scalia was great. You know, one of the things that
we don't have now much as are the private thoughts
(29:13):
of Supreme Court justice outside of the arguments and uh
uh and their opinions and uh that wasn't always true.
Justice Scalia would often appear on like PBS roundtables and
stuff like that. You can see a lot of it,
uh on YouTube. But he always argued that, you know,
he was not a great arbiter of how Americans should
you know, how the world should be basically, you know,
(29:33):
it's like this should be decided by uh, the elected representatives,
not a couple people at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Well, it's funny you mentioned that because there's a This
isn't an ad, by the way, uh for anybody. We
don't do ads on this, but there is The Daily
Wire has something with Clarence Thomas out. It's either out
now Tom recording what's coming soon about Clarence Thomas in
his own words. And I believe the Free Press got
(30:04):
quite a good interview with Justice Amy Coney Barrett this
last week, so that there there are we are seeing
more outreach to the general public, which either could be
a sign of the times or it could be in
response to this this NBC exclusive that we.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
You know, the best, the best revenge for a Supreme
Court does it doesn't say nothing. Keep like, look at
Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Who's who's got the best revenge? He never said a
peep about it. He just kept his mouth shut. And
now he's you know, he's living the dream.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
He's the terminator unleashed for his disapprovement judicial thought. I
guess we're gonna be back with Scott after this show break.
Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides.
Speaker 3 (31:06):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. Continue our conversation
with Liberty Nations, making the President to Scott Descenda Esquire. Scott,
we've been talking about the the upcoming cases for the
new Supreme Court term, and a couple of doozies so far.
If you haven't seen that segment, go back and watch it.
It's superb. But I suspect you're saving the best to
(31:26):
the last for me, Scott h.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Not necessarily No, the uh next case?
Speaker 3 (31:32):
What's that last segment? Twice?
Speaker 4 (31:36):
We're recording this the second weekend, the second week of September.
And one of the things we've seen in previous in
recent previous years is that the Supreme Court has added
some really blockbuster kind of cases after their return from
recess and before they they start in October or as
(31:57):
as the it's ongoing, so the best is not necessarily present,
but some interesting ones. This is the kind of case
that I really like because of the way it impacts
preconceived notions and politics. This Landor versus a Louisiana Department
of Corrections involves this mister Landor who was a Rastafarian
(32:22):
who did not cut his hair for I don't know
if those twenty or thirty years, but a significant length
of time, and then was transferred to a penitentiary in Louisiana,
and a guarter warden there decided that his hair was
not well kept and not commensurate with that institution's requirements
(32:44):
and ordered him to be restrained and have his hair
cut involuntarily from his body. And he gave the guy
who the decision maker in that little moment, maybe not
like the head of the thing that wasn't in the room,
but he provided a copy of a federal court order
that said that the Louisiana law that allowed that was
(33:06):
violative of his federal rights. And so he's got a claim.
Now here's what's kind of peculiar about this case. He's
suing individually.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
He wants to sue.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
The person who ordered it done, because basically, it's like
the giving of the order says, you've been presented with
this order, you've chosen to ignore it, so you willfully
violated the federal court ruling. I shouldn't just be limited
to suing the Louisiana Department of Corrections, for instance, but
I should be able to sue you personally, you the
(33:41):
employee who did this to me. And if you flip
the facts around, okay and make it a kind of
more conservative friendly exposition.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
So if it was a.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
Bureaucrat in New York City who denied somebody their gun permit,
it because they didn't like it even though the federal court.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Said you have to issue this or something like that.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
You know, we can think about these things on different
sides of the political spectrum. Would do we want the
ability to hold individuals personally liable when they violate the
rights of others in their roles as uh, you know,
as government actors. So I think that maybe we won't
in the end reach that decision on the merits something
(34:25):
we you know, might mention just because it's always good
to refresh people's understanding of the court. A lot of
times they don't get to the actual issue that we
might think is the issue of in the case, because
number one, they're motivated not to if they if they
don't have to extend themselves to change a law or
overturn something, they'd prefer not to.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
So if there's.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
A statutory or standing reason why land Or might not
get you know, get his wish like you expect that.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
But in any case, we'll we'll keep up on it.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
There's a case about political financing called National Republicans Senatorial
Committee versus the Federal Election Commission, which deals with whether
or not candidates and candidate whether candidate committees and the
candidates themselves may coordinate messaging with political parties. There's a
prohibition on doing so because of campaign finance law.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
JD. Vance and a number of other senators.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Sued, you know, obviously is back when he was a
senator to say this should be abolished. It's an imposition
on an impermissionble imposition in our free speech rates.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Why can't we collaborate as we message?
Speaker 4 (35:30):
And I think that it's a no brainer that almost
all these you know, we spoke earlier about money being
speech in some capacity, Well is where could it be
more speech than in a political campaign where we're literally
messaging about, you know, what we want to do with
the office that we're running for.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
The loss of liberty is never more than one generation away.
So Scott, I want to ask you about and you
might not have the details to hand here, so I
hope I'm not putting you too much on the spot.
But I know a lot of people are, and myself
are curious about what we know. Regarding Trump's efforts to
(36:08):
end so called birthright citizenship, he said that he's made
the case that people who are born to somebody who
is here temporarily or here illegally should not be a
US citizen, and you know, looking through the people actually
(36:30):
wrote to the Constitution, looking at their writings, he seems
to have a point, doesn't he That was their intent.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
You have opened up a discussion for a seminar class
on we looked at the plane language. I think, you know,
there are many philosophies and how we It's only the
Constitution says this is how you should examine whether a
law is constitutional or not. There are many ways in
which justices and others think that we should. I would
(36:58):
think that we should look to the planelaneguage. If the
plane language under the plainly understood terms of that language
at the time, then we're good. And if not, then
maybe we look to other things like intent, or we
just say it's undiscoverable and we'll have to start, you know,
come up with something new.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
But intent is not.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
Devoid of value. It's just way less value than what's
on the page. You can imagine if we were both
legislators looking at whether we were going to gote for
or against a build that's up for vote. Our intent
as to what that thing is maybe express or whatever.
But what's important is what the law sets, and we
(37:40):
may vote yes or No, not based on anything about
our intemp, but a specific you know, one word change
for instance. So that's the superior what's on the page,
whether it's the Constitution or federal laws or federal regulations,
what's on the page is what they should go with,
and then intent or any other judging should come behind it.
As far as the birthright citizenship thing goes on the intent,
(38:02):
I actually haven't looked at the intent much. It does
seem to me silly to think that the Founders would
have wanted like the British ambassador's children to be US
citizens by virtue of their birth here shortly after he
arrived in America, for instance. That you know, but we'll
be paying attention to the reporting on it on the
pages of Deliverynation dot com.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
And final question for you, Scott, do you think this
coming session of the Supreme Court epic will be as
interesting and fascinating as full as the last one?
Speaker 2 (38:35):
No?
Speaker 4 (38:35):
I don't think so, because I think there's more maturity
with the whole dealing with these Trump challenges, and I
think Katanji Brown Jackson will be a little bit more
reserved and mature in her justice saying. I guess we
could see Sony Soda on my own. Really, if the
derangement syndrome, you.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Know, goes off the rails with her, it could be fireworks.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
But yeah, I feel like there's there's been such movement
on such landmarks that there's always exciting things happening at
the Court. But in terms of like really blockbuster, like
are the ratings for this season going to outpace the
ratings for last season?
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Mark?
Speaker 3 (39:15):
I don't think so well. You know, seasons usually get
TV shows usually get pretty bad by about season three
or four, and we're much higher than that on the
Supreme Court. Scott, thanks for being here sure, as Mark.
And that's a wrap for this show of Liberty Nation
Radio Head Coast Coast on the Radio American Network. I've
been your host, Mark Anslidis. I like to thank our
guest today, Scott Cascenza, Liberty Nations, the Legal Affairs editor,
(39:38):
and of course thank you the listeners at home who
take the time each week to tune in and join
the fun. Please do remember Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement
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.