Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked

Transcript

Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:01
Speaker 1: Good Monday morning.
0:02
Speaker 2: Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz.
0:04
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you as always, and Senator We've got
0:07
Speaker 1: a lot to talk about it today's show, including nationwide
0:12
Speaker 1: injunctions against Donald Trump.
0:14
Speaker 2: Well, this is the latest evolution of law fair and
0:18
Speaker 2: the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat
0:21
Speaker 2: state attorneys general, the plan from left wing activist groups
0:25
Speaker 2: is sue, sue, sue, and go to left wing activist judges,
0:29
Speaker 2: particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put
0:32
Speaker 2: on the courts, and use them to try to shut
0:35
Speaker 2: down the entirety of the Trump agenda. It's not going
0:39
Speaker 2: to succeed, and it is unprecedented. We're going to do
0:42
Speaker 2: deep dive and explain what's going on and how it
0:45
Speaker 2: is so far out of step from what any other
0:48
Speaker 2: president has faced. We're also going to talk about the
0:51
Speaker 2: fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has
0:56
Speaker 2: had his student visa revoke the Trump administration. President Trump
0:59
Speaker 2: is serious that if you are an enemy of America,
1:02
Speaker 2: they are going to remove you from this country. You
1:05
Speaker 2: do not have an entitlement to have a student visa
1:07
Speaker 2: and to be here, and to threaten other students to
1:09
Speaker 2: threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.
1:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is shocking. We're going to dive into
1:14
Speaker 1: all that in just a moment. I want to talk
1:16
Speaker 1: to you real quick though, about the International Fellowship of
1:19
Speaker 1: Christians and Jews and the work that they're doing and
1:22
Speaker 1: the help that is needed for the people in Israel.
1:25
Speaker 1: After more than a year of war, tear and pain
1:28
Speaker 1: in Israel, the need for security essentials and support for
1:32
Speaker 1: the first responders is still critical. Even in times of ceasefire.
1:37
Speaker 1: Israel must be prepared for the next attack wherever it
1:41
Speaker 1: may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on
1:44
Speaker 1: all sides.
1:46
Speaker 2: That is where you.
1:47
Speaker 1: Come in, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
1:50
Speaker 1: is working on the ground to continue to support those
1:54
Speaker 1: that are in need the people of Israel with life
1:57
Speaker 1: saving security essentials are so important right now, and your
2:01
Speaker 1: gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored
2:05
Speaker 1: security vehicles and armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flag jackets and
2:11
Speaker 1: bulletproof vests, and so much more. Your generous donation today
2:15
Speaker 1: will help ensure the people of Visrael are safe and
2:18
Speaker 1: secure in the days to come. So give a gift
2:21
Speaker 1: to bless Israel. Enter people by visiting support IFCJ dot org.
2:27
Speaker 1: That's one word support IFCJ dot org or call to
2:32
Speaker 1: donate now eight at eight four eight eight IFCJ that's
2:36
Speaker 1: eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight at eight
2:41
Speaker 1: four eight eight four three two five are SUPPORTIFCJ dot
2:46
Speaker 1: org center. So let's remind people of how we got
2:51
Speaker 1: to the point where this is like the new phase
2:54
Speaker 1: of law fare. Democrats weaponize our government and the court
2:58
Speaker 1: system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when
3:02
Speaker 1: they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump,
3:05
Speaker 1: even raiding his home in mar Lago. But now that
3:08
Speaker 1: he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the
3:12
Speaker 1: outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence
3:14
Speaker 1: the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
3:18
Speaker 2: Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system
3:21
Speaker 2: to try to subvert democracy. Understand, the four times Trump
3:24
Speaker 2: was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy. This is
3:29
Speaker 2: while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks claiming to be
3:33
Speaker 2: defending democracy. But the reason they brought those indictments is
3:37
Speaker 2: they were terrified the voters were going to do what
3:39
Speaker 2: they in fact did, which was reelect Donald Trump, and
3:43
Speaker 2: Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to
3:46
Speaker 2: do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump,
3:49
Speaker 2: the voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a
3:51
Speaker 2: Republican House, and the left they don't care. They're angry.
3:55
Speaker 2: They're angry at the voters, and so they're going to
3:58
Speaker 2: the courts to try to prevent the President and the
4:02
Speaker 2: Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now,
4:06
Speaker 2: let me lay out some numbers to give you just
4:08
Speaker 2: sort of a level of comparison in the entirety of
4:13
Speaker 2: the George W. Bush administration two terms, the Barack Obama
4:18
Speaker 2: administration two terms, and the Joe Biden administration. How many
4:24
Speaker 2: times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued
4:28
Speaker 2: since two thousand and one.
4:30
Speaker 1: I'm going to go like zero to one.
4:33
Speaker 2: No, No, there have been more than that. There have
4:35
Speaker 2: been thirty two, thirty two against Bush, Obama, and Biden. Now,
4:41
Speaker 2: how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been
4:43
Speaker 2: in the first two months of the Trump presidency.
4:48
Speaker 1: I'm gonna not even try to guess, because I know
4:50
Speaker 1: I'm going to be wrong.
4:52
Speaker 2: Thirty seven.
4:53
Speaker 1: Wow, So we've already outnumbered all those other presidencies combined
4:58
Speaker 1: in essence.
4:59
Speaker 2: So two months we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight
5:03
Speaker 2: years of Bush, eight years of Barack Obama, and four
5:06
Speaker 2: years of Joe Biden. Now that in and of itself,
5:10
Speaker 2: both of those are a huge shift from what it's
5:13
Speaker 2: been historically. Now, in the entire twentieth century, how many
5:17
Speaker 2: nationwide injunctions do you think there were? No clue? Twenty
5:21
Speaker 2: seven wow. So in one hundred years there were twenty seven.
5:27
Speaker 2: Then in twenty years of Bush, Obama and Biden there
5:33
Speaker 2: were thirty two, and now in two months there have
5:36
Speaker 2: been thirty seven. This is a dramatic shift. And look,
5:40
Speaker 2: let's go back to the history before, before we had
5:44
Speaker 2: a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had
5:49
Speaker 2: the British the common law and in English equity, which
5:54
Speaker 2: is before we had the founding of the United States,
5:57
Speaker 2: you couldn't have injunctions against the crown. A judge could
6:01
Speaker 2: not enjoin the crown because the Chancellor was part of
6:04
Speaker 2: the crown. It was the same authority. And that continued
6:08
Speaker 2: for the first one hundred and fifty years of the
6:10
Speaker 2: United States. Now what happened. It used to be that
6:16
Speaker 2: there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal,
6:19
Speaker 2: and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those
6:23
Speaker 2: were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect
6:28
Speaker 2: to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let
6:31
Speaker 2: me ask you something, Ben, one of the two of
6:34
Speaker 2: us has a law. Agree. Let me let me ask
6:35
Speaker 2: a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?
6:40
Speaker 1: An injunction is where a court steps and says you
6:43
Speaker 1: can't do that. We are stopping you from doing what
6:46
Speaker 1: you said you were going to do.
6:48
Speaker 2: So that's actually that is quite good. At injunction is
6:51
Speaker 2: ordering someone either to do something or not to do something.
6:56
Speaker 2: But it is an order from the court for someone
6:59
Speaker 2: to comply with its order. And and that is in
7:02
Speaker 2: distinction to an order for damages. So so you think
7:06
Speaker 2: about a civil suit. You know, if if if I
7:09
Speaker 2: run over your cat and you sue me, the court
7:13
Speaker 2: can say, all right, pay Ben one thousand dollars for
7:16
Speaker 2: his for his cat. That would be an award in damages.
7:23
Speaker 2: An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties
7:28
Speaker 2: of the case. So, for example, if if I keep
7:32
Speaker 2: running over your cats. If you have ten cats and
7:35
Speaker 2: I run over a cat a week, that's it.
7:39
Speaker 1: I have way too many one liners. Keep going, I
7:41
Speaker 1: don't want to You're a cat guy. I gotta be
7:43
Speaker 1: careful here.
7:45
Speaker 2: No, I'm a daughter guy. Let's be clear. So I
7:48
Speaker 2: do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters,
7:51
Speaker 2: and in particular I have my eldest daughter, so she
7:54
Speaker 2: has three cats. And I love my daughters, and so
7:57
Speaker 2: we have three cats in our home. You're a boy, dad,
8:01
Speaker 2: and so cats are not a part of your life.
8:04
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, and it's one of the best blessings
8:07
Speaker 1: I've ever had from them.
8:08
Speaker 2: Keep going, Well, an injunction could be let's say, a
8:14
Speaker 2: court might order me to not drive my car within
8:20
Speaker 2: five hundred yards of your house. That would be an
8:25
Speaker 2: injunction against the parties of the case. Now what is different,
8:30
Speaker 2: and by the way, so for example, and you would
8:35
Speaker 2: have those injunctions against the government, but again they were
8:38
Speaker 2: limited to the party. So for example, there were sixteen
8:41
Speaker 2: hundred injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision,
8:47
Speaker 2: which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
8:52
Speaker 2: But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you
8:56
Speaker 2: had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing
9:01
Speaker 2: this statutory provision, this processing taxed on me is contrary
9:06
Speaker 2: to law. And sixteen hundred times judges agreed and ordered
9:09
Speaker 2: the government don't enforce the law with respect to ben.
9:14
Speaker 2: But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce
9:17
Speaker 2: that law with respect to you, doesn't mean that I
9:20
Speaker 2: was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it,
9:22
Speaker 2: I had to go to court too. So that used
9:23
Speaker 2: to be the way it would happen. And then there
9:30
Speaker 2: were judicial reforms in nineteen thirty seven that Congress took
9:36
Speaker 2: a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court.
9:41
Speaker 2: So ordinarily in the federal courts you have district judges,
9:45
Speaker 2: single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then
9:48
Speaker 2: you have the U. S. Supreme Court. Well, Congress created
9:53
Speaker 2: this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court.
9:56
Speaker 2: So it was three different judges, but they were a
9:58
Speaker 2: district court, and if you were seeking injunctions against a
10:04
Speaker 2: federal statute, you had to go to a three judge
10:06
Speaker 2: district court, and then you had a direct appeal to
10:09
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, so it's skipped, it skipped the courts
10:12
Speaker 2: of appeals altogether. However, that ended in nineteen seventy six,
10:17
Speaker 2: and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court
10:21
Speaker 2: had their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And
10:25
Speaker 2: so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal
10:30
Speaker 2: district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes
10:32
Speaker 2: to a federal Court's of appeals, and then the Supreme
10:35
Speaker 2: Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it,
10:38
Speaker 2: they can that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of
10:45
Speaker 2: a three judge district court was no longer there to
10:48
Speaker 2: limit how often an injunction would be given. And then
10:52
Speaker 2: it has been really it's been the activist judges that
10:58
Speaker 2: Obama and Biden have put on the courts that has
11:01
Speaker 2: led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing
11:08
Speaker 2: to say, this party in front of me, I'm issuing
11:10
Speaker 2: an injunction concerning the government's conduct about ben. It's another
11:15
Speaker 2: thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do
11:19
Speaker 2: X against any person in the United States of America.
11:22
Speaker 2: That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by
11:26
Speaker 2: one single judge.
11:29
Speaker 1: So you look at this expansion and it's very clear
11:34
Speaker 1: that this is now war, and it's war that's been
11:37
Speaker 1: declared by these judges. Then what is the remedy here.
11:41
Speaker 1: We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges. We've
11:44
Speaker 1: heard that this is one of those moments where it's
11:48
Speaker 1: in essence unpressing the number of judges that are trying
11:51
Speaker 1: to have nationwide power instead of and really overstepping. What
11:57
Speaker 1: is this strategy here and what does that look like
11:59
Speaker 1: to fight because it's very frustrating. If you're a voter
12:03
Speaker 1: and you're voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The
12:06
Speaker 1: majority of Americans support the agenda, and now you see
12:09
Speaker 1: these judges who were in many cases elected by no one,
12:13
Speaker 1: who are now saying, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump
12:17
Speaker 1: in the entire country with one ruling.
12:19
Speaker 2: Well, to be clear that the judges were not, in
12:22
Speaker 2: many cases elected by no one, and they were in
12:24
Speaker 2: every single case elected by no one. The mechanism that
12:27
Speaker 2: every one of these judges became a judge is they
12:30
Speaker 2: were appointed by the president, whoever the president was at
12:33
Speaker 2: the time, and they were confirmed by the United States
12:35
Speaker 2: Senate and so no federal judges elected. There are a
12:39
Speaker 2: number of checks and balances on judges. One check and
12:42
Speaker 2: balance is impeachment. However, impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to
12:47
Speaker 2: be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell
12:50
Speaker 2: you why. Even if so impeachment would take it actually
12:54
Speaker 2: operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against
12:57
Speaker 2: the president or against an executive officer, which is the
13:01
Speaker 2: House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House.
13:05
Speaker 2: So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could
13:09
Speaker 2: impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, it is
13:14
Speaker 2: not removing the judge. It is the equivalent of bringing charges.
13:19
Speaker 2: It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts,
13:23
Speaker 2: which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is
13:26
Speaker 2: the same thing. And a majority of the House can
13:28
Speaker 2: impeach any judge. If the House chose to do so,
13:31
Speaker 2: and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge.
13:34
Speaker 2: But the chances that any of these judges would be
13:36
Speaker 2: removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are zero point zero
13:41
Speaker 2: zero percent. Now why is that? The reason is because
13:46
Speaker 2: for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial
13:50
Speaker 2: occurs in the Senate, and in order to convict, whether
13:54
Speaker 2: it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge,
13:58
Speaker 2: you need two thirds of the Senate. Now, we do
14:00
Speaker 2: not have sixty seven Republicans in the Senate. We only
14:03
Speaker 2: have fifty three. That means we would need at least
14:06
Speaker 2: fourteen Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The
14:11
Speaker 2: chances of fourteen Democrats voting to convict any of these
14:15
Speaker 2: radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump
14:20
Speaker 2: are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate
14:24
Speaker 2: hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there
14:27
Speaker 2: and refused to applaud for the President, refuse to applaud
14:31
Speaker 2: for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal
14:35
Speaker 2: immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refuse to
14:39
Speaker 2: applaud for a thirteen year old kid fighting to overcome
14:42
Speaker 2: brain cancer. The Democrats are not going that they're cheering
14:47
Speaker 2: on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness, and so impeachment
14:51
Speaker 2: is not going to be effective now. Secondly, another remedy
14:56
Speaker 2: is that Congress can restrict the jury urisdiction of the
15:00
Speaker 2: federal courts, and Congress has brought authority to restrict the
15:04
Speaker 2: jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually, Congress could abolish the
15:08
Speaker 2: district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts.
15:12
Speaker 2: The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme
15:16
Speaker 2: Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts,
15:19
Speaker 2: the district courts, and the Courts of Appeals to process
15:22
Speaker 2: the volume of cases. But Congress has brought authority to
15:26
Speaker 2: limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to
15:30
Speaker 2: exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to
15:33
Speaker 2: overcome the filibuster, which means you would need sixty votes.
15:37
Speaker 2: We have fifty three Republicans. The chances of any Senate
15:41
Speaker 2: Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued
15:45
Speaker 2: nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero.
15:49
Speaker 2: So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean?
15:53
Speaker 2: The remedies are the remedies are number one, Sunshine drawing
15:58
Speaker 2: attention to it and listen. I am right. I am
16:03
Speaker 2: the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts,
16:08
Speaker 2: Oversight Agency action and federal rights, and so I am
16:11
Speaker 2: going to be sharing hearings focusing on this, focusing on remedies,
16:14
Speaker 2: and one remedy to consider, should we return to a
16:18
Speaker 2: system where you have a three judge district court to
16:22
Speaker 2: consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. I think
16:27
Speaker 2: there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again,
16:32
Speaker 2: I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing
16:36
Speaker 2: on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is
16:39
Speaker 2: important to counteract law fair. And then I think the
16:42
Speaker 2: real remedy is nominating and confirming good principal judges to
16:48
Speaker 2: the federal courts, to the district courts, to the court's
16:50
Speaker 2: appeals to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these adjunctions
16:53
Speaker 2: on appeal the legal process. It's going to take the
16:56
Speaker 2: Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going
16:59
Speaker 2: to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities
17:03
Speaker 2: right now. But the most likely mechanism to rein in
17:06
Speaker 2: this abuse is going to be a Pellet review because
17:11
Speaker 2: the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
17:15
Speaker 1: So when you look at this and there's just a
17:18
Speaker 1: frustration and the frustration is how are they getting away
17:23
Speaker 1: with this? And are is this going to be what
17:24
Speaker 1: it's going to be like for the next four years?
17:27
Speaker 1: And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on?
17:30
Speaker 1: And why is it that they don't have to play
17:33
Speaker 1: by the same rules, like it seems like it's just
17:36
Speaker 1: law fair running back and every time the American people
17:39
Speaker 1: stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I
17:43
Speaker 1: hear what you're saying, but for people that it was saying, well,
17:46
Speaker 1: is there any other option? Like how do we win
17:49
Speaker 1: and yet we still lose?
17:51
Speaker 2: Well, Look, there was a recent article in the Harvard
17:54
Speaker 2: Law Review by a professor named Samuel Bray, and he
17:57
Speaker 2: surveyed every nationwide and junk issued from nineteen sixty three
18:02
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty three, so sixty years. In that period,
18:06
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty seven injunctions nationwide. Injunctions were issued.
18:10
Speaker 2: Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump
18:14
Speaker 2: during his first term, And if you break it down,
18:19
Speaker 2: sixty four were issued against Trump, twelve were issued against Obama,
18:23
Speaker 2: fourteen were issued against Biden. So those are the numbers
18:27
Speaker 2: for the first term. And then, as I said, in
18:29
Speaker 2: the first two months we've already had thirty seven, so
18:31
Speaker 2: the numbers are are dramatic. Now here's an interesting stat
18:37
Speaker 2: from Professor Bray's article. Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions
18:43
Speaker 2: issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many
18:48
Speaker 2: of them do you think were issued by judges appointed
18:50
Speaker 2: by a Republican?
18:53
Speaker 1: Oh, gosh, I'm going to say not as many as
18:55
Speaker 1: the Democrats. But I could be wrong, because there's been
18:57
Speaker 1: some Republican judges that shocked all of us recently.
19:00
Speaker 2: Well that's true, But here the numbers are pretty encouraging.
19:03
Speaker 2: Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies,
19:07
Speaker 2: only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican,
19:11
Speaker 2: Which means that ninety two zero point two percent of
19:17
Speaker 2: injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term against
19:22
Speaker 2: his policies were issued by judges put on the court
19:25
Speaker 2: by a Democrat ninety two percent. And the pattern is
19:28
Speaker 2: very simple. H they're going and they're forum shopping. They're
19:31
Speaker 2: going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and
19:35
Speaker 2: looking for radicals who will hate the president and who
19:42
Speaker 2: will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact
19:45
Speaker 2: that they're forum shopping. It's frustrating, but there's a longer
19:50
Speaker 2: term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term
19:52
Speaker 2: remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and
19:58
Speaker 2: the shorter term memory it is appeals and hopefully getting
20:03
Speaker 2: the Court of Appeals to reverse it. And for example,
20:08
Speaker 2: one case that's going on right now, it is a
20:11
Speaker 2: case called Trump versus CASA, and in January, President Trump
20:17
Speaker 2: issued an executive order revoking birth rights citizenship for illegal
20:22
Speaker 2: aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality
20:26
Speaker 2: of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and
20:28
Speaker 2: that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district
20:33
Speaker 2: courts issued preliminary injunctions and response, now, where were those courts?
20:37
Speaker 2: One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was
20:41
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue
20:44
Speaker 2: states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme
20:50
Speaker 2: Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions,
20:55
Speaker 2: and on March thirteenth, the Acting Solicitor General of the
20:59
Speaker 2: United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially
21:03
Speaker 2: stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions
21:07
Speaker 2: were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to
21:09
Speaker 2: the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents
21:15
Speaker 2: of the states challenging the orders. So it should not
21:17
Speaker 2: be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating and
21:23
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor
21:28
Speaker 2: General's request by April fourth, So this is being litigated
21:31
Speaker 2: right now. Now. It's possible the Supreme Court will decide
21:35
Speaker 2: it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where
21:40
Speaker 2: you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait
21:44
Speaker 2: for full merits briefing, and that could take months or
21:47
Speaker 2: even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and
21:51
Speaker 2: I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and
21:54
Speaker 2: rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
21:58
Speaker 1: So let me ask you one other question on this
22:01
Speaker 1: just layman terms here. If there is a loss by
22:07
Speaker 1: a judge who does with of these injunctions, does that
22:10
Speaker 1: then have precedent over other judges around the country, or
22:13
Speaker 1: can other judges then just say well, I'm going to
22:15
Speaker 1: take up the torch and buy more time and be
22:17
Speaker 1: an activist as well.
22:19
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it can definitely be the latter. And so
22:21
Speaker 2: now it depends. It depends where the loss occurs. So
22:25
Speaker 2: if a district judge issues an injunction and it gets
22:28
Speaker 2: appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of
22:30
Speaker 2: Appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district
22:36
Speaker 2: judges in that circuit, so their circuit's all over the country.
22:41
Speaker 2: So for example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and
22:43
Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in
22:46
Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case
22:48
Speaker 2: goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues
22:50
Speaker 2: are ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country.
22:55
Speaker 2: So the real answer, hopefully is to get this to
22:57
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling
23:00
Speaker 2: limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This
23:04
Speaker 2: is clearly something that is being abused and it is
23:07
Speaker 2: crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
23:10
Speaker 1: So do you think that in the near future there's
23:13
Speaker 1: a what are the odds this can go to the
23:15
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and that this can at least have some
23:18
Speaker 1: sort of like present on the countries that the president
23:20
Speaker 1: can do his job.
23:22
Speaker 2: Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is
23:24
Speaker 2: at the Supreme Court right now. The question is are
23:27
Speaker 2: there five justices willing to rein it in? And we
23:31
Speaker 2: have seen in some of these early cases sometimes the
23:33
Speaker 2: answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. And so
23:38
Speaker 2: it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts. It's
23:42
Speaker 2: going to come down to Justice Amy Cony, Barrett and
23:47
Speaker 2: Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanon. We'll see how how they rule.
23:50
Speaker 2: I feel very confident that that that Clarence Thomas and
23:53
Speaker 2: Samuel Alito are are more than ready to rein in
23:57
Speaker 2: the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if
24:00
Speaker 2: there are five justices or not.
24:03
Speaker 1: Senator I want to move to the other story that
24:04
Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier, and this goes in the category of
24:08
Speaker 1: promises made, promises cap for Donald Trump. Another pro Haamas
24:14
Speaker 1: protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a
24:19
Speaker 1: college campus. This is making liberal heads explode. But this
24:23
Speaker 1: is exactly what the President said he was going to do,
24:26
Speaker 1: and he's making good on that promise yet again.
24:28
Speaker 2: Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast.
24:31
Speaker 2: You and I did at Seapack when we interviewed Pam
24:34
Speaker 2: Bondi and we talked about the fact that the Trump
24:36
Speaker 2: administration is going to go after these radical anti Semitic,
24:40
Speaker 2: anti American, anti Israel protesters. And if you threaten violence
24:44
Speaker 2: against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you
24:49
Speaker 2: have no entitlement to be allowed into this country. And
24:53
Speaker 2: it's interesting you're seeing Democrats who are suddenly discovered free speech.
24:58
Speaker 2: Mind you, when it comes to to Americans speaking, they
25:01
Speaker 2: don't give a damn about free speech. When it comes
25:03
Speaker 2: to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech.
25:05
Speaker 2: American citizens have no First Amendment rights, and the Democrats
25:09
Speaker 2: bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious anti Semite,
25:13
Speaker 2: if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and you're
25:17
Speaker 2: not an American, well then suddenly they think you're protected.
25:20
Speaker 2: And it is insane. So the latest radical who had
25:25
Speaker 2: his visa revoked is a student at Cornell and he's
25:29
Speaker 2: an individual named Mommodo Tal now Momodo Tal, according to
25:36
Speaker 2: the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has
25:40
Speaker 2: called for the destruction of the United States. Has celebrated
25:44
Speaker 2: the October seventh attacks by Hamas and has said that
25:48
Speaker 2: he takes his quote Q from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now,
25:56
Speaker 2: who is Mammado Tal? He is a British and gam
26:00
Speaker 2: being dual national, so he's not an American. And he
26:03
Speaker 2: began studying in Cornell twenty twenty two on an F
26:07
Speaker 2: one student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good
26:13
Speaker 2: and Tall received an email from the Department of Justice
26:18
Speaker 2: that said ICE invites mister Tall and his counsel to
26:21
Speaker 2: appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at
26:24
Speaker 2: a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice
26:28
Speaker 2: to appear and for mister Tall to surrender to ICE custody.
26:33
Speaker 2: And of course what did Tall do? He engaged in
26:36
Speaker 2: law fair and wet and final lawsuits seeking to block it.
26:39
Speaker 2: Now what has Tall said? Tall has said, Number one,
26:46
Speaker 2: He's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues
26:50
Speaker 2: from the arm resistance in Palisine, armed by the way,
26:53
Speaker 2: not just resistance, armed resistance. He has also said, quote,
26:58
Speaker 2: we are in solidarity with the arm resistance in Palestine
27:02
Speaker 2: from the river to the sea. He also said just
27:07
Speaker 2: after October seventh, hours after he said quote, the dialect
27:12
Speaker 2: demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those
27:19
Speaker 2: who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now
27:23
Speaker 2: the dialect, Look, this guy is a communist, he's a Marxist.
27:26
Speaker 2: We talked about how cultural Marxism they divide the world
27:30
Speaker 2: into oppressors and victims, and they actively cheer on the
27:36
Speaker 2: violent revolution of the so called victims against the so
27:39
Speaker 2: called oppressors. Now, this is ours after October seventh. This
27:42
Speaker 2: is as women and little girls are being raped, as
27:45
Speaker 2: twelve hundred civilians are being murdered. And here is what
27:48
Speaker 2: he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression,
27:51
Speaker 2: you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory
27:55
Speaker 2: to the resistance. That's not all he said. When he
28:01
Speaker 2: applied for his student visa, he wrote quote, and this
28:04
Speaker 2: is on Twitter, the end of the US Empire in
28:09
Speaker 2: our lifetime in shallah. Months later, the idiots in the
28:14
Speaker 2: Biden administration gave him his student visa and he wrote,
28:19
Speaker 2: student visa issued. We are going to America, baby alham
28:24
Speaker 2: di lula. I don't know what that means, but I'm
28:26
Speaker 2: guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted my
28:31
Speaker 2: hatred of the US Empire knows no bound Walahai. Again,
28:38
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing again
28:42
Speaker 2: it is celebrating against America. One other thing he posted
28:46
Speaker 2: quote when the enemy is US imperialism, then absolutely anyone
28:52
Speaker 2: the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me
28:58
Speaker 2: be clear, this anti American, anti Semitic radical who hates
29:04
Speaker 2: America needs to get the hell out of our country.
29:06
Speaker 2: He has no entitlement to be here, and we have
29:09
Speaker 2: no obligation. We have no legal obligation, We have no
29:12
Speaker 2: constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey,
29:18
Speaker 2: people who hate America, people who say quote anyone who
29:22
Speaker 2: calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know
29:24
Speaker 2: what if that's true, get your ass out of this country.
29:27
Speaker 2: We don't need you here threatening Americans.
29:32
Speaker 1: It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on
29:35
Speaker 1: college campuses. And we've seen anti semitism, for example, that
29:39
Speaker 1: is just skyrocket on college campuses, and a lot of
29:42
Speaker 1: this is well organized. We continue to see that a
29:46
Speaker 1: lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups
29:52
Speaker 1: and pre planning this around the country, and that has
29:55
Speaker 1: to be very concerning. I think not only for college students,
29:58
Speaker 1: but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning
30:02
Speaker 1: for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing
30:06
Speaker 1: these people in and this is what they're doing.
30:10
Speaker 2: And understand the threats. Let me read you another tweet
30:14
Speaker 2: that he sent quote, we are actually living in an
30:18
Speaker 2: e fing alternative reality, although he did not abbreviate fing.
30:23
Speaker 2: Zionists living comfortably in the US and Zionist Jewish students
30:28
Speaker 2: at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared,
30:32
Speaker 2: and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in
30:37
Speaker 2: four K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people,
30:40
Speaker 2: and many of these same folks who claim to feel
30:43
Speaker 2: scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF BFFR.
30:47
Speaker 2: I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is
30:50
Speaker 2: a sick, sick individual and there can be no path
30:56
Speaker 2: forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally.
31:05
Speaker 2: And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are
31:08
Speaker 2: indeed the chosen people chosen for Hell. Now understand one
31:16
Speaker 2: game that anti Semites play, which is many times they
31:21
Speaker 2: use the word Zionist when what they mean is jew
31:24
Speaker 2: and they just think it's It's like, oh, I'm pretending
31:27
Speaker 2: to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look,
31:31
Speaker 2: they consider an ani Actually, at one point says Zionist
31:33
Speaker 2: slash Jewish students, This is an anti Semite who hates
31:38
Speaker 2: Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism,
31:43
Speaker 2: by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And
31:46
Speaker 2: he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen
31:49
Speaker 2: for Hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And
31:55
Speaker 2: you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved
32:00
Speaker 2: to deport this radical leftists were protesting in support of him.
32:07
Speaker 2: And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat
32:13
Speaker 2: in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa. No,
32:20
Speaker 2: you had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation
32:23
Speaker 2: on Thursday and they were chanting hands off MoMA do,
32:28
Speaker 2: waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter
32:34
Speaker 2: ought to ask the Democrats do you believe we have
32:37
Speaker 2: to give student visas to people who say they're enemies
32:40
Speaker 2: of America and hate America. It's there's no legal basis
32:46
Speaker 2: for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat
32:51
Speaker 2: explain why they cheer on pro hamas radicals. But I
32:55
Speaker 2: got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but
33:02
Speaker 2: not swept up the in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Anger.
33:07
Speaker 2: You gotta ask why Washington Democrats when they look at
33:11
Speaker 2: October seventh, when they look at the radicals on campuses,
33:14
Speaker 2: why the Democrats say we stand with Amas and we
33:17
Speaker 2: stand with the PROPOMAUS protesters. That's got to make you
33:21
Speaker 2: wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat party.
33:25
Speaker 1: All right, don't forget. We do this show on Monday,
33:28
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday. So hit that subscriber, that auto download
33:31
Speaker 1: button wherever you're listening, And if you'll help us grow
33:33
Speaker 1: by sharing this podcast anywhere you're on social media. A
33:37
Speaker 1: lot of you been doing that. We want to say
33:39
Speaker 1: thank you. So if you're on Facebook or x or Instagram,
33:42
Speaker 1: wherever you are true social share this this episode behind
33:46
Speaker 1: that will Ford Arrow and it'll show up and help
33:49
Speaker 1: reach new people in the center. And I will see
33:51
Speaker 1: you back here on Wednesday morning.