Speaker 1: What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to vpeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. Mark Sherman reporting for the Associated Press that
the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use the
eighteenth century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport
Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing
before they are taken from the United States. Right. That
was on what Monday. That ruling came down in a
bitterly divided decision, because that's one of the things. Also,
whenever there is a there's a divided decision, split decision
on the court, it's always bitterly divided. You never hear
any other divide except the bitter ones. I don't know
how they judge the bitterness skip Maybe there is a scale.
I don't know, like the hotness scale, you know, for
hot peppers whatever. But all divisions are bitter, okay, So
it's a bitterly divided decision. The court said that the
administration must give Venezuelans who claim who the government claims
are gang members quote reasonable time to go to court,
but the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take
place in Texas instead of a Washington court room. The
court's actions appear to bar the administration from immediately resuming
the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to
a notorious prison in El Salvador, notorious prison. The flights
came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies
Act for the first time since World War II to
justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Trende
Aragua gang an invading force. Trendy Aragua. By the way,
not to be confused with that guy that's been swimming
against the women in the college. That's a that's Trenda Agua.
It's different. That's a whole different thing. The majority said
nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the
hearing that the justices now say is necessary. In the dissent,
the three liberal justices said that the administration has sought
to avoid judicial review in the case, and the court
quote now rewards the government for its behavior. Justice Amy
Coney Barrett, one of Trump's appointments. The conservative appointment joined portions,
not the entire but portions of the descent case, the
Associated Press reports, has become a flash point amid escalating
tension between the White House and the federal courts. It's
the second time in less than a week that a
majority of conservative justices has handed Trump at least a
partial victory in an emergency appeal after lower courts had
blocked parts of his agenda. Several other cases are pending,
including over Trump's plan to deny citizenship to US born
children of parents who were in the country illegally. The
quote birthright citizenship the anchor baby issue. Trump praised the
court for its actions. The original order blocking the deportations
to El Salvador was issued by US District Judge James E. Boasberg.
I think is how he pronounces that, the chief judge
at the Federal courthouse in DC. The ACLU attorney Lee
Gellert said the critical point of the ruling was that
people must be allowed due process to challenge their removal. Quote,
that is an important victory, Okay, So it's a little
bit for all sides, right, A little bit for you
and a little bit for you, and everybody's a little
bit happy, a little bit said whatever. Bosburg imposed a
temporary halt on deportations and also ordered planeloads of Venezuelan
immigrants to return to the US, but that did not happen.
The judge held a hearing last week over whether the
government defied his order to turn the planes around. The
administration has invoked a state secrets privilege, refusing to give
bo Asberg any additional information about the deportations. Right, So
that was Monday. Next, what is the fallout? Right? Because
the Supreme Court made its ruling, and now we're getting
the fallout. So the federal judges, two of them, one
in Texas and one in using the order that came
down from the Supreme Court, they in challenges to deportations
of alleged Trende Aragua organized crime members. They issued stays
against the deportations. Again, a judge in Texas, one in
California independently stayed the deportations. Said you can't you can't
do it looking at the Supreme Court ruling. You can't
deport these people because the Supreme Court says they have
to have due process, and that's always been that's always
been even for conservatives. People who want the deportations want
to you know, want this. You know, this mass program
implemented the deportations of people identified as criminal gang members
by the guver ver. That has raised concerns because simply
because the government says it doesn't make it so right.
They could scoop up people who are not Trende Ragua,
who are not MS thirteen or whatever and put them
on a plane and send them to another country, and
they were not gang members, so they get to challenge
the deportation. A federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday temporarily
blocked the deportation of any purported Venezuelan gang member detained
in the Southern District of New York without them first
receiving notice and an opportunity for a hearing. This is
in Manhattan. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein suggested his decision
was meant to define the parameters that were set by
the Supreme Court. That involves two detainees who just got
sent back to New York after being held in Texas.
That's where a separate judge in Texas followed suit shortly afterwards.
And this one may be more problematic for the Trump administration.
This case involves, well, the US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Junior,
who is a Trump appointment. Okay, he issued a tro
a temporary restraining order that prevents the administration from removing
those migrants subject to President Trump's proclamation invoking the wartime
law from a detention facility in Texas. According to ABC News,
his order will remain in place through April twenty third,
or until he issues a subsequent order, and a hearing
has been scheduled for tomorrow. All right, So what's going on?
Are these judges? Have they gone rogue? Ed Morrissey, writing
at hotair dot Com, says that the Supreme Court ruling
from what Monday punted entirely on the Alien Enemies Act.
It only reversed Judge James Boseberg's tro the temporary restraining
owner on the basis of venue or jurisdiction. That's what
they used to make their ruling. They did not settle
anything regarding the Alien Enemies Act. It also emphasized that
even the Alien Enemies Act, detainees have the right to
a habeas hearing habeas corpus a hebeus hearing, a point
which the Trump administration actually conceded they agreed to in
the appeals process. So both judges now issued their own
halts on deportations to allow for a period of time
so these plaintiffs or these illegals can file petitions with
the court so they get their due process. Rather than
adopt Judge Bosburg's national injunction approach, both judges limited the
jurisdiction of their rulings just to their district, although both
also and joined the government from moving detainees in their
jurisdictions to others, So in other words, they stopped the
government so they didn't want they didn't want the administration
to come in. Like if I'm the judge in Texas
and I'm like, Okay, this guy has to have some
time so he can file his petition, and that's going
to apply. This my ruling is going to apply to
everybody in my jurisdiction. Because that's what got them booted
from the Supreme Court when the when Bosberg tried to
make it apply across the country. It was a jurisdiction matter.
So now he's like, all right, we're focused only on
my jurisdiction, and I don't want the government coming in
and moving detainees out of this jurisdiction, sending him someplace
else where. They don't have this kind of a ruling yet.
So look, make no mistake about it. This is going
to slow the whole process down. It is. Everyone's got
to get their due process, everyone's got to be able
to file their petitions. Government's got to provide some sort
of evidence that these guys were you know, these individuals
on an individual basis, We're MS thirteen were trende Aragua
not trandey Agua different. All right, if you're listening to
this show, you know I try to keep up with
all sorts of current events, and I know you do too,
And you've probably heard me say get your news from
multiple sources. Why Well, because it's how you detect media bias,
which is why I've been so impressed with ground News.
It's an app and it's a website, and it combines
news from around the world in one place, so you
can compare coverage and verify information. You could check it
out at check dot ground, dot news slash pete. I
put the link in the podcast description too. I started
using ground News a few months ago and more recently
chose to work with them as an affiliate because it
lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom.
The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored
by the left and the right. See for yourself check
dot ground, dot news slash pete. Subscribe through that link
and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use
the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature.
Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it
also supports ground News as they make the media landscape
more transparent. Reading from a piece by Ed Morrissey at
hotair dot com regarding the deportations and now the impact
of the Supreme Court ruling these The ruling will force
the government to present evidence of trende ar agua activity
for every defendant that they are trying to deport under
those charges. Right, you can't just say they're TDA throw
them on a plane and take them away. That's what
they're now being forced to run them through. And I
know what you're thinking, if they're here illegally, Why are
you even like, why does this even matter? That will
not be the sole point of challenge for these dt
andes during the proceedings either in both of the courts.
The federal courts could well decide that the Alien and
the Alien Enemies Act cannot apply during peacetime. Even under
Trump's declaration that the TDA made a planned hostile incursion
in concert with the hostile regime of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela,
the Supreme Court explicitly stepped around the AEA application, leaving
that to the district courts to decide. So once again,
and this has been the case as far as I've
been or as long as I've been following the US
Supreme Court, they never miss an opportunity to punt on stuff,
and it creates a lot of these problems and these
rulings they just punt away. They're like, Oh, there's this real,
the important question that the case is looking to solve,
and then they find some like tangential issue and they
make that the ruling and they ignore the bigger part.
And that can have different impacts. But that's like, that's
why we didn't get a second Amendment. Directive basically, like
does the Second Amendment allow you the right to bear arms? Like?
Something is as simple as that. It took the Heller case.
How long? Right? And how many court cases have there been?
There been a bunch of them, but the US Supreme
Court constantly punted away on the issue. This is what
the Alien Enemies Act says. I've gone over this before,
but let me just state it again real quick. The
first part of it says, whenever there is a declared
war between the United States and any foreign nation or
government COMMA, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated comma, attempted,
comma or threatened against the territory of the United States
by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes
public proclamation of the event, then you can deport. And
so the discrepancy here is in the way it's written.
And as I said the last time I went over this,
it's in the commas because the way I read this
it says, whenever there is a declared war between the
US and any foreign nation or government COMMA, or any
invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated by any foreign nation
or government. Okay, it still requires a foreign nation or government.
So like making the connection between TDA and the Venezuelan government.
That's the key, right, that's the key. And so all
the government has, our government has to do in these
proceedings is to say, here's our evidence of the connection,
and here's this guy's membership in TDA, and that should
check the boxes. I think. Ed Morrissey thinks the rush
of TDA organized crime figures into the United States over
the last four years is clearly a predatory incursion, and
Congress gave the President the authority to expel those who
participated in such an incursion. He says, but that's my opinion,
and that's my reading of the statute, and this week's
order from the Supreme Court does nothing to prevent a
different conclusion. We can safely predict that federal judges will
reach a variety of conclusions in these cases. And what
happens when that occurs, you get different opinions from the
lower courts, and then they go up to the US
Supreme Court because there is conflict in the rulings. So
the Supreme Court will eventually have to actually address the
use of the Alien Enemies Act, probably in the near future,
says Ed Morrissey, and then our friend Kurt Schlichter, retired colonel,
writing over at town hall dot com The Agony of
John Roberts. Kurt Schlichter is a trial lawyer in California,
and I thought he did a really good job of
sort of laying this out that Judge Roberts Chief Justice
John roberts problem is that he wants to return to
something like regular order in the judiciary, but what we
have is highly irregular order, and so far he doesn't
seem willing able or interested in trying to bring these
courts into line. So Schlicktor says, pity poor John Roberts. No,
he's not corrupt or compromised. He's simply a man who
has found himself at a pivotal time and place, in
a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited.
He's not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a
very smart man. Hugh Hewitt, the radio guy out in California,
knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to
that I have no doubt it's true. I know many
smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as
John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering
the institution he wants to preserve because he does not
understand human nature or the times he finds himself in.
If he had the capacity to lead that he so
manifestly lacks, John Roberts could save his institution with decisive
and bold action, but that's not who he is. Understand
what John Roberts wants. He's an institutionalist who has always
wanted it to protect the judiciary branch. He wants it
to be a fully coequal branch that is respected by all.
But the very actions he has chosen to take or
not take in response to the current crisis of out
of control subordinate courts are guaranteeing that it will fall
the judiciary as a coequal respected by all branch, it
will fall. Article three of the Constitution, that's the one
that sets up the judicial branch. It does not expressly
provide the judiciary with any powers other than those that
it earns in the eyes of the other two branches.
It cannot self enforce its decrees. Right, that's the old line.
Was it from Jackson who said made his ruling ness,
let's see him enforce it. Article one creates the Congress,
and the legislative branch has the power of the purse.
They have the power to impeach. They have the power
to impeach the judiciary. Article two establishes the presidency, but
the Constitution does not specify its checks and balances over
the court. But that power is implied. The implied powers
for the executive who runs the machinery of the federal government,
including the cogs and gears that carry guns. You know,
they can simply say no to an out of controlled judiciary.
This implied power or defiance is as much a check
and balance as any enumerated one, anything that's written down right.
The executive has the guns, and without it, you would
have an unchecked judiciary with hundreds of district court judges
presuming to micro manage the legitimate actions of the executive branch.
You know, kind of like what's happening? Now, here's a
great idea. How about making an escape to a really
special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina? Just a
quick drive up the mountain and cabins of Ashville is
your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe
you want to plan a memorable proposal or get family
and friends together for a big old reunion. Cabins of
Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can
reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter.
Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres of the
Pizga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in
the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between
Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.
It's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all
the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs,
Wi Fi grills, outdoor tables and your own private covered porch.
Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a
great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville
has the ideal spot for you for any occasion, and
they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight two
eight three six seven seventy sixty eight or check out
all there is to offer at Cabins Offashville dot com
and make memories that'll last a lifetime. All right, So,
Kurt Schlichter Attorney, a lawyer guy out in California townhall
dot com columnist retired US Army colonel, and he's writing
about the what he calls the agony of John Roberts,
saying that we have highly irregular order right now, and
Roberts wants a return to something approximating regular order in
the judiciary. Schlichter says, you non lawyers need to understand
that all these temporary restraining orders, all of these injunctions
and so forth, they are insane. This is not how
law is done, either procedurally or substantively. He says, I
did litigation for thirty years, including in federal courts up
to arguing in front of the Ninth Circuit, and never
saw any remotely like these antics. So that's the first
step is to recognize where we are. This is not normal,
all of these lawsuits and such, this is not normal.
Abnormal times call for abnormal responses. But that is not
how John Roberts works. Remember, he's a bushy, right w
the kind of soft Republican who sees his job less
as fixing our broken government than managing its gentlemanly decline.
He wants the judiciary to be held in respect and
obeyed but he doesn't want to do the hard, stern
work of disciplining his underlings that makes that possible. I
know there was talk about impeachment, right, various judges issuing
these rulings, but Schlichter says that pactically speaking, we're probably
not going to impeach anybody. That's probably not gonna happen. Right,
it takes sixty seven senators, that's that's not gonna happen.
Democrats are going to protect those, you know, activist judges
on the bench. In normal times, the response to a
judge over one dumb decision is the appeals process. But
again rule number one, right, we are not in normal times,
so these are not one dumb decision. These are dozens
of dumb decisions. And the answer is now not the
appeals process, because the appeals process is long, it's drawn out,
it's deliberative. Right. The goal of this law fair campaign
is to use that delay of the appellate process to
strip Trump of his ability to govern. Right, that's the point.
The purpose is to delay. They know that this stuff
isn't going to isn't going to carry the day, but
they just throw as many lawsuits into the gears as possible,
and you know, it'll gum up the works for a while,
and it'll slow Trump's role. And that's good enough, because
then he'll be out to that end, Schlicker says, these
leftists have sought to wrap Trump up in a web
of orders and injunctions that will prevent him from doing
the things that he was elected to do. Eventually, the
Trump administration will win most of these cases through the
appellate process because they are procedurally and substantively ridiculous. But
the purpose is not to fulfill the letter of the law.
The purpose is to create friction that improperly prevents political
action that Trump, as the executive has the right to take.
In other words, Trump may live in the White House,
but he can't actually be president. That disenfranchises the people
who elected him. I thought that was a great line,
that Trump may live in the White House, but he
can't actually be president procedurally. John Roberts needs to lead
the charge to stop the imposition and the use of
these bizarre nationwide orders and injunctions by giving the circuit
courts and the courts of appeal clear guidance to end
the nonsense procedurally now substantively he needs to direct the
circuit courts to issue stays on district courts and their
orders which far exceed the scope of their powers. And
if the circuit courts of appeal refuse to do that,
then the Supreme Court needs to issue the orders to
enforce its will, even if that means issuing dozens and
dozens of orders the Supreme Court only takes. Well, here's
a good question for you. How many cases do you
think the US Supreme Court takes every year? Fifty? About
fifty cases, so like one a week. With over one
hundred lawsuits against the Trump administration as part of this
law fair campaign, that workload no longer works. What John
Roberts is risking by refusing to put an end to
these abuses is the Trump administration putting an end to
these abuses himself by exercising his own implied power unto
the Constitution to check an out of controlled judiciary. If
an order is issued and no one enforces it, is
it really an order? It's a fair question. The constitutional crisis,
the judicial judicial crisis we are in right now, is
the making of the leftists. This is the purpose destabilization,
erode trust in the institutions, that have formed our civil
society and slow Trump from attempting to end the abuses
of out of control judiciary and an out of control
executive branch. All right, so spring is here a time
of renewal and celebrations. You've got graduations, weddings, anniversaries and
the special days for mom and dad. Your family's making
memories that are going to last a lifetime. But let
me ask you, are all of those treasured moments from
days gone by? Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes,
eight millimeter films, photos slides? Are they preserved? Because over
time these precious memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the
magic of yesterday. At Creative Video, they help you protect
what matters most. Their expert team digitizes your cherished family
moments and transfers them onto a USB drive, freezing them
in time so they can be enjoyed for generations to come.
I urge you do not wait until it's too late
this spring. Celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and
let them preserve your legacy with the love and care
that it deserves. Creative Video Preserving Family Memories since nineteen
ninety seven, Located in mint Hill just off four eighty
five mail orders are accepted to get all the details.
At createavideo dot com. Nine years ago, nine years ago,
people were wondering how did we get Donald Trump? And
at the time a fellow by the name of Ilya Shapiro,
legal scholar guy wrote at Kato dot org Libertarian Institute
and website, and you know what he argued at the
time nine years ago he said, John Roberts beget Donald Trump,
which I find to be interesting now looking, you know,
looking at where we are and looking at how you
know Roberts, I just have the image of him, you know,
grasping at the at the dirt and sand in his
you know, judiciary, in his judiciary, and the tighter he
he squeezes to hold on to its respect and it's uh,
you know, reverence that the tighter he squeezes, the more's
it slips through his fingers, you know, Ilia Shapiro, how
John Roberts beget Donald Trump? From nine years ago twenty
sixteen he talked about in this piece, he talked about
Obama and George W. Bush before him, the gop elite,
Nancy Reid or sorry Nancy Reid now Harry Reid and
Nancy Pelosi, nihilists, demographic shifts, globalization, host of other forces
that brought us to where we are, he said, But
I have to point to a moment that spawned the
current rise of Donald Trump. This was May of twenty sixteen,
so before Trump had beaten Clinton, and he says it
would have to be John Robert's vindication of Obamacare June
twenty eighth, twenty twelve. I remember it. I was shocked.
It was so clear even this non lawyer radio guy
could understand the arguments as to why Obamacare needed to fall.
It was a tax, you're taxing people. Roberts recognized that
the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, yet he saved it.
He saved it out of a devotion, a misbegotten devotion
to judicial restraint under the guise of deferring to the people.
And that's not the way it's supposed to work. I
knew it then, and a lot of other people did too. Sure,
the Chief Justice cleverly wrote his opinion so it wouldn't
increase Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, and even cut
it back under the necessary and Proper clause. He also
ultimately upheld the individual mandate only by rewriting it into
a sort of unicorn tax, a creature of no known
constitutional providence that will never be seen again. It's the
only tax that is an attacks in America ever. But
you reap what you sew, you know, refuse by refusing
to follow his own logic to go where even Justice
Anthony Kennedy's full throat, full throatedly went he would do it,
Roberts ended up creating the cynicism and the anger at
the very conservative judicial philosophy that he now tries to save.
Right this play by the rules attitude. Conservatives have had
decreased respect for institutions across the board because of the
Roberts ruling. His twistifications drove the Tea Party, drove the
Tea Party into the arms of the populists, or made
it easy for their populace list instincts to trump their
constitutional ones pun intended but fitting. I mean, why bother
with the constitution? Even when you're right, you lose. How
many times you hear that argument? How many times have
you said that argument? This has been one of the
biggest issues I've I've had this article in my files
since it was published nine years ago, because what he's arguing,
I think is correct because I have heard this from
so many people over the last nine years that it
that what Trump fights. That's what that is from. That's
the summary of what Ilia Shapiro is arguing. That he fights.
And you know, we're tired of you know, just getting
beat all the time, and so gloves are off. We're
going to play by their rules. We're going to you know,
same standard all of that, because even when you're right,
you lose. If Justice Kennedy had joined the liberals in
their view that there are simply no structural limits on
federal power, there would have been disappointment, but it would
have been understandable given the conventional left right rubric right.
But to lose in a holy extra legal way, that
was the sucker punch. Betraying the idea or belying the idea.
I should say that there's a difference between law and politics,
and that the judiciary is an anti majoritarian check on
the excesses of the political branches. It like the scales
fell from the eyes. Roberts told the you know, soon
to be future Trump supporters, not to bother with the courts.
Don't bother the courts with these important issues. If you
want to beat Obama, you got to get your own
strong man, complete with the pen and a phone right
and maybe some contempt for the constitution thrown in. So
they did. That is exactly what happened. They went and
got their own guy, their own fighter, bypassing several flavors
of constitutional conservative in favor of a populism that knows
nothing but winning. It's such a shame, he says, and
deeply ironic. A constitutional moment had actually arrived in twenty ten. Remember,
the people had risen up against crony capitalism, against bailouts,
against out of control government in every aspect of our lives.
That was the Tea Party, folks, Real constitutionalists were sent
to Congress. I mean Massachusetts remember elected Scott Brown in
an effort to stop Obamacare. State legislatures turned Republican base
on opposition to federal overreach. North Carolina flipped Republican in
this timeframe, like there was this huge wave, this opposition
to the overreaching federal government, and the poster child was Obamacare,
and the last domino the White House poised to fall.
Two would have already had any a less constitutional had
run in twenty twelve with the most talented and intellectually
vibrant GOP primary field since Ronald Reagan. But then Roberts
ushered in the Trump Tornado. Constitutional conservatism simply could not
survive judicial conservatism. Ilia Shapiro, blames, credits, whatever you want
to say, all of this stuff we're seeing now is
the backlash to John Roberts, who we are all now
reaping what he sowed. All right, that'll do it for
this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could
not do the show without your support and the support
of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if
you'd like, please support them too and tell them you
heard it here. You can also become a patron at
my Patreon page or go to dpecleanershow dot com. Again,
thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything
while I'm gone.