Speaker 1: I want to talk a bit about, you know, using
Speaker 1: my role as official lawyer talk show.
Speaker 2: Hosts for the community of the San Joaquin.
Speaker 1: Valley, I want to talk a little bit about these
Speaker 1: deportation efforts that the Trump administration has undertaken for these
Speaker 1: trende Aragua terrorists whom the Trump administration deported to Venezuela,
Speaker 1: and they're seeming blowing off, maybe not blowing off, kind
Speaker 1: of blowing off, sort of very much on the edge
Speaker 1: of the Federal District Court judge James Boseberg from the
Speaker 1: Federal District Court in Washington, d C. Who said, no,
Speaker 1: you can't deport these people. Turn the planes around. He
Speaker 1: actually issued his order apparently while there were airplanes in
Speaker 1: the air deporting these people. And a lot of conservatives
Speaker 1: have been outraged by this. I share the conservative outrage
Speaker 1: over these federal District Court judges within the DC district
Speaker 1: basically acting like they are the President of the United
Speaker 1: States rather than the president being the President of the
Speaker 1: United States.
Speaker 2: As well as the kind of the general.
Speaker 1: Process that John Roberts really deserves blame for. John Roberts,
Speaker 1: one person who really could have rained this in years
Speaker 1: ago and who hasn't this whole concept of an individual
Speaker 1: federal district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction to completely
Speaker 1: stop a Trump administration policy from taking place throughout the
Speaker 1: country because one federal judge and one district somewhere in
Speaker 1: the United States issued a ruling to stop it.
Speaker 2: So I despise that whole process.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, let's talk about these deportation of these trend Agua
Speaker 1: terrorists or designated as such. And this is one of
Speaker 1: the difficulties with the Trump administration doing this. So right,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration wants to get rid of criminals who
Speaker 1: are in the country illegally, these Venezuelan aliens who were
Speaker 1: claimed to be members of trend de Aragua, a Venezuelan
Speaker 1: gang that I believe the Trump administration has designated a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization. The Trump administration proclaimed that under the Alien
Speaker 1: Enemies Act, they are able to deport these people. Now,
Speaker 1: the Alien Enemies Act is a law. It's a federal
Speaker 1: law that was passed by Congress.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: It delineates the power of the federal government, through the
Speaker 1: executive of the federal government, to deport people.
Speaker 2: Who are in the country.
Speaker 1: And part of some alien enemy group, some enemy group Okay.
Speaker 1: The way that this law has been used, and it
Speaker 1: hasn't been used very often. Really, this law has only
Speaker 1: ever and by the way this law has passed in the.
Speaker 2: Eighteenth century, like late seventeen hundreds.
Speaker 1: This law has only actually been used up to now
Speaker 1: in situations where the United States was in a declared
Speaker 1: war with another country. Okay, so I think it was
Speaker 1: used in one of the World wars. It was, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it it's only use up to this point has
Speaker 1: been in a situation where there was an actual declaration
Speaker 1: of war and the United States was in a state
Speaker 1: of war with somebody.
Speaker 2: We are not in a state of war with trend
Speaker 2: de Aragua. And you say, oh, we're fighting this war
Speaker 2: against drugs and we're fighting this war against illegal immigration,
Speaker 2: they are well.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, in a metaphorical sense, if you want to
Speaker 1: say we're at war, okay, that's fine, but that's not
Speaker 1: the legal war is an actual term that has an
Speaker 1: actual legal meaning.
Speaker 2: It requires a certain kind of congressional action.
Speaker 1: Now, this doesn't mean that it can't only be used
Speaker 1: in a time when the United States is in declared
Speaker 1: war with another entity. That's just the only times it
Speaker 1: has been used. So I'm keeping things open to that,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of questions here. First of all,
Speaker 1: do we know these guys are actually quote members of
Speaker 1: trendy Aragua. That's a good question. One of the reporting
Speaker 1: that's come out is that some of these guys who
Speaker 1: were being deported had not actually been charged with the
Speaker 1: crime yet, They hadn't had any notice or any sort
Speaker 1: of like hearing about establishing are these guys actually members
Speaker 1: of trendy Arragua.
Speaker 2: So, and it's also the other sort of situation.
Speaker 1: Where people would say, okay, well it would be appropriate
Speaker 1: to utilize.
Speaker 2: The Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 1: Maybe you know, we haven't gotten to a point where
Speaker 1: war has actually been declared yet, but you know, we've
Speaker 1: had an invasion and Congress hasn't had time to act.
Speaker 2: Well. First of all, Congress has had plenty of time
Speaker 2: to act. These illegal aliens have been coming into the
Speaker 2: country for a long time. But also.
Speaker 1: Basically that there's so you could potentially say that, well,
Speaker 1: they're invading the country, so we can start utilizing it.
Speaker 1: Congress hasn't had time to act well. First of all,
Speaker 1: Congress has had time. Deck Secondly, I guess I'm a
Speaker 1: little unsure about the idea that trendy Aragua was engaged
Speaker 1: in an invasion in the way that you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know, Germany invaded France. Those are pretty clear, like
Speaker 1: that's a different kind of whatever kind of invasion illegal
Speaker 1: alien gangs are doing into the United States. And it
Speaker 1: is very bad, and I don't like it, and I
Speaker 1: think it's horrible. It's not really an invasion in the
Speaker 1: same sense that you would normally think of an invasion
Speaker 1: that we would normally understand it. Part of President Trump's
Speaker 1: sort of executive order that led to this, he said,
Speaker 1: I find in declare that Trende Aragua is perpetu is perpetrating,
Speaker 1: attempting and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the
Speaker 1: territory of the United States. Trende Aragua is undertaking hostile
Speaker 1: actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the
Speaker 1: United States, both directly and at the direction, clandestine or
Speaker 1: otherwise of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
Speaker 2: Okay, So there might be some.
Speaker 1: Sort of argument for this, And this is one of
Speaker 1: the things that I've realized in doing like legal analysis
Speaker 1: of news stories in the Trump era, it's hard to
Speaker 1: talk about it intelligently, because basically the initial gut instinct
Speaker 1: of any mainstream legal analysis is going to be anti Trump,
Speaker 1: and usually there's a little bit more to the Trump
Speaker 1: position than you would expect. So yesterday there was an
Speaker 1: oral argument about all of this, where the Trump lawyers,
Speaker 1: the lawyers from the Department of Justice, were trying to
Speaker 1: explain their actions in front of a three judge federal
Speaker 1: appellate court panel from the DC Circuit, and some of
Speaker 1: the issues involved were at place. So the first was
Speaker 1: the question of Okay, you're deporting all these guys, how
Speaker 1: are you identifying them as actually being quote, members of
Speaker 1: trendey aarragua. Have you firmly identified them as members of
Speaker 1: trende Aragua. Secondly, do these guys whom you've so identified,
Speaker 1: do they have the right to any kind of review
Speaker 1: of your decision to classify them as members of trende Aragua?
Speaker 1: Are they entitled to judicial review? And the Trump the
Speaker 1: DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged through gritted teeth that yes,
Speaker 1: they are entitled to judicial review. So even the Trump
Speaker 1: attorneys have admitted, okay, they're entitled to contest the administration
Speaker 1: classifying them as members of trend A Ragua, but ensign
Speaker 1: is refusing to concede that they're entitled to any kind
Speaker 1: of notice that they can contest, or notice that the
Speaker 1: administration thinks they're covered by the proclamation before they're deported.
Speaker 2: Which is a weird position to take.
Speaker 1: I mean, usually if you think someone is entitled to
Speaker 1: contest some legal designation of themselves, they'd be entitled to
Speaker 1: some sort of notice that they've been so identified and
Speaker 1: that they can contest it. The Trump lawyers are sort
Speaker 1: of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Speaker 1: But then there's sort of this broader question of why
Speaker 1: are the courts involved at all? On one level, I
Speaker 1: totally understand that critique. Okay, a series you know, foreign policy,
Speaker 1: international control over security, control over security, immigration through a
Speaker 1: series of Supreme Court cases. All of that is within
Speaker 1: the reserve of the federal government. All that is within
Speaker 1: the reserve of the presidency. Foreign policy is within the
Speaker 1: control of the presidency. The idea that if these if
Speaker 1: this trend Iragua gang is affiliated with the Maduro regime
Speaker 1: in Venezuela, and I have no reason to question that,
Speaker 1: then the president acting in defense of the country seems
Speaker 1: like a very squarely executive funk. Well, the problem is
Speaker 1: that this is a statute that the president is invoking. Here,
Speaker 1: he's not actually invoking his inherent constitutional authority. He's invoking
Speaker 1: a statute something that was passed by Congress, signed into
Speaker 1: law by a president. Now, as a result, it seems
Speaker 1: difficult for them to argue that this isn't something that
Speaker 1: could be subject to judicial review. Okay, If it's a
Speaker 1: statute that was passed by Congress saying the president may
Speaker 1: expel from the country this class of persons, well, I
Speaker 1: don't see how that won't be subject to some kind
Speaker 1: of judicial review. Like, okay, is this does this person
Speaker 1: fit within that class of persons that Congress says can
Speaker 1: be expelled? Is there some sort of opportunity to have
Speaker 1: a hearing about this? I mean, the Trump administration has
Speaker 1: had to begrudgingly say yes, they have a right to
Speaker 1: a hearing, but not any right to notice.
Speaker 2: On and on and on.
Speaker 1: You have to make sure that if Congress has given
Speaker 1: the presidency the power to expel this group of people
Speaker 1: from the country, we have to be sure that the
Speaker 1: people the president is expelling actually fit.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: If I don't know if the United States was at
Speaker 1: war with Italy during World War II. Was every Italian
Speaker 1: American a fit person to be expelled under this law?
Speaker 1: That might have been an abuse of the law. Italian
Speaker 1: Americans would have been able to try and contest it.
Speaker 1: Maybe they should have been able to try and contest it.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Obviously, these particular guys whom Trump is deporting fairly certain
Speaker 1: seem like very very bad guys. But he's doing it
Speaker 1: under the auspices of this certain law, then I think
Speaker 1: he has to be open to some sort of review.
Speaker 2: So there has to be It seems like there.
Speaker 1: Is an admission from the Trump people that some sort
Speaker 1: of due process has to be followed. It can't just
Speaker 1: be the Trump administration designates these guys that way, they
Speaker 1: deport the guys, the guys have no opportunity for a hearing.
Speaker 2: That's apparently that's not it. So whether.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is acting rightly here is one question.
Speaker 1: The other question, though, is does a federal judge really
Speaker 1: have the authority to tell the president to basically to
Speaker 1: review and overturn the president's decisions here? It seems a
Speaker 1: little difficult. And when we get back, when we return,
Speaker 1: I'm going to discuss it about the whole concept of
Speaker 1: judicial review and whether that would apply in a situation
Speaker 1: like this. Now, I think what the outcome of this
Speaker 1: is going to be is the DC Circuit is probably
Speaker 1: going to say, no, you need to have a hearing
Speaker 1: to establish whether or not these guys are actually members of.
Speaker 2: This criminal entity.
Speaker 1: And probably what will happen is the Trump administration will
Speaker 1: find some other legal avenue for deporting these guys that'll
Speaker 1: be simpler. So when we return, I want to talk
Speaker 1: about do judges really have this power? And has the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, by kind of blowing off the District Court
Speaker 1: judge here enacted a quote constitutional crisis. That's next on
Speaker 1: the John Groardy Show. One of the weird things about
Speaker 1: looking at this question of can President Trump deport these
Speaker 1: illegal aliens? Well, these persons from Venezuela, whom the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has designated as terrorists and members of the trend
Speaker 1: de Aragua gang affiliated with the Maduro regime. One of
Speaker 1: the thorny questions about it is that they are doing so.
Speaker 1: They are deporting these people under the auspices of the
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act, a law that was passed in seventeen
Speaker 1: ninety eight that authorizes the president to deport people who
Speaker 1: are members who are alien enemies if the United States
Speaker 1: has been invaded or subject to some sort of enemy
Speaker 1: incursion or is at war or something. Now, that's sort
Speaker 1: of the examples of times when it could be used.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's an exhaustive list of examples.
Speaker 1: Is the way that trend de Aragua has infiltrated the
Speaker 1: Unia States? Is that an invasion in the same sense
Speaker 1: up for debate. However, it's a little dicey thinking that
Speaker 1: a federal judge has the authority, has the right to
Speaker 1: just tell the Trump administration, no, you can't do that. No,
Speaker 1: your determination about who is an alien and enemy alien
Speaker 1: for the.
Speaker 2: Purposes of this law is subject to judicial review.
Speaker 1: Why well, the whole concept of judicial review didn't even
Speaker 1: get established until five years after the Alien Enemies Act
Speaker 1: was passed. So the Alien Enemies Act was passed in
Speaker 1: seventeen ninety eight Marberry versus Madison. The Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: that really established the whole concept of judicial review.
Speaker 2: Wasn't until eighteen oh three.
Speaker 1: And judicial review is the sort of concept within American
Speaker 1: law that the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: the right authority to review laws passed by Congress, actions
Speaker 1: affected by the executive and to determine if they are
Speaker 1: consistent with the Constitution or with federal law, to issue
Speaker 1: determinations on the same, and to expect that those determinations
Speaker 1: be obeyed by the executive And honestly, it's a little
Speaker 1: bit of a lacuna, a little bit of a gap
Speaker 1: within our constitutional order, because, as Andrew Jackson once said
Speaker 1: about one court decision that he didn't like, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has issued its decision, let them enforce it. The
Speaker 1: courts rely upon the good will of the executive branch
Speaker 1: and the executive branch acquiescing in order for their judicial
Speaker 1: determinations to actually be binding. Okay, the Supreme Court can
Speaker 1: issue an injunction saying don't do this. If the actor
Speaker 1: that they say don't do this to still does it,
Speaker 1: then that actor would need to get arrested, prosecuted, whatever,
Speaker 1: by the executive branch for defying a court order. Well,
Speaker 1: what if that person who received that injunction is the
Speaker 1: executive branch itself? What if that person is the president himself?
Speaker 1: The president would have to the president effectively when he's
Speaker 1: told no by the Supreme Court has to sort of
Speaker 1: voluntarily agree that he is not going to do that thing. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying Marberry versus madisone is right or wrong. But it
Speaker 1: is the system that we have, the system that is
Speaker 1: currently operative within our constitutional order. And there are some
Speaker 1: decent argument, I think good arguments for saying that it's
Speaker 1: an important development of our constitution. I think there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of naivete of thinking that in any constitutional
Speaker 1: order that well, Marbury versus Madison was after the Constitution,
Speaker 1: it's not original. Well, okay, any constitutional order is going
Speaker 1: to change develop over time.
Speaker 2: What exactly is the role of the courts?
Speaker 1: If the courts are just totally not to be listened
Speaker 1: to and the executive can totally blow them off, what
Speaker 1: are we talking.
Speaker 2: About here now?
Speaker 1: In spite of that, though, I think it is important
Speaker 1: for this Alien Enemies Act situation.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You know, Alien Enemies Act was passed before judicial review
Speaker 1: was even really a staff published. So when Congress passed
Speaker 1: the Alien Enemies Act, did they think that the president's
Speaker 1: decision about this would be subject to review by a
Speaker 1: bunch of courts and courts saying, well, did you actually
Speaker 1: correctly identify this person as an alien enemy? Does this
Speaker 1: person should have a hearing? And notice that within our
Speaker 1: modern constitutional order as it exists today. Sure, it totally
Speaker 1: makes sense, and I'm sure that's actually that that's going
Speaker 1: to be the ruling from the DC Circuit. And you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the Trump administration could have thought of a better system.
Speaker 1: Maybe they figured this would be a quick way to
Speaker 1: get these aliens deported. It turned out maybe not to
Speaker 1: be such a quick way. But I think this is
Speaker 1: where we're starting to push up against the idea of
Speaker 1: a quote constitutional crisis. The left saying that Trump is
Speaker 1: initiating a constitutional crisis, the right saying that these judges
Speaker 1: are initiating constitutional crises. And I'll get to that when
Speaker 1: we return on the John Girardi Show. Are we facing
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis? So the left is saying that Trump
Speaker 1: is initiating a constitutional crisis? Why Trump tried to deport
Speaker 1: these Venezuelans who the administration said were members of Trend
Speaker 1: de Aragua. This is a criminal gang from Venezuela.
Speaker 2: They have some affiliation with the Maduro regime.
Speaker 1: The Trump administrations characterizing them as terrorists and saying that
Speaker 1: they're enemy aliens for the purposes of the Alien Enemies Act,
Speaker 1: a seventeen ninety eight law which the Trump administration utilized
Speaker 1: to claim they had the authority to deport these guys.
Speaker 1: The Federal District Court judge in DC said, Hey, you
Speaker 1: got to stop these deportations because you haven't demonstrated that
Speaker 1: these guys are actually alien enemy.
Speaker 2: Have you demonstrated these guys are actually members of this group.
Speaker 1: I don't know who these lawyers are who like fleeing
Speaker 1: to the defense of these gangbangers, but yeah, I guess everyone.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe they just hate the Trump administration and hate Trump
Speaker 1: administration immigration policies. Anyway, the court says, hey, you need
Speaker 1: to have some kind of hearing first to determine. You
Speaker 1: need some sort of hearing to determine these guys are
Speaker 1: actually members of trend Arragua. Some of these guys don't
Speaker 1: even actually have a criminal charge against them, so you know,
Speaker 1: you got to have some sort of hearing. The judge
Speaker 1: issues that ruling and the Trump administrations is up too late.
Speaker 2: The flights have already left to deport them.
Speaker 1: Well, now there's some factual dispute over that, well, some
Speaker 1: of the flights were still in air and presumably could
Speaker 1: have turned around some.
Speaker 2: Of the flights.
Speaker 1: Apparently there's some evidence some of the flights had not
Speaker 1: even taken off yet and that they So the question is,
Speaker 1: did the Trump administration ignore the judge's order, and by
Speaker 1: ignoring a federal court order, does that initiate a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, conservatives have I think very rightly
Speaker 1: pointed out a bunch of federal district court judges have
Speaker 1: issued completely absurd rulings to try to block and stop
Speaker 1: various executive actions that I think are very squarely within
Speaker 1: executive power. You had federal district court judges angrily trying
Speaker 1: to order the Trump administration not to cut DEI programs
Speaker 1: and having ridiculous rulings where they say.
Speaker 2: DEI programs are wonderful, where.
Speaker 1: It's like that is totally not your role as a
Speaker 1: judge to talk about how good or bad a law is.
Speaker 1: Your job is to look at whether the law is
Speaker 1: lawful or whether the executive action to cut such a
Speaker 1: program is lawful.
Speaker 2: The rulings by these judges about.
Speaker 1: Whether the Trump administration has the authority to fire people
Speaker 1: or cut off spending all this stuff that seems, many
Speaker 1: of which has been so squarely within the power of
Speaker 1: the executive branch, and you have one individual federal district
Speaker 1: court judge issuing a ruling to shut off, to completely
Speaker 1: halt a Trump administration policy for the whole nation.
Speaker 2: Has been disaster.
Speaker 1: I mean, even like the Trump administration said, we're going
Speaker 1: to cut off this two billion dollars of USAID funding
Speaker 1: that's flowing, this federal district court judge issued a TRO saying, no,
Speaker 1: you have to spend the money, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: for a temporary restraining order a TRO. The idea of
Speaker 1: a TRO is no hold. It's a hold on a
Speaker 1: minute ruling from a judge. An action is happening that
Speaker 1: someone is claiming violates their rights. The judge issues a
Speaker 1: TRO to say stop the action. Just stop the action
Speaker 1: for a second until we have the ability to review this.
Speaker 2: So it's usually to prevent action from happening. That's usually
Speaker 2: what an injunction is or a restraining order is to
Speaker 2: stop action from happening. Stay at the status quo.
Speaker 1: Well, when you're talking about spending money, the status quo is,
Speaker 1: don't spend the money. The judge issues this toro to
Speaker 1: say no, the money must affirmatively be spent at which
Speaker 1: time the horse is out of the barn. The legal
Speaker 1: issue becomes moot because the judge, in his apparently temporary
Speaker 1: restraining order, ordered an affirmative act to let again, to
Speaker 1: let the horse out of the barn. Now, there's no
Speaker 1: point in having a lawsuit because you've you've just issued
Speaker 1: a determination of it.
Speaker 2: That's not what a tro is supposed to be.
Speaker 1: So these fa over by the way, foreign aid spending,
Speaker 1: the direction of foreign aid spending something that seems squarely
Speaker 1: within the responsibility of the president who directs our foreign policy.
Speaker 1: So on the one hand, you have liberals saying Trump
Speaker 1: has initiated a constitutional crisis because.
Speaker 2: He ignored this ruling from this judge.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you have Trump saying, by the way,
Speaker 1: I think the Trump people, those of us on the right,
Speaker 1: are totally correct that these federal district court judges are
Speaker 1: initiating are trying to prompt a constitutional crisis because they
Speaker 1: are like begging the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: To disobey their rulings.
Speaker 1: Now, is Trump initiating a constitutional crisis by ignoring this
Speaker 1: federal district court judge what people mean by constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2: I keep saying that word. What does it mean? Okay?
Speaker 1: Right now, as are institution stands, as it's interpreted, as
Speaker 1: it functions, we have this process called judicial review. That
Speaker 1: means that Congress passes a law, President enforces a law, and.
Speaker 2: The courts are able to review.
Speaker 1: Either laws passed by Congress to see if they are
Speaker 1: consistent with the Constitution itself, or they can review actions
Speaker 1: by the executive to determine if those actions by the
Speaker 1: executive are consistent with laws passed by Congress, regulations passed
Speaker 1: by the executive itself, or with the Constitution itself. The
Speaker 1: court's role is to review judicial review of actions by
Speaker 1: the government or laws passed by Congress, with the expectation
Speaker 1: that those rulings by those judges will be followed, even
Speaker 1: when those rulings are against the president against the executive. Now,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned in the last segment, there's always this
Speaker 1: sort of this sort of unspoken tension there. There's this
Speaker 1: sort of basically just an unwritten other than in Marbary
Speaker 1: versus medicine, sort of this unwritten tradition about how this
Speaker 1: whole thing is held together with something that's relatively weak,
Speaker 1: which is the acquiescence of the executive to obey federal
Speaker 1: court orders. Right again, Andrew Jackson once said, well, the
Speaker 1: court has ruled. The court has issued its ruling. Let
Speaker 1: the court enforce its own ruling. Does the court have
Speaker 1: a police officers to enforce their rulings? Now, the president
Speaker 1: has all the police officers. The president has all the troops.
Speaker 1: The president has all the force with which to enforce
Speaker 1: the law. The courts don't have that. The courts only
Speaker 1: have moral authority. In a sense, when the court issues
Speaker 1: an injunction against the president, the court has no authority
Speaker 1: to force the president to do any There's no men
Speaker 1: with guns ultimately to force the president to do the
Speaker 1: thing that the court told them. The court relies on
Speaker 1: the goodwill of the president and basically the president's fear
Speaker 1: of political retribution for disobeying the court. And that's the
Speaker 1: constitutional order that we have. If a president just starts
Speaker 1: deciding that he's not going to follow decisions by judges,
Speaker 1: federal district court judges, circuit courts, or the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: we're in a real pickle because that sort of does
Speaker 1: upset the apple cart of the constitutional order.
Speaker 2: As we have it today.
Speaker 1: Hence why people say constitutional crisis now, is the Trump team,
Speaker 1: questionablyhether or not they blew off this judge and just
Speaker 1: kept these you know, flights of Venezuelan dudes going. Is
Speaker 1: that a constitutional crisis? Well, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: think it quite is. I think it is the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is not claim that. There's a big difference,
Speaker 1: even just for the sake of saving face, between saying
Speaker 1: that you're complying and really you know, straining hairs and
Speaker 1: going to the absolute limit of what the judge said
Speaker 1: and possibly screwing up and going a little bit past it,
Speaker 1: but saying you're trying to follow the court order and
Speaker 1: flat out saying no, we are not going to comply
Speaker 1: with this court's order. There's a difference between those two things.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration did the former. They said, no, we're complying.
Speaker 1: But when the court judges shoot is ruling the planes
Speaker 1: were already in the sky and then we couldn't turn
Speaker 1: them around, blah blah blah blah blah, and the issue
Speaker 1: was already moved blah blah blah. They have all these
Speaker 1: different arguments. Now, some of those arguments maybe bs, but
Speaker 1: that's still a very big difference. There's a big difference
Speaker 1: between saying the court does not have this authority to
Speaker 1: tell me what to do, versus saying it's sort of
Speaker 1: conceding that the court has authority to rule and saying
Speaker 1: that you're trying to comply, but kind of fudging it
Speaker 1: with how well you're complying. So do I think that's
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis? No, I don't think it is. I
Speaker 1: think it's getting close. But this is the other side
Speaker 1: of that coin. All of that is assuming that these
Speaker 1: judges are issuing legitimate rulings. The system is predicated on
Speaker 1: judges not acting like children.
Speaker 2: The system is predicated on judges.
Speaker 1: Understanding their role and at least more or less sticking
Speaker 1: to their role. I think these federal judges are pushing
Speaker 1: against a constitutional crisis by doing things that are so
Speaker 1: clearly outside their bounds, so clearly outside their scope as
Speaker 1: to really render it questionable whether the Trump administration at
Speaker 1: a certain point should say that you have exceeded the
Speaker 1: bounds of your authority and therefore we're not going to
Speaker 1: listen to you. And the Trump administration has floated this
Speaker 1: in a couple of ways, Trump administration has floated this
Speaker 1: with maybe some of these judges.
Speaker 2: Should be impeached and removed.
Speaker 1: Now, John Roberts, I thought, ridiculously got on his high
Speaker 1: horse and saying no, the answer to bad rulings is
Speaker 1: to appeal them.
Speaker 2: It's not to impeach judges.
Speaker 1: Well, the question whether or not to impeach a judge
Speaker 1: is a purely political question. I don't know what business
Speaker 1: the chief Justice has to offer his political opinion about
Speaker 1: a political question. I don't actually give a damn what
Speaker 1: John Roberts thinks about that. If John Roberts no more
Speaker 1: or less than I want to hear John Roberts' opinion
Speaker 1: on tax policy and what good tax politicy should be.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear his opinion on the political
Speaker 1: question of whether or not we should impeach and remove judges.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: John Roberts sometimes acts like it's his job to stick
Speaker 1: up for all the federal judge Well.
Speaker 2: Is that really your job?
Speaker 1: And by the way, impeaching and removing judges would be
Speaker 1: within the structures of our constitutional order. It's permitted by
Speaker 1: the Constitution if you get a majority in Congress and
Speaker 1: two thirds majority in the Senate, you can impeach and
Speaker 1: remove a judge. It's happened before, but usually it's only
Speaker 1: happened because judges were clearly violating the law, taking bribes
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. But I don't see why it
Speaker 1: would be wrong to initiate that against a judge who's
Speaker 1: wildly exceeding his or her authority.
Speaker 2: Because it gets to this point.
Speaker 1: In wartime, the president directs the first Marine Battalion whatever
Speaker 1: to go over here. Someone within that Marine battalion sues
Speaker 1: files a lawsuit in the DC District saying, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's a good idea for the president to do this.
Speaker 1: I think it puts our lives at risk, and I
Speaker 1: think it's it finds some statute to say that. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's unlawful somehow, I don't know. And a federal district
Speaker 1: court judge issues a temporary restraining orders as the Trump
Speaker 1: administration's lawyers need to appear before us for a hearing
Speaker 1: to justify whether they're legally entitled to move the first
Speaker 1: Marine Battalion over there. Well, if that happened, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration or any president would tell that judge to go
Speaker 1: to hell, and they would be right. That would be
Speaker 1: such a clear abuse of judicial authority that I think
Speaker 1: the Trump administration should tell that judge to go to hell.
Speaker 1: And there were moments in the Civil War where Lincoln
Speaker 1: ignored judicial rulings arguably under similar circumstances. So I think
Speaker 1: that's the problem, and a judge trying to do that
Speaker 1: to a president that is a constitutionally critical thing. That's
Speaker 1: a crisis level thing for our constitutional order for judges
Speaker 1: to try to boss around a president for his core
Speaker 1: executive functions.
Speaker 2: And that's what I'm saying when we say.
Speaker 1: That there is a constitutional crisis, I think it's every
Speaker 1: bit as much coming from the left as this one
Speaker 1: instance of these Venezuelan gang bangers or alleged Venezuelan gangbangers,
Speaker 1: whether or not the Trump administration has the right to
Speaker 1: deport them, whether or not the Trump administration kind of
Speaker 1: blew off this federal judge. They said they didn't a bit.
Speaker 1: There's a big difference there. I think is at a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis. I don't know that could be bad defendant,
Speaker 1: bad behavior by a party in a lawsuit is I think,
Speaker 1: different from the president challenging the entire constitutional order. People
Speaker 1: have questionably followed judicial rulings before, while acknowledging the authority
Speaker 1: of a judge to issue that ruling that that's not
Speaker 1: exactly this is not exactly something novel. Judges basically thinking
Speaker 1: they can rule the country in place of the executive
Speaker 1: is differently bad, and i'd say worse. When we return
Speaker 1: a presdent city council seat might come down to who
Speaker 1: can cure the most ballots. Next on the John Gerardi Show,
Speaker 1: so Brandon Vang is beating Elizabeth Jonathon Roses for this
Speaker 1: president city Council District five seat.
Speaker 2: He is at fifty.
Speaker 1: Point one four percent of the vote, she's at thirty something.
Speaker 1: If he gets over fifty percent, he automatically becomes the
Speaker 1: city council member.
Speaker 2: There's no runoff.
Speaker 1: So now they're doing this thing where there's only like
Speaker 1: I think like one hundred and fifty or so votes
Speaker 1: left to about two hundred votes left, and they're counting
Speaker 1: them right now, and it's like on a razor's edge.
Speaker 1: Depending on how it goes, Vang might get slightly over
Speaker 1: fifty percent and win right away, or might get slightly
Speaker 1: under fifty percent and they'll have to have a runoff.
Speaker 1: And then there's also the process of ballot curing. The
Speaker 1: two sides can go to people who submitted their ballots
Speaker 1: and had a problem on the ballot and get them
Speaker 1: to quote cure their ballot and thereby pick up votes
Speaker 1: for one side or the other. This is how California
Speaker 1: Democrats win every close election. It's why John Duarte is
Speaker 1: not in Congress anymore now. Adam Gray is. Adam Gray
Speaker 1: was better at vote curing than Duarte was. So we
Speaker 1: are on a razor's edge here seeing who is going
Speaker 1: to be the next city council member for District five.
Speaker 1: We will with bated breath and you will hear all
Speaker 1: about it. I'm sure here on the valleys power talk,
Speaker 1: John Girardi, I'm out see you next time.