Speaker 1: I try to be honest on this show, and if
Speaker 1: I'm being honest, the topic that's really dominating my mind
Speaker 1: at the moment is the question of immigration, the tensions
Speaker 1: about this subject between the Trump administration and the Catholic bishops,
Speaker 1: as well as the recent intervention into this discussion by
Speaker 1: Pope Francis. Now, I don't go on this show and
Speaker 1: I don't blast the Pope. I don't criticize the Pope.
Speaker 1: This is I think this stems from my own Catholicism.
Speaker 1: I hate it when Catholics sort of treat the Pope
Speaker 1: as just another kind of political talking head whom you
Speaker 1: can call a moron at your pleasure. He's not. I
Speaker 1: think he's deeper, thinker than that. I think he's a
Speaker 1: better person than that. And I basically I kind of
Speaker 1: view the question of, you know, criticism of the Pope
Speaker 1: along the lines that I would if my own father
Speaker 1: were doing something that I didn't like or I didn't
Speaker 1: disagree with, How would I talk about it? If my
Speaker 1: father were a prominent figure in public life and we're
Speaker 1: doing something I disagreed with, I would probably ninety nine
Speaker 1: percent of the time maintain a respectful silence. And if
Speaker 1: I were pressed into talking about it, I would, you know,
Speaker 1: do so with love and affection and respect, because I
Speaker 1: love my father and I have that kind of an
Speaker 1: attitude towards the Pope, as I think the early Christian
Speaker 1: community would have had towards the apostles towards Peter. I'm
Speaker 1: also not really anyone in a position of authority. Paul,
Speaker 1: an apostle, was able to engage in fraternal correction to
Speaker 1: Peter when Peter was sort of being kind of hypocritical
Speaker 1: in his treatment between some of the more some aspects
Speaker 1: of the early Christian community that wanted to maintain Jewish
Speaker 1: customs and other aspects of the Christian community as represented
Speaker 1: by Paul and Peter. Really that we're saying, no, Christianity
Speaker 1: is open to the gentiles. We don't need to insist
Speaker 1: on following the We do not need to insist on
Speaker 1: following old law customs, kosher rules for food, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So Paul was able to critique Peter. But I'm not Paul.
Speaker 1: I'm not an apostle, I'm not bishop, I'm not a priest.
Speaker 1: I'm a guy yapping on the radio, and I'm not
Speaker 1: even necessarily someone with you know, I am a lawyer,
Speaker 1: so I think I have some basis for discussing the
Speaker 1: immigration question a little bit, and I want to sort
Speaker 1: of talk about the tensions within Catholic teaching on this.
Speaker 1: So Pope Francis issued just yesterday this letter to the
Speaker 1: Bishops of the United States talking about the immigration question,
Speaker 1: where it seemed as if he was directly responding to
Speaker 1: Jade Vance. Jady Vance had mentioned this idea called the
Speaker 1: Ordo amorris, the notion that there is a certain ordering
Speaker 1: of love, of care and concern that everyone is supposed
Speaker 1: to have. That this is just sort of obvious, natural
Speaker 1: common sense, but also as a principle within Christianity that
Speaker 1: you have certain kinds of obligations of care and duty
Speaker 1: to the people closest to you. To care for someone
Speaker 1: in need in your immediate sphere is a more urgent,
Speaker 1: pressing obligation to you than caring for someone who is
Speaker 1: half a world away. You know, I'm going to put
Speaker 1: food on the table and clothing on the backs of
Speaker 1: my own children before I do that for someone else's children.
Speaker 1: If I neglect and my own children for the sake
Speaker 1: of someone else's children, that would not be good and JD.
Speaker 1: Vance is just basically making the point that we've I
Speaker 1: think the broader point that Vance has been making that
Speaker 1: I think has been missed by some of his more
Speaker 1: liberal Catholic interlocutors, and that frankly, you know, the Pope
Speaker 1: did not mention Vance by name, but he certainly didn't
Speaker 1: mention this topic, and it's obviously a reaction to Vance.
Speaker 1: I think the point Vance is making is that American
Speaker 1: immigration policy has been so solicitous to welcome people from
Speaker 1: other countries that it has resulted in detrimental outcomes for
Speaker 1: our own citizenry. We have been so eager to let
Speaker 1: in immigrants from other countries, whom, by the way major
Speaker 1: capitalist big business can mistreat in the labor market. Okay,
Speaker 1: why do we want Why do all these big companies
Speaker 1: want a bunch of H one B visa holders to
Speaker 1: come to America from India to work, you know, to
Speaker 1: work engineering jobs. It's not out of an altruistic desire
Speaker 1: to lift up the world's benighted masses, you know, and
Speaker 1: bring in you know, wonderful people from India to do
Speaker 1: this work. Part of it in many, many companies is
Speaker 1: you can get away with paying an h one B
Speaker 1: VISA holder less money, treating them worse because an H
Speaker 1: one bvs A holder, it's almost like this indentured servitude.
Speaker 1: If they lose their job, their rear end is going
Speaker 1: back to India. So rather than hire an American engineer
Speaker 1: who's an American citizen, who if you treat him badly,
Speaker 1: if you don't pay him well enough, he can say, well,
Speaker 1: screw this, I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go get another job.
Speaker 1: If you mistreat them, you know, I'm an American worker
Speaker 1: could maybe say, hey, you're violating labor law, you're not
Speaker 1: paying me what you owe, or you're violating overtime rules,
Speaker 1: or you're you know, discriminating against me on the basis
Speaker 1: of you know, exra y category. No worry about that
Speaker 1: with H one bvs A holders. Why have Americans picking
Speaker 1: your crops when you can have someone from Mexico, someone
Speaker 1: from Mexico who is more leary about unionizing because maybe
Speaker 1: they're only here on a green card maybe or well
Speaker 1: green card is implies permanent status, but you know, maybe
Speaker 1: they're only here on a work visa temporarily as long
Speaker 1: as they have a job and they don't want to
Speaker 1: lose a job. Maybe they've overstayed their visa, so they're
Speaker 1: in a dicey situation. They don't want to lift their
Speaker 1: nose above the water and give someone an occasion to
Speaker 1: call ice or call it immigration authorities to ship them back.
Speaker 1: I think there's this fundamental problem with American immigration policy,
Speaker 1: that this fundamental injustice that's being perpetrated, that that people
Speaker 1: on the bleeding heart left don't seem to want to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that the reason why people like tons and tons
Speaker 1: of illegal immigration and even in some cases a wildly
Speaker 1: over expansive legal imageation market, is not out of an
Speaker 1: altruistic desire to keep and care for the world's oppressed masses,
Speaker 1: or even like you know, I think there is some
Speaker 1: obligation that wealthy countries have to take in immigrants, to
Speaker 1: allow people to migrate relative with relative freedom as long
Speaker 1: as people follow legal processes, and the United States is
Speaker 1: incredibly generous as far as it's immigration policies. There are
Speaker 1: other countries that just say a total pause, we're allowing
Speaker 1: in no new legal immigrants. In the United States never
Speaker 1: does that. We are constantly allowing in hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of legal immigrants every year. It's just that there's a process,
Speaker 1: and I think a lot of illegal immigration is motivated
Speaker 1: not it's not just a sense of how could you
Speaker 1: be so harsh and draconian in, you know, enforcing American
Speaker 1: immigration law to stop illegal immigration. This is so harmful,
Speaker 1: This is so mean to the people who came here.
Speaker 1: Why do you think they're here in the first place.
Speaker 1: Why do you think you have so many of these
Speaker 1: entities wanting them to come here, to overstay their visas,
Speaker 1: to be here on a you know, a tenuous either
Speaker 1: legal but only if you have a job or illegal basis.
Speaker 1: It benefits big time businesses, that's whom it's benefiting, and
Speaker 1: it is to the detriment of American workers. I see
Speaker 1: no reason why other than proximity to Mexico, the California
Speaker 1: agriculture industry came to be dominated by just immigrant, by
Speaker 1: mostly ununionized immigrant labor. Other you know, the UfW tries
Speaker 1: and the UfW is really a shadow of is really
Speaker 1: not a very significant force anymore. It's not like most
Speaker 1: I don't think most farm workers are members of UfW.
Speaker 1: Why it developed like that rather than the automobile industry.
Speaker 1: It's not like guys who were working the line at
Speaker 1: Ford were not working hard. It's not like that isn't
Speaker 1: a physically taxing job. But why did the American automotive
Speaker 1: industry develop that way and not I don't know California
Speaker 1: agg industry. Now that there's a seasonal nature to agricultural jobs.
Speaker 1: I get it that maybe it makes it hard to
Speaker 1: sort of build a house and settle down in one spot,
Speaker 1: but and should certainly there are a lot of other
Speaker 1: contingent factors. But this sort of vaguely racially, this vaguely
Speaker 1: racist idea that only Mexicans are able to pick to
Speaker 1: do the backbreaking labor of picking vegetables is I think ridiculous.
Speaker 1: There are plenty of examples of Americans who did backbreaking
Speaker 1: physical labor. Who do backbreaking physical labor. You know, why
Speaker 1: are coal miners all Americans? Why are you know these
Speaker 1: are hard jobs that Americans do. It developed that way
Speaker 1: in California because California is close to Mexico, and it
Speaker 1: is clearly financially advantageous in certain respects to have non
Speaker 1: citizens people here quasi legally, people here illegally. So I
Speaker 1: think none of that is being discussed, and I guess
Speaker 1: it's a little bit. It's a little unrealistic to expect
Speaker 1: Pope Francis, of all people, to be able to even
Speaker 1: get in the weeds of that. He is an Argentinian
Speaker 1: priest bishop who in Rome now, who is getting his
Speaker 1: information about the American immigration situation from the most liberal
Speaker 1: bishops in the United States. Pretty much. Of course, he's
Speaker 1: not going to give a very two sided presentation to
Speaker 1: the debate. Now. He reiterates Catholic teaching on the subject, which,
Speaker 1: if you look at Catholic teaching on the subject, I
Speaker 1: think can result in a variety of different approaches Legitimately
Speaker 1: between disagreeing people to the immigration debate. I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of room for reasonable people of goodwill within
Speaker 1: the Catholic Church to disagree on the parameters of immigration enforcement.
Speaker 1: I think the bishops have been in America, and by
Speaker 1: the way, both bishops, not just bishops who are very liberal.
Speaker 1: I had I had Bishop Joseph Brennan, the Bishop of Fresno,
Speaker 1: on this show. I can assure you all there is
Speaker 1: nobody more socially conservative you're ever going to meet in
Speaker 1: your life than Bishop Brennan. All Right, he is a
Speaker 1: die hard pro lifer. He is you know he's for
Speaker 1: one thing, He's also just been a very dear friend
Speaker 1: to me, a very faithful Catholic, and not like a
Speaker 1: total He isn't like this caricature of the modern day
Speaker 1: left pro immigration, you know, racial fraudster who thinks that
Speaker 1: any immigration enforcement whatsoever is just tantamount to racism and
Speaker 1: responds to any argument about immigration by saying, well, America
Speaker 1: is a country of immigrants. No, He's like, yes, I
Speaker 1: really think we should deport anyone who's in this I
Speaker 1: think deportations are okay. I think anyone who's committed a
Speaker 1: crime needs to be deported. I think Bishop Brennan has
Speaker 1: legitimate concerns about the fairness of people who were allowed
Speaker 1: to stay in the United States for long periods of time,
Speaker 1: who were allowed to stay for such a long time
Speaker 1: that they set down roots, now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: all being deported because guess what, probably a lot of
Speaker 1: his parishioners in the Sanawaquin Valley are like that, And
Speaker 1: now a lot of those people are scared. They are worried,
Speaker 1: they're concerned. They've made a life here, they're not sure
Speaker 1: what they would go back to in Mexico or wherever.
Speaker 1: He has concern for those people, and unfrankly, I do too.
Speaker 1: I think that there is this fundamental unfairness that's resulted
Speaker 1: in American immigration law as a result of non enforcement
Speaker 1: of immigration law that happened for the past four years.
Speaker 1: And I think that's what frustrates me, is that the
Speaker 1: people from whom Pope Francis is getting all of his
Speaker 1: information about the American immigration scene are some of these
Speaker 1: most liberal bishops I think, who didn't raise a peep
Speaker 1: about the problems that President Biden had been creating at
Speaker 1: the border, exacerbation of the problems with people making phony
Speaker 1: asylum claims, which has been I think the chief I
Speaker 1: think that, more than anything has been the chief problem
Speaker 1: at the border during the Biden years, the fact that
Speaker 1: we have an asylum system in America. The asylum system,
Speaker 1: it's not supposed to be a shortcut to immigration. It's
Speaker 1: supposed to be you're in a bad, exigent circumstance in
Speaker 1: you're you're putting a raft together made out of old
Speaker 1: tires to float from Cuba to Miami because Castro is
Speaker 1: gonna murder your family. You don't have time to or
Speaker 1: the ability maybe to, you know, apply for a work
Speaker 1: visa in the United States. You lash a raft together,
Speaker 1: you float from Cuba to Miami Beach. You've come ashore,
Speaker 1: you get picked up by immigration authorities and you say, hey,
Speaker 1: I know I didn't come here the normal legal way.
Speaker 1: I am seeking asylum. Castro is gonna kill me. Can
Speaker 1: I come to the United States and we have a
Speaker 1: system for that. Instead, what we've got are people marching
Speaker 1: all the way up through Central America, through Mexico, through
Speaker 1: safe parts of Central America, safe parts of Mexico, to say, ah,
Speaker 1: I need asylum, when really what they're moving for is
Speaker 1: an economic opportunity. Which that's fine, but you shouldn't be
Speaker 1: using the asylum system to effectively cut the line. So
Speaker 1: what do we do with these people? The Biden administration said, ah,
Speaker 1: let them come in, and so we have wave and
Speaker 1: wave and wave and wave of people where the Biden
Speaker 1: Administration's like, ah, we're just not going to catch people
Speaker 1: sneaking across the border illegally. We're not. We're gonna let
Speaker 1: people in while we sit around and say we're going
Speaker 1: to adjudicate their asylum claim, give them a court date
Speaker 1: three years from now, that they're never going to show
Speaker 1: up for and so now we just have all these
Speaker 1: people in the country. But basically, this on again, off
Speaker 1: again situation of American immigration enforcement I do think is
Speaker 1: unjust for a lot of people who wound up staying
Speaker 1: here on the basis of American presidents saying yeah, you
Speaker 1: can stay. So when we return, I want to just
Speaker 1: talk about maybe some dynamics about Pope Francis and things
Speaker 1: like that, just to try to give some context for
Speaker 1: the whole thing that is next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: I'm discussing the recent letter that Pope Francis sent to
Speaker 1: the bishops of the United States with regards to immigration,
Speaker 1: and I want to talk about this just to give
Speaker 1: some context for people. I think the perception of probably
Speaker 1: most power talk listeners is Pope Francis is a left
Speaker 1: wing lunatic and he hates Donald Trump. It may be
Speaker 1: that he doesn't like Donald Trump. I wouldn't call him
Speaker 1: a left wing lunatic. I think he has been very
Speaker 1: concerned about immigration questions in many contexts worldwide, that that
Speaker 1: is clearly something that really animates him. I wouldn't say
Speaker 1: that he is unconcerned about social conservative questions. He's been
Speaker 1: very few people in the world have been more anti
Speaker 1: trans than Pope Francis, who, in spite of various whining
Speaker 1: wringing their hands Catholic lefties said absolutely not. Nope, the
Speaker 1: catholicarick absolutely posed it and actually helped develop Catholic teaching
Speaker 1: over the course of his pontificate with regards to these
Speaker 1: emerging trends and emerging issues with regards to transgenderism, all
Speaker 1: in ways that are completely excellent and good. So I
Speaker 1: want to give him credit where it is due. He's
Speaker 1: unfailingly pro life, has reiterated, honestly with far harsher language
Speaker 1: than I've ever used his opposition to abortion in context
Speaker 1: after context. I will also, though, note this, with regards
Speaker 1: to this most recent interaction, I would be willing to
Speaker 1: bet a large sum of money that Pope Francis didn't
Speaker 1: write a word of it. That maybe he signed it,
Speaker 1: but he didn't write it. Pope Francis is eighty eight
Speaker 1: years old. I don't need to tell any American about
Speaker 1: you know, when someone's getting into their late eighties, you know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a difficult thing to expect them to
Speaker 1: be operating at a super high level. We just saw
Speaker 1: this with a guy who was our president who was
Speaker 1: clearly senile the whole time. And I'm not saying Pope
Speaker 1: Francis is senile. I don't think he is. I think
Speaker 1: he's actually still fairly I think he's still probably pretty
Speaker 1: darn mentally sharp. But you don't have the same fastball
Speaker 1: at eighty eight. I don't care how mentally sharp you are,
Speaker 1: you don't have the same fastball at eighty eight. I
Speaker 1: think that's why Pope Benedict the sixteenth resigned the papacy.
Speaker 1: Some of you may remember this, that Pope Benedict in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen resigned. Was the first pope in like five
Speaker 1: hundred whatever, how many years, I forget how many centuries
Speaker 1: was the first pope to voluntarily resign his office. And
Speaker 1: I think he did so because he saw what had
Speaker 1: happened under John Paul the Second. John Paul the Second,
Speaker 1: I think had a very strong sense of his duty
Speaker 1: and obligation to serve the church. And in spite of
Speaker 1: the fact that he had Parkinson's disease and was suffering
Speaker 1: very badly and was exhausted by the efforts of the papacy,
Speaker 1: he said, no, I'm going to carry this cross like
Speaker 1: Jesus did, and that's it. I'm not going to resign.
Speaker 1: And I think Pope Benedict was saw that and saw
Speaker 1: obviously he very so deeply admired John Paul the Second,
Speaker 1: but I think he also realized maybe that's not the
Speaker 1: best thing for the church to have a pontiff who's
Speaker 1: well into his eighties, who cannot be as on top
Speaker 1: of things as a younger man. And you know, popes
Speaker 1: are living longer than they used to. Okay, in the
Speaker 1: fifteen hundreds, if a pope dropped dead at age sixty eight,
Speaker 1: no one was surprised. Popes are living to be they
Speaker 1: have really good health care. They can live to be ninety.
Speaker 1: And paup Francis only has one lung. He had some
Speaker 1: kind of lung disease when he was young and had
Speaker 1: one of his lungs removed. The fact that he's got
Speaker 1: bronchitis right now. So again, I'm not saying Pop Francis
Speaker 1: doesn't know what he signing, but I will say he
Speaker 1: is reliant on other people. And I think I don't
Speaker 1: know if there's some kind of a anti American bias
Speaker 1: that's just present among Europeans and South Americans of which
Speaker 1: he's kind of both. And I think he just sort
Speaker 1: of has this. You know, he actually said this in
Speaker 1: a press conference he had on an airplane recently when
Speaker 1: he was asked about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: he said, one of them wants to kill all the babies,
Speaker 1: and one of them wants to get rid of all
Speaker 1: the migrants. And that's it's sort of just his viewpoint
Speaker 1: on things that he thinks abortion is bad and he
Speaker 1: thinks he has a vague sense that American conservative's position
Speaker 1: on immigration is bad. But he doesn't have the level
Speaker 1: of sort of nitty gritty detail understanding of it, I
Speaker 1: would guess. And you know, maybe I'm being as umptuous.
Speaker 1: Maybe he does. Maybe I'm just wrong. I just don't
Speaker 1: think he has the level of nitty gritty detailed understanding
Speaker 1: of like, hey, do you realize how President Biden, like
Speaker 1: royally screwed everything up, completely screwed up the asylum system
Speaker 1: and people cutting the line via the asylum system, letting
Speaker 1: them come into the country unchecked, everyone's miensing their court dates,
Speaker 1: people overstaying whatever kind of parole Biden gave it. Blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, blah blah, bah blah blah, the long
Speaker 1: term economic harms to American the American working class that's
Speaker 1: resulted from immigration, the benefits to capitalist enterprise to from
Speaker 1: illegal immigration that people just pay their workers less, on
Speaker 1: and on and on, the sort of in depth America
Speaker 1: specific details about the immigration question that I just I
Speaker 1: think it would be unreasonable to expect him to fully understand.
Speaker 1: And I think he's got a lot of advisers around
Speaker 1: him who want him to talk about want him to
Speaker 1: push him to talk about this, who seemingly didn't push
Speaker 1: him to talk about things like abortion or whatever. So
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, that's my thoughts. I
Speaker 1: respect the Pope, I love the Pope. I'm never gonna
Speaker 1: blast him on this show. I want to treat him
Speaker 1: the way I would my own father. I hope that's
Speaker 1: what I've done. When we return. Is jd Vance initiating
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis of ignoring the court? Next? On the
Speaker 1: John Gerardi Show. Jd Vance the other day had a
Speaker 1: fairly simple statement that's been blown way out of proportion
Speaker 1: into literally people calling it a constitutional crisis. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it's not much of a surprise to anyone
Speaker 1: given the level of lunacy and historyonics that people were
Speaker 1: into during the first Trump administration, where everything Trump did
Speaker 1: was the end of the world, that we you know,
Speaker 1: get more of the same in the second Trump administration.
Speaker 1: But and it's especially comical to see the American Bar Association.
Speaker 1: So for those who don't know, the American Bar Association
Speaker 1: is a joke. It is completely dominated by its actual
Speaker 1: you know, leadership is dominated by left wingers, and they
Speaker 1: are are now at this point where they're totally fine
Speaker 1: with accepting even the most wildly left wing, outlandish liberal
Speaker 1: legal ideas and theories humanly possible that that would just
Speaker 1: get laughed out of an actual, real life, real world courtroom.
Speaker 1: Stuff that's like too liberal for the actual Biden doj
Speaker 1: The American Bar Association was cheering the notion just a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago that Joe Biden could create a constitutional
Speaker 1: amendment to the United States could declare something to be
Speaker 1: a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution, an amendment to
Speaker 1: the US Constitution via tweet. When Biden declared an think
Speaker 1: they equal rights amendment is part of the Constitution, It's like, yeah, well, there,
Speaker 1: it is part of the Constitution now. Spite of the
Speaker 1: fact that it you know, didn't get another states to
Speaker 1: ratify it within the specified time frame, and a bunch
Speaker 1: of states de ratified after initially ratifying it, and blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. So the American Bar Association's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But they issued this big statement just earlier that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration this unprecedented attacks on the law because he's
Speaker 1: firing a bunch of government employees and because of this
Speaker 1: statement by JD. Vance. So what advanced say? Vance said, quote,
Speaker 1: judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. Now
Speaker 1: people took that to mean the president is going to
Speaker 1: ignore the courts, and frankly, this is a you know,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people like to think of
Speaker 1: our constitution as this sort of perfect, sort of fail safe,
Speaker 1: perfect mechanism with no holes, no lacune, no sort of gaps.
Speaker 1: As far as well, what would happen if this happened?
Speaker 1: And this has actually been kind of a long standing thing.
Speaker 1: The checks and balances that exist within our constitutional order
Speaker 1: as we have it today is Congress rights the laws.
Speaker 1: The president executes the laws. The president can only execute
Speaker 1: those laws that Congress writes. The president has some ability
Speaker 1: to use some level of executive discretion about how exactly
Speaker 1: he's going to enforce the law within the parameters of
Speaker 1: what Congress has written. So Congress has some ability to
Speaker 1: check the ability. Congress has the ability to check the
Speaker 1: power of the executive by delineating the area of its activity.
Speaker 1: You will enforce the law. This is the law you
Speaker 1: will enforce. You must stay within these parameters. You go
Speaker 1: outside these parameters, you're outside the law. And the judiciary
Speaker 1: has this sort of power to check everyone by in
Speaker 1: an individual case or controversy, declaring that a certain law
Speaker 1: violates the Constitution. The problem is, how does the judiciary
Speaker 1: enforce its decisions. Well, it really only does so through
Speaker 1: the good graces of the executive branch of government. And
Speaker 1: this has led at different times in American history to
Speaker 1: these kind of little mini constitutional crises. Andrew Jackson famously
Speaker 1: ignored a Supreme Court ruling. He said, the Court can
Speaker 1: issue its decisions, let them enforce it. And the thought
Speaker 1: is that basically we have followed this pattern that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has the last say about what is and
Speaker 1: is not consistent with federal law or consistent with the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and the executive follows it. That has been the most
Speaker 1: majorum the way of our ancestors. That has been the
Speaker 1: custom that has been kept, an important custom, long standing custom,
Speaker 1: but effectively it's only in place with the goodwill of
Speaker 1: the executive And there have been times when the executive
Speaker 1: has or would tell the Supreme Court to go shove it.
Speaker 1: If the Supreme Court were to intervene and say, in wartime,
Speaker 1: the president cannot move the first Infantry battalion from this
Speaker 1: area to that area through an emergency court ruling prompted
Speaker 1: by a soldier filing a lawsuit or something. Clearly that
Speaker 1: would be a wrongful infringement on the authority of the president.
Speaker 1: The president is the commander in chief of the military.
Speaker 1: He is solely given that responsibility by the Constitution, and
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court were to purport to venture into
Speaker 1: that territory, the President would be I think completely within
Speaker 1: his rights to tell the Supreme Court to go shove it.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if we are quite there, but boy,
Speaker 1: I think we're getting close. With some of these lower
Speaker 1: court rulings that have been coming out with regards to
Speaker 1: actions by the Trump administration. You had one federal judge
Speaker 1: who said basically that Treasury Department positive information he was
Speaker 1: trying to block. The effort was to block Elon Musk
Speaker 1: and the DOGE guys from accessing certain kinds of Treasury
Speaker 1: Department information. And the ruling from this one Federal District
Speaker 1: court judge was to limit all political appointees in the
Speaker 1: Treasury Department from seeing this information, from accessing this information,
Speaker 1: all of them. That includes like the Secretary of the
Speaker 1: Treasury not being able to see Treasury Department stuff. How
Speaker 1: is that not a wild infringement by the courts on
Speaker 1: the clear prerogatives of the executive branch. And by the way,
Speaker 1: liberals have cheered the fact that the judiciary shouldn't infringe
Speaker 1: on executive prerogatives. In twenty twenty two, a case Biden b. Texas.
Speaker 1: This was a case where President Biden had gotten rid
Speaker 1: of the Trump Remain in Mexico policy. Basically, American lawses
Speaker 1: win an asylum seeker comes to the United States, they
Speaker 1: are to be detained. Well, we don't have enough cells
Speaker 1: to detain people. So the policy enacted by President Trump was, look,
Speaker 1: you got to remain in Mexico while we adjudicate your
Speaker 1: asylum claim. And this led to fewer flimsy, fraudulent asylum claims.
Speaker 1: President Biden changed it. He said, Oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: let you into the country while you wait for your
Speaker 1: asylum claim. And so people just go into the country
Speaker 1: their asylum There are way too many asylum seekers, not
Speaker 1: nearly enough immigration judges and lawyers. Their court date for
Speaker 1: judicating their asylum claim wasn't for several years, and then
Speaker 1: we just let these people into the country. They're in
Speaker 1: the country, and they're never shown up for that court.
Speaker 1: That has been one of the massive reasons, one of
Speaker 1: the massive flaws in the Biden immigration policy was that.
Speaker 1: And it got to the point where Biden was using
Speaker 1: like the Border Patrol CBP one app or something. I
Speaker 1: think that was the app to sort of like make
Speaker 1: that process even more quick automatically just giving these people
Speaker 1: parole is purporting to give these people some kind of
Speaker 1: parole from their necessary legally mandated detainment and just letting
Speaker 1: him into the country. So a bunch of states sued
Speaker 1: the executive branch to say, hey, you're violating the law.
Speaker 1: You're letting all these people in in violation of American
Speaker 1: law that says you have to detain these people. Well,
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court ruled against the States in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two in a case called Biden v. Texas, and Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts wrote Article two of the Constitution author the
Speaker 1: executive to engage in direct diplomacy with foreign heads of
Speaker 1: state and their ministers. It part of remain in Mexico.
Speaker 1: It relies a little bit on Mexico's good graces. Accordingly,
Speaker 1: the Court is taken care to avoid the danger of
Speaker 1: unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy and
Speaker 1: decline to run interference in the delicate field of international
Speaker 1: relations without the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly clearly expressed.
Speaker 1: That is no less true in the context of immigration law,
Speaker 1: where the dynamic nature of relations with other countries. Who
Speaker 1: requires the executive branch to ensure that enforcement policies are
Speaker 1: consistent with this nation's foreign policy. Now, in that case,
Speaker 1: Roberts was saying, well, the judiciary is not going to
Speaker 1: tell the president what to do in something that's within
Speaker 1: his province foreign relations. So while the Court is from
Speaker 1: a peace in National Review by Andy McCarthy, that's kind
Speaker 1: of a good summary of this. While the Court can
Speaker 1: and should say what it thinks, the law is. We
Speaker 1: must always remember that the justices are right because they
Speaker 1: are final. They are not final because they are always right.
Speaker 1: As is well known, the High Court has in its
Speaker 1: history reversed itself on a number of significant matters, often
Speaker 1: because prior rulings were egregiously wrong Roe v. Wade, And
Speaker 1: the Court has a doctrine storry decisis a major aspect
Speaker 1: of which assumes that some decisions are wrong and wrestles
Speaker 1: with whether they should be retained. Nonetheless, so I don't
Speaker 1: I think that this notion that Vance is saying something revolutionary,
Speaker 1: I think is ridiculous. He's not. He's saying there is
Speaker 1: a proper role for the executive and the judiciary shouldn't
Speaker 1: be overstepping it, and if it, and frankly, I'd love
Speaker 1: to see some old Supreme Court cases overturned to establish
Speaker 1: the authority of the executive one to fire members of
Speaker 1: the executive branch and actually oversee them, which I think
Speaker 1: Trump might be setting up here. That's really what is
Speaker 1: just that, that's what I hope is accomplished by these
Speaker 1: clashes Trump is having with some of these lefty federal judges.
Speaker 1: When we return my seasonal effective Disorder aka being sad
Speaker 1: that there's no football next on the John Jrwardy Show. Folks,
Speaker 1: my problem when we get to the Super Bowl is
Speaker 1: that any feeling of excitement I have about the game
Speaker 1: gets immediately overshadowed by the looming dread, the dread that
Speaker 1: basically there's no football for the next what is it,
Speaker 1: five months? No? Seven months? Oh gosh, there's no football
Speaker 1: until like late August at best. It's devastating. I'm so
Speaker 1: wildly bummed. The Super Bowl was a pretty much a
Speaker 1: huge snoozer. I kind of like Kendrick Lamar, but I
Speaker 1: recognize that like this is not you know, anyone over
Speaker 1: the age of fifty has no idea what's going on.
Speaker 1: No aspect of it was particularly entertaining. Of the whole
Speaker 1: Super Bowl was particularly entertaining. And now I'm left with
Speaker 1: this reality of basically, I'm seven months away from Notre
Speaker 1: Dame playing its first game, and I'm sure many of
Speaker 1: you are in a similar situation where this stinks. But
Speaker 1: what you do have? You have Fresno State basketball, which
Speaker 1: is having the worst season in fifty years. You got
Speaker 1: Friends of State baseball, though, which is great, and you've
Speaker 1: got all president State sports here on iHeartMedia, So catch
Speaker 1: that anytime. And hey, even the basketball team, the men's
Speaker 1: basketball team, you know, still a fun time going to
Speaker 1: the Save Art Center. That will do it for John
Speaker 1: already shows see next time on Power Talk