Speaker 1: What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast.
Speaker 2: 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 dpeteclendershow dot com.
Speaker 1: 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. The Supreme Court
has sent down a number of rulings today, the biggest
one that would essentially get rid of a lot of
these nationwide injunctions. The President and his Attorney General Pambondi
are doing a live press conference right now. It's been
going on about fifteen or twenty minutes, so I think
they're probably taking questions that.
Speaker 2: Are not related to the Supreme Court ruling. But let's
Eves drop in and see what they're talking about.
Speaker 3: Parents, and I'm not surprised by it, but I am
surprised that it went this far.
Speaker 4: It took us to bring life back to normal. So wonderful.
Speaker 3: It's parental and I kept saying, we will give you back.
Speaker 4: Your parental rights.
Speaker 3: They were taken away and this is a tremendous victory
for parents.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's another one of the rules.
Speaker 5: Back at the last week, it's been extraordinary in terms
of the action the Middle East.
Speaker 4: Who were at the Hey awake, hasn't it.
Speaker 5: I'm wondering now if you believe in I'm wondering now, sir,
if you believe that Iran has given up its long
history of ambitions with nuclear weapons, or what you would
like to see from them to prove that they do,
and what type of meetings is your administration looking for
next week with Iran?
Speaker 3: So it Ron wants to meet. As you know, the
air sites were obliterated, the very evil nuclear sites they were.
Now has been proven. We had some fake news for
a little while. The same people that covered the Hunter
Biden laptop was from Russia, the same people that did
three or four other Russia Russia Russia hoax. But no, no, wait, wait,
just listen, they came up with something that delayed the credit.
That are great pilots and these great America I mean
they want talent. That was and they hit it right
down in the spot fifty two thousand feet. Think of
this dark no moon, you couldn't see a thing, and
they hit the refrigerator doors. They say, that's the size
of a target and overwhelmingly, and it's amazing what was done.
We're the only ones that could have done it, and
we took out the two of the other sites.
Speaker 4: Also in addition to that, we finished them off. That
was very evil intention.
Speaker 3: I believe that, And again time will tell, but I
don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear
anytime soon. They spent over a trillion dollars on nuclear
and they never got it together and nothing was moved
from the site. By the way, to do that is
very dangerous. It's very very heavy material. Those cars were
most likely the cars of masons because they were pouring
concrete at the top at the hatch, you know, the
hats going into the nuclear side. They wanted to reinforce
it and they had some masons there pouring concrete. By
the way, that concrete was obliterated. It hit exactly at
the concrete it was. I don't think it had a
chance to dry. But everything is down there, it's under
millions of tons of rock.
Speaker 4: English.
Speaker 6: Yes, your administration has said that El Salvador is a
of the state as countries and a headspare.
Speaker 4: So why haven't you get consult temporary protective status to
that country? Was it part of the deal.
Speaker 3: We've had a great relationship with El Salvador. They have
a fantastic leader. They built a massive prison system and
I don't know exactly why, but it's a hell of
a system. And we bring people there and when they
go there, they don't get out, and frankly, when they
hear they have to go there, they become very nice people.
Speaker 4: They become very nice people.
Speaker 3: It's a tough system, but it's a brilliant system, and
it's a system done by a very.
Speaker 4: Very good leader.
Speaker 3: We'll talk about El Salvad a lot of respect.
Speaker 4: Yeah, please you, thank you.
Speaker 7: A question for you, and that a question for the
Attorney General as you go into negotiations and talks what
they're on. Are you demanding not only that there would
be no Uranian production inside of Iran, but also that
Iran would turn over all existing stockpiles of Iranian.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, we're a little early for that, but
something like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we'll do something like that.
Speaker 3: Let me say that I've been saying for twenty five years,
even as a civilian. You cannot let them have a
nuclear weapon, and that's what happened. It's been obliterated. It
would be years before they could ever get going. And
I really think it's probably the last thing they have
to recover from a hell of a tough war.
Speaker 7: Would you also be demanding that the IAEA have full
rights to inspect in Iran.
Speaker 3: Or somebody, yeah, or somebody that we respect and then
including ourselves.
Speaker 7: And a question for both the President and the Attorney
General under birthright citizenship, if this is implemented, who would
be tasked with actually vetting citizenship And would this be
a situation where you have nurses and doctors checking for
citizenship of parents or.
Speaker 4: This is all pending litigation.
Speaker 8: It's going to be decided in October by the Supreme Court,
and we'll discuss that after the litigation.
Speaker 7: If you have an undocumented baby, would that baby then
be an enforcement priority?
Speaker 8: The violent criminals in our country are the priority. Now,
let me put it in perspective. Today marked the two thousand,
seven hundred and eleventh arrest in our country of TDA members.
Speaker 4: Just TDA.
Speaker 8: Everyone in this room agrees they are one of the
most violent criminal organizations in the world and the Biden
administration let them walk into our country, walk into our country.
For the last four years, two thousand, seven hundred and
eleven of them today have been arrested in our country.
That is the priority of Donald Trump, that is the
priority of this country, of homeland security, of all of
our lawyers of FBI.
Speaker 4: That's the priority that will.
Speaker 8: Be discussed in October when the Supreme Court hopefully rules
in our favor.
Speaker 4: And we're very confident of that.
Speaker 8: But you should all feel safer now the President Trump
can deport all of these all of these gangs, and
not one district court judge can think they're an emperor
over this administration and his executive powers. And why the
people of the United States elected him.
Speaker 3: I just might add one thing, and you know, they
used birthright citizenship some of the worst people, some of
the cartels to get.
Speaker 4: People into our country.
Speaker 3: Just so you know, and again I say, if you
look at the end of the Civil War the eighteen hundreds,
it was a very turbulent time. You take the end day,
was it eighteen sixty nine or whatever, but you.
Speaker 4: Take that exact day.
Speaker 3: That's why the case was filed and the case ended
shortly thereafter. This has to do with the babies of slaves,
very very obviously.
Speaker 4: And I think we're going to win. People didn't.
Speaker 3: I don't think they went about discussing it right. I
came along and we looked and we said, wait a minute,
this is wrong. We've been looking at birthright citizenship wrong
for years, but they've used it.
Speaker 4: The cartels have used birthright.
Speaker 3: Citizenship to get very bad people in. And what Pam's doing,
and what Todd and everybody else, what they're doing at
DOJ and all over FBI, ice Border Patrol. These are
incredible people. They're trying to keep our country safe and
they don't want to have people come in. This is
just another way that they get illegal immigrants into our country,
and in some cases, very very bad ones.
Speaker 6: Go ahead, you must your president under taxable if I
could for a moment. Senators are racing to rewrite parts
of it right now after the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that
sections of it were outside of the process that they're
using to get this through. Do you think that senators
should respect the decisions of the parliamentarian And what have
you personally done in the last forty eight hours to
try and get Republicans who against the bill to a guess.
Speaker 3: Well, look, it's a great bill. It's a massive tax cut.
If it's not approved, your taxes will go by sixty
eight percent. Think of that, sixty eight a record, the
highest in the history. The Democrats won't approve it only
because politically it's so good for the Republicans. The Democrats
aren't approving it, but think of what they're not approving.
They're not approving border security. We've done a great job
at the border, but we have to add some war.
We have to do various things. We have no money
for that. We have no money for the border. We
have no money for so many things. But if the Democrats,
it'll be interesting to see if we get any Democrat well,
as we should. If I were a Democrat, I would
absolutely maybe Fetterman, because he seems to be the most
sensible one lately. If I were a Democrat, I would
vote for this bill all day long, because it's tax
cuts and so many other things that are common sense.
They're basic things. I think they're doing fine. The Parliamentarian
has been a little difficult, and I would say that
I disagree with the Parliamentarian on some things and on
other ways, she's been fine. But we'll have to say
it's a big issue.
Speaker 4: I will tell you this.
Speaker 3: If that bill doesn't pass, the country will get a
sixty eight sixty eight percent tax increase.
Speaker 4: So think of this.
Speaker 3: You're a Democrat and you vote against it, that means
you're voting in favor because essentially you're voting in favor
the largest tax hike in the history of our country,
and you can't do that. In addition, we're cutting costs
by one point seven trillion dollars and.
Speaker 4: It won't affect anybody. It's just fraud, waste, and abuse.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and bail out right now,
because we've going to got to go over and get
a check on the traffic. But that's Donald Trump and
Pam Bondy fired up. After the US Supreme Court issued
a couple of rulings have come down, the biggest ones
on the birthright Citizenship Executive Order. But it's not actually
about the birthright citizenship issue yet. And then there's also
the religious liberty case. We'll get into it. You know,
story are powerful. They help us make sense of things,
to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the people of
our past while transcending generations. They help us process the
meaning of life and our stories are told through images
and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video started in
nineteen ninety seven and Mint Hill, North Carolina. It was
the first company to provide this valuable service, converting images,
photos and videos into high quality produced slide shows, videos
and albums. The trusted, talented and dedicated team at Creative
Video will go over all of the details with you
to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off
in person or mail them. They'll be ready in a
week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos
for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays, or
just your family stories, all told through images. That's what
your photos and videos are. They are your life told
through the eyes of everyone around you and all who
came before you, and they will tell others to come
who you are, visit creative video dot com. The President
and the US Attorney General, Pam Bondi are taking questions
after a couple of huge Supreme Court rulings have come down,
so let's go ahead and pick it back up.
Speaker 9: They're still going can name them, and they're so used
to just you know, getting taking it billions and billions
of Look, we had a trade deficit of more than
a trillion dollars.
Speaker 3: Think of a trade deficit. That's because nobody cared. Nobody
we cared a lot. When you know, I took in
hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff. We had the
greatest economy in history up until now.
Speaker 4: I think we're going to blow it away. But during
my time then.
Speaker 3: Especially prior to COVID, we're the greatest economy in the
history of our country. I think we're going to blow
it away now based on the kind of numbers that
we're saying. But some countries are very angry because they've
been ripping us off for years. They've been making billions
and billions of dollars. There was nobody to negotiate where
they could do whatever they want.
Speaker 4: They charge just terriffs. By the way, he's.
Speaker 1: Talking to terriffs. Sorry.
Speaker 2: So obviously, when you got all the press in there,
they're not going to limit their questions to just the
topics of the day. They're going to hit them with
all these other questions. And as the President joked, it's
it's been a busy week.
Speaker 1: There's man, it.
Speaker 2: Feels like a month all in one week. So what
is this case about? What is this ruling about? It
has to do with the birthright Citizenship executive Order and
the injunction that was.
Speaker 1: Issued by a district court.
Speaker 2: And because this ruling came down whilst I was on
my way into work, I do not have my all
of my show prep that I have retained on this case.
That's totally my fault. Because we knew the rulings were
coming down. I should have brought it. But so all
of this is going to be going from memory. But
as I recall, there were two tracks here, there were
parallel tracks going on. You had the birthright citizenship underlying issue,
but then you also have this other issue of the
nationwide injunctions that these district court judges have been using
and these left wing organizations who have been filing the
lawsuits in a very limited set of district courts in
order to get these injunctions to stop the presidential orders
from being enacted. And as Pambondi noted that there are
ninety four districts in America, ninety four district courts in America. Okay,
And right now they have forty nationwide injunctions against the
Trump administration. Forty okay, and thirty five of those forty
come from five district judges or districts. There are a
couple different judges in each district, but they're all originating
in five districts, five out of the ninety four districts.
So this is judge shopping or ven you shopping. That's
what's going on here. It's been going on, you know,
all throughout the Trump administration, first and second, it has
really ramped up in the second and so the so
finally the US Supreme Court has cracked the whip on
their lower courts, which is what they should have done
a long time ago, because what the district courts are
doing at the behest of these plaintiffs that are ideologically
aligned is making end runs around what's you know, called
the class action certification process. Like if you and a
whole bunch of other people want to sue and you
all have sort of the same argument, you can become
a class action. We hear about these all the time,
right all of the commercials. If you were injured by
this thing or this company, you can be part of
this class action lawsuit. But there's there are a lot
of criteria to get classified certified as a class in
the trial in the court, and that's difficult. And so
what these plaintiffs, they're lawyers, and these these judges have
been conspiring to do is to do an end run
around that class action certification process because it's difficult, and
instead just get one lawyer with a wardrobe change and
a black robe to say, I'm going to stop this
whole thing from proceeding. And the US Supreme Court said no,
and Amy Cony Barrett, she lit into kb J Keatanji
Brown Jackson, I mean lit into her in a way
you do not see judges go after each other, really
in the Supreme Court especially. I'll get to that, but
let me get over here to Ray first. Hello, Ray,
welcome to the program.
Speaker 1: Helloa, Hey, what's up.
Speaker 10: I just was anticipating this ruling that was supposed to
come down in June. I heard about three or four
months ago. I might have talked to you about about
turning their plane around. Is this the one that we
were thinking that was going to stop all that turning
the plane around and that kind of mumbo jumbo.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, because that would.
Speaker 10: Really it will get a complete victory on this or
is something else going to be decided by the scotis.
Speaker 2: Well, there's I'm seeing some of the legal analysts who
are talking about a footnote and I have not read
this opinion because it just came down, But there's a
footnote in the opinion that talks about some other mechanism
that might apply if they want to try to go
another route. There is sort of this other route. I
don't know what that route is. I don't know how
that would work, and so I don't know. I don't
know if there is a loophole that now still exists.
They're very very well might be. However, the question of
whether a district court can issue these nationwide and functions
that block policies across the entire country that has been
they put the kibosh on that. So that is a
victory for yeah, for a rule of law. It's a
victory for the judiciary. It's a victory for the executive
branch and for America because you know, you cannot have
one person going in and claiming to basically represent all
of America to get one judge to agree with them
to shut down a policy that, by the way, was
enacted under the law and was enacted under the Article
two powers of the executive branch, and or yeah, Article
two powers, and and that this that was elected to
do that everything right, This person was elected to do
these things. And then you've got judges saying you can't
do them.
Speaker 10: Yes, so quickly, the district judge could still issue an
injunction just for the locality for this right being took
place or not correct.
Speaker 1: That's the understanding.
Speaker 2: That's my understanding as well, is that that has been
And at the core of this is that you've got
the district court judges that are ruling for the entire nation,
when in fact the plaintiffs that come before them are
only locally based, and so they have gone beyond their
authority by doing nationwide injunctions. So yeah, man, yeah, absolutely right.
Speaker 1: I appreciate these good questions.
Speaker 2: So the Trump administration, here's sort of the background on it,
and I'm going to go into more of the details,
but this is from the Daily Caller News Foundation. The
Trump administration appealed three different lower court rulings that prevented
the executive order that ended birthright citizenship for children of
illegal aliens or migrants on temporary visas from taking effect right.
So they put these injunctions in place, saying your executive
order cannot take effect. Rather than rule on the constitutionality
of birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court
to consider limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions that block
policies across the entire country. Right, So the Court in
this ruling did not address the birthright citizenship issue. There
was another case. I think that's going to be rolled
on in October. I want to say they're expecting that
to come down. So that's a separate case. The Supreme
Court heard oral arguments during a May session, which apparently
is unusual to have one in May, and the Solicitor
General highlighted the dozens of injunctions that lower court judges
have issued blocking executive orders just since January. If the
Court chooses to limit nationwide injunctions, it could have significant
implications for other pending lawsuits against the Trump administration. So
that's the preview piece that I had pulled this morning
from the Daily Caller News Foundation. 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 can 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. Breaking news today that
the US Supreme Court has had down a couple of rulings,
the biggest one being it's connected to the birthright citizenship issue,
but it is about these nationwide injunctions that lower courts
have been slapping on the Trump administration, basically coming out
of five districts like California, Maryland, DC, Washington State like
very few. Five of the ninety four districts account for
thirty five of the forty nationwide injunctions, and the US
Supreme Court has finally smacked down these courts and said
stop doing this. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration
a win today by limiting the ability of federal judges
to issue nationwide injunctions blocking the president's agenda. This is
according to National Reviews James James Lynch. The justices ruled
six to three along ideological lines and Trump versus CASA,
siding with the Trumpetmanstration's challenge to the scope of nationwide
injunctions issued against Trump's Birthrights Citizenship Executive Order. The Court
did not, however, weigh in on the legality of the
Birthright Citizenship Order itself. Justice Amy Cony Barrett wrote the
majority opinion, finding that universal injunctions exceed the authority that
Congress has given to federal courts. Barrett was joined by
the Court's five other conservative justices. She writes, quote, the
injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development district
courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law
or policy against anyone. These injunctions, known as universal injunctions,
likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to
federal courts. The Supremes ruled that lower courts cannot prevent
the federal government from enforcing its policies against non parties
to the specific case they are ruling on. Right, you
can't apply a nationwide injunction on everybody when they are
not parties to the case. For the time being, the
Justices have partially halted the nationwide injunctions against Trump's executive order.
They halted the injunctions in areas where their authority is
too broad and prevent the executive branch from developing public
guidance related to Trump's executive order. Then Barrett took Justice
Katanji Brown Jackson to task, or I might say, to
the woodshed, for the arguments that she made in her
dissenting opinion and apparent lack of interest in the specifics
of the scope of judicial authority. Okay, before I read
Amy Cony Barrett, let me see here, I'm going to
try to find because I've got a whole bunch of
tabs open.
Speaker 1: You to, Well, all right, I'm not going to be
able to find it.
Speaker 2: I opened too many tabs because she Katanji Brown Jackson
says something like, you know that this isn't that we're
essentially punching down on the on the lower courts, which
is absurd. So here's what Barrett said, I'll try to
find the tab that I've got here is like I
really can't even like decipher. I've opened too many tabs.
I just have too many tabs. So here's what Barrett says.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 2: The principal dissent by KBJ focuses on conventional legal terrain
like the Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine and our
cases on equity. Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line
of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor
frankly to any doctrine whatsoever. So what is Barrett saying?
This is making it up. She's making up stuff. Do
you even law, bro? Like, what are you doing? And
then she says, basically, your descent is not even worth
anything more than a single sentence in reply, So I'm
going to give you one sentence. Here's what she says,
we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is
at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent,
not to mention the Constitution itself. Okay, so she just
flat out says we're not going to dwell on her
descent because it's stupid right only to say this one sentence,
and here it is, we observe only this. Justice Jackson
decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. She
would do well to heed her own admission. Everyone from
the president on down is bound by law that goes
for judges too. And if you read Supreme Court rulings
and opinions and stuff, you don't see stuff like this.
This is a direct I don't want to say attack,
but response. I mean, she's just basically saying you don't
know what you're talking about, and your opinion is crap.
The justices did not address the merits of Trump's birthright
citizenship order. I mentioned that already. Carrie Severino, who is
the president of Judicial Crisis Network, said that the court
has shut the door on the abuse of universal injunctions.
Today's decision is a victory for our constitutional separation of powers.
Justice Alito's concurrence to Barrett sounds the alarm that litigants
have been attempting to abuse class action lawsuits as well
as standing processes. It's like, do you have standing in.
Speaker 1: Front of the court.
Speaker 2: There's a process to determine do you have standing? So
they've been abusing this. The left has been abusing these
mechanisms and shows that the Court is well aware of
the problem and prepared to police those boundaries to shut
down judicial activists.
Speaker 1: This just in.
Speaker 2: District Court Judge Boseburg has put a nationwide injunction on
this Supreme Court ruling. I'm just kidding. He can't do that,
especially now. Barrett is correct, and what she is essentially
saying is that KBJ and her fellow liberals on the Court,
she doesn't know what she's talking about and doesn't even
seem interested in abiding by the judicial oath that we took.
That is essentially what Barrett is saying, because apparently at
some point in her dissent, KBJ said something like.
Speaker 1: Oh, all of this legal ease.
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, you're a judge. That's what you're supposed
to be dealing in, is the legal ease. That's what
we commoners say about the way you guys talk and write.
Speaker 1: That's all legalese mumbo jumbo.
Speaker 2: But you're supposed to know what you're talking about if
you're a freaking Supreme Court justice. 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 Asheville 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 Pisga
National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the
heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Ashville
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, 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 her 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 let me get
to some analysis here real quick. This is from Jonathan Turley,
constitutional law professor.
Speaker 1: He's got a quote here. He says.
Speaker 2: It's a great line from the Supreme Court ruling says,
when a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully,
the answer is not for the court to exceed its
power too. That's and that is that's a great line. Notably,
he says, Justice Kagan, who condemned these universal and junk
during the Obama administration, has found a comfort level with
those injunctions during the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Surprise, surprise, Justice.
Speaker 2: Alito flags the continuing ambiguity on class certification that gives
wiggle room for lower courts potentially threatens the practical significance
of today's decision, the availability of third party standing and
class certification. So that was the I said that there
was a footnote that I had seen referenced, but I
did not get to read it. And so this is
what Turley is talking about. This is the footnote. It's
a footnote eight, says the principal dissent faults US for
failing to identify a single founding era case in which
this court held that universal injunctions exceed a federal court's
equitable authority. But this absence only bolsters our case that
this court had no occasion to reject the universal injunction
as inconsistent with traditional equity practice. Merely demonstrates that no
party even bothered to ask for such a sweeping remedy,
because no court would have entertained the request. What is
he saying there, He's saying, Yeah, there's a reason why
this issue has never come up before. It's because this
is brand new territory. Nobody has ever thought.
Speaker 1: To do this.
Speaker 2: You guys have been breaking the system. That's the point
and now because you guys, as I went over yesterday,
for the left, you can never go too far. There's
no limiting principles here. Oh, by the way, are we
going to get calls again to pack the court right
after this? Just curious, be careful because Trump is still president.
You got a Republican Senate, so just be careful. You
may want to just you hold your fire on that
argument again until you get a Democrat in charge or
a Democrat US Senate. Right, But this hasn't been done.
These tactics have never been used. The left has adopted
this new tactic which now required the Supreme Court to
step in and say, you guys have gone too far.
You have to smack their hands. They do not stop otherwise.
But Alito pointed out that there is continuing ambiguity on
class certification.
Speaker 1: So this has got some court observers, shall we call them.
Speaker 2: This has raised a concern among people that the left
is now going to try to abuse the class certification
process with the help of judges, that they will continue
to judge shop, forum shop. They will go in front
of friendly judges, allies, and they will try to make
it easier the judge and the judge will allow them
to do so, to create essentially fictitious classes of people,
And so you'll get a lawyer up there like I
think a whole class of people is America, and the
judge will say, I agree, that's a whole class now
and nationwide injunction again, and then the Court's going to
have to step back in and say, no, you can't
do that either. But that wasn't part of this particular case.
In some ways, Turlie says, the dissents from Sutto, Mayor
and Jackson only reaffirmed the impact of the opinion. Jackson
is particularly hyperbolic in talking out or talking about our
quote unquote collective demise. Barrett clearly takes offense and delivers
the haymaker, waving away attention to the limits on judicial
power as a quote mind numbingly technical query. She offers
a vision of the judicial role that would make even
the most art and defender of judicial supremacy blush. While
most would find this mild in comparison to their own
heated exchanges with family members, Turtly says it has the
feel of a virtual cage match on this court institution.
Barrett is effectively pushing back that if there is a
threat here to our system, it is Jacksonian judicial supremacy.
For her part, Katanji Brown Jackson unleashed a dissent that
is hyperbolic to the point of hyperventilation. Here it is,
this is what. Yeah, here it is from Katanji Brown Jackson.
This court's complicity in the creation of a culture of
disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law as
they interpret it will surely hasten the downfall of our
governing institutions, enabling our collective demise, which is a really
wordy way of saying the democracy. Right, that's that's what
she's doing. This is not law. This is not a
legal opinion. Nothing like a universal injunction was available at
the founding of our country, or for that matter, for
more than a century thereafter. That's what the majority opinion
ruled under the Judiciary Act. Federal court's lack authority to
issue them, you don't get to do it. This is
a return to constitutional constraints. Thank goodness, Mitch McConnell. Thank you,
Mitch McConnell. Don't say that very often, but thank you,
Mitch McConnell. David Limbaugh brother of Rush says, now that
the left has suffered this humongous blow, which, by the way,
not for nothing. But the word humongous is woefully underused
I think in today's society. I remember when I was
a kid, we used this term all the time. I
never knew how to spell it. But anyway, David Limbaugh
says the left has suffered this humongous blow. But now
he says, what other anti democratic, anti constitutional, lawless, chaotic,
violent tactics will they devise to obstruct America's return to greatness?
Do not underestimate their capacity for and willingness to destroy right,
This is the concern. It's sort of like it's sort
of like city managers, school superintendents. You think that, oh
they're awful, right, and then you get somebody else that's worse.
So yes, and by the way, I'm not saying anything
like that, we should have preserved this chaotic system. My
concern is what will the leftist lawyers and their pals
on the bench, what will they come up with next
in order to sow even more chaos?
Speaker 1: That's my next concern.
Speaker 2: 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 dpetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much
for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.