1 00:00:04,519 --> 00:00:12,440 Speaker 1: I had a a jarring experience Saturday night. So we're 2 00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:17,400 Speaker 1: coming back from dinner with friends and we met them 3 00:00:17,440 --> 00:00:22,640 Speaker 1: way up north. So I'm trying to take a it's 4 00:00:23,320 --> 00:00:26,960 Speaker 1: I'm trying to take you know, where you whre? Mickey 5 00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:32,280 Speaker 1: Steakhouse is up off seventieth, seventeenth and twenty five. We anyway, 6 00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:34,199 Speaker 1: we had been lay back up in there in a 7 00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:38,840 Speaker 1: little dive Mexican place, and I'm coming back to get 8 00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:42,520 Speaker 1: onto the interstate and I'm I'm in you know, a 9 00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:45,440 Speaker 1: two lane left turn lane. I'm in the right lane 10 00:00:45,479 --> 00:00:47,600 Speaker 1: of the two lane left turn lane so that i 11 00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:51,920 Speaker 1: can immediately get onto the on ramp for southbound twenty five. 12 00:00:53,400 --> 00:00:57,720 Speaker 1: And I'm driving the Beamer and it's dark, so you know, 13 00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:01,720 Speaker 1: I've got my lights on, duh, and the Arrow's turn green. 14 00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:06,600 Speaker 1: I accelerate, go into the curve and I'm not even 15 00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:11,360 Speaker 1: a third of the way into the turn and just kaboo, 16 00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:18,600 Speaker 1: I mean the front right wheel and tire just it 17 00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:21,640 Speaker 1: must have been. It found like it was two feet deep. 18 00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:29,039 Speaker 1: Kaboom and tamer nice quiet little, you know, assuming spouse 19 00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:35,240 Speaker 1: drops a gigantic f bomb in the car. Like of course, 20 00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:38,280 Speaker 1: I was already mad because I was, because I didn't 21 00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:41,160 Speaker 1: know one whether it was gonna, you know, damage the 22 00:01:41,520 --> 00:01:44,360 Speaker 1: alignment or damage the tire or whatever. 23 00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:48,360 Speaker 2: But it was horrible. That's not the end of Storky. 24 00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:52,760 Speaker 1: Then I'm trying to get ontrough the on ramp, and 25 00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:54,920 Speaker 1: of course now I'm I'm really looking at the road, 26 00:01:55,280 --> 00:01:59,360 Speaker 1: and I am literally just swerving everywhere, trying to avoid 27 00:01:59,600 --> 00:02:01,880 Speaker 1: not just the potholes, but you know where they all 28 00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:04,520 Speaker 1: patch the asphalt, and so the asphalt will be two 29 00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:06,440 Speaker 1: or three inches, you know, there'll be a two or 30 00:02:06,440 --> 00:02:07,960 Speaker 1: three inch drop from where they put the. 31 00:02:07,880 --> 00:02:09,720 Speaker 2: New asphalt and the old asphalt. 32 00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:14,560 Speaker 1: And then you finally get on to South Mound twenty five, 33 00:02:15,240 --> 00:02:17,840 Speaker 1: and at least in that area from about seventieth on 34 00:02:18,639 --> 00:02:22,760 Speaker 1: southward through my maybe spear somewhere, at least they've at 35 00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:28,080 Speaker 1: least resurfaced it. There was another reminder of just you know, 36 00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:32,120 Speaker 1: it's like every morning, as I've always told you, East 37 00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:35,000 Speaker 1: Mound four seventy to North Mound twenty five, still a 38 00:02:35,040 --> 00:02:38,600 Speaker 1: piece of crap, Still holes, and I still look see 39 00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:40,760 Speaker 1: there's anybody to my left or right. Because I if I 40 00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:44,960 Speaker 1: straddle the line, if I straddle the lanes, I can 41 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:47,919 Speaker 1: go through without being jarred and having to go see 42 00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:51,080 Speaker 1: qucin kinetics to get my neck fixed again. Oh guys 43 00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:54,400 Speaker 1: me crazy breaking news is that the Department of just 44 00:02:54,560 --> 00:02:58,360 Speaker 1: or a judge has dismissed the case against James Coomy. 45 00:02:59,080 --> 00:03:03,200 Speaker 1: Not surprised by that. It's a technical issue, and that 46 00:03:03,360 --> 00:03:05,720 Speaker 1: is whether or not the lawyers that were assigned to 47 00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:10,119 Speaker 1: the case were properly appointed to take the case. There's 48 00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:14,920 Speaker 1: also a technical issue about whether the indictment was properly 49 00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:18,320 Speaker 1: presented to the grand jury or not. My guess is 50 00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:21,639 Speaker 1: that both those technicalities, well, the case has been dismissed. 51 00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:24,320 Speaker 1: Taken appeal if they want to, but they should just 52 00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:29,480 Speaker 1: get their ducks in a row. Slow down. You don't 53 00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:33,880 Speaker 1: have to accomplish everything today. Yes, I don't want you 54 00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:36,080 Speaker 1: to just fart around on it, but I don't want 55 00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:38,840 Speaker 1: you to do it so quickly that you're cutting corners. 56 00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:47,320 Speaker 1: Stop cutting corners, because now I I don't whether take 57 00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:51,760 Speaker 1: this bet or not how quickly before James Comy finds 58 00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:55,080 Speaker 1: a television camera and proclaims victory. 59 00:03:55,800 --> 00:03:56,720 Speaker 2: Oh. 60 00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:00,160 Speaker 1: Instead of that case, I want to talk about the 61 00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:06,040 Speaker 1: Texas redistricting case, and not so much about the redistricting 62 00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:09,240 Speaker 1: aspect of it, although that's an inherent part of it, 63 00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:15,000 Speaker 1: but instead about judges, and in this case, the judge 64 00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:19,040 Speaker 1: I'm going to bitch about. Guess what is a Trump appointee. 65 00:04:19,240 --> 00:04:24,359 Speaker 1: Judge Jeffrey Brown, no relation is the judge that authored 66 00:04:24,360 --> 00:04:28,560 Speaker 1: the majority opinion in that recent high profile federal court 67 00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:34,000 Speaker 1: ruling that went against Texas's new twenty twenty five congressional 68 00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:40,880 Speaker 1: redistricting map. Judge Brown claims that he found substantial evidence 69 00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:46,400 Speaker 1: that Texas had engaged in unconstitutional racial jerrymandering, so he 70 00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:48,800 Speaker 1: ordered the state to revert to the congressional map that 71 00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:51,320 Speaker 1: was drawn in twenty twenty one to use in the 72 00:04:51,360 --> 00:05:00,600 Speaker 1: twenty twenty six midterms. His opinion is if this was 73 00:05:01,200 --> 00:05:06,240 Speaker 1: if this was submitted in a first year civil procedure 74 00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:08,920 Speaker 1: law school class, you'd probably get. 75 00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:09,280 Speaker 2: An f. 76 00:05:10,839 --> 00:05:14,480 Speaker 1: Now, his ruling was immediately appealed by the State of Texas. 77 00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:18,200 Speaker 1: They argue that the ruling would disrupt the upcoming elections 78 00:05:18,760 --> 00:05:21,679 Speaker 1: and that the ruling was not issued in good faith. 79 00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:28,200 Speaker 1: Friday night, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Lito granted texas emergency 80 00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:33,120 Speaker 1: request for an administrative stay. What that means is that 81 00:05:33,839 --> 00:05:38,480 Speaker 1: Justice and Legos said, no, this ruling is unenforceable, and 82 00:05:38,520 --> 00:05:42,200 Speaker 1: it will remain unenforceable until we have a chance to 83 00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:45,440 Speaker 1: decide whether to take the case and hear the case 84 00:05:45,760 --> 00:05:49,240 Speaker 1: at the US Supreme Court. Now, why is that going 85 00:05:49,279 --> 00:05:51,720 Speaker 1: directly to the US Supreme Court, Because this is a 86 00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:55,320 Speaker 1: case that involves the state of Texas, So those are 87 00:05:55,360 --> 00:06:01,440 Speaker 1: immediately appealable to the US Supreme Court. Allegations of misconduct, 88 00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:09,520 Speaker 1: the allegation against Judge Brown is really more about disagreement 89 00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:14,839 Speaker 1: and dissent, and in particular, the dissent that was written 90 00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:18,919 Speaker 1: by another judge kind of spells out how bad. 91 00:06:18,760 --> 00:06:19,440 Speaker 2: This case is. 92 00:06:20,480 --> 00:06:22,760 Speaker 1: So I think we need to speak very plainly about 93 00:06:22,760 --> 00:06:28,200 Speaker 1: how Judge Brown handled the litigation because it was not 94 00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:32,400 Speaker 1: a close case of judicial disagreement. It was I think 95 00:06:32,680 --> 00:06:36,320 Speaker 1: an actual breach of duty, a breach of duty so 96 00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:40,120 Speaker 1: egregious that it underminds the confidence in the judiciary. It 97 00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:44,000 Speaker 1: actually and remember this is a Trump appointee. The ruled 98 00:06:44,040 --> 00:06:50,120 Speaker 1: against Texas. It injected raw partisanship into a domain red 99 00:06:50,120 --> 00:06:52,880 Speaker 1: distracting that the Supreme Court has said it is beyond 100 00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:53,719 Speaker 1: judicial reach. 101 00:06:54,120 --> 00:06:55,839 Speaker 2: The Supreme Court, in other. 102 00:06:55,920 --> 00:07:00,440 Speaker 1: Redistricting cases, has said this is a political decision up 103 00:07:00,520 --> 00:07:03,520 Speaker 1: to the states. Courts, you don't have any business in this. 104 00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:12,840 Speaker 1: His misconduct, which is both procedural and substantive, is laid 105 00:07:12,840 --> 00:07:16,480 Speaker 1: bare in the dissent from another judge, Judge Jerry Smith. 106 00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:22,040 Speaker 1: This is a document that reads less like a disagreement 107 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:26,800 Speaker 1: among colleagues and actually sounds like a warning siren aimed 108 00:07:26,840 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: at Congress. When a federal judge misuses the machinery of 109 00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:36,240 Speaker 1: the courts to advance personal animus, or bends judicial doctrine 110 00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:40,520 Speaker 1: to get a predetermined outcome, or hides the work of 111 00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:46,160 Speaker 1: his colleagues behind procedural gainmanship, the constitutional remedy is impeachment. 112 00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:49,520 Speaker 1: And that is a conclusion that I come to that 113 00:07:49,600 --> 00:07:53,400 Speaker 1: is very uncomfortable, yet I think is unavoidable. Now, before 114 00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:56,040 Speaker 1: assessing the case for impeachment, I want you to understand 115 00:07:56,040 --> 00:08:00,120 Speaker 1: the precise character of what his misconduct is. Because the 116 00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:05,240 Speaker 1: preliminary injunction of this magnitude is an extraordinary form of relief. 117 00:08:05,960 --> 00:08:09,120 Speaker 1: Courts are reluctant to deploy it because it can instantly 118 00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:15,239 Speaker 1: distort the political process. Yet this judge, Judge Brown, rushed 119 00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:18,560 Speaker 1: such an injunction into effect at the moment when Texas 120 00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:25,520 Speaker 1: was approaching legally immovable election deadlines, so his action threatened 121 00:08:25,560 --> 00:08:28,760 Speaker 1: to plunge the state of taxes into confusion running up 122 00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:33,080 Speaker 1: to the twenty twenty six elections. And the other judge's 123 00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:38,320 Speaker 1: dissent is amazing because it recounts a procedural history that 124 00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:41,240 Speaker 1: borders on truly being staggering. 125 00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:44,720 Speaker 2: I'll explain why. 126 00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:50,719 Speaker 3: Wait for our usual rowe. It's kind of like a 127 00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:55,240 Speaker 3: daily vitamin. But hey, make sure that you play a 128 00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:58,800 Speaker 3: couple times today just to kind of get under Michael 129 00:08:58,800 --> 00:09:01,480 Speaker 3: Brown's skin a little bit. Make sure you play Allen Roach, 130 00:09:01,559 --> 00:09:04,560 Speaker 3: saying producer Shannon a couple of times today. Thanks, love 131 00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:06,280 Speaker 3: it bye. 132 00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:12,000 Speaker 1: It's it's funny that, I mean, Dragon is obviously on 133 00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:17,040 Speaker 1: vacation this week, and he and I both work really 134 00:09:17,080 --> 00:09:20,480 Speaker 1: really hard to produce a very equality product. Now, don't 135 00:09:20,880 --> 00:09:23,240 Speaker 1: spew out your diet cope and I say that, but 136 00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:25,319 Speaker 1: we try to do a quality product. I know, mean 137 00:09:25,320 --> 00:09:29,680 Speaker 1: I you might disagree with that, but it's I'm such 138 00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:32,679 Speaker 1: a perfectionist that when it doesn't go the way it's 139 00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:37,360 Speaker 1: supposed to go, it all warns Zach Becauzac's filling in 140 00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:40,640 Speaker 1: right now. I'll warn Zach that I'll get really pissed off. 141 00:09:41,040 --> 00:09:44,560 Speaker 1: I will get really pissed off, but then give me 142 00:09:44,559 --> 00:09:46,839 Speaker 1: about three minutes and a sip of diet culch and 143 00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:50,600 Speaker 1: then we're back to normal. But when you when you 144 00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:53,720 Speaker 1: work hard for so long, you there are certain elements 145 00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:56,000 Speaker 1: that you just expect to occur, and when they don't occur, 146 00:09:56,040 --> 00:09:59,160 Speaker 1: it's like, what the hell's going on? Anyway, back to 147 00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:02,439 Speaker 1: this judge, real quickly, just give you a real summation. 148 00:10:02,600 --> 00:10:07,040 Speaker 1: So this is about congressional districts and the state repid 149 00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:13,360 Speaker 1: state Senate districts in Texas. They redrew their maps. Groups 150 00:10:13,400 --> 00:10:18,640 Speaker 1: took it to federal court and a judge. They had 151 00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:23,439 Speaker 1: a three panel judge. A judge ruled that was unconstitutional 152 00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:28,839 Speaker 1: because he claims it was based on race. The judge 153 00:10:28,880 --> 00:10:33,920 Speaker 1: that wrote the majority opinion did a draft. It was 154 00:10:33,960 --> 00:10:37,640 Speaker 1: on more than one hundred and sixty pages long, but 155 00:10:37,679 --> 00:10:40,719 Speaker 1: then he withheld it and withheld it and withheld it 156 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:43,400 Speaker 1: so that the other judges didn't have a chance to 157 00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:47,160 Speaker 1: look at it for a while. He finally then decided 158 00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:53,160 Speaker 1: to issue the injunction without waiting for the descent to 159 00:10:53,240 --> 00:10:57,800 Speaker 1: be drafted. So the other judge that had the descent 160 00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:00,600 Speaker 1: when he found that out, because he had gone to 161 00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:04,080 Speaker 1: a funeral and was traveling across Texas. He had to 162 00:11:04,120 --> 00:11:08,240 Speaker 1: work overnight to produce a response that the main judge 163 00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:11,200 Speaker 1: who was going to issue the injunction tried to hide 164 00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:15,880 Speaker 1: from the docket. Now that's not just a harmless irregularity. 165 00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:20,640 Speaker 1: That's a sign of a deep pathology, a willingness to 166 00:11:20,720 --> 00:11:24,520 Speaker 1: sacrifice the deliberation the judges are supposed to engage him 167 00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:28,959 Speaker 1: to force a predetermined outcome, because if you have a 168 00:11:29,080 --> 00:11:32,200 Speaker 1: judge that acts first and then tries to come up 169 00:11:32,200 --> 00:11:36,440 Speaker 1: with the reasons, that problem is way beyond etiquette, because 170 00:11:36,559 --> 00:11:41,240 Speaker 1: due process requires deliberation among the judges, not some unilateral 171 00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:48,320 Speaker 1: proclamation as if you're a king. Judge Smith's thirty seven 172 00:11:48,520 --> 00:11:52,960 Speaker 1: years on the bench equip him to identify the difference. 173 00:11:54,280 --> 00:11:57,560 Speaker 1: And Judge Smith not the judge that issued the injunction, 174 00:11:57,640 --> 00:12:01,000 Speaker 1: but this is the judge that issued the descent calls 175 00:12:01,080 --> 00:12:06,079 Speaker 1: this episode the most outrageous judicial conduct he has ever seen. 176 00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:11,199 Speaker 1: If you are a member of the judiciary, or you're 177 00:12:11,200 --> 00:12:13,559 Speaker 1: a member of the state legislature that has the power 178 00:12:13,559 --> 00:12:17,880 Speaker 1: of impeachment, or you're just someone who's interested in the 179 00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:21,880 Speaker 1: judiciary and that they be you know, nonpartisan, that they be, 180 00:12:22,120 --> 00:12:26,360 Speaker 1: you know, act as the canon of judicial ethics requires 181 00:12:26,440 --> 00:12:29,120 Speaker 1: him to act. That should give you more than just pause, 182 00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:33,840 Speaker 1: because at a minimum, the judge that issued the injunction 183 00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:37,440 Speaker 1: denied the other members of his panel the opportunity to 184 00:12:37,520 --> 00:12:41,120 Speaker 1: consider away and respond to his arguments before he acted. 185 00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:45,880 Speaker 1: So he manipulated the internal process in ways calculated to 186 00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:50,800 Speaker 1: insulate his opinion from scrutiny. That's not the conduct of 187 00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:55,040 Speaker 1: a neutral adjudicator. It's the conduct to someone who's acting 188 00:12:55,080 --> 00:13:00,439 Speaker 1: on an ideological impulse that no longer permits ordinary judicial 189 00:13:00,480 --> 00:13:07,800 Speaker 1: restraint we have. In cutting my Michael Brown minute earlier today, 190 00:13:08,720 --> 00:13:11,280 Speaker 1: I was talking about some polling has come out from 191 00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:17,079 Speaker 1: Magellan Strategies, and it's about public schools. But that one 192 00:13:17,440 --> 00:13:21,000 Speaker 1: topic that one poll about public schools reminded me about 193 00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:28,480 Speaker 1: the judiciary, about crime, about taxes, government regulation, censorship. All 194 00:13:28,520 --> 00:13:30,560 Speaker 1: of the stuff we have going on in the country 195 00:13:30,640 --> 00:13:34,240 Speaker 1: right now seems to be reaching a tipping point. And 196 00:13:34,400 --> 00:13:37,920 Speaker 1: I think in not a tipping point in a good way, 197 00:13:38,080 --> 00:13:39,679 Speaker 1: because it could go one way or the other in 198 00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:42,280 Speaker 1: this in this case in Texas, it went the wrong way, 199 00:13:43,240 --> 00:13:45,840 Speaker 1: and just as ilegals stepped in and said, oh time out, 200 00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:52,400 Speaker 1: this appears so bad that I'm going to enjoin through 201 00:13:52,400 --> 00:13:57,040 Speaker 1: an administrative order that this decision not be allowed to 202 00:13:57,080 --> 00:14:01,160 Speaker 1: take effect until the court has time to look at 203 00:14:01,160 --> 00:14:09,480 Speaker 1: the entire case. I think even more concerning is this 204 00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:16,000 Speaker 1: judge's treatment of the standards for preliminary injunctions. Because for decades, 205 00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:21,400 Speaker 1: course of characterized injunctions as extraordinary and drastic, you have 206 00:14:21,480 --> 00:14:25,400 Speaker 1: to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Well, 207 00:14:25,520 --> 00:14:30,360 Speaker 1: this judge ignored those requirements. He cherry picked the word likelihood, 208 00:14:30,720 --> 00:14:34,600 Speaker 1: removed the word substantial as the adjitive, and treated the 209 00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,360 Speaker 1: first factor as if it required only. 210 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:38,080 Speaker 2: A minimal showing. 211 00:14:38,920 --> 00:14:41,280 Speaker 1: And then he invoked the doctrine of a sliding scale 212 00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:44,120 Speaker 1: in a way that displaced the really heavy burden normally 213 00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:47,560 Speaker 1: imposed on claimants trying to get a mandatory injunction. A 214 00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:50,920 Speaker 1: mandatory injunction does not preserve the status quo. It changes 215 00:14:51,080 --> 00:14:54,600 Speaker 1: the status quo, which means that courts must apply the 216 00:14:54,600 --> 00:14:57,320 Speaker 1: most rigorous scrutiny before granting that kind of relief. 217 00:14:58,040 --> 00:14:59,560 Speaker 2: And they simply did not do that. 218 00:15:04,760 --> 00:15:07,240 Speaker 4: And it turns out no, the person who was just 219 00:15:07,520 --> 00:15:11,280 Speaker 4: driving while in Colorado that that should be a new 220 00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:14,520 Speaker 4: phrase that we should use. Nope, I was switching lanes, 221 00:15:14,600 --> 00:15:18,240 Speaker 4: lockheads of the potholes, driving in Colorado, not driving. 222 00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:28,840 Speaker 1: Impaired driving, DAP driving avoiding potholes DAP. I gotta take 223 00:15:28,880 --> 00:15:34,320 Speaker 1: it for DAP driving. This case is crazy, absolutely crazy. 224 00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:42,080 Speaker 1: The findings by the judge said that Oh, Texas just 225 00:15:42,320 --> 00:15:46,280 Speaker 1: used race as a way to jerry mander, when there's 226 00:15:46,480 --> 00:15:54,280 Speaker 1: no evidence of that whatsoever. Yeah, in impeachment of a 227 00:15:54,360 --> 00:15:59,080 Speaker 1: judge requires more than just error. It requires misconduct that 228 00:15:59,520 --> 00:16:07,760 Speaker 1: strike at the foundations of judicial policy. Procedural manipulation or 229 00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:12,440 Speaker 1: partisan reasoning that is disguised as neutral analysis or disregard 230 00:16:12,520 --> 00:16:17,240 Speaker 1: for binding precedent meets that threshold. So when a judge 231 00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:21,440 Speaker 1: grant like this judge did, grants a very sweeping injunction 232 00:16:21,520 --> 00:16:25,000 Speaker 1: that upends the state's election calendar, and then he brushes 233 00:16:25,040 --> 00:16:29,520 Speaker 1: aside the constitutional constraints that exists for the very reason 234 00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:33,960 Speaker 1: to prevent judicial partisanship. He then violated the oath to 235 00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:38,560 Speaker 1: administer justice impartially. And Congress retains the authority to remove 236 00:16:38,640 --> 00:16:43,360 Speaker 1: such a judge, and that authority exists for exactly moments 237 00:16:43,400 --> 00:16:43,760 Speaker 1: like this. 238 00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:46,880 Speaker 2: The rule of law is not self sustaining. 239 00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:49,080 Speaker 1: It depends on the integrity of those in trusted with 240 00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:53,040 Speaker 1: its guardianship, and Judge Brown's conduct shows a degree of 241 00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:59,120 Speaker 1: ideological entanglement that's incompatible with that trust. Now, if impeachment 242 00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:04,280 Speaker 1: seems severe you, that's because it is meant to be severe. 243 00:17:05,240 --> 00:17:09,240 Speaker 1: But severity becomes a virtue when a judge's actions threatened 244 00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:13,600 Speaker 1: the constitutional order, like they have here. The judiciary confunction 245 00:17:13,960 --> 00:17:17,239 Speaker 1: only when the members of the judiciary adhere to the 246 00:17:17,280 --> 00:17:21,400 Speaker 1: standards of fairness, and those standards of fairness are higher 247 00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:26,960 Speaker 1: than those that govern political actors politicians, and then the 248 00:17:27,040 --> 00:17:30,439 Speaker 1: moment a judge abandons those standards, the only remedy is 249 00:17:31,160 --> 00:17:38,000 Speaker 1: to remove that judge. That's where it happens. The order 250 00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:42,360 Speaker 1: claim that the redistricting was unlawfully based on race as 251 00:17:42,359 --> 00:17:45,720 Speaker 1: opposed to partisanship, and that's a claim that's at odds 252 00:17:45,760 --> 00:17:48,880 Speaker 1: with what we all saw happened in the partisan political 253 00:17:48,880 --> 00:17:53,960 Speaker 1: fight that took place within the Texas State Legislature. It 254 00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:56,720 Speaker 1: even included a walkout by Democrat legislators. 255 00:17:56,800 --> 00:17:58,479 Speaker 2: That's fine. 256 00:17:58,640 --> 00:18:03,720 Speaker 1: What wasn't attached to the order granting this injunction was 257 00:18:03,760 --> 00:18:07,000 Speaker 1: the dissenting opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 258 00:18:07,080 --> 00:18:10,719 Speaker 1: Judge Jerry Smith. Now I want you to know about 259 00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:14,600 Speaker 1: Judge me. He's a thirty seven year veteran of the 260 00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:19,159 Speaker 1: Federal Judiciary and he's greatly respected among his peers for 261 00:18:19,320 --> 00:18:24,600 Speaker 1: his legal documen. His descent came out to be more 262 00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:28,000 Speaker 1: than one hundred pages. The problem is it came out 263 00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:31,280 Speaker 1: a day late. Not a day late because he've missed 264 00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:35,160 Speaker 1: a deadline, but because Judge Brown, who wanted to make 265 00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:39,000 Speaker 1: sure that nobody was able to overrule him, issued the 266 00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:42,720 Speaker 1: injunction without the benefit of reading the dissent. In other words, 267 00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:47,600 Speaker 1: there was no deliberation. So the judge being denounced. To 268 00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:52,040 Speaker 1: make sure you understand, is this Judge Brown who wrote 269 00:18:52,040 --> 00:18:57,280 Speaker 1: the majority decision along with another judge David guatem Guateano 270 00:18:57,359 --> 00:18:59,720 Speaker 1: or something, who joined in the opinion. He didn't write 271 00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:03,600 Speaker 1: a concurring opinion. He just joined in the opinion. Now 272 00:19:03,720 --> 00:19:05,240 Speaker 1: I want to go to the descent for a moment, 273 00:19:06,440 --> 00:19:14,399 Speaker 1: because the dissent is absolutely blasting this Judge Brown. In 274 00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:19,720 Speaker 1: the dissent, Judge Smith, the good judge, accused Brown and 275 00:19:19,800 --> 00:19:21,439 Speaker 1: the other judge. I'm not going to call the other 276 00:19:21,520 --> 00:19:25,399 Speaker 1: judge bad because well he did go along with them 277 00:19:25,440 --> 00:19:30,720 Speaker 1: with the judge Brown's decision. He accused him of pernicious 278 00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:38,280 Speaker 1: judicial misbehavior in deliberately not providing Judge Smith with any 279 00:19:38,400 --> 00:19:43,520 Speaker 1: reasonable opportunity to review Brown's opinion and respond before it 280 00:19:43,560 --> 00:19:48,239 Speaker 1: was issued. As I said earlier, Judge Smith says that 281 00:19:48,440 --> 00:19:52,159 Speaker 1: is quote the most outrageous conduct by a judge that 282 00:19:52,240 --> 00:19:55,040 Speaker 1: I have ever encountered in a case in which I 283 00:19:55,080 --> 00:20:00,600 Speaker 1: have been involved for thirty seven years. He spent four 284 00:20:00,720 --> 00:20:05,760 Speaker 1: pages going through the timing involved and says that quote 285 00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:10,960 Speaker 1: any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith, or trust by 286 00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:17,240 Speaker 1: these two judges is completely gone. And then Judge Smith 287 00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:22,840 Speaker 1: starts off the substance of his descending opinion by acknowledging 288 00:20:23,119 --> 00:20:29,200 Speaker 1: an undeniable fact quote the main winners from Judge Brown's 289 00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:35,720 Speaker 1: opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers 290 00:20:36,040 --> 00:20:39,840 Speaker 1: are the people of Texas and the rule of law. 291 00:20:41,359 --> 00:20:43,400 Speaker 2: Pam Wow. 292 00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:48,000 Speaker 1: The main winners from this judge's opinion are George Soros 293 00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:51,280 Speaker 1: and Gavin Newsom, and the losers are the people of 294 00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:52,480 Speaker 1: the state of Texas and the. 295 00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:53,200 Speaker 2: Rule of law. 296 00:20:53,640 --> 00:20:56,879 Speaker 1: He then goes on and he totally dismantles the majority's 297 00:20:56,880 --> 00:21:01,679 Speaker 1: decision and it's unsubstantiated, and I do mean in every 298 00:21:01,760 --> 00:21:06,199 Speaker 1: sense of the word, an unsubstantiated claim that it was 299 00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:10,080 Speaker 1: race and not politics, as the driving factor in the 300 00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:15,879 Speaker 1: redistricting decision. I should say the redistricting map to be precise. 301 00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:21,160 Speaker 1: Throughout he repeats the phrase I dissent. I counted more 302 00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:24,760 Speaker 1: than a dozen times I dissent, I dissent, I dissent. 303 00:21:25,280 --> 00:21:31,520 Speaker 1: He then includes two pages of a quote non existing 304 00:21:31,680 --> 00:21:36,240 Speaker 1: list of misleading, deceptive, or false statements. Judge Brown put 305 00:21:36,400 --> 00:21:43,280 Speaker 1: forward that takes in cahones, you're accusing a fellow judge 306 00:21:43,560 --> 00:21:50,440 Speaker 1: of actually putting in his decision a list of misleading, deceptive, 307 00:21:50,760 --> 00:21:55,280 Speaker 1: and false statements. Smith says the list quotes would be 308 00:21:55,359 --> 00:21:58,879 Speaker 1: considerably longer, but for the press of time. There's no 309 00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:00,200 Speaker 1: lack of fadder here. 310 00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:04,280 Speaker 2: Do you. 311 00:22:04,400 --> 00:22:07,160 Speaker 1: And remember this is a trumpet pointed judge, the one 312 00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:11,399 Speaker 1: that's doing all this lying and conniving and violating every 313 00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:16,439 Speaker 1: canon of judicial ethics that I can possibly imagine. And 314 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:19,080 Speaker 1: then the judge that wrote the dissent that I'm referring 315 00:22:19,080 --> 00:22:24,320 Speaker 1: to actually apologized because he felt like his descent was disjointed, 316 00:22:24,680 --> 00:22:29,080 Speaker 1: but says, refining my descent was not possible because Judge 317 00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:30,360 Speaker 1: Brown have. 318 00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:32,080 Speaker 2: Not allowed it, has not allowed it. 319 00:22:33,280 --> 00:22:36,960 Speaker 1: Thus, he says My Descent is far from a literary masterpiece. 320 00:22:37,520 --> 00:22:41,280 Speaker 1: But he says, if there were a Nobel Prize for fiction, 321 00:22:41,840 --> 00:22:44,720 Speaker 1: Judge Brown's opinion would be a prime candidate. 322 00:22:49,240 --> 00:22:52,360 Speaker 2: We're losing the judiciary. 323 00:22:51,840 --> 00:22:57,479 Speaker 1: Whether it's judges that just let repeat offenders out. So 324 00:22:57,520 --> 00:23:00,360 Speaker 1: we had the case in Chicago, I forget how many 325 00:23:00,400 --> 00:23:04,040 Speaker 1: rests and convictions that dirt bag had. We had the 326 00:23:04,119 --> 00:23:08,199 Speaker 1: illegal alien in North Carolina and Charlotte. I think that 327 00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:13,119 Speaker 1: split the Ukrainian woman's throat. We've got an example in 328 00:23:13,280 --> 00:23:18,720 Speaker 1: Colorado of the You remember the case in Boulder where 329 00:23:19,240 --> 00:23:23,400 Speaker 1: a woman was driving recklessly and she killed a biker 330 00:23:23,480 --> 00:23:32,159 Speaker 1: riding along Highway one nineteen. That particular convicted criminal was 331 00:23:32,200 --> 00:23:36,919 Speaker 1: sentenced to four years I think in prison, but she 332 00:23:36,960 --> 00:23:41,160 Speaker 1: would qualify for parole within I think one year. 333 00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:43,600 Speaker 2: So the department, the. 334 00:23:46,680 --> 00:23:50,640 Speaker 1: Prison department, whatever it is in Colorado has decided that, oh, 335 00:23:50,720 --> 00:23:52,760 Speaker 1: I think we'll just move her to a halfway house. 336 00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:55,960 Speaker 2: She recklessly killed a biker. 337 00:23:56,600 --> 00:23:58,760 Speaker 1: Now I get really pissed off at bikers because they 338 00:23:58,760 --> 00:24:01,200 Speaker 1: think they owned the road. But that doesn't mean that 339 00:24:01,240 --> 00:24:05,159 Speaker 1: I'm justified in running one over or being negligent and 340 00:24:05,280 --> 00:24:09,240 Speaker 1: killing someone. So she may be out on a four 341 00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:12,720 Speaker 1: year sentence, she may be out on parole having served 342 00:24:12,800 --> 00:24:15,000 Speaker 1: less than a fourth of that sentence, and may be 343 00:24:15,119 --> 00:24:17,480 Speaker 1: in a house in a halfway house sometime in the 344 00:24:17,480 --> 00:24:22,400 Speaker 1: next couple of weeks. So it's like our whole idea 345 00:24:22,560 --> 00:24:27,240 Speaker 1: of justice and our whole idea of judges actually upholding 346 00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:32,159 Speaker 1: the rule of law is virtually disappearing. Now, let me 347 00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:34,600 Speaker 1: just go back to the Texas case for a moment. 348 00:24:35,640 --> 00:24:37,720 Speaker 1: According to Smith, he's the one that wrote a descent 349 00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:42,639 Speaker 1: Brown's opinion. That's the one that wrote the opinion that 350 00:24:42,840 --> 00:24:47,879 Speaker 1: throughout the redistricting map claiming without any evidence that was 351 00:24:47,920 --> 00:24:52,040 Speaker 1: based on race. He says that opinion is so deceptive 352 00:24:52,080 --> 00:24:55,440 Speaker 1: and so lacking in fact or law that Brown could 353 00:24:55,440 --> 00:24:57,760 Speaker 1: have saved himself and the readers a lot of time 354 00:24:58,119 --> 00:25:02,679 Speaker 1: and effort by merely stating the following quote. I just 355 00:25:02,720 --> 00:25:05,720 Speaker 1: don't like what the legislature did here. It was unnecessary 356 00:25:05,960 --> 00:25:10,080 Speaker 1: and it seems unfair to disadvantage voters. I need I 357 00:25:10,119 --> 00:25:12,560 Speaker 1: need to step in to make sure wiser heads prevail 358 00:25:12,960 --> 00:25:16,639 Speaker 1: over the nakedly partisan and racially questionable actions of these 359 00:25:16,720 --> 00:25:20,359 Speaker 1: zealous lawmakers. I'm using my considerable cloud as a federal 360 00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:23,480 Speaker 1: district judge to put a stop to bad policy judgments. 361 00:25:23,600 --> 00:25:25,760 Speaker 1: After all, I get paid to do what I think 362 00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:28,840 Speaker 1: is right. That's what he actually wrote in his descent. 363 00:25:30,200 --> 00:25:33,879 Speaker 1: Judge Smith actually puts that in his descent. That should 364 00:25:33,920 --> 00:25:37,400 Speaker 1: tell you that this case is completely off the rails. 365 00:25:39,640 --> 00:25:43,680 Speaker 1: The judge that wrote the opinion, his actions are, according 366 00:25:43,720 --> 00:25:47,600 Speaker 1: to Smith, the most welatant exercise of judicial activism that 367 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:51,840 Speaker 1: he has ever witnessed during his lengthy judicial career. Now, 368 00:25:51,840 --> 00:25:55,200 Speaker 1: according to Smith, again he's the one that wrote the descent. 369 00:25:55,880 --> 00:25:58,960 Speaker 1: The main question before the three judge panel was quote 370 00:25:59,080 --> 00:26:03,120 Speaker 1: whether the Texas legislature did its mid decade congressional redistricting 371 00:26:03,480 --> 00:26:06,680 Speaker 1: to gain political advantage or instead because the main goal 372 00:26:06,720 --> 00:26:11,000 Speaker 1: of Texas Republican legislators is to slash the voting rights 373 00:26:11,000 --> 00:26:15,560 Speaker 1: of persons of color. Now, the descending judge likened the 374 00:26:15,600 --> 00:26:17,960 Speaker 1: approach of the lawyers and the witnesses in that case 375 00:26:18,600 --> 00:26:21,080 Speaker 1: to the Department of Justice lawyers from the Civil Rights 376 00:26:21,080 --> 00:26:26,159 Speaker 1: Division in prior Texas redistricting cases. He wrote, it was 377 00:26:26,280 --> 00:26:29,520 Speaker 1: obvious from the start that the Department of Justice attorneys 378 00:26:29,600 --> 00:26:33,240 Speaker 1: viewed state officials and the Legislative majority and their staffs 379 00:26:33,280 --> 00:26:37,119 Speaker 1: as a bunch of backwoods ac biketts who bemoaned the 380 00:26:37,160 --> 00:26:39,920 Speaker 1: abolition of the poll tax and paying for the days 381 00:26:39,920 --> 00:26:43,080 Speaker 1: of literacy test and lynchings, and the Department of Justice. 382 00:26:43,160 --> 00:26:48,280 Speaker 1: Layers say lawyers saw themselves as an expeditionary landing party, 383 00:26:48,359 --> 00:26:51,480 Speaker 1: arriving here just in time to rescue the state of 384 00:26:51,520 --> 00:26:57,080 Speaker 1: Texas from oppression. Having known people that work in the 385 00:26:57,080 --> 00:26:59,600 Speaker 1: Civil Rights Division, but the Department of Justice, I can 386 00:26:59,600 --> 00:27:02,720 Speaker 1: assure you that I think his observation is probably one 387 00:27:02,760 --> 00:27:03,800 Speaker 1: hundred percent accurate. 388 00:27:04,920 --> 00:27:07,639 Speaker 2: Now, while acknowledging the acknowledging. 389 00:27:08,320 --> 00:27:11,160 Speaker 1: That the Justice Department was not present in this case, 390 00:27:11,560 --> 00:27:16,240 Speaker 1: Smith said that the same attitudes about Texas Republican legislators 391 00:27:16,520 --> 00:27:19,359 Speaker 1: had been reflected in the testimony of multiple experts and 392 00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:23,359 Speaker 1: witnesses presented by these plaintiffs and occasionally by their talented council, 393 00:27:23,400 --> 00:27:26,399 Speaker 1: and the statements of the parties. But the obvious reason, 394 00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:31,199 Speaker 1: he says, for the Texas redistricting was partisan gain. The majority, 395 00:27:31,200 --> 00:27:35,160 Speaker 1: he wrote, commits grave error in concluding that the Texas 396 00:27:35,240 --> 00:27:43,000 Speaker 1: legislature is more bigoted than political. Remember, redistricting is a 397 00:27:43,320 --> 00:27:48,120 Speaker 1: political action. Taken by a state legislature, and the Supreme 398 00:27:48,119 --> 00:27:51,560 Speaker 1: Court has ruled for decades that the courts have no 399 00:27:51,880 --> 00:27:54,360 Speaker 1: role in it other than just making sure that they 400 00:27:54,480 --> 00:27:57,560 Speaker 1: follow whatever the state law is, and that it is 401 00:27:57,600 --> 00:28:03,119 Speaker 1: indeed inherently a political process, not a legal or judicial process. 402 00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:06,320 Speaker 1: And then the dissenting judge goes on to point out 403 00:28:06,359 --> 00:28:09,119 Speaker 1: all of the grave errors that this judge made in 404 00:28:09,200 --> 00:28:12,480 Speaker 1: evaluating the evidence in the case over what the legislatures 405 00:28:12,520 --> 00:28:14,880 Speaker 1: did and how and why their new districts were drawn 406 00:28:14,920 --> 00:28:19,159 Speaker 1: the way that they were actually drawn. I don't have 407 00:28:19,200 --> 00:28:22,960 Speaker 1: time to go through all of the errors that the 408 00:28:23,040 --> 00:28:28,400 Speaker 1: judge lists in his dissent. Smith says that the evidence, again, 409 00:28:28,440 --> 00:28:32,320 Speaker 1: this is the dissenting judge says that the evidence in 410 00:28:32,320 --> 00:28:35,960 Speaker 1: the case, as well as outside events like the victory 411 00:28:36,040 --> 00:28:40,440 Speaker 1: lap in Houston celebrate by California Governor Gavin Newsom, tell 412 00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:43,880 Speaker 1: you all you need to know. This is about partisan politics, 413 00:28:43,920 --> 00:28:49,120 Speaker 1: plain and simple, regardless of one's political start or one's 414 00:28:49,160 --> 00:28:52,760 Speaker 1: political slant. It's obvious what Texas is trying to do 415 00:28:52,840 --> 00:28:56,760 Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five. Obvious to everyone, that is, except 416 00:28:56,760 --> 00:29:02,280 Speaker 1: the two judges who join the majority opinion. The Republicans' 417 00:29:02,960 --> 00:29:07,120 Speaker 1: national margin in the House of Representatives, they wrote, is 418 00:29:07,160 --> 00:29:10,720 Speaker 1: so slim that squeezing out of majority might even depend 419 00:29:11,080 --> 00:29:13,920 Speaker 1: day to day on whether some seats are vacant because 420 00:29:13,960 --> 00:29:18,160 Speaker 1: of deaths or resignation. The new plan in Texas was 421 00:29:18,200 --> 00:29:21,960 Speaker 1: to make more seats winnable for Republicans by moving some 422 00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:28,160 Speaker 1: Democrat incumbents from their districts and rendering other districts unwinnable 423 00:29:28,200 --> 00:29:29,080 Speaker 1: by Democrats. 424 00:29:30,120 --> 00:29:32,440 Speaker 2: Now, the descending judge. 425 00:29:32,320 --> 00:29:37,280 Speaker 1: Describes that theory, the one ultimately adopted by Brown, as 426 00:29:37,320 --> 00:29:41,040 Speaker 1: both perverse and bizarre. They claimed that if politics was 427 00:29:41,080 --> 00:29:44,400 Speaker 1: the reason for redistricting, that the Republicans wouldn't have drawn 428 00:29:44,640 --> 00:29:47,880 Speaker 1: five new seats, but instead would have drawn oh maybe six, 429 00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:50,160 Speaker 1: seven or eight additional seats. And the the reason they 430 00:29:50,160 --> 00:29:53,360 Speaker 1: did not is that that real reason for redistricting was 431 00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:57,800 Speaker 1: racial animus. So think about the logic of that Texas 432 00:29:58,080 --> 00:30:02,920 Speaker 1: drew five new seats, but because they didn't draw six, seven, 433 00:30:03,000 --> 00:30:06,200 Speaker 1: eight or nine new seats, this judge concluded, Oh, they 434 00:30:06,200 --> 00:30:08,440 Speaker 1: didn't go that far because that might expose how they 435 00:30:08,440 --> 00:30:13,320 Speaker 1: were doing it based on race. That absurdity of that 436 00:30:13,400 --> 00:30:19,040 Speaker 1: kind of notion speaks for itself. You're impugning racism. Because 437 00:30:19,040 --> 00:30:23,400 Speaker 1: they drew five and didn't draw six, seven, eight, or nine. 438 00:30:24,400 --> 00:30:28,640 Speaker 1: That's exactly what the judge that issued the injunction thinks. 439 00:30:30,160 --> 00:30:36,000 Speaker 1: I want to make one comment about injunctions. And remember 440 00:30:36,000 --> 00:30:39,520 Speaker 1: this is a Trump appointee from Trump one point zero, 441 00:30:39,760 --> 00:30:42,840 Speaker 1: so obviously it was a huge mistake. Or maybe he 442 00:30:42,960 --> 00:30:45,840 Speaker 1: was a compromise candidate. I don't know. I don't care. 443 00:30:46,560 --> 00:30:50,560 Speaker 1: What I do care about this is judges are becoming 444 00:30:50,720 --> 00:30:55,760 Speaker 1: such activists that they are now invoking their personal political 445 00:30:55,760 --> 00:31:02,720 Speaker 1: opinions into their decisions. And unless until and hold on, 446 00:31:03,240 --> 00:31:05,680 Speaker 1: but in less than until the Supreme Court steps in 447 00:31:06,600 --> 00:31:10,520 Speaker 1: and basically screams at all of them and says, stop 448 00:31:10,560 --> 00:31:13,520 Speaker 1: it or else we're gonna overturn. We're just gonna start 449 00:31:13,520 --> 00:31:17,400 Speaker 1: overturning every single decision you do. I mean, start a fight, 450 00:31:17,800 --> 00:31:20,840 Speaker 1: start a fight. But if the Supreme Court does that, 451 00:31:21,800 --> 00:31:25,360 Speaker 1: I expect you to be ready for the howling that 452 00:31:25,400 --> 00:31:27,920 Speaker 1: will come about. All we need to pack the court. 453 00:31:28,160 --> 00:31:30,000 Speaker 1: We need to do so. The Supreme Court is out 454 00:31:30,000 --> 00:31:32,000 Speaker 1: of control. You know what the Supreme courts trying to do. 455 00:31:32,440 --> 00:31:35,560 Speaker 1: They're trying to make certain that these judges stick. 456 00:31:35,320 --> 00:31:35,960 Speaker 2: To the law. 457 00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:43,440 Speaker 1: And this decision alone cries out for impeachment. This judge, 458 00:31:43,560 --> 00:31:51,720 Speaker 1: Judge Brown, needs to be removed, and Texas legislators, Texas Congressman, 459 00:31:51,760 --> 00:31:54,120 Speaker 1: because it has to start in the House. You need 460 00:31:54,160 --> 00:31:58,280 Speaker 1: to start those proceedings immediately, because it's time. As we've 461 00:31:58,280 --> 00:32:03,120 Speaker 1: said in other cases with cocuters, with judges for that matter, 462 00:32:03,160 --> 00:32:08,320 Speaker 1: with politicians or bureaucrats like doctor Fauci, somebody's got to 463 00:32:08,360 --> 00:32:12,520 Speaker 1: be held accountable and less. And until we start holding 464 00:32:12,560 --> 00:32:16,040 Speaker 1: people accountable and in this case doing it through impeachment, 465 00:32:16,800 --> 00:32:20,200 Speaker 1: this republic will continue to die. This republic will continue 466 00:32:20,240 --> 00:32:25,040 Speaker 1: to wither because nobody's being held accountable. In Texas is 467 00:32:25,080 --> 00:32:30,440 Speaker 1: the latest and unfortunately the greatest example of that. Thank goodness, 468 00:32:30,480 --> 00:32:33,960 Speaker 1: one judge had the cajones to call a spade a 469 00:32:34,000 --> 00:32:37,680 Speaker 1: spade when he wrote his dissent, because otherwise this may 470 00:32:37,720 --> 00:32:39,800 Speaker 1: have just flown completely under the radar.