Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you, and I want to give a very special
Speaker 1: welcome to so many of you that are joining this
Speaker 1: podcast for the very first time. As many of you
Speaker 1: that are listening to podcast may have heard, we are
Speaker 1: now a syndicated radio show on the weekend's nationwide, so
Speaker 1: you can listen to show wherever you have a lot
Speaker 1: of local news talk stations. So we're really excited to
Speaker 1: bring in new listeners with this first show since we
Speaker 1: went live this weekend with that syndicated show Center. It
Speaker 1: was really fun. By the way, we even had some
Speaker 1: friends that sent you some warm wishes, which included Sean Handy,
Speaker 1: and that was really cool as well, welcoming you as
Speaker 1: the first sitting senator and actually national politician to ever
Speaker 1: have a syndicated radio show while also in office. It's
Speaker 1: pretty awesome.
Speaker 2: Well, we launched the podcast as a said syndicated radio
Speaker 2: show this weekend. We started on eighty four stations nationwide
Speaker 2: eighty four, and we're anticipating a lot more stations picking
Speaker 2: it up. We're going to be every weekend all across
Speaker 2: the country, and it'll be our Friday podcast that will
Speaker 2: air on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the weekend, and it's
Speaker 2: a great opportunity just to take listeners behind the scenes,
Speaker 2: behind the curtain. What's going on today. What we're talking
Speaker 2: about is we're talking about two battles. One a battle
Speaker 2: in the United States Senate, the second a battle in
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court. All of these battles number one
Speaker 2: in the Senate, the Democrat senators have decided they have
Speaker 2: found their issue to campaign on in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: Their issue is illegals. They want more of them, and
Speaker 2: especially MS thirteen gang members. They're all in. It's an
Speaker 2: amazing decision. Chris van Holland, Democrat from Maryland, flew down
Speaker 2: Delle Salvador to play foot seat with a gang member.
Speaker 3: We're going to talk about that.
Speaker 2: We're also going to talk about a big decision at
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court halting I hope temporarily deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 2: You had a vigorous descent from Justice Eleide and Justice Thomas.
Speaker 3: All of that on today's pod.
Speaker 1: Before we get to that, though, I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about how Israel is still under attack. Missile
Speaker 1: fire has resumed from Israel's enemies and terrasts are seeking
Speaker 1: utter death and destruction here in America. We can't imagine
Speaker 1: what it's like to live in constant fear like this,
Speaker 1: and that is the reality for many in Israel. That
Speaker 1: is where you can come in and help those. You
Speaker 1: can join me and show the people of Israel that
Speaker 1: not only do you want to help protect them in
Speaker 1: this time of attack and uncertainty, but that you stand
Speaker 1: with them as well. And one of the best ways
Speaker 1: to do this is by giving to the International Fellowship
Speaker 1: of Christians and Jews. Your gift today will help provide
Speaker 1: security essentials like bomb shelters, flat jackets, and bulletproof vests. Also,
Speaker 1: there is a major need for armored security vehicles and
Speaker 1: armored ambulances. There's no better time to give than right now,
Speaker 1: out during the Passover holiday, when we celebrate Israel's historic
Speaker 1: deliverance and birth as a nation. So give a special
Speaker 1: Passover gift today and help protect the people of Israel.
Speaker 1: The number eight to eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's
Speaker 1: eight eight eight four eight eight four three two five,
Speaker 1: Or you can go online and give securely at support
Speaker 1: IFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org
Speaker 1: or eight A eight for eight eight IFCJ. All right, Senator,
Speaker 1: So let's start with this big first issue. I still
Speaker 1: can't get my head around the fact that this is
Speaker 1: clearly the political issue, as you mentioned, a moment ago
Speaker 1: Democrats believe is like a big moment for them and
Speaker 1: an issue to run on in less than two years
Speaker 1: in the midterms. And that's not to defend Americans, but
Speaker 1: to defend a terrorist organization and their members.
Speaker 2: Well, it really is astonishing. This individual that they're focusing on,
Speaker 2: who's been deported to El Salvador. He is an illegal alien.
Speaker 2: No one disputes that he came illegally. He had an
Speaker 2: order of deportation against him, the court ordered him deported.
Speaker 2: Nobody disputes that either. And twice he's been adjudicated to
Speaker 2: be a member of MS thirteen. As President Trump tweeted out,
Speaker 2: he has tattoos on his fist, on his fingers that
Speaker 2: correspond with MS thirteen gang tattoos. It is really a
Speaker 2: remarkable thing that the Democrats look at this situation and say,
Speaker 2: this is the issue that is going to move the
Speaker 2: American people to our side. I don't know anybody who
Speaker 2: thinks at least, I don't know anyone normal and rational
Speaker 2: who thinks what we need is more gang members and
Speaker 2: illegal aliens. And in fact, look, I'm gonna read to
Speaker 2: you a text. I'm not going to identify who it is,
Speaker 2: but but but it's a buddy of mine who's a Democrat,
Speaker 2: who who's a Democrat. He's on the left, and and
Speaker 2: and he just just texted me and said, your colleague,
Speaker 2: Maryland Senator van Holland flew to El Salvador to see Garcia.
Speaker 2: My wife's friends are very upset. The senators cares more
Speaker 2: about one non citizen than many innocent American hostages.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts and and and to be.
Speaker 2: Clear, this this is a friend of mine who is
Speaker 2: a Democrat, who is solidly left of center, and and
Speaker 2: and his wife is looking at this going what the
Speaker 2: hell are these people doing? That says something And I'll
Speaker 2: tell you something else that that's interesting. This is not
Speaker 2: just a one off. The Democrats have decided this is
Speaker 2: our issue. So Sunday, Chris van Holland, senator from from Maryland,
Speaker 2: who flew down Del Salvador, he did the full Ginsburg. Now,
Speaker 2: now what is the let's see, man, how good is
Speaker 2: your recollection? Do you remember what the full Ginsburg is?
Speaker 1: See? These are the moments for people that are just
Speaker 1: listening for the first time that make me laugh because
Speaker 1: these are the I got you co host questions, get
Speaker 1: used to them. They happen about once per episode, And
Speaker 1: this is where I say.
Speaker 2: Ginsburg is okay, the full Ginsburg and it's it's a thing.
Speaker 2: It was named for William Ginsburg, who was Monica Lewinsky's
Speaker 2: lawyer during during the scandal against Bill Clinton, and he
Speaker 2: went on all major Sunday morning talk shows. He went
Speaker 2: on this week on the ABC, Face the Nation, Meet
Speaker 2: the Press, and State of.
Speaker 3: The Union on CNN.
Speaker 2: So doing all five is called the full Ginsburgh because
Speaker 2: he he's the first one anyone remembers doing it.
Speaker 3: And it's actually interesting. I went and googled it just
Speaker 3: a minute.
Speaker 2: Ago and Wikipedia oddly has a list of everyone who's
Speaker 2: done the full Ginsburg, and it turns out quite quite
Speaker 2: a lot of people have done it. So it started
Speaker 2: off with William gins Burg. Then it was Congressman Rick
Speaker 2: Lazio when he was running for Senate. Then it was
Speaker 2: Dick Cheney, then it was John Edwards when he was
Speaker 2: running for President. Then it was Michael Chertoff when he
Speaker 2: was Secretary of Homeland Security. Then it was Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2: Then it was Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Speaker 2: Then it was doctor Richard Besser of the CDC. That
Speaker 2: it was Bill Clinton. Then it was George W.
Speaker 3: Bush.
Speaker 2: Then it was Rogie Shaw. Then it was Lieutenant General
Speaker 2: Ken Keene. That it was Michelle Bachman. Then it was
Speaker 2: Jack Lou. Then it was Susan Rice. That it was
Speaker 2: Timothy the Geitner. Then it was Jeb Bush. Then it
Speaker 2: was Marco Rubio. That it was Daniel Pfeiffer. Then it
Speaker 2: was John Kerrey. That it was Dennis McDonough. Then it
Speaker 2: was Jack Lou. That it was John Kerrey. Then it
Speaker 2: was Dennis McDonough again he was White House Chief of Staff.
Speaker 2: Then it was Robert Sunwalt, a board member of the
Speaker 2: National Transportation Safety Board. Then it was Paul Ryan. Then
Speaker 2: it was Marco Rubio. And you know what I discovered.
Speaker 2: And the next person to make the list actually was me,
Speaker 2: which I didn't remember, but I'm looking at this Wikipedia article.
Speaker 2: And when I ran for president twenty sixteen, a parent
Speaker 2: I did it February twenty eighth of twenty sixteen, which
Speaker 2: I didn't remember.
Speaker 3: But I'm one of the ones who's done full Ginsburg.
Speaker 1: So just to be clear, I got asked if I
Speaker 1: knew what the Ginsburg was. I didn't know the answer,
Speaker 1: but you were one of the people on the Ginsburg listen,
Speaker 1: and you forgot it. So we're just full circling that right.
Speaker 2: Well, and then the last two who've done it have
Speaker 2: been John Kirby, who was a White House spokesman for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, and then on Sunday Chris van Holland. And
Speaker 2: so I make this point. Look, someone does the full Ginsburg.
Speaker 2: They go on every Sunday show when they really really
Speaker 2: want to draw attention to something, when they want to
Speaker 2: highlight it, when they want to say, hey, this matters,
Speaker 2: and listen, the Democrat Party as a whole, they are
Speaker 2: all in on this strategy. The media as a whole,
Speaker 2: they're all in on this strategy. And I got to say,
Speaker 2: that's just I think that has a real danger of
Speaker 2: of backfiring on him.
Speaker 1: So let's play part of what he had to say
Speaker 1: on this visit with a guy that's not only a
Speaker 1: not because I say so, multiple courts have said so.
Speaker 1: Government agencies have confirmed it as well. Is an MS
Speaker 1: thirteen gang member which has been declared to terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: And this is part of what he had to say
Speaker 1: on ABC this week. Take a listen.
Speaker 4: As you know, the President himself has been attacking you
Speaker 4: by pointing out some of the aspects of Abrego Garcia's record,
Speaker 4: including the fact that his wife had an order of
Speaker 4: protection against him in twenty twenty one and alleged some
Speaker 4: pretty serious allegations of abuse, and even that that he
Speaker 4: had detained her. Are you concerned about your defense of somebody.
Speaker 4: Obviously everybody in this country, even those undocumented immigrants, have rights.
Speaker 4: But are you concerned about standing so forcefully with somebody
Speaker 4: that has, you know, at least a questionable record.
Speaker 5: I am not defending the man.
Speaker 6: I'm defending the rights of this man to do process,
Speaker 6: and the Trump administration has admitted in court that he
Speaker 6: was wrongfully detained and wrongfully deported.
Speaker 3: My mission, of.
Speaker 6: My purpose is to make sure that we uphold the
Speaker 6: rule of law, because if we take it away from him,
Speaker 6: we do jeopardize it for everybody else. And I do
Speaker 6: want to point out, Carl, Yes, the Trump administration is
Speaker 6: trying to change the story. They're trying to detract attention.
Speaker 6: Here's where they should put their facts. They should put
Speaker 6: it before the court. They should put up or shut
Speaker 6: up in court.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's amazing that he tries to spin it
Speaker 1: this way. It's also amazing that ABC tries to kind
Speaker 1: of downplay the fact that this is a guy that
Speaker 1: attacked his wife. She had a protective order. Oh and
Speaker 1: by the way, on top of these an MS thirteen
Speaker 1: gang member, and you're trying to act like this is
Speaker 1: the guy we need to go protect and save.
Speaker 2: And let me point out what Ben Holland says there
Speaker 2: is is just wrong. So there was an order of
Speaker 2: deportation against this guy. Court had ruled he should be deported.
Speaker 2: It is true. The Trump administration has admitted they made
Speaker 2: a mistake. And the mistake they made is that there
Speaker 2: was a court order prohibiting his deportation to l Salvador.
Speaker 3: It was an older order.
Speaker 2: They didn't see it, and so they missed it. And
Speaker 2: so the state of the law was the federal government
Speaker 2: could deport him to literally any country on planet Earth
Speaker 2: except El Salvador.
Speaker 3: But because of that order, you had a court order.
Speaker 2: Saying don't send him to El Salvador, and they did
Speaker 2: so because they didn't see that order until after the fact.
Speaker 2: Now that also means if he came back, they could
Speaker 2: literally deport him ten seconds later to another country. Because listen,
Speaker 2: if you are here illegally, and in particular, if you
Speaker 2: are a member of a terrorist organization, you don't have
Speaker 2: a right to remain. You know, Jonathan Carl calls him
Speaker 2: an undocumented alien. No, the term under the statute is
Speaker 2: illegal alien, and they are an illegal alien. It's not
Speaker 2: that they're just missing some piece of paper. It's that
Speaker 2: they came here illegally, and the administration has the power
Speaker 2: to remove him. I want you to listen to this
Speaker 2: clip on another part of the full Ginsburg when he's
Speaker 2: on CNN and Dana Bash questioned him, give a listen
Speaker 2: to this.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 5: President Trump says that some of Abrego Garcia's tattoos signify
Speaker 5: that he's a member of MS thirteen. In twenty nineteen,
Speaker 5: police alleged a confidential informant claimed that Abrego Garcia was
Speaker 5: an active MS thirteen member. His wife and his attorney
Speaker 5: deny that, of course, can you say with absolute certainty
Speaker 5: that he is not, nor has he ever been a
Speaker 5: member of the MS thirteen gang. And did you ask
Speaker 5: him point blank?
Speaker 6: Well, Dana, what Donald Trump is trying to do here
Speaker 6: is change the subject. The subject at hand is that
Speaker 6: he and his administration are define a court order to
Speaker 6: give people to give a Brego Garcia his due process rights.
Speaker 6: They are trying to litigate on social media what they
Speaker 6: should be doing in the courts. They need to put
Speaker 6: up or shut up in the courts. Let me tell you.
Speaker 6: I decided to write this down so I could be
Speaker 6: absolutely accurate as to what Federal District Courts Judge Zennis
Speaker 6: said about these allegations by the Trump administration. Quote, no
Speaker 6: evidence linking a Brego Garcia to MS thirteen or any
Speaker 6: terrorist activity has been presented to the court. That's where
Speaker 6: to litigate this. It's been litigated in many other places.
Speaker 6: So I'm not going to get into the details because
Speaker 6: the whole purpose of our court system is for them
Speaker 6: to adjudicate these things, not for Donald Trump to go
Speaker 6: off on social media.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you're right, they have not. There hasn't been a
Speaker 5: court hearing for them to put forward evidence in the
Speaker 5: first place, which is your whole point. But since you
Speaker 5: were the one person to have met with him. This
Speaker 5: is a thing you say on social media. It's what
Speaker 5: we hear from Donald Trump and Republicans every day, all
Speaker 5: day long. You didn't ask him.
Speaker 6: I didn't ask him that because I know what his
Speaker 6: answer is. What he told me was he was sad
Speaker 6: and traumatized that he was being in prison because he
Speaker 6: has committed no crimes. And that goes to the heart
Speaker 6: of this issue, because he's being denied his due process rights.
Speaker 6: And Donald Trump is trying to change the subject. And
Speaker 6: you know, when people start asking about asking that question,
Speaker 6: in my view, they're falling into the president's trap, because
Speaker 6: what the president wants to do is talk about that
Speaker 6: as if we can't all fight gang violence, which I've
Speaker 6: been doing for much longer than Donald Trump. Right. His
Speaker 6: argument is you can't fight that and at the same
Speaker 6: time uphold people's constitutional rights. That's a very dangerous view.
Speaker 6: And if we deny the constitutional rights of this one man,
Speaker 6: it threatens the constitutional rights of everybody in the mind America.
Speaker 2: So there's several things that are remarkable in what Van
Speaker 2: Hollen is doing. Number One, he keeps saying Trump is
Speaker 2: trying to change the subject. Now mind you, that's exactly
Speaker 2: what Van Holland is doing. I mean, it really is
Speaker 2: Freudian projection. He gets asked about the restraining order and
Speaker 2: the evidence that this illegal alien committed domestic violence and
Speaker 2: was a wife beater. He said nope, nope, never mind,
Speaker 2: never mind. And he gets asked, okay, well, is the
Speaker 2: guy in MS thirteen gang member?
Speaker 3: Yes? No, did you ask him?
Speaker 2: And he says no, no, no Trump Trump Trump range
Speaker 2: man bad Trump Trump Trump, And remarkably, Dana Bash goes
Speaker 2: back again and says, well, yeah, but you sat down
Speaker 2: with him.
Speaker 3: Did you ask him?
Speaker 2: And Van Holland says no, because it turns out so
Speaker 2: in his view, it is quote changing the subject to
Speaker 2: discuss the facts of who it is that was deported.
Speaker 2: I think that is the subject, who it was that
Speaker 2: was deported. And by the way, one of the things
Speaker 2: Van Holland says is he has committed no crimes. That
Speaker 2: would be factually incorrect. Crossing illegally into the United States
Speaker 2: is a crime. The Democrats want everyone to do that,
Speaker 2: and even if you're a gang member. At look at
Speaker 2: the very same time that the Democrats are embracing this
Speaker 2: admitted illegal alien and person who's been found by two
Speaker 2: courts to be affiliated with MS thirteen. While they're defending
Speaker 2: him as a quote Maryland man, we had simultaneously the
Speaker 2: mom of Rachel Morin, who is also a Maryland resident,
Speaker 2: and yet the senator from Maryland cannot bother to be
Speaker 2: worried about Rachel Morin, a woman who was raped and murdered,
Speaker 2: a mom of five kids, raped and murdered by an
Speaker 2: illegal immigrant. That the Democrats released, their priorities are, I
Speaker 2: think abundantly.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this pr stunt by Van Hollen.
Speaker 1: If you want to know who had to pay for it, well,
Speaker 1: here's his answer on that.
Speaker 6: Who did pay for this trip? This was an officially
Speaker 6: cleared congressional trips, Yes, like every other trip.
Speaker 1: Yes, like every other trip. So that just you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: we waste your money all the time. We waste your
Speaker 1: money on this trip too. Why would that be out
Speaker 1: of the ordinary.
Speaker 2: It is standard practice for members of both parties to
Speaker 2: travel abroad, and it's part of doing the job responsibility.
Speaker 2: So I don't fault him for traveling Dale Salvador. I
Speaker 2: fault him for deciding that he wants to stake everything
Speaker 2: he stands for on the proposition that we need more
Speaker 2: illegal aliens in this country, that the federal government cannot
Speaker 2: deport illegal aliens, and that we need more gang members
Speaker 2: in this country. And as he lays out, he doesn't
Speaker 2: care and he didn't ask if this guy's a gang member,
Speaker 2: and apparently he didn't care if he all so as
Speaker 2: committing domestic violence and beating up his wife, those are
Speaker 2: not his concerns either.
Speaker 1: I want to move also to this second big story,
Speaker 1: and there's some people that are confused. I also think
Speaker 1: very frustrated by the Supreme Court halting the deportations of
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants in some cases. Can you break down what
Speaker 1: this ruling is. Alito was in the descent here and
Speaker 1: the headlines over Easter weekend, people are like, wait, what, how,
Speaker 1: why is this happening. I don't understand how we're protecting
Speaker 1: people that are illegal immigrants. Yet again, at the level
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court, break this down so it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Well, the Supreme Court early Saturday morning issued in order
Speaker 2: blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an eighteenth
Speaker 2: century law, and what it says is that they had
Speaker 2: to halt the deportations until quote further order of this Court,
Speaker 2: and I got to say, just to Alito, joined by
Speaker 2: Justice Thomas, wrote a very fiery descent, really disagreeing with it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to read you part of the descent. Here's
Speaker 2: what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted
Speaker 2: unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the all Ritz Act. The
Speaker 2: Court ordered the quote government not to remove a quote
Speaker 2: putative class of detainees until this Court issues a superseding order.
Speaker 2: Although the order does not define the quote putative class,
Speaker 2: it appears that the Court means all members of the
Speaker 2: class that the Habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely, quote,
Speaker 2: all non citizens in custody in the Northern District of
Speaker 2: Texas who were, are, and will be subject to the
Speaker 2: March twenty twenty five Presidential Proclamation entitled Invocation of the
Speaker 2: Alien Enemies Acts regarding the Invasion of the United States
Speaker 2: by trender Aragua and or its implementation. It also appears
Speaker 2: that applicants have recently moved to amend their class petition
Speaker 2: for Habeas Corpus and their motion for class certification, So
Speaker 2: it is not clear if the applicants will continue to
Speaker 2: defend this specific definition or will argue for a new one.
Speaker 2: And although the Court does not specify what it means
Speaker 2: by the government, it appears that term is intended to
Speaker 2: embrace all the name defendants, including the President. The Court
Speaker 2: did all of this even though it is not clear
Speaker 2: that the Court had jurisdiction. The Allrits Act does not
Speaker 2: provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court had
Speaker 2: jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdictions of
Speaker 2: the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction
Speaker 2: only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted
Speaker 2: to a denial of a preliminary injunction. But here the
Speaker 2: order that applicants appealed was what they viewed as the
Speaker 2: District court's constructive denial of their request for a temporary
Speaker 2: restraining order. That is, the district Court did not actually
Speaker 2: deny their most recent request for a tro but they
Speaker 2: inferred that it was constructively denied because the District Court
Speaker 2: failed a rule on that request before the expiration of
Speaker 2: a truncated council imposed deadline. The denial of a true
Speaker 2: tro is not appealable, and here it is not clear
Speaker 2: that the applicant's tro request was actually denied. Indeed, an
Speaker 2: order issued last night the Fifth Circuit held that it
Speaker 2: lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, it is questionable whether the
Speaker 2: applicant complied with a general obligation to seek emergency and
Speaker 2: junctive relief in the district court before asking for such
Speaker 2: relief from an appellate court. When applicants requested such relief
Speaker 2: in the district Court, they insisted on a ruling within
Speaker 2: forty five minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when the
Speaker 2: District Court did not act within one hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: three minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which the
Speaker 2: District Court held deprived it of its jurisdiction. Now a
Speaker 2: lot of that that jurisdictional language seems confusing, but understand
Speaker 2: what happened. They went to the district Court and they
Speaker 2: said we want an answer within forty five minutes, and
Speaker 2: the court did not respond one way another forty five minutes.
Speaker 2: They immediately appealed and said, up, they haven't answered. That
Speaker 2: means you've denied it. And the Court of Appeals ruled that, well,
Speaker 2: we're not going to act on this, and unfortunately seven
Speaker 2: too the Supreme Court jumped in. And in fact, here's
Speaker 2: how Justice to Leado and Justice Thomas end their dissent
Speaker 2: quote in some literally, in the middle of the night,
Speaker 2: the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief, without giving
Speaker 2: the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from
Speaker 2: the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application,
Speaker 2: with ubious factual support for its order, and without providing
Speaker 2: any explanation for its order. I refuse to join the
Speaker 2: Court's order because we had no good reason to think
Speaker 2: that under the circumstances, issuing the order at midnight was
Speaker 2: necessary or appropriate. Both the executive and the judiciary have
Speaker 2: an obligation to follow the law. The executive must proceed
Speaker 2: under the terms of our order, and this Court should
Speaker 2: follow established procedures.
Speaker 1: So you look at this and what is this going
Speaker 1: to mean moving forward? And how big of a roadblock
Speaker 1: is this going to be for the Trump administration to
Speaker 1: do what they've said and promised the American people, And
Speaker 1: by the way, the American people voted for, which was
Speaker 1: we want to secure the border and we want to
Speaker 1: get rid of all the illegal immigrants that came into
Speaker 1: this country, especially those that are violent.
Speaker 2: Well, look, it's not clear how big a challenge it's
Speaker 2: going to be. The most distressing thing about this order
Speaker 2: was that it was seven to two.
Speaker 3: Seven to two is not good.
Speaker 2: It means everybody by Alito and voted to stay to
Speaker 2: halt the deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 3: It's not clear. Presumably they're going to write a more.
Speaker 2: Extended opinion at some point, and so we'll find out
Speaker 2: more their reasoning. But I got to say, look, look,
Speaker 2: these two stories, this story in the first one are
Speaker 2: connected because I will say the Democrats strategy in doing
Speaker 2: the full Ginsburg in some ways, I think their audience
Speaker 2: is not the American people. They've got to know somebody
Speaker 2: on the Democrat side of the aisle has got to know, Hey,
Speaker 2: this is not earning us votes. When we say we're
Speaker 2: the party of illegal aliens and criminals and gang members
Speaker 2: and wife beaters, that's us that.
Speaker 3: You don't have to be.
Speaker 2: A rocket scientist when it comes to reading public opinion
Speaker 2: to know that's not the most popular of issues to
Speaker 2: stake your entire party platform on. But in many ways
Speaker 2: they're aiming at a much smaller audience. They're aiming at five.
Speaker 2: They're hoping to get five justices pissed off, and and
Speaker 2: to get them pissed off enough that we see a
Speaker 2: series of Supreme Court orders against the Trump administration trying
Speaker 2: to halt these deportations. Now, I don't think that's going
Speaker 2: to happen, but but this ruling is troubling that it
Speaker 2: was seven to two.
Speaker 3: Alito's descent.
Speaker 2: Look, Alito was was was very concerned about this, and
Speaker 2: the procedural minutia that he that he recounts as is
Speaker 2: very unusual. Uh, and so that dynamic, it is a
Speaker 2: dangerous process.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 2: Right now, there's a little bit of a game of chicken,
Speaker 2: and I think what the Democrats are trying to do
Speaker 2: is is piss off a couple of Supreme Court justices
Speaker 2: and get them to rule decisively against the president. That
Speaker 2: would be very unfortunate if that starts to happen.
Speaker 1: Well, another question, real quick before we move on, is
Speaker 1: part of this Could it just be the quickness that
Speaker 1: they were asking for the ruling from the court. Is
Speaker 1: that something that you could change moving forward? Could that
Speaker 1: be part of that issue?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Look, it was done it as an emergency appeal,
Speaker 2: and there are times, you know, there's another context to
Speaker 2: where this happens a lot, which is dealing with death
Speaker 2: penalty appeals. And when you have death penalty appeals, you
Speaker 2: have someone who's been convicted of a capital offense and
Speaker 2: they're set to be executed, and very frequently you have
Speaker 2: last minute appeals that are filed. And I'll tell you
Speaker 2: when I was a law clerk. I was a law
Speaker 2: clerk for Chief Justice Renquist in nineteen ninety six and
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety seven and at the time, so this gives
Speaker 2: you a sense you can now make a crack about
Speaker 2: how old I am at the time. The way we
Speaker 2: would get these emergency appeals is they would be faxed in,
Speaker 2: so they weren't emailed at the time. They'd be faxed
Speaker 2: in and you'd get it off the facts and you
Speaker 2: would get say, if the midnight was if the execution
Speaker 2: was scheduled to happen at midnight, and by the way,
Speaker 2: if it was midnight on the West coast, that meant
Speaker 2: it was three am in d C. But if the
Speaker 2: execution was scheduled at midnight, you would get sometimes one
Speaker 2: hundred page appeal faxed in at ten thirty pm and
Speaker 2: what would happen. So what plays out when that gets
Speaker 2: faxed in is is the justice who is the lead
Speaker 2: justice for that circuit. So each circuit, each region of
Speaker 2: the country has a lead justice who is the justice
Speaker 2: to whom emergency appeals go. Initially, Chief Justice Renquest was
Speaker 2: the lead justice for the fourth circuit was concerned death
Speaker 2: penalty appeals, and so that was Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland,
Speaker 2: West Virginia, and Virginia. In particularly there were fair number
Speaker 2: capital cases. So you would get it faxed to you, You,
Speaker 2: as the law clerk, would read through it. You'd have
Speaker 2: to read through it very quickly. You have to prepare
Speaker 2: a memo, write a memo. You then send it to
Speaker 2: your justice. And a lot of times, if this was
Speaker 2: at midnight or one or two or three in the morning,
Speaker 2: you'd have to call home and wake your justice up.
Speaker 2: Your justice would be asleep. You'd call home, you'd say, Chief,
Speaker 2: we had an emergency appeal.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Now the justice would know there was an execution set
Speaker 2: that night, and so would know that there is likely
Speaker 2: to be a call. But you'd call, wake your justice
Speaker 2: up and ask okay, here's the arguments, here's what I
Speaker 2: think about it, and you would write a memo from
Speaker 2: your justice saying summarizing the arguments in the appeal and
Speaker 2: making the recommendation. So for Chief Justice Renquist, in virtually
Speaker 2: every circumstance, if someone was seeking to halt an execution
Speaker 2: at the last minute, he would recommend that that be denied.
Speaker 2: You would then forward it to the other eight chambers.
Speaker 2: To the other eight chambers, and there was a law clerk,
Speaker 2: so in the night of execution, at least nine of
Speaker 2: us were there till midnight or one or two or
Speaker 2: three in the morning. And so when you would forward
Speaker 2: your memo, in a memo in a case like this,
Speaker 2: would be anywhere from two to maybe eight pages, depending
Speaker 2: on how complicated the issues were. They would then get
Speaker 2: your memo, and they've gotten the appeal as well, so
Speaker 2: they're reading the appeal at the same time. They would
Speaker 2: then call their justice, wake him er her up at home,
Speaker 2: and they would cast votes at midnight or one or
Speaker 2: two or three in the morning. And a strategy that
Speaker 2: is still quite frequent when it comes to death penalty
Speaker 2: appeals is just throw so much crap at the wall
Speaker 2: that they're hoping the justices say, I don't know, I
Speaker 2: can't figure this out this quickly, all right, just stay
Speaker 2: the execution, halt the execution so we can figure this
Speaker 2: all out. And unfortunately that strategy that that strategy can work.
Speaker 2: That there may have been some of that that this
Speaker 2: was being done over Easter weekend very quickly, and it
Speaker 2: may be that the justices wanted to say, hold on
Speaker 2: a second, we want to understand what's going on here.
Speaker 3: That's possible, but.
Speaker 2: I do think the democrats entire strategy is try to
Speaker 2: see if they can get a majority of the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court ticked off. And I don't think that's happened, but
Speaker 2: I do think that would be very dangerous and harmful
Speaker 2: if it did happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a really great point. And by the way,
Speaker 1: don't forget if you are new to this podcast. Is
Speaker 1: this your first time listening, Maybe you caught us on
Speaker 1: the radio with our syndicated show. Make sure that you
Speaker 1: hit that subscriber auto download button right now so you
Speaker 1: do not miss an episode as we do this Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday Friday, we have a weekend review of the big
Speaker 1: three stories of the week you may have missed on
Speaker 1: Saturdays as well, and then if you are driving around
Speaker 1: on the weekend, make sure you check your local news
Speaker 1: talk station and you can find this show on the radio.
Speaker 1: It's really really cool, so we hope you enjoy that
Speaker 1: as well. In the center, I will see you back
Speaker 1: here on Wednesday morning.