1
00:00:01,800 --> 00:00:04,200
Speaker 1: He said, sure, would you like to rest? He said,

2
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:06,080
Speaker 1: what do you mean rest? I've been wrestling on the plane.

3
00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:07,880
Speaker 1: I don't want to rest. We don't have to rest

4
00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:10,799
Speaker 1: for He was thinking about Biden to come, okay, Biden.

5
00:00:10,880 --> 00:00:13,680
Speaker 1: Biden would have rested the entire trip. He wouldn't. First

6
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:15,520
Speaker 1: of all, he wouldn't have made the trip, but if

7
00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:17,480
Speaker 1: he landed, he would have been rested for about five

8
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:19,520
Speaker 1: days before he had the first meeting. I said, no,

9
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:21,160
Speaker 1: let's go have the meeting because I want to find

10
00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:22,239
Speaker 1: out what's going on over here.

11
00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:25,279
Speaker 2: If you're listening to the forty seven Morning Update with

12
00:00:25,400 --> 00:00:26,759
Speaker 2: Ben ferguson.

13
00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 3: Good Friday morning, welcome to a special edition of the

14
00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:32,159
Speaker 3: forty seven Morning Update where we are live at the

15
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:36,760
Speaker 3: Supreme Court as a Supreme Court listen to oral arguments

16
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:40,800
Speaker 3: on Thursday about the power of district judges to issue

17
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:45,200
Speaker 3: nationwide injunctions. It's what many have referred to his law fare,

18
00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:48,879
Speaker 3: where a district judge tries to take away all the

19
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:53,400
Speaker 3: power of the president through issuing a nationwide injunction. During

20
00:00:53,440 --> 00:00:57,120
Speaker 3: the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts admonished Justice out of

21
00:00:57,160 --> 00:01:00,640
Speaker 3: my oar for continuing to interrupt the US list General,

22
00:01:01,240 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 3: and to say it was heated for Supreme Court standards

23
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:07,960
Speaker 3: would be an understatement. But the big question now is

24
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:11,200
Speaker 3: this what is going to happen and will the Supreme

25
00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:15,960
Speaker 3: Court defend President Trump's executive order power or will they

26
00:01:15,959 --> 00:01:19,800
Speaker 3: allow the judges to go rogue and to stop his agenda.

27
00:01:20,560 --> 00:01:23,320
Speaker 3: Joining me to talk about this is a dear friend

28
00:01:23,319 --> 00:01:26,960
Speaker 3: of mine, the Attorney General from West Virginia, who's actually

29
00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:30,080
Speaker 3: my former roommate. He was in the court as they

30
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 3: filed an amicust brief on behalf of the people of

31
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:35,800
Speaker 3: West Virginia, and I want you to hear what he

32
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:39,240
Speaker 3: said about the entire day at the Supreme Court that

33
00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:42,679
Speaker 3: can affect everyone in this country. It's the forty seven

34
00:01:42,760 --> 00:01:45,120
Speaker 3: Morning Update and it starts right now.

35
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:46,840
Speaker 2: First up, story number one.

36
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:51,080
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court had a very busy day on Thursday,

37
00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 3: and one of the most consequential cases involving the Trump

38
00:01:55,360 --> 00:02:00,720
Speaker 3: administration was heard in front of the Supreme Court. Now, roommate,

39
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:03,559
Speaker 3: you don't get to say this every day. Is also

40
00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:07,240
Speaker 3: the Attorney General from West Virginia. We were together actually

41
00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:10,480
Speaker 3: on Capitol Hill. I'm staring at the Supreme Court right now,

42
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:15,119
Speaker 3: and he was in the Supreme Court today for this important,

43
00:02:15,160 --> 00:02:19,680
Speaker 3: this major case on judges power. And I want to

44
00:02:19,720 --> 00:02:21,679
Speaker 3: go to you, JB on this so that you can

45
00:02:21,760 --> 00:02:26,480
Speaker 3: explain how all this started. In essence, you had judges

46
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:30,400
Speaker 3: that were making decisions that were covering the entire country.

47
00:02:30,440 --> 00:02:32,960
Speaker 3: And the argument is, maybe that's not how it's supposed

48
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 3: to be on these local levels or these these smaller

49
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:39,440
Speaker 3: court battles, And this is what this is all about.

50
00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:41,919
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think you what you just said there makes

51
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:44,520
Speaker 4: a lot of sense. This is a national issue. That

52
00:02:44,639 --> 00:02:47,640
Speaker 4: was the soul that was decided or attempted to be

53
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:50,520
Speaker 4: decided by a district court judge. And so what happens,

54
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:54,520
Speaker 4: and this has been happening a lot, especially very recently

55
00:02:54,560 --> 00:02:57,320
Speaker 4: within the last thirty years, and it's a bipartisan problem then,

56
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:03,399
Speaker 4: is that district court judges are enjoining presidential decrees right

57
00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:06,720
Speaker 4: and saying what the president has done is not just

58
00:03:06,760 --> 00:03:09,920
Speaker 4: illegal in my courtroom, but it's illegal in the entire country.

59
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:13,680
Speaker 4: And our process is set up differently than that. Our

60
00:03:13,720 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 4: district court judges are supposed to hear cases that are

61
00:03:16,800 --> 00:03:19,639
Speaker 4: in front of them and make decisions for the plaintiffs

62
00:03:19,680 --> 00:03:22,760
Speaker 4: that are in front of them. Here several interest groups

63
00:03:22,760 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 4: in several states sued in a I'm going to just

64
00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:29,200
Speaker 4: say a friendly jurisdiction, which is how this works, as

65
00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:31,640
Speaker 4: you find a judge that is ideologically aligned with you,

66
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:35,520
Speaker 4: and you get them to enjoin an entire action. That

67
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:38,080
Speaker 4: happened in this case in New Jersey, and so a

68
00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:41,280
Speaker 4: New Jersey judge then decided, for all other of the

69
00:03:41,320 --> 00:03:44,160
Speaker 4: six hundred district court judges and all of the circuit judges,

70
00:03:44,440 --> 00:03:47,360
Speaker 4: and ostensibly for the Supreme Court whether or not a

71
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:52,440
Speaker 4: presidential order was constitutional. While we did not get into

72
00:03:52,440 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 4: the underlying facts of this case today, ben what the

73
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:58,040
Speaker 4: Supreme Court was hearing, and what our brief described was

74
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,480
Speaker 4: the reasons why this is both unconstitutional and a bad idea. So,

75
00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:05,840
Speaker 4: for one, both the history of our courts as you

76
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:09,440
Speaker 4: look back into the courts of Chancery in England, as

77
00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:12,320
Speaker 4: well as Article three, which was written to delineate the

78
00:04:12,360 --> 00:04:16,480
Speaker 4: powers of our courts, indicate that circuit judges do not

79
00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:21,599
Speaker 4: have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Further, our brief

80
00:04:21,640 --> 00:04:23,800
Speaker 4: gets into the idea that there is a remedy here,

81
00:04:23,800 --> 00:04:26,479
Speaker 4: and the remedy is is that if you're looking to

82
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:30,520
Speaker 4: have a district court make a decision for a large

83
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 4: number of people, you have to go through what's called

84
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 4: a rule twenty three and create a class action, so

85
00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 4: then the court knows who the plaintiffs are that they're

86
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 4: trying to address a problem for. And fourth, and maybe

87
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:47,520
Speaker 4: most importantly, is that district courts and our federal court systems,

88
00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 4: they are life tenured for a reason, and that is

89
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:57,080
Speaker 4: to eliminate the stench of politics from the benches around

90
00:04:57,080 --> 00:04:59,520
Speaker 4: the country. And when you do forum shopping and you

91
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:02,960
Speaker 4: start to use these universal injunctions in these sort of

92
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:07,159
Speaker 4: weaponized ways, what you then will find, I believe and

93
00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:10,880
Speaker 4: our brief delineates that the confidence that the public has

94
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:15,039
Speaker 4: in the independence of our judiciary will go down very quickly.

95
00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:18,000
Speaker 4: And that is the single most important branch for the

96
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:21,040
Speaker 4: public to have confidence in, because it is their orders

97
00:05:21,200 --> 00:05:25,120
Speaker 4: and it is their writings that tell every American how

98
00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:28,160
Speaker 4: the Constitution is being interpreted as it relates to the

99
00:05:28,200 --> 00:05:30,440
Speaker 4: laws that apply to them. So this is a really

100
00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:33,880
Speaker 4: big case. We feel really really good about our briefing.

101
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 4: The people of West Virginia joined with a group called

102
00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:39,919
Speaker 4: the American Center for Law and Justice in this briefing

103
00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:43,040
Speaker 4: and we're very hopeful that the Court will use our

104
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:46,200
Speaker 4: amicus to guide them into what I believe is a

105
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:49,400
Speaker 4: proper decision, and that is the district courts lack the

106
00:05:49,480 --> 00:05:52,960
Speaker 4: ability to adjoin the entire country as it relates to

107
00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:54,839
Speaker 4: presidential executive orders.

108
00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:58,559
Speaker 3: So let's talk about the amicus brief and break that down.

109
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:01,080
Speaker 3: The goal of an amazon gus brief, And people that

110
00:06:01,120 --> 00:06:03,120
Speaker 3: are listening, My guest with me is the Attorney General

111
00:06:03,120 --> 00:06:05,520
Speaker 3: from West Virginia, JB. McCuskey. I want a dear friend

112
00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:08,280
Speaker 3: of mine, former roommate, and we are as I stare

113
00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:10,520
Speaker 3: at literally at the Supreme Court right now. You just

114
00:06:10,640 --> 00:06:13,760
Speaker 3: left the Supreme Court where you guys filed this amicus

115
00:06:13,839 --> 00:06:17,720
Speaker 3: brief with the ACLJ. What is the goal of an

116
00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:20,840
Speaker 3: amicus brief for people that maybe don't understand that terminology,

117
00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:24,279
Speaker 3: maybe they've ever heard it before, And specifically, what did

118
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:27,360
Speaker 3: you guys put in that amicus brief that you're hoping

119
00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:30,040
Speaker 3: that the justices will get from it and read from

120
00:06:30,040 --> 00:06:31,039
Speaker 3: it on this case.

121
00:06:31,640 --> 00:06:34,200
Speaker 4: Yeah, So an amicus brief is in layman's term, it's

122
00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:36,240
Speaker 4: called a friend of the court brief, And so what

123
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,360
Speaker 4: its purpose is is to help the justices as they're

124
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:42,640
Speaker 4: making their decision with parties who have an interest in

125
00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 4: the outcome. And in West Virginia, the interest in this

126
00:06:45,160 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 4: outcome comes from the widespread weaponized use of nationwide injunctions.

127
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:54,039
Speaker 4: We just saw within the last week a nation wide

128
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 4: injunction out of the state of Washington that will stop

129
00:06:57,120 --> 00:06:59,800
Speaker 4: President Trump's executive orders on the use of coal and

130
00:07:00,080 --> 00:07:03,280
Speaker 4: lowering electricity rates for Americans and putting West Virginia coal

131
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 4: miners back to work today in order to meet our

132
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:10,080
Speaker 4: nation's energy needs. And so for us, these nationwide injunctions,

133
00:07:10,240 --> 00:07:13,240
Speaker 4: when you're a small rural state, are never going to

134
00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:15,240
Speaker 4: be the forum that gets shopped into right. They're never

135
00:07:15,280 --> 00:07:18,880
Speaker 4: going to ask real patriotic Americans like they are in

136
00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:20,760
Speaker 4: West Virginia to answer these questions. They're going to go

137
00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 4: to places where it's a little different. And so we

138
00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:26,120
Speaker 4: have a huge interest in ensuring that the process plays

139
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:29,520
Speaker 4: out in nationwide injunctions to make sure that these the

140
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:33,360
Speaker 4: president's executive orders as they relate to the economy and

141
00:07:33,400 --> 00:07:36,240
Speaker 4: the people of West Virginia are upheld and if they

142
00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:38,800
Speaker 4: are found to be unconstitutional, that they go through the

143
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:41,880
Speaker 4: proper channels. And that is what our brief says. Our

144
00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:46,040
Speaker 4: brief says that it isn't that the plaintiffs don't have

145
00:07:46,200 --> 00:07:49,800
Speaker 4: any options. Our brief says the options that they chose

146
00:07:49,880 --> 00:07:52,200
Speaker 4: are not available to the court that made them. So

147
00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:54,240
Speaker 4: they needed to have gone through what's called a rule

148
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:56,680
Speaker 4: twenty three, as I just said, and explain to the

149
00:07:56,760 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 4: court why they have a class of plaintiffs that have

150
00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 4: a similar need for this same kind of relief, and

151
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:07,280
Speaker 4: then the court can order that those people get that relief.

152
00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:10,600
Speaker 4: And then if another district court or another circuit court

153
00:08:10,640 --> 00:08:13,960
Speaker 4: comes to a contrary conclusion, then the Supreme Court can

154
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:17,800
Speaker 4: use that. The Supreme Court's power generally comes from when

155
00:08:17,800 --> 00:08:21,800
Speaker 4: they are deciding between circuits that have a different interpretation

156
00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 4: of the law. And in this instance, they circumvented that

157
00:08:24,840 --> 00:08:28,200
Speaker 4: entire process by getting one single district court judge to

158
00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:31,160
Speaker 4: speak for the entire country. And that is not allowed

159
00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:33,959
Speaker 4: under Article three. And it's a really bad idea in

160
00:08:34,040 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 4: terms of public confidence and the independence of our judicial branch.

161
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:41,800
Speaker 3: Is it fair to say that the mechanism that's being

162
00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:44,480
Speaker 3: used by the left to go and find these friendly

163
00:08:44,559 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 3: judges and friendly courts to do this, is this a

164
00:08:48,120 --> 00:08:51,600
Speaker 3: version of lawfare? Where you say, we don't respect the people,

165
00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:54,640
Speaker 3: we don't respect their vote, we don't respect who they

166
00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:56,960
Speaker 3: chose as their leader, which this time happens to be

167
00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 3: President Donald J. Trump. And so we are going to

168
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:04,959
Speaker 3: use lawfair to stop the will of the people and

169
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:07,679
Speaker 3: what they voted for, and what their leaders that they

170
00:09:07,760 --> 00:09:09,800
Speaker 3: voted for, who won in a free and fair election,

171
00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:10,640
Speaker 3: are trying to do.

172
00:09:11,000 --> 00:09:11,200
Speaker 1: Well.

173
00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 4: I hesitate to use the word lawfare here, Ben, because

174
00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:17,320
Speaker 4: we do the same thing occasionally when there's Democrats in

175
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:19,320
Speaker 4: the White House. And it's not that we have a

176
00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:24,479
Speaker 4: problem with challenging federal government edicts. Right, We as Republicans

177
00:09:24,559 --> 00:09:27,880
Speaker 4: are are constantly finding ways that the federal government is

178
00:09:27,920 --> 00:09:30,840
Speaker 4: overstepping its bounds, and we use the courts in order

179
00:09:30,880 --> 00:09:33,160
Speaker 4: to rain them in like in West Virginia versus EPA.

180
00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:33,839
Speaker 1: Right.

181
00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:37,800
Speaker 4: So it isn't that this is It isn't lawfare as

182
00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:40,160
Speaker 4: you describe it, because we need the option to be

183
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:42,959
Speaker 4: able to do this too. It is the kind of lawfare,

184
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:43,559
Speaker 4: right it is.

185
00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:44,240
Speaker 1: It is this.

186
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:49,160
Speaker 4: This novel concept that you use a single friendly district

187
00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 4: court to do what is supposed to be the job

188
00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:52,800
Speaker 4: of the entire judiciary.

189
00:09:52,920 --> 00:09:53,079
Speaker 1: Right.

190
00:09:53,400 --> 00:09:55,600
Speaker 4: There's a reason why our system has set up the

191
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:58,120
Speaker 4: way that it is. And I personally believe as an

192
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:03,720
Speaker 4: originalist that the actual scenarios surrounding the reason why somebody's

193
00:10:03,760 --> 00:10:08,560
Speaker 4: asking for something shouldn't change the fundamental role and the

194
00:10:08,640 --> 00:10:12,199
Speaker 4: rules that surround our court. And that was really in essence,

195
00:10:12,480 --> 00:10:17,760
Speaker 4: the main part of this argument is should we break

196
00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:21,920
Speaker 4: the rules because this is important and my personal opinion

197
00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:24,959
Speaker 4: is is that is not true. We should maintain the

198
00:10:26,040 --> 00:10:30,520
Speaker 4: constitutionally granted powers that exist in our district courts and

199
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:33,360
Speaker 4: allow the system as it was created by our founders

200
00:10:33,640 --> 00:10:35,200
Speaker 4: to work because it does.

201
00:10:35,679 --> 00:10:37,559
Speaker 3: What was the demeanor of the judges and what were

202
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:39,880
Speaker 3: the main things they were honing in on as you

203
00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:42,160
Speaker 3: were in there listening to this, you are there for

204
00:10:42,200 --> 00:10:46,199
Speaker 3: about four hours waiting, and part of that's waiting time.

205
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:49,600
Speaker 3: But what were their big question and could you read

206
00:10:49,640 --> 00:10:52,080
Speaker 3: into what you think the possible outcome could be here?

207
00:10:52,120 --> 00:10:55,240
Speaker 3: And what is best case scenario? What is fifty to

208
00:10:55,280 --> 00:11:00,760
Speaker 3: fifty for you know conservatives on this one, what is success,

209
00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:02,120
Speaker 3: draw or lose look like?

210
00:11:02,440 --> 00:11:02,720
Speaker 1: Yeah?

211
00:11:02,760 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 4: So the judges this was a very long argument and

212
00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:07,120
Speaker 4: for your listeners out there, if you ever want to

213
00:11:07,160 --> 00:11:09,800
Speaker 4: go to the Supreme Court, the seats are not very comfortable,

214
00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:12,400
Speaker 4: and so you know, by the end of it, your

215
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:14,920
Speaker 4: dogs were marked the pretty well. But the judges were

216
00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:19,960
Speaker 4: very serious because this is an issue that affects not

217
00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:21,480
Speaker 4: just the issue that was in front of them, but

218
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:25,840
Speaker 4: as you heard, it has great historical significance and enormous

219
00:11:26,120 --> 00:11:29,800
Speaker 4: future looking significance as well. They understand that the answer

220
00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:33,280
Speaker 4: to this question and the ruling in this case will

221
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:36,840
Speaker 4: likely have an enormous effect on how the judiciary operates

222
00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:39,560
Speaker 4: going forward for a very very long time. And so

223
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 4: they were asking a lot of questions. And I don't

224
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:48,199
Speaker 4: know how frequently this happens, but about the historical beginnings

225
00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:51,520
Speaker 4: of Article three, you know, what were the British courts

226
00:11:51,800 --> 00:11:55,080
Speaker 4: that we were modeling our courts after. What were they doing,

227
00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:57,480
Speaker 4: you know, And so we could sort of get a

228
00:11:57,520 --> 00:12:00,400
Speaker 4: look into the mind of the framers and the fos

229
00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:03,240
Speaker 4: is they were designing our courts. They were obviously looking

230
00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:07,400
Speaker 4: to their former homeland to get an archetype and so

231
00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:10,120
Speaker 4: they were looking a lot at that, and the other

232
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:16,000
Speaker 4: questions really centered around this idea of what happens in

233
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:18,440
Speaker 4: either event, right, So there were a lot of questions

234
00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:22,760
Speaker 4: that were like if I agree with you, what do

235
00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:25,360
Speaker 4: you think will happen? And they asked that to both sides, right,

236
00:12:25,440 --> 00:12:29,120
Speaker 4: So if we decide there are no universal injunctions government,

237
00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:32,880
Speaker 4: what happens to the folks who would be affected by

238
00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:36,400
Speaker 4: the executive order during the pendency of the time where

239
00:12:36,400 --> 00:12:38,120
Speaker 4: it would get fully breathed in all the circuits and

240
00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:40,400
Speaker 4: all the districts, which I think matters. I think that's

241
00:12:40,440 --> 00:12:44,439
Speaker 4: an incredibly important question because the answer to that is

242
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:46,439
Speaker 4: there will be lots of other lawsuits in lots of

243
00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:48,880
Speaker 4: other places, and they might win some and they might

244
00:12:48,960 --> 00:12:53,440
Speaker 4: lose some. And so that's when you start to get

245
00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:57,120
Speaker 4: the true confluence of what is the question that the

246
00:12:57,160 --> 00:13:00,920
Speaker 4: circuit courts are answering? Differently? Do we need to step

247
00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:03,800
Speaker 4: in to make this decision because the Supreme Court creates

248
00:13:03,880 --> 00:13:07,640
Speaker 4: precedent for the entire country. The other main questions I

249
00:13:07,720 --> 00:13:12,400
Speaker 4: feel like we're the most important were why do you

250
00:13:12,600 --> 00:13:17,520
Speaker 4: believe that a district court has the ability to enjoin

251
00:13:17,600 --> 00:13:21,640
Speaker 4: an entire country? And they were obviously answered differently by

252
00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:24,640
Speaker 4: the two different parties, but the court was really trying

253
00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:27,120
Speaker 4: to There were a lot of very functional questions I

254
00:13:27,160 --> 00:13:30,239
Speaker 4: think that were enabling them to get to their conclusion,

255
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:34,000
Speaker 4: is is it an unfair result to use the process

256
00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:36,840
Speaker 4: as it was delineated in the Constitution. It's always the

257
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:39,880
Speaker 4: most fair to do something properly, and I don't think

258
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:42,760
Speaker 4: that there is an unfair result if the court says

259
00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:48,040
Speaker 4: to the complaining parties that, look, you have a gripe here,

260
00:13:48,320 --> 00:13:50,320
Speaker 4: but you got to do it the right way. The

261
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:52,720
Speaker 4: second part of your question, Ben, was what does victory

262
00:13:52,720 --> 00:13:58,000
Speaker 4: look like. Victory is the court saying to all of

263
00:13:58,040 --> 00:14:01,040
Speaker 4: the district courts that nationwide and junctions are not an

264
00:14:01,040 --> 00:14:04,839
Speaker 4: appropriate thing for district courts to be doing, and eliminating

265
00:14:04,880 --> 00:14:07,640
Speaker 4: that function of district courts completely. We don't believe that

266
00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:11,880
Speaker 4: that's constitutional. A half victory, and I hate to talk

267
00:14:11,880 --> 00:14:15,400
Speaker 4: about half victories, would be a ruling that says something like,

268
00:14:15,960 --> 00:14:20,200
Speaker 4: we believe that nationwide injunction should be extremely disfavored. And

269
00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:22,960
Speaker 4: here is a test to determine whether or not a

270
00:14:23,040 --> 00:14:26,840
Speaker 4: court can issue a nationwide injunction at the district court level.

271
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:29,880
Speaker 4: Give them a roadmap for the questions they need to

272
00:14:29,920 --> 00:14:32,240
Speaker 4: answer as to whether or not they can do it

273
00:14:32,360 --> 00:14:36,720
Speaker 4: or not. And a loss, a full loss, is just

274
00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:42,760
Speaker 4: nationwide injunctions are found to be an appropriate action to

275
00:14:42,800 --> 00:14:45,280
Speaker 4: take by a district court, and we think that will

276
00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:48,320
Speaker 4: result in a little bit of judicial chaos.

277
00:14:48,440 --> 00:14:50,560
Speaker 3: My guests with me the Attorney General from West Virginia,

278
00:14:50,640 --> 00:14:54,080
Speaker 3: j B. McCuskey, JB. Final question for you is timing

279
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:57,080
Speaker 3: on this. Is this one of those rulings that we

280
00:14:57,080 --> 00:14:59,480
Speaker 3: could probably hear saying quickly from the Supreme Court or

281
00:15:00,240 --> 00:15:04,040
Speaker 3: weeks or months? And can you read into how quickly

282
00:15:04,040 --> 00:15:06,000
Speaker 3: they respond and if is that good or bad news?

283
00:15:06,000 --> 00:15:07,960
Speaker 3: A lot more time they take, is that better for

284
00:15:08,040 --> 00:15:10,160
Speaker 3: us or the last time they take probably better for us?

285
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 3: Read into that for people that don't understand exactly how

286
00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:13,360
Speaker 3: the court works.

287
00:15:13,760 --> 00:15:16,680
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I would say that this will likely come

288
00:15:16,720 --> 00:15:19,760
Speaker 4: out quickly, and I think the faster it comes out,

289
00:15:19,760 --> 00:15:21,760
Speaker 4: the more likely it is that we have been successful.

290
00:15:21,920 --> 00:15:24,160
Speaker 3: So weeks you're thinking here, Yeah.

291
00:15:24,000 --> 00:15:26,240
Speaker 4: I would think that a couple of weeks would be

292
00:15:26,440 --> 00:15:28,960
Speaker 4: a very reasonable amount of time for them to decide this,

293
00:15:29,080 --> 00:15:32,520
Speaker 4: because there is a very significant interest of time here

294
00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:36,200
Speaker 4: and the court understands that, and the fact that they

295
00:15:36,280 --> 00:15:38,840
Speaker 4: heard this case on an emergency basis indicates that they're

296
00:15:38,880 --> 00:15:41,520
Speaker 4: probably going to issue an opinion in the same kind

297
00:15:41,560 --> 00:15:43,800
Speaker 4: of hurried.

298
00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:47,680
Speaker 3: Stance Yeah, it's an incredible case. I'm glad that you're

299
00:15:47,680 --> 00:15:50,400
Speaker 3: in your position as the Attorney General West Virginia. I'm

300
00:15:50,440 --> 00:15:51,800
Speaker 3: glad that you guys are getting to work with the

301
00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:54,160
Speaker 3: American Serve for Law and Justice on this and filing this.

302
00:15:54,720 --> 00:15:56,800
Speaker 3: We're going to keep covering it. We'll let you know

303
00:15:56,920 --> 00:15:59,640
Speaker 3: when this ruling comes down. Always a pleasure, my friend.

304
00:15:59,680 --> 00:16:01,120
Speaker 3: Good chat with you. Glad to have me.

305
00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:03,320
Speaker 4: It was great to see you this week too, buddy,

306
00:16:03,440 --> 00:16:04,080
Speaker 4: have a great day.

307
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:06,760
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to the forty seven Morning Update

308
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:11,000
Speaker 2: with Ben Ferguson. Please make sure you hit subscribe wherever

309
00:16:11,080 --> 00:16:14,080
Speaker 2: you're listening to this podcast right now and for more

310
00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:17,880
Speaker 2: in depth news, also subscribe to the Ben Ferguson podcast

311
00:16:18,160 --> 00:16:19,960
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here tomorrow