April 21, 2025 • 30 mins
-
Democratic Senators' Stance on Illegal Immigration:
- The podcast criticizes Democratic senators for their stance on illegal immigration, particularly focusing on MS-13 gang members.
- Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland is highlighted for his visit to El Salvador to meet with an MS-13 gang member, which the hosts find astonishing and politically motivated.
- The discussion includes a critique of Van Hollen's defense of the gang member's due process rights and the broader implications of this stance for the Democratic Party.
-
Supreme Court Decision on Deportations:
- The podcast covers a Supreme Court decision that temporarily halted the deportations of Venezuelan illegal immigrants.
- Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented strongly against this decision, arguing that it was hastily and prematurely granted.
- The hosts express concern about the implications of this ruling for the Trump administration's immigration policies and the broader legal and political landscape.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you, and I want to give a very special
welcome to so many of you that are joining this
podcast for the very first time. As many of you
that are listening to podcast may have heard, we are
now a syndicated radio show on the weekend's nationwide, so
you can listen to show wherever you have a lot
(00:21):
of local news talk stations. So we're really excited to
bring in new listeners with this first show since we
went live this weekend with that syndicated show Center. It
was really fun. By the way, we even had some
friends that sent you some warm wishes, which included Sean Handy,
and that was really cool as well, welcoming you as
the first sitting senator and actually national politician to ever
(00:44):
have a syndicated radio show while also in office. It's
pretty awesome.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Well, we launched the podcast as a said syndicated radio
show this weekend. We started on eighty four stations nationwide
eighty four, and we're anticipating a lot more stations picking
it up. We're going to be every weekend all across
the country, and it'll be our Friday podcast that will
air on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the weekend, and it's
a great opportunity just to take listeners behind the scenes,
(01:11):
behind the curtain. What's going on today. What we're talking
about is we're talking about two battles. One a battle
in the United States Senate, the second a battle in
the US Supreme Court. All of these battles number one
in the Senate, the Democrat senators have decided they have
found their issue to campaign on in twenty twenty six.
(01:31):
Their issue is illegals. They want more of them, and
especially MS thirteen gang members. They're all in. It's an
amazing decision. Chris van Holland, Democrat from Maryland, flew down
Delle Salvador to play foot seat with a gang member.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
We're going to talk about that.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
We're also going to talk about a big decision at
the Supreme Court halting I hope temporarily deportations of Venezuelans.
You had a vigorous descent from Justice Eleide and Justice Thomas.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
All of that on today's pod.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Before we get to that, though, I want to talk
to you about how Israel is still under attack. Missile
fire has resumed from Israel's enemies and terrasts are seeking
utter death and destruction here in America. We can't imagine
what it's like to live in constant fear like this,
and that is the reality for many in Israel. That
(02:24):
is where you can come in and help those. You
can join me and show the people of Israel that
not only do you want to help protect them in
this time of attack and uncertainty, but that you stand
with them as well. And one of the best ways
to do this is by giving to the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. Your gift today will help provide
(02:45):
security essentials like bomb shelters, flat jackets, and bulletproof vests. Also,
there is a major need for armored security vehicles and
armored ambulances. There's no better time to give than right now,
out during the Passover holiday, when we celebrate Israel's historic
deliverance and birth as a nation. So give a special
(03:08):
Passover gift today and help protect the people of Israel.
The number eight to eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's
eight eight eight four eight eight four three two five,
Or you can go online and give securely at support
IFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org
(03:32):
or eight A eight for eight eight IFCJ. All right, Senator,
So let's start with this big first issue. I still
can't get my head around the fact that this is
clearly the political issue, as you mentioned, a moment ago
Democrats believe is like a big moment for them and
(03:53):
an issue to run on in less than two years
in the midterms. And that's not to defend Americans, but
to defend a terrorist organization and their members.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, it really is astonishing. This individual that they're focusing on,
who's been deported to El Salvador. He is an illegal alien.
No one disputes that he came illegally. He had an
order of deportation against him, the court ordered him deported.
Nobody disputes that either. And twice he's been adjudicated to
be a member of MS thirteen. As President Trump tweeted out,
(04:25):
he has tattoos on his fist, on his fingers that
correspond with MS thirteen gang tattoos. It is really a
remarkable thing that the Democrats look at this situation and say,
this is the issue that is going to move the
American people to our side. I don't know anybody who
(04:46):
thinks at least, I don't know anyone normal and rational
who thinks what we need is more gang members and
illegal aliens. And in fact, look, I'm gonna read to
you a text. I'm not going to identify who it is,
but but but it's a buddy of mine who's a Democrat,
(05:07):
who who's a Democrat. He's on the left, and and
and he just just texted me and said, your colleague,
Maryland Senator van Holland flew to El Salvador to see Garcia.
My wife's friends are very upset. The senators cares more
about one non citizen than many innocent American hostages.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Your thoughts and and and to be.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Clear, this this is a friend of mine who is
a Democrat, who is solidly left of center, and and
and his wife is looking at this going what the
hell are these people doing? That says something And I'll
tell you something else that that's interesting. This is not
just a one off. The Democrats have decided this is
our issue. So Sunday, Chris van Holland, senator from from Maryland,
(05:55):
who flew down Del Salvador, he did the full Ginsburg. Now,
now what is the let's see, man, how good is
your recollection? Do you remember what the full Ginsburg is?
Speaker 1 (06:04):
See? These are the moments for people that are just
listening for the first time that make me laugh because
these are the I got you co host questions, get
used to them. They happen about once per episode, And
this is where I say.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Ginsburg is okay, the full Ginsburg and it's it's a thing.
It was named for William Ginsburg, who was Monica Lewinsky's
lawyer during during the scandal against Bill Clinton, and he
went on all major Sunday morning talk shows. He went
on this week on the ABC, Face the Nation, Meet
the Press, and State of.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
The Union on CNN.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
So doing all five is called the full Ginsburgh because
he he's the first one anyone remembers doing it.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
And it's actually interesting. I went and googled it just
a minute.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Ago and Wikipedia oddly has a list of everyone who's
done the full Ginsburg, and it turns out quite quite
a lot of people have done it. So it started
off with William gins Burg. Then it was Congressman Rick
Lazio when he was running for Senate. Then it was
Dick Cheney, then it was John Edwards when he was
running for President. Then it was Michael Chertoff when he
was Secretary of Homeland Security. Then it was Hillary Clinton.
Then it was Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary Janet Napolitano.
(07:14):
Then it was doctor Richard Besser of the CDC. That
it was Bill Clinton. Then it was George W.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Bush.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Then it was Rogie Shaw. Then it was Lieutenant General
Ken Keene. That it was Michelle Bachman. Then it was
Jack Lou. Then it was Susan Rice. That it was
Timothy the Geitner. Then it was Jeb Bush. Then it
was Marco Rubio. That it was Daniel Pfeiffer. Then it
was John Kerrey. That it was Dennis McDonough. Then it
was Jack Lou. That it was John Kerrey. Then it
was Dennis McDonough again he was White House Chief of Staff.
Then it was Robert Sunwalt, a board member of the
(07:43):
National Transportation Safety Board. Then it was Paul Ryan. Then
it was Marco Rubio. And you know what I discovered.
And the next person to make the list actually was me,
which I didn't remember, but I'm looking at this Wikipedia article.
And when I ran for president twenty sixteen, a parent
I did it February twenty eighth of twenty sixteen, which
(08:05):
I didn't remember.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
But I'm one of the ones who's done full Ginsburg.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
So just to be clear, I got asked if I
knew what the Ginsburg was. I didn't know the answer,
but you were one of the people on the Ginsburg listen,
and you forgot it. So we're just full circling that right.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Well, and then the last two who've done it have
been John Kirby, who was a White House spokesman for
Joe Biden, and then on Sunday Chris van Holland. And
so I make this point. Look, someone does the full Ginsburg.
They go on every Sunday show when they really really
want to draw attention to something, when they want to
(08:44):
highlight it, when they want to say, hey, this matters,
and listen, the Democrat Party as a whole, they are
all in on this strategy. The media as a whole,
they're all in on this strategy. And I got to say,
that's just I think that has a real danger of
of backfiring on him.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
So let's play part of what he had to say
on this visit with a guy that's not only a
not because I say so, multiple courts have said so.
Government agencies have confirmed it as well. Is an MS
thirteen gang member which has been declared to terrorist organization.
And this is part of what he had to say
(09:24):
on ABC this week. Take a listen.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
As you know, the President himself has been attacking you
by pointing out some of the aspects of Abrego Garcia's record,
including the fact that his wife had an order of
protection against him in twenty twenty one and alleged some
pretty serious allegations of abuse, and even that that he
had detained her. Are you concerned about your defense of somebody.
(09:50):
Obviously everybody in this country, even those undocumented immigrants, have rights.
But are you concerned about standing so forcefully with somebody
that has, you know, at least a questionable record.
Speaker 5 (10:03):
I am not defending the man.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
I'm defending the rights of this man to do process,
and the Trump administration has admitted in court that he
was wrongfully detained and wrongfully deported.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
My mission, of.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
My purpose is to make sure that we uphold the
rule of law, because if we take it away from him,
we do jeopardize it for everybody else. And I do
want to point out, Carl, Yes, the Trump administration is
trying to change the story. They're trying to detract attention.
Here's where they should put their facts. They should put
it before the court. They should put up or shut
up in court.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
I mean, it's amazing that he tries to spin it
this way. It's also amazing that ABC tries to kind
of downplay the fact that this is a guy that
attacked his wife. She had a protective order. Oh and
by the way, on top of these an MS thirteen
gang member, and you're trying to act like this is
the guy we need to go protect and save.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
And let me point out what Ben Holland says there
is is just wrong. So there was an order of
deportation against this guy. Court had ruled he should be deported.
It is true. The Trump administration has admitted they made
a mistake. And the mistake they made is that there
was a court order prohibiting his deportation to l Salvador.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
It was an older order.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
They didn't see it, and so they missed it. And
so the state of the law was the federal government
could deport him to literally any country on planet Earth
except El Salvador.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
But because of that order, you had a court order.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Saying don't send him to El Salvador, and they did
so because they didn't see that order until after the fact.
Now that also means if he came back, they could
literally deport him ten seconds later to another country. Because listen,
if you are here illegally, and in particular, if you
are a member of a terrorist organization, you don't have
(11:56):
a right to remain. You know, Jonathan Carl calls him
an undocumented alien. No, the term under the statute is
illegal alien, and they are an illegal alien. It's not
that they're just missing some piece of paper. It's that
they came here illegally, and the administration has the power
to remove him. I want you to listen to this
clip on another part of the full Ginsburg when he's
(12:18):
on CNN and Dana Bash questioned him, give a listen
to this.
Speaker 6 (12:23):
Now.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
President Trump says that some of Abrego Garcia's tattoos signify
that he's a member of MS thirteen. In twenty nineteen,
police alleged a confidential informant claimed that Abrego Garcia was
an active MS thirteen member. His wife and his attorney
deny that, of course, can you say with absolute certainty
(12:46):
that he is not, nor has he ever been a
member of the MS thirteen gang. And did you ask
him point blank?
Speaker 6 (12:51):
Well, Dana, what Donald Trump is trying to do here
is change the subject. The subject at hand is that
he and his administration are define a court order to
give people to give a Brego Garcia his due process rights.
They are trying to litigate on social media what they
should be doing in the courts. They need to put
(13:13):
up or shut up in the courts. Let me tell you.
I decided to write this down so I could be
absolutely accurate as to what Federal District Courts Judge Zennis
said about these allegations by the Trump administration. Quote, no
evidence linking a Brego Garcia to MS thirteen or any
terrorist activity has been presented to the court. That's where
(13:35):
to litigate this. It's been litigated in many other places.
So I'm not going to get into the details because
the whole purpose of our court system is for them
to adjudicate these things, not for Donald Trump to go
off on social media.
Speaker 5 (13:49):
Yeah, you're right, they have not. There hasn't been a
court hearing for them to put forward evidence in the
first place, which is your whole point. But since you
were the one person to have met with him. This
is a thing you say on social media. It's what
we hear from Donald Trump and Republicans every day, all
day long. You didn't ask him.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
I didn't ask him that because I know what his
answer is. What he told me was he was sad
and traumatized that he was being in prison because he
has committed no crimes. And that goes to the heart
of this issue, because he's being denied his due process rights.
And Donald Trump is trying to change the subject. And
(14:30):
you know, when people start asking about asking that question,
in my view, they're falling into the president's trap, because
what the president wants to do is talk about that
as if we can't all fight gang violence, which I've
been doing for much longer than Donald Trump. Right. His
argument is you can't fight that and at the same
time uphold people's constitutional rights. That's a very dangerous view.
(14:53):
And if we deny the constitutional rights of this one man,
it threatens the constitutional rights of everybody in the mind America.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
So there's several things that are remarkable in what Van
Hollen is doing. Number One, he keeps saying Trump is
trying to change the subject. Now mind you, that's exactly
what Van Holland is doing. I mean, it really is
Freudian projection. He gets asked about the restraining order and
the evidence that this illegal alien committed domestic violence and
(15:24):
was a wife beater. He said nope, nope, never mind,
never mind. And he gets asked, okay, well, is the
guy in MS thirteen gang member?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Yes? No, did you ask him?
Speaker 2 (15:33):
And he says no, no, no Trump Trump Trump range
man bad Trump Trump Trump, And remarkably, Dana Bash goes
back again and says, well, yeah, but you sat down
with him.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Did you ask him?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And Van Holland says no, because it turns out so
in his view, it is quote changing the subject to
discuss the facts of who it is that was deported.
I think that is the subject, who it was that
was deported. And by the way, one of the things
Van Holland says is he has committed no crimes. That
(16:07):
would be factually incorrect. Crossing illegally into the United States
is a crime. The Democrats want everyone to do that,
and even if you're a gang member. At look at
the very same time that the Democrats are embracing this
admitted illegal alien and person who's been found by two
(16:29):
courts to be affiliated with MS thirteen. While they're defending
him as a quote Maryland man, we had simultaneously the
mom of Rachel Morin, who is also a Maryland resident,
and yet the senator from Maryland cannot bother to be
worried about Rachel Morin, a woman who was raped and murdered,
(16:51):
a mom of five kids, raped and murdered by an
illegal immigrant. That the Democrats released, their priorities are, I
think abundantly.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
And by the way, this pr stunt by Van Hollen.
If you want to know who had to pay for it, well,
here's his answer on that.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Who did pay for this trip? This was an officially
cleared congressional trips, Yes, like every other trip.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yes, like every other trip. So that just you know, yeah,
we waste your money all the time. We waste your
money on this trip too. Why would that be out
of the ordinary.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
It is standard practice for members of both parties to
travel abroad, and it's part of doing the job responsibility.
So I don't fault him for traveling Dale Salvador. I
fault him for deciding that he wants to stake everything
he stands for on the proposition that we need more
(17:46):
illegal aliens in this country, that the federal government cannot
deport illegal aliens, and that we need more gang members
in this country. And as he lays out, he doesn't
care and he didn't ask if this guy's a gang member,
and apparently he didn't care if he all so as
committing domestic violence and beating up his wife, those are
not his concerns either.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
I want to move also to this second big story,
and there's some people that are confused. I also think
very frustrated by the Supreme Court halting the deportations of
illegal immigrants in some cases. Can you break down what
this ruling is. Alito was in the descent here and
the headlines over Easter weekend, people are like, wait, what, how,
(18:28):
why is this happening. I don't understand how we're protecting
people that are illegal immigrants. Yet again, at the level
of the Supreme Court, break this down so it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Well, the Supreme Court early Saturday morning issued in order
blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an eighteenth
century law, and what it says is that they had
to halt the deportations until quote further order of this Court,
(18:58):
and I got to say, just to Alito, joined by
Justice Thomas, wrote a very fiery descent, really disagreeing with it.
I'm going to read you part of the descent. Here's
what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted
unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the all Ritz Act. The
Court ordered the quote government not to remove a quote
putative class of detainees until this Court issues a superseding order.
Although the order does not define the quote putative class,
(19:36):
it appears that the Court means all members of the
class that the Habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely, quote,
all non citizens in custody in the Northern District of
Texas who were, are, and will be subject to the
March twenty twenty five Presidential Proclamation entitled Invocation of the
Alien Enemies Acts regarding the Invasion of the United States
(19:58):
by trender Aragua and or its implementation. It also appears
that applicants have recently moved to amend their class petition
for Habeas Corpus and their motion for class certification, So
it is not clear if the applicants will continue to
defend this specific definition or will argue for a new one.
And although the Court does not specify what it means
(20:18):
by the government, it appears that term is intended to
embrace all the name defendants, including the President. The Court
did all of this even though it is not clear
that the Court had jurisdiction. The Allrits Act does not
provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court had
(20:39):
jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdictions of
the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction
only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted
to a denial of a preliminary injunction. But here the
order that applicants appealed was what they viewed as the
District court's constructive denial of their request for a temporary
(21:01):
restraining order. That is, the district Court did not actually
deny their most recent request for a tro but they
inferred that it was constructively denied because the District Court
failed a rule on that request before the expiration of
a truncated council imposed deadline. The denial of a true
(21:22):
tro is not appealable, and here it is not clear
that the applicant's tro request was actually denied. Indeed, an
order issued last night the Fifth Circuit held that it
lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, it is questionable whether the
applicant complied with a general obligation to seek emergency and
junctive relief in the district court before asking for such
(21:43):
relief from an appellate court. When applicants requested such relief
in the district Court, they insisted on a ruling within
forty five minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when the
District Court did not act within one hundred and thirty
three minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which the
District Court held deprived it of its jurisdiction. Now a
(22:06):
lot of that that jurisdictional language seems confusing, but understand
what happened. They went to the district Court and they
said we want an answer within forty five minutes, and
the court did not respond one way another forty five minutes.
They immediately appealed and said, up, they haven't answered. That
means you've denied it. And the Court of Appeals ruled that, well,
(22:30):
we're not going to act on this, and unfortunately seven
too the Supreme Court jumped in. And in fact, here's
how Justice to Leado and Justice Thomas end their dissent
quote in some literally, in the middle of the night,
the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief, without giving
(22:51):
the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from
the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application,
with ubious factual support for its order, and without providing
any explanation for its order. I refuse to join the
Court's order because we had no good reason to think
that under the circumstances, issuing the order at midnight was
(23:12):
necessary or appropriate. Both the executive and the judiciary have
an obligation to follow the law. The executive must proceed
under the terms of our order, and this Court should
follow established procedures.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
So you look at this and what is this going
to mean moving forward? And how big of a roadblock
is this going to be for the Trump administration to
do what they've said and promised the American people, And
by the way, the American people voted for, which was
we want to secure the border and we want to
get rid of all the illegal immigrants that came into
this country, especially those that are violent.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Well, look, it's not clear how big a challenge it's
going to be. The most distressing thing about this order
was that it was seven to two.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Seven to two is not good.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
It means everybody by Alito and voted to stay to
halt the deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
It's not clear. Presumably they're going to write a more.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Extended opinion at some point, and so we'll find out
more their reasoning. But I got to say, look, look,
these two stories, this story in the first one are
connected because I will say the Democrats strategy in doing
the full Ginsburg in some ways, I think their audience
is not the American people. They've got to know somebody
on the Democrat side of the aisle has got to know, Hey,
(24:31):
this is not earning us votes. When we say we're
the party of illegal aliens and criminals and gang members
and wife beaters, that's us that.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
You don't have to be.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
A rocket scientist when it comes to reading public opinion
to know that's not the most popular of issues to
stake your entire party platform on. But in many ways
they're aiming at a much smaller audience. They're aiming at five.
They're hoping to get five justices pissed off, and and
(25:07):
to get them pissed off enough that we see a
series of Supreme Court orders against the Trump administration trying
to halt these deportations. Now, I don't think that's going
to happen, but but this ruling is troubling that it
was seven to two.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Alito's descent.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Look, Alito was was was very concerned about this, and
the procedural minutia that he that he recounts as is
very unusual. Uh, and so that dynamic, it is a
dangerous process.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
It is.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Right now, there's a little bit of a game of chicken,
and I think what the Democrats are trying to do
is is piss off a couple of Supreme Court justices
and get them to rule decisively against the president. That
would be very unfortunate if that starts to happen.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Well, another question, real quick before we move on, is
part of this Could it just be the quickness that
they were asking for the ruling from the court. Is
that something that you could change moving forward? Could that
be part of that issue?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Yeah, Look, it was done it as an emergency appeal,
and there are times, you know, there's another context to
where this happens a lot, which is dealing with death
penalty appeals. And when you have death penalty appeals, you
have someone who's been convicted of a capital offense and
they're set to be executed, and very frequently you have
last minute appeals that are filed. And I'll tell you
(26:34):
when I was a law clerk. I was a law
clerk for Chief Justice Renquist in nineteen ninety six and
nineteen ninety seven and at the time, so this gives
you a sense you can now make a crack about
how old I am at the time. The way we
would get these emergency appeals is they would be faxed in,
so they weren't emailed at the time. They'd be faxed
in and you'd get it off the facts and you
(26:57):
would get say, if the midnight was if the execution
was scheduled to happen at midnight, and by the way,
if it was midnight on the West coast, that meant
it was three am in d C. But if the
execution was scheduled at midnight, you would get sometimes one
hundred page appeal faxed in at ten thirty pm and
(27:21):
what would happen. So what plays out when that gets
faxed in is is the justice who is the lead
justice for that circuit. So each circuit, each region of
the country has a lead justice who is the justice
to whom emergency appeals go. Initially, Chief Justice Renquest was
the lead justice for the fourth circuit was concerned death
(27:41):
penalty appeals, and so that was Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland,
West Virginia, and Virginia. In particularly there were fair number
capital cases. So you would get it faxed to you, You,
as the law clerk, would read through it. You'd have
to read through it very quickly. You have to prepare
a memo, write a memo. You then send it to
(28:04):
your justice. And a lot of times, if this was
at midnight or one or two or three in the morning,
you'd have to call home and wake your justice up.
Your justice would be asleep. You'd call home, you'd say, Chief,
we had an emergency appeal.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Now.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Now the justice would know there was an execution set
that night, and so would know that there is likely
to be a call. But you'd call, wake your justice
up and ask okay, here's the arguments, here's what I
think about it, and you would write a memo from
your justice saying summarizing the arguments in the appeal and
(28:37):
making the recommendation. So for Chief Justice Renquist, in virtually
every circumstance, if someone was seeking to halt an execution
at the last minute, he would recommend that that be denied.
You would then forward it to the other eight chambers.
To the other eight chambers, and there was a law clerk,
so in the night of execution, at least nine of
us were there till midnight or one or two or
(28:59):
three in the morning. And so when you would forward
your memo, in a memo in a case like this,
would be anywhere from two to maybe eight pages, depending
on how complicated the issues were. They would then get
your memo, and they've gotten the appeal as well, so
they're reading the appeal at the same time. They would
then call their justice, wake him er her up at home,
(29:21):
and they would cast votes at midnight or one or
two or three in the morning. And a strategy that
is still quite frequent when it comes to death penalty
appeals is just throw so much crap at the wall
that they're hoping the justices say, I don't know, I
can't figure this out this quickly, all right, just stay
the execution, halt the execution so we can figure this
(29:43):
all out. And unfortunately that strategy that that strategy can work.
That there may have been some of that that this
was being done over Easter weekend very quickly, and it
may be that the justices wanted to say, hold on
a second, we want to understand what's going on here.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
That's possible, but.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
I do think the democrats entire strategy is try to
see if they can get a majority of the Supreme
Court ticked off. And I don't think that's happened, but
I do think that would be very dangerous and harmful
if it did happen.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Yeah, that's a really great point. And by the way,
don't forget if you are new to this podcast. Is
this your first time listening, Maybe you caught us on
the radio with our syndicated show. Make sure that you
hit that subscriber auto download button right now so you
do not miss an episode as we do this Monday,
Wednesday Friday, we have a weekend review of the big
three stories of the week you may have missed on
Saturdays as well, and then if you are driving around
(30:44):
on the weekend, make sure you check your local news
talk station and you can find this show on the radio.
It's really really cool, so we hope you enjoy that
as well. In the center, I will see you back
here on Wednesday morning.
Welcome. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you, and I want to give a very special
welcome to so many of you that are joining this
podcast for the very first time. As many of you
that are listening to podcast may have heard, we are
now a syndicated radio show on the weekend's nationwide, so
you can listen to show wherever you have a lot
(00:21):
of local news talk stations. So we're really excited to
bring in new listeners with this first show since we
went live this weekend with that syndicated show Center. It
was really fun. By the way, we even had some
friends that sent you some warm wishes, which included Sean Handy,
and that was really cool as well, welcoming you as
the first sitting senator and actually national politician to ever
(00:44):
have a syndicated radio show while also in office. It's
pretty awesome.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Well, we launched the podcast as a said syndicated radio
show this weekend. We started on eighty four stations nationwide
eighty four, and we're anticipating a lot more stations picking
it up. We're going to be every weekend all across
the country, and it'll be our Friday podcast that will
air on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the weekend, and it's
a great opportunity just to take listeners behind the scenes,
(01:11):
behind the curtain. What's going on today. What we're talking
about is we're talking about two battles. One a battle
in the United States Senate, the second a battle in
the US Supreme Court. All of these battles number one
in the Senate, the Democrat senators have decided they have
found their issue to campaign on in twenty twenty six.
(01:31):
Their issue is illegals. They want more of them, and
especially MS thirteen gang members. They're all in. It's an
amazing decision. Chris van Holland, Democrat from Maryland, flew down
Delle Salvador to play foot seat with a gang member.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
We're going to talk about that.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
We're also going to talk about a big decision at
the Supreme Court halting I hope temporarily deportations of Venezuelans.
You had a vigorous descent from Justice Eleide and Justice Thomas.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
All of that on today's pod.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Before we get to that, though, I want to talk
to you about how Israel is still under attack. Missile
fire has resumed from Israel's enemies and terrasts are seeking
utter death and destruction here in America. We can't imagine
what it's like to live in constant fear like this,
and that is the reality for many in Israel. That
(02:24):
is where you can come in and help those. You
can join me and show the people of Israel that
not only do you want to help protect them in
this time of attack and uncertainty, but that you stand
with them as well. And one of the best ways
to do this is by giving to the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. Your gift today will help provide
(02:45):
security essentials like bomb shelters, flat jackets, and bulletproof vests. Also,
there is a major need for armored security vehicles and
armored ambulances. There's no better time to give than right now,
out during the Passover holiday, when we celebrate Israel's historic
deliverance and birth as a nation. So give a special
(03:08):
Passover gift today and help protect the people of Israel.
The number eight to eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's
eight eight eight four eight eight four three two five,
Or you can go online and give securely at support
IFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org
(03:32):
or eight A eight for eight eight IFCJ. All right, Senator,
So let's start with this big first issue. I still
can't get my head around the fact that this is
clearly the political issue, as you mentioned, a moment ago
Democrats believe is like a big moment for them and
(03:53):
an issue to run on in less than two years
in the midterms. And that's not to defend Americans, but
to defend a terrorist organization and their members.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, it really is astonishing. This individual that they're focusing on,
who's been deported to El Salvador. He is an illegal alien.
No one disputes that he came illegally. He had an
order of deportation against him, the court ordered him deported.
Nobody disputes that either. And twice he's been adjudicated to
be a member of MS thirteen. As President Trump tweeted out,
(04:25):
he has tattoos on his fist, on his fingers that
correspond with MS thirteen gang tattoos. It is really a
remarkable thing that the Democrats look at this situation and say,
this is the issue that is going to move the
American people to our side. I don't know anybody who
(04:46):
thinks at least, I don't know anyone normal and rational
who thinks what we need is more gang members and
illegal aliens. And in fact, look, I'm gonna read to
you a text. I'm not going to identify who it is,
but but but it's a buddy of mine who's a Democrat,
(05:07):
who who's a Democrat. He's on the left, and and
and he just just texted me and said, your colleague,
Maryland Senator van Holland flew to El Salvador to see Garcia.
My wife's friends are very upset. The senators cares more
about one non citizen than many innocent American hostages.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Your thoughts and and and to be.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Clear, this this is a friend of mine who is
a Democrat, who is solidly left of center, and and
and his wife is looking at this going what the
hell are these people doing? That says something And I'll
tell you something else that that's interesting. This is not
just a one off. The Democrats have decided this is
our issue. So Sunday, Chris van Holland, senator from from Maryland,
(05:55):
who flew down Del Salvador, he did the full Ginsburg. Now,
now what is the let's see, man, how good is
your recollection? Do you remember what the full Ginsburg is?
Speaker 1 (06:04):
See? These are the moments for people that are just
listening for the first time that make me laugh because
these are the I got you co host questions, get
used to them. They happen about once per episode, And
this is where I say.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Ginsburg is okay, the full Ginsburg and it's it's a thing.
It was named for William Ginsburg, who was Monica Lewinsky's
lawyer during during the scandal against Bill Clinton, and he
went on all major Sunday morning talk shows. He went
on this week on the ABC, Face the Nation, Meet
the Press, and State of.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
The Union on CNN.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
So doing all five is called the full Ginsburgh because
he he's the first one anyone remembers doing it.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
And it's actually interesting. I went and googled it just
a minute.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Ago and Wikipedia oddly has a list of everyone who's
done the full Ginsburg, and it turns out quite quite
a lot of people have done it. So it started
off with William gins Burg. Then it was Congressman Rick
Lazio when he was running for Senate. Then it was
Dick Cheney, then it was John Edwards when he was
running for President. Then it was Michael Chertoff when he
was Secretary of Homeland Security. Then it was Hillary Clinton.
Then it was Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary Janet Napolitano.
(07:14):
Then it was doctor Richard Besser of the CDC. That
it was Bill Clinton. Then it was George W.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Bush.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Then it was Rogie Shaw. Then it was Lieutenant General
Ken Keene. That it was Michelle Bachman. Then it was
Jack Lou. Then it was Susan Rice. That it was
Timothy the Geitner. Then it was Jeb Bush. Then it
was Marco Rubio. That it was Daniel Pfeiffer. Then it
was John Kerrey. That it was Dennis McDonough. Then it
was Jack Lou. That it was John Kerrey. Then it
was Dennis McDonough again he was White House Chief of Staff.
Then it was Robert Sunwalt, a board member of the
(07:43):
National Transportation Safety Board. Then it was Paul Ryan. Then
it was Marco Rubio. And you know what I discovered.
And the next person to make the list actually was me,
which I didn't remember, but I'm looking at this Wikipedia article.
And when I ran for president twenty sixteen, a parent
I did it February twenty eighth of twenty sixteen, which
(08:05):
I didn't remember.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
But I'm one of the ones who's done full Ginsburg.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
So just to be clear, I got asked if I
knew what the Ginsburg was. I didn't know the answer,
but you were one of the people on the Ginsburg listen,
and you forgot it. So we're just full circling that right.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Well, and then the last two who've done it have
been John Kirby, who was a White House spokesman for
Joe Biden, and then on Sunday Chris van Holland. And
so I make this point. Look, someone does the full Ginsburg.
They go on every Sunday show when they really really
want to draw attention to something, when they want to
(08:44):
highlight it, when they want to say, hey, this matters,
and listen, the Democrat Party as a whole, they are
all in on this strategy. The media as a whole,
they're all in on this strategy. And I got to say,
that's just I think that has a real danger of
of backfiring on him.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
So let's play part of what he had to say
on this visit with a guy that's not only a
not because I say so, multiple courts have said so.
Government agencies have confirmed it as well. Is an MS
thirteen gang member which has been declared to terrorist organization.
And this is part of what he had to say
(09:24):
on ABC this week. Take a listen.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
As you know, the President himself has been attacking you
by pointing out some of the aspects of Abrego Garcia's record,
including the fact that his wife had an order of
protection against him in twenty twenty one and alleged some
pretty serious allegations of abuse, and even that that he
had detained her. Are you concerned about your defense of somebody.
(09:50):
Obviously everybody in this country, even those undocumented immigrants, have rights.
But are you concerned about standing so forcefully with somebody
that has, you know, at least a questionable record.
Speaker 5 (10:03):
I am not defending the man.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
I'm defending the rights of this man to do process,
and the Trump administration has admitted in court that he
was wrongfully detained and wrongfully deported.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
My mission, of.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
My purpose is to make sure that we uphold the
rule of law, because if we take it away from him,
we do jeopardize it for everybody else. And I do
want to point out, Carl, Yes, the Trump administration is
trying to change the story. They're trying to detract attention.
Here's where they should put their facts. They should put
it before the court. They should put up or shut
up in court.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
I mean, it's amazing that he tries to spin it
this way. It's also amazing that ABC tries to kind
of downplay the fact that this is a guy that
attacked his wife. She had a protective order. Oh and
by the way, on top of these an MS thirteen
gang member, and you're trying to act like this is
the guy we need to go protect and save.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
And let me point out what Ben Holland says there
is is just wrong. So there was an order of
deportation against this guy. Court had ruled he should be deported.
It is true. The Trump administration has admitted they made
a mistake. And the mistake they made is that there
was a court order prohibiting his deportation to l Salvador.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
It was an older order.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
They didn't see it, and so they missed it. And
so the state of the law was the federal government
could deport him to literally any country on planet Earth
except El Salvador.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
But because of that order, you had a court order.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Saying don't send him to El Salvador, and they did
so because they didn't see that order until after the fact.
Now that also means if he came back, they could
literally deport him ten seconds later to another country. Because listen,
if you are here illegally, and in particular, if you
are a member of a terrorist organization, you don't have
(11:56):
a right to remain. You know, Jonathan Carl calls him
an undocumented alien. No, the term under the statute is
illegal alien, and they are an illegal alien. It's not
that they're just missing some piece of paper. It's that
they came here illegally, and the administration has the power
to remove him. I want you to listen to this
clip on another part of the full Ginsburg when he's
(12:18):
on CNN and Dana Bash questioned him, give a listen
to this.
Speaker 6 (12:23):
Now.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
President Trump says that some of Abrego Garcia's tattoos signify
that he's a member of MS thirteen. In twenty nineteen,
police alleged a confidential informant claimed that Abrego Garcia was
an active MS thirteen member. His wife and his attorney
deny that, of course, can you say with absolute certainty
(12:46):
that he is not, nor has he ever been a
member of the MS thirteen gang. And did you ask
him point blank?
Speaker 6 (12:51):
Well, Dana, what Donald Trump is trying to do here
is change the subject. The subject at hand is that
he and his administration are define a court order to
give people to give a Brego Garcia his due process rights.
They are trying to litigate on social media what they
should be doing in the courts. They need to put
(13:13):
up or shut up in the courts. Let me tell you.
I decided to write this down so I could be
absolutely accurate as to what Federal District Courts Judge Zennis
said about these allegations by the Trump administration. Quote, no
evidence linking a Brego Garcia to MS thirteen or any
terrorist activity has been presented to the court. That's where
(13:35):
to litigate this. It's been litigated in many other places.
So I'm not going to get into the details because
the whole purpose of our court system is for them
to adjudicate these things, not for Donald Trump to go
off on social media.
Speaker 5 (13:49):
Yeah, you're right, they have not. There hasn't been a
court hearing for them to put forward evidence in the
first place, which is your whole point. But since you
were the one person to have met with him. This
is a thing you say on social media. It's what
we hear from Donald Trump and Republicans every day, all
day long. You didn't ask him.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
I didn't ask him that because I know what his
answer is. What he told me was he was sad
and traumatized that he was being in prison because he
has committed no crimes. And that goes to the heart
of this issue, because he's being denied his due process rights.
And Donald Trump is trying to change the subject. And
(14:30):
you know, when people start asking about asking that question,
in my view, they're falling into the president's trap, because
what the president wants to do is talk about that
as if we can't all fight gang violence, which I've
been doing for much longer than Donald Trump. Right. His
argument is you can't fight that and at the same
time uphold people's constitutional rights. That's a very dangerous view.
(14:53):
And if we deny the constitutional rights of this one man,
it threatens the constitutional rights of everybody in the mind America.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
So there's several things that are remarkable in what Van
Hollen is doing. Number One, he keeps saying Trump is
trying to change the subject. Now mind you, that's exactly
what Van Holland is doing. I mean, it really is
Freudian projection. He gets asked about the restraining order and
the evidence that this illegal alien committed domestic violence and
(15:24):
was a wife beater. He said nope, nope, never mind,
never mind. And he gets asked, okay, well, is the
guy in MS thirteen gang member?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Yes? No, did you ask him?
Speaker 2 (15:33):
And he says no, no, no Trump Trump Trump range
man bad Trump Trump Trump, And remarkably, Dana Bash goes
back again and says, well, yeah, but you sat down
with him.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Did you ask him?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And Van Holland says no, because it turns out so
in his view, it is quote changing the subject to
discuss the facts of who it is that was deported.
I think that is the subject, who it was that
was deported. And by the way, one of the things
Van Holland says is he has committed no crimes. That
(16:07):
would be factually incorrect. Crossing illegally into the United States
is a crime. The Democrats want everyone to do that,
and even if you're a gang member. At look at
the very same time that the Democrats are embracing this
admitted illegal alien and person who's been found by two
(16:29):
courts to be affiliated with MS thirteen. While they're defending
him as a quote Maryland man, we had simultaneously the
mom of Rachel Morin, who is also a Maryland resident,
and yet the senator from Maryland cannot bother to be
worried about Rachel Morin, a woman who was raped and murdered,
(16:51):
a mom of five kids, raped and murdered by an
illegal immigrant. That the Democrats released, their priorities are, I
think abundantly.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
And by the way, this pr stunt by Van Hollen.
If you want to know who had to pay for it, well,
here's his answer on that.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Who did pay for this trip? This was an officially
cleared congressional trips, Yes, like every other trip.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yes, like every other trip. So that just you know, yeah,
we waste your money all the time. We waste your
money on this trip too. Why would that be out
of the ordinary.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
It is standard practice for members of both parties to
travel abroad, and it's part of doing the job responsibility.
So I don't fault him for traveling Dale Salvador. I
fault him for deciding that he wants to stake everything
he stands for on the proposition that we need more
(17:46):
illegal aliens in this country, that the federal government cannot
deport illegal aliens, and that we need more gang members
in this country. And as he lays out, he doesn't
care and he didn't ask if this guy's a gang member,
and apparently he didn't care if he all so as
committing domestic violence and beating up his wife, those are
not his concerns either.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
I want to move also to this second big story,
and there's some people that are confused. I also think
very frustrated by the Supreme Court halting the deportations of
illegal immigrants in some cases. Can you break down what
this ruling is. Alito was in the descent here and
the headlines over Easter weekend, people are like, wait, what, how,
(18:28):
why is this happening. I don't understand how we're protecting
people that are illegal immigrants. Yet again, at the level
of the Supreme Court, break this down so it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Well, the Supreme Court early Saturday morning issued in order
blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an eighteenth
century law, and what it says is that they had
to halt the deportations until quote further order of this Court,
(18:58):
and I got to say, just to Alito, joined by
Justice Thomas, wrote a very fiery descent, really disagreeing with it.
I'm going to read you part of the descent. Here's
what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted
unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the all Ritz Act. The
Court ordered the quote government not to remove a quote
putative class of detainees until this Court issues a superseding order.
Although the order does not define the quote putative class,
(19:36):
it appears that the Court means all members of the
class that the Habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely, quote,
all non citizens in custody in the Northern District of
Texas who were, are, and will be subject to the
March twenty twenty five Presidential Proclamation entitled Invocation of the
Alien Enemies Acts regarding the Invasion of the United States
(19:58):
by trender Aragua and or its implementation. It also appears
that applicants have recently moved to amend their class petition
for Habeas Corpus and their motion for class certification, So
it is not clear if the applicants will continue to
defend this specific definition or will argue for a new one.
And although the Court does not specify what it means
(20:18):
by the government, it appears that term is intended to
embrace all the name defendants, including the President. The Court
did all of this even though it is not clear
that the Court had jurisdiction. The Allrits Act does not
provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court had
(20:39):
jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdictions of
the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction
only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted
to a denial of a preliminary injunction. But here the
order that applicants appealed was what they viewed as the
District court's constructive denial of their request for a temporary
(21:01):
restraining order. That is, the district Court did not actually
deny their most recent request for a tro but they
inferred that it was constructively denied because the District Court
failed a rule on that request before the expiration of
a truncated council imposed deadline. The denial of a true
(21:22):
tro is not appealable, and here it is not clear
that the applicant's tro request was actually denied. Indeed, an
order issued last night the Fifth Circuit held that it
lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, it is questionable whether the
applicant complied with a general obligation to seek emergency and
junctive relief in the district court before asking for such
(21:43):
relief from an appellate court. When applicants requested such relief
in the district Court, they insisted on a ruling within
forty five minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when the
District Court did not act within one hundred and thirty
three minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which the
District Court held deprived it of its jurisdiction. Now a
(22:06):
lot of that that jurisdictional language seems confusing, but understand
what happened. They went to the district Court and they
said we want an answer within forty five minutes, and
the court did not respond one way another forty five minutes.
They immediately appealed and said, up, they haven't answered. That
means you've denied it. And the Court of Appeals ruled that, well,
(22:30):
we're not going to act on this, and unfortunately seven
too the Supreme Court jumped in. And in fact, here's
how Justice to Leado and Justice Thomas end their dissent
quote in some literally, in the middle of the night,
the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief, without giving
(22:51):
the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from
the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application,
with ubious factual support for its order, and without providing
any explanation for its order. I refuse to join the
Court's order because we had no good reason to think
that under the circumstances, issuing the order at midnight was
(23:12):
necessary or appropriate. Both the executive and the judiciary have
an obligation to follow the law. The executive must proceed
under the terms of our order, and this Court should
follow established procedures.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
So you look at this and what is this going
to mean moving forward? And how big of a roadblock
is this going to be for the Trump administration to
do what they've said and promised the American people, And
by the way, the American people voted for, which was
we want to secure the border and we want to
get rid of all the illegal immigrants that came into
this country, especially those that are violent.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Well, look, it's not clear how big a challenge it's
going to be. The most distressing thing about this order
was that it was seven to two.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Seven to two is not good.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
It means everybody by Alito and voted to stay to
halt the deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
It's not clear. Presumably they're going to write a more.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Extended opinion at some point, and so we'll find out
more their reasoning. But I got to say, look, look,
these two stories, this story in the first one are
connected because I will say the Democrats strategy in doing
the full Ginsburg in some ways, I think their audience
is not the American people. They've got to know somebody
on the Democrat side of the aisle has got to know, Hey,
(24:31):
this is not earning us votes. When we say we're
the party of illegal aliens and criminals and gang members
and wife beaters, that's us that.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
You don't have to be.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
A rocket scientist when it comes to reading public opinion
to know that's not the most popular of issues to
stake your entire party platform on. But in many ways
they're aiming at a much smaller audience. They're aiming at five.
They're hoping to get five justices pissed off, and and
(25:07):
to get them pissed off enough that we see a
series of Supreme Court orders against the Trump administration trying
to halt these deportations. Now, I don't think that's going
to happen, but but this ruling is troubling that it
was seven to two.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Alito's descent.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Look, Alito was was was very concerned about this, and
the procedural minutia that he that he recounts as is
very unusual. Uh, and so that dynamic, it is a
dangerous process.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
It is.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Right now, there's a little bit of a game of chicken,
and I think what the Democrats are trying to do
is is piss off a couple of Supreme Court justices
and get them to rule decisively against the president. That
would be very unfortunate if that starts to happen.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Well, another question, real quick before we move on, is
part of this Could it just be the quickness that
they were asking for the ruling from the court. Is
that something that you could change moving forward? Could that
be part of that issue?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Yeah, Look, it was done it as an emergency appeal,
and there are times, you know, there's another context to
where this happens a lot, which is dealing with death
penalty appeals. And when you have death penalty appeals, you
have someone who's been convicted of a capital offense and
they're set to be executed, and very frequently you have
last minute appeals that are filed. And I'll tell you
(26:34):
when I was a law clerk. I was a law
clerk for Chief Justice Renquist in nineteen ninety six and
nineteen ninety seven and at the time, so this gives
you a sense you can now make a crack about
how old I am at the time. The way we
would get these emergency appeals is they would be faxed in,
so they weren't emailed at the time. They'd be faxed
in and you'd get it off the facts and you
(26:57):
would get say, if the midnight was if the execution
was scheduled to happen at midnight, and by the way,
if it was midnight on the West coast, that meant
it was three am in d C. But if the
execution was scheduled at midnight, you would get sometimes one
hundred page appeal faxed in at ten thirty pm and
(27:21):
what would happen. So what plays out when that gets
faxed in is is the justice who is the lead
justice for that circuit. So each circuit, each region of
the country has a lead justice who is the justice
to whom emergency appeals go. Initially, Chief Justice Renquest was
the lead justice for the fourth circuit was concerned death
(27:41):
penalty appeals, and so that was Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland,
West Virginia, and Virginia. In particularly there were fair number
capital cases. So you would get it faxed to you, You,
as the law clerk, would read through it. You'd have
to read through it very quickly. You have to prepare
a memo, write a memo. You then send it to
(28:04):
your justice. And a lot of times, if this was
at midnight or one or two or three in the morning,
you'd have to call home and wake your justice up.
Your justice would be asleep. You'd call home, you'd say, Chief,
we had an emergency appeal.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Now.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Now the justice would know there was an execution set
that night, and so would know that there is likely
to be a call. But you'd call, wake your justice
up and ask okay, here's the arguments, here's what I
think about it, and you would write a memo from
your justice saying summarizing the arguments in the appeal and
(28:37):
making the recommendation. So for Chief Justice Renquist, in virtually
every circumstance, if someone was seeking to halt an execution
at the last minute, he would recommend that that be denied.
You would then forward it to the other eight chambers.
To the other eight chambers, and there was a law clerk,
so in the night of execution, at least nine of
us were there till midnight or one or two or
(28:59):
three in the morning. And so when you would forward
your memo, in a memo in a case like this,
would be anywhere from two to maybe eight pages, depending
on how complicated the issues were. They would then get
your memo, and they've gotten the appeal as well, so
they're reading the appeal at the same time. They would
then call their justice, wake him er her up at home,
(29:21):
and they would cast votes at midnight or one or
two or three in the morning. And a strategy that
is still quite frequent when it comes to death penalty
appeals is just throw so much crap at the wall
that they're hoping the justices say, I don't know, I
can't figure this out this quickly, all right, just stay
the execution, halt the execution so we can figure this
(29:43):
all out. And unfortunately that strategy that that strategy can work.
That there may have been some of that that this
was being done over Easter weekend very quickly, and it
may be that the justices wanted to say, hold on
a second, we want to understand what's going on here.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
That's possible, but.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
I do think the democrats entire strategy is try to
see if they can get a majority of the Supreme
Court ticked off. And I don't think that's happened, but
I do think that would be very dangerous and harmful
if it did happen.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Yeah, that's a really great point. And by the way,
don't forget if you are new to this podcast. Is
this your first time listening, Maybe you caught us on
the radio with our syndicated show. Make sure that you
hit that subscriber auto download button right now so you
do not miss an episode as we do this Monday,
Wednesday Friday, we have a weekend review of the big
three stories of the week you may have missed on
Saturdays as well, and then if you are driving around
(30:44):
on the weekend, make sure you check your local news
talk station and you can find this show on the radio.
It's really really cool, so we hope you enjoy that
as well. In the center, I will see you back
here on Wednesday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!