Left Face
Join Adam Gillard and Dick Wilkinson while they talk politics and community engagement in Pikes Peak region.
Left Face
Inside the Constitutional Showdown: Birthright Citizenship and Executive Power
The constitutional crisis unfolding at the Supreme Court takes center stage in this thought-provoking episode as we examine the alarming arguments over presidential power and the 14th Amendment.
When the Supreme Court heard the administration's case challenging birthright citizenship, the justices cut straight to the heart of the matter: can a president simply override constitutional amendments with executive orders? The implications extend far beyond immigration policy. As one justice pointedly asked, using the same logic, could an executive order authorize the military to "enter every major population center and seize all weapons" despite the Second Amendment? The administration's struggle to draw meaningful distinctions reveals the dangerous precedent at stake.
Meanwhile, we explore the growing tensions between federal immigration enforcement and local oversight. Congressional representatives recently demanded access to ICE detention facilities while a mayor was arrested for the same attempt. This disparity highlights the critical role elected officials must play in challenging executive overreach – they should "be the ones leading the charge" since they face fewer personal consequences than ordinary citizens engaged in similar actions.
The episode also covers our upcoming June 6th D-Day event, where we're working to balance respectful commemoration of veterans while providing a platform for free expression. We're carefully planning speakers who can discuss military service and the importance of following lawful orders, especially relevant in today's political climate.
From diplomatic developments in the Middle East to reports of concerning deals with cartels at the southern border, we examine how money and transactional diplomacy have replaced principle in foreign policy. Share your thoughts on these critical issues – how do we protect the Constitution when those sworn to defend it seem determined to find workarounds?
https://bsky.app/profile/leftfaceco.bsky.social
https://www.facebook.com/epccpv
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Hello everyone and welcome to Left Face. This is the Pikes Peak Region's political podcast with a veteran's point of view. Thanks for joining us. If nobody else was impressed with that, I might have to cut that one, and save it.
Speaker 2:You dropped some extra peas in there too. I know, that was weird. I caught that. I was like whoa, there's two more peas in there.
Speaker 1:We'll have to cut that one and save it. Yeah, save that clip man. That We'll have to cut that one and save it. Yeah, save that clip, man. That'll be our intro from now on. So I'm your co-host, adam Giller. Joining me is Dick Wilkinson. How are you doing?
Speaker 2:Dick, I'm doing great, adam, good morning.
Speaker 1:Good morning. We got again a lot of things going on in the community here, so let's jump right into it. One of the big things that I've been working on a lot with is, uh, helping plan the protests and things down. I'm not a big protester myself, um, but I'll give people the platform to protest. Sure, you know, like, like, I think our first amendment is so critical to us and making sure that people feel like they're doing something. You know, um, and it's weird, cause I, we did the May Day and there was like Chinese flags and communist flags and stuff like that, and like it felt weird.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it felt like I'm like because that just means something different to me. Yeah, you know to be walking on those flags, but like I have to keep reminding myself that it's not about me, it's about getting them, it's about helping people be safe and just letting them have their voice. Yeah, and exercise their first amendment.
Speaker 2:So it sucks when you you see it and like you see some of the folks carrying, but like you know we could have a conversation about this, yeah.
Speaker 1:There's better ways, to you know.
Speaker 2:I had that experience one time at a. So Gary Johnson um, if if everybody was listening hasn't figured it out, dick is is a libertarian some, sometimes some days of the week, and so I lived in New Mexico. Gary Johnson's from New Mexico, and so you know who'd have figured that he's a popular guy there in amongst certain political circles, right? He ran as a Republican and was the governor of New Mexico as a Republican and then, after his Republican career as that you know ended. Then that's when he started running at the national level as a libertarian.
Speaker 2:He had a rally during his last presidential run, which was, I guess 2016 is the last time he ran and he came to Albuquerque and while he was there this was my moment he said I would pardon Edward Snowden, and that's like a battle cry for libertarian circles, right? I don't know if you're in the chat room they believe that Snowden was a hero, that the secrets were all justified and that everything he did was just and that he should be carried on your shoulders as the person who told us all the secrets, right? Well, I, of course, have a very different opinion about that, right, but I had to be in the room with all these people that I was like, oh man, these are my people. And we just said 10 things in a row that I really want to clap for. And then you just said the turd in the punch bowl that I have to leave the room now, right, like I can't be associated with you people. And you know, I had that moment where I was just like eww, yeah, you get the ick.
Speaker 1:Yeah, oh, no, yeah, yeah, because that was definitely the way he did it and just went to China, yeah.
Speaker 2:Stopped off in China and then, you know, by way of Russia to China. You know, it was just crazy, I think he's a Russian citizen. Yeah, well, he is now. Yeah, but yes, that whole. Thing. Oh yeah, but yes, that whole thing. And so you know, that was I had that moment too.
Speaker 1:That was my Chinese flag, yeah, so, for the next thing that we're really focusing on and planning, I wanted to do something different than just a protest, Because it's going to happen on June 6th, which is a D-Day, and you know one. I don't ever like really using veterans as props, like the whole thing.
Speaker 2:Sure. So to try to like easy to do in politics, right right. Yeah, it's easy to show up looking like that sometimes yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:So I'm really trying to walk that line right now and make sure that we respect, uh, you know, and remember the veterans. Um, on d-day and this is a week after memorial day too um, they wanted to do some protests Memorial Day. I just don't want to. I don't know.
Speaker 2:I agree yeah.
Speaker 1:But this June 6th day we're going to have some speakers out at the park. We're looking at the locations right now, but it'll be in the evening. So just kind of mark calendars right now. On June 6th We'll have some speakers and, uh, you know, hopefully you can just get together and talk about our service and what it's like to uh, follow, follow, lawful orders.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know, yep, and then, uh, you just reminded me that we're going to have a guest that we were going to have today, but I didn't, uh, coordinate the meeting with him. Um, but We'll have a representative from the Veterans Trauma Court coming to the show soon. I'll just have to regroup and try that again. Yeah, I get that. There's always things going on.
Speaker 1:That would be exciting to hear that one and actually get some good examples of things going on in our community and just show people, everybody, that there's hope when people are going into these things. There's resources here to get you through them. Hopefully we're going into these things. There's resources here to get you through them, you know so. So hopefully we get to talk to him real soon, yep.
Speaker 2:But yeah, we will be looking forward to the June 6th event. Um, adam invites me to everything he does and a lot of times I'm not able to go, but this one is far enough out. I'm going to. I'm going to more than pencil it in, I'm going to actually put it in the calendar and make it happen. So, yeah, looking forward to it cool, uh.
Speaker 1:Next thing we wanted to roll to was our uh, kilmar count yeah, we got 64 days on the board and yeah, it's ridiculous. You don't hear anything about it like the news cycle has moved on a bit right, right, and like even our own local ice raid, that that you know, 100 people disappeared.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we still don't hear a lot about that's. That's gone full crickets at this point, right, yeah.
Speaker 1:And I spoke about it last week or the week before, about asking the senator's office for some answers, and Senator Hickenlooper's office responded and they said that ICE responded to them and said there was because this was in response to last week's raids or two weeks ago raids, no last week's. Do we even talk about that last week? What day did that?
Speaker 2:happen? I'm not sure. I don't even know exactly. So let me talk about that real quick.
Speaker 1:Yeah, thursday or Friday of last week, I think it was after we recorded. Yeah, cspd served a search warrant down in Meadows. Oh yes, that was afternoon, thursday afternoon a search warrant down in Meadows.
Speaker 2:Oh yes, that was afternoon, thursday afternoon, that's right yeah.
Speaker 1:So they served a warrant down in a trailer park on the southeast side of town for one person and they had everything shut down. They had ice there with them and it was a similar tactic that they use for the party raid right, okay, where they have a warrant for somebody. So they say, hey, ice, come along, yeah. And then they just try to grab whoever they can. Whoever whatever door they knocked on, they either didn't get a response or the person didn't let them. I think if they would have got a response, they would have went in no matter what.
Speaker 1:Sure, so the person probably didn't respond. But you know they cleared out and left. But ICE is still active in our community and so you know, we reached out and I talked to the senator's office about that and they were informed by ICE that there was no operations set in Peterson or on Peterson on that day in question. But to me that's just a huge kind of deflection because it wasn't on Peterson space forces. It was near Peterson but it was off of the base in the trailer park next door. Yeah, so it seemed like a pretty obvious deflection. Um, you know, we talked last week about the, uh, the prisoner movement that that a friend of mine saw. Yeah, um, and there they tried, they tried to put it on like a different BOP. I don't know what that means, but different prisoner movements. But my friend that saw this movement said it wasn't what he's seen in the past. Sure, prison movements. So everything that the senator's office, like we asked, they got responses from ICE and it was all deflections.
Speaker 1:Just misleading information.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Just not being true. They're intentionally not being true.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, you didn't ask for this specific right, yeah, yeah, you said at three o'clock, but we were down there at 9 am, so you know it must not be what you're talking about. Yeah, it's. It's like the word problem. You know, in high schools they got all the sentences in the word problem that don't need to be there. That's all they're telling you. They won't give you the information about what you need. They're just giving you information about stuff that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1:Right right, just give them a little extra nuggets of information, just so, if you latch on to it, they get the.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and you know the bottom line. It's just like well, you asked a question, we answered it. I don't care if you don't like the answer. That was the answer. Yeah, let's move on right.
Speaker 1:Well, and this is something I'm working with another group of people, with trying to build some relationships with Congressman Crank's office and actually trying to have useful conversations. Yeah, just, you know, going there yelling and screaming at each other, but you know we had to set the tone early on with their representatives. You know that don't treat us like we're stupid, sure, so like when you say something, like I'm listening to you and like, if you're not giving me the answer, like like we're going to I'm going to ask you again. Yeah, you know, and you know, one of the examples I told him was like I hear you say things that you're not saying sometimes, like when Congressman Crank said that the executive order hasn't been signed to move space for us, like I don't think he meant to say, like it's been written, but he did.
Speaker 2:Yes, right. And so when I asked his office like, has it been written? They're like oh, yeah, it's been written. It was supposed to be signed day one. Yeah, it's what they said about moving it to space, sure, so hasn't been signed yet is a true statement, but it's, you know, a very veiled version of the truth right, yeah, right.
Speaker 1:So people don't know how serious it is and they're like, oh, you know, everybody in colorado's fighting for this. How right, how are you right? You're passing everything that he asked for. You're doing everything that he says. You are putting up zero roadblocks for anything.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and doing a local news statement saying this is important, the military is important. You know, the president cares about the military. Yeah, okay, sure, that's what they're saying is, oh, we're fighting it. That's what they're saying is, oh, we're fighting it is that people, all the Republican representatives here in Colorado, all did say they released, basically, a press release statement that said Space Command, space Force elements should stay in Colorado. That was it. That's their fight. Right, that was one run in the local newspaper and they're not talking about it in dc because there's nothing to talk about. Right, you know, from the president's perspective, there's nothing to talk about. So, you know, run that local newspaper story and then again the news cycle has moved on. So they're like, yeah, yeah, look, I said that back in january. Now, what, what do?
Speaker 1:you want. You know, yeah, and that's what if I quit with you know, with that, with, uh, the ice situation, our representatives need to be out there, like in places and not letting them close until you get the answers you want and actually like use your status for what it's for. You know what? I mean yeah, like, put leverage where it needs to be put. Yeah, um, like, if you don't get the answers from the ice, like you go into their detention center and you find the people, find the people?
Speaker 2:Yeah, find the people, sure, sure. What do you think about the stuff that happened out on the East Coast, because that happened last week that was around the same I think it was about Thursday of last week where there was a mayor of is it the mayor of Newark, new Jersey? Yeah, went down to the ICE detention center with the congressional representatives. Yeah, do you know about that story? Yeah, so what's your take on that?
Speaker 1:I love seeing it.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:They need to be out there.
Speaker 2:Bottom line the demand right, this is it.
Speaker 1:We're going to bottom line this demand right, because when you look, at people who have things to risk and to lose if they get arrested. So many people's jobs are dependent on their employment. Sure, Because, well, their paycheck to paycheck you.
Speaker 2:Because, well, they're paycheck to paycheck.
Speaker 1:You know you're saying yeah their stability is they don't have. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:Stability in life in general is down to, like hitting that mark on your nine to five. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Our elected officials are there to like, take that heat, sure, and to be like you know, if today's the day I get arrested, okay, I'm going to have a job tomorrow. Sure, the day I get arrested, okay, I'm gonna have a job tomorrow sure because you can still elected me. Yeah, um, like it doesn't hit them, it's hard.
Speaker 1:Like them getting arrested doesn't hit as hard as me getting arrested so that they need to be the ones leading the charge and actually like standing up and making sure that people understand that this isn't just about you know the, you know migrants or undocumented workers, things like that. This is just a straight attack on the judicial leg of our tripod democracy and if one of those other legs don't stand up and fight for each other, if they don't come together and start fighting that, third one the executive branch is just going to absolutely take over everything.
Speaker 2:Sure.
Speaker 1:As they've said, they already are in charge of everything. Yeah, then it will just be legitimate. Yeah, so this is the fight. Yeah, charge of everything. Yeah, then it will just be legitimate. Yeah, so this is the fight. Yeah, they need to be out there getting arrested as much hell as possible and stopping to pass the agenda.
Speaker 2:Lockstep all the way I I think there's it's worth noting or it's worth reflecting on that the congressional representative folks that were there were eventually allowed in. Uh, they were not immediately allowed in when they showed up and they were resisted by the local you know, just operation of the prison facility. But then they demanded and entered the facility and the mayor got arrested because he's not a congressional representative and so they said hey, you, basically you broke in, right, and because you broke in, we're going to charge you with trespassing in this facility or something like that. But the other people that were there like six or seven people got to go in but they made an example out of him basically saying these people do have the status and you know the questions are valid and their pursuit of this information is valid, and their pursuit of this information is valid, but you're, you are not valid. You know you're the part of this that's this wrong, because you're a mayor, not a congressional representative.
Speaker 2:You know that that was such. I mean, it's a way to split hairs, it's, it's this weird way to like, I don't know hold on to the authority, piece right Of like. Oh well, we recognize that they have some kind of authority to do what they're doing but you don't. So we're going to affect our authority on you and make an example out of you, because we can't make an example out of them. And so, yeah, I agree, it's theatrics. Yeah, that's a good way to say it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's just. I mean, we elected a reality star to top off.
Speaker 2:That's true.
Speaker 1:People know how to get his attention.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's true, people know how to get his attention. Yeah, and it's and it's not through like a well written memo. No, speaking of well, we're going to digress even a little bit further out here. Wow, what's going on in the middle east right now the, the horse parades and the camel parades and the sword dancers and the purple carpet dude, the gold, just everything, wow.
Speaker 1:We are literally up for sale. There was a $1.5 billion Trump Tower deal In Qatar.
Speaker 2:Yeah, or no Syria? Was it no Qatar? No, qatar's a done deal, and then Syria offered to do it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so that's why Qatar sent them that $400 million jet. Yeah Right, it was part of that deal. And then Syria's saying the same thing, like, oh, we're for sale. Yeah, yeah, put a tower here, we'll rebuild. And the new president from Syria I mean, yes, we needed to get rid of the previous regime there. Yeah, but that new guy is not really our friend. We talked about that before.
Speaker 2:No, yeah, yeah, he's a jihadist. This was kind of once upon a time people made the statement of Saddam Hussein was safe because he was predictable In that his goals of whatever kind of military conflict he was willing to execute against people other than his own people. He was in a box and it was possible to sort of contain the, the, the danger that was saddam hussein. That was the same thing with, uh, bashar al-assad, right, like he was very much in a box, he was under russia's thumb and he was very contained, right. So, yeah, this this is not that right. This guy's the opposite of that. Like there's nobody, he's not contained by anything other than poverty of the country right now. But look at Yemen Like they're even more destitute as far as the overall population of the country and they're still an international terrorist threat. Right that people that operate out of Yemen are still hitting ships and shutting down commercial traffic and they don't have barely enough food to eat. They're somehow still we know how.
Speaker 2:Iran, but Syria is in the same boat and this regime is just as available to Iran or to any other malicious actor. I don't know, man. I guess Trump's speaking the language that everybody understands, which is money. I'm not saying this is good. I'm not giving anybody any credit on trying to sway Syria. I agree completely that doing business with this regime doesn't make sense because they're a terrorist regime by nature. Even if they're not executing their own citizens right now, they are from the roots of a jihadist regime own citizens right now.
Speaker 1:They are from the roots of a jihadist regime. You know so and, yeah, to see them, you know, put that flag out there and to try to buddy up the trump administration now it's really just kind of confusing it is.
Speaker 2:yeah, it is. Well, I mean, it's a look at it this way survival that, that faction that took over is fragile, extremely fragile, and the dude who's basically the president self-named president of Syria right now, that whole construct is extremely fragile. So I think that bottom line that's why they're courting Trump is just to gain some recognition, like global credibility, if you will right, yeah, and what's unfortunate is but they can't do it like those other folks with the camels and the gold planes and the you know, because I saw one where the women were shaking their hair at them.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah, which I thought was really weird, right, but I'm sure it's a big deal in, like you know, muslim countries to shake your hair at a man like that yeah, it was really really kind of a strange thing. Yeah, um, but when you hit your wagon to trump like, you also have to understand that he's probably going to throw you under the bus and burn you at some point oh sure, yeah.
Speaker 2:So yeah, yeah, if the deal sours, if the plane doesn't show up, you know even if it does, yeah, yeah, he might not like oh sure whatever was said in those back rooms like yeah it, it didn't happen, it is negotiable. You know, if American citizens' rights are negotiable, our deal is negotiable at all times. There's no stability here. Don't pretend like what I told you is guaranteed. That's probably one of his negotiating tactics.
Speaker 1:He just turns on CNN and sees like all the horrors happening. He's like oh yeah, see, I do that to my own people. Yeah, just wait till I see it, right, right.
Speaker 2:Well, and he also like oh gosh, I'm trying to remember. There was a situation where it was specifically about rights, and I want to say it was in the first term. I can't remember what it was, but it's what we're talking about here, where him, you know, treating us not any better than some other country. Gosh, I can't remember what it is now, but it was some situation where someone had asked him and it's just like they've done now, are you required to uphold the rights of these certain citizens, or whatever? And he's like I don't know maybe, but he said that back then too, and I can't remember. And I want to say he was even making a comparison, like look at these other places.
Speaker 1:They're terrible. We would never act like that, right, you know? Uh, a big flash point this last week also is with him is that he let in those south africaners.
Speaker 1:Sure, 60 south white south africaners yeah um, just showed up now yeah like, while he's trying to kick everybody else out and they're refugees, right yeah, now they're refugees, yeah, like, and they're not like. That's not a status, because that status has to be granted by, like, the un or something, sure, um so so they're not like refugees by any they're refugees from the horn of america.
Speaker 2:What are you talking about?
Speaker 1:from the people being angry at them being racist in their own.
Speaker 2:Yeah yeah, no, no, no, that's the new. You know, south africa is now the horn of amer right. That's where they're all from okay, Elon renamed it for us. You didn't know that was a thing.
Speaker 1:God bless.
Speaker 2:You got to tune in to the South African news channel every now and then, right.
Speaker 1:So another thing that I just read, that on the Gulf of Mexico thing I almost called it the other thing. But the Trump administration has opened up communication channels with the el chapo, oh yeah, yeah. And so like he's, uh, he's been talking with them and he let some of them into like cross the border, sure, and but that was against the mexican government's knowledge. So like their presidents like what the hell?
Speaker 2:yeah, we've been looking for those guys, right, yeah, like we're making deals with them.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like you're making deals with cartels like what the hell? Yeah, we've been looking for those guys, right? Well, we're making deals with them, but you're making deals with cartels. What the hell, man? These are not your Legitimize Again. Don't legitimize these people Right, right but it's going to be one of their paid thugs probably. Sure, you know what I mean, because those authorization zones, those are getting moved around and those are being thrown around.
Speaker 2:Somebody's got to tell him man, this is what the CIA is for. They're supposed to keep that stuff secret. All right, when you sneak in South American drug lords, you're supposed to keep that under wraps.
Speaker 1:I like my imperialism through the back door yeah right, right, this is, you know, witness protection.
Speaker 2:These people back in Mexico can keep looking for them. It is no-transcript. I told Adam this morning that if you told me yesterday or a few years ago that someday you'll listen to a Supreme Court argument and you'll just be wrapped in interest and you'll say what's next? What are they going to say next? Well, that happened today.
Speaker 1:Did they put any commercial breaks in there?
Speaker 2:Dude CNN did? I mean they do have to at some point, but they went as long as you possibly could without a break, like on a channel like that. It was at least a 20 minute chunk of uninterrupted time and then they, you know, they went to a break, came back and just jumped right back into it. So because it was the I guess what, for TV wise, it was probably the most interesting part, probably the most interesting part. What I was listening to was the solicitor general of the United States, you know, the Department of Justice, who's mainly the main senior lawyer that goes and argues cases on behalf of the administration at the Supreme Court. So that's who this guy is. He sounds like one of my doctors and I kept hearing his voice and I was like that's, that dude sounds so familiar. And then it took me a minute. But he's not a doctor, not like.
Speaker 2:Kennedy. Kennedy's not a doctor, not like Kennedy. Kennedy's not a doctor, so don't listen to his advice. But what they were talking about, what the justices were asking this guy, was OK, this, the birthright citizenship is under question, and that is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that enshrines the birthright citizenship, and the language is very clear, as amendments be in our, you know, are consistently. They're pretty clear, right. And so the the Trump administration signed an executive order that said that that's they. They basically are not going to honor that and that if you're, you know, a kid that's getting deported, like your parents are getting deported, we can deport you just right, along with them, no questions asked. Nobody should be blinking an eye. They should be clapping for us, for keeping a family together and for getting these degenerate migrants out of our country. That's their argument, right?
Speaker 2:So they took that to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said this argument has already been settled back when the 14th Amendment got written. Why do you think it's changed, right? Or why do you think that argument then? And the amendment is not valid, right? What's? What's the administration's position on the lack of of enforcement or validity of the 14th amendment? Wow, what an interesting conversation to listen to, because the justices all understood what was really on the line here was yeah, I mean, the 14th Amendment is not.
Speaker 2:You know, arguing an amendment's validity is not a simple case or a minor argument. But the even bigger thing that's on trial here is can the president just do whatever he wants to do? Here is can the president just do whatever he wants to do? Yeah, that's really what's on trial. Can he write an executive order that flies in the face of anything in the constitution and there's no redress? That was an amazing argument to listen to, because the justices I'm going to tell you something, adam they went there and you say where's their Dick? The second amendment they said what if the president wants to tell the military to enter every major population center and seize all the weapons and he signs an executive order? Who's protected in that situation and who's not? And how are those people different than the divisions that you've made in your 14th Amendment argument? Wow, he was just like no one would ever do that. No, that's not the argument. We've already told you. You have to argue this point.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:It could happen just because he signed this one. So it could have said 2nd Amendment instead of 14th Amendment. That's the only thing that had to be different. And you could do that for each and every one, every single piece of the Constitution, all the way up to like how many presidential terms you can serve Sure. Terms, slavery, suffrage to any group of people All those things are negotiable if the president has a pen in his hand. That's the argument that the Trump administration wants to make right now.
Speaker 1:So all of the judges were kind of more skeptical in their responses. You can usually tell tone when you listen to those things yes. Somebody like Thomas or Leto. They had the same tone.
Speaker 2:So the first person I heard was Clarence Thomas and to clarify birthright citizenship, at a lower court level, at a federal district court, there was a federal district injunction that said that President Trump's executive order was illegal and that some of the deportations he's executed since then are illegal. So that's the part that actually made it to the Supreme Court was if a lower court's federal district court judge can make a ruling that applies to every person in the United States or to every state in the union, et cetera, Right, and so the justices and to include Clarence Thomas pointed out the fact that, hey, the administration didn't bring in their case here, they didn't bring every. They didn't refute everything that that judge said. The refute is can that judge rule on behalf? Can their ruling affect every citizen or is it limited in scope only to the people that were parties to that case? Super technical legal argument. And that's what made it up to the Supreme Court. And so they were even taking issue with that of. It really feels like you're trying to thread the needle here. It really feels like you're trying to create a gap in precedent out of a very, very minute example. Right, and we're we're really not interested in playing that game.
Speaker 2:So all of them called that out and then, for the most part, all of them sounded fairly slanted or skeptical around the actual other merits of the case of you know, birthright citizenship is clearly enshrined. So why you believe that there's some situation where that wouldn't apply? Like we cannot track. And then they started to list out the justices listed out four sets of precedent, previous cases where things like what if your parents entered the country illegally and were were basically known and arrested as such? Right? Like, let's say, your mother's pregnant with you gets arrested and you get born in an american jail. Are you a citizen or not? Right? Yes, you are. That case has been defined, right? That's one of the precedents, right? So, and it didn't really matter the the color of the leaning of the judge, they all took those precedents. As this is what we're talking about, this is valid. These things have already been settled. So they just weren't interested in playing the game.
Speaker 1:What's interesting about this to me is that for the Supreme Court to hear something, they need to follow the rule of four. So four Supreme Court justices need to say like Agree, yeah, we need to follow the rule of four. Yeah, so four Supreme Court justices need to say like, agree yeah.
Speaker 1:We need to hear this one, yeah. And so for them to come out like this and say like yeah, we need to hear this and we need to tell you some things, yeah, and kind of lay it out, so you know they should be coming out with their rulings soon, or is it?
Speaker 2:I mean I go on, or whatever.
Speaker 1:So yeah, cause I think they usually wait until the end of the session, which is like June or something like that, or like the end of the month.
Speaker 2:Oh right, Um, you know they do kind of put two or three out at a time. Yeah, yeah, I mean I've I've seen it depends on the weight of the case and if there's other things that are being like waiting on the case Right, and that was also one of the arguments on behalf of the administration was well, the way that things are being done now is that if one judge can issue this ruling that affects everybody, but there could be other judges that don't agree with that, then someone can go and basically bring a slightly different case to another judge and they can go judge shopping, right, Like that's one of the arguments that if any district judge can have the power that almost that a Supreme Court justice has as far as like a nationwide edict, well then you know, it's just down to finding the right judge in the right district to get your biddings done Right, and so the justices acknowledge that that form of abuse exists, Right, that's called projection.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's what they do. Yeah, like, yes, it can be done, because you've done that. Yeah, but like our court systems aren't set up for that, that's taking advantage of the system. And but like our court systems aren't set up for that, that that's taking advantage of the system. And like the people who have money and can afford that do that.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean and that that was brought up as well. Right, I'm like now what you've defined as if only certain parties in the case are protected or affected by the judge's ruling and there's someone else who's clearly, you know, in the exact same example of situation, but they weren't a party in that filing. You're saying that that person would now have to go seek out a lawyer, bring a case, use that one as precedent and then run their own case. But the people that you know, if they can't afford it, they're not going to get justice. That ruling applies to them, but they have to come and ask for it to apply to them. And they were like, well, yeah, probably.
Speaker 2:And they were like what you know? Like that doesn't make sense, you know. And they were like, well, that's what class action lawsuits are for. And they're like right, but there's also these types of judgments that, instead of there having to be a class action, the judge can just basically define a class of people and say look, this applies to all these people. If anyone's in this situation, this is the precedent for all of them, and that type of judgment exists already, so that you don't have to go out and have 10,000 individual lawsuits to restore your rights in some situation. But the Trump organization was basically saying sure you do. That makes perfect sense. If you really care about it, go to the court and ask for it.
Speaker 2:They're like no, that's why it's an amendment to the constitution so that you don't have to do that. Right, and they just talking in circles. Man, you know the? I don't know, I don't know. You know some of the. It also felt like, if you know, the justices were kind of saying if you'd stop trying to break the law, people would stop shopping for judges. You know, there was some of that in there, you know, of like stop doing stupid stuff.
Speaker 1:So we have to, we can stop hearing these stupid cases, you know it was funny because when I was talking with uh, that rep from uh crank's office, you know I was laying out some things and you know some different options and somebody next to me just kind of the quietest person, the note-taker just chirped up or we could start following the Constitution. Oh, that was cool, yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, this administration is set on defining, redefining the idea that they I don't know, I guess it would be too overt if you just went out and tried to repeal amendments, right, like that almost feels too overt, like you want to try and find the most subtle way to do that without just like it's impossible to do, probably because, if you look at what it takes to get an amendment approved, you need like two-thirds. Yeah, the same thing is required to repeal something like that, to repeal something.
Speaker 1:So you're trying to get two-thirds of a amendment approved. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I agree. It's a political lift that is impossible for the nation as it stands today.
Speaker 1:Which is good, which is how it's supposed to be, I agree.
Speaker 2:That's how it's supposed. Due process gets forced better in a democracy when we are. You know, there's a healthy balance, right, and it's unfortunate we have a two-party system because there could be a different type of balance. But, yeah, I agree that the if one side, you know, I know there's no way that they could go out and repeal an amendment, so you just have to find every other possible way to game the system. Yeah, exactly, and again, that comes down to money and that comes down to the ultra rich trying to dictate. We got to. Everybody has to go in and argue their case of why they're a citizen. Well, you were born in America. Nah, it's not good enough. Your parents are communists, right, that doesn't matter, right, and I, yes, it does. Right, like that's, they're trying to make up stuff.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:And it courts. But we keep pushing further, closer and closer to that spot where they're just going to say, no, we're not. Now there was a little bit, you know, of uh, some chip on the shoulder, sassy comment from one of the justices where they said, uh, hey, you keep losing. You know, like, you're just going to keep, you're going to court shop too. Right, you're going to take each one of those individual. You want there to be 10,000 individual cases so that eventually you can find a judge that passes the bar, right, and so you get five or six losses and then you find one where you win, and then every other case you take back to that court, right, like how to tell me how that you're not going to use the same, exact same thing, right?
Speaker 1:You know, but she said, things are projection.
Speaker 2:There's a reason that you're that you're hearing right now, because you've lost this argument already.
Speaker 1:You know so yeah, To be a Trump lawyer right now. It'd just be like you feel like a toddler getting scolded all the time.
Speaker 2:Or like you're literally marching up and down the firing line, just like they just keep shooting at you and you just hit the end of the thing, the thing, track and turn around and go back the other way. Man, yeah, I feel exactly firing squad man, big time all right.
Speaker 1:Well, we'll end it on that. I think that's a feeling most of us can relate to.
Speaker 2:Is the fire.
Speaker 1:Political firing squad for sure all right, well again, thanks for joining us. This was less left face. Uh, screwed up up on the exit there. We'll cut that one.
Speaker 2:We'll record the beginning and we'll cut that one.
Speaker 1:Thanks everyone for joining us. We'll talk to you next week.
