reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that judges are acting as partisan activists and attempting to dictate policy to the President, thereby slowing the administration's agenda. There is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop and pick judges who will derail the President's agenda. The administration will comply with court orders and continue to fight these battles in court. These judges are usurping the will of the President and undermining the will of the millions of Americans who elected him to implement his policies.

The speaker believes there's a constitutional crisis caused by district court judges setting broad federal policy, which is the president's job. These judges should be settling specific matters, not setting policy. The speaker agrees with Vance and Trump on this issue. The speaker does not want individual federal judges who hate Donald Trump to tie him up for four years. Big policy questions should be decided by the Supreme Court, but in the interim, the executive has to be allowed to govern.

The speaker states that President Trump stands by his call to impeach Judge Bozeman, despite Chief Justice Roberts' comments. The administration believes a single district court judge cannot assume the powers of the commander in chief, as it requires agreement from five Supreme Court justices to change federal policy. The speaker claims that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The speaker asserts that President Trump respects Justice Roberts but believes the Supreme Court must stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges who are usurping presidential powers and destroying the constitutional system.

The speaker states the president stands by his comments, as does the entire administration. They claim a democracy cannot exist if a single district court judge can assume the powers of the commander in chief. They contrast this with the Supreme Court, where it takes five justices to change federal policy. The speaker asserts that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The president has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes the Supreme Court should crack down and stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges. These judges are allegedly usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to the constitutional system.

Impeachment should be considered to check judicial activism. Congress should educate Americans about impeachment and how it was created to check judicial activism, because the founders were concerned about the judiciary exercising powers outside the Constitution, leading to judicial tyranny. Judicial tyranny is when judges usurp the power of the executive and legislative branches, which guarantees self-government. Judicial activism is an abuse of power, and impeachment is a potential check.

According to the speaker, certain judges are a tool used by Democrats, the ACLU, Marxists, leftists, and the deep state to control America regardless of elections. These judges will allegedly obstruct the president through frivolous lawsuits and unjustified findings. Each judge supposedly claims nationwide power, usurping the power of the presidency. The speaker claims these judges are defending America's "bad guys," helping them steal, pillage, rape, and kill, and freeing those who loot the country, money, liberty, and elections. The speaker believes these judges see themselves as the new presidents, but they have zero power.

A judge who is unbalanced should be up for impeachment, though that doesn't mean they would be impeached. There should be some chance of impeachment for the very worst federal judges; there shouldn't be no chance. The speaker then introduces Justice Schimmel.

It's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch, obviously plays an important role in our three, you know, coequal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. And these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders, bestowed upon him by the American people. If these judges wanna run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. But they are politicizing the bench and and, you know, showing how through their activism, they are undermining really, frankly, their own credibility in doing this. And, again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust that these institutions, that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually, doing their job.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should hold intellectual hearings to argue that the founding fathers never wanted radical judges interposing themselves between elected officials and their own views. The committees should also bring in the "weirdest" judges to explain under oath the constitutional basis for their decisions. Congress should consider impeaching judges or abolishing their courts, and also consider dramatically cutting the judicial system's budget. According to Hamilton, courts cannot win a fight with the legislative and executive branches because those branches control the money and power. A recent poll from America's New Majority Project found that 81% of Americans believe the federal government is corrupt. The House and Senate have an obligation to interrogate judges, understand constitutional boundaries, look at historic precedent, and abolish courts or cease paying for them if necessary. The current situation is a direct threat to American self-government.

A majority of Americans believe no single district judge should be allowed to issue a nationwide injunction. According to the speaker, this is a judicial coup d'etat, with judges issuing nationwide injunctions from the same political background to stop the changes President Trump represents. While some issues should be addressed in Congress, micromanaging the executive branch on national security by single judges is inappropriate. These judges have no standing, knowledge, or awareness of the consequences, and they endanger Americans and the nation by acting as alternative presidents, of which there could be 677, none of whom were elected.

Justice Gorsuch at the Supreme Court addressed President Biden's proposed court reforms. He emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary for all Americans, regardless of popularity. He urged caution in considering changes that could impact fair hearings and constitutional rights.

"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer." "These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers." "They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar." "They just got appointed to be judges." "No training required." "They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges." "They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar." "How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?" "But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar." "How is this a fucking thing?"

Publius Hulda, a retired litigation attorney who writes on the original intent of the Constitution using the Federalist Papers, argues that the Supreme Court has ignored the Federalist Papers and the framers’ Constitution for two centuries. He contends the attorney general’s opinion raises questions but fails to cite article, section, and verse where Congress is authorized to restrict arms, asserting that when the Constitution was ratified, the federal government’s powers were enumerated and that there was no delegation of authority to restrict the people’s arms. Hulda emphasizes that Article I, Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress for the national government, but he asserts that the framers did not grant Congress the power to restrict arms. He cites Federalist Paper No. 46 by James Madison to support the claim that the American people are armed so they can defend themselves, their communities, and their states from a potentially tyrannical federal government that oversteps constitutional limits. He cites specific constitutional text: Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and notes that Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, requiring every able-bodied male citizen aged 18 to 46 (excluding federal officers and employees) to buy a rifle, ammunition, and report to local militia training. He also references Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which he says authorizes letters of marque and reprisal, enabling privateers who conducted private warfare during conflicts such as the War of 1812. Hulda asserts that the framers contemplated a heavily armed people and that the federal government was never authorized to restrict arms in any fashion. He claims that attempts to restrict arms represent usurpation of powers not possessed by the federal government. He criticizes the Attorney General for basing arguments on court opinions rather than the Constitution, arguing there is a vast gulf between the two. He references that there are 200 years’ worth of Supreme Court opinions and quotes Charles Evans Hughes saying that the Constitution means what the judges say it means, labeling this prevailing dogma as a lie and arguing it has led to a federal government no longer constrained by constitutional chains. Hulda contends that the oath of office requires obedience to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court, which he views as a creature of the Constitution and fully subject to its terms. He counters the AG’s claim that the Supreme Court is the exclusive and final authority on federal powers by noting that the framers anticipated corruption and lawlessness among judges. Therefore, Congress, the President, and the states possess checks on the Supreme Court. He cites Federalist No. 81, where Hamilton describes impeachment and removal as checks on lawless judges, and asserts the President’s oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to obey the Supreme Court. He references Madison’s Virginia Resolutions, which state that states, as the sovereign parties to the Constitution, are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution and may check all three branches, including the judiciary, by nullifying their acts if necessary. He notes he did not finish his argument and hopes to discuss the so-called nullification crisis of 1832 during questions. Speaker 0 thanks him for his comments.

There is a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch overriding the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges seized control of executive branch duties via nationwide injunctions in the current presidency's first six weeks, potentially a judicial coup d'etat. In the past, President Jefferson and Congress abolished courts via the Judiciary Act of 1802. From 2001 to 2023, district courts ordered 96 nationwide injunctions, with 64 during President Trump's time in office. 92% of injunctions against President Trump were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Since 01/20/2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the current Trump administration, compared to six during George W. Bush's eight years, twelve during Barack Obama's eight years, and 14 during Joe Biden's four year term. The courts have often been challenged, as seen with Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. The legislative and executive branches can defend their rights, as the Judiciary Act of 1802 proves. The Supreme Court could intervene by suspending nationwide injunctions and immediately taking them up. Congress and the President can take steps to bring the judiciary back into a constitutional framework through hearings and legislation like the "No Road Rulings Act."

Judge, why did you want the job? I appoint federal judges, but thanks for serving. Can you make a speech? Hush up, boy.

The Supreme Court is overstepping its authority, granting the president unchecked power and restricting Congress's ability to oversee agencies. This undermines our democracy. However, the courts remain a crucial bulwark of our constitutional framework. They retain the power to hold anyone in contempt for disobeying lawful court orders. Therefore, the courts are our current best hope for maintaining our constitutional structure.

Justice Alito's belief that the Supreme Court should only be accountable to itself is criticized as unacceptable and a path to authoritarianism. It is argued that having one branch of government unchecked leads to abuse of power and is unsustainable structurally. There is a call to rein in the unaccountable court to prevent tyranny.

"No matter the threats, I'm not backing down." "It is sad, telling, and downright dangerous that simply stating a bedrock principle of American law caused the president, our commander in chief, to threaten violence against me and to weaponize the Department of Justice against me." "I served at the Department of Justice." "I know that federal prosecutors have more control over the life and liberty of the American people than any other peacetime force." "I know that when these powers are used for good, they make us the more perfect union." "And I know that when these awesome powers are abused, when they are used to punish political opponents, to seek retribution, to do a president's personal bidding, there's nothing more dangerous in this country." "My message is clear. I took an oath to this constitution, and I intend to keep it." "I will never give up the ship."

Speaker 0 states that there are people who believe we are in an assault on the constitutional order and asks whether we are currently experiencing a constitutional crisis. Yes, he answers, our democracy is at risk because Donald Trump shows that he wishes to violate the laws in many, many different ways. He notes the positive counterpoint: the good news is that 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, were put on the bench last year, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time. Speaker 0 then adds that they hope the appellate courts, when the cases rise to that level and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, will uphold those rulings. He mentions concrete actions tied to this judiciary effort: they restored the money to NIH, and they required that 8,000 employ federal employees have to come back. He emphasizes the scope of legal challenges by stating, “We’re in over a 100 lawsuits against them, and we are having a good deal of success.” He concludes by clarifying the current stage of these legal battles: “It’s only at the lower court level right now.”

Nobody is above the law, and elected office does not grant immunity from prosecution. Defending a judge or prosecutor politically is inappropriate because the legal system should be nonpolitical. The speaker expresses dismay that someone had a judge arrested.

The Supreme Court protects freedoms when Congress and presidents overreach, but those freedoms are currently under threat. Government officials have pressured tech companies to censor alleged misinformation, much of which has proven true. Authoritarian governments control the press, speech, and legal processes, using courts to stifle opponents. America is rapidly becoming a one-party state. The Supreme Court has so far restrained the "censorship industrial complex" run by the Democrats, but a Democratic victory in the upcoming election could lead to the appointment of judges who would end democracy. The only hope is a populist movement, including "foreign democrats," to defend the republic. Therefore, everyone should vote Trump to protect the Constitution.

The speaker believes that judges are committing treason because they were not elected and are obstructing the will of the American people. The speaker states that the American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump, who campaigned on border security for years. Therefore, the speaker concludes that the judges should get out of the way because they are the problem.