reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There's been some thought given to this issue, and Senator Ron Wyden has already advised on what actions to take. I agree that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling. The courts depend on the legitimacy of their rulings, but they are currently eroding that legitimacy through deeply partisan and unfounded decisions. The justices themselves are undermining their own enforcement power. A ruling depends on enforcement, and the Biden administration has the power to choose whether or not to enforce it.

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.

We need to implement an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices to ensure strong ethics reforms. Additionally, members of Congress should be prohibited from trading stocks while in office.

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.

The speaker believes recent rulings and actions from the FDA and Congress are egregious overreaches by right-wing Republican-appointed judges, whose goal was to pack the courts with partisan and unqualified individuals. They claim this has been anticipated and that Senator Ron Wyden has advised a course of action, which the speaker supports: the Biden administration should ignore the ruling. The speaker argues the courts rely on their legitimacy, which they are undermining through partisan and unfounded rulings, thus eroding their own enforcement power.

The court supports the freedoms and equality of the American people, but it won't be our savior. True change requires people actively amending the constitution. However, constitutional protections can quickly erode, as seen with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is being disregarded. It will be up to us on January 6, 2025, to inform the Trump supporters that he is disqualified. This situation creates a need for protection and raises tensions, all because some justices refuse to interpret the 14th Amendment properly. Cherilyn's new center aims to revive this important discussion while we continue to push for constitutional amendments.

I'm done. The Supreme Court angers me. It's war now, fighting for our country. Take out Trump like you would Hitler in 1940. Blow him up before they do.

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 Supreme Court holds significant power, akin to having a loaded gun aimed at the core of the government. Any misstep could lead to drastic consequences, potentially affecting 388 members of Congress, as well as the President, Vice President, and others, all in a matter of minutes.

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.

The speaker says the court has faced “another series of leaks” in recent days, including leaked private papers of Supreme Court justices that the speaker says “by law belong to them.” The speaker describes this as part of a long-running pattern, citing earlier leaks of an unpublished internal draft opinion, including one connected to the Dobbs decision. The speaker claims multiple leaks occurred from February and January 2016 to the press, which the New York Times attributes to the Supreme Court’s “supposed failure to address the global climate crisis.” The speaker links these leaks to what they describe as a coordinated effort to undermine the Supreme Court’s independence by browbeating the court into decisions favored by “the left,” and by threatening consequences such as packing the court with new justices, personal threats to the justices, leaking of their papers, and threats to their security. The speaker says they have worked at the court and litigated it as a private lawyer and as the attorney general of the state of Missouri, and that what is happening is an “absolutely a coordinated effort to destroy the court,” “years in the making.” They trace the alleged campaign to President Obama criticizing justices personally in the House chamber, and they say criticism of the court by President Trump has been met with less attention than Obama’s actions. The speaker also cites several events they say reflect pressure on the court: an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh; and they claim Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer threatened justices by name at the Supreme Court steps. They further reference a coordinated leak intended to derail the Dobbs opinion. The speaker adds that they believe “dark money groups” funded illegal protests at justices’ homes after an assassination attempt on justices, and they say the Biden Justice Department and FBI did not stop these protests despite their illegality. The speaker claims the protests continued for months and repeatedly threatened justices’ security without sufficient response. The speaker refers to the New York Times describing its reporting as based on private papers plus interviews with ten former court employees who spoke anonymously because, as quoted by the speaker, “Confidentiality was a condition of their employment,” and the speaker says the employees violated their employment agreements to expose private deliberations to damage the court’s independence. The speaker concludes by calling for hearings to “follow the money,” asking who funded the protests at the justices’ homes and where the funding for the multi-year pressure campaign is coming from, describing the effort as “a clear and present danger” to the operation of the Constitution.

Proponents and opponents of Roe v Wade criticize it for being poorly reasoned. Most constitutional scholars do not view it as a well-written or well-reasoned decision, regardless of their stance on abortion. It is not considered a good example of how to write a legal decision. Translation: Critics of Roe v Wade argue that it was not well-reasoned, and constitutional scholars do not see it as a well-written decision, regardless of their views on abortion. It is not seen as a model for writing legal decisions.

It is wildly inappropriate to have any foreign-born individuals in Congress or the judiciary system, regardless of their politics. Foreign-born individuals should be banned from holding positions of power in the country, including Congress and the courts. America's institutions should be controlled by Americans whose identity, loyalty, and instincts are shaped in this country, not imported from somewhere else. Allowing foreigners to make decisions about our laws and leaders is national suicide and an open invitation to sabotage, infiltrate, and deliberately erode American sovereignty. It is like an American woman moving to India, becoming a citizen, and then trying to impeach their president and rewrite their constitution. Foreign-born individuals are controlling what happens in the country.

I believe the chief justice has shown bias in his views on COVID and the convoy, making him unfit for his role. I have personally experienced institutional bias in the legal profession and have evolved to be more of a populist, valuing confrontation in the political process.

I believe abortion access should be protected from day 1 of pregnancy by reinstating Roe v Wade. Congress can pass legislation to restore these protections, and Joe Biden will sign it into law.

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.

I'm speaking to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh directly. By overturning Roe v Wade, you've unleashed chaos and turmoil. Be prepared to face severe consequences for your actions. You will be caught off guard by the repercussions of your decision.

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

The speaker believes that the legal profession needs reform, similar to the expansion of the Supreme Court in the United States under FDR. They suggest that the current conservative government may face opposition from liberal-appointed judges and senators if they try to address issues from the previous Trudeau era. Strong measures may be necessary to make changes.

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.

Individual judges have abused the system by issuing nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump's agenda. Statistics show that 67% of all national injunctions issued over the last 100 years have been against Donald J. Trump. 92% of those injunctions were issued by Democrat-appointed judges. This must be stopped.