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 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.

I want to address the dishonest narrative that's been emerging. Many outlets are fear-mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House, but the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. These judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. They have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is a concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump. We will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted.

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.

Republicans are accusing judges of exceeding their powers and issuing nationwide injunctions. According to Republicans, these judges' constitutional powers are not superior to the president or Congress. House and Senate Republicans are writing bills to limit the reach of these rulings, hoping to send a message to what they call "rogue judges" who obstruct President Trump's agenda. Democrats are calling this effort bullying, suggesting it's an attempt to influence judges' decisions.

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.

The speakers discuss the role of different government branches in interpreting the law, with Speaker 1 emphasizing that the judiciary has the final say, not legislators, everyday people, or the president. Speaker 1 expresses concern that institutions are being undermined, with the legislative branch failing to check the president. They argue that disregarding judicial orders, even if disliked, erodes the rule of law, using hypothetical scenarios involving presidential executive orders, election ballot access, and prosecutorial overreach to illustrate potential problems. Speaker 0 notes the irony of representatives who previously supported impeachment now criticizing similar actions, and emphasizes that the hearing should focus on the court's ability to function as intended, not on impeachment.

The speaker claims Americans didn't die under President Trump and criticizes the Biden administration's infant formula failures, where mothers were blocked from ordering safe formulas from overseas. The speaker also criticizes the FDA's ban on raw milk, which is sold in many countries, and accuses the FDA of declaring war on anything natural while allowing chemicals in American foods, contributing to obesity and sickness. The FDA's failure to approve safer nicotine products has led to a dangerous illegal market of Chinese vapes. China has been murdering Americans for years with fentanyl. The FDA has also failed to regulate hemp-derived products and needs to crack down on counterfeit drugs from China. President Trump's executive order ending the de minimis package exemption for low-value imports will help the FDA restrict illicit products from China. The speaker believes Americans don't trust the FDA and that the COVID vaccine FDA approval should be revoked and removed from the childhood vaccine schedule, as children had the lowest hospitalization rates and deaths during COVID.

The speaker believes the DC federal court system, the Washington FBI field office, and the DC US attorney's office form a "circle of hell." While the latter two have new leadership, the federal court remains compromised, especially in political cases. Conflicts of interest exist, such as Judge Bosberg's family being Democrat political activists, and Judge Chris Cooper's wife having represented Lisa Page. The speaker suggests transferring political cases to Maryland or Virginia. The speaker advocates defunding and disbanding the DC federal court system, calling it the "rot" and "tumor" of judicial lawfare. Republicans should stop funding a court system that allegedly tries to destroy President Trump, the MAGA movement, and its supporters.

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.

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.

A senator accuses Democrat colleagues of hypocrisy regarding the rule of law, citing their past support for a "lawless" and "politically weaponized" Department of Justice. They claim Democrats didn't care about violent protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes, alleging the Attorney General agreed with the protesters to intimidate judges. The senator questions a professor about the roles of voters, elected representatives, and judges in elections and policy decisions. The senator asserts that federal courts do not have the power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case and that "nationwide injunction" is not in the constitution. The senator states that there were zero nationwide injunctions in the first 150 years of the republic, 27 in the 20th century, and 32 between 2001 and 2024. They claim 37 nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone against President Trump. The senator accuses Democrats of "lawfare" by indicting Trump and now seeking out radical judges to shut down policies through forum shopping. They allege a judge ignored US immigration law to keep "murderers and rapists and gang members" in communities, and that nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power.

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.

The speaker asks who would correct false information if the FDA is not held accountable by the courts. The other speaker argues that the FDA is politically accountable and will be held accountable through the political process. The first speaker questions how the FDA can be politically accountable if it is not elected and does not adhere to the unitary executive doctrine. The second speaker acknowledges that this is beyond the scope of the case but states that the public can elect government officials who oversee the FDA. The courts should not fact-check the FDA's scientific statements as it is not their role. The first speaker suggests that making a change would require action from the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The second speaker agrees with this statement.

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.

There's a constitutional crisis happening within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts are overstepping their bounds, blocking my executive authority. These aren't honest arbiters; they're judicial activists. In just two weeks, they've issued at least a dozen injunctions against my administration, often without any real basis. This is a coordinated effort by Democrat activists, a continuation of the weaponization of justice against me. These liberal judges need a reality check. 77 million Americans voted for me, and these injunctions are abuses of the law, attempts to subvert the will of the people. We'll comply with the law and the courts, but we'll fight these radical injunctions through every legal avenue to ensure my policies are enacted.

In the last 24 hours, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to bring back an illegal alien from El Salvador, restore funds to schools practicing DEI, restore funds to sanctuary cities, and drop the proof of citizenship mandate for voter registration. One speaker suggests Democrats are using the courts because they lost the presidential election, including the popular vote. They claim Democrats' "last attempt before they go to full on violence is let's try and do it in the courts." They also allege that "swampy Republicans" and "rhinos" are complicit because they benefit from the current system. They believe these individuals want to maintain the status quo and control everything, using judges to obstruct changes. They state that the only democracy under attack is their bureaucracy.

The speaker addresses board rulings concerning fire and provisionary workers, stating the administration will "fight back" against an injunction they believe is unconstitutional. They claim a low-level district court judge cannot usurp the executive authority of the President. The speaker asserts the President has the authority to fire employees, and lower-level judges are attempting to block the President's agenda. They cite a statistic claiming 15 injunctions against the administration occurred in February alone, compared to 14 in three years under the Biden administration, alleging judicial activists are trying to block the President's executive authority. The speaker references President Trump's legal team's fighting back, emphasizing that indictments and injunctions have been unconstitutional and unfair, led by partisan activists attempting to usurp the President's will.

The speaker claims Joe Biden is mentally incompetent and not running the country. They state that a president is elected by the whole American people, unlike judges or members of congress. According to the vesting clause, the executive power is vested in the president. The speaker believes the existential threat to democracy is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime tenured civil servants who defy the will of the American people. They allege these bureaucrats believe they answer to no one and can do whatever they want without consequence, setting their own agenda regardless of how Americans vote. The speaker asserts that President Trump is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which represent the will of the whole American people.

The speaker claims nationwide injunctions against the executive branch are a "judicial coup d'etat" violating the constitution. They cite President Jefferson's response to Federalist judges appointed by John Adams, who abolished their courts via the Judiciary Act of 1802, as a constitutional balance of power. The speaker notes a surge in nationwide injunctions, with 64 of 96 issued between 2001 and 2023 occurring during the current president's time in office, and 92% of those against President Trump issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Since January 20, 2025, there have been 15 nationwide injunctions against the current administration, compared to six under George W. Bush, twelve under Barack Obama, and fourteen under Joe Biden. The speaker presents four propositions: 1) Courts have often been challenged by presidents like Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. 2) The legislative and executive branches can defend their rights, as proven by the Judiciary Act of 1802. 3) The Supreme Court could intervene by immediately taking up any nationwide injunction issued by a district court. 4) Congress and the president can take steps to bring the judiciary back into a constitutional framework through hearings.

Republicans in the House and Senate are working on bills to limit the reach of what they call "rogue judges" who are obstructing President Trump's agenda. Republicans claim these judges are exceeding their powers and issuing nationwide injunctions. They believe these judges' constitutional powers are not superior to the President or Congress. The goal is to send a message to these judges. Democrats are calling this effort bullying, suggesting it's an attempt to influence judges' decisions by threatening action if they don't rule in favor of the GOP.

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.

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.