WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.919
Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we're digging

00:00:02.919 --> 00:00:06.019
into something really fascinating in recent politics.

00:00:06.540 --> 00:00:10.419
It's this surprising trend where judicial appointees,

00:00:10.859 --> 00:00:12.759
specifically those appointed by Donald Trump,

00:00:13.099 --> 00:00:15.500
end up ruling against his administration's actions.

00:00:15.839 --> 00:00:18.140
Right. It kind of cuts against the grain, doesn't

00:00:18.140 --> 00:00:20.500
it? Because the underlying assumption, certainly

00:00:20.500 --> 00:00:23.160
from the executive side, often seems to be that

00:00:23.160 --> 00:00:25.710
you appoint judges who will Well, see things

00:00:25.710 --> 00:00:28.269
your way. Exactly. And the sources we're looking

00:00:28.269 --> 00:00:30.530
at suggest the former president himself expected

00:00:30.530 --> 00:00:33.070
his judges would, quote, rule for him when he

00:00:33.070 --> 00:00:37.460
is sued. The reality. The scorecard, as our sources

00:00:37.460 --> 00:00:39.820
put it, shows quite a few significant losses

00:00:39.820 --> 00:00:42.179
for his administration delivered by those very

00:00:42.179 --> 00:00:44.140
judges. OK, so let's jump right into those rulings.

00:00:44.219 --> 00:00:46.520
What patterns do we actually see here? Let's

00:00:46.520 --> 00:00:49.000
start with maybe the clash between executive

00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:51.280
power and constitutional limits. Good place to

00:00:51.280 --> 00:00:53.619
start. You had Judge Corinna Marget in Oregon.

00:00:53.840 --> 00:00:55.880
She ruled against using the National Guard in

00:00:55.880 --> 00:00:58.179
a way that bordered on martial law. Her quote

00:00:58.179 --> 00:01:00.399
was really powerful. What does she say? She wrote,

00:01:00.679 --> 00:01:03.119
This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial

00:01:03.119 --> 00:01:07.200
law. Pretty direct. Wow. Yeah, that sets a tone.

00:01:07.519 --> 00:01:10.620
It suggests the oath matters more than who appointed

00:01:10.620 --> 00:01:13.079
you. It seems that way. And this wasn't, you

00:01:13.079 --> 00:01:15.239
know, an isolated incident. We saw it pop up

00:01:15.239 --> 00:01:17.739
again and again, even with obscure old laws.

00:01:18.099 --> 00:01:20.640
So it wasn't just about national security situations.

00:01:21.060 --> 00:01:24.719
What about core legal principles like due process?

00:01:24.760 --> 00:01:26.920
Did that come up? Oh, definitely. Especially

00:01:26.920 --> 00:01:28.659
around immigration. That seemed to be a real

00:01:28.659 --> 00:01:31.219
flash point. So we'll take Judge Fernando Rodriguez,

00:01:31.340 --> 00:01:33.659
Jr. he looked at the administration trying to

00:01:33.659 --> 00:01:36.819
use the Alien Enemies Act. Isn't that like really

00:01:36.819 --> 00:01:39.879
old from wartime? Exactly, a very old statute.

00:01:40.439 --> 00:01:42.840
He ruled using it to deport Venezuelan nationals

00:01:42.840 --> 00:01:46.340
in peacetime was simply unlawful. And then you

00:01:46.340 --> 00:01:48.939
had Judge John Holcomb affirming that Well, even

00:01:48.939 --> 00:01:50.939
people facing deportation still have rights.

00:01:51.219 --> 00:01:53.340
They're entitled to due process, a proper hearing.

00:01:53.459 --> 00:01:55.379
So you can't just bypass the system. That's what

00:01:55.379 --> 00:01:57.519
the judges were saying. And speaking of hearings,

00:01:57.859 --> 00:01:59.799
immigrant detention was another big area. Right.

00:01:59.939 --> 00:02:01.980
The administration wanted to expand detention

00:02:01.980 --> 00:02:04.680
without immigrants getting a hearing before a

00:02:04.680 --> 00:02:09.099
judge first, correct? Precisely. And three different

00:02:09.099 --> 00:02:11.780
Trump appointees pushed back. Judges Dominic

00:02:11.780 --> 00:02:15.349
Lanza, Rebecca Jennings, and Kyle Dudek. All

00:02:15.349 --> 00:02:17.830
of them essentially said, no, you can't just

00:02:17.830 --> 00:02:20.229
expand attention like that unilaterally. People

00:02:20.229 --> 00:02:22.930
need that hearing before a judge. It's fundamental.

00:02:23.550 --> 00:02:26.409
So a consistent theme of judicial process, taking

00:02:26.409 --> 00:02:29.389
precedence. Yes. And it wasn't just the rulings

00:02:29.389 --> 00:02:33.270
themselves. Things got a bit tense institutionally.

00:02:33.409 --> 00:02:35.979
How do you mean? Well, the judges started feeling

00:02:35.979 --> 00:02:38.599
the political heat, and some began to push back

00:02:38.599 --> 00:02:40.620
publicly. They weren't just ruling, they were

00:02:40.620 --> 00:02:42.819
defending the judiciary itself. Okay, that's

00:02:42.819 --> 00:02:44.539
interesting. Like, who? We have a quote here

00:02:44.539 --> 00:02:46.979
from U .S. District Judge Thomas Collin of Maryland.

00:02:47.379 --> 00:02:50.280
He called out what he saw as a, quote, concerted

00:02:50.280 --> 00:02:53.740
effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual

00:02:53.740 --> 00:02:56.439
judges. So judges felt they were being attacked

00:02:56.439 --> 00:02:58.759
for just doing their jobs. That's certainly the

00:02:58.759 --> 00:03:01.719
implication. He called it unprecedented and unfortunate.

00:03:02.009 --> 00:03:04.289
it signals a real strain between the branches.

00:03:04.870 --> 00:03:06.889
And were there other examples of judges kind

00:03:06.889 --> 00:03:09.629
of reinforcing their independence? Yeah, a couple

00:03:09.629 --> 00:03:12.409
more standouts. Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled

00:03:12.409 --> 00:03:15.689
that a pardon related to January 6th couldn't

00:03:15.689 --> 00:03:18.469
be used to shield someone from prosecution for

00:03:18.469 --> 00:03:21.590
totally unrelated crimes. OK. And Judge Mary

00:03:21.590 --> 00:03:24.389
McElroy blocked the administration from pulling

00:03:24.389 --> 00:03:28.689
about what was it, $233 million in FEMA disaster

00:03:28.689 --> 00:03:31.509
grants away from blue states. Basically saying

00:03:31.509 --> 00:03:34.650
you can't use disaster aid as a political weapon.

00:03:34.930 --> 00:03:37.710
Pretty much. So faced with all these rulings

00:03:37.710 --> 00:03:39.969
from his own picks, how did the former president

00:03:39.969 --> 00:03:42.770
react? Did he reconsider his criteria? Well,

00:03:42.969 --> 00:03:45.389
not according to these sources. Instead of acknowledging

00:03:45.389 --> 00:03:48.430
maybe a misjudgment in the selections, the blame

00:03:48.430 --> 00:03:51.590
got shifted. Shifted where? Reportedly, he blamed

00:03:51.590 --> 00:03:54.150
the Heritage Foundation. Said they gave him bad

00:03:54.150 --> 00:03:57.449
advice on who to appoint. Blaming the very conservative

00:03:57.449 --> 00:03:59.849
group that helped vet so many nominees. Right.

00:03:59.849 --> 00:04:02.009
It points to maybe some internal friction within

00:04:02.009 --> 00:04:04.189
the conservative legal world about, you know,

00:04:04.229 --> 00:04:05.750
what they're actually looking for in a judge.

00:04:06.229 --> 00:04:09.430
Absolutely. So if we boil it all down, what's

00:04:09.430 --> 00:04:11.370
the main takeaway from looking at these sources?

00:04:11.830 --> 00:04:14.389
I think it's pretty clear. These judges, once

00:04:14.389 --> 00:04:16.550
they got on the bench, seemed to put the law

00:04:16.550 --> 00:04:19.889
and the Constitution first. Loyalty to the person

00:04:19.889 --> 00:04:22.310
who appointed them? Well, that seems secondary.

00:04:22.470 --> 00:04:24.370
Which leaves us with a big question for you,

00:04:24.410 --> 00:04:26.750
the listener, to think about. Is this pattern

00:04:26.750 --> 00:04:29.189
we've discussed just about this particular group

00:04:29.189 --> 00:04:32.089
of judges appointed under specific circumstances?

00:04:32.310 --> 00:04:34.290
Or does it maybe tell us something more fundamental?

00:04:34.769 --> 00:04:36.829
That maybe the judicial branch, once someone

00:04:36.829 --> 00:04:39.589
takes that oath, inherently answers to the law

00:04:39.589 --> 00:04:42.560
itself, not the politics of the moment. Something

00:04:42.560 --> 00:04:45.220
to consider the sheer institutional strength

00:04:45.220 --> 00:04:47.500
needed for the courts to push back like that.

00:04:47.819 --> 00:04:49.519
Definitely something to mull over. That's our

00:04:49.519 --> 00:04:50.480
deep dive for today.