Deportation, Due Process & What Trump & JD Vance Need to Do About It

(00:00.856)

The rule of law allows for deportations. What the Trump administration needs to do, what the Justice Department needs to do is they need to make sure that they dot their eyes and cross their bloody T’s. Had a great ton, bunch of emails, conversation with people in regards to some of my podcasts lately and the rule of law and the importance of the rule of law.

And I’m not a fan. I’m not a fan when we have politicians ripping into judges, ripping into judges. I don’t like it when Chuck Schumer does it. I don’t like it when JD Vance does it. I don’t like it when Elizabeth Warren does it. I don’t like it when Joe Biden does it. We have rules for a reason. I’m going to share with you an email that I got from one of my listeners. It’s in regards to deportations and the various different

courts around the country and the rulings basically saying that my podcast sounded fine if everything was in a safe venue and he explains that his daughter single runs hikes in Colorado and a few weeks ago ICE came in rated a bar that was run by illegal immigrant gang members resting about a hundred and they were going to deport them now

Again, he was talking about he loves the Constitution, but his daughter’s safety comes first and feels much better that some thug is not going to be able to grab her on the street. it says, you know, I basically appeals to fact that I have a daughter too, feel the exact same way. And then if some federal judge from Seattle or Portland desires to keep these thugs around, takes issue with that and saying that local judges should not be deciding nationwide policy. Listen, they just have to do it the right

way. I spoke with people about this, did some homework on it. All you need to do, all you need to do quite frankly, and you don’t even have to go this far, this is what I would do. The same way that the left uses obscure courts and comfortable jurisdictions, get yourself a judge. Think about like the judge from My Cousin Vinny. Remember Judge Chamberlain from My Cousin Vinny?

(02:25.642)

Somebody like him that allows, it’s by law, you can expedite removal. Okay, and it’s a process that allows the government to quickly deport individuals, particularly those who entered the country without proper authorization or have been in the country for less than two years.

This process is different from a standard removal proceedings where an individual typically appears before an immigration judge. It can actually be done in front of an immigration officer. Like I said, I would take it one further. I would get a judge, issue a removal order without a formal hearing. And again, you can take a look, you can even go. You can even go to immigration attorney sites, which I did. And if you are a criminal, yeah.

You’re up for expedited removal. So you bring them in, you line them up, you’re out, you’re out, you’re out, you’re out, you’re out. It’s a process, yeah, but do it. Do it the right way because again, through an expedited process like this, they cannot come back into the country for another five years. Kimberly Strassel had a really good piece.

today. Basically, again, talking kind of sound like I did over the past couple of weeks, and she makes some great points. She takes a shot at JD Vance said if the British coined the term too clever by half, Vice President JD Vance might own the political update of too smart by 99%. And he’s saying that Donald Trump, you know, might want to ask his VEEP to just stop helping. Okay. Donald Trump.

Right now, okay? We have a conservative court. Probably one of his greatest legacies was putting the people on this. We have a conservative court at this point in time. Why are you going after them? Anyway, okay, we talked about this. Vance offered his take on the role of Chief Justice John Roberts. Profoundly wrong sentiment.

(04:42.348)

that the judiciary exists to check the excesses of the executive. Now, the vice president said that’s only one half of the job. The other half was to stop a small but substantial number of courts from telling the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for.

Again, we voted for immigration enforcement. I get that. Okay, but because we voted for immigration enforcement, does it mean we can circumnavigate the law? Or you can come up with anything else, okay? If the people in this country voted to round up,

Italian Polish people like myself and put us into some sort of internment camps. The American people voted for it. We don’t like that Italian Polish mix anymore. That’s what the American people voted for. Guess what? They can’t do it.

They can’t do it. That’s our system. Okay? And that’s the way things have to be. She writes, says, students of law, she’s kind of being snarky here, or of well, grade school, no doubt quickly picked up on the first problem. The foundation of the US system is the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances. Congress has the purse. The executive has the sword.

the judiciary’s power is to settle all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and other laws. Far from being profoundly wrong, Chief Justice Robert’s sentiment was profoundly basic. To have a court that jumps to the will of a president or a changeable voting majority is to have, gee, I don’t know, Venezuela. Mr. Vance went to Yale Law School.

(06:51.063)

I would be ticked off if the Supreme Court voted for Joe Biden’s allowed him for his student loan forgiveness. Hey, he won, didn’t he? Supposedly. He won. Well, the court, that’s what people voted for. Well, the court should just do what Joe Biden wants to do. Wrong! You can’t do that. Students of logic will find in the

Veep’s comments an impressive array of logical fallacies from the straw man to the false dilemma. Chief Roberts didn’t, as Mr. Vance suggests, claim checking was its main role or single out the president. The chief uncontroversially noted that the role of the court was to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive. Nor did he suggest lower courts were immune.

from checks. He probably didn’t feel it necessary, given that every opinion the high court issues is a review of something a lower court did. A significant number of its recent decisions have rushed back, activist judges allowing the administration to proceed, among other things in removing independent agency heads, freezing grant money, and ending the temporary protected status program for Venezuelans. As for immigration, the court has continued to give the president

the usual wide latitude with the basic requirement of due process. Which brings us to students of politics who will recognize these comments as political malpractice. The most enduring legacy of the first Trump term was the cementing of conservative Supreme Court majority that continues to thoughtfully transform the legal landscape. Religious freedom, the end of Roe versus Wade, the major questions doctrine, the end of the Chevron deference,

(08:49.356)

reigning in the bureaucracy, second amendment rights, presidential immunity. Again, Trump’s legacy for a second term is going to obviously deal with this same court. Let them do their job. Let them do their job. You’re not going to agree with every decision that they’re going to make, but man, man, you’re in a pretty darn good position at this point in time. Watchdog on wallstreet.com.