Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Miceli
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply. This episode is brought to you by Factor Optimize your nutrition this year with.
- [00:34]
Michael Popak
Factor America's number one ready to eat meal service.
- [00:37]
Ben Miceli
Factor's Fresh Never Frozen meals are dietitian approved. Ready to eat in just two minutes.
- [00:42]
Michael Popak
Choose from 40 weekly options across eight.
- [00:44]
Ben Miceli
Dietary preferences like calorie smart, protein plus and keto. Eat smarter at FactorMeals.com listen50 and use code listen50 for 50% off plus free shipping on your first box. FactorMeals.com listen50 code listen50 teas and seasons.
- [01:00]
Michael Popak
Apply what makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life.
- [01:20]
Justice Kagan
To find your next pair of glasses.
- [01:22]
Michael Popak
Sunglasses or contact lenses or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warby parker.com that's warby parker.com.
- [01:32]
Ben Miceli
The United States Supreme Court issued its biggest ruling yet against the Trump regime's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. What process is going to be required? Is the Alien Enemies act constitutional or unconstitutional? What did the Supreme Court actually address? What goes on next? We will address it all here on legal af but a big 7 to 2 loss by the Trump regime in a case involving the Alien Enemies Act. I also want to talk about an oral argument that took place in front of the United States Supreme Court this week as well on the issue of birthright citizenship, but more specifically on the procedural issue regarding can there be a nationwide injunction blocking Donald Trump's attempt via an executive order to get rid of the constitutional right to birthright citizenship framed the way I just framed it, which is accurately, it's a pretty shocking case that it even got to the Supreme Court, which a number of justices basically looked at the Trump regime and said, look, y' all keep on losing all of the time in federal courts across the country. Is your whole plan to try to stop nationwide injections just because you are losers and you know that you keep on losing and the nationwide injunctions allow you to be prevented from doing what you're doing. And without nationwide injunctions, you'll basically try to have all of your loser policies and dangerous policies across the country. We'll talk about that as well. Also, you've got Donald Trump freaking out about the Supreme Court ruling. You've got Donald Trump welcoming the Afrikaans, Afrikaans honors from South Africa. We'll talk about, talk about that. While also sending other migrants here in the United States out without due process. Talk about the Trump regime claiming that the former FBI director who took a photo of seashells, that they view that as a threat to a death threat to Donald Trump. And they're now investigating James Comey. We'll talk about the MAGA Republicans threatening to arrest Democratic Congress members. We'll talk about the America's credit rating getting downgraded by Moody's and more. Let's bring in Michael Popak. Great to have you there, Popak. I spent a long week in New York City and a lot, a lot going on.
- [04:06]
Michael Popak
Yeah, listen, I gave you a virtual hug before this started. So proud to be a part of the Midas Touch Network. To be a part shoulder to shoulder with your brothers. I'll say it, because you won't. Well, you have, but Webby's first ever podcast. Podcast, podcast of the year for the Midas brothers podcast. And then separately YouTube got around to, hey, we got a lot of podcasts. A billion people a day listen or watch podcasts on YouTube. We should rank and rate them. And we placed three in the top 100 in the first weekly ranking. You, Midas touch at number five, legal AF at number 64. And a little thing called the Popoc intersection, which is basically my hot takes on Legal AF, the YouTube channel at number 90. Beating out smart list is not there. Who's your daddy is not there. But we have three for the Midas Touch network there. That's a compliment to our audience, as we've always joked, or only half joked. It would just be like me and Ben once a week having a chat over a bagel, you know, virtual bagel about politics. If it wasn't for our dedicated and loyal audience that vibrates on the same frequency that we do and that has joined together with us in this fellowship of resistance. We are a channel of action. And that's what I hope people take away from a show like ours today. They get the information they need in talking truth to each other in order to go into the streets and put it into action.
- [05:28]
Ben Miceli
Let's talk about the Supreme Court ruling. Let's just get into it right away. Michael Parker. So the Supreme Court ruling was a 7 to 2 decision. The Trump regime lost. This case involves the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Although the Supreme Court ruling did not get to the merits right of whether the Alien Enemies act was properly invoked or improperly invoked, the Supreme Court said, we'll save that for a later time. For now, what they were addressing is whether or not an injunction that's already been in place that the Supreme Court had to issue on an emergency basis preventing the next group of victims who were at this Blue Bonnet detention center in Texas and they're set to be shipped off to the concentration camp in El Salvador. Whether they can be shipped off or not shipped off and what process is going to be due to these individuals. And just to remind everybody, there was that first group of migrant victims, 75, 80% without a criminal history, who were sent to the concentration camp in El Salvador. When the Trump regime defied an order by Judge Boasberg in Washington D.C. blocking that from happening, the Trump regime said, oopsies, too late, nothing we can do about it. And then when the Supreme Court said, can you return, you know, what are you doing here? At least as relates to Abrego Garcia, you know, can you facilitate, you know, his return? The response by the Trump regime is, nope, not in our jurisdiction. We can't do anything about it. Go ask naive Bukele, the authoritarian leader of El Salvador. So that happened with the first group of migrants. This is a second group of migrants. The Trump regime wanted to do it again. The lawyers for the migrants who are being temporarily housed in this horrible detention center where there's like very little access to the outside world. You may have seen that drone footage of the, of a Reuters drone over this Blue Bonnet detention center in Texas. Like the, the migrants formed an SOS with their bodies like, like a distress signal to this, to this drone. But anyway, they had lawyers who basically said, hey, they're about to get sent to this concentration camp as well in El Salvador. So they filed before a judge in Texas and the federal judge in Texas basically took. And the Supreme Court goes through the history. It was like over 24 hours doing nothing. And then because the judge didn't do anything at all, then the lawyers were like, well, that you're basically denying our ability to help our clients. They went to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees the Texas federal courts, and said, hey, the federal court hasn't ruled the 5th Circuit, which is made up of right wing Justices, almost exclusively right wing justices and Trump appointees said nothing that we can do. We don't have jurisdiction because the district court has not made its ruling yet. So you can't appeal it unless the district court rules. So procedurally, there's nothing we can do. And then the lawyers for these migrants went to the Supreme Court, asked for an emergency stay or emergency injunction to block these migrants from being sent to El Salvador. That was a few weeks back. And the Supreme Court stepped in and said, let's pause the status quo. We're ordering the Trump regime not to send these migrants to El Salvador pending further proceedings. Send us briefing, let us know what's going on. A few weeks passed. Pop, let me turn it over to you now, because now the Supreme Court, a few weeks after ordering that these migrants not be sent to El Salvador, they then, they then finally made their ruling. 7 to 2. Tell us about the ruling.
- [09:32]
Michael Popak
Yeah. And this. So let me do the quick takeaway since you did a good kind of initial dive in there. No one until the United States Supreme Court gets around after the 5th Circuit does their job, which they failed to do the first time around and were admonished by the Supreme Court in this ruling, until the Fifth Circuit is done with its appellate briefing, until the case comes back up to the United States Supreme Court through the normal ordinary channel and probably hits the court sometime in the, in the new term starting in October, no one gets deported outside of the United States in the federal court's jurisdiction, any federal court's jurisdiction, until the United States Supreme Court says so. So even though they did not rule on the substance of the Alien Enemies act and bent over backwards to tell everybody we're not ruling on the substance. And that is true. But from now until the next five or six months, whatever it is, you and I are not going to have to make a report, at least under the Alien Enemies act, that a person has been removed, deported, expelled, whatever you want to call it, to a foreign prison outside of the federal jurisdiction of a judge. We may do reporting and I've just done hot takes and so have you about the use of other policies, whether it be immigration law or under other tools in Donald Trump's tool bags to deport people, they just did another illegal deportation under their third party deportation plan, which is we want to get rid of the person but his home country won't take them. What do we do? We'll send them to a third country that will take them. There's got some, there's some problems with due process related to that as well. But we will, at least for now, based on this ruling, will not have to talk about Alien Enemy act, illegal deportation in violation of due process to a foreign country, however or not even. However, that was a bad segue. This is exactly identical to the 7 to 2 decision and lineup that you and I talked about four weeks ago with that 1am decision. This is the same case. This is a case we call AA rp not that one brought by the ACLU in Texas. And to remind everybody how we got here, that ruling a month ago was sort of a temporary ruling. Ground the planes, you know, wheels down, don't send anybody until we make a decision about process. What, what I my take away from this, and we'll read from some pages of it of the decision, Ben, is that the Supreme Court felt put upon, felt at least seven of them felt like they were being dragged into something and being dragged down from on high to do something that they didn't really want to do because the district court judge in Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans fell down on the job. And basically, how dare you. They've said the 5th Circuit should have entered the injunction instead of making us do it at one o' clock in the morning and wasting our capital. You see it throughout the pages of the complaint. It's an admonishment of the fifth Circuit. They're chastising the district court judge who said, well, I sort of, I don't know why I do accents every time. I sort of believe the Trump administration when they tell me they're not going to be sending people to Venezuela or to El Salvador while I'm trying to make a decision. And the ACLU is like, I'm sorry, that's your order. Forget you. We're going to the fifth Circuit. Fifth Circuit, you've got the planes are being fueled, the seats are in the upright and locked position. Our people are being sent away from your jurisdiction. Do something. Well, we don't think we have jurisdiction. You didn't give the trial court judge enough time. Chicken and egg. Egg and chicken. Screw you. We're going to the Supreme Court. And they finally get the Supreme Court four weeks ago to issue that order. Now here's what the concurrence and the split was. Alito and Tom is far to the right. They're always huffing and puffing and clutching their pearls over jurisdiction. Oh my. We don't care about human beings being sent to gulags. We just care about procedure and jurisdiction. We don't have jurisdiction to do anything. They don't. Let me just translate that. Alito and Thomas in the far right don't care if people are sent in the interim away from federal jurisdiction into dark gulags. They don't care about those people. They're just, they're not human beings to them. Whereas the seven of the majority, including Roberts and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, said, wait a minute. We don't want to be stampeded by the Trump administration anymore. We don't want to be forced to make a fast decision. We're going to go back on our timetable, stop deporting. We will get around to deciding whether you have the right under the Alien Enemies act to do what you're doing. In the meantime, you are not to do it any longer. And when we're done and if we grant the appeal, which they're going to grant the, grant the appeal on the writ, we'll get back to you and let you know if you have the powers under the Alien Enemies act that you claim. Now, Kavanaugh, some people interpreted Kavanaugh as, oh, he, he, he wants to help the undocumented. No, his concurrence was, I would have went further. I wouldn't have sent this case back to the 5th Circuit to fix their problem and do the, to do a proper appeal. I would have taken the case right now to the United States Supreme Court. I would make the ruling right now on full briefing and an oral argument. We should do it now. He's not all hot and bothered to do it now because he wants to rule in favor of the migrants. He's all hot and bothered right now because he, along with three others on the court, at least want to give Donald Trump the powers under the Alien Enemies act, similar to what a judge in Pennsylvania just did. Where they're going to say, well, I talk about catch 22. He declared foreign terrorist organization, therefore he can use his war powers and therefore we can't do anything about it. That is where we are headed for the next term. It's just that he couldn't get other voters to vote with him from the court to do it now because I'll leave it on this, Ben. The supreme court, despite the 13 emergency applications, does not like to move that rapidly. They are a deliberative body. They are a body that likes to percolate and marinate. They want briefing, they want oral argument. They want a full record. And if that means till next term, then that will happen. But they did enjoin and they did issue the injunction. And they did it for a unique reason, not necessarily because they think the undocumented, the Venezuelans are going to win. It's not because they think their likelihood of prevailing. It is to preserve and protect their jurisdiction as a federal court to make the ultimate decision knowing. And they cite to Donald Trump's Abrego case saying, look, we've seen the position you've taken. They didn't quote the graffiti New York Times headline against Senator Van Hollen. Yeah, and yeah, you're never going to get him back. But they said you're taking the position that once the person is in El Salvador, you can't get him back and we can't have that. So they were diplomatic in how they criticize the Trump administration, but criticized the Trump administration nonetheless. Fifth Circuit definitely got its ass handed to them, as did the district court judge.
- [16:39]
Ben Miceli
So this case before the Supreme Court does not rule one way or another about whether the invocation of the Alien Enemies act by Donald Trump in the first instance is valid. The Supreme Court is going to eventually rule on that issue, whether it's this case or other cases work its way up to this Supreme Court overwhelmingly, but not unanimously. Overwhelmingly. We've seen courts, both Trump appointees and non Trump appointees ruling on this issue have actually been finding that Trump did not have the right to invoke the Alien Enemies act because the trend Aragua is not actually a country. Even if you accept, you know that, you know that, that, you know that, that there's a massive threat that's taking place, there's not an incursion by a country trying to take over territory like a war, which is an Alien Enemies act with the Alien Enemies act was created in the late 18th century to, to empower wartime presidents to do these expulsions of individuals who could be literally soldiers of a foreign country invading. Now, there was over this past week, one Trump appointed judge in Pennsylvania who found that the Alien Enemies act invocation was a, was valid. This has been the only judge who has found so far, a federal judge, that it is valid. It's a judge by the name of Stephanie Haynes from Pennsylvania, Trump appointee. And in making this ruling, however, though she said yes, Alien Enemies act could be invoked, but then you have to give at least 21 days of process for the migrants to file a lawsuit. Even if you accept that the Alien Enemies act was properly invoked, 21 days to file habeas corpus petitions and then have full proceedings to adjudicate their rights. Not one day, not two days, not five days, a 21 day process. So the issue about Alien Enemies act, was it properly invoked? And if it was properly invoked, then what is the process that's really not decided by the Supreme Court? What they definitively said, Michael Popak, in their ruling in the 7 to 2 decision, is that the current process that the government wants is bad. It's unconstitutional. The current process, which, if you take the government's own words, it's like 24 hours, one day, the process that was given to these migrants at Blue Bonnet Detention, that is invalid. And the Supreme Court says we'll definitively say that. So. And we're going to issue this broader injunction that basically, until this case gets back to us on a full briefing, you're not sending really this group or any other group of migrants to El Salvador without us figuring out the contours of should Alien Enemies act have been invoked? If no, then this is all invalid. If yes, then what process is going to be owed? We're going to issue an injunction that freezes the status quo for now. But they say in their order, and let me just read from their order for anybody arguing, right, for any of the Trumpers who argue there's no due process, you don't give due process. I think the Supreme Court made it very clear there is due process. They said the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect against the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty or property. We have long said that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity at some point to be heard. Due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all of these circumstances as well. So they're leaving no doubt to this question, which there was never doubt to begin with for all of these people that you may see on, like corporate news, like trying to have debates, right? Do migrants get due process? They don't get due process. They're migrants. This Supreme Court saying they get due process. The Supreme Court, though, here is saying we are not yet going to decide as the Supreme Court what that process looks like. They're saying we're going to now remand, send this case back to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and let them figure it out should the Alien Enemies act have been invoked, what's the process? And then bring the case back to us. In the meantime, you can't remove any more of these migrants to concentration camps in El Salvador. So that was the ruling. Justice Kavanaugh, to your point, Michael Popak said, why are we doing this? Why do you want to go back to the 5th Circuit, go back to the Supreme Court? I disagree slightly with your analysis, Popak, that I don't think Kavanaugh is saying that I'm definitively going to rule against.
- [22:03]
Michael Popak
It's my prediction.
- [22:04]
Ben Miceli
What do you say?
- [22:05]
Michael Popak
It's my prediction that once he gets the case, he's going to side with Trump.
- [22:09]
Ben Miceli
But then siding with Trump, though, has a caveat, though. Does it look like Judge Haynes or who then has a 21 day or 30? Yes, you could invoke it, but then you have to have this type of process. Or does it look more like Judge Gonzalez, a Trump appointee of Texas who said the Alien Enemies act was not properly invoked, or the judge in Colorado?
- [22:34]
Michael Popak
No, no, I think he's, I think he's going to side with, with Haynes. Look, look, there, there are four losses for Donald Trump on immigration and deportation. You can, you can call one of them a win, but there are four losses and he's on an epic losing streak. Right. We've talked about them at length. You've got, you've got the JGG case with Bozberg. Okay. You've got this. You got the Brago Garcia case with Zinnis. You've got the AARP case twice. So the takeaway is, as you, as you and I have just distilled it is what is the new law? The new teaching of the new law, you have to have writ of habeas corpus type notice and due process before you can remove under the Alien Enemies act or really anything else. And they haven't decided whether that can be done by class action certification or that can be done just individually with petitions. But in all of those, the Alien Enemies act can be addressed, addressed by the federal courts under this new teaching. Of the four losing cases for Donald Trump, the only win Donald Trump has gotten is when they mention, well, national security interest. We have to be, you know, careful about that when we're interpreting due process under the Constitution. Fine. But it does suggest, and reinforced here, as you, as you noted by the Supreme Court, it reinforces that there are due process and notice rights. And one day is not enough and two days is not enough. Look, look, you're in prison. Let's just put, put a fine point on this. You're in detention unless you're like you and me, like you and I have phone numbers for lawyers in our contact book, and I've had that for 35 years. I can get a lawyer on the phone in about 10 seconds, and so can you. The Average person, and especially one who's been put in detention does, probably does not have a lawyer relationship or one that they can easily contact. We got to give time for the lawyers to find the clients and the clients to find the lawyers and things be done in their right language and get for a federal judge. And it takes a minute. I mean, Donald Trump's crying about it. Oh, they won't let me get rid of criminals and they're releasing them into the streets. That's another lie. All of these people, whether they're named Abrego Garcia or any of these people, are going to remain in detention under US Jurisdiction until a federal judge says otherwise. They're not going home with their families. They're not hitting the streets for more crimes if that's what they really are charged with. They are staying in detention. This is all about which side of the ocean are we going to keep our detainees in our system, or are we going to delegate them in violation probably of the 8th amendment to a foreign country to take care of it without due process? And the Supreme Court has said, I don't know how many times the Supreme Court can tell this administration, you must give due process and you can't squirrel away, ferry away people to avoid federal jurisdiction.
- [25:22]
Ben Miceli
You know, it's a really great argument that you make, too, because we see a lot of these cases being brought as Fifth Amendment due process questions. It could be because I haven't seen the argument, or maybe it's there and I just, I haven't read it or haven't focused on it enough. But there is, under the Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment. And I do, and I do wonder if there, if a third level of analysis should then be addressed as this last tier. Assuming that you say you have a process, deportation is the outcome, should that outcome basically be tantamount to death? Right. I mean, sending somebody who should be deported to a concentration camp in El Salvador is very different than sending somebody back to their home country, even if they're an asylum seeker and posing the threats and harm that could be caused by sending them back to a regime that they were fleeing and sending them to an El Salvador concentration camp in a country that they're not from. Certainly, to me, is cruel and unusual punishment. And this is at the same time that Trump has invited into the United States. You know, like El Chapo's family. Trump cut a deal with Chapo's family this past week. I know it's not getting a lot of attention, but Chapo's kid is under indictment in the United States as well, was extradited from the Biden administration. And then over the, over the last week, there were like 17 members of Chapo's family were just seen crossing the border in Tijuana. No coordination with Mexico. And as part of some deal, and no one really knows what's going on, but as part of some deal with the Chapos who are in prison, Guzman, El Chapo's son, I think it's Octavio Guzman, cooperating with the government. They're letting Chapo's family and so the family members of cartel members or the some of the worst, they're being welcomed in. While we're sending individuals who have no criminal history to concentration camps in El Salvador. I just want you to think about that. Let's take our first quick break of the show. When we come back, I want to talk about the oral argument that took place this week before this big week in the Supreme Court under the birthright citizenship case. So let's take our first quick break of the show. We'll be right back after this quick. Oh, reminder, check out Michael Popox YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel, wherever. Just make sure you search Legal AF on YouTube. And then also Michael Popo's got the Legal AF sub stack as well. Check out the Legal AF sub stack. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show.
- [28:10]
Michael Popak
Are you sick of drinking your calories or waking up with a hangover? Having some drinks? It can be fun, but I'm glad I found an alternative that lets me feel great in the moment and the next morning when I got to go to the podcast studio or to a meeting with my team. Out of Office Gummies from Sol. Sol is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. They specialize in delicious hemp derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. I've been using their out of office gummies lately and I love the mellow social buzz. I don't miss the hangovers, the bloating or skipping workouts the next day. The gummies come in four different strengths so you can find the perfect dose for your vibe. Whether you want just a light lift or a full on escape. And with wellness in mind. All of Sol's products are made from organically farmed US Grown hemp and are vegan, gluten free and low in sugar. Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Sol today. Right now, Sol is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. Go to getsoul.com and use the code legal AF that's getsoul.com promo code legal AF for 30% off. In this crazy upside down world that we're working to make sense of, I have no better judge of character than my lab border collie Lily. And having given her her forever home, we take pride in making sure that we feed her healthy fresh dog food while making sure we don't break our back or the bank doing so. And my family is thrilled to have found sundaes for Lily, having tried other freezer box brands and we noticed the improved health of our dog almost right away. First, she loves the flavor and we love what it's done to her coat, eyes and breath. And with her weight management, so much easier to manage her weight with a scoop of sundaes than any other product we tried. And this product is super easy for us to store and serve. It doesn't require refrigeration or the delivery of dozens of pounds of ice packs. Sundaes is fresh dog food made from a short list of human grade Ingredients. Sundaes contains 100% all natural meat and superfoods and 0% synthetic nutrients or artificial ingredients. Dog parents report noticeable health improvements in their pups including softer, prefer fresher breath, better poops and more energy after switching to sundaes. Unlike other fresh dog foods, Sundays does not require refrigeration or preparation because of their air drying process. Just pour and serve. Cancel or pause your subscription anytime. With their 14 day money back guarantee, every order ships right to your door so you'll never worry about running out of dog food again. Did I mention how easy and convenient it is to store the bags and insert Big wife smile here. Get 40% off your first order of Sundays. Go to sundaysfordogs.com legal AF or use code legal AF at checkout.
- [31:05]
Ben Miceli
Welcome back to Legal AF, joined by Michael Popak. Popak A big week in the Supreme Court. There were also oral arguments in the case Trump vs. New Jersey, a consolidated group of cases where, via an executive order, which is not a law, Donald Trump tried to overrule the constitutional right of birthright citizenship because he doesn't like it. There have been numerous nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's executive order implementation to remove birthright citizenship and I guess thereby remove people in the United States who became citizens because they were born here, who would no longer be viewed as citizens. I just want you to think about a dangerous proposition that that where the logical extension of this goes to what Trump wants to do. You were born here, you've been a citizen. He's going to, what, revoke your citizenship and send you to concentration camps in El Salvador. So there were numerous nationwide injunctions in federal courts across the country. And the way the Trump regime brought this to the Supreme Court was procedurally saying that the idea of nationwide injunctions is invalid. Despite the fact that all of the Trumpers relied on nationwide injunctions to derail former President Biden's agendas on issues where Biden was like, helping people gain access to health care and helping forgive student loan debt, the Trumpers would all run to this judge in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Kazumeric. This Trumper judge, he would issue nationwide injunctions, and it would block anything that Biden was doing, one after one. But now this is how the MAGA Republicans handle things that we hate nationwide injunctions now because we keep on losing, not just from Biden appointed judges, but a lot from Trump appointed judges and George Bush judges and Reagan judges and Obama and Clinton judges, but because all the things that Trump's doing illegally. So Trump tries to challenge this idea. First, these in the nationwide injunction was invalid because I want you to think about the nefarious way that what Trump's trying to do here, because if you could get rid of the nationwide injunction, even if a specific federal court still holds that, say, birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, which it is, and that Trump's executive order is unlawful, that federal judge could only, what, enforce it within their district. So if it was a district court in the central district of California, it would just be like in the Los Angeles region. And how would you even, how could you even possibly, Just as an enforcement mechanism, just as a practicality, do it. So what the Trump regime wants to do here is if you can get rid of the concept of nationwide injunctions generally, then even though Trump loses, you're going to have to force cases across in every single district in the country, in every single one. If you want to block Trump's unlawful behavior. In the meantime, Trump will implement all of his unlawful behavior. That's why procedurally, they didn't go after the issue of birthright citizenship because they knew they would lose that, but they want to go after the issue of nationwide injunctions, because if you get rid of nationwide injunctions, then you could do all of your unlawful activity. And really, the judges have no enforcement mechanism outside of a specific district where the case is taking place. So, Popak, let me just show you some of the highlights of what went down and then get your take on it. So first you had Amy Coney Barrett Trump appointee. And he or she is asking Trump's law the solicitor general, Trump's former personal lawyer, John Sauer, who's now the solicitor general, which is the top job at the Justice Department that argues in front of the Supreme Court. She's saying. So I'm just trying to understand like your position. Are you saying that you don't respect the circuit court decisions and you don't conform your conduct to that? Like what are you saying? You're here.
- [35:34]
Justice Barrett
Let's play this clip opinions and judgments here. Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a 2nd Circuit precedent, say in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?
- [35:49]
Justice Kagan
Our general practice is to. But there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice and that is.
- [35:56]
Justice Barrett
Not this administration's practice or this the longstanding practice of the federal government. And I'm not talking about in the Fourth Circuit. Are you going to respect a second Circuit? I'm talking about within the Second Circuit. And can you say, is that this administration's practice or a longstanding one, as.
- [36:10]
Justice Kagan
I understand it, longstanding policy of the Department of Justice? Yes, that we generally, as it was phrased to me, generally respect circuit president, but not necessarily in every case. And certain some examples might be a situation where we're litigating to try and get that circuit precedent overruled and so forth.
- [36:26]
Justice Barrett
Well, okay, so I'm not, I'm not talking about a situation in which, you know, the Second Circuit has a case from 1955 and you think it's time for it to be challenged. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about in this kind of situation, I'm talking about this week, the Second Circuit holds that the executive order is unconstitutional and then what do you do the next day or the next week?
- [36:45]
Justice Kagan
Generally we follow.
- [36:46]
Justice Barrett
So you're still saying generally.
- [36:47]
Ben Miceli
Yes.
- [36:48]
Justice Barrett
And you still think that it's generally the policy, long standing policy of the federal government to take that approach.
- [36:53]
Justice Kagan
That is my understanding.
- [36:54]
Justice Barrett
Okay, so. But it sounds to me like you accept a Cooper versus Aaron kind of situation for the Supreme Court but not for say, the Second Circuit where you would respect the opinions and the judgments of the Supreme Court and you're saying you would respect the judgment, but not necessarily the opinion of a lower court.
- [37:12]
Justice Kagan
And again, and I think in the vast majority of instances, our practice has been to respect the opinion as well in the circuits as well. But my understanding is that has not been A categorical practice in the way respect for the precedents and the judgments of the Supreme Court has been.
- [37:25]
Justice Barrett
So you're not hedging it on all with respect to the precedent of this court?
- [37:28]
Justice Kagan
That is correct. I believe the quotation from our application directly addresses that, and we stand by that completely.
- [37:34]
Ben Miceli
Okay, now let me show you Justice Kagan, which she had to say at these hearings.
- [37:40]
Justice Sotomayor
It sort of depends on the government's own actions in a case like this one, where one can expect that there is not going to be a great deal of disagreement among the lower courts. I mean, let's assume that you lose in the lower courts pretty uniformly as you have been losing on this issue, and that you never take this question to us. I mean, I noticed that you didn't take the substantive question to us. You only took the nationwide injunction question to us. I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here. You know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?
- [38:25]
Justice Kagan
Well, in this particular case, we have deliberately not presented the merits to this court on the question of the scope of remedies, because, of course, that makes it a clean vehicle where the court doesn't have to look at the.
- [38:37]
Justice Sotomayor
You're ignoring the import of my question. I'm suggesting that in a case in which the government is losing constantly, there's nobody else who's going to appeal. They're winning. It's up to you to decide whether to take this case to us. If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case. So you just keep on losing in the lower courts, and what's supposed to happen to prevent that?
- [39:03]
Justice Kagan
Again, I respectfully disagree with that forecast of the merits. But in response to the question, what I would say is we have an adversarial system, and if the government is not, for example, not respecting circuit precedent on the court's hypothetical in the Second Circuit, someone injured in the Second Circuit could take the case up and they could say, look, the government is violating circuit precedent on the hypothetical multiple circuits.
- [39:23]
Ben Miceli
That's so Popak. Doesn't Justice Kagan get to the heart of the issue? Didn't she expose the scam of what this is all about to begin with? Right there brilliantly and okay, John Sauer, then why didn't you bring the merits of birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court? If you are confident you are going to win it. That's why I wanted to give that description before passing it to you, of the real kind of sneaky and deceitful way they were going about, about this oral argument. And she called it out perfectly right there.
- [40:01]
Michael Popak
Yeah. And so it was, it was a complicated oral argument. We actually covered it on the LAF. We had about 90,000 people that joined us and we did a little pre game and post game and we'll do that again. That may be the last oral argument for the rest of the term. It should be, there may be an emergency application oral argument, but that should be the last one. And it was really the first oral argument about a Trump policy since he's been in office. All the other oral arguments this term were about past Biden practices or law, but not involving Donald Trump. And yet it was not. Even though we talked about it as a birthright citizenship case. That was the context was whether the four different court rulings issuing nationwide injunctions to stop Donald Trump from ripping the beating heart of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment out of the Constitution was, was constitutional or not through an executive order. That was the backdrop. That was the context. But they what they were there arguing for two and one half hours, including two advocates against the the Donald Trump administration and John Sauerkraut, who's difficult to listen to both because of his arguments make no sense and because of the timbre of his voice arguing as a solicitor general. Just to remind people, he used to be Donald Trump's criminal appellate defense lawyer and that's how he got the job as a number four in the Department of Justice and considered to be the 10th justice of the Supreme Court. But he did not do well that day, mainly because his argument is so pathetic. He did not do well even with the right wing. Amy Coney Barrett said, no, no, no, no. Don't cut off Justice Kagan, you're not answering her question. Let's go back to her question. Are you telling me this is Amy Coney Barrett leading it? Are you telling me that you're not going to respect precedent from the 2nd Circuit in New York in a New York manner? I want to just understand what the position of the Department of Justice and the administration is. And you saw him tap dancing his way around that. And then she said, watch. What we're here on is about whether the proper vehicle to bring this case back to the United States Supreme Court on the underlying substantive merits issue of birthright citizenship is the proper vehicle. A class action where a federal judge certifies a class of People impacted by this executive order? Or is it a nationwide injunction from a single judge with single parties in front of them? And why do you care which it is? This goes back to the Kagan point. They don't care because they're going to oppose both because they want to divide and conquer. They want every baby born to a parent who's not a US Citizen to hire a lawyer. Okay? That's the underlying merits of this case. Because if every baby has to go individually into a courtroom, that will, of course, allow the policy de facto to continue. And there's no incentive. In fact, it is a disincentive for the Trump administration to take any of those cases up on appeal or let any of them get up on appeal before this term is over. Their, their term is over. And that was Kagan's point. We see your trick. Your trick is you'll never bring these cases up to the United States Supreme Court. It will get them two and three and four years from now. And, and even Kavanaugh said, what do we do with the babies? Give me what the federal. This is. This is. This was Kavanaugh. No, no. I don't know. I don't understand. Tell me how the administration is going to handle this. Well, it'll be for the federal administration to handle it. No, no, no. I heard that. Explain to me how you handle this. You have a series of countries who have said, if you're not, the baby's not born in that country, they are not recognized to be a citizen of that country and the baby was not going to be recognized to be a citizen of the US So what do we have? Citizenless babies. Tell me how that works. And of course, John Sauer can't answer. John Sarah likes to keep going back when he's pressed on the merits about slavery. This is where Donald Trump got the big idea to keep talking about slavery. You know, when he's not talking about the N word as being nuclear, another, another again trolling of black and brown Americans and those that are fair minded when he. But this administration loves doing that. He started his whole argument with slavery. He ended his rebuttal with slavery. This. Yes, yes, John, these amendments came out during the Reconstruction period of our, of our America. And yes, they were originally done to protect former slaves, now black Americans and their voting rights and in their citizenship and the rest. But it no longer just applies to that, any longer. And so the only issue for appeal is whether whether they are going to find that a single federal judge is permitted to use a, a, a nationwide Universal or cosmic, whatever they want to call it in injunction, and then have that one single matter come up to the United States Supreme Court through a proper appellate process or not? And that was the whole debate. That's why, you know, the first question out of the box was Clarence Thomas. I love when I wish Clarence Thomas would go back to not talking, you know, 15 years, he never asked the question. He well, let's talk about the bill of Peace. The bill, Isn't this like a bill of peace? I'm like, are we going back to bill of pieces where churches got together when they have common attacks by their congregants about how to solve a problem they didn't like their pastor? We're going back to the Bill of Peace. Forget bill of Pieces. The question is, why can't one federal judge issue a nationwide injunction, which was used during the civil rights movement, which was used during desegregation, which was used for 100 years in this country, one shape or another, to have that go up unitarily to the United States Supreme Court through an appellate process? And why do we have to have hundreds, if not thousands of lawsuits about the very same issue without it? And the class action thing doesn't work because first of all, the Trump administration is fighting class actions being used by judges to handle these issues. When Judge Boasberg in D.C. certified a class in order to stop the deportation of 250 people to El Salvador without due process, they fought the certification of the class. And even Sauer said in response to one of the questions, either from Sotomayor or Ketanji, Brown, Jackson or the Republicans, he said, well, no, we may oppose class action. It really depends on the situation. Because that's the lie. That's what Kagan caught him in. You don't want any of these cases to come up in a timely way to the United States Supreme Court. And then you've got John Roberts who's trying to figure out a way to thread a needle here and come up with a 5 to 4, 6 to 3 decision, some way in which you say, well, I'd like to hear the answer to that question. Well, we can do things quickly if we really want to. So I'm like, this is the best you got? Here's my prediction of the result, which we will see in the next 30, 60, 90 days, something like that. I think they're going to allow. I think there's enough votes to allow if Robert side in the right way to allow nationwide injunctions under certain limited circumstances. But the trial judges, child Judges are going to be given a factor test, a limitation on how they can use it. Now, I think birthright citizenship will fit the factor test because it's a constant. What are you going to do? Like, if you're in Louisiana, you're a citizen, but if you're in New York, you're not, or vice versa. I mean, the constitutional violation of that magnitude has to be addressed by a federal nationwide injunction. I think that's what they do. On the underlying merits of the birthright citizenship. Donald Trump's going to lose. I don't see him getting five, I don't see him getting five votes to allow him to change the nature of the Fourth, the face of the 14th Amendment when it comes to citizenship in this country. By executive order, I think he loses on the merits. But remember, this is an issue about the tools that the federal judges have or not. If they don't allow judges to, to find federal nationwide injunctions, then they're going to say a version of only the United States Supreme Court can issue the law of the land from our lofty perch. And that comes up from individual cases below. And we're not going to allow that to be delegated to federal to lower level federal judges. It's one of the two. What do you think is going to happen?
- [48:14]
Ben Miceli
You know, look, the nationwide injunctions use, to your point, is most appropriately used in this exact situation. Constitutional right clearly invalid executive order. If you did not have a nationwide injunction, you would literally allow the Trump regime to be able to violate the Constitution by fiat of signing a bullshit executive order, do everything it wants to do until the case finally makes its way to the United States Supreme Court. Clear constitutional right that you're vindicating. That makes sense to do nationwide injunctions. The irony of this is that the abuse of nationwide injunctions is not happening now against Trump. It was the Trumpers who abused it against Biden. Where you would have a nationwide injunction out of a district court in Texas which threatened the ability to of women to access mifepristone. That's how it was being used until it reached the Supreme Court. That's how it was being used when Biden was in office by Trumpers, not, you know, to have judges, Trump judges go rogue and by nationwide injunctions take away constitutional rights until it went to the Supreme Court. So what could be ironic out of this whole dispute is that on these core constitutional violations by Trump, nationwide injunctions are permitted to stay in effect. But it would actually, I don't think it would be a bad thing, actually. If you placed some guardrails and some limitations on its abuse, where it was most accurately manifested by these kind of inexperienced rogue Trump judges who were using it. I mean, the whole thing here, you know, also I think to view in context of it also, you know, is how Trump was using it under Biden. We need a fight like hell to make sure that we're going to have future elections because I think our very democracy is being threatened. But ultimately, when there's a Democratic president next and a Democratic Congress, you just have to think through that. Are these Trump moves ultimately going to backfire against, you know, ultimately going to backfire against him as well also? But, but Po Bak, I think the decision is, I don't think nationwide injunctions are going to be eliminated. I actually tend to agree with you. Perhaps there may be a, a few guardrail. I think you nailed it. A certain factor test which should be met on all of these issues anyway when Trump is abusing them. And I think that the Supreme Court is going to be very careful not to disturb the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. And just to flag this issue again, for everybody out there, notice that Donald Trump didn't bring the issue of birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court. I don't want to lose that point. So they're talking a tough game to their base. But why not bring that question? The Supreme Court would have answered that question because they know they're going to lose it. They want to chip away and they're hoping they can get right wing justices to chip away at the procedural component to then snatch away, you know, rights and constitutional rights by you by gaming the procedure of it.
- [51:53]
Michael Popak
But you didn't. But before you, before you leave your, your takeaway from listening to Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and and the rest, account to five. You don't think they're going to change birthright citizenship through this executive order, right?
- [52:08]
Ben Miceli
Correct.
- [52:08]
Michael Popak
Ultimately. Okay.
- [52:09]
Ben Miceli
Correct. Well, yeah. Changing birthright citizenship via an executive order to me is the most unlawful of unlawful things. And by the way, that issue was not even, you know, as you heard Justice Kagan say, that wasn't even the issue that was before the court. And I think that's what was very alarming to a number of the justices as well, which is what's clear that you're trying to do here is get rid of the nationwide injunctions so that you can take these loser issues so that you could try to act like a dictator. And if only one federal judge makes a ruling in their district, it's effectively unenforceable and you've neutered the entire judiciary's, you know, judiciary's power.
- [52:55]
Michael Popak
We had, we had Leah Littman from strict scrutiny on a couple of times with me and Alex Aronson on Legal AF and very phenomenal for those that haven't seen her come on and take a look at the clips on Legal AF and she, she agrees with, with me. We agree with each other that there they took the case for a reason. Just to be clear. And I was a little bit worried going into this. I because every time they took a case, whoever brought, whoever was the movement in this case, the Trump administration, they sided with the movement. They're like, oh, but, but I think because they took this case, given such a backdrop of birthright citizenship but then spent two and a half hours on this, there's no chance we're going to get a one liner. You and I are not going to report on oh, they just hit stayed. No, they are going to, they took this case against this horrific backdrop for a reason. And I think we are going to get a ruling about the future of birth of nationwide injunctions and how you use them. Otherwise there's no way they would have done this for three hours, almost a three hour oral argument and decide to take this case at this moment and give it up on the last oral argument of the term.
- [54:06]
Ben Miceli
Let's take our last quick break of the show. I want to remind everybody about Michael Popak's law firm, the POPOC firm. If you have or know somebody who has a catastrophic injury case, whether that's a trucking case, car accident case, a wrongful death case, sexual assault, sexual harassment cases, medical malpractice, negligence case, real serious injuries. If you or someone you know wants a free consultation with Michael Popo's firm, reach out. The consultations are free. And Popak started his own firm because the demand was overwhelming to do this. Popak, where can people reach out to you and find you?
- [54:46]
Michael Popak
Yeah, thanks for that and talking about that, Ben. And it's just been growing by leaps and bounds. Even the need that we're filling is even greater than I thought in the just a number of contacts and cases that we are now handling as a firm. But it's easy. We make it easy on everyone. Come to the website www the popoc firm.com Some people put a C in my name. It's just P O P O K. I made that easy too. And then there's a 1-800-number-1877 Popoc AF and as they used to Say in the old Time Time Warner commercials, operators are standing by. This is important matters for people and we take it deadly seriously. And we really want to work closely with you. Now is the time to reach out to our firm.
- [55:36]
Ben Miceli
Let's take our last quick break of the show. I want to show you Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court. He's been like freaking out all day about it and attacking the Supreme Court doesn't exactly show stability when you're spending your days attacking the Supreme Court or the chairman of the Federal Reserve and calling him too late Jerome or too late Powell. Not really a shocker then, that Moody's downgraded America's credit score. When you have, have literally a maniac, you know, behaving this way, you know, and Moody's in their credit ratings are not falling for the Trump gimmicks. The fake deals with Qatar, you know, the fake deals with the United Kingdom that aren't deals at all. Fake deals with China, which is just total capitulation.
- [56:20]
Michael Popak
Sorry, I don't mean to finish. I want to tell you something. Good. Sorry. Yeah, no, I was going to say they also buried in the Moody's downgrade, first time since 1917, we are not AAA rated, which means your and my and our audience's credit card loans, credit loans, auto loans, credit card loans, mortgages, student loans, everything is going up because of the Moody downgrade. They said they'll, they warned Donald Trump. They said we will downgrade again if you fire the Federal Reserve chairman. They said the only thing that keeps us from downgrading and declaring that the government is stable in this economy, even though you're not bringing in enough revenue and you're spending too much, is the independence of the Federal Reserve. I applaud Moody for putting a ring fence around Jay Powell. And everybody in our audience, religious or not, should pray every day that Jay Powell does not quit his job and give Donald Trump the ability to appoint a new Federal Reserve chairman. Because the only thing that tethers our economy to planet Earth is Jay Powell, our central banker.
- [57:27]
Ben Miceli
Let's take our last quick break of the show. Reminder. Subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel. He gave you the. We'll put in the description below. Also, where to contact his law firm. Also, if you've got a case and you want a consultation or you know somebody that does, we'll be right back after our last quick break break of the show.
- [57:48]
Michael Popak
Physio, chiropractic and massage therapy are all great resources for when you need them. But going to these appointments every few months does not give me the ultimate results I'm looking for when it comes to my well being. It's taking daily, even hourly opportunities to move my body that makes the biggest difference. This has only been made possible for me with this episode's sponsor of Uplift Desk. Uplift Desk is at the forefront of ergonomic solutions promoting better posture and health through adjustable standing desks designed to help you live a healthier lifestyle. Plus they have all kinds of accessories to keep you moving throughout the day even if you work for only a few hours at your desk. For me, I love the Bamboo Motion X board. It makes me feel like snowboarding without waiting for the lift. Standing while I work gives me the room to move and helps me get the creative juices flowing. Moving throughout the day helps me focus and stay productive and I'm way more alert when I'm using my standing desk and I have more energy. A desk should fit the user, which is why Uplift Desk has a lot of customization options so you can build your perfect workspace with more than 200,000 configurations. Uplift Desk allows you to tailor your workspace to perfectly suit your style and needs, empowering you to create an environment that inspires productivity and creativity. For me, I built the custom standing desk of my dreams from Uplift for my popoc Media offices where I make a lot of my hot takes and content for Legal AF and so I went all out with a heritage oak top and their advanced angled keypad for the lift part. Make this year yours by going to uplift lyftdesk.com legal AF and use our code legal AF to get four free accessories, free same day shipping, free returns and an industry leading 15 year warranty that covers your entire desk and an extra discount off your entire order. That's U P l I f t--E-S-K.com legalif for a special offer and it's only available at our link start 2025 right stand move Thrive with Uplift Desk I may be very open with you on this podcast but off the air I really do value my Privacy and it's 2025. Are your blind still from 2005? There is a better way to buy blind shade shutters and drapery and it's called three day Blinds. They are the leading manufacturer of high quality custom window treatments in the US and right now if you use my URL three day blinds.com legalaf they're running a buy one get one 50% off deal. We can shop for almost anything at home. Why not shop for blinds at home too? Three Day Blinds has local, professionally trained design consultants who have an average of over 10 years of experience that provide expert guidance on the right blinds for you in the comfort of your home. Just set up an appointment and you'll get a free no obligation quote the same day. Not very handy DIY projects can be fun, but measuring and installing blinds can be a big challenge. The Expert team at 3 Day Blinds handles all the heavy lifting they design, measure and install so you can sit back, relax and leave it to the pros. It's 2025 and so much of my house is smart with Alexa, but I never thought about getting my blinds connected to Alexa too, so I can just say Alexa. Alexa. Open the blinds each morning. With three Day Blinds you choose from thousands of options that fit any budget or style and with actual samples, you won't be guessing about what your blinds will look like. 3 Day Blinds has been in business for over 45 years and they have helped over 2 million people get the window treatments of their dreams. So they are a brand you can trust right now. Get quality window treatments that fit your budget with with three day blinds. Head to three day blinds.com legalaf for their buy one get one 50% off deal on custom blind shade shutters and drapery for a free no charge, no obligation consultation. Just head to three day blinds.com legal af one last time. That's buy one get one 50% off when you head to the number 3D a Y blinds.com legal a welcome back to legal af.
- [62:17]
Ben Miceli
Thank you to our pro Democracy sponsors. This show is not possible without them, so make sure you check them out in the descriptions below. You'll see the discount codes there. Also in the description below. Michael Popox Law Firm's information. If you or anybody you know has a catastrophic injury case or you know someone with a wrongful death case or anything like that, reach out. Seriously, reach out to Popox firm. They they're handling a lot of cases from our audiences already and you know, it's a growing firm and really appreciate the work he's doing there. All right, let me just show you some of the posts that Donald Trump's been making about the United States Supreme Court since that seven to two loss and the Alien Enemies act case and then the oral argument. If we can just pull up any of the comments that Donald Trump's made. The Supreme Court won't allow us to get criminals out of our country. And again, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled at all. We all agree that we want criminals out of our country. And we also all agree that criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And whether that means they're serving in the highest maximum security prisons in the United States, like El Chapo and El Chapo's gin, or people who have been extradited by the Trump regime and other people into the United States to be tried in the United States, or whether that means to deport people. You know, we live in a country that has due process, as you saw in the Supreme Court ruling. They say there is a Fifth Amendment right to due process for people, for people in this country. That's what our country stands for. It's not a debate. It's not a debate. Should there be due process or should there not be due process? There's, there's no debate. You should be entitled to due process. That's all we're fighting for. That's what this country is about. Because what you don't want to do is you don't want to take innocent people and send them to concentration camps. You know, you don't want to do that. That's not what America stands for. Okay. Or you shouldn't want to send anybody, frankly, to concentration camps. I mean, it's a, it's a cruel and unusual punishment. Let's take a look here at Trump's other post. The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane who came into our country illegally are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted and expensive legal process, one that will take possibly many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a courthouse. And once again, I can go on and read the rest of it, but. Oh, and then he thanks Justice Alito and he thanks Justice Thomas by name first. I can go on and read the rest of it, but I'm not going to, because you get the point. Let me just first explain that this is not normal behavior to have a United States president make social media posts like this, thanking certain justices and attacking others. Everything that's saying here is false. We went over what the ruling said. It was actually a fairly narrow ruling, as you know, which basically said some due process is necessary. We're going to remand or send the case back to the 5th Circuit to determine what that process is. In the meantime, this next group of migrants should not go to the concentration camp in El Salvador. Until this case is further briefing, until it gets back up to the Supreme Court, there's been no determination that these individuals are the, quote, worst murderers, drug dealers and gang members. I can tell you, beyond a dispute, Trump has extradited the worst murderers, drug dealers and gang members into the United States. We've showed you before press conferences from Attorney General Pam Bondi bringing in bad drug dealers into the United States from foreign countries to be tried in the United States. By the way, that's happened before because we have a great deal of confidence in our jury system and in our justice system and in the security of our prison system that it's actually safer. That's ultimately why the United States wanted to extradite El Chapo into the United States and try him here. You know, I remember seeing that hearing this week. You may have seen it also popa, where Congressmember Eric Swalwell was cross examining dog killer Homeland Security Secretary Christine about the lenders MS.113 that were photoshopped onto Brego Garcia's hands. She refused to admit that they were photoshopped because Donald Trump claims it real, claims it's real. And she couldn't defy Dear Leader. I did lots of takes on that. But what stood out to me was Congressmember Swallow saying, I used to be a federal prosecutor so I didn't have to cosplay the way you're doing your outfits and dressing up and doing all. I prosecuted drug dealers who killed people. I sent people to jail for life. I brought them through our jury system. They were prosecuted, they were tried, they were sentenced to jail. And I did it with evidence and with due process. That's our system. So when Trump just says, you're a gang member, I don't like the way you look. You're a gang member, you're bad. And we know from all of the data that's out there and from, you know, what, what we've been covering and what this is a great 60 Minutes report, 75% to 80% of this group of people who were sent to El Salvador concentration camp and no criminal history at all here or, you know, here or from where they originally came from. And, you know, if they had a tattoo or if they looked a certain way or they were wearing a Chicago Bulls hat or they were wearing a certain color, that would be enough for.
- [68:18]
Michael Popak
Them to be the gay hairdresser with mom and dad tattooed on his arms, which is a part of his hometown, by the way. You left, I'm sure you did hot takes on it. But Swalwell, my favorite part of Swalwell is when he put up the MS.13 photo, the fake photo of the fingers. And she kept. Because she's an automaton. And she kept repeating the same script over and over again and would not admit what obviously her eyes could tell her. He said, okay, okay. Can I just tell you? I have three children. Three, six and nine. And I have a bullshitometer. That's what he actually said to Kristi Noem, as a member of Congress, I love that because sometimes you just gotta get down to street level and tell the truth to the American people. And what is the common takeaway from every time you put up, and I put up a posting of Donald Trump on social media is that he consistently looks the American people in the eye and he lies to them. Everything that you didn't read or read in that posting is a lie. Just to be clear. So when you debate this in the streets, you. You can have a fair fight with facts. Anyway, we're talking about due process. That's guaranteed by the Constitution whether you are an American citizen or not. If you're in the United States at the time something adverse happens to you, a crime has been charged against you, an immigration law violation has been charged against you, Whatever it is, you, because this is the America that we want to live in, are entitled to due process. It is defined by statutes and by case law and by the United States Supreme Court. Ultimately, whether you call it a writ of habeas corpus process or you call it just a Fifth Amendment due process process, you are entitled to a process. And they have. Their hallmark of proper process is notice that you're given notice of what your charges are against you, time, that you're given sufficient time to find a lawyer, and that the notice is in the language of that you can understand that you are told of your rights and that you're brought before somebody in a black robe. Could be an administrative law judge who's immigration, could be an Article 3 judge. That's federal, but you are brought before a judge in an adversarial process to determine your guilt or innocence or whether you violated or didn't violate that is the common denominator. And while you're going through that process, you will most likely remain in custody in detention in America, which is where you're supposed to be for that. You're not gonna be going home at night with your wife and your kids. That's clear. You're not gonna be released on the streets like Donald Trump says they're gonna be released to the wild so they can commit other crimes. We don't even know if they committed these crimes, let alone they're gonna commit. But to Donald Trump, he wants to put a murderous undocumented migrant under everyone's bed because that's the boogeyman he then uses to try to rile up his base. One last thing, Ben. I saw this new polling that came out and it was both heartening and disheartening at the same time. It was heartening. That's a word. Because 39 to 40% is his total approval rating, worst in modern history, 1516 points lower than any other president. But when you go state by state and you know, this sort of gets into the electoral chances, when you go state by state in 23 states, he's above water in his approval rating. In a couple of states he's in the 60s and 70% now in other states he's in big states, he's in the 30% and 40%. And we end up at 39 to 41. But there is a fair amount of Americans that look at what he's doing and look at what he's saying and believe the propaganda and spew it back out in their own life, in their own social media. And that's why we're here and not just us talking to each other. That's why we're here with the fellowship that we put together and on the, on the Midas Dutch network@legal AF, because we have to bound together as like minded people in order to be if we're going to have any chance to run the bastards out on a rail come the midterms and beyond, we've got to link together now and be a channel of action.
- [72:24]
Ben Miceli
And we are, you know, authoritarians realize this kind of seemingly counterintuitive point that you raised, that the shittier you treat people and the more you screw with them and the more you take away and beat them down and take away their education, you can psychologically torture a group of people enough where they'll accept peanuts. And when you otherize some other group and say that that's your, that's the reason you're going through, that you both hand out breadcrumbs to your base and then you rile them up based on the other. It's authoritarianism 101. And it's why, though also in a lot of these very impoverished countries where you have these authoritarians living these like lavish lifestyles, you think to yourself, well, like, why is it that people are like like, are they okay with this? Like, like, what the heck is, what the heck is going on? I mean, just, just think about it here, Popak, and I'll, I'll go and look at that poll. But you think about devastating, devastating storms, right? Just took hold in the United States yet again. A lot of forecasters are no longer having their jobs due to the Doge cuts. And we're seeing horrible, horrible deaths, you know, in states like Kentucky and elsewhere. You know, at least as of our recording right now, Donald Trump made no statement about these horrible storms. Like, you're not even, I think it was 16 people dead after tornado spawning storms across central United States. We're talking about Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, at least Ruby, Ruby red states. And Trump wants to gut fema. I mean, he's, he's doing it, he's gutting FEMA so that there can't be emergency aid that's given to the states. He says the states will take hold of these. He's taking away their Medicaid, he's taking away their health care. He's taking away, you know, the reason that they're living paycheck to paycheck is because of him and billionaires like him. Like, that's, that's what's actually happening out there. But when you pick a scapegoat, when you say it's the migrants who are doing it, when you say it's this group or that group that's doing it, and you combine it with destroying people's education, when you combine it with, you know, taking away people's resources for whatever reason, Popo, psychologically, you know, that works. And you know what I've always been saying, whether it's to Democrats or just to anybody who wants to step into the space, is you've got to go. And before talking about policy and all these things, you got to go and you got to look at people and you got to say, hey, I care about you. I'm here to fight for you. You, I, I, I understand what you're going through and you have to not do it from a phony place, but from a real place. And then you have to point out who's doing it to them and you have to otherize the real other, which is Trump and the oligarchs who are the ones doing it. But just think about all the distractions and we'll leave on this. From this past week, what was the media's main, what were the two big stories outside of Midas Touch Network this week? The two Big stories this week, right? Number one, Biden. That's all the media talked. Biden, Biden, Biden. This. Oh, what do people know about Biden? I interviewed Biden. Go look at my interview. I interviewed the guy for 30 minutes, okay? Was he old, short? Was he old? Did he have a. Did he have a stable, normal government where America was leading the world? Absolutely. Did he surround himself with smart people who ran a predictable, smart, intelligent economy? Absolutely. And my response to all that crap is why the hell are you even wasting time talking about this? You've got a hostile takeover of our government. Our democracy is being threatened. Trump does 10 to 20 things a day, at least that concern me more than anything I even saw once. If you want to go cognitive during the Biden administration, every single day, Trump doesn't speak in sentences. He's non responsive and says the most idiotic, dangerous. I mean, he was saying in one of these Middle east bride meetings, I don't like stealth. I don't like the way stealth is. The shapes don't make sense to me. It's like, what, what are we, what are we even talking about? You know, he's like falling asleep and drooling on himself. But more importantly, the guys doing the most dangerous and hateful and harmful things to our country, could we focus on that? That was a big story. What was the other big story? Popak? Seashells. Seashells, right. Like the former FBI director James Comey did a photo of. Of seashells that says 86 47, which all these MAGA Republic to 86. To like get rid of something, you know, to get banned from something.
- [77:39]
Michael Popak
Can I just say something? Because I don't know if you have this in your background. If you had this in your background. I worked in restaurants when I was a kid. I worked in Chick Fil A. Thank you. And I worked in diners when I was studying for the bar. Okay? And 86. The only way I ever knew that is when we were out of something. 86 the pumpernickel bagel, 86 the coleslaw. We're out of it. Don't sell it anymore. It means you get rid of something. It's not 86 your neighbor. It's not. It's not a. Don Jr. Wrote in a social media post and he, of course he had a misspelling in it. The former FBI director just casually called for the murder of my father. Seashells on the beach, which he thought was. It may have been snarky, might have been in poor taste for somebody but it was funny. Does anybody think the 6 foot 6 inch Jim Comey bent down and actually shaped those out for himself? Donald Trump should love James Comey because even though he hates him for being involved with the Russia collusion investigation with Mueller, James Comey is probably the single handed, other than the way that Clinton ran her own campaign. The reason we had a Trump one is because Comey took to elect her as an FBI director and said he was opening a criminal investigation about Clinton's email servers just before the election, creating an October surprise. That's why there's a Trump presidency to even run off of. He should build a statue to Comey. But no, we're on the Trump vindication tour, which of course doesn't help any American person with his, with his kitchen table politics or pocketbook.
- [79:18]
Ben Miceli
So I'm not gonna, that's, that's the full coverage that gets in the context of the fact that there are deep seated threats to our democracy as we presented here today on Legal A. That's our laser focus. Our North Star is fighting, defending, protecting our democracy and not these corporate media trying to sell their own books or whatever to each other and promoting just the most unnecessary, bizarre distractions during these very, very kind of existential and critical times. So Popak, great spending this weekend with you. I want to remind everybody, go to Michael Popak's law firm. Check it out. The POPOC firm. They handle catastrophic injury cases, wrongful death cases, like big trucking accident cases or bad car accident cases, sexual assault or harassment cases. So if you have a case like that, don't be shy. I mean if you know somebody and they need help, the consultations are free. Go to Michael Popak. He set up this firm because there were so many people reaching out to say can you set up a firm for this? So this is what we are trying to do. So reach out to Popak popoc. Where can they find you?
- [80:40]
Michael Popak
Yeah. Thanks Ben. The Pope www the popoc firm.com it starts with a free consultation contact forum which will guide you right through a process immediately. You can also click through and see the things that we're handling that Ben described. And then 1877 popac AF. As long as I'm still here, we got it there. Thank you for that. We got a new substack for Legal AF which is on fire. We're posting everything Ben and I talked about today like this filing and that filing and the Supreme Court just ruled this, this and this new opinion. We are posting it on Legal af the substack. We're posting videos. I do a morning briefing like Ben does. I call it Morning af. We put everything under the AF banner with our other contributors as well. Some great writing and articles, all original on the Legal AF substack. Come on over there. Great way to support the show as well.
- [81:30]
Ben Miceli
Thank you everybody for watching Legal af. I'm going to got to get some rest. I'm a little, I'm a little tired, a little tired from this trip. It was like, it was like 14 hours, like a 14 hour flight back because there was like a three hour delay on the top, you know, on the whole thing. Anyway, I'll see everybody next time on Legal af. Shout Out Legal AF for Shout Out Minus like your favorite travel guide, T Mobile's network knows all the spots because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are On America's largest 5G network Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit service report in 90 plus days device in eligible carrier and timely redemption. Required card has no cash access and expires in six months.