Loading summary
Transcript46 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Miceli
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1per month trial@shopify.com SpecialOffer the NBA.
- [00:29]
Michael Popak
Playoffs are here and I'm getting my.
- [00:31]
Charles Barkley
Best in on FanDuel.
- [00:32]
Michael Popak
Talk to me, Chuck GPT what do you know?
- [00:35]
Ben Miceli
All sorts of interesting stuff, even Charles Barkley's greatest fear.
- [00:38]
Charles Barkley
Hey, nobody needs to know that new.
- [00:40]
Ben Miceli
Customers bet $5 and get 200 in.
- [00:42]
Charles Barkley
Bonus bets if you win FanDuel America's.
- [00:44]
Michael Popak
Number one sportsbook 21 plus in President select states must be first online real.
- [00:49]
Ben Miceli
Money wager $5 deposit required bonus issued.
- [00:51]
Charles Barkley
Is non withdrawable bonus bets that expires.
- [00:53]
Michael Popak
Seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply.
- [00:55]
Charles Barkley
See full terms@fanduel.com Sportsbook Gambling Problem Call 1-800-Gambler Imagine you're a business owner relying on a dozen different software programs, each one disconnected, more expensive and more complicated than the last. It can be incredibly stressful right now. Picture Odoo Odoo brings all the tools your business needs into one simple CRM accounting, inventory, manufacturing, marketing, HR and more. All seamlessly connected. Everything works together, giving you the peace of mind that your business is running smoothly from every angle. Odoo's open source applications are user friendly and designed to scale with your business, saving you time and money. Say goodbye to juggling multiple platforms and hello to efficient integrated management. Stop wasting resources on complicated systems and make the switch to odoo today. Visit odoo.com o d o o.com and discover how Odoo can simplify and streamline your business operations. Odoo Modern Management made simple Donald Trump.
- [02:01]
Michael Popak
Was handed a massive loss in federal court in connection with his unlawful executive orders attacking law firms. Specifically, a case involving the law firm Perkins Coie that standed up to Donald Trump, stood up to Donald Trump, sued him and a federal judge. And probably the most scathing order I've read in a long time ruled against Donald Trump. Will read from that order and we'll talk about its implications. Also, Donald Trump received massive Ls massive losses in cases involving migrants from Trump appointed judges. For example, a judge in the Southern District of Texas ruled that Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies act was patently unlawful. Similarly, a judge in Maryland who Trump also appointed ruled for Donald Trump to facilitate the return of another Venezuelan migrant. We'll talk about these Trump judges ruling against Donald Trump. Donald Trump this past week was rushing to the United States Supreme Court in order to get your Social Security data. Donald Trump is claiming that there is an emergency. That's how it was framed, an emergency application to the United States Supreme Court to turn over the private Social Security data of the American people to Elon Musk's doge. I assume they're trying to fabricate an emergency, that Elon Musk is going to be leaving his position soon and they want your Social Security information to go to Elon Musk. So I guess he can look through all of your private information and data. We'll talk about what's going on there. Trump had previously lost a similar request in the lower courts, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal and then a district court in Maryland. Now he's telling the Supreme Court this is an emergency. It's absolutely not an emergency. And again, it shows you the depths of depravity of this sicko regime. We'll talk about that. Also, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave a riveting speech in Puerto Rico over the past few days at a judicial conference there where she didn't use Donald Trump's name directly, but in front of a bipartisan group of judges, where she received a standing ovation. She looked at the judges and told them to stand up against the threats and intimidation. And this comes as dozens of judges now have round the clock security because Donald Trump's threats have led to credible death threats against many members of the federal judiciary. We'll also talk about another moment that's not getting a lot of attention, but we covered it on Legal AF and the Midas Touch Network where a deputy solicitor general, a nonpartisan guy who was working in the Department of Justice, resigned from his position. And all of these Supreme Court justices gave this individual a standing ovation. And if you were reading the tea leaves, it seemed to indicate that they were really appreciative of the work that he did. And they understood that he was resigning to protect his integrity, as the Trump regime would have forced him to make arguments that he wasn't comfortable with. So, in other words, a pretty action packed episode of Legal af. Let's bring in my co host and the main host of the Legal AF YouTube channel, which is well on its way to 1 million subscribers, Michael Popak. Hey, Popak, how are you? Doing this weekend.
- [05:36]
Ben Miceli
Hey, Ben, I'm doing fantastic. So many things to talk about. This is a perfect place to do it. At the intersection of law and politics. And on the Midas Touch Network. We just finished Law Day, another in a series of protests and celebrations of the rule of law in America. It's been on the book since 1958 with President Eisenhower and lawyers, judges, people that support the rule of law used it as an opportunity to rebuke the Trump administration, took to the streets in massive rallies. We showed some footage of some, both on the Midas Dutch Network and on Legal af in our shorts. I took my oath of being a lawyer, my three different oaths again, and renewed my vows, if you will, to the rule of law here on the Midas Dutch Network and on Legal af, as did a lot of my colleagues, for a good reason. And I'll tell you what was deafening in its silence, the acknowledgment by the lawless Trump administration of Law Day. I'm not one of the members of the Department of Justice led by Pam Bondi, not Todd Blanche, not Emil Beauvais, not Solicitor General John Sauer, not Donald Trump, acknowledged that we even had a Rule of Law Day about law in our society. We think about that. And we are renewed every day on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal af and what we're watching. And we're going to tie it all together again with another chapter of our ongoing store. Our ongoing, ongoing analysis on Legal AF is we're watching federal courts acknowledging in the open that they do not believe a word that comes out of this Department of Justice's mouth, that they don't trust them, that they don't believe them, that they don't believe the facts or law that are being argued in their court, that they see violations of the court's own orders before their very eyes in a way they never thought they would by a organization that wears the name the United States of America on the back of their jersey. And so the reality is that one of the reasons, and there are many, why this Trump administration and the Department of Justice are on a losing streak of epic proportion. They have over 100 injunctions against them, meaning a court looking at the facts and the law have found that it is more likely than not that they're going to lose on their unconstitutional position or act or law or executive order. Fill in the blank and is issued an injunction. And there's a reason there's 150 cases filed. There's a reason they have a losing streak at The United States Supreme Court, when you do the math. And it's because one of the reasons is you have the elite, a team of advocates like Edwin Kneadler, the guy who got the standing ovation after 46 years in the Solicitor General's office. The A team has left the building, the B team has left the building, and now you're left with this beleaguered group that are staying there because they couldn't find another job quick enough or because I guess maybe some of them believe in what Donald Trump is doing. But I find that hard to believe as we watch the systematic dismantling of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice by Harmeet Dhillon, by the systematic dismantling of the Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice by Emile Bove, effectively and Pam Bondi. And federal judges are now reacting. We just had one federal judge, Ben, and you and I, I know I did a hot take on it. One federal judge, a magistrate judge, says, I basically don't trust anything that happens here. And I don't trust you in the Department of Justice to go tell the judge in this case, the Article 3 judge in this case, what went down in my courtroom as a magistrate. So you are to take a transcript with you and show it to the judge so that he understands exactly what happened here. That is extraordinary, that there is no, there is no credibility of the Department of Justice in front of federal judges who are struggling but doing a successful job at being that firewall against, against the attack on the rule of law. And finally, Ben, when we get to the Ketanji, Brown Jackson and the Beryl Howell thing, those are good bookends as well, because BERYL HOWELL In 101 pages, you and I are going to go in at length about excoriated the Trump administration. But she's also the first federal judge to, to rebuke and rap on the knuckles loudly. Those law firms that were so cowardly that they settled with the Trump administration temporarily at least, and gave him a billion dollars worth of free legal service and a talking point. And she said to them, that violates your ethics. That violates one of the foundations of our society are independent lawyers protecting the excesses of democracy. And you have failed. And then she lauded the law firms like Perkins Coy and their law firm, because now law firms need law firms like Williams and Connolly who came to a federal judge and asked for protection. She's basically telling the world, you know, what you do when you're attacked by, by this administration, and it's in a political way or vindictive way you come to a federal judge, those that are now under attack themselves, and we will take it from there.
- [10:51]
Michael Popak
There are a lot of bad lawyers there. One of the things when I started becoming a lawyer, because it's hard to become a lawyer. You know, you got to study for the bar exam, you got to go through law school. You know, there was part of me that just assumed that if you got through that process that you would be a. A good lawyer. Like, you would take your job seriously, you would work hard, you would read the papers and you would present good arguments and that you would try. And one of the things that hit me pretty quickly is like, oh, my. Oh, my God, how these people pass the bar exam. Like, there's a lot of bad lawyers. And you would see certain firms would have very bad reputations in the state court system. And then when those firms would try to also practice in the federal system, these federal judges would know right away, and they would really, really not like some of these, you know, firms and lawyers. And you can see in the way the mannerisms that they've lost all credibility. And for the federal judges, it was like, you're wasting my time. Why are you even here? Why are you filing cases in my courtroom? I bring that up because that's what the DOJ has become. The doj, which used to be made up of the best lawyers. Because there was kind of this revolving door. Not kind of. There was where the best lawyers would work at the doj. They may become federal judges and then become circuit court federal judges and even Supreme Court justices. They would go back into private practice where they would be lawyers who would make millions of dollars or lead firms and the biggest cases. Then maybe they'd go back into the federal government and provide service to the government. Right. So these were the top lawyers. So some of the unique insight that I hope that Michael Popak and I gave you a few months back when a lot of these doge cuts were beginning, Remember what we said? Go back and you can watch it. I said, one of the big issues here is they're going to fire the good DOJ lawyers, and the good DOJ lawyers are going to leave and they're just going to have bad lawyers or they're not going to be appropriately staffed the way the Trump organizations are not appropriately staffed. Right. And so it would be run like a bad law firm, the way Trump runs businesses, as bad businesses. So I want to give you that context of these are the people arguing before these federal judges who are the best lawyers. Still, still, Trump wants to change that. But these are lifetime appointees. Reagan judges, George W. Bush judges, Clinton judges, Obama judges, Trump judges. Even from the first administration, by and large, not all of them, but by and large were smart, sharp people. And they don't like this crap. And they especially don't like when Donald Trump wakes up in the morning and attacks the judiciary. Right. Like this morning, Donald Trump's post. Can it be so that judges aren't allowing the USA to deport crime, criminals, including murderers, out of our country and back to where they came from? If this is so, our country as we know it is finished. Americans will have to get used to a very different crime filled life. This is not what our founders had in mind, exclamation point. And whether you're a Republican judge or a Democrat judge, you look at this and go, this guy's an idiot and this guy's a dictator and this is not democracy. You may think that our system here in the United States slower than you'd like. You may think our jury system is messy. You may think the concept of due process and the fact that it takes time to give a process, hence the word process, could be frustrating. That's our process. That's our system here. It's what set us apart from Russia and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and authoritarian regimes. And it's why congressional delegations and judicial delegations from America used to be invited to new democracies and growing democracies across the world, to teach them how we did it right here, not what MAGA Republicans did. Remember in the last congressional term where they sent their first congressional delegation to hang out with the January 6th insurrectionists. Now the DOJ bending over backwards to give Ashley Babbitt's family settlement money and to praise insurrectionists. So that's the system that we have. So I frame it like that. Popak, as we talk about Perkins Coie. And why don't you, Popak, describe the case? I'd like to read from the order. I've been speaking for a little bit about that, but why don't I pass it over to you to describe the case and then maybe after the commercial break, which we still have some time for, I want to read some of the order, but let me pass it.
- [15:49]
Ben Miceli
Yeah, and I can do, I can do kind of a little bit of an overview too there. And you can actually read the words. So there is a series of law firms up to 14 who were threatened and some actually had an executive order issued against them. Perkins Coy being One of them, Jenner and Block, was also hit with it, Wilmer Hale. And a lot of these firms were threatened with it, including one that I worked at called SCAD norps. And it was a executive order where Donald Trump has been biding his time to win the presidency, as we know, in order to retaliate against entire segments of our society, whether it's academic institutions or it's, you know, public, the NPR and PBS and law firms, and especially law firms that represented interest against him or represented special prosecutors or just did democratic causes or whatever it was. And, and he issued these scathing executive orders which were defamatory, called them essentially criminals and having, and accused them of doing illegal things and things that undermine the national security of America without, of course, naming names or putting any facts in or distorting the facts and taking away their security clearance, which just to explain it to our audience, many of these law firms that do business in Washington, and they either represent clients before agencies or the government, and therefore clients have to feel comfortable that these lawyers are going to have the ability to go into federal courthouses and federal offices and be invited in. And in some ways, they need to have national security clearances in order to look at issues that have come up between their client and the government. And if you take that away, you take that law firm out of the game, you know, it's game over. Law firm can't, you know, it's literally an existential threat to the law firm that's going to have to close its doors, especially if a large percentage, percentage of its, of its, of its client base and revenue base comes from representing people before the government. Now, in some cases, firms like Perkins Coy and others are hired by agencies to, on waivers and things to represent them and get into the halls, the halls of power and represent agencies because they're, as we've just described, they're missing the expertise because their own lawyers have headed for the doors that work at the Department of Justice or they're getting bashed, like the Department of Transportation last week bashing their lawyers at the Department of Justice's office in New York because of a misfiling, you know, so we've got that happening. And so if you take away the ability effectively for a firm to have a federal practice, a firm like Perkins Coy or Jenner Block or will, you know, the Wilmer Hale or the rest of them, you put them out of business. And so Donald Trump not only disparaged them and, and, and, and said that implied that they were committing crimes depending upon the law firm, but he also put them in a blacklist and that's it. They're the game over. So the firms that were threatened and the firms that actually had executive orders, they fell into two groups. The world divided. You either fought because you had to. Usually these firms are led by litigators and have huge litigation practices like Perkins Coy and the rest, or you submitted hoping that you would not get bashed by the Trump administration with a sword of Damocles hanging over your head. And those are the firms, including one that I worked at or that are mainly corporate transactional firms that make tons of money from their clients in things not involving the federal government and don't want and didn't want to be on a blacklist. So you had Scad NARPS and Latham and Watkins and Kirkland and Ellis and Cadwallader and all these major transactional firms that make a lot of money from deal making cut a deal and they went for and Paul Weiss and Wilkie Farr and Gallagher, which used to represent in pro bono programs, you know, people like Rupi Freeman and Shane Moss. And that was also something that stuck in Donald Trump's craw is that all these major firms not only would not represent him and he was stuck at the bottom of the barrel with Todd Blanche, a solo practitioner, or Chris Keis, a solo practitioner, or Emil Bove, a solo practitioner or whatever it was. And none of the major firms would touch Donald Trump with a ten foot ball because he was radioactive. And this is his payment back. And he doesn't like to pro bono programs doing work for free because they were always, in his view, against him or against Republican causes. And so he got them back. Once he got their balls in his hands, he squeezed and the some of the firms went, we'll pay how much? And the going rate at the beginning was 40 million. That was set by Paul Weiss. And we were like, oh my, are you kidding me? That's just going to open the floodgates. And that's exactly what happened. Then the next price was 100 million and SCAD Norps and a bunch of other firms paid 100 million. Then it went to 150 million. And Stephen Miller is apparently running this whole thing because in a press conference at the end of something in the Oval Office, you hear Trump going, hey Steve, how much have we collected from this law firms? It's like, you know, they say they didn't do anything wrong, but look at all the money we're getting. So he gets the talking point, he gets the free pro bono work from these firms which he's now apparently going to use to represent bad cops who are violating civil rights because he's just announced that in another executive order. So those are those firms. And then you've got Perkins, the Perkins Coy's of the world and the Williams and Connolly, the lawyers of the lawyers representing them that said f this, this is a violation of the First Amendment. This is ultimately a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment because clients are being denied the representation of their choice. Because how could I want Perkins Coy to represent me? I can't. They're out of business or they can't take a case against the federal government. I've just Trump has just violated the sacrosanct relationship between a lawyer and a client and that's how they positioned all these cases. Now, we're going to talk a lot about Barrel Hal after a break, you're going to read from it. But this is not the only case out there that we're waiting on preliminary injunctions to be issued. I mean, we've got Judge Ali Khan who's about to issue their decision in another similar law firm executive order case. We're waiting for Judge Bates to do the same thing. We're waiting for Judge Leon to do the same. Judge Leon to do the same thing. And if I were them, after you and I are done really breaking down and reading from her order, I would, if I were them, I would just do a me too opinion. For the reasons cited and outlined in the historical context of Barrel Howell, we also issue this order. I would just do that. They're going to issue their own 30, 40, 50 page decisions. I doubt that any of them will disagree with anything that Beryl Howell, who's the leader here, as the former chief justice of the district court said, I'll just leave it on this before I turn it back to you. I love the fact that she had an order. And we'll talk about the difference between the order of the opinion where she's commanding an untrustworthy Department of Justice and Trump administration to do certain things on a certain timeline immediately, including Russell Vaught, who is the former architect of Project 2025, who is now the keeper of the national checkbook as the leader of the Office of Management and Budget. He is named by name by Barrel Howell a number of times, her order. But in her 101 page opinion, the first five pages is she's speaking to various audiences. She's speaking to history. She's speaking to the Trump administration. She's speaking to the people who believe in the rule of law. And she's speaking to the parties in the case. And she does it. And you'll go through it with your reading. She does it with reference to everything from Alex de Tocqueville, who came to this country in the 1830s and observed the role of an independent bench and bar particularly. And John Adams as a reference. You'll read from it about his defense of eight different British officers in the Boston Massacre, a pretty unpopular position to take, but necessary. And then walk through the Shakespearean quote of all time, which is Donald Trump operates under I want to kill all the lawyers, especially the ones that I don't like.
- [24:02]
Michael Popak
Michael Popak I want to get into what the order says and then I want to talk about some of these other powerful orders with a focus on Trump appointed judges and what they've said in other areas of law. As Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies act and other war type powers in order to effectively rule like a dictator on day one, like he threatened that he would. Because if you think about what Trump is doing with tariff policy, which isn't even policy, he's invoking emergency powers and he's saying that there is a trade emergency, essentially like a war with Canada, with Australia. By the way, hat tip to Australia for electing the Labor Party. Anthony Albanese there a big win there. Temu Maga candidate Peter Dutton lost and lost his seat. Not only did their Liberal Party, which is their Conservative Party, lose because people are seeing what's going on, declared an emergency against Europe. This is what Donald Trump has done to rule by dictatorship, which is not what our system here is in the United States. And you have federal judges saying not here in the United States of America. That's good to see. Talk about that and more. I want to take our first quick break. I want to remind everybody about a few things. 1. Michael Popox YouTube channel the Legal AF YouTube channel. It's on its way to a million subscribers. Please check out the YouTube channel when you can and hit subscribe. 2. Michael Popox Law firm. If you or someone you know was in a catastrophic injury, car accidents, trucking accidents, things like that, wrongful death cases, sexual harassment, sexual assault cases, Michael Popak where can they go? What's the website? What's the phone number?
- [25:53]
Ben Miceli
Yeah, we made it easy for everybody. I got a beautiful website that's easy to use, intuitive and leads you right through a process to get a free case evaluation. It's at www. The popocfirm.com all you have to do is spell my middle my last name right Pop. Okay and then similarly made it easy on our legal AF audience with a 1-800-number-1-877. Popak AF.
- [26:19]
Michael Popak
I know you've launched a legal AF sub stack right now as well. So people check out the Legal AF substack. Check that out as well. We'll talk more about that later in the episode. Let's take our first quick break of the show. We've got a lot to discuss. I want to read the judge's words and let's go to Trump. Judges saying no no no alien enemies act is not the right thing to invoke here. Donald, take our first break.
- [26:44]
Ben Miceli
Hi love. No, I'm not calling my wife. I'm talking about this amazing product from via. It's Strawberry Crush and it's Pleasure Enhancing Herbs. I love this product. I take it all the time, especially over long weekends. It is one of my go tos and my wife appreciates it too. Look, if feeling your best starts with the right products and and for me that means via, I am proud to have them sponsoring this episode. If you haven't tried them yet, you're seriously missing out. Whether you need to unwind, refocus or boost your mood, Via is here to enhance your everyday and night. It's trusted by over half a million happy customers. Via is changing the game in natural wellness blending powerful high quality hemp derived ingredients to deliver real effect driven benefits. Whether you're looking to sleep better, have a better libido, improve focus, recover or simply relax, Via has a tailored solution just for you. With products ranging from zero to high cannabinoid levels, VIA lets you fully customize your experience to fit your needs. Whether you're looking to support your daily wellness routine, enhance focus and clarity or unwind with deep relaxation, VIA has you covered. From their award winning effect Forward gummies to calming drops, every Via product is thoughtfully crafted, made with organic lab tested hemp source from trusted independent American owned farms and the best part, VIA legally ships across the usa, discreet direct to your door, no medical card required and backed by a worry free guarantee. Not sure where to start? Take Via's product Finder quiz to get personalized recommendations tailored to your needs. It can take you less than 60 seconds to complete, so if you're 21 years or older, treat yourself to 15% off and get a free gift with your first order using our exclusive code legal af@ via hemp.com v I I a h e m p.com plus enjoy free shipping on orders over $100. That's v I I A H E M P oh Brain fog rolls in for me about every morning at 6:30am when our baby daughter just starts to stir and I need my brain to wake up in a hurry for our action packed day. Coffee with its highs and lows just didn't do it for me after 30 plus years of just increasing my coffee intake. And then I found Mud Water and particularly its Morning Ritual Starter Kit with a free frother and 30 servings of mud Water and I fell in love with a drink the way you only can when you're talking about a natural mushroom based alternative to coffee grounds and water. And I prepare it just like I would my old cup of joe, a little creamer, a little sweetener and I am good to go. It's a cozy mix of cacao, chai, turmeric and adaptogenic mushrooms to help you feel focused and balanced, not wired. Every single ingredient in mud WTR's products are 100% USDA certified organic, non GMO, gluten free, vegan and kosher. There's also zero sugar and no sweeteners added. To use Mud Water you simply drop the powder into your favorite mug, pour some water on it and give it a mix. Some go wild and they add creamer, honey or even cbd. The best part about Mud Water is it provides sustained energy without the spikes and crash of traditional coffee. There's also caffeine free blends available. Their Turmeric Starter Kit blends radiant ginger, warm turmeric and Rooibos chai. If you're looking for a blend to support immunity, digestion, focus with clean energy, all with the feeling of golden hour at sunset, this is a game changer. Mud Water is available at Target and Sprouts locations across the US So it's never been easier to grab a cup of this friendly pick me up. Ready to make the switch to cleaner Energy? Head to mudwater.com and grab your starter kit today. Right now our listeners get an exclusive deal up to 43% off your entire order plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use code legal AF. That's right up to 43% off with code Legalif at M U d w t r.com and after you purchase to ask you how you found them, please show your support and let them know we sent you. Keep your energy natural and refreshing all year long with Mud Water because life's too short for anything less than clean, delicious energy.
- [31:16]
Michael Popak
Welcome back to Legal af. Thank you to those pro democracy sponsors who really added the fuel to this show. They really, really is helpful to it. So check out the discount codes in the description below. I just wanted to read some of what Judge Beryl Howell said in the Washington, D.C. federal court when she ruled against Trump and granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm that sued him. Trump totally lost the case. Here's what the judge wrote in the opinion. No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all executive branch agencies. But in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase, quote the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding away with him, referring to an educated clerk who can make obligations and write courthand. Eliminating lawyers as the guardian of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power the importance of independence of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system's fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since the founding era. In 1770, John Adams made the singularly unpopular decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre and claimed later to have suffered loss of more than half of his practice. I had no hesitation, he explained, since counsel ought to be the very last thing that an accused person should want in a free country, and quote, the bar ought to be independent and impartial at all times and in every circumstance. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, these principles were codified into the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment secured the right in all criminal prosecutions to have the assistance of counsel for defense, and the Fifth Amendment protected the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the rights. This value placed on the role of lawyers caught the attention of Alexis de Tocqueville, who, in reflecting on his travels throughout the early United States in 1831 and 1832, insightfully remarked that the authority entrusted in the members of the legal profession is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy. The Supreme Court, too, has recognized the importance of lawyers to the functioning of the American judicial system. Since an informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed independent bar, there's one other part I could go on. It's 102 pages. I'm not going to read them all. Just read one other small portion. Quote, only when lawyers make the choice to challenge rather than back down when confronted with government action raising non trivial constitutional issues, can a case be brought to court for judicial review of the legal merits as was done in this case by plaintiff Perkins Coie, Plaintiff's counsel Williams and Connolly and the lawyers, firms, organizations and individuals who submitted amicus briefs in this case. If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and by so doing serve to promote the rule of law will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written. I would tell everybody to go and read the whole 102 pages.
- [34:58]
Ben Miceli
You know, guess where it's posted, Ben.
- [35:00]
Michael Popak
I'm gonna guess it's on the legal AF sub stack.
- [35:03]
Ben Miceli
Yes it is. Right now.
- [35:05]
Michael Popak
Check that out. I want to pivot right now. Popak to the Trump appointed judge in the Southern District of Texas, Judge Fernando Rodriguez. And Judge Fernando Rodriguez addressed an issue that even the non Trump appointed judges so far have shied away from, right? Whether it's Judge BOASBERG In Washington D.C. obama appointee, whether it is Judge Zenis in Maryland, not a Trump appointed judge, a Democratic appointed judge. These judges have addressed the issue of returning migrants who have been disappeared from the perspective of due process, right. Even if the Alien and Enemies act was properly invoked, these other judges, the non Trump appointed one, said there's still due process. So you can't just invoke the Alien Enemies act and then say I don't like this person's tattoos. Hence they are trend, hence they go to disappear and never be seen again in a foreign country. They didn't address the more thorny issue of is this a proper invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. But Popak, this judge, Judge Rodriguez, Southern District of Texas Trump appointee addressed that head on. He goes, there's not a war. He goes, I read the statute. There's no war trend. Aragua is not a nation invading us. So no, as bad as they may be, even if I assume these people were trending, there's ways to deal with gang members. There's laws for that. It's not the Alien Enemies Act.
- [36:45]
Ben Miceli
Yeah, and let me take it from a slightly different angle, but it will end up in the exact same, pardon me, we'll end up in the exact same place. That language about this is not an invasion of an enemy combatant by way of a foreign country we're at war with. This is migration is taken from the opinions written at the, at the Federal Circuit appellate court, the D.C. appellate court, when they were over, when they were over, Judge Boasberg at the time, it's almost word for word, but the fact that it resonated with a Trump appointed judge in the deepest, darkest, reddest part of Texas tells you everything you need to know. But the angle I wanted to come at was this way. The Supreme Court has taken a lot of flack and for good reason about how it operated last term and even this term, and now is still trying to find its way. Coming off of Rule of Law Day, one of the things that I don't want to have lost in the shuffle or in the smoke is that almost all of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made so far, even those that, that appear to favor the Trump administration, a lot of them are on procedural grounds actually ruling against the Trump administration or for it on substance, especially here on the Alien Enemies act, has not yet happened. And I think Donald Trump is in for a world of hurt and surprise because he, first of all, if you take him at his word, he doesn't read anything that comes out of the United States Supreme Court. He relies on his non lawyer henchmen, puppet master Stephen Miller to tell him what it says. He relies on his lawyers, right? Whatever they tell him to do or not do, that's what he does. And if that's the case that he's going to be in for a big shock. Because what I don't think they told him is that when the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3, quote, unquote, in his favor against Judge Boasberg and said one case in D.C. with one judge about the return of people that were sent to the gulag of El Salvador through some sort of administrative Procedures act violation or constitutional violation, that won't work for us. But what will work for us is individual habeas corpus petitions or maybe joined together in one putative class action in the location in which these people were or are before the threat of deportation and removal, which then scattered all the cases almost immediately led by the aclu, who you just interviewed the executive director on in places like Texas and Colorado, even New York, that's how we end up in this particular judge's courtroom. But what Donald Trump missed, and I'm sure will be a surprise to him, and it will be expressed in social media rantings, is that the Supreme Court didn't say that he had the right under the Alien Enemies act to do what he did to, to, to conjure up a phony war with Venezuela, and then use it to summarily, without due process, remove and deport people to a foreign gulag. That's not what they said. What they said is that issue is left for another judge at another day in a habeas corpus petition process. Now we're seeing, three weeks later, the result of that. The first federal judge who has been, who it got teed up in front of, who got asked to decide constitutionally whether Donald Trump's exercise of the Alien Enemies act as the power to summarily remove people, whether that is constitutional or not, landed in the lap of Judge Rodriguez, who Trump appointed. And here's what judge we're gonna. We read from orders. Let's read from his order. Here's what he said. He said that the Trump administration does not possess the lawful authority under the Alien Enemies Act. And based on that proclamation to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States or remove them from the country, the president cannot summarily declare that a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States, followed by the identification of the alien enemies, subject to detention and removal. Allowing the president to, Judge Rodriguez wrote, to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the Alien Enemies act and then summarily declare that those conditions exist would remove all limitations to the executive branch's authority under the Alien Enemies Act. It would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting congressional statutes to determine whether those acts are constitutional or not. I couldn't put it any better than that. And he pointed out, just as the Judges on the D.C. court of Appeals pointed out, all we're watching is the migration into this country of Venezuelans, some of which are criminal, some of which are in a narco terrorist gang who has been here. It didn't just happen. Or an incursion or predatory incursion. That's like, you know, they're at the gate. The enemy's at the gate. The Huns are at the gate. This group's been here for years. They got here through either undocumented status or documented status. They all came together. They're just a gang. They don't control the government of Venezuela, and they've been here for years, including during the first Trump administration. So you want to get rid of bad guys. We already had that rule on the books. You send it through immigration court, you approve your case, you show fake. You show real, not fake, photos of evidence. You put on evidence in an adversarial process. They're represented, they're given an interpreter if they don't speak English. And then, you know, we have that process and through that justice is done and a judge makes a ruling and there's an appellate process and then the person can be deported and removed from the country. Not this other thing, this showboating. He just Donald Trump, besides declaring himself the Pope. I don't know if you guys, I'm sure you guys have covered it on Midas. He literally put the miter on his head. It's one thing to call yourself the king, it's another thing. While the body of Pope Francis is not yet called to insult the world's Catholics and other and other God fearing people and make yourself the Pope. That wasn't funny. That was in poor taste. While we're the conclave hasn't even started yet. But it's one thing to do that and go on and go on, you know, and show video to your, your, your masses or your fermented masses and show video of, you know, here's video of them getting off the plane and being, have their head shaved and you know, for political purposes, which is doing as you and I have covered, doing horribly with, with the public. This is, they are not buying what Donald Trump is selling when it comes to immigration and not obeying the rule of law. So there's a lot of firsts with Donald Trump. First judge that you and I covered who issued the first injunction for this and it was for birthright citizenship. And the five days after this administration started, Judge Coffin are up in Seattle. First federal judge to and here a lot of firsts on this show. First federal judge to wrap the knuckles of law firms for having settled and not brought their cases into federal court. Feral Howell, first federal judge to rule that Donald Trump unconstitutionally invoked the Alien Enemies act is Judge Rodriguez, a Trump appointed judge from Texas.
- [44:17]
Michael Popak
Should also be noted as you look at Maryland, there's Judge Zinnis, not a Trump appointed judge. She's handling the Abrego Garcia case. There is the expedited discovery there has resumed. There's some deadlines coming up end of next week there the Trump regime tried to delay. We don't know what was represented to the judge behind the scenes, but they probably tried to defraud the judge and claim that they were making progress to get A.O. garcia back. I don't see why the judge would delay it for any reason other than false representations were made to them.
- [44:52]
Ben Miceli
Especially. And you did the, you did hot takes and so did I especially while Donald Trump on his, on his journalist tour is busy telling Terry Moran and the Time and Time magazine, no one's ever asked me to pick up the phone and call my counterpart in El Salvador. You're the first person had my lawyers ask me there's a phone, I could do it. Well, I'm sure Judge Zinnis, Judge Rodriguez, Judge Boasberger still has a case and the Supreme Court was listening to that.
- [45:20]
Michael Popak
There's the Trump appointed judge. Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that Donald Trump must facilitate the return of another 20 year old Venezuelan man who was previously who was also disappeared to a concentration camp in El Salvador. The Trump regime was arguing that the invocation of the Alien Enemies act voided a deal that the government made with that 20 year old Venezuelan not to deport him to El Salvador. And they said, yeah, the contract got breached, but it's because of the Alien Enemies Act. And the Trump appointed judge said, no, what are you talking about? Like that's, that, that's, that's just absolutely wrong. One other case I want to bring up just because I think it's worth talking about, even though it's not, not something I talked about in the beginning. But the Trump regime caved in the lawsuit that was brought by Governor Janet Mills of Maine against the US Department of Agriculture, which stopped the funding for school lunches and other important funding for children in schools because Donald Trump wanted the governor to directly ban the one or two transgender athletes that play sports in the, in the state of Maine. And the governor said that's not the way the law works here. And so Trump stole the food from kids. Right. And Trump was sued in federal court in Maine. It was a major loser. The lawyers there, I think, realized that they were going to be sanctioned for engaging in such bad faith tactics. And they reached the settlement agreement where basically the settlement agreement was the Trump administration takes away its policy and gives the kids lunch. One other point I want to make before going to a commercial break. I think corporate news does such a major disservice when they frame the issues of Abrego Garcia or these other migrants in the context of a debate around due process. And they present it as well. Here's a Democratic position, here's a Republican position. Debate the merits of due process. Nothing to debate. There's no debate. It's not a discussion. There isn't a debate. There's a Constitution, not a debate. The Constitution says things. So if your position is I just hate the Constitution, I at least would think you're coming in with a fair, you're Not a fair. You're at least dealing with what you think about. You don't like our Constitution. I don't think that's fair. But you're at least saying how you really feel. But debating that people shouldn't get due process and be sent to concentration camps and then saying, well, because they're immigrants. What are you talking about? It's not a debate. In America, you get due process. Can due process be slow and messy and all these things? Yes, that's the United States of America. That's the United States of America. That, that's what it is. And there are other systems. Russia that moves quicker. North Korea. Pop. Yacht right there. If they don't like you, that's a faster system. We said go to Saudi Arabia. They behead you. You know there were other systems out there, right? Our system is the system. I love our system with all of its flaws and wrinkles and problems. I took an oath in our American system. So don't debate me about due process being a thing or not a thing. Just shut up. I don't want to talk to you about it. I'm not debating you. I'm not talking to you about it. I'm telling you what the Constitution is. It's not a discussion, period. End of story. We're going to take our last quick break of the show. I want to talk when we get back about what Ketanji Brown Jackson did. Donald Trump rushing to the Supreme Court to try to get your Social Security data as well. Talk about those two topics. I want to remind everybody about Michael Popak's YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel. Check it out. Legal AF, it's crushing it. It's on its way to a million subscribers. Got a whole incredible crew. Pop. I want you to talk about that when, when we come back.
- [49:52]
Ben Miceli
Okay.
- [49:52]
Michael Popak
The crew there at the Legal AF YouTube channel because it's a. You really assembled now like a dream, dream team, all star cast of, of lawyers there. Michael Popo's new law firm. If any of you have catastrophic injuries or know someone who does, trucking accidents, car accidents, sexual assault cases, negligence, medical malpractice cases like that. And the cases that Popak handles tends to all injuries are bad. I don't want to downplay injuries but the injuries that Popak, I just don't want you to waste your time in reaching out if you can't help handles the catastrophic cases where the most serious of serious cases, wrongful death type cases and injuries that require like lots of, lots of surgeries and things like that. Popak where can they find you?
- [50:40]
Ben Miceli
Yeah, made it simple. There's a website. It's www the POPOC firm P O P O K for those that always wonder how to spell my name. Thepopocfirm.com and then a 1-800-number that our legal AF audience will appreciate. It's 1-877-popoc AF for a free case consultation.
- [51:02]
Michael Popak
Take our last quick break of the show. Actually one more reminder. POPOX substack the legal A substack everybody check that out as well. Last break of the show. We'll be right back. We'll talk about more did you know.
- [51:14]
Ben Miceli
Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the US with thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers, they have all the plants your yard needs like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs and so much more. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. Their alive and thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus get support from trained plant experts on call to help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants and learn how to care for them. We recently moved into a new house and it came with two big bald spots where grass used to be but the prior owner's dog wore out. So we turned to Fast Growing Trees and their plant experts advice turned an eyesore into one of our favorite features of the yard with a few key lime trees suited for our climate and location. Saved us all the aggravation of dealing with unknown landscapers and nurseries too. Big yard, small yard, no yard. Fast Growing trees has over 6,000 plants to fit any space from indoor plants to fruit trees to full size privacy trees and more and their 14 point quality checklist ensures you're getting the best quality plant possible. Each plant is cared for individually based on their needs, from watering routines to the amount of sunlight, giving your plants the care they deserve from the time they start growing to when they ship to your home. Whether you're looking to add privacy, shade or natural beauty to your yard, Fast Growing Trees has in house experts ready to help you make the right selection. With plant experts on call to offer growing and care advice, you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required. Every plant comes with instructions and tips to take care of your new plants so they can grow to their flesh fullest potential. This spring they have the best deals for your yard up to half off on select plants and other deals and listeners to our show. Get 15 off their first purchase when using the code legal AF at checkout. That's an additional 15 off at fast growingtrees.com using the code legal AF at checkout. Fast growingtrees.com code legal AF Now's the perfect time to plant. Use legal AF to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. This show is sponsored by Liquid iv. I was born by the beach and I haven't recovered since. Born in December, but a summer baby all the way and my daughter. She was born on a 95 degree sweltering day last June, so I love summer. Prepping for a big summer means planning to stay hydrated so you can get the most out of your body and live more during those warm summer months. Visit liquidiv.com and maximize your summer plans with Sugar Free Hydration featuring the new Raspberry Lemonade hydration multiplier. Get 20% off your first order with code legal AF at checkout. I've made Liquid IV part of my daily ritual so that with one simple pack I ensure that I'm getting not only hydration but electrolytes and needed nutrients to keep my personal battery charged. Like just before my wife and I do a quick jog to the gym, we fully hydrate with our favorite Liquid IV flavor. Liquid IV is the perfect way to stay hydrated during long days outside that often become even longer nights. Liquid IV features true to fruit flavors that keep you hydrated. Find all your favorite hydration multiplier flavors on their website from Acai berry and lemon lime to Pina colada. Or choose from their line of sugar free flavors like Raspberry Lemonade, White peach and Rainbow sherbet. Break the mold and own your ritual. Just one stick and 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. Liquid IV is powered by Live Hydro Science, an optimized ratio of electrolytes, essential vitamins and clinically tested nutrients that turn ordinary water into extraordinary hydration. It has three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink and eight essential vitamins and nutrients. Always non gmo, vegan, gluten free, dairy free and soy free. Get ready for summer with extraordinary hydration from Liquid IV. Get 20% off your first order of Liquid IV when you go to Liquid IV.com and use code legal AF at checkout. That's 20% off your first order with code legal AF@liquid IV.com welcome back to Legal AF.
- [56:08]
Michael Popak
Special thanks to those Pro Democracy sponsors. Jordy spends a lot of time making sure we've got the right sponsors here. He works on the discount codes in the description below. He spends a long time on that. And those sponsors support our show, so. And they're great stuff. So. So check it out. Okay, Popak, before we move on to the next topic, though, the, the team you've put together for the legal AF YouTube channel is like an, it would be an A team law firm.
- [56:38]
Ben Miceli
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Listen, we got a number of things. We've heard you, I guess the way that Donald Trump doesn't hear his polls and acts against it. We hear you. And we did a couple of things. One, I was able, with collaboration with, with the brothers and Ben to bring on some amazing contributors. We're now up to about 12, with two more coming next week to the Legal AF YouTube channel that I curate. Besides my videos, we've got Court Accountability Action, which is a group that's dedicated to ferreting out and exposing corruption in the court system, federal court system, up to the United States Supreme Court, led by Alex Aronson, Lisa Graves, Mike Sachs, and they do five, six, seven videos a week. They bring on some amazing guests. We just had back to back, you know, we had Jamie Raskin that I actually worked with Alex on, and we had Sheldon Whitehouse and some, they're, they're great for interviews and they bring on a lot of, a lot of great interviews. And then we just brought on, literally in the last four, 48 hours, Sidney Blumenthal, you know, journalist extraordinaire, researcher, historian, presidential advisor, Sidney Blumenthal for Legal af, along with his friend, close colleague, Sean Wallenz, Professor Sean Wallentz at Princeton University. And they, they are resident historians on Legal af and they're doing a regular show every day. And they call it the Court of History, which in their view is the highest court above the Supreme Court, because it's history that's going to judge the actions of Donald Trump. And they put everything in an amazing historical perspective. And when Donald Trump and his people like JD Vance use historical analogies, they, they say why. They rip, they rip the, the mask off and they tell why. No, you're not like Andrew Jackson. No, that's not what happened in the 1800s with John Marshall. So Cindy Blumenthal, Sean Wallenz have joined and then I'm teasing now, but next week we're going to have an amazing other two more voices out there who do a great podcast, which I'm not going to disclose yet, but they are coming. But this is what we're building together as a community and fellowship with our legal AF audience. And you guys are responding in a way that's just overwhelming and tier creating. We just, we're at 620,000 subscribers. In seven months, we're going to be 700,000 at the rate we're going by next week. And that's all because of you and the support of the Midas Touch and Legal AF community. And the same thing. Substack can't get enough illegal af. We start talking about 101 page decisions. We are now posting those regularly. I do a la Ben, I do a morning kind of summary of where we are and where we're going. I call it morning af, of course. So come on over to the legal AF substack as well.
- [59:31]
Michael Popak
You know, Michael Bobach, we've spent a lot of time talking about some victories where Trump's, where Trump's lost victories for democracy. We started off with victory with the law firms migrants and just setting aside. That's the basic concept of due process being discussed by all judges and Trump appointed judges. You know, there's this other area here, and this is kind of the procedural thing, right, where Trump's trying to now use procedure to do bad stuff to take your Social Security information. Because what Trump wants to argue is that the presidents are good people. We don't harm you with things. We just want to be more efficient and root out fraud. Right. That's all we want to do here. Now, the law creates so much presumptions that presidents are good people that there's a lot of deference that's given. So in lawsuits, one of the issues is there's got to be an injury. And normally we wouldn't say, well, the executive branch going about a process of accessing data isn't nefarious. Normally we would say, okay, I mean, you know, we elected the guy president and presidents do president things and okay, but what happens when the president picks an oligarch like Elon Musk who we know is a bad person and the president is a bad person who hates our judicial system and is out there saying and doing bad things? What do we do in those situations? Now when they want your Social Security data, when they want your information and we're like, I don't want to give it to. Why is Elon Musk a special advisor? I don't want to give this guy my Social Security information. But the regime argues, yeah, but you haven't been injured yet. Elon Musk hasn't sold it you haven't proved that he sold. We just want to look at it. And looking at it, is it an injury? And right. Sometimes courts look at injury like a simplistic example is car accident, right? Car gets into an accident, someone gets hurt, injury. But would you say an injury is, I'm worried that there's going to be a car accident later because I see how people drive at a certain period of time. The court would say, you haven't been injured yet. There's no injury. In fact. So when we speak about the Social Security case, the judges who have ruled so far against the Trump administration are basically having an injunction and saying, look, we need to just preserve the status quo because we don't know what the hell Doge is doing. Trump saying, I'm appealing that there hasn't been an injury yet to the people. Your injunction is premature. So then it goes to the court of appeals. It started in a Maryland federal court, right. Then it goes to the court of appeals. The fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sits over the district court in Maryland. And it went in front of what's called an en banc panel. I won't confuse you with procedure, but it was heard in front of all of the judges. Usually it's a three judge panel, but in special circumstances it could be heard in front of all 15. And it was a 9 to 6 ruling along party lines where the Democratic appointed judges, by and large were the ones who said the injunction blocking the Social Security data from getting to Musk, that that should stand, that it should still be blocked. The Republicans did not say that Elon Musk was doing. Right. That's the point that Popak was making earlier in the show. But they said, but the people who brought this case, the afl, cio, the unions represented by a group called Democracy Forward, who does a great job, they haven't proved yet that they've actually suffered the injury. So we have to then default to these good faith beliefs in the executive branch. So that's an important. It's nuanced, but that's what's going on. And you see how someone like Donald Trump, who's breached contracts his entire life, implied in every contract is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that even if something's not spelled out specifically, it's implied that the parties will behave in good faith. So our Constitution is like a contract. If you go read the amendments, some of them are just one sentence long, but there's a good faith belief in what their intention was and how to follow him. So Trump, the way he breached contracts his whole life and ripped him apart. He's doing the same with the ultimate contract, which is the Constitution. And he's abusing the good faith presumptions that federal courts throughout history have given to the executive branch to say, I want the Social Security now for Musk. And it's an emergency.
- [64:42]
Ben Miceli
Why?
- [64:43]
Michael Popak
Because we're the executive branch. We're good guys. We're good. We're the good guys. You're going to say the President's a bad guy. We're not. So that's what's happening. So Trump, on an emergency basis, through his Solicitor General, John Sauer, goes to the Supreme Court on that issue. We have not got a ruling yet. The Supreme Court's ordered an emergency kind of briefing on this issue. So we'll find out what happens on this issue. But, but that's the dynamic of what is taking place. I think I covered a lot of it.
- [65:19]
Ben Miceli
Yeah, but I wanted. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But let me.
- [65:21]
Michael Popak
And then, but then when you do it, then, then you could transition seamlessly because I think talking about the Solicitor General, the standing ovation and then I think a little bit of technology.
- [65:31]
Ben Miceli
Okay, great. The. What we're watching with what Ben, you just, you just described in detail. What we're watching is the Trump administration using and misusing and abusing the emergency petition process, the shadow docket process, to their advantage to try to stampede a body, the Supreme Court, that does not do well under pressure and is not built to do well under pressure. They don't like emergency applications. Their procedures for it are, they're not built for it. They're a more deliberative, tortoise like body. Donald Trump knows that. And he, what he, what Donald Trump doesn't want is what we want in the 60 or 70 cases that go before the United States Supreme Court. We want the deliberative process to prevail. We want a full record of facts. Donald Trump doesn't want that. We want full briefing, three big pieces of paper filed by the parties and others to help guide the judges. Donald Trump doesn't want that. We want the judges in caucus to talk about the case, lobby each other and try to get votes over one or the other before the majority opinion or dissents are written. Donald Trump doesn't want that. We want the oral argument, including one that we are doing regular oral arguments now on the Legal AF YouTube channel. We just did the one of the Oklahoma religious charter school that went on for an hour and a half. We had 50,000 people join us for that. One, we want the oral argument and then we want that law. Trump doesn't want oral argument. And then we want that long deliberative process of 1, 3, 5, 8 months while they're working behind the scenes and the law clerks are running back and forth with opinions and all the things you and I read in the books, like the brethren and other insider accounts of the Supreme Court to get to that 40, 50, 60 page decision that will then guide us. If we lost, we'll know why. If we won, we'll know why. Trial judges will know how to govern off of that. Donald Trump doesn't want any of that. What he wants is these quick, knee jerk snap decisions which are only based on two briefs, an incomplete record, no oral argument, and then we get. And what comes out of junk in, junk out. Right? What do we get? We get four or five paragraphs that you and I have to daven over. What does this mean? Why is this sentence here? Foreign policy powers combined. What, What? And that's what he wants. He want. He knows. Donald Trump knows that if he forces the issue in a phony emergency, and that's the entire administration is summed up by the phony emergency. Phony emergency on the economy, tariff, war, phony emergency against Venezuela, alien Enemies act, phony emergency, 12 applications for emergency relief, of which none of these are true emergencies, up to the United States Supreme Court in order to try to get the votes and grab them fast. He knows that 80% of the time or more, Alito and Thomas, well, alito and Thomas, 100% of the time, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the other 80% of the time are going to, if forced, will back the Trump administration almost all the time. That's four votes right there. He only needs one more. And he knows that for him, for Trump, because they support the rule of law and democracy, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor are lost causes. Which means he only now, under this scenario that I just provided of emergency, the, the, the rushed stampede of the Supreme Court, he only has to try to get Roberts and, or Amy Coney Barrett. He only needs one of the two. And we, we have to fight for both. Yeah. And then in cases like we just saw this week where Amy Coney Barrett says, yeah, I can't hear this case because my best friend, the goddaughter of one of my kids is represented one of the parties leaving it four to four. Oh, but to do now, but this is what we're watching and the sooner, and I've called this out on a hot take, that the justices like Kagan and Sotomayor and Jackson who sit over certain of the circuits, start rejecting these applications when they're first brought to them rather than refer them over. I know they want to be like, well, we don't look, shadow docket, we get accused of shadow docket, we're going to send it over to the full nine. Screw that. Kagan right now can kill something that's right in front of her coming out of California, and she should. And that's it. We have to. They have to start punishing and pushing back against the Trump administration's exploitation of the emergency docket method to try to get rulings in their favor. Even if they're short term rulings. You see the political capital they try to gain from it. Oh, we won. Oh, you know, it's three days of news cycle about how the Supreme Court, quote, unquote, ruled in their favor when you and I both know, not so fast. You know, we're not even at, we're not even going to be at the sub. This term is going to be over now. The last oral arguments are now happening. This is it. Except for emergency applications, things we're talking about that are going to be ruled about, ruled on in the Trump administration. You and I are going to be spending an inordinate amount of time come October when the new term opens, but not now. Now we're talking about all the procedural things. So now we had in the perfect, perfect way to segue into the Rule of Law Week, which, I'll be frank, in 35 years. Yeah, it was a date on my calendar. I mean, but when you're in the Trump era, Rule of Law Day becomes a day of action. That's why all my friends were sending me videos from Foley Square out in front of the courthouse. Donald Trump was convicted in federal judges. We had, we put up judges who support Midas, Dutch and Legal AF in shorts and clips on our Legal AF YouTube channel. But, you know, for me, it was just like another day now it was like a serious, like I had like a, I renewed my vows and my oath to the legal AF community, you know, which I hadn't done in 35 years. It was really, really important. And Ketanji Brown Jackson goes to Puerto Rico for the First Circuit Judicial Conference, which covers Puerto Rico and Maine and I think Massachusetts. And she's in a room full of people who believe in the rule of law. If anything, they may not all agree on everything or what they're going to order at Sweet Greens, but they rule. They all agree that the rule of law is important. So she had a friend, she's preaching to the choir, but it's the right place to preach. And she steps out. She's, this is while the term is still going on. I mean, this isn't like in the summer and she's in Lake Como in Italy, you know, like, like Alito being paid for some boondoggle or Thomas. It's like we're still in session, court's still in session. And she says, I'm going to take a point of personal privilege on May 1 on rule of Law Day, and defend the attacks by this administration, which she called the elephant in the room. But we knew what she meant against federal judges who are now, as you said earlier in the podcast, Ben, who are now suffering attacks, federal marshals being assigned to them. One of them confided, I can't name the name because it wasn't given to me. But Sidney Blumenthal on one of his hot takes with me said a very close friend of his who is a federal judge says that it is having a chilling effect and an impact on federal judges in doing their job, which is exactly what Donald Trump wants. So they almost like confessed it. And so she defended them and called out the elephant in the room and said, judges and the independent judiciary, just as de Tocqueville said in 1830 about the independent bench bar in lawyers are the firewall that protect our democracy. And the fact that we're talking about judges being attacked relentlessly by this administration and its head, Donald Trump does not is a, is a complete disrespect and disgrace for everything that our democracy stands for. And while she was acknowledging that and got a standing ovation earlier in the week, Edwin and Edwin Krendler, after 46 years and 160 oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court, that the Roberts Court, all nine, took the opportunity to call him back to the podium. When he was done, he's decided, I've had enough. I've seen every administration, including the last Trump administration. I am not going to do this, this administration's bidding any longer. I have too much self worth. I have too much value in my ethics. I'm not doing. He didn't say these things, but it's obvious. This is the reason. Know, 100 days in, he's heading for the tour. He's, he's in good health. You know, he's been doing this a long time. And he is the one, he's the citizen, a solicitor general that, the mentor for generations of lawyers in that office who looked up to, to, to him, to Kneedler. And Roberts calls him up. There's no, I look for the audio. There's no audio of this. He calls him up to the. Both advocates after the end of the oral argument and says, Mr. Kneeler, I don't know if you know this. This was your 160th oral argument. It said a monitor, it set a record. And there, oh, a lot of murmuring for people that watched it. And he said, you, you embody everything that's right about the rule of law, about integrity, about Canada, the tribunal. We can trust you and what you say. And all. All I heard, Ben, when I read these remarks was this was the rebuke that we've been waiting for for John Roberts when he had the opportunity as a proxy against Donald Trump. And at the end of that, that support for the rule of law and the living embodiment of it in Knedler, all nine justices, in a rare showing of unanimity and support and collegiality and being, being a real brethren, stood up and applauded. And according to people in the room, everybody's face on the dais, on the bench was beaming. So this wasn't like four. You know, sometimes you're like at a Broadway show and do I really have to give this stand? Was it really that good? Everybody supported this guy and then he exited the room. And that, that actually stands, that metaphor, right, of the rule of law exiting the room. That bookends of those standing ovations, I think, are important to talk about. This is how we can. Until there's another election midterm, this is the ways that we can rebel and resist. These are the points of action. And we in this community that you and I have built Legal AF and you and your brothers built Midas Touch at extension. It's important that we activate the fellowship that we, yes, we have to talk truth to each other. And we're doing that every way, every hour, every podcast here and on Legal af. But it's also, we talk about how to activate that and put that into action. We have to be action figures, right? We've got to. We can't just. Right. It's superheroes and action figures, and we've got to be superhero action figures and, and be the foot soldiers to protect our Constitution. And we're watching the leaders and you have them on regularly on the Midas Touch network, whether it's Letitia James or we've had Jamie Raskin or it's other people who voice the concerns but we as a community can do our own part for it as we prepare for, for the election. And I think we're doing our, we're doing our part. Hopefully we're doing the educate, the, the entertaining education part in a way as you said earlier, that mainstream media either ignores, talks down to its audience or just refuses, doesn't think there's any ratings or money in talking about, you know, the 101 page decision by Barrel Howell while we think it's the opposite, whatever else they're selling between commercials, that's the junk. This, this is where the rubber meets the road. And I think our audience legal a effort invited us mighty recognize that we.
- [77:22]
Michael Popak
Covered a lot today. Many ways I, we've done a lot of shows together. This one feels very comprehensive. I mean they're all comprehensive but it just feels that we're in a very obviously a very serious moment, a very pivotal moment. I just feel very locked in right now, you know and you know I kind of feel, I mean it's, it's maybe it's not a great example because it's something very different. Sometimes when you're doing a trial and you know you go from maybe the early jitters right before you're about to give an opening to then you kind of get locked in and you're on autopilot in a way and you're just, you, you're going through your reps and you, you see it very clearly. You know, I almost think like the matrix. Like you see the weaknesses, the strengths, you see your team, you know who's in the trenches with you, you see who's abandoned you, you see who's kissed the ring, you see who's surprised you by standing up. You form new alliances with people maybe you didn't expect to but are helpful right now in this moment. Maybe people betrayed you who you thought were going to be there. But I find us at this moment together, legal A effers here together stronger than ever. Building this network, building the legal AF YouTube channel, building all of these platforms that help become the voice of all of the great work that's now being done by these other great lawyers and great non profit groups and groups that are leading the protests. And so to turn this machine that you all helped us build and really utilize it for good in the way that this is going down is, it's, it's great. Locked in, ready to go. And really appreciate everybody here. Nice audience tonight as well.
- [79:25]
Ben Miceli
By the way, before you leave, I know you started with I'm not sure this is a great analogy. It's, it's a. What you just did was perfect because having been a trial lawyer in the trenches with you and, and in my own career, you just get that fighter pilot deep focus, you know, where you just, and that's I think where you and I and our audience are right now. That 270 degree fighter pilot focus and we've got our hands on the controls with our audience. And I, and I, I think that was, I was perfectly put. I really liked it.
- [79:56]
Michael Popak
That's why you're my co host to say nice things about my analogies. Make sure you all subscribe to Michael Popox YouTube channel, the legal AF YouTube channel on its way to a million. Let's get them a million subscribers. We've got the Legal AF sub stack that was just launched as well. Some great stuff on the Legal AF sub stack. Check that out. We got a host a State of legal af address this month on patreon patreon.com legal af and make sure you know you just hit subscribe here also and help us get to 5 million subscribers. Thank you so much legally efforts. Great episode. Thanks to everybody who works at the Midas Touch network. Illegal af. Y'all are are incredible and we're grateful for the work you do. Thank you to our mods. Thank you to everybody. Appreciate you. Shout out. Legal AF effort. Shout out. Midas might.