Will SCOTUS Stop Judges Gone Wild? — Legal Insurrection Podcast: Episode 24
The New York Times is still awful
Episode 24 is live. We discuss the judicial insanity meant to crush Trump’s mandate, what’s really at stake in these legal battles, the demonization of Musk and his DOGE crew, why the New York Times is awful, liberal media shakeups (seriously, where do you land if you’ve been canned by MSNBC?), and we conclude with a mini discussion on why DEI is far from dead.
Watch:
Listen:
Miss our discussion (“Reports of the Death of DEI are Greatly Exaggerated”)? Watch or listen here.
Links from the Podcast:
- Supreme Court Appears Ready to Give Reverse Discrimination Claims a Big Boost, and DEI a Big Blow
- ‘Pure Propaganda’: Elon Musk Blasts New York Times After Listing DOGE Employees
- UPDATE: Supreme Court Stays District Court Order That U.S. Pay $2 Billion To Foreign Aid Contractors By Midnight
- Jeff Bezos Says Washington Post Opinion Page Will Focus on ‘Personal Liberties and Free Markets’
- After Joy Reid Firing, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann Agree That MSNBC is a Hotbed of Racism
- Joy Reid – Who Mocked ‘White Tears’ – Cries Over Her Firing by MSNBC
- Lester Holt Leaving as Anchor of NBC Nightly News
- Judge Temporarily Blocks Education Dept., OPM From Giving DOGE Sensitive Info
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Chief Justice Roberts is the quintessential bureaucrat. He will not act, unless it is in his interest or the Court’s interest.
I am not sure that he is a Trump fan. I noticed how he did not wait for Trumps family to gather before beginning the swearing in on January 20th
Kind of hard to watch after Kemberlee muted herself.
It’s fixed now! Thank you for pointing it out.
950+ [ worthless] law professors label Trump’s actions a ‘constitutional crisis’
The illegality of these actions, even when the illegality has been adjudged in federal courts, does not seem to be deterring the President’s actions. Instead, the President and his administration are openly flirting with disobeying judicial rulings against him. In fact, the President has proclaimed, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
We are saddened by the fact that we have to explain to the President this fundamental democratic principle, but we do: a president has the obligation to obey the Constitution as well as court orders enjoining his illegal and unconstitutional efforts. The law is not whatever Mr. Trump says it is. He is not king.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/950-law-professors-label-trumps-actions-a-constitutional-crisis/
… please cite when Trump shredded the Constitution
None of these 950 should ever get on a court bench
https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/We-Are-in-a-Constitional-Crisis-Statement-of-Law-Professors-and-Law-Teachers.pdf
Trump should just revoke JFK’s EO allowing public sector unions.
Unions in general have outlived their time. Now that everything they fought for is law, they have to keep the money train going and have switched to strongarming companies and paying off legislators like the mafia but somehow legal.
SCOTUS should be removing Article. III. inferior court judges for “bad Behaviour”.
SCOTUS has the authority to administer the Article. III. inferior courts; it is the “supreme court”.
Congress cannot remove judges for “bad Behaviour”; only SCOTUS can. Article. III. inferior court judges only have tenure during “good Behaviour”
“bad Behaviour” arises out of judiciable controversies, not a political disagreement. …
“separation of powers” is a judicial controversy, as is what constitutes “bad Behaviour”.
The “impeachment process” is a political process, and applicable to a limited number of special, enumerated accusations.
Further,
Judges who demonstrate “bad Behaviour” are not “independent” and undermine the credibility of the entire judicial system, as well they deny the People Constitutionally protected enumerated and unenumerated Rights not delegated to government.
Examples of “bad Behaviour” include: incompetence; incapacity (cognitive or physical); breach of the Oath of Office, e.g., politicization of their Office through their rulings; ignoring precedent and stare decisis without well-reasoned arguments; manipulation of the judicial process to disadvantage one or more parties; lack of “judicial demeanor”; …
More examples can be found in English law prior to 1791, as well in colonial charters, and early state constitutions.
Legal scholars and former judges have been discussing the same for 125+ years (yet, too many articles are now behind pay walls), but it is not in the interest of the judiciary to admit that many judges are grossly unqualified, political hacks.