BREAKING: Supreme Court issues huge ruling on injunctions (06-27-2025--Hour1)

[00:00:04] What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to 3 on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetekalendershow.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support.

[00:00:28] The Supreme Court has sent down a number of rulings today, the biggest one that would essentially get rid of a lot of these nationwide injunctions. The president and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, are doing a live press conference right now. It's been going on about 15 or 20 minutes, so I think they're probably taking questions that are not related to the Supreme Court ruling, but let's eavesdrop in and see what they're talking about.

[00:00:56] I'm not surprised by it, but I am surprised that it went this far. It took us to bring life back to normal. So it's a wonderful, it's parental. And I kept saying, we will give you back your parental rights. They were taken away and this is a tremendous victory for parents. Yeah. That's another one of the rules. Back at the last week, it's been extraordinary in terms of the action in the Middle East, you were at the Hague. I'm wondering now. It's been a week, hasn't it? I'm wondering now if you believe that Iran. It's been some week.

[00:01:24] I'm wondering now, sir, if you believe that Iran has given up its long history of ambitions with nuclear weapons or what you would like to see from them to prove that they do. And what type of meetings is your administration looking for next week with Iran? So Iran wants to meet. As you know, their sites were obliterated. They're very evil nuclear sites. They now has been proven. We had some fake news for a little while.

[00:01:49] The same people that covered the Hunter Biden laptop was from Russia. The same people that did three or four other Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. But on their end, they came up with something that delayed the credit that our great pilots and these great Americans. I mean, they what talent that was. And they hit it right down in the spot. 52,000 feet. Think of this dark, no moon. You couldn't see a thing.

[00:02:15] And they hit the refrigerator door, as they say. That's the size of a target. And overwhelmingly. And it's amazing what was done. We're the only ones that could have done it. And we took out two of the other sites also. In addition to that, we finished them off. That was a very evil intention. I believe that, and again, time will tell, but I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.

[00:02:43] They spent over a trillion dollars on nuclear and they never got it together. And nothing was moved from the site, by the way. To do that is very dangerous. It's very, very heavy material. Those cars were most likely the cars of masons because they were pouring concrete at the top, at the hatch, as you know, the hatch going into the nuclear site. They wanted to reinforce it. And they had some masons there pouring concrete. By the way, that concrete was obliterated. It hit exactly at the concrete.

[00:03:11] It was, I don't think it had a chance to dry. But everything's down there. It's under millions of tons of rock. Please. Yes. Your administration has said that El Salvador is one of the safest countries in the hemisphere. So why haven't you yet canceled temporary protective status for that country? Was it part of the deal? Well, we'll take a look. We've had a great relationship with El Salvador. They have a fantastic leader.

[00:03:37] They built a massive prison system. And I don't know exactly why, but it's a hell of a system. And we bring people there. And when they go there, they don't get out. And frankly, when they hear they have to go there, they become very nice people. They become very nice people. It's a tough system, but it's a brilliant system. And it's a system done by a very, very good leader. We'll talk about El Salvador. A lot of respect. Mr. President, thank you.

[00:04:06] Thank you. A question for you and then a question for the attorney general. As you go into negotiations and talks with Iran, are you demanding not only that there would be no uranium production inside of Iran, but also that Iran would turn over all existing stockpiles of uranium? Well, you know, we're a little early for that, but something like that. Yeah, we'll do something like that. Let me say that I've been saying for 25 years, even as a civilian, you cannot let them have a nuclear weapon.

[00:04:35] And that's what happened. It's been obliterated. It would be years before they could ever get going. And I really think it's probably the last thing. They have to recover from a hell of a tough war. Would you also be demanding that the IAEA have full rights to inspect in Iran? Or somebody, yeah. Or somebody that we respect, including ourselves. And a question for both the president and the attorney general. Under birthright citizenship, if this is implemented, who would be tasked with actually vetting citizenship?

[00:05:03] And would this be a situation where you have nurses and doctors checking for citizenship of parents? This is all pending litigation. It's going to be decided in October by the Supreme Court, and we'll discuss that after the litigation. If you have an undocumented baby, would that baby then be an enforcement priority? The violent criminals in our country are the priority now. Let me put it in perspective.

[00:05:29] Today marked the 2,711th arrest in our country of TDA members. Just TDA. Everyone in this room agrees they are one of the most violent criminal organizations in the world. And the Biden administration let them walk into our country, walk into our country for the last four years. 2,711 of them today have been arrested in our country.

[00:05:56] That is the priority of Donald Trump. That is the priority of this country, of homeland security, of all of our lawyers, of FBI. That's the priority. That will be discussed in October when the Supreme Court hopefully rules in our favor, and we're very confident of that. But you should all feel safer now that President Trump can deport all of these, all of these gangs, and not one district court judge can think they're an emperor over this administration, his executive powers,

[00:06:24] and why the people of the United States elected him. I just might add one thing. And, you know, they used birthright citizenship, some of the worst people, some of the cartels, to get people into our country, just so you know. And again, I say, if you look at the end of the Civil War, the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day, was it 1869 or whatever? But you take that exact day, that's when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter.

[00:06:54] This has to do with the babies of slaves, very, very obviously. And I think we're going to win. People didn't, I don't think they went about discussing it right. I came along and we looked and we said, wait a minute, this is wrong. We've been looking at birthright citizenship wrong for years. But they've used it. The cartels have used birthright citizenship to get very bad people in. And what Pam's doing and what Todd and everybody else, what they're doing at DOJ and all over, FBI, ICE, Border Patrol.

[00:07:23] These are incredible people. They're trying to keep our country safe. And they don't want to have people come in. This is just another way that they get illegal immigrants into our country. And in some cases, very, very bad ones. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Under tax bill, if I could for a moment. Senators are racing to rewrite parts of it right now after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that sections of it were outside of the process that they're using to get this through.

[00:07:50] Do you think that senators should respect the decisions of the parliamentarian? And what have you personally done in the last 48 hours to try and get Republican senators who are against the bill to a yes? Well, look, it's a great bill. It's a massive tax cut. If it's not approved, your taxes will go up by 68 percent. Think of that. 68, a record. The highest in the history. The Democrats won't approve it only because politically it's so good for the Republicans. The Democrats aren't approving it.

[00:08:19] But think of what they're not approving. They're not approving border security. We've done a great job at the border, but we have to add some war. We have to do various things. We have no money for that. We have no money for the border. We have no money for so many things. But if the Democrats, it would be interesting to see if we get any Democrat votes. We should. If I were a Democrat, I would absolutely, maybe Fetterman, because he seems to be the most sensible one lately.

[00:08:43] If I were a Democrat, I would vote for this bill all day long because it's tax cuts and so many other things that are common sense. They're basic things. I think they're doing fine. The parliamentarian's been a little difficult. And I would say that I disagree with the parliamentarian on some things and on other ways. She's been fine. But we'll have to see. It's a big issue. I will tell you this.

[00:09:08] If that bill doesn't pass, the country will get a 68 percent tax increase. So think of this. You're a Democrat and you vote against it. That means you're voting in favor because essentially you're voting in favor of the largest tax hike in the history of our country. And you can't do that. In addition, we're cutting costs by one point seven trillion dollars and it won't affect anybody. It's just fraud, waste and abuse. All right.

[00:09:35] Let's go ahead and bail out right now because we've got to go over and get a check on the traffic. But that's Donald Trump and Pam Bondi fired up after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a couple of rulings have come down. The biggest ones on the birthright citizenship executive order. But it's not actually about the birthright citizenship issue yet. And then there's also the religious liberty case. We'll get into it. You know, stories are powerful. They help us make sense of things to understand experiences.

[00:10:03] Stories connect us to the people of our past while transcending generations. They help us process the meaning of life. And our stories are told through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video. Started in 1997 in Mint Hill, North Carolina. It was the first company to provide this valuable service. Converting images, photos and videos into high quality produced slideshows, videos and albums.

[00:10:27] The trusted, talented and dedicated team at Creative Video will go over all of the details with you to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off in person or mail them. They'll be ready in a week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones. Videos for rehearsal dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays or just your family stories. All told through images. That's what your photos and videos are. They are your life. Told through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you.

[00:10:56] And they will tell others to come who you are. Visit creativevideo.com. The president and the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi are taking questions after a couple of huge Supreme Court rulings have come down. So let's go ahead and pick it back up. They're still going. And they're still going. And they're still used to just, you know, getting, taking billions and billions of, look, we had a trade deficit of more than a trillion dollars.

[00:11:26] Think of a trillion. A trade deficit. That's because nobody cared. Nobody. We cared a lot when I took in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff. We had the greatest economy in history up until now. I think we're going to blow it away. But during my time, and especially prior to COVID, we had the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think we're going to blow it away now based on the kind of numbers that we're seeing. But some countries are very angry because they've been ripping us off for years.

[00:11:54] They've been making billions and billions of dollars. There was nobody to negotiate with. They could do whatever they want. They charge just tariffs, by the way. All right. He's talking tariffs. All right. So obviously when you got all the press in there, they're not going to limit their questions to just the topics of the day. They're going to hit them with all these other questions. And as the president joked, it's been a busy week. Man, it feels like a month all in one week. So what is this case about?

[00:12:24] What is this ruling about? It has to do with the birthright citizenship executive order and the injunction that was issued by a district court. And because this ruling came down whilst I was on my way into work, I do not have my all of my show prep that I have retained on this case. That's totally my fault because we knew the rulings were coming down. I should have brought it. But so all of this is going to be going from memory. But as I recall, there were two tracks here.

[00:12:53] There were parallel tracks going on. You had the birthright citizenship underlying issue, but then you also had this other issue of the nationwide injunctions that these district court judges have been using.

[00:13:07] And these left wing organizations who have been filing the lawsuits in a very limited set of district courts in order to get these injunctions to stop the presidential orders from being enacted. And as Pam Bondi noted, that there are 94 districts in America, 94 district courts in America.

[00:13:33] OK, and right now they have 40 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, 40. OK, and 35 of those 40 come from five district judges or districts. There are a couple of different judges in each district, but they're all originating in five districts. Five out of the 94 districts.

[00:13:59] So this is judge shopping or venue shopping. That's what's going on here. It's been going on, you know, all throughout the Trump administration, first and second. It has really ramped up in the second.

[00:14:12] And so the so finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has cracked the whip on their lower courts, which is what they should have done a long time ago, because what the district courts are doing at the behest of these plaintiffs that are ideologically aligned is making end runs around what's called the class action certification process.

[00:14:37] Like if you and a whole bunch of other people want to sue and you all have sort of the same argument, you can become a class action. We hear about these all the time, right? All of the commercials, if you were injured by this thing or this company, you could be part of this class action lawsuit. But there is there are a lot of criteria to get classified, certified as a class in the trial in the court.

[00:15:00] And that's difficult. And so what these plaintiffs, their lawyers and these these judges have been conspiring to do is to do an end run around that class action certification process because it's difficult. And instead, just get one lawyer with a wardrobe change and a black robe to say, I'm going to stop this whole thing from proceeding. And the U.S. Supreme Court said no. And Amy Coney Barrett.

[00:15:31] She lit into KBJ, Ketanji Brown Jackson. I mean, lit into her in a way you do not see judges go after each other, really, in the Supreme Court, especially. I'll get to that. But let me get over here to Ray first. Hello, Ray. Welcome to the program. Hello, Pete. Hey, what's up?

[00:15:52] I just was anticipating this ruling that was supposed to come down in June that I heard about three or four months ago. I might have talked to you about about turning the airplane around. Is this the one that we were thinking that was going to stop all that turning the plane around and that kind of mumbo jumbo? Yes. Yes. Okay, so it would get a complete victory on this or is something else going to be decided by the SCOTUS?

[00:16:22] Well, I'm seeing some of the legal analysts who are talking about a footnote. And I have not read this opinion because it just came down. But there is a footnote in the opinion that talks about some other mechanism that might apply if they want to try to go another route. There is sort of this other route. I don't know what that route is. I don't know how that would work. And so I don't know. I don't know if there is a loophole that now still exists.

[00:16:51] There very, very well might be. However, the question of whether a district court can issue these nationwide injunctions that block policies across the entire country, that has been they put the kibosh on that. So that is a victory for rule of law. It's a victory for the judiciary. It's a victory for the executive branch and for America.

[00:17:13] Because, you know, you cannot have one person going in and claiming to basically represent all of America to get one judge to agree with them to shut down a policy that, by the way, was enacted under the law and was enacted under the Article 2 powers of the executive branch. And, yeah, Article 2 powers. And that was elected to do that everything. Right?

[00:17:40] This person was elected to do these things, and then you've got judges saying you can't do them. Yes. So quickly, the district judge could still issue an injunction just for the locality where this thing took place. Right. Or not. Correct. That's the understanding.

[00:17:57] That's my understanding as well is that that has been at the core of this is that you've got the district court judges that are ruling for the entire nation when, in fact, the plaintiffs that come before them are only locally based. And so they have gone beyond their authority by doing nationwide injunctions. So it's right. So it's a lot. Yeah, man. Yeah, absolutely. Right. I appreciate it. It's good questions.

[00:18:21] So the Trump administration, here's sort of the background on it, and I'm going to go into more of the details, but this is from the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Trump administration appealed three different lower court rulings that prevented the executive order that ended birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens or migrants on temporary visas from taking effect. Right. So they put these injunctions in place saying your executive order cannot take effect.

[00:18:49] Rather than rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to consider limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions that block policies across the entire country. Right. So the court in this ruling did not address the birthright citizenship issue. There is another case. I think that's going to be ruled on in October, I want to say. They're expecting that to come down.

[00:19:17] So that's a separate case. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments during a May session, which apparently is unusual to have one in May. And the solicitor general highlighted the dozens of injunctions that lower court judges have issued blocking executive orders just since January. If the court chooses to limit nationwide injunctions, it could have significant implications for other pending lawsuits against the Trump administration. So that's from that.

[00:19:44] That's the the preview piece that I had pulled this morning from the Daily Caller News Foundation. All right. If you're listening to this show, you know, I try to keep up with all sorts of current events. And I know you do, too. And you probably heard me say, get your news from multiple sources. Why? Well, because it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with Ground News. It's an app and it's a website and it combines news from around the world in one place. So you can compare coverage and verify information.

[00:20:14] You can check it out at check dot ground dot news slash Pete. I put the link in the podcast description, too. I started using Ground News a few months ago and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground dot news slash Pete.

[00:20:41] Subscribe through that link and you'll get 15 percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports Ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent. Breaking news today that the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a couple of rulings, the biggest one being.

[00:21:04] It's connected to the birthright citizenship issue, but it is about these nationwide injunctions that lower courts have been slapping on the Trump administration, basically coming out of five districts like California, Maryland, D.C., Washington state, like very few. Five of the 94 districts account for 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions.

[00:21:29] And the U.S. Supreme Court has finally smacked down these courts and said, stop doing this. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a win today by limiting the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking the president's agenda. This is according to National Review's James James Lynch. The justices ruled six to three along ideological lines in Trump versus Casa,

[00:21:57] siding with the Trump administration's challenge to the scope of nationwide injunctions issued against Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. The court did not, however, weigh in on the legality of the birthright citizenship order itself. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, finding that universal injunctions exceed the authority that Congress has given to federal courts. Barrett was joined by the court's five other conservative justices.

[00:22:27] She writes, quote, The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development. District courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone. These injunctions, known as universal injunctions, likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.

[00:22:50] The Supremes ruled that lower courts cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing its policies against non-parties to the specific case they are ruling on. Right. You can't apply a nationwide injunction on everybody when they are not parties to the case. For the time being, the justices have partially halted the nationwide injunctions against Trump's executive order.

[00:23:16] They halted the injunctions in areas where their authority is too broad and prevent the executive branch from developing public guidance related to Trump's executive order. Then Barrett took Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to task, or I might say to the woodshed, for the arguments that she made in her dissenting opinion and apparent lack of interest in the specifics of the scope of judicial authority.

[00:23:46] Okay. Before I read Amy Coney Barrett, let me see here. I'm going to try to find, because I've got a whole bunch of tabs open. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do. Ah, well, all right. I'm not going to be able to find it. I opened too many tabs.

[00:24:05] Um, because she, Ketanji Brown Jackson says something like, uh, uh, you know, that this isn't, uh, that we're essentially punching down on the, on the lower courts. Which is absurd. Um, so here's what Barrett said. I'll try to find the tab that I've got here. It's like, I really can't even like decipher. I've opened too many tabs. I just have too many tabs. Um, so, uh, here's what Barrett says.

[00:24:34] Quote, the principal dissent by KBJ focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. So, what is Barrett saying? He's just making it up. She's making up stuff. Do you even law, bro?

[00:25:04] Like, what are you doing? And then she says, basically, your dissent is not even worth anything more than a single sentence in reply. So, I'm going to give you one sentence. Here's what she says. We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. Okay, so, she just flat out says, we're not going to dwell on her dissent because it's stupid, right?

[00:25:34] Only to say this one sentence, and here it is. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. She would do well to heed her own admission. Everyone from the president on down is bound by law. That goes for judges, too.

[00:26:04] And if you read Supreme Court rulings and opinions and stuff, you don't see stuff like this. This is a direct, I don't want to say attack, but response. I mean, she's just basically saying, you don't know what you're talking about and your opinion is crap. The justices did not address the merits of Trump's birthright citizenship order. I mentioned that already.

[00:26:29] Carrie Severino, who is the president of Judicial Crisis Network, said that the court has shut the door on the abuse of universal injunctions. Today's decision is a victory for our constitutional separation of powers. Of course, Justice Alito's concurrence to Barrett sounds the alarm that litigants have been attempting to abuse class action lawsuits as well as standing processes. It's like, do you have standing in front of the court? There's a process to determine, do you have standing? So they've been abusing this.

[00:26:58] The left has been abusing these mechanisms and shows that the court is well aware of the problem and prepared to police those boundaries to shut down judicial activists. This just in district court. Judge Boasberg has put a nationwide injunction on this Supreme Court ruling. I'm just kidding. He can't do that, especially now.

[00:27:26] Now, Barrett is correct. And what she is essentially saying is that KBJ and her fellow liberals on the court, she doesn't know what she's talking about and doesn't even seem interested in abiding by the judicial oath that we took.

[00:27:47] That is essentially what Barrett is saying, because apparently at some point in her dissent, KBJ said something like, oh, all of this legalese. It's like, yeah, you're a judge. That's what you're supposed to be dealing in is the legalese. That's what we commoners say about the way you guys talk and write. That's all legalese mumbo jumbo. But you're supposed to know what you're talking about if you're a freaking Supreme Court justice. Here's a great idea.

[00:28:16] How about making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina, just a quick drive up the mountain? And Cabins of Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion. Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you, where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter.

[00:28:40] Nestled within the breathtaking 14,000 acres of the Pisgah National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, it's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions. With hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi-Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch.

[00:29:05] Choose from 13 cabins, 6 cottages, 2 villas, and a great lodge with 11 king-sized bedrooms. Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion. And they have pet-friendly accommodations. Call or text 828-367-7068. Or check out all there is to offer at cabinsofashville.com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. All right, so let me get to some analysis here real quick.

[00:29:32] This is from Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor. He's got a quote here. He says it's a great line from the Supreme Court ruling. He says, when a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power to. And that's a great line. Notably, he says, Justice Kagan, who condemned these universal injunctions during the Obama administration,

[00:30:01] has found a comfort level with those injunctions during the Trump administration. Surprise, surprise. Surprise. Justice Alito flags the continuing ambiguity on class certification that gives wiggle room for lower courts, potentially threatens the practical significance of today's decision, the availability of third-party standing and class certification. So that was the... I said that there was a footnote that I had seen referenced, but I did not get to read it.

[00:30:31] And so this is what Turley is talking about. This is the footnote. It's a footnote eight. It says, The principal dissent faults us for failing to identify a single founding era case in which this court held that universal injunctions exceed a federal court's equitable authority. But this absence only bolsters our case.

[00:31:04] What is he saying there? He's saying, yeah, there's a reason why this issue has never come up before. It's because this is brand new territory. Nobody has ever thought to do this. You guys have been breaking the system. That's the point. And now, because you guys, as I went over yesterday for the left, you can never go too far.

[00:31:34] There's no limiting principles here. Oh, by the way, are we going to get calls again to pack the court after this? Just curious. Be careful because Trump is still president. You've got a Republican Senate. Senate. So just be careful. You may want to just, you know, hold your fire on that argument again until you get a Democrat in charge or a Democrat U.S. Senate. Right. But this hasn't been done. These tactics have never been used.

[00:32:02] The left has adopted this new tactic, which now required the Supreme Court to step in and say, you guys have gone too far. You have to smack their hands. They do not stop otherwise. But Alito pointed out that there is continuing ambiguity on class certification.

[00:32:28] So this has got some court observers, shall we call them. This has raised a concern among people that the left is now going to try to abuse the class certification process with the help of judges. That they will continue to judge shop, forum shop. They will go in front of friendly judges, allies, and they will try to make it easier.

[00:32:55] And the judge will allow them to do so to create essentially fictitious classes of people. And so you'll get a lawyer up there like, I think a whole class of people is America. And the judge will say, I agree. That's a whole class now and nationwide injunction again. And then the court's going to have to step back in and say, no, you can't do that either. But that wasn't part of this particular case.

[00:33:25] In some ways, Turley says the dissents from Sotomayor and Jackson only reaffirmed the impact of the opinion. Jackson is particularly hyperbolic in talking out or talking about our quote unquote collective demise. Barrett clearly takes offense and delivers the haymaker, waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a, quote, mind numbingly technical query.

[00:33:56] She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. While most would find this mild in comparison to their own heated exchanges with family members, Turley says it has the feel of a virtual cage match on this court institution. Barrett is effectively pushing back that if there is a threat here to our system, it is Jacksonian judicial supremacy.

[00:34:24] For her part, Ketanji Brown Jackson unleashed a dissent that is hyperbolic to the point of hyperventilation. Here it is. This is what I yeah, here it is from Ketanji Brown Jackson. This court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings and the law as they interpret it will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.

[00:34:53] Which is a really wordy way of saying the democracy. Right. That's that's what she's doing. This is not law. This is not a legal opinion. Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding of our country or for that matter. For more than a century thereafter.

[00:35:19] That's what the the majority opinion ruled under the Judiciary Act. Federal courts lack authority to issue them. You don't get to do it. This is a return to constitutional constraints. Thank goodness. Mitch McConnell. Thank you, Mitch McConnell. Don't say that very often, but thank you, Mitch McConnell. David Limbaugh, brother of Rush.

[00:35:45] Says now that the left has suffered this humongous blow, which, by the way, not for nothing, but the word humongous is woefully underused. I think in today's society. I remember when I was a kid, we use this term all the time. I never knew how to spell it. But anyway, David Limbaugh says the left has suffered this humongous blow.

[00:36:06] But now he says, what other anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, lawless, chaotic, violent tactics will they devise to obstruct America's return to greatness? Do not underestimate their capacity for and willingness to destroy. Right. This is the concern. It's sort of like it's sort of like. City managers, school superintendents, you think that, oh, they're awful. Right.

[00:36:36] And then you get somebody else that's worse. So, yes. And by the way, I'm not saying anything like that. We should have preserved this chaotic system. My concern is what will the leftist lawyers and their pals on the bench, what will they come up with next in order to sow even more chaos? That's my next concern. All right. That'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening.

[00:37:03] I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to the Pete Calendar show dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening. And don't break anything while I'm gone.