The lawfare continues in the Courts of The Resistance (03-19-2025--Hour2)

[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.

[00:00:29] So let's talk about what's going on with the lawfare. What are we up to now? 70,000 TROs, temporary restraining orders, something like that, that have been filed by left-wing groups to try to resist Donald Trump in everything and anything he's attempting to do.

[00:00:52] And they're getting temporary restraining orders or injunctions from these judges that they target. The left judge shops, they forum shop, they go out and try to find a judge. That's why you keep seeing the same judges' names popping up in these cases. It's because it's intentional. And lawyers understand this at every level.

[00:01:14] Whether it's going in front of a judge for some sort of criminal offense and you're trying to defend your client. You're like, oh, we don't want to go in front of that judge because they have a reputation of being a hanging judge, right? So they forum shop and judge shop as best they can. And when you're bringing these types of lawsuits, it helps to go in front of judges that have long records of donations and service to left-wing organizations.

[00:01:44] Because chances are they are going to rule in an ideological fashion for you because you're a leftist also. And that's what we have been seeing. I've talked about this before. And it's not going to stop until the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress steps in. I don't know which one. I mean, I think I would like both.

[00:02:07] But the Supreme Court and John Roberts, who is so protective of the Supreme Court, you know, credibility and the name of the court and all of this and the perceptions. If he is going to actually defend the U.S. Supreme Court and the judiciary, then it seems like they're going to have to lay down some rules. They're going to have to hold some judges accountable.

[00:02:33] In a way that maybe we haven't seen before, but that would be a response to what we haven't seen before, which is the abuse of the judiciary. Because always keep in mind, you've got the left when they do not control the legislature, they do not control an executive branch. They will use the courts to try to get things done that they otherwise cannot do legislatively. That's why we're seeing what we're seeing. It's why you don't hear the left right now talk about packing the U.S. Supreme Court anymore. Funny how that all just went away.

[00:03:02] Which you happened to catch a couple of days ago, Kristen Sinema. Remember her? The former U.S. senator. She was a Democrat, then became an independent, did not run for re-election. But she crossed paths with the, not cross paths, she crossed her own party, the Democrats, over the destruction of the filibuster. She and John Fetterman were the only two Democrats to oppose blowing up the filibuster.

[00:03:30] Because what the Democrats wanted to blow it up for was to pack the U.S. Supreme Court. And by the way, just for the lefties that listen, and I know you do, packing the Supreme Court does not mean appointing people to vacant seats on the Supreme Court. That is not called packing. You can come up with a different word if you like for that. I would say it's simple appointments. We already have a word for it and a process. But that's not packing.

[00:03:58] Packing the court is what FDR threatened to do when the Supreme Court would not allow him to do what he wanted to do. And so he said, I'll just add more seats and then I'll fill those seats with people that will rule in my favor. And so the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to protect the norms and preserve the makeup of the court as it was with the seat number what it was, they caved.

[00:04:22] And they said, OK, fine, I guess your expansion of the federal government into all of these areas that the Constitution says you can't be involved in, I guess it is constitutional. So the threat of packing the court achieved FDR's goal. And that's what the left was trying to do again when they did not control the legislative or executive branch. So when they got the Senate, they're like, we're going to go ahead and pack the court.

[00:04:51] So this way we'll have in perpetuity. And keep in mind also, I heard Charlie Kirk mentioned this the other day also, which was had Donald Trump not won in 2016, the Supreme Court would be would be filled right now with lawyers in robes that agree with what we're seeing these federal district court judges doing. They would have no problem with this kind of activism, with this kind of usurpation of presidential powers.

[00:05:22] That's what they're doing. OK, John. Yeah, John Daniel Davidson. Actually, no, this isn't Davidson. Sorry, he's a writer at the Federalist. But this is Scott McKay quoting Daniel.

[00:05:39] Yeah, quoting Davidson and then expounding on Davidson's rejection of Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett from a couple of weeks ago when they were presented with an opportunity to try to rein in some of these federal district court judges. And they punted. Remember that?

[00:06:02] And what Scott McKay says is the correct ruling would have been a sharp rebuke of the district court on jurisdictional grounds. And an unmistakable signal that these restraining orders are all null and void, and it's time for the courts to stop granting them. That was two weeks ago. And McKay says things have gotten only worse. By the way, McKay's writing over at the American Spectator. He said.

[00:06:33] Look at Trendyarawa. I think that's how you pronounce that, by the way. A violent Venezuelan gang that has wrought terror all over America since its members were allowed to infiltrate the country, run guns and drugs and inflict general mayhem in our cities. It's been designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

[00:06:55] As such, removing members of that gang illegally in America is a matter of presidential prerogative. The friendly government of El Salvador, which has prison space available for hire at reasonable rates, has volunteered to house these undesirables like Trendyaragua. Accordingly, the Trump administration is now flying plane loads of the TDA gangsters to El Salvador.

[00:07:24] By the way, El Salvador's president began a crackdown on these thugs and criminals and gangs. And everybody said, oh, you can't do that. If you do that, it's going to depress our economy. They literally were making these arguments. And he had a great response to this argument a couple of months ago. And he told the story of a guy who sells apples in the marketplace and may make five dollars in the day. Right.

[00:07:54] For long, hard work goes and he picks the apples and then he takes and puts them in a cart. He takes the cart to the market. And then he sells a couple of apples. He makes five dollars. But it's honest work. And then on his way home. He gets jumped by a bunch of criminals who steal his five dollars. What is the message that that. Apple seller receives from this experience. That it is better.

[00:08:23] And it is easier to just steal the five dollars from somebody who does all the work. And when that message is received by a larger population, you have a breakdown in a civil society. And you are left with a gangster economy. I don't want to live in a society like that. I suspect most of the leftists don't want to live in a society like that.

[00:08:52] They somehow think, though, that they will be immune from this kind of thing. I don't know. Or they think that their political enemies, those evil capitalists, they're the ones that are doing it. No. Or they're the useful idiots. The criminals are simply there to serve a purpose in the short term. To destabilize. And then after the destabilization occurs, then leftists sweep into power. Then they promise we'll get rid of all the criminals, which they, in fact, had released out onto the streets. And then they take control. And then they'll, you know, round up some criminals or make them leaders.

[00:09:22] As in the Soviet Union. Because that's usually what happens in Marxist dictatorships. You end up with the worst people that rise the highest. Because it's an evil ideology. So the most evil among you will rise the highest. So now you have a judge named James Boasberg. Boasberg. Boasberg. Boasberg. Whatever. He's an Obama appointee.

[00:09:50] Because, of course, this guy, you may recall, he sprang Ray Epps from legal sanctions. One of the J6 protesters that was literally calling for people to storm the Capitol, but somehow didn't face any charges whatsoever. That guy, Ray Epps. That a lot of people on the right believe is an informant. That he was a Fed. Either an informant or a Fed. Or both. I believe Boasberg was also the same guy.

[00:10:18] He may have been the same lawyer that, what was Kevin Clinesmith from the movie A Fish Called Wanda? I'm kidding. He wasn't an actor. He was the lawyer that approved the wiretap on Carter Page. Changed the documents or whatever that they sent over or got back from the CIA. When the CIA was like, oh yeah, Carter Page, a business guy. Yeah, he's one of our guys. Like we talk to him when he comes back from Russia.

[00:10:43] And Clinesmith changed that in order to submit the false FISA application so they could get the wiretaps. And Clinesmith got a slap on the wrist and got his law license back after like a year or something. He's practicing again. I think this was the same judge. See, again, it's not a coincidence that these judges always end up in the news for these types of cases. Not in my opinion. Here's a great idea.

[00:11:08] 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.

[00:11:31] 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.

[00:11:49] With hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi-Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch, 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.

[00:12:14] Or check out all there is to offer at cabinsofashville.com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. I have a message from Dave who wants to know why I say program instead of program. Is it a New York thing? It is not a New York thing. But thanks for asking. Uh. Uh. Uh. Now that's an old, that's an homage to the old Spires and Krantz bit that they would do. Program.

[00:12:45] Anyway. Um. And, uh, John says, just for the record, Pete, uh, whenever a radio talk show host is gone for two consecutive days without advance warning, I just assume that they have been fired. That's a good assumption. That's a fair assumption. But, like, that's the thing. In today's day and age, um. Um. I'm on Twitter. And I would tell you on Twitter. Right? You'd still see me posting and that sort of thing. If I, you know. Every job has a shelf life when this one comes to an end.

[00:13:14] And it will, because every job does. I will be sure and let everybody know that I am no longer on the air. So. Like, that's how that, that's how that'll play out. But. I know, like, talk radio audiences have PTSD on this stuff. I understand. I understand. But, um, I actually, in my defense, I believe I did say I was not going to be here. Thank you. Okay. I'm getting two affirmative nods. I did say on the air.

[00:13:41] I can't make you listen for the full three hours every day. If I could, you know I would. I would totally do that. In alignment with my libertarian principles. I would strap you down and put those things over your, under your eyes to keep them open. For no reason on the eye thing, because you don't have to watch. But, uh, you know, I would make you listen to the podcast for three straight hours. So you would know these things. So you could be informed. It's for your own good. All right.

[00:14:09] Um, I am now recently an expert on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. I don't know if you knew this about me, but it is, I have become an expert on this act. Um, because I read it. But I've read no of the, uh, none of the case law about it and all of the rulings and all that. Because honestly, why bother? Because in another 48 hours or something, I'm going to have to be an expert in something else. Okay.

[00:14:38] So, um, here is what the Alien Enemies Act states. Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation of the event,

[00:15:07] all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of 14 years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. And so what this comes down to, as I understand it, is a disagreement. I'm being charitable. A disagreement over what this means.

[00:15:37] Do you need an actual declaration of war? And the Trump administration is saying, no. When you just read it, it says, whenever there is a declared war between the U.S. and a foreign nation or government, comma, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against us by any foreign nation or government,

[00:16:07] and the president makes public proclamation of the event. So they're saying there doesn't have to be a declaration of war, right, by Congress. They could say the president makes the proclamation. They've been designated, Trendy Aragua, designated as a foreign terrorist organization. This is an invasion. The Trump administration has argued also that this was done,

[00:16:34] that the Trendy Aragua members were sent here by the government of Venezuela, which, by the way, that's not a new tactic. Cuba did it to us. Something about commies opening their jails and sending all of the criminals into America. So this is not a new strategy. And what the left is saying is that the judge, this one judge,

[00:16:59] should be able to figure out if any of these people have been denied any kind of due process rights before being shipped out, and that there's no declaration of war, hence this shouldn't control. 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've 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.

[00:17:27] 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. You can check it out at check.ground.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.

[00:17:57] See for yourself. Check.ground.news slash Pete. Subscribe through that link, and you'll get 15% 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. You probably are hearing this word often now in the news, judiciable or judiciable. I don't know what the correct pronunciation is.

[00:18:27] I have never allowed that to stop me before, so I'm going to pronounce it justiciable. In other words, is it appropriate, allowable, legal, constitutional for the court to hear a case about the issue? Is it something that the court should be determining?

[00:18:48] So that's sort of the first thing that they have to go through in order to arrive at a conclusion for the lawsuits removing criminal, illegal aliens from America. By the way, an action that is supported by the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats.

[00:19:12] Removing criminal, violent offenders who are not citizens is a popular thing to do. But the left, always looking for the issue that the majority of Americans oppose, they jump on this one. Pounce, I might say. Seize upon the issue, if you will. So this is Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com. I read a little bit of his piece in the last hour.

[00:19:41] He says the words from the 1798 law, the word invasion, does not directly involve a foreign nation or government, nor has Congress declared war on any of the countries in the Western Hemisphere. So one could argue that even when it says, you know, or an invasion, that that remains dependent on a state of war.

[00:20:07] And that is the crux of the decision made by the federal judge in this case, James Boasbeck. B-O-A-S-B-E-C-K. Boasbeck. Boasbeck. Trump, however, did cite involvement by Venezuela's government in the Trende Aragua's predatory incursion in a declaration that was signed on Friday and released Saturday morning. Trump said,

[00:21:06] And so now you've got this really weird development where the judge, a federal district judge, is saying, well, I want to know how you made these determinations. I have top secret clearance. I can read these classified things. I'm a judge. We can do this. I can do this. Why would you need to do this? Why would you need why would a judge need to be looking over the shoulder of the president when he is engaged in what amounts to, in my opinion, is foreign policy?

[00:21:37] This is foreign policy. So now we got judges that are going to have to sign off on any foreign policy decision of a president. I'm just kidding. No, not any president, just the Republican ones. You guys are not going to like the rules when they are applied to you. So theoretically, yes, there are arguments in both directions. Morrissey says in terms of a political reality, though, why bother with this? Why challenge this?

[00:22:06] If you're the lefties, why are you doing this? In what world would it be an abuse of executive authority to deport illegal aliens affiliated with an international cartel that's associated with murder, drugs and human trafficking? And in what world would it be a good idea to oppose their removal? Maybe it sells in academia.

[00:22:26] But even there, you got to imagine some saner voices might be questioning why the left and the Democrats are putting themselves in a position to oppose removals of crime syndicate members that have created all sorts of misery in America. How does anybody imagine this looks to 90 percent of voters who wonder why they were allowed to come into the country in the first place? Why?

[00:22:53] Deporting illegal alien criminals is literally the most popular position that Trump has put in place. Yet. Here are Democrats and progressive activists championing these murderers and pimps that are in the country illegally. And then they wonder why polls show that their favorability keeps going lower and lower and lower.

[00:23:19] This comes in connection with the left's push to make Mahmoud Khalil into a free speech cause celeb. Khalil emigrated to the U.S. legally. But he has organized protests at Columbia University, which would be fine if protests were all he was organizing. But he also disseminates propaganda from Hamas, which is also a terrorist organization listed as such by the State Department. Listed as such since 1997.

[00:23:47] He helped organize the violent seizure of at least one building at Columbia University and included the false imprisonment of two custodians that were on duty at the time. Those are crimes. That's not speech. Those are crimes. And we are under no obligation to allow people into the country or to allow them to stay when they commit such crimes. So you got this judge. Bozberg.

[00:24:18] He's overseeing a case that was brought by the ACLU and something called democracy forward. This is a lawfare entity that was created by. Mark Elias. Right. The nefarious Trump Russia hoax monger. The guy who sued North Carolina about a billion times over redistricting maps. Right.

[00:24:45] This guy is at the center of this lawfare. And so this judge ordered a halt to the deportations after the planes had left U.S. airspace. And he literally told them, turn the planes around. The hubris of this judge, this lawyer with a wardrobe change. You're not the president. You're not the president. You like Stephen Miller, one of the advisors to Trump was on CNN.

[00:25:15] He made the point like, does the judge know how much fuel is in that plane? Does the judge know how many hours those pilots had? Because there are rules about how many hours you can fly. But this judge had no idea before he issued that order. And besides, they waited until the plane or the plane had taken off. Um, before the written order came out.

[00:25:43] And so that's what the Trump administration is arguing, that they're not in violation because the written order wasn't put out. But the the judge had said it. But it wasn't written. And so in the interim, before the order got typed up, that's when that one of the planes left. And there were other flights that did not leave. Right. And the timeline on this matters because I think this is important.

[00:26:12] Margo Cleveland, um, she's a senior legal correspondent at the Federalist. She's also a lawyer for the NCLA. Uh, and, uh, she was a former seventh circuit law clerk for like 25 years. And she makes this point that all of these temporary restraining orders, all the lawsuits, right? This is part of an unprecedented effort. We have never seen this before.

[00:26:38] And she says the administration has faced an avalanche of unconstitutional court orders from these individual federal judges. Because most of these things are getting overturned, proving that the judges were wrong to try to throw the sand in the gears. So they were wrong and they keep getting it wrong and they keep getting these things wrong in one direction. It's not a coincidence. All right. So spring is here, a time of renewal and celebrations.

[00:27:07] You got graduations, weddings, anniversaries, and the special days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that are going to last a lifetime. But let me ask you, are all of those treasured moments from days gone by, are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, 8mm films, photos, slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday. At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most.

[00:27:34] Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so they can be enjoyed for generations to come. I urge you, do not wait until it's too late. This spring, celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves. Creative Video, preserving family memories since 1997. Located in Mint Hill, just off 485. Mail orders are accepted, too.

[00:28:03] Get all the details at createavideo.com. All right, let me jump over here and get Pete on the program. Hello, Pete. Great name. What's going on? Hey, Pete. I guess the first principle of Democrats is I believe they're criminally insane. But beyond that, I think there may be two reasons for this, you know, bringing up this case on the illegal immigrants that are criminals. Hardened criminals, by the way, right? Dangerous criminals.

[00:28:31] First is kind of throw stuff up against the wall and we'll see if anything sticks. I think that's the first thing. The second, more importantly, I think, if somehow, if somehow Trump doesn't, is unable to do this, is he can't even deport hardened criminals that are illegal. So, you know, we got, you know, his whole thing is it's going to go beyond the hardened criminals that are going to be deported.

[00:29:00] So, this will be the first block. And I think each step of the way they'll probably try to, you know, clip them, to be honest with you. But that's kind of my theory on it. So, I wrote something when I was reading through one of these. This was an editorial from the Washington Examiner. That paralysis is the purpose, right? To paralyze the executive branch. That's the point. And to slow it down, throw sand in the gears long enough to outlast Trump's presidency.

[00:29:29] But what the Trump administration, I think, is doing, oh, Pete's gone. He gone. But what Trump's administration is doing is trying to build the legal framework for what comes later, to Pete's point, about all other deportations. This goes to what Margo Cleveland was writing. She says more temporary restraining orders and the injunctions have been issued

[00:29:57] against the Trump administration in two months than in four years of Joe Biden. And while appeals process is still ongoing for many of these, appellate courts have already stayed. In other words, they've stopped several orders showing that these were unconstitutional actions by the judges.

[00:30:23] Supreme Court stayed one judge ordering the payment of $2 billion in 36 hours and told judges to be more specific. Three appellate judges said that Trump likely would prevail on the firing of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger and ruled that he remain out, not to be reinstated. So a lower judge lost on that one. Another appellate court stayed in order of one judge undoing Trump's DEI policies.

[00:30:47] Another judge reversed his TRO and refused to grant an injunction on putting USAID workers on leave. Many other injunctions will be overturned on appeal because lower courts lack jurisdiction to decide employment and grants or army policy. The breadth of overreach by lower courts, you know, a single judge, a district court injunction interfering with Trump's Article 2 power cannot be overstated.

[00:31:18] And so that's what the Trump administration is doing. Every time the administration has worked to find a way to read the order that they get so they can comply with the order and not pit Article 2, which is the executive branch, right, against Article 3, the judicial branch. So they've been trying to avoid this kind of induced constitutional crisis.

[00:31:47] He did that in cases reading exceptions the court allowed for otherwise terminating funding. He did that in the Alien Enemies Act case 2, right? They did not turn the planes around to be true. But that's not saying you they were saying you could you cannot order me to do that, but that you didn't order me to do that because only the minute order, the written order is binding. Right. So they're making the case that you couldn't you didn't have the right to tell me to do that.

[00:32:16] But even if you did, it wasn't the correct way to do it. Right. So they keep they keep leaving room here to avoid the very constitutional crisis that the left is egging on. They're trying to induce. All right. That'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. 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.

[00:32:42] 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.