SCOTUS Deals a Blow to American Sovereignty — Live Reaction with Texas AG Ken Paxton
On the final day of what has, thus far, been a solidly conservative and successful term for the Supreme Court, Charlie spends an entire episode reacting to this court's last two rulings—one a major win, the other a dangerous loss—both released just this morning. First, Newsweek Opinion Editor Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney joins to give his initial reading of the court's ruling in Biden v. Texas which saw the demise of one of President Trump's signature immigration victories during his term, MPP, also known as the Remain in Mexico Policy. Next, the top lawyer from the state that brought this suit all the to way up to the Supreme Court to protect our sovereignty and our borders, Attorney General Ken Paxton from Texas, gives his first on-air reaction to the court's 5-4 ruling against him. Finally, to end the show on a positive note—Charlie gives a positive update on the court's ruling in the case of West Virginia v. EPA which will greatly diminish the power and influence of the career Washington DC Bureaucracy, the shadowy Fourth Branch of our government—one which, unlike the court, is truly illegitimate. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Supreme Court Immigration Ruling00:14:35
Hey, everybody.
Today at Charlie Kirk Show, we unpack the recent decisions from the Supreme Court.
Remain in Mexico.
Not a great decision, not thrilled about it from Brett Kavanaugh, but a great decision on the fourth branch of government.
So a win and a loss.
Email me freedom at charliekirk.com.
The Attorney General of Texas joins us, Ken Paxton, as well as Josh Hammer to help us explain.
Come to our student action summit.
And guess what?
People of all ages are welcome.
5,000-plus activists, top conservative personalities, a celebration of youth and freedom.
Kaylee McEnany, Ted Cruz, Laura Ingram, Josh Hawley, Greg Gutfeld, and more.
And Turning Point Action will be hosting President Donald Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis.
Wow.
tpusa.com slash s-a-s.
Email me freedom at charliekirk.com.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com/slash support.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here, we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
So this morning there was some breaking news, and we're going to go through this with some incredible subject matter experts, including the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, and Josh Hammer, who's a phenomenal legal mind.
We had one major win this morning with the U.S. Supreme Court and one loss.
Now, I'm not willing to say it's a major loss because technically it sends it back down to the lower courts to reanalyze the remain in Mexico policy, but it's a loss.
Based on the headlines and based on the initial interpretation, it seems as if Joe Biden now has the ability and the power to rescind Remain in Mexico and basically not enforce the law at all, basically when it comes to immigration policy.
Now, when we talk about the courts, the courts are a double-edged sword.
I think it's admirable that conservatives for the last couple of decades have taken the courts more seriously.
The left always took the courts more seriously than we did in the 1960s and 70s.
That's how we got the war in court and the burger court.
There are many organizations that do great work, like the Federalist Society, that came up and they said, okay, we need to now go to the law schools.
We need to find young people that believe in the Constitution, that believe in original interpretation, that believe in separation of powers, checks, and balances, and are against judicial activism.
These organizations started to raise tens of millions of dollars, started to go and find judges and tried to find lawyers that will become judges.
They became better and better networked in Republican GOP circles, especially in the U.S. Senate, to be able to then create the list.
And so, for example, when Donald Trump said, I have a list of justices, that was produced by the Federalist Society who brilliantly thought ahead of time to get judges in place to be able to say, hey, if someone is running for president, how will they actually know who are the good judges and who are the not so good judges?
Now, the double-edged sword, though, and this is something we must recognize, we must understand, is that the courts are not going to save the country independently.
It's not going to happen.
They could play a necessary and important role.
And my goodness, President Donald Trump winning in 2016 and giving us Kavanaugh-Gorsich, Amy Coney Barrett, alongside Alito and Clarence Thomas is a massive victory.
But there are limitations sometimes to certain judges with how they view the interpretation of laws.
Remember, the judicial branch does not make laws.
The judicial branch interprets the law.
So when you interpret the law, you might have a very narrow way of interpreting the law.
So this morning we received a win for the Constitution, a win for liberty and a win for America, and a rather frustrating and irritating speed bump and loss that will send an issue on immigration back down to the courts.
Now, it's important that we as conservatives recognize that the courts themselves are a piece, but not the whole deal.
Because I feel as if some conservatives say, you know, I could take it easy just because we control the courts.
No, you know, the courts are largely right now a defensive measure to strike down bad laws.
The courts right now are ones to prevent the regime from getting completely and totally out of control.
And so this morning, a decision, I think it's the final decision of their court.
It has to be.
I think this is the last day of the month.
Yeah, it's the last day of the month.
So they're done after this, unless there's some other decisions that they might come out in July, which I would be surprised.
Basically is a question of will the court do the necessary and proper and right thing when it comes to a mass invasion of America, or will they stay with a very specific, narrow focus and use technical arguments to try and justify actions by the Biden regime.
Very pleased with most of the rulings out of this session.
However, Brett Kavanaugh made, I think, an improper and incorrect ruling.
We're going to go into that.
It was a 5-4 decision when Kavanaugh, really surprisingly and shockingly, in a very narrow decision, sided with John Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer in what would be Breyer's final decision.
The 5-4 decision says basically the executive branch, the Biden White House and the Biden regime, does not have to execute laws as written by Congress.
Now, this is all about the question of immigration laws.
Now, Brett Kavanaugh, actually, in his confirmation hearings, one of the arguments that was made by a lot of hardline conservatives is that he's great on immigration.
If I remember correctly, there was a circuit court decision, a D.C. circuit court decision, where Brett Kavanaugh actually ruled favorably on certain immigration policies.
So in front of us was this issue of remain in Mexico.
Remain in Mexico was a Trump-era executive order that basically said that if you are going to come into America illegally, you are going to have to remain in Mexico until the detention and the paperwork process basically plays itself out, and you very well might be sent back to the country of origin.
Now, the regime and the Biden White House has known for quite some time that the way around laws they don't like, otherwise known as unfavorable laws, is not to repeal those laws.
It's just not to enforce them.
It's just to ignore them.
It's just that when you control the White House, when you control the people that enforce the laws, just say we're not going to enforce it.
They've done this with immigration law for quite some time.
This is exactly what they did with the slow-motion secession that happened in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Chicago, where the slow-motion secession was blue states that said, we're not going to enforce immigration law.
We're not going to allow ICE into our cities.
Immigration has always been the wrinkle where the left has been willing to defy written law the most flagrantly.
So basically, the lesson from the U.S. Supreme Court this morning as authored by Brett Cavan, I don't know if Brett Kavanaugh authored it, but he sided with Breyer authored it, I think, or Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts.
All right, by process of elimination, we got it.
John Roberts is a total snake.
John Roberts authored the opinion.
And basically, what it says is this.
It does not matter what the law is from Congress.
Basically, it matters who's in charge of enforcing and implementing that law.
Now, mind you, there are some wild and extreme examples that could be used with this, but Congress is very clear that if you enter into our country illegally, if you are a trespasser, which 20 million trespassers come into America, that you have to be detained and then deported.
Joe Biden is deciding not to follow that law at all.
Joe Biden is allowing them to be released into the interior of the country, which is de facto amnesty.
Now, this is the problem with the overemphasis on trying to make the courts save America.
When you try to believe the courts are going to save everything, and mind you, the courts play a role.
Praise God for the reverse overall versus Wade.
Praise God for the Coach Kennedy case.
Praise God for the Second Amendment case.
The courts are a necessary part, but they can't be everything.
Because sometimes you're going to get certain people like Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts overly academic, in my personal opinion, of their interpretation of these laws that will take an incredibly narrow and fixed interpretation and not look at the essence of what is being said.
Instead, look at the exact word-by-word language and not think more broadly about the implications of this.
For example, and this is where I kind of push back against Brett Kavanaugh in particular, because Brett Kavanaugh wouldn't look at the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, and say, well, only a militia can own guns.
No, no, you have to look at the essence of what was being said at the time.
That the militia at the time is all young men ages 18 to 35, able-bodied to defend themselves and their families against insurrection or invasion.
That was the essence of what was happening.
Unfortunately, Brett Kavanaugh did not look at the essence of the issue of immigration.
He looked at the hyper-technical language and nature of it.
And so, look, immigration law as passed by Congress is very clear.
That the White House doesn't like the immigration law, which says that you must detain and deport illegals.
By the way, while we are being invaded, so the White House just chooses not to enforce it.
What Joe Biden has created is a loophole, a loophole that was just challenged by the U.S. Supreme Court and unfortunately allows Joe Biden now to rescind the Remain in Mexico policy and ignore congressional law.
What is the essence of this?
De facto amnesty.
It is de facto, de facto asylum.
And to take away a step further from this, Brett Kavanaugh's argument is like, well, we're not allowed to use the power of the court to force Joe Biden to create a treaty with Mexico.
That is not what we're discussing at all.
This is not a discussion about treaties with Mexico or international relations.
It's a question of whether or not Congress's law when it comes to immigration can be defied by the White House.
So Brett Kavanaugh and Roberts in the dissenting opinion all agreed that, well, there's a wide interpretation of immigration law.
No, there isn't.
And by the way, getting this question wrong has massive implications.
And Kavanaugh even knew there was an issue in his dissent here.
Quote, one final note.
The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide Department of Homeland Security with sufficient facilities to detain non-citizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings.
But this court has authority to address only the legal issues before us.
We do not have authority to end the legislative stalemate or to resolve the underlying policy problems.
With those additional comments, I join the court's opinion in full.
So he understands the issue is real.
He knows that we're being invaded, but he effectively says, oh, Congress, you haven't been able to get comprehensive immigration reform passed.
Therefore, I have to side with the opinion in full.
That is gibberish.
It is nonsense.
It is horsepucky.
Now, I'm not going to say Brett Kavanaugh is a coward because the implications of this one are far less heated than the implications of the attempted assassination that happened towards him a couple weeks ago.
I'm not going to say Brett Kavanaugh has no spine.
I mean, come on, that's insane.
He ruled on Roe versus Wade correctly.
What I am going to say, though, is that maybe Brett Kavanaugh wanted to wink and nod and signal to the DC regime, like, hey, you might not agree on everything, but please don't still hate me.
You got to wonder if the assassination attempt and illegal pressure protests outside of his house played any sort of role at all whatsoever in this.
So Kavanaugh basically made and continues to make a hyper-technical legal argument that is bad for the country.
It's incredibly narrow and it doesn't talk about the essence of really what is happening.
The essence is very simple.
They're creating a loophole with mass amnesty.
But he's like, oh, well, no, it's about the narrow focus of what the court can do.
No, and Alito disagrees and Clarence Thomas disagrees and Amy Coney Barrett disagrees.
And yes, Neil Gorsuch disagrees, who guess what? Is not very good on the immigration issue.
Neil Gorsuch, of all the issues in front of him, has always been the weakest on immigration.
I like Neil Gorsuch a lot.
He just has a hyper constantly, a very strange view on the courts and the rule of law when it comes to immigration.
Even he agrees that the Biden regime cannot defy congressional immigration law.
What is the essence of the issue?
The issue is very clear that Brett Kavanaugh, siding with John Roberts, Kagan, Sodomayor, and Breyer, basically allow open borders to continue despite what the law says.
That's the big takeaway, is that the law says you're not allowed to release illegals into the interior United States.
Brett Kavanaugh says, well, actually, that power is in the president.
The president is allowed to defy congressional law even when you're being invaded.
How many years have I been telling you about Relief Factor?
Producer Andrew's right here doing an Iron Man thanks to Relief Factor.
And truth is, I know there are millions of people.
In fact, some say over 100 million people struggling with some kind of pain, maybe from exercise or just getting older.
That can do it, getting older, which is why I'm so impressed with the people at relieffactor.com.
They are on a mission.
You rarely see this kind of focus and commitment.
They recently shared with me that they are doubling down and want to literally double their total number of happy customers in the next year.
And I believe they'll do it.
So here's the deal.
If you're struggling with back pain, neck pain, shoulder, hip, or knee pain, even general muscle aches and pain, then I'm suggesting you order their three-week quick start, still discounted, only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now.
ReliefFactor.com.
You should order the three-week quick start too.
Discount only $19.95 to see if it will work for you.
I think it possibly could.
Give your body what it needs to heal itself.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now.
Right now, we have Josh Hammer, legal expert, and also the head of Newsweek opinion.
The Culture War Continues00:04:14
We have Josh on anytime there's a Supreme Court decision that we need some clarity on.
Josh, welcome back to the program.
It seems as if the court ruled incorrectly on the immigration case.
I don't quite understand Kavanaugh's rationale.
What are your thoughts?
Charlie, great to be with you as always.
So this is an extremely complicated decision.
So I should kind of caveat everything I'm saying with I am still reading through and trying to figure out myself.
You know, I used to live in the Grace State of Texas.
I'm actually a barred attorney in Texas.
I have a lot of friends in the Texas Solicitor General's office who helped argue and brief this case.
They are still trying to figure it out too, actually.
So it's a very narrow, doctrinal, jurisprudentially technical ruling, as you said.
The overarching problem from my perspective is that sometimes, and the Chief Justice in particular has a very, very, very big problem in this respect.
Sometimes the court goes too narrow.
There was always a risk in going too broad when you can more narrowly decide a case, but the flip side of that is very true as well.
There was really no sense in unnecessarily kicking the can down the road when there was a very clear legal answer on a question there.
That's kind of how I read Justice Alito's dissent here.
One thing that I do want to say, it looks like from my reading, Justice Barrett actually agrees with the merits part of the majority opinion.
That was the three-page Kavanaugh concurrence.
He was basically underscoring that point.
So, Amy Coney Barrack has a lot of wonderful language in her dissent, but even she is a little wobbly on this issue.
And it's just yet another reminder, Charlie, that there are really only two justices on the current United States Supreme Court for all the victories of the past week, and there have been some real victories: abortion, guns, God, and these are like real culture war issues.
But this case is yet another reminder that when it comes to true, down-the-line, principled conservatives on the United States Supreme Court, from my perspective, Charlie, there's really only two: there's Clarence Thomas and Sam Malillo.
As you said, Neil Gorsuch is often with us, but he goes wobbly on some cases.
So, this case is erroneous, but the silver lining is that this litigation is not over.
Kavanaugh is very clear that the question as to whether the October memo with respect to the migrant attachment protocols, with respect to whether that violates the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act, that legal question is still pending.
So, the lower court judge, Matthew Kazmarek, who I actually used to be colleagues with at First Liberty Institute, I know Judge Kazmarek, he's a wonderful jurist.
He's going to present that question.
He will review that anew.
So, this fight is not over yet.
It's a very frustrating result, though, that has the immediate short-term effect, like you say, of de facto amnesty.
Alito's dissent was terrific.
It was just very passionate and really well articulated.
This is very frustrating, though, for me and for many others, because it seems like Kavanaugh is a hardliner on immigration.
What was the rationale here?
It's incredibly narrow.
I know you're still reading through it, but it feels as if this is de facto asylum or de facto amnesty.
I'm not really sure, to be honest with you.
I mean, I'm not really entirely sure what goes through Justice Kavanaugh's head.
I mean, we should remember, obviously, that he came down the correct side of numerous culture war cases over this past week: God, guns, and abortion, and he literally got all three of those right.
So, I think it's probably a little uncharitable to say that he's trying to kind of just feed the left some breadcrumbs there.
He probably has convinced himself that this ruling or that what he's doing is actually the correct course.
You know, it's worth noting that in Justice Kavanaugh's first term, that 2018-2019 term, right after the left threw out 5,000 years of innocent until proving guilty norms in his confirmation here, in that very first term, Kavanaugh sided with the Chief Justice more than did any other justice.
So, I'm just speculating here.
I haven't clerked on the court, I don't know the internal dynamics, but my outside observing is that the Chief Justice probably is cozier to Justice Kavanaugh than probably any other justice on the court.
So, it wouldn't shock me if, you know, in some emails and some kind of cafeteria water cooler kind of musings of the Chief Justice basically reached out to Kavanaugh and was like, Brett, you know, this has been like a very divisive term, obviously, a lot of high-profile cases here.
Let's try to go extremely narrow on this yet another culture war.
If he doesn't build the case, that actually makes me more angry.
But I'll be honest, if that's the case, I would rather have it be that Kavanaugh actually believes this stuff than not have John Roberts lobby him, you know, in between leaks and assassination attempts and kind of say, Hey, you know, let's bring the country together and allow the invasion of a sovereign nation just because, you know, hey, hyper-technical arguments that only we understand.
Partnering for Corporate Warfare00:03:02
Like, that would actually make me more angry.
Overall, what do you give ABCDRF?
How do you grade the court this session?
Oh, this session has been an A.
I mean, this has been the greatest Supreme Court term of my lifetime.
This is an unfortunate ruling as far as the Remain of Mexico policy is concerned, but it should not, I think, undermine these other.
I mean, we overturned Roe versus Wade, Charlie.
I mean, that has been a goal for 50 freaking years.
And it was a sacred cow we were told that was impossible and we did it.
It's amazing.
All right, Josh, thank you so much.
Great commentary as always.
Everybody, check out Josh Hammer on social media, also Newsweek.
Great job.
Look, free speech, religious liberty, and the Second Amendment.
Our rights are being destroyed across the board.
And look, many months ago, I told our team, I am sick of paying all this money to these cell phone providers that hate me and hate our values.
So I said, go find that really cheerful guy.
I think his name was Glenn at one of our events, and he kept on wearing the Patriot Mobile shirt.
Found him, sat down in Dallas.
We had a great meeting, and I vetted Patriot Mobile head to toe, their business model, how they do things.
And I was convinced that we must partner with them.
They're not only America's only Christian conservative cell phone provider, they're one of the few companies fighting back.
They offer the same nationwide coverage as the major carrier.
So you get the same great service plus the peace of mind, and your money is combating the left's attempt to silence you.
Patriot Mobile has plans to fit any budget, and their 100% U.S.-based customer support team provides exceptional customer service.
Patriot Mobile shares your values, and they support organizations fighting for religious liberty, constitutional rights, sanctity of life, like Turning Point USA, and veteran and first responder heroes.
So here's how it works: if you have a big major carrier, you are funding the bad guys.
That money might as well be a check, Democrat, national committee, or you could have it go to Patriot Mobile, where they give their proceeds back to Turning Point USA, veterans, and amazing groups.
It's a no-brainer.
So go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
Get free activation with the offer code Charlie.
Veterans and first responders save even more.
So make the switch today.
Between the left, the media, and all these rhinos, we need to stick together.
Patriot Mobile helps you do that.
It's a way to get engaged.
It's a way to engage in the corporate warfare that's happening.
So do me a favor, check it out.
PatriotMobile.com/slash Charlie.
We've switched everything over, and we love Patriot Mobile.
Producer Andrew is a massive fan.
PatriotMobile.com/slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
Don't give your money to BLM or the Alphabet Mafia or whatever when you are doing the regular thing.
Instead, make the switch, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.
I'm not going to go all out against Kavanaugh, but I do think that some of the pressure against him, it wears a person down.
I really believe that.
And if Josh Hammer is right, I think Josh was trying to make an argument in favor of Kavanaugh.
I think it worked against it's nothing against Josh.
Obviously, Josh is phenomenal.
It's just, he's like, oh, well, maybe he's very chummy with Roberts.
States Chart Their Own Course00:13:40
That's not a good reason to allow the perpetual invasion of America at all.
But Kavanaugh ruled right on Roe, ruled good on guns, ruled great on Coach Kennedy.
So I do not appreciate, though, in my personal opinion, hyper-technical arguments when the essence of the issue is so obviously ignored.
Okay, with us right now is the Attorney General of Texas, who is the man who actually helped get this case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ken Paxton, who's a great American patriot.
Ken, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Hey, Charlie, great to be back with you.
I'm glad you're in the chair and I'm not.
We have a running joke.
Ken has actually hosted in the chair while I was in Fargo, North Dakota, on the wonderful Flag Radio Network.
Ken, what is your initial take on this U.S. Supreme Court case, the Remain in Mexico case?
Yeah, I mean, I haven't gotten to read the whole opinion because it just came out, but the, I mean, disappointed that we didn't get a 5-4 win instead of a 5-4 basically remand back to the district court.
It's not over because they did remand the second memo that rescinded where the Biden administration rescinded the Remain in Mexico.
They remanded that back to the court.
So we're basically starting over.
And you can look at the dissent from Alito, and it kind of gives some signposts as to the direction that we probably need to go.
Yeah, so can you explain kind of what's happening for our audience?
Because this is very technical and very complicated.
So is it going back down to a lower court?
That's confusing to me.
Can you help me understand?
Yeah.
So I don't totally, I don't have it down myself because I haven't gotten to read the whole case yet.
As you know, it just came out.
But basically, my understanding is they're sending it back to the district court because when we got our first injunction in district court against the Remain in Mexico program, the Biden administration came out with a second memo.
They'd issued their First Amendment memo getting rid of Remain in Mexico.
When we won and got an injunction, they changed the memo while we were in the middle of litigation.
And so basically, the first rescion went up, and the court struck that.
I mean, sided with the Biden administration on that, but they said there's still questions to be answered as to whether the Biden administration followed all the right procedures in changing to the second memo.
Got it.
So, and then just so our audience can understand the details of this, essentially, it says that Biden can end MPP right now, but the district court in theory could come back and say he wasn't allowed to end it based on a procedural matter.
I think that's right, isn't it?
That's pretty much right.
It's disappointing because of the way the court interpreted the shall.
There's a shell and a may, and the shell was the shell related, in our opinion, to shall detain these people or send them back to their country of origin prior to their hearing on asylum.
So, what's happening now is the Biden administration is inviting all these people to come.
They're claiming asylum.
It's a loophole.
And the loophole was shut by the Trump administration by using this federal law.
And the Biden administration said, No, we want them to come.
We want them to stay here as long as they're going to wait for their asylum hearing.
And then most of them disappear.
Yeah.
And so it is de facto amnesty, isn't it?
And that's an important point: outside of the hyper-technical, very narrow reading of this decision, isn't it about the essence and the implications of it?
I mean, for example, when you look at the Second Amendment, we don't say, well, only people in a militia can own guns.
We have to look at what was the founders' intent when they wrote that.
Being, of course, loyal to the textualist nature, but not so narrow where we just take it word by word by word.
Isn't that a pretty, I would imagine that's important, especially kind of factoring in this is an invasion happening to your state of Texas, the ramifications of which are extreme and severe.
Yeah, so I have a hard time understanding why Congress wrote the legislation that says they either have to be detained or sent back if they didn't mean that.
If they meant something, the argument that the Biden administration made was, well, they couldn't have totally meant it because we've got too many people here and we don't have it.
They haven't given us enough resources to detain all these people.
So we can't even follow the law they've given us.
But my argument back would be, wait a minute, you're the one that invited all these people to come and told them to hurry up.
And now we have millions of people on the border and you say you don't have enough facilities.
Well, part of that, a good part of that's your fault.
Well, I mean, so just Congress's fault.
And just to play out the logic, it's like saying, okay, we have federal murder laws.
Most murders go unsolved in Chicago because we don't have enough people to go investigate them.
Does that somehow invalidate the law?
I mean, what kind of silly, incredibly dumb legal argument is that?
That's the argument the Biden administration made.
And at least my limited reading and getting summaries People quickly is that that's kind of the direction the court took.
So I'm going to read Alito's opening dissent here, quote, when it appears that one of these aliens is not admissible, may the government simply release the alien into the country and hope the alien will show up for a hearing at which his or her entitlement to remain will be decided.
Congress has provided a clear answer to that question, and the answer is no.
By law, if an alien is quote, not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien should quote, shall be detained for a removal proceeding.
And we both know, Ken, because of the volume, because how they invited people, that what Remain in Mexico is able to do was put a check and a balance on first the amount of people coming and also saying that no, you don't get released into the interior of the United States when you get a piece of paper in exchange.
Isn't that right?
Yeah, because what Trump did by enforcing that law is he disincentivized people from using this huge loophole that the immigration lawyers in America had discovered worked, where you just show up, turn yourself into border agents.
You don't run from border agents.
You actually try to find them and then they bring you in because you've claimed asylum.
And it was a loophole that was being expanded every day as people understood, hey, we just claim asylum and we're in.
And so the Trump administration used this law to stop it.
And the Biden administration said, no, we like the loophole.
We want these people coming.
We want to get as many of them here as fast as possible.
And so they basically started telling people, you're invited.
Come.
We claim asylum.
You're perfectly welcome to do it.
And we'll just let you go.
Got it.
So, Ken, I want to ask you that Roe versus Wade has now been overturned and sent back to the states.
What are you doing to work through the kind of legal complexity to this in Texas?
And where does Texas stand when it comes to the practice of abortion?
Yeah, so we played a part in that we had our own heartbeat bill, but we also actually filed the amicus brief in that case.
We were the ones that recruited the other 23 states.
So there were 24 states, and we were there standing with Mississippi, not just arguing that their statute should be upheld, but also that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
When that happened, our trigger bill went into effect, which was actually passed by my wife, Senator Paxton.
And that bill effectively stops abortions in Texas in a very short period of time.
So it's going to happen between the next 30 and 60 days.
Abortions in Texas will be outlawed, even beyond what we passed with the Hartbeat Bill.
That's amazing.
So it's also important to recognize and realize that some of the kind of abortion figureheads actually come from Texas, actually.
Richards, in particular, if I remember correctly, some of the most outspoken pro-choice, pro-abortion activists, at least Cecile Richards, who I believe is the daughter of Ann Richards.
That's correct.
And so how is it being received by the constituents in Texas?
I know you're not a political branch, meaning that you follow the law, but I'm just curious, how is this being received?
You know what?
I mean, it's obviously a controversial decision.
When the Supreme Court stepped in in 783 and took this away from the states, they changed the dynamic for decades and took over what was considered a legislative function.
And they continued to change their view of abortion and the law kept changing and it became very uncertain and it was just a mess.
And that's one of the reasons we argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
I think anybody that loves the Constitution and loves democracy should love this, whether you're pro-life or you're not, you're pro-abortion.
It shouldn't matter.
It's now up to elected officials who we all have a say in that to make these decisions and why you'd be upset that it's back to a representative government.
Whatever your position, I think that's a good thing that just happened.
Yeah, and it allows the states to chart their own course forward.
If you don't like it, then, okay, there's other states that you can move to.
It's a restoration of the 10th Amendment and of really self-government in a very serious and profound way.
So finally, Ken, I want to ask you, this was a rather contentious term for the U.S. Supreme Court.
What grade do you give them?
A, B, C, D.
I mean, you've lived through a lot of these things.
What grade do you give this court?
You know, because of things like Remain in Mexico, it's hard for me to give them an A.
But on the other hand, you look at just what happened with the gun decision, the Second Amendment decision from New York.
You look at the Hartby bill, the Roe v. Wade, the Dobbs decision, and the prayer decision.
I mean, it's a pretty decent session.
One of the better ones that we've ever had as it relates to the amendments to the Constitution, whether it's the First Amendment or the Second Amendment, that they've all been sort of reinvigorated with life.
And I think that's a very, very good thing, not to pun, but that's a very, very good thing.
So, you know, let's just say B plus.
B plus, I will take a B plus because Ken, you and I lived through D's and F's for many, many years.
Closing final question.
You won your primary rather convincingly.
Congratulations.
Tell our national audience about that because it was the Bush family trying to come and derail you, nasty smear tactics, but you won overwhelmingly.
Tell our audience about that.
Yeah, I mean, this has been going on for a long time ever since I've been attorney general.
It's like the Bushes have had their design on that position because they wanted their nephew and son in that spot.
So, you know, they spent a lot of money.
They had 100% name ID.
And I think the people of Texas have kind of figured out sort of the angle the Bushes have been coming from for a long time.
And they decided they wanted somebody that was really going to go out and fight for them, that wasn't going to capitulate to sort of a leftist agenda.
It was going to fight for life.
It's going to fight for constitutional rights.
It was going to fight for the 10th Amendment.
And obviously, that's pretty controversial stuff.
So you're going to take a lot of arrows when you do it.
A lot of left-wing media, even liberal Republicans who don't like that, you know, you become sort of a lightning rod, but I don't know how to do it any other way.
I'd rather either do it the right way or not do it at all.
Well, just so everyone knows, Ken Paxton won with 68% of the vote against George P. Bush with 31% of the vote.
I think that is a major sign the Republican Party of Texas is becoming even more conservative.
That for years was kind of run by the Good Old Boys Network of the Bushes and many others.
Ken, congratulations on that one.
Congratulations on the Roe versus Wade interpretation.
And I hope we get Remain in Mexico sorted out.
God bless you, Ken.
Thank you.
Hey, thanks, Charlie.
Have a great day.
Thanks.
Look, over the years, you've probably tried different investments in stocks and mutual funds.
So now you know they could be up or down or all over the place.
But with inflation running at 8.5%, probably even higher than that, the highest rate for 40 years, do you need uncertainty?
Being able to sleep at night knowing your investments aren't about to crash.
It's worth its weight in gold.
And speaking of gold, if you've been jumping from one investment idea to the next, a gold IRA with Noble Gold is perfect.
With gold, you'll shield your gains from taxes.
You'll keep the real value of your wealth.
You'll own a global asset, something tangible, and you'll protect your wealth against an economic crash.
What is not to like?
And this month, for every cash deal above $20,000, you get an incredible three-ounce Silver American virtue coin completely free as a thank you.
You can't go wrong in Noble Gold.
Call 877-646-5347 now to find out more at noblegoldinvestments.com.
They're a phenomenal company.
I really think highly of them.
NobleGoldInvestments.com.
Own things you can touch at noblegoldinvestments.com.
I'm going to tell you about this amazing court victory in a second, but I want to take some of your questions here that you've emailed us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Hi, Charlie.
I thought this was a national security issue, to say the least.
It is.
And that, in my personal opinion, is the prism of which I wish Brett Kavanaugh viewed the last decision through.
By just looking at it as a kind of technical issue, I think is incorrect.
This is a broad issue with far-ranging implications.
Here's a question here.
Immigration.
Hi, Charlie.
Border state governors will be tasked to come up with creative measures to slow and stop the flow of illegals after today's Supreme Court ruling.
They should have been doing that.
They should have been mobilizing people to the U.S. Supreme, to the U.S. border.
They should have been mobilizing a Texas version of Border Patrol, but they have not been.
Another question here emailed to us by our RAV audience.
Hi, Charlie.
Love the show.
Thanks for all you do.
One thought I have about the Uniparty, these politically correct creatures, criticizes deplorables for not accepting diversity in all forms of sexuality, illegal immigration, globalism, et cetera.
Do they not understand that it's all part of the reason they hate Trump?
He came to the presidency going through their channels.
Woodrow Wilson's Bureaucracy00:03:58
He tried to reform the way Washington worked.
He did what he said he'd do, the nerve.
I could go on and on.
These swamp creatures hate change and diversity.
What hypocrites?
We must continue to fight your show and your efforts are much appreciated.
But look, this is an important point: that the reason why they are continuing this relentless pressure campaign on Donald Trump, well after he's been president, almost nastier now after he's been president than when he was in president, is they know that he has a great chance of becoming president again.
They know that.
They have to do everything they possibly can to try to derail the political prospects of Donald Trump winning again.
He's stronger than ever.
His message is resonating.
They are very worried they'll not be able to pull off again what they did in 2020 again.
That's why they don't want you to talk about the election either, by the way.
Okay, so there was a massive win this morning from the U.S. Supreme Court beyond just the Remain in Mexico nonsense that is incredibly frustrating.
And so starting back in Woodrow Wilson and even before that, with the German historicists who believed they could perfect the human being and perfect the human condition via governmental state power, this is a Hegelian belief where they thought that through government power, that the human nature itself could be perfected.
And they realized the United States Constitution was an impediment to do that.
So when Woodrow Wilson took the presidency, accidentally, largely, by the way, he's an accidental president, never won a majority of votes.
He won largely because of Teddy Roosevelt primarily William Howard Taft and then running as the Bull Moose Party in the election of 1912.
Woodrow Wilson, the once professor at Princeton, head of Princeton University, then governor of New Jersey, kind of became the accidental president.
Woodrow Wilson was the first president to write openly about how the founding fathers did not understand the times that we live in.
Sound familiar?
Woodrow Wilson, by far, was one of the most disastrous, venomous, and destructive presidents in American history.
So Woodrow Wilson started this idea of the fourth branch of government.
Now, he didn't come up with the idea in a technical nature.
That was all the Germans before him.
But instead, he started to implement it.
He said, a society of academics and experts will be able to know what is best for us.
But the U.S. Constitution is very clear about executive power, legislative power, and judicial interpretation.
So what ended up happening is all these alphabet soup agencies start to come out.
FDR kind of picked up the mantle of Woodrow Wilson and he put jet fuel behind it.
That's where we started to get all these different governmental agencies, some of which probably have some proper role, like the FDIC and the Social Security Administration.
But basically, the more we started to create these agencies, the more technocrats we got and technocratic states.
It was the tyranny of the bureaucracies.
Lyndon Baines Johnson took this forward and Jimmy Carter as well.
And guess what?
Richard Nixon actually created a lot of these federal agencies as well, including the Employment Prevention Agency, otherwise known as the EPA.
And so for a long time, these fourth branch of governments, these independent regulatory agencies, were able to operate without any sort of check and balance, which is one of the guarantees, one of the principles, one of the moral necessities of the U.S. Constitution.
So basically, the EPA was able to have power plant emissions put forward without Congress ever checking them.
They just did their own thing.
So then what ended up happening, and this was Woodrow Wilson's creation, is you get the executive power, the legislative power, and the judicial power all wrapped into one unaccountable, unknown, unchecked federal bureaucratic creation.
Well, today the U.S. Supreme Court has come in and has said, you know what, EPA, you are not allowed to create laws, create rules and regulations, and be in charge of your own kind of way of operating outside of congressional oversight.
A massive blow to all these independent regulatory agencies that include, by the way, Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and all these other agencies.
It's a massive decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that puts a check and a balance on the unconstitutional nature of how our government has been operating.
Never Forget Constitutional Liberties00:00:27
Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions.
And a blow to the fight against climate change, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday limited, hey, there's the thing.
They'll always find an excuse for an emergency to take your constitutional liberties away.
Never forget that.
Thanks for listening, everybody.
See you at our Student Action Summit, tpusa.com/slash SAS.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.