| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| An unfinished creation. | ||
| Democracy is worth dying for. | ||
| Democracy belongs to us all. | ||
| We are here in the sanctuary of democracy. | ||
| Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. | ||
| American democracy is bigger than any one person. | ||
| Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We are still at our core a democracy. | |
| This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom. | ||
|
unidentified
|
C-SPAN shop.org is C-SPAN's online store. | |
| Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. | ||
| There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. | ||
| Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. | ||
| This is Ed Whalen joining us. | ||
| He's with the Ethics and Public Policy Center. | ||
| He serves as a senior fellow, also serves as the chair for constitutional studies at the center. | ||
| Mr. Whalen, welcome back to C-SPAN. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Tell us a little bit about the center, its purpose, and particularly when it comes to judicial matters. | ||
| What position does the center hold? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is a think tank that's really dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to issues of public policy. | |
| We recognize the importance of a sound culture in forming sound politics. | ||
| We were founded in 1976, and I think we've had quite an impressive history since then. | ||
| My own work has been on the courts program since 2004, really trying to promote conservative principles of originalism and judicial restraint. | ||
| To that end then, what do you think of the role as the courts, the federal courts specifically, when it comes to a check on the executive branch? | ||
| What's the proper role? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, the Constitution creates a system of separated powers. | |
| There are lots of contentious issues about just what that means for the courts. | ||
| I think there are proper occasions for the courts to intervene and issue orders and say, here's how we construe the Constitution and the laws, and we order you to abide by that. | ||
| There have been lots of other instances where the courts have, I think, improperly overridden the democratic processes. | ||
| When it comes to the courts generally, how do you think they react when it comes to presidents, policies, laws put in by the various presidents, and the courts react? | ||
| And how do you think the courts generally react to what the president puts out there? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, that's a big question. | |
| Let's have in mind that there is an appellate process in the court. | ||
| So oftentimes you'll have district court judges on one side or another of the ideological divide who might issue bad rulings. | ||
| One hopes that as it filters up through the appellate system, then to the Supreme Court, those errors get corrected. | ||
| I think by and large that's happened. | ||
| There have been lots of exceptions, and different presidents would have cause to object to different rulings by the courts over the years. | ||
| So that's the windup. | ||
| Here's the pitch. | ||
| How do you think the courts specifically are reacting to Donald Trump as president when it comes to their judicial rulings? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I think in a way it's too early to tell precisely because this appellate process hasn't had a chance to play out. | |
| The Trump White House is understandably frustrated by all of the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, so-called TROs, that district courts throughout the country have issued against one after another of the shock and awe flood of initiatives. | ||
| A lot of this was foreseeable, and some of it even seems to have been invited. | ||
| Nonetheless, there is some frustration. | ||
| Many of these rulings have been issued by judges appointed by Barack Obama or Joe Biden. | ||
| There are others by Republican appointees, even by appointees of Donald Trump. | ||
| So I think it's hard to paint a big picture. | ||
| I think, again, the White House has a lot of frustration and is complaining about a lot. | ||
| That doesn't mean that all of its complaints are well-warranted. | ||
| Such as what? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I think there are a lot of complaints that go beyond we disagree with this reasoning and we want to get the appellate courts to overturn it, but instead are calling for judges to be impeached or you have folks in the White House proclaiming tyranny, just a lot of over-the-top rhetoric that I don't think is actually helpful to their cause in the litigation. | |
| Maybe they see it as helpful politically. | ||
| But, you know, you would have to look at each case matter by matter to discuss it and to assess it. | ||
| And again, there can be good arguments on both sides of many of these cases. | ||
| But in some ways, it seems as though the Trump administration has been eager to invite these fights and hasn't really taken action to avoid them. | ||
| As an example, we have this prominent case that involves a Salvadoran illegal alien whose surname is Abrego Garcia. | ||
| The Trump administration concedes that he was illegally deported. | ||
| It probably could have taken corrective action right away to remedy that. | ||
| It may not have even required he be brought back to the States. | ||
| But the White House has been, I think, very obstinate, even in the face of orders by the district court, by the Fourth Circuit, by the Supreme Court. | ||
| And I think its obstinacy is viewed by many judges, and it was seen by some Supreme Court justices as bad faith. | ||
| I don't think that's going to help it in this battle or more broadly. | ||
| This was broadly, the administration brought that on the use of these wartime powers going back several decades in history. | ||
| What do you think about the use of that power? | ||
| Is it applicable to the Kilmar Abrego case? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, the Abrego Garcia case involves, I think, ordinary deportation powers. | |
| And clearly he's deportable. | ||
| We can get into the details of his case more. | ||
| But what you're asking about with the Alien Enemies Act is a proclamation that Donald Trump issued with respect to Venezuelans, specifically with respect to individuals deemed by the administration to be members of a gang. | ||
| The shorthand is TDA. | ||
| Now, he's used this Alien Enemies Act as the basis for this. | ||
| And I think there are lots and lots of questions about whether the proclamation itself is lawful. | ||
| There are some very robust champions of executive power who say this goes way too far. | ||
| So the Supreme Court has already put a stop to the major use of this by saying, look, you need to provide due process to anyone you're deporting this way. | ||
| The person is going to have a right to file a habeas petition and to challenge in that habeas petition the claim that he is a member of this gang. | ||
| And they'll also be able to challenge, as we've seen, the legality of the proclamation altogether. | ||
| So I think it's a very aggressive effort that may well not succeed. | ||
| It only involves a tiny, tiny percentage of the illegal aliens in this country. | ||
| And we're probably talking 0.0001%. | ||
| That doesn't render it insignificant. | ||
| I don't mean to suggest that. | ||
| Obviously, gang members are among the most dangerous illegal aliens in this country. | ||
| And I'm very supportive of efforts to deport them. | ||
| Let's just make sure we get the right people and do it lawfully. | ||
| Ed Whalen joining us for this discussion about judicial branches and the Trump administration, 202748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats, and 202748-8002 for Independents. | ||
| You can text us questions or comments to it, 202748-8003. | ||
| Some of those comments about the use of administration's policy when it comes to deportation came from judges themselves. | ||
| There was some reaction in the papers this morning. | ||
| Here's one saying, quote, this is not a secret court, an inquisition from medieval times. | ||
| This is the United States of America. | ||
| That was U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein at a hearing at New York. | ||
| He goes on to say, you've got to tell a person when he's done what he's done. | ||
| What do you think of that reaction and some similar reactions from the judges themselves? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, well, I'm not familiar with that particular case, but judges properly see due process as an important mandate. | |
| What process is due can vary dramatically in different proceedings. | ||
| I don't think, as a general matter, that illegal aliens are entitled to a heck of a lot. | ||
| If you face a deportation order, you're maybe entitled to contest that you're the person who's named, contest that you're an illegal alien, but that's probably all been established by then. | ||
| There are, in other contexts, other challenges that folks being deported can raise. | ||
| They can say that they're entitled to asylum. | ||
| They can argue as Brego Garcia did, that the order of removal should be withheld with respect to a particular country. | ||
| And look, there probably are lots and lots of ways to improve the immigration system and to challenge the existing case law that makes things too difficult. | ||
| I wish the focus were on that. | ||
| And I wish we would see, for example, a set of cases, appellate court, Supreme Court from the Justice Department that it's working to get altered so that deportations can be done more efficiently. | ||
| Instead, I think we're seeing a lot of political rhetoric that isn't going to achieve much. | ||
| There was a report issued by the Congressional Research Service about the administration in this term saying that using its methodology, the service identified 17 cases in which federal courts issued nationwide injunctions, that between January 20th of this year and March 27th of this year. | ||
| Is that an unusual number or at least an unusual figure to you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, it probably is. | |
| I'm sure it is, in fact. | ||
| But we also have an administration that is boasting about how aggressive it is on all these fronts. | ||
| And it also has skirted the usual processes, working through the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel to make sure that its executive orders are actually lawful. | ||
| The term nationwide injunctions is a confusing one. | ||
| I think different people use it in different ways. | ||
| What does it mean to you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I think insofar as it's objectionable, what it means is an order that gives relief to non-parties. | |
| So you have someone comes into a court and says, I'm entitled to relief against the government. | ||
| And the court says, yes, you are. | ||
| Well, of course, that's going to apply nationwide. | ||
| Of course, it's not going to be the case if you travel from Virginia to California. | ||
| Suddenly you're going to lose your rights there. | ||
| So that meaning of nationwide injunction is not particularly meaningful. | ||
| But if the court says, not only are you entitled to relief, but we're going to strike down this law entirely, bar its application to anyone, or bar the application of this regulation to anyone, that's going beyond the bounds of what an injunction properly ought to do. | ||
| So that's the sense in which I think a nationwide injunction is objectionable. | ||
| Before we take calls, you said that the president depends on various avenues within the White House to bring these legal cases. | ||
| Who's he listening to most, and is that the right person to listen to in your mind? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, it seems that Deputy White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is a very influential voice on this. | |
| He's a very bright and talented person politically. | ||
| He's not a lawyer. | ||
| It certainly seems that he's micromanaging the Department of Justice in a way that's unprecedented. | ||
| And a lot of his own rhetoric has been wildly inaccurate and I think irresponsible. | ||
| Ed Whalen is joining us for this discussion. | ||
| Again, you can call in on the lines if you want to ask him questions. | ||
| We'll start off this morning with Ron. | ||
| Ron is in New Hampshire. | ||
| Line for Democrats on with Ed Whalen. | ||
| Good morning, Ron. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, thank you, and thank your guests very, very much. | |
| I'm very honored to get to speak to Mr. Whalen this morning. | ||
| And kudos to you guys again. | ||
| Greatest show on TV. | ||
| Your producers, everybody there, awesome. | ||
| Has been for a very long time. | ||
| But yeah, this is just incredible. | ||
| What's the deal with this? | ||
| This gay makeup artist was sent off and they grabbed the lady protester that was going to the university off the streets. | ||
| And these people are citizens. | ||
| If they did something wrong, if they broke the law, wanted by the law, if they're illegal, then they broke the law doing that, then yeah, pick them up. | ||
| But isn't it like against our against the USAI policies or something? | ||
| We're supposed to take people in that may end up getting killed in other countries, and we're sending them to a prison where we're almost certain that they're going to be tortured and possibly killed in this prison, may never be able to get them back and everything. | ||
| This is just lawlessness. | ||
| This is really just incredible times right now. | ||
| It's like we're living in a mini Russia at this point. | ||
| All right. | ||
| That's Ron there in New Hampshire. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I think that Ron is repeating some allegations that are out there that may well be true but haven't been established. | |
| He also, I think, mistakenly, well, I know he referred to these people as citizens. | ||
| They're not citizens. | ||
| That doesn't mean that they're not entitled to due process, but it's important to establish that we are talking about aliens. | ||
| He referred to a gay makeup artist, as I understand it. | ||
| That's an allegation. | ||
| This involves an individual who was detained and I believe deported under this Alien Enemies Act proclamation and who says that he was never part of this gang. | ||
| Indeed, that he threatened, he fears being persecuted by this gang because of his sexual orientation. | ||
| The second person he refers to, I think, is this lady protester. | ||
| I believe he's referring to a student at, I'm forgetting now, a college in the Boston area who was seized off the streets by ICE agents and I think is now in some sort of facility in Texas or Louisiana. | ||
| She was lawfully in this country, as I understand it. | ||
| She's not a citizen. | ||
| The actions there seem quite extreme. | ||
| It's not clear that she ever did anything more than write an op-ed that people object to, but perhaps there's more to it. | ||
| So, you know, there's a bit of a fog here, and both sides have their allegations and the facts that they assert. | ||
| The value of judicial hearings is that they provide an opportunity to sort through this. | ||
| There's also the case of Magmou Khalil of Columbia University. | ||
| What does this illustrate about the Trump administration's use of apprehension, and what are the legal challenges facing the Trump administration? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, so I believe Khalil is someone else who was studying this country legally, who's been outspoken, I believe, on Palestinian issues. | |
| May well have crossed the line in some very ugly rhetoric. | ||
| I can't say I know this case very well. | ||
| But yeah, I believe he's detained. | ||
| And so we see some very aggressive action. | ||
| This small number of cases aren't really doing much, it seems, to achieve the broader purpose of deporting lots and lots of people. | ||
| And they're inviting fights. | ||
| Now, maybe that's what the administration wants. | ||
| I really don't know. | ||
| What does it mean for the courts, though, as they determine these kind of things? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, the courts are going to be assessing has the administration acted lawfully? | |
| Are these allegations true? | ||
| What degree of deference is owed to the White House in making these determinations? | ||
| A very important question. | ||
| And I think in the immigration context, under lots of these laws, substantial deference is owed to the White House. | ||
| Now, the White House is going to lose, I think, in practice, if not also in law, a lot of this deference if it is seen to be acting in a very wild manner. | ||
| From Delaware, Alex is next. | ||
| Republican line. | ||
| Hi there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, how you doing? | |
| I just wanted to ask you a question about Obama deported millions of people. | ||
| And are you trying to tell me that they had millions of cases to deport them people, he did? | ||
| And it just, it's so right. | ||
| It's corrupt. | ||
| It's so corrupt. | ||
| This guy even says that he should be deported. | ||
| It doesn't make any sense why they're making a big deal out of all this. | ||
| It's really craziness. | ||
| That's all I got to say. | ||
| Well, I'm not quite sure what facts Alex is relying on here, but there's no question that there have been lots of illegal aliens in the past who have voluntarily returned to their countries. | ||
| And you see statistics that show these people being deported, these count as deportations. | ||
| You don't need, Alex referred to cases. | ||
| You don't need elaborate trials here. | ||
| So many of these people realize they have nothing to contest. | ||
| So I'm not sure I understand the argument that Donald Trump is unable to achieve things that Barack Obama was able to achieve. | ||
| I see no evidence that courts are standing in the way of the ordinary deportation system that Barack Obama used. | ||
| When it comes to the courts, ultimately, as various cases from the Trump administration filter through the lower courts, what does it mean for the Supreme Court? | ||
| And from actions of the court that you've seen to date, what do you get as a sense of the court when it comes to how the administration is using its power? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, you've been getting a lot of emergency applications to the court. | |
| So, again, the ordinary appellate process, you'd have a final ruling by the district court. | ||
| You'd have a careful review by the Court of Appeals. | ||
| You'd then have a sorcery petition to the Supreme Court. | ||
| The Supreme Court would decide whether or not to grant it. | ||
| This could go easily over a period of years. | ||
| Things have been happening on an expedited basis, in large part, because district courts have been granting a lot of TROs or preliminary injunctions. | ||
| And so those are, at least in the case of preliminary injunctions, immediately appealable. | ||
| And what the Trump administration has sought is emergency stays of orders against them. | ||
| And these requests have been getting up to the Supreme Court in a very expedited basis, in a way that invites fast rulings on complicated matters. | ||
| And the margin of error becomes all the higher when the court is asked to act so quickly on facts that aren't very developed. | ||
| So we've seen some rulings by the Supreme Court in favor of the administration, some rulings against, some rulings against that the administration pretends are in its favor. | ||
| It's a mixed bag. | ||
| I don't envy the Supreme Court justices who have this flood of applications coming to them now that are not easy to handle. | ||
| What did you make of the actions of the Supreme Court that Saturday morning when it comes to deportation and putting a halt on them? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, so you're referring to this extraordinary ruling either very late Friday or maybe at 1 a.m. Saturday morning in a case arising out of Texas in which individuals who feared they were about to be deported to Venezuela via this Alien Enemies Act proclamation that I mentioned sought emergency relief. | |
| And seven justices granted that very promptly. | ||
| It was extraordinary that it happened so quickly. | ||
| The court acted as it noted without hearing from the government. | ||
| It was a temporary action and it's reconsidering it right now as it's received an opposition from the government as well as a dissent from Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. | ||
| I think it's difficult to see that action as anything other than reflecting a deep, deep distrust of this administration, a sense that it cannot be taken as word when it says it's not going to deport folks. | ||
| And I think that distrust unfortunately has been earned. | ||
| Now, it doesn't mean that that distrust justifies the order. | ||
| I'm explaining it, not taking a position on whether or not it's justified. | ||
| But I think it does show that at least seven justices, including all three of Donald Trump's own appointees to the Supreme Court, seem rather alarmed by the bad faith defiance that they seem to perceive. | ||
| One of the dissents came from Justice Alito. | ||
| He wrote in part saying, in sum, literally in the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application with dubious factual support for its order and without providing any explanation for its order. | ||
| I refused to join the court's order because we had no good reason to think that under the circumstances issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. | ||
|
unidentified
|
A very strong statement by a justice I respect a lot. | |
| We'll see how this issue sorts out in the coming days. | ||
| Let's go to Christian. | ||
| Christian joins us from Ohio, independent line for Ed Whalen. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hi, yes. | |
| So looking back on history, Bill Clinton deported formerly roughly 1 million illegals here with only 12 injunctions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
George Bush was 2 million with only 12 injunctions. | |
| Obama, arguably probably the largest amount, 3.5 million, again, with only 12 injunctions. | ||
| Yet for Donald Trump, in his first term, he deported 1.5 and had 30 court injunctions. | ||
| Now, with only 138,000 roughly being deported, there's already another 30 court injunctions. | ||
| And I just have to ask, because I watched this play out, and I used to be a longtime Democrat. | ||
| And honestly, I voted on both sides of the aisle. | ||
| But the more I watch these things play out on TV, I just have to ask, how much of these court injunctions today are actually authentic and justified versus manufactured outrage because they don't like who's in charge? | ||
| And I mean, I don't remember any of this being on the news 24-7 with news anchors melting down. | ||
| I mean, it's completely unhinged. | ||
| And while, you know, it's just an observation, but I know a lot of people that observe the same thing. | ||
| And I guess, you know, people wonder why we end up back in this situation. | ||
| They've watched the same thing I have. | ||
| And, well, here we are. | ||
| But Kristen, there in Ohio. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, let me just say I'm distrustful of a lot of the numbers we see tossed around as though they're well substantiated. | |
| Again, a lot of the numbers for, say, Clinton deportations were voluntary returns. | ||
| And they seem to involve seasonal workers who would come in one season, go back home, come back in the other season. | ||
| So you're talking about a lot of the same people. | ||
| And we talk about numbers of injunctions. | ||
| Again, that doesn't capture the significance of it. | ||
| I'm also skeptical of the number. | ||
| But you also have unprecedented action here. | ||
| I mean, how many of these injunctions involve Donald Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation? | ||
| Certainly there are quite a few out there, and there'll be more. | ||
| So I don't think that counting injunctions is a very good way to measure things. | ||
| Granted, it takes a lot more work to come up with a more sophisticated measure. | ||
| And the caller may well be right that there are some courts that are overeager to block what the administration is doing. | ||
| But if you're talking about ordinary use of deportation powers, I simply don't see why those are unavailable. | ||
| So the very fact that if it is a fact that you had these high numbers of deportations by previous presidents should mean that this president should be able to use those same powers to get those done. | ||
| And I'm not aware of any injunctions that render that impossible. | ||
| The Ethic and Public Policy Center is Ed Whalen joining us for this discussion. | ||
| Kathleen in Mississippi, you're up next. | ||
| Democrats line. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hi. | |
| Good morning. | ||
| I had tried to text in, but I didn't have no data on my phone, so I called. | ||
| This is about the Constitution, our Constitution. | ||
| You should not have alien war act for, like he said, I want to get rid of a United States citizen. | ||
| We have nothing. | ||
| We is the worst state, I think, in Mississippi. | ||
| And they just rolling over us. | ||
| I mean, it's ludicrous what they're talking about. | ||
| Get rid of the federal government. | ||
| Get rid of education. | ||
| Get rid of everything. | ||
| What's left? | ||
| Nothing. | ||
| It's sad that people want their whole life and don't have nothing to show for $988 a month. | ||
| I'm not rich. | ||
| My grandchildren, children are not rich. | ||
| We barely survive and they taking everything from us. | ||
| I mean, God bless the Pope. | ||
| That's all I can say. | ||
| Okay, Kathleen in Mississippi, she brought up the idea of the Constitution. | ||
| Ultimately, these are, to what degree are these constitutional challenges that the administration presents when making these actions and the courts have to interpret. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, okay, so as your question indicates, there's this stratum of statutory law that involves a whole host of questions. | |
| And then there's a matter of whether the administration has complied with some basic constitutional obligations such as due process. | ||
| And different cases are going to present different things. | ||
| I heard a lot of static on that call, so I apologize. | ||
| But I certainly heard the caller express understandable frustration with the consequences of illegal immigration. | ||
| And it is often the poorest Americans who suffer most from this in labor competition and other things. | ||
| So I speak as someone who is broadly supportive of President Trump's goals on the immigration front. | ||
| I would just hope that they would be pursued effectively and legally. | ||
| The president himself responding to the various actions, including the Supreme Court on his truth social site, he said the courts are intimidated in part. | ||
| He said the courts are intimidated by the radical left who are playing the ref. | ||
| Great Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito correctly wants to dissolve the pause on deportations. | ||
| He's right on this. | ||
| If we don't get these criminals out of our country, we're not going to have a country any longer. | ||
| We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. | ||
| And he goes on to say we would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of illegals we are sending out of this country. | ||
| There's the rhetoric, but where's the truth? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, this talk of trials is deeply misleading. | |
| Again, President Trump is expressing an important sentiment that a lot of us share. | ||
| I don't know that his political rhetoric here is very helpful. | ||
| And we're not talking about trials. | ||
| I mean, if you're an illegal alien, you don't need a trial on anything. | ||
| There's not going to be some jury that tries to decide whether you're an illegal alien. | ||
| These are processes that are handled first and foremost by the executive branch and by the Department of Homeland Security and the immigration authorities within that department. | ||
| So and again, there may well be obstacles to immigration officials acting as effectively as they ought to. | ||
| We ought to identify those obstacles. | ||
| But have in mind that this Brego Garcia, who's the Salvadoran national who was, as the administration concedes, mistakenly deported to El Salvador, was deemed deportable back in 2019. | ||
| It was a Trump administration back then that did not challenge the order withholding deportation to El Salvador. | ||
| That did not detain him. | ||
| That released him back into the community. | ||
| So a lot of the rhetoric doesn't really match reality. | ||
| The challenge is great, but I'm afraid a lot of the over-the-top political rhetoric misses the real issues. | ||
| This is from Georgia. | ||
| Roy joins us next. | ||
| Republican line. | ||
| Good morning. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, sir. | |
| I keep hearing about the Alien Enemy Act. | ||
| The part of the problem is that Trump is trying to do the right thing, but he doesn't have the tools to do what he wants to do. | ||
| So instead of relying on some old law, he has the Congress, he has the Senate. | ||
| They need to give him the tools he need to accomplish what he's trying to do. | ||
| I mean, you used the words yourself, unprecedented. | ||
| This is unprecedented. | ||
| 20 million people to come over here, many of them criminals. | ||
| So why don't we create the laws that would allow him to do that? | ||
| This president is fighting a deep, deep state that have imported these people here for nefarious reasons. | ||
| He can't do it on his own. | ||
| He's fighting against these people on his own, and the Congress is sitting there on their thumbs doing nothing. | ||
| They need to come forward and help this president out. | ||
| We're talking about laws. | ||
| They make the laws. | ||
| They made the laws. | ||
| Trump to enforce the laws. | ||
| But to get the ACLU and all these other people trying to delay what he's doing so they can earn money, like you said, 200 years to be on a payroll trying to defend these criminals, the president need help. | ||
| And the Republican Party is not helping him. | ||
| Roy in Georgia there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, it's an interesting observation. | |
| I don't know that the White House has actually proposed any legal reforms for Congress to adopt. | ||
| Of course, Congress doesn't need to wait for the White House to do so. | ||
| But I think the more immediate question is: what can the administration do with existing legal authorities? | ||
| And so we have lots of folks pointing out that previous presidents have deported a lot of people. | ||
| So it's not obvious to me why this administration can't do so through the ordinary authorities. | ||
| And, you know, it's picking fights on, you know, that, again, involve important matters, the deportation of gang members. | ||
| But there's a separate law that already allows deportation of gang members without the ordinary protections. | ||
| But you still have to make sure that you're talking about that these people, you have to make some good effort to make sure that the people you say are gang members really are. | ||
| And that's where things can get difficult. | ||
| But again, I think that, yes, maybe there's room to look at Congress reforming the system. | ||
| You're still going to run into a lot of barriers on due process. | ||
| I think the more immediate approach would be to look at the bad case law out there and get it fixed. | ||
| You wrote a recent piece for the free press just to read you the headline. | ||
| I support Trump's policy goals, but oppose turning law into politics. | ||
| Can you summarize the idea you're trying to say? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Basically, I fear that the White House is still in campaign mode, viewing everything through the lens of politics, denying that there is a separate realm of law in which rules and reasoning and principles in the Constitution apply, and instead stigmatizing and demonizing anyone who stands in its way. | ||
| And I think we've seen that that's not going to work in terms of winning good results from the courts. | ||
| So I would hope that we see the Department of Justice acting with more day-to-day autonomy, answering to the White House, of course, but not answering to White House staffers, not being, you know, not having our Attorney General be a nominal attorney general with a de facto attorney general in the White House. | ||
| And, you know, you have to have, look, we have an incredibly talented Solicitor General, John Sauer. | ||
| He wrote a very good brief in response to this action over the weekend, and we'll see what the court ends up doing. | ||
| There's a previous brief I saw in the Fourth Circuit that bore his name. | ||
| I have to think that the first couple paragraphs were edited by someone in the White House. | ||
| Just a lot of screeching, inaccurate rhetoric. | ||
| I mean, claims that foreign affairs are an exclusive reserve of the executive branch. | ||
| Not true. | ||
| Other, I think, misrepresentation. | ||
| So the Department of Justice needs to be able to act like lawyers in court to make the best case for the administration. | ||
| If it does that, I think it'll do pretty well in a lot of these cases. | ||
| We're going to leave this here to take you live to Fort Deposit, Alabama, where Democratic Congresswoman Terry Sewell is speaking to constituents. | ||
| You're watching live coverage on C-SPAN. | ||
| It's going to be a good community conversation. | ||
| Let's give Mayor Boone, the Mayor of Fort Deposit. | ||
| Let's give her a big hand. | ||
| But we really appreciate you being here for this community conversation. | ||
| If you did not receive a card, if you have a question, one of our staff members, there were index cards or some type of card at the table that you can write your question on. | ||
| Quinn Kelly, if you raise your hand, he's in the back. | ||
| If you would like to ask a question, we'll have time for question and answers at the end. | ||
| If you would like to ask a question, we ask you to write it out on the card and we will have someone to ask that question for you. | ||
| So we have pens and cards at the registration table, and we can bring it to you. | ||
| We can have somebody to bring it to you. | ||
| Queen, if you would have Diana or someone to help if we need to pass out some cards. | ||
| So we're going to get started momentarily. | ||
| We'll have our very own mayor. | ||
| She's going to come in when we come back up once the congresswoman comes in and the panelists, she'll come up and give us opening remarks followed by a prayer. | ||
| And then you'll have Congresswoman Terry Sewell, and I'll come back and recognize our elected officials because we do thank you for being here. | ||
| We thank all of you for being here, all of our good friends here in Lyons County. | ||
| Let us know if you have any questions. | ||
| And this town hall discussion should be starting shortly. | ||
| Also, let you know live today, expecting executive order announcements from President Trump. | ||
| We'll have that at 5 p.m. Eastern. | ||
| And then Rick Scott speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School of Politics at 7:30. | ||
| That's over on C-SPAN too. | ||
| And later this evening at 8 p.m. Eastern, Minnesota Governor, State of the State, with Tim Waltz. | ||
| And live coverage here from Fort Deposit, Alabama, expecting Democratic Congresswoman Terry Sewell speaking to constituents here. | ||
| Just waiting for her and the panel to come out on the stage. | ||
| coverage on C-SPAN. | ||
| And again, waiting here, live coverage from Fort Deposit, Alabama. | ||
| Democratic Congresswoman Terry Sewell will be making remarks to constituents. |