Proof For Your Liberal Friend: Activist Judges Are Destroying Our Country
Across the country, courts are packed with ideological left-wing judges who are imposing their own political agenda from the bench. This is not justice. It’s judicial activism. Show this video to your liberal friend as proof.
- - -
Today's Sponsor:
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com/pages/podcasters and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Daily Wire Plus annual memberships are 50% off during our Black Friday sale.
That includes inside annual and all-access memberships.
There's more to enjoy than ever before.
That means more new daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media.
Uncensored, ad-free, and available an hour before you can see or hear them anywhere else.
More new series that capture conviction, courage, and the human story.
More documentaries that challenge the culture and expose what's really happening.
And when we say premium, we're proving it with the long-awaited seven-part epic series, The Pendragon Cycle, Rise of the Merlin.
The legend begins streaming January 22nd, 2026, exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
All access members get early access to episodes one and two at Christmas Day.
50% off Black Friday is our biggest sale of the year.
It only happens once a year.
When it's gone, it's gone.
Go to dailywire.com/slash subscribe and join now.
Rule of law is how we address our social issues, how we dress our federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked implementation of President Trump's executive order, effectively barring transgender people from serving openly in the military, a stark blow to the administration's efforts to curb transgender rights.
U.S. District Judge Anna Rice, an appointee of former President Biden, barred Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other military officials from implementing Trump's order or otherwise putting new policy into place effectuating it.
She also said the plaintiff's military statuses must remain unchanged until further order of the court.
The judge said her order intends to maintain the status quo of military policy regarding transgender service that existed before Trump signed the order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.
She stayed her order until Friday to give the administration time to appeal.
Trump's order suggests that transgender people cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service because they threaten the lethality of the armed forces and undermine unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized communities from serving.
So a little bit more editorializing from the Hill in this, what is supposed to be a supposed to be a news article.
The executive order states, a man's assertion that he's a woman and his requirement that others honor this falsehood is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.
The judge wrote in her opinion that the president has both the power and obligation to ensure military readiness, but noted that leaders of the armed forces have long used that justification to, quote, deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving.
Okay, so Trump, you know, the guy that, you know, who actually runs the country and runs the military, that guy, the president of the United States, I think is the title that he uses.
Trump believes that it threatens unit cohesion and military readiness to have people in the military who are totally disconnected from reality, people who are not living in the real world.
People who are in some fantasy land of their own mental construction.
He thinks that having people like that in the military is a threat to unit cohesion and the lethality of our forces.
That's what Trump thinks.
This random federal judge happens to personally disagree.
She personally feels that it's actually a great idea to invite people in who are deeply confused about the basic facts of our physical reality and to invite them into the military.
That's how she feels.
So the two of them feel different, different ways about it.
Now, obviously, Trump is right.
He's correct about this.
Clearly, yes, when you have a man in the military who is pretending to be a woman, that does, among other things, threaten the cohesion of everyone else in his unit.
You know, we want everyone in the military to be focused solely on defending the country and killing the enemy.
That's what the military is for.
That's their job.
That should be their sole focus.
Anything that does not assist in that effort, anything that is not pointed at that objective, anything that doesn't advance the mission is not good.
Their focus should then not be on affirming some guy's female self-identity.
And for the trans people themselves, we know that their top priority personally will never be defending the nation and killing the bad guy.
Their top priority will always be the affirmation and reinforcement of their false identities.
You know, if I showed up to the recruitment office to sign up for the Army or the Marines and I was filling out the paperwork and on the paperwork, I wrote that I'm a zebra, I would not be accepted into the military, and nobody would expect that I would be.
Even if I said the fact that I'm a zebra is not a major focus of mine.
Even if I said, you know, I'm a zebra, but it's not a big deal.
You know, it's just, I happen to be one.
I happen to be a zebra.
I don't make a big thing of it.
But just so you guys know, before I sign up, I want you to know I am a zebra.
Even if I'm a patriot, I want to fight for the country.
Even if that was the case, I say, don't worry, I won't make a big thing of it.
I just happen to be a zebra.
None of that would matter.
Having someone in the unit who thinks he's a zebra is a completely unnecessary and totally egregious distraction.
Not to mention that there are now very serious questions about my own stability and my own mental clarity and resilience.
How can the United States government issue me a weapon as a man who thinks I'm a zebra?
And why would they do this?
Yes, there might be some recruitment shortages, and that situation is getting better.
But there are still plenty of potential recruits out there who don't think that they're zebras.
So we don't need to start recruiting from the zoo just yet.
So that's why Trump's order makes sense for that reason.
But here's the thing.
All of that is almost irrelevant, really.
The fact that Trump is right on the merits here is it's good that he's right.
But when it comes to what this judge is doing, it's almost irrelevant.
Because the point is that Trump runs the military.
He's the commander in chief.
He's allowed to determine these kinds of policies.
You don't have to agree with them.
You don't have to agree with the way that he operates as commander in chief, but he is the commander in chief.
The fact that the judge personally disagrees with his policy is totally irrelevant because she doesn't get to determine the policy for military recruitment.
She is not the president.
These judges are not the president.
So if you're on the left and you're listening to this, try to understand, okay, try to understand this very basic point.
These judges are not the president, which means there must be some powers that the president has that the judges don't.
Because if there's nothing, if the judges can just override anything Trump does with the stroke of a pen, then the judges are the president altogether.
Each federal judge is the president.
The branches of government, for all these leftists who are going on about constitutional crisis, like what do you know about the Constitution?
And since when did you give a damn about it anyway?
You know what the Constitution says?
The Constitution says that the branches of the government are co-equal, separate but equal.
Have you heard about that phrase?
Hopefully you learn that in civics and grade school, which means that judges cannot supersede the president in every case.
None of these people were voted into office to set policy.
None of these people were voted into office at all.
These are unelected judges trying to override not just the president, but the will of the people.
The people voted for Trump so that he would put policies like this in place.
Yes, even the trans ban in the military.
Trump put that in place in his first term.
People that voted for him knew that.
You know, when you vote for a guy who was already in office once, what you're saying, your message is, yeah, I'd like more of that.
I want him to continue doing what he was.
I might want him to do other things as well, but I approve of how he governed, and I'd like to have more of that, please.
That's what the voters are saying.
You ever feel too busy to make healthy choices?
Do you find yourself too tired at the end of the day to cook a healthy meal and find yourself frequenting your favorite drive-through more than you would like?
Well, you're not alone, trust me.
Life can make it hard to make healthy choices sometimes, but there is one option that even the busiest person can make some time for, and that is balance of nature.
Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies, supplements make it easy to eat fruits and vegetables that you're supposed to eat on a daily basis.
You can take them however you like, swallow them with water, chew them, open up the capsules, and mix the powder into your meals or drinks inside.
You'll find ingredients from 16 whole fruits and 15 whole vegetables that are freeze-dried and lab-tested with no binders, no fillers, no flow agents, just 100% whole food ingredients.
Take another stressor off your plate.
You don't even need to go to your local store to pick up a bottle.
You can get Balance of Nature delivered directly to you by ordering online.
They also have a subscribe and save feature that saves you both time and money, which is a huge bonus.
Go to balanceofnature.com, get a free fiber and spice supplement, plus 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer by using discount code Walsh.
Daily Wire reports, FBI Director Kash Patel said on Friday that federal agents arrested a Milwaukee County, Wisconsin judge who's suspected of helping an illegal immigrant from Mexico evade immigration and customs enforcement officers.
Last week, ICE agents showed up at a Milwaukee County courthouse to arrest a Mexican citizen after a hearing before Judge Hannah Dugan.
The judge directed ICE agents to wait in Chief Judge Carl Ashley's office and then told the defendant to exit the courtroom through a side door.
Patel said in a post, quote, we believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in a courthouse.
Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot, and he's been in custody since, but the judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public.
The FBI director added that the Bureau would share more information soon and thanked the FBI's Milwaukee Field Office for its work in arresting the judge.
Pam Bonni, Bondi Attorney General, also confirmed it on X, saying, I can confirm that our FBI agents just arrested Hannah Dugan, a county judge in Milwaukee, for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid an arrest by ICE.
No one is above the law.
So this is great.
I mean, this is exactly what we've been waiting for, what we need, holding these kinds of people accountable.
And of course, the media is treating this like it's a nuclear catastrophe, but these are the same people who cheered for years while a former president was arrested multiple times.
So we don't need to take their protests seriously at all.
This judge allegedly obstructed the enforcement of immigration law and stood in the way of the law being enforced.
If the allegations are true, then this is a flagrant, not even a borderline case.
I don't even know what a borderline case like this would look like, but whatever it is, it's not this.
If this is what she in fact did, which was like tell the ICE agents to go wait over there and then sneak this guy out the back entrance, you're trying to help a fugitive essentially escape justice.
And if that's the case, then she committed a crime, she should be prosecuted, she should be convicted, and then also sent to prison.
So it's important that every part of this happen.
This is the first step.
But if it's not seen through to the end, including prison time, then it will have the opposite of the effect that's intended.
Because this should be a kind of a warning shot.
This should be making an example of this person that we don't care if you're a judge.
We don't care if you're a mayor, a governor.
We have borders in this country.
We have immigration law.
And you are not entitled to defy it whenever you feel like.
So this is an opportunity to make an example out of someone.
But if she ends up getting off the hook, if she ends up just getting a slap on the wrist, then you've done the opposite of making an example.
Or you've made an example, but it's the wrong kind of example.
So she needs to go to prison if she is in fact guilty.
And if you want to know more about this judge, Hannah Dugan, here's a clip of her from, I think recently, not in relation to this case, but her just sort of talking about her judicial philosophy, I suppose.
Listen to this.
The rule of law is how we address our social issues, how we address our disputes, but also how we grow as people.
The rule of law is premised on equal justice, but also we have evolved into due process.
And it's really the due process.
I, as a person who for a couple decades, almost represented low-income people.
It is due process that really equalizes those differences between people.
If we follow the rule of law, which includes processing our cases in an orderly manner, in a predictable manner, in a manner that holds people to standards, then we're able to achieve that equal justice that we are promised and hope to have continue despite our differences, despite our class differences, despite our racial and religious differences.
The Milwaukee Courthouse has for decades been known to really attempt innovations.
Apply the traditional law, but also look at solutions that are more complicated because these cases that involve, say, veterans or mental health patients or children are more complicated than what the law can address.
The solutions or the sanctions or the punishment or the sentences are fashioned more towards addressing the global issues involved in the case, such as violence or mental health issues or drug treatment issues, rather than punishing outright.
Okay, excruciating, but that's the kind of a perfect video in many ways because it's a perfect representation of the kinds of woke judges that are destroying our communities, destroying our country.
So much violence and chaos comes from these kinds of people.
But when you listen to her and you're not paying attention to the content, she sounds very unobjectionable.
She's got, you've got the elevator piano music in the background.
It's just this old lady who sounds and looks like a DMV employee, babbling in almost a whispered tone, kind of monotone, talking about helping the less fortunate or whatever, not ranting and raving, not foaming at the mouth, nothing like that.
There's nothing on the surface that sort of screams radical to you.
And yet her ideology is extremely radical.
And it has caused untold harm.
I mean, this woman is a conqueror and destroyer.
Women and everyone like her.
Our society has been conquered and destroyed by these kinds of women.
Not only women, but many of them are.
This is like, she's like the Genghis Khan of our time.
That's what our Genghis Khan looks like, unfortunately, like a middle school lunch lady.
So what is she actually saying?
Well, you kind of have to understand the code.
You have to know a bit about how to translate woke jargon into English.
And she says that the Milwaukee Courthouse is innovating.
Well, that's red flag number one.
We don't want judges to innovate.
Innovation is not what we want from the judicial system.
We want you to enforce the law.
We want you to punish the offenders.
We don't really want innovation.
And then she says that, well, we're focusing less on punishment.
And that, of course, is the major red flag.
That's the number one major red flag.
You hear this from a judge.
That's like the worst thing you can hear from a judge.
We're not focused on punishment.
It's like hearing a doctor say, you know, I'm not as focused on treating the actual disease.
I try to be more innovative.
I try to be more open-minded.
Some diseases are good.
No, treat the disease.
That's why you exist.
That's your whole job.
And as a job, as a judge, your job is to punish, not to innovate.
Your job is to punish.
Now, that may not be your only job in every case, but that's really your main job.
Yes, it's to punish.
Not to bring about social change, which she talks about in the longer clip.
Your job is to follow the law, enforce it, and punish.
Your job is justice.
You are the justice system.
We're part of it.
And justice means punishment.
That's what it means.
So when you hear that, you automatically know this is a, despite how she comes off, this is a dangerous radical.
And this is how our dangerous radicals come off.
And this is someone who, again, if she's guilty of what she's been accused, she deserves to go to prison.
The post-millennial reports, on Tuesday, a federal judge struck down a law from Florida that bars minors from getting puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for sex treatment interventions if a parent consents to treatment.
He compared the law to discrimination against minorities and women.
Senior judge Robert Hinkle stated in his opinion that Florida went too far by barring trans-identified minors from being prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones if they have parental consent.
Hinkle, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, quoted Martin Luther King Jr. and compared getting the treatment as a minor to women and minorities fighting for civil rights.
Hinkle said in the over 100-page decision, some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny.
Transgender opponents are, of course, free to hold their beliefs, but they're not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender.
In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish just as racism and misogyny have diminished.
To paraphrase a civil rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
Governor Ron DeSantis blasted the ruling saying, through their elected representatives, the people of Florida acted to protect children in the state.
The court was wrong to override their wishes, as we've seen here in Florida, the United Kingdom, and across Europe.
There's no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children.
These procedures do permanent life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror.
And of course, he's right about that.
I have to tell you that I sort of appreciate this ruling.
I disagree with it, obviously.
I disagree, I think it's totally deranged, both morally and intellectually, not to mention legally.
But I appreciate it because, for one thing, it just brings us closer to the Supreme Court ruling on this issue.
And I feel very confident that, and maybe I don't want to jinx it, but I feel very confident that the current makeup of the Supreme Court will come to the right conclusion on this.
I don't see the Supreme Court when the time comes, and it will eventually.
I don't see the Supreme Court ruling that parents have a constitutional right to have their children sterilized.
I don't see that.
I appreciate the ruling also because it's so flimsy, so weak, so clearly ideologically motivated that it will not only be easily overturned, but it just continues to expose the gender ideologues for who they are.
I mean, it's that ludicrous.
It's hard to even know where to begin.
And this article only gives a brief snippet of the judge's ruling.
The New York Times article on this ruling has other snippets just as absurd like this.
Reading now from the decision, the state of Florida can regulate as needed, but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment, treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state's full approval, so long as the purpose is not to support the patient's transgender identity.
Safe and effective.
Says who?
You know, there's a reason, as Governor DeSantis alluded to, there's a reason these treatments are being banned across the world, often by governments that are otherwise very sympathetic to the leftist cause and the LGBT cause more broadly.
That's because there is no reliable evidence that these drugs, when given to minors for this purpose, are safe or effective and lots of evidence to the contrary, not to mention just basic common sense that should already reveal the truth of this.
And besides, effective at what exactly?
What are the drugs supposed to be effectively doing?
Can you explain that?
They're not effective at changing anyone's biology.
They're not effective at changing males into females.
So this is totally wrong, but let's go back to that bit that the post-millennial quoted.
Some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism and misogyny.
Transgender opponents are, of course, free to hold their beliefs.
To paraphrase the civil rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
So this is just full-on, undisguised left-wing activism.
It's not a legal decision at all.
Like what you read there is indistinguishable from what you might read in an editorial on pink news or something.
Let's start with the fact that the transgender opponents, quote unquote, meaning in this case, people who are opposed to transitioning minors, those people, us, we actually don't invoke religion as our primary argument.
I very rarely hear that.
I rarely hear anyone on our side of this debate do that.
When two people are arguing about whether it's a good idea to give quote-unquote puberty blockers to minors or whether it's a good idea to perform cosmetic double mastectomies of minors, I rarely hear the person on the right side of that debate.
I rarely hear them say, well, you shouldn't do that because God says it's bad.
Now, it's true that God does say that it's bad.
It's a true statement.
But we don't need to invoke religion at that point of the discussion for the same reason that we don't need to invoke religion to explain that three times three equals nine.
Now, I mean, you could, but that doesn't need to be your first argument.
In fact, it's usually the other side that brings religion into the conversation.
This judge does it right here.
He has no evidence-based argument, no scientific argument.
He has only a moral argument.
It's a completely unhinged moral argument, but that's all he has.
And so, and he is the one, which we find so often with the left, that when they're arguing against so-called social conservatives on one of the so-called social issues, they will always accuse us of bringing the Bible into it.
Not that it's wrong to bring the Bible into a conversation, but the point is that they will do it much quicker, actually, generally than we will in these conversations.
And in this case, we also get the quote from Martin Luther King Jr.
By the way, how do you think that any of the civil rights leaders of the mid-20th century or before, how do you think any of them would feel about puberty blockers for children?
Like, is there any indication that any of them believed that that gender was fluid?
If Martin Luther King Jr. was around today and you asked him, is gender fluid?
Like, what do you think he would say to that?
And if there was that belief among the civil rights leaders of history, then why didn't they ever say it?
