You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
And yes, my name is Jim Santel.
I am your host here on this broadcast, both this hour and next hour.
As always, our syllabus, our academic agenda for our discussion, our presentation that yes, indeed, can and should involve you
is both ambitious but achievable.
I'll tell you more about that in just a moment or so.
I am joined here in the studios in Racine, Wisconsin by my producer, Max.
And together we're taking your phone calls at 855-752-4842.
That number, once again, is 855-752-4842.
Max always reminds me as well that you can be a part of our discussion, raising questions.
posing quandaries, scratching your head about things we're talking about by dropping those comments, those words into our chat line as well.
Be a part of our discussion this weekend on Amicus Law Review.
As always, we do have an extensive and news-oriented syllabus to review and to examine this weekend, as has been the case in the past.
We are going to begin, of course, with a lot of focus upon that recent decision, very recent decision by the United States Supreme Court.
Having to do with the powers of the presidency, a big topic last year and this calendar year again by judges and justices across the country.
This one, of course, you know the headlines, you know the story, the Supreme Court smacking down.
the theory upon which the President of the United States has, for the last 12 or 13 months, been imposing those tariffs, withdrawing them, reimposing them, engaging in all sorts of tariff-related executive orders, without constitutional, without congressional approval, Supreme Court saying late this past week, that that absence, that involvement of the legislature,
dooms those efforts and renders them illegal and unconstitutional.
Huge implications, obviously, not just legally for the powers of the presidency, but also economically.
We'll talk about some of those, but we're gonna spend most of our time talking about what the majority, a very interesting six to three majority said about the tariffs and the specific statute that this president invoked.
You may recall that we spent a lot of time way back in November when this case was argued talking about exactly what the justices were thinking about at that time.
No surprises, no surprises that the Supreme Court chose not to support the president's theory.
based upon what we heard way back in November, we'll talk all about that and more.
We'll talk as well about what's on the docket of the Supreme Court coming up, a very busy late February through late April.
This is a busy time for the court, 18 different days coming up on the docket of the Supreme Court.
On each of those days, they're gonna be conducting oral arguments in well over 50 cases yet to be decided.
They've decided about 10 or 11 up to this point.
We'll tell you a little bit more about what's still on the docket to be decided.
Many of those, many of those, still the subjects of oral arguments coming up.
Many other news items this past week as well, some of them international, will talk about this major decision coming out of the highest court of South Korea, imposing a life sentence upon the former president there for his attempt to overthrow the government.
Yes, indeed, it can be done.
And we're also going to revisit another story that we have talked about in the distant past.
And that is the story involving Chazelle Pilicoat.
Many of you may recall that she was the wife, the spouse, the partner of a husband who for many, many decades was sexually abusing her.
Also, also at the hands of other men that he invited into her home, a true icon.
now in France because not only did she ensure that the trial of her husband and these others for sexual assault for rape over a long period of time would be a part of the public domain but because of the ways that she approached this the things that she said and the valor that she brought to all of this she has written a new book and we're going to talk a little bit about that
talking about the ways in which one thinks about sexual assault plainly, plainly hugely relevant to our own discussion here in the United States of America about the Epstein files which continues obviously unabated as more and more revelations come out.
We're gonna talk about what happened in France.
Giselle Pelicote and the standard that she has established now for disclosure.
for transparency, for bringing people who are engaging in this kind of wild, inappropriate, disgusting, destructive sexual abuse to justice.
That is among the...
international cases, international matters, we're going to be talking about.
We're also going to be chatting about a few other things in the category of rule of law snapshots, as we often do some things coming out of Minnesota.
Once again, a judge there, another judge in Maryland, having to decide on a case involving us.
Abrego Garcia Kilmar is still in the national attention and on the docket of a judge there.
We'll talk about what's happening in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in East
Yes, it's been just a couple of weeks since we looked at Eastern Virginia and the roller coaster ride of U.S.
attorneys in that place as well.
We're also going to chat very briefly about what defense attorneys are doing to track the irregular, atypical, unprecedented decisions, both in terms of charging and resolutions, all kinds of things coming out of the Department of Justice these days.
We'll talk about that as well.
And then right here in Wisconsin.
We're going to chat a bit about a significant First Amendment decision having to do with a decision by a Waukesha County man and a decision rendered by Muskegel County Circuit Court judge.
I'll tell you about my connection to that judge, my connection to the plaint, to the defendant in that case and what resulted from his attempt to exercise his First Amendment rights using chalk.
Yes, that's right.
Chalk on the sidewalk there in Muskego.
We're going to begin.
We're going to begin in a much more somber note, and that is we're going to note, as you all have this past week, that the Reverend Jesse Jackson, we recall him for his very impassioned oratory.
He had a very strong populist vision of, as he called it, the rainbow coalition of the poor.
and the forgotten women and men of this nation, one of the most influential black figures in recent years between the civil rights crusades that were animated by, among others, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and the election of Barack Obama.
Jesse Jackson, this charismatic champion of civil rights, dying at the age of 84 in Chicago.
It is interesting, of course, to read all about his history
He is something of an enigma and certainly not without his controversy throughout his life.
There's a wonderful professor at Stanford University named Claiborne Carson, who has spoken a lot and written a lot about not only civil rights, but also about Jesse Jackson.
And he said that Jackson had suffered in large part by being caught between two eras, two eras, two times in American history.
He said he was too late, too late.
to be an unambiguously heroic figure like Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and yet too early to succeed at the highest levels of politics like Barack Obama.
Indeed, we know that Jesse Jackson ran for the presidency unsuccessfully, wanted to secure the Democratic nomination two times in his career, and...
A lot of the commentary not only focuses upon those periods of time but also the times that preceded that that created the person that we know as Jesse Jackson.
A lot of people commenting about his role plainly in the civil rights era following that and the time up to his death.
A lot of people commenting as well upon the controversy in his life and he was not without that too.
It is significant to note
that, again, the professor said this about Jesse Jackson.
So this is the best imagination.
He was someone who could bring the country together, appeal to working class whites as well as poor blacks, and unite them around economic change.
But that's been a dream.
In American politics for as long as there has been American politics and when that dream confronts reality It's often a difficult bridge to cross that again some academic commentary about the life and times of Jesse Jackson You may recall those of you who were alive in 1988 his keep hope alive speech at the Democratic National Convention and We're going to conclude our comments
and our memory of Jesse Jackson with this.
At one point in that speech, it mesmerized the people there in the hall and mesmerized America for a time.
At one point in that speech, Jesse Jackson told a story, an account about his grandmother in Greenville.
She could not afford a blanket.
He was explaining to the group.
He said, she did not complain about that.
The family did not freeze.
Instead, according to him, she took pieces of old cloth, patches of wool and silk and gabardine and other sack type items.
Describe them as only patches, barely good enough to wipe your shoes off with.
And his grandmother sewed them together into a quilt, a thing as he described it, a beauty, a power, and of culture.
And he implored all Americans, including certain Democrats who were there to listen to him.
He implored Democrats to build that kind of quilt in this nation.
He said this.
Be as wise as my grandmother was.
He said, pull the patches and the pieces together bound by a common thread.
When we form a great quilt of unity and common ground, we'll have the power to bring about healthcare and housing and jobs and education and hope to our nation.
We the people, he said, can win.
Jesse Jackson.
who has died at the age of 84 in Chicago, attempted to transform the mind, the lives, the livelihoods of America, certainly a tremendous impact upon the history of our nation, including the civil rights efforts that continue to this day.
Jesse Jackson, Reverend Jesse Jackson, 84, we remember him today, this weekend, and all times.
His invocation.
to Americans to continue the fight for all of those kinds of things, including yes, academics and education for everyone in housing and health care and hope generally in our nation is also a terrific segue into the first major discussion we're going to be having this weekend here on amicus a law review.
And yes, it focuses upon the United States Supreme Court on Friday of this past week, the Supreme Court issuing
what has got to be one of its major decisions certainly of this term undeniably probably of recent years maybe even decades it will stand somewhere in that group of cases
adjudicating the power, the authorities of the president of the United States of America.
We know that that remains a huge issue, not only in the tariffs case, which we're now going to talk about, but also in at least two other matters having to do with the powers and the authorities of the president to terminate the governors, the leaders, the members of the board of directors of institutions of agencies that by their definition,
by their creation by the Congress are independent of the president.
And it appears in those other cases, one involving the Federal Trade Commission and then another one involving the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court may go in two different directions on the powers of the presidency.
We have yet to hear from the Supreme Court on those cases, but we did hear from the Supreme Court just this past week on another major authority case under
the Constitution of the United States of America, also raising issues about what the role of our legislature is, a thing we often talk about on this broadcast, and when we come back on this broadcast, we're going to revisit that not only through the words of one of the concurring justices, but the words of the majority and also the minority here as Amicus, a law review, continues on Civic Media.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
Inviting you to be a part of our discussion this weekend, calling in to the studio at 855-752-4842.
Also, you can drop your comments to Max and to me into our chat line.
Be a part of our discussion of these major issues in the areas of rule of law, the administration of justice, and the operation of government.
Of course, one of the major units of our federal government, one of the major branches of our federal government,
Article three of our Constitution are the courts the Supreme Court of the United States of America big news coming out of Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court building late this past week Friday the United States Supreme Court by a six to three ruling Finding that President Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed those Omnibus sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every US trading partner a major setback undeniably
This is a loss for the president and we're going to talk about his reaction wildly inappropriate in just a moment or so.
It's a six to three decision and it is an interesting bedfellows decision.
We anticipated this way back in the fall of last year when we covered extensively this major oral argument on this particular case.
The solicitor general of the United States of America, his name is John Sauer, getting beaten up pretty well.
by virtually all the members, at least the majority of the members of the Supreme Court, including especially Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.
And it turns out that, sure enough, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and the three so-called liberals on the court, Katanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, creating a six-person majority, finding that the particular statute
under which the president invoked the capacity.
his so-called constitutional authority to impose virtually all the tariffs that he has imposed, that that is unconstitutional, that statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, setting tariffs on imported goods from more than 100 countries.
The president's saying, of course, his goal was to reduce the trade deficit, spur more manufacturing, the United States doing other things,
with respect to the economy.
Now what happened as you know from our previous discussion, as you have seen in the recent reporting, about a dozen states and some small businesses, including fascinatingly, and educational toy manufacturer and a wine importer, all dramatically impacted by these tariffs, basically bringing them to their knees economically.
They sued over the tariffs.
They said, President has unlawfully infringed on what?
on the capacity of the Congress, the legislature.
They're the ones, these petitioners said, they're the exclusive people inside our federal structure who have the authority to impose taxes.
And they described these tariffs as just that, taxes.
The businesses, again, they rely on imported goods, argued both in oral argument,
and also in writing that these terrorists had disrupted their operations dramatically, leading to higher prices for consumers and cutbacks and staffing.
So some real standing here, as we often say, buy these companies to attack what the president has done.
It was clear, as I said, from the oral argument back in November, that the Supreme Court was not buying what the Solicitor General, on behalf of the president, was saying all about this.
And we played for you then.
a lot of what especially Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch had to say about this.
I'm gonna hear a little bit more from Neil Gorsuch in particular in just a moment.
He used this opportunity not only to join his other majority members in rejecting, rejecting the president's position, but also providing us with some education once again as lower court judges have done.
We've reported on a lot of those recently about what our system is all about.
He is exalting, that is Neil Gorsuch, an awful lot of education.
Education and thoughtful consideration in America in the wake of this decision should have happened of course even before this To the role the function of what our legislature the article one folks they're on Capitol Hill in our United States Capitol what they should be doing and perhaps what they're not doing a fascinating statement a concurrence by
by Neil Gorsuch that we'll get to in just a moment.
U.S.
Treasury has collected about 240 billion with a B in tariff revenue since April 2nd.
President named that, of course, Liberation Day.
We recall his announcement at that time.
A research firm called Capital Economics has estimated that if the Treasury is forced to issue these refunds, the cost would run to about 120 billion with a B dollars or one half of 1%
of our gross domestic product.
And that is why, among the dissenters, you have Brett Kavanaugh.
Brett Kavanaugh, among the dissenters, including, of course, two other colleagues, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas.
And Brett Kavanaugh talking about the dramatic impact that this will have in that decision, including the dissenters, Judge Justice Kavanaugh warns that any refund process
could create a substantial mess.
That's his word, not mine.
That's not exactly a legal word, but it's an accurate word.
He goes on to say, the United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the tariffs, he wrote, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.
And so the mess about which he speaks is what do we do now?
And blindly, that's what the discussion is all about in the wake of this decision.
Let's get back to what the majority has said.
Led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, writing from the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the statute does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, and only the Congress can do that.
Although, again, as we'll talk, there are some...
Workarounds, there are some statutory empowerment to the president, which he may well now pursue.
He said this, the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope in light of the breadth, the history, and the constitutional context of that asserted authority he, the president, must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.
President Trump did not do that, and therefore he loses.
When we come back, we'll tell you more about what the majority said, what concurring members of the majority said, and more about what the president said in wildly inappropriate language in response to this decision.
All that.
This is Amicus.
A lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
My producer, Max and I, taking your questions, your comments, your inquiries, your scratching your head thoughts about what's going on in America, specifically in the area of rule of law.
That number is 855-752-4842.
You can also drop your comments or questions into the civic media chat box.
We are talking about this major decision coming out of the Supreme Court, probably among the top
20 decisions of the past decade in terms of presidential power, certainly among the kinds of cases we're going to be addressing in the weeks ahead as the Supreme Court issues more and more opinions.
This is going to be very close to the top, if not at the top of the list.
In terms of its impact, not only, not only with respect to the power of the presidency, clipping the president's wings in a major way, telling him he cannot do.
what he wants to do just because he's the president and also imposing upon the government now the obligation to figure this out what do we do now with respect to the hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs collected how do we remedy what has been done for the past year or so how do we turn back the clock if we can do that at all we'll talk about the president's response to all of this and his plans
to continue to impose some tariffs under other statutory authorities in just a moment.
Let's talk more about what the Chief Justice said on behalf of himself and five other members of the Supreme Court in telling the president, no, no authority on this 21 page opinion.
Majority said it was telling significant that for about a half a century, no other president had invoked the statute.
to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope.
So what are they talking about there?
Well, again, this particular law, IEPA, as we have come to shorten it, it's a 1970s era law.
President does have the authority to take certain steps in response to, for example, a national emergency to deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat to the national security.
foreign policy or economy of the United States and that includes the power to regulate the importation of foreign property.
Now the key to that plainly is you got to find that indeed we're involved in some kind of national emergency, unusual, it's got to be extraordinary.
And that's what the Supreme Court in part said is not here.
Past presidents have relied on that language to place sanctions and embargoes on other countries, but not impose taxes.
They've done that on a limited basis.
And the Supreme Court says this particular statute does not give you this authority to impose across the board dramatic tariffs on other countries.
The Solicitor General plainly arguing just the opposite of that phrase also gives the president the power to levy tariffs, not viewing this as the limited statutory authority that plainly the Congress has now embraced.
What does the Supreme Court majority says?
Well, it wrestles with these concepts of regulate and importation.
Those two words, those two standards the majority says, do not, do not give the president the power to impose
tariffs on imports from any country of any product at any rate for any amount of time.
Too broad.
Too broad is what the Supreme Court says.
The Chief Justice said the President's use of the statues runs afoul of the major questions doctrine.
There it is once again.
That, of course, is this non-constitutional.
It's not in the Constitution, not in the text, but created by the Supreme Court.
Which requires that Congress use plain and direct language to authorize sweeping economic actions by the executive branch in other words as we have discussed on this broadcast in the past if the president Proposes and acts by by executive fiat by executive order something that's very big and something that's very new if it's big and it's new
You can't do it.
And we've seen the Supreme Court invoke this major questions doctrine, probably more properly understood as major issues doctrine, but major questions doctrine to strike down all kinds of things.
Recall well that during the Biden administration, among other things, environmental major programs, when the Congress was not acting, stricken down by the Supreme Court, major questions, too big, too new, you can't do it.
You may recall also during the height of the COVID epidemic.
the pandemic across the every nation on the planet, the Supreme Court also said that the president's attempt to impose restrictions on corporations employing more than 100 people for testing to ensuring that they've been vaccinated, the employees have.
that that is too big and that's too new.
You can't do that.
It's a major question.
Only the legislature can do that.
And again, a major discussion in the majority opinion about this major questions doctrine, reviving it once again to say, Mr. President, this is too big.
This is too new.
And you got to go through congressional action.
especially here where the United States Constitution expressly says that taxes of this sort have got to be enacted, if at all, by the United States Congress.
The president cannot do it effectively by executive order.
Now interestingly, the three justices who joined three others, the three justices being Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed with the overall ruling.
So this goes far beyond what the Constitution permits a president to do, but said, you know what?
We don't have to get there.
This is not that kind of academic analysis we need to undertake.
You can get the same result.
Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Brown Jackson argue without applying the doctrine, it's just that simple.
We do, however, have, again, the Chief Justice and we've got not only a Brett, we also have Amy Coney Barrett and others on the Supreme Court arguing for the major questions doctrine, but we've got a major statement by, in concurrence,
the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and he again joins the majority, the other five, and he tells us a lot about the importance of the legislature itself.
Here's what he writes, it's somewhat long, but it's worth the ride, it's worth the listen.
And he is plainly speaking to those people who somehow feel that the Supreme Court has done something wrong here.
This is what Neil Gorsuch writing again in concurrence, in agreement with five others.
in support of the decision that finds the president overreached here, unconstitutional authority.
He says, for those who think it is important for the nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today's decision will be disappointing.
All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people, including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs,
are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.
He goes on to write this.
Yes, legislating can be hard and take time.
And yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises.
He's talking about the lethargy, if you will, the difficulty of getting things through Congress.
He goes on to write this.
But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.
He's talking about Article 1 of the Constitution.
He's talking about James Madison things.
He said, through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people's elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.
He's talking there about the presidency.
arguably talking about the Supreme Court too.
Their deliberation tempers impulse and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions.
He's talking about the legislative process across the parking lot there on Capitol Hill in our Capitol building in our bicameral legislature.
Gorsuch goes on to write this, and because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure.
allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.
Fascinating, right?
He's talking about the problems of these whipsaw decisions by one president and another by executive order.
Congressional action and shining these things in legislation makes that more difficult.
He goes on to say, in all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us
and in the nation's future.
For some today, the weight of those virtues, Gorsuch writes, is apparent.
For others, it may not seem so obvious.
But if history is any guide, Gorsuch writes, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty
that it is.
That's Neil Gorsuch writing again in a concurrence, supporting this notion that number one, the president has overreached, cannot do this by executive action.
And number two, where should this happen?
Again, sort of an invocation of the major questions doctrine.
You're going to do something like this.
You're going to impose these kinds of broad tariffs on countries across the planet, change them, invoke them, rescind them.
do all those kinds of things in a major way, simply with a stroke of a pen, that is unconstitutional.
You gotta get to the legislature.
That's where this winnowing and sifting, that's where this argument will reach some resolution in which, again, many people will be disappointed, but nonetheless, it is the product of exactly what Neil Gorsuch is instructing us about, not only this weekend on this broadcast, but for all time, about this important academic
and constitutional concept.
He kind of takes a victory lap here and says, yes, we have now supported the Constitution.
Major questions doctrine, very important.
Amy Coney Barrett, she also writes the concurrence.
She's a little more flexible than Gorsuch is about that major questions doctrine, but she also joins Gorsuch and the Chief Justice in finding that the President has overreached the other concurrences as I indicated
say it's much simpler than all this.
Just look at the Constitution.
This is not appropriate.
We do have, we do have significantly three dissenters.
You know who they are.
We've already talked about Justice Kavanaugh.
And basically, once again, he is bemoaning the fact that this is played obvious that the president under this statute, Brett Kavanaugh says, can indeed do this.
He talks about the fact that these words regulate and importation
do in fact, in his view, give the president the capacity, the broad capacity he basically acknowledges to impose these kinds of tariffs.
And again, that position not supported by the majority.
We also have Clarence Thomas saying that the non-delegation doctrine, another concept we've talked about here, he rejects that the non-delegation doctrine being this notion that the
that the Congress cannot delegate things that are given to it by the Constitution, including taxing authority, including tariff authority.
and basically saying you can't delegate things to other branches.
He says no, no, no, no, no.
Here the Congress plainly has done that and has done that in this statute and in other places.
And therefore the result of the non-delegation doctrine, once again kind of a double negative thing, is not applicable.
He would have supported the president's prerogative and the authority that he has to do just this.
So we've got a split court.
a six to three court, but in terms of language on both sides, strong language supporting these two very differing views about what happened here.
So.
What happens next?
Well, we know that the president has already talked about the kinds of things that are available to him and he has promised even before.
We knew we saw the writing on the wall, the tea leaves.
This was going to happen way back in November.
He said one set of trade powers under what's called section 122 and oh by the way all of these alternatives have numbers on them.
One of them is 122.
He said he'd be using that to impose, and across the board, 10% tariff.
And that's what he announced within, frankly, maybe not minutes, but certainly hours of this decision.
All of these alternatives are not nearly as broad.
Many of them, virtue all of them, are time limited, scope limited.
When we come back, we'll talk more about what President Trump has said about this, not only in terms of his actions, but his views of the United States Supreme Court.
as Amicus,
a law review, continues.
A lot of you, we are appropriately devoting most of this our first hour, probably a portion of our second hour here on the broadcast stations of Cirque Media to this hugely significant decision.
Issued by the United States Supreme Court six to three a split court decision Finding the president cannot cannot impose tariffs at least not in the way that he has done Finding that most not all but most of the tariffs that he has imposed under this particular 1970s era statute Unconstitutional violation of the Constitution not supported by the exception carved out by the Congress under IEPA and therefore wrong
and now raising the specter of what do you do next?
Well, right before the break, we were talking about what the president has already said about that.
He has already said that he is going to impose some 10% across the board tariffs under something called section 122.
And what is that?
Well, it applies globally, but the White House has already appropriately under that particular less expansive statute.
has taken some steps to carve out certain imports.
That, according to reporting, includes beef and other agricultural products for which the president had previously relaxed some of his tariffs in attempt to keep prices here domestically from rising.
He has also included exceptions for goods already subject to certain other duties, as well as some imports covered by an existing trade agreement
among the U.S.
and Canada and Mexico.
Now, why do I talk about that in that detail?
Well, because all of these other remedies, including one under section 122, there's another one under section 301.
There are three or four others.
All of them have three number labels.
They all provide carve-outs under the Constitutional Authority, but they're less broad.
They do not establish the length of time.
They require other things.
You have to jump through other hoops to get to them.
And indeed, Section 301, for example, requires that before the President can invoke that, you have to undertake some investigations of the nature of the problem that challenge your addressing under unfair trade practices standards before you can do it.
And so provides more hurdles.
Again, Section...
122 under that particular provision, duties are in place for about 150 days, and then they expire.
They go away unless, unless the Congress, once again, taking a page from what Neil Gorsuch has instructed us on, unless Congress approves and extensions.
And it's parameters, that is, under section 122, largely untested.
Given that it has never been invoked or challenged nonetheless an awful lot of agreement that at least there are alternatives for the president to come forward with more tariffs or different kinds of tariffs But they're not as easily accomplished and that's the big takeaway under any of these alternatives that he is now talking about again He has already said he's imposing a 10% tariff under this particular trade power called section 122
But there's more.
Not only has the president announced this, he was told about it during a public appearance he was having.
He talked about his disappointment initially.
But the president went on to talk about the ways in which his Supreme Court, he regards this as his Supreme Court, has hugely disappointed him.
Listen to the language.
You've already heard some of this, but it's worth repeating.
Listen to the language of our chief executive.
who has been dealt admittedly a blow.
It's not the first time in American history that a president has been told no.
There have been other presidents we know them in our recent history, including this president in the past, President Biden, President Obama, President Reagan, the Bush Presidencies, the Carter Presidencies.
Go back to Eisenhower Kennedy.
Any president of contemporary times, 20th century, 21st century, perhaps most notably, FDR has been given a huge number of blows by the Supreme Court.
Do they disagree?
Sure they do.
Do they let the world know that they're disappointed in the results?
You bet they do.
But they don't do what this president has done.
Here's what Donald Trump said, lashing out, not only at the court generally, but at particular justices.
He labeled the justices who ruled against him as his words, fools and lap dogs, suggesting that they had been corrupted by unspecified foreign influence and slime balls.
We're used to that language from this president, but this is new language directed toward the United States Supreme Court.
He went on to say this, I'm ashamed.
of certain members of the court.
He's talking about Gorsuch.
He's talking about Amy Coney.
He's talking about the Chief Justice.
Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country.
He suggested that Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney bear it again.
His nominees
These are his words, an embarrassment to their families because they sided with the majority against him.
Why is that language so especially concerning the name calling?
is not only wildly inappropriate, not just for a president, for anybody, but also these references to their families.
We know what he's doing there.
He's suggesting that perhaps there should be some other forms of retribution, aside from the linguistic retribution that he is now pursuing against all of them.
With respect, of course, to Brett Kavanaugh, who has said, no, I would have supported this.
For him, there is praise.
The president says, I'm so proud of him.
He referred to Brett Kavanaugh as a genius for articulating, again, in his dissent, the things that he did.
As to the other justices who ruled in favor of him, he said the two others and the three altogether.
He said they're happily invited to his State of the Union address next week.
You recall that that will be happening this coming week, and justices will be appearing in front of him.
The others...
President said they're barely invited.
Honestly, he said I couldn't care less if they come.
He said members of the court who were appointed by Democratic presidents were reflexively against him.
I can assure you the Democrats and the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no.
They also are, frankly, a disgrace to our nation, those justices.
They're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have.
You can't knock their loyalty.
It's one thing you can do with some of our people.
When we come back, we'll talk more about the implications of that language.
I'm going to take your calls again following this top of the hour break and talk more about the United States Supreme Court as Amicus Law Review continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this, the second hour of our weekend broadcast.
about things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice, and the operation of government, including, yes, as frequently is the case on this broadcast, the United States Supreme Court issuing this major decision late this past week on Friday, a six to three opinion, a 21 page order.
It is worth the read.
It is accessible, not only with respect to the majority, but also the dissenters.
It is worth it as a piece of education and an understanding of how these things
work to read both of them.
I would commend especially, once again, the writings of Neil Gorsuch in concurrence.
He's joining Amy Coney Barrett, the Chief Justice, and again, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Katanji Brown Jackson.
That's the six.
But the Justice himself, Neil Gorsuch, writing about the importance of the legislative process as we talked at greater length in the previous hour, read through that and digest that.
it is difficult to disagree with it regardless of how you feel about the particular decision here finding that the president of the United States of America does not have the authority under the statute that he invoked to impose tariffs as we were talking right before the top of the hour break.
the president plainly pursuing other remedies other avenues for doing just that he's already imposed a 10% across the board tariff but all of those all of those are less broad in terms of the powers granted to the presidency
more hopes you have to jump through, not quite as strong in terms of time with respect to at least one of them.
You have to engage in investigations to find out about unfair trade practices.
This president did that in his first term with respect to China, but plainly not happy because the president here curtailing the notion of broad powers that have been much before this presidency, before this Supreme Court.
And of course, the other reason why this is so significant as
not just a judicial matter, but a legislative matter, an executive matter, as well as because up to now, when it comes to especially those cases on the so-called emergency application docket, the so-called shadow docket, in easily 20, if not more cases, the Supreme Court has said, yes, Mr. President, go ahead and do what you want to do.
Even while the cases are still pending at the lower courts,
upsetting if you will the normal processes by which these things proceed here we have a merits decision not shadow docket decision first time in this
term in which the Supreme Court has clipped the president's wings and said no you can't do it.
It is undeniably a rebuff to the president and that's why he has responded so dramatically.
So inappropriately with language calling members of the Supreme Court fools and lap dogs calling them an embarrassment to their families talking about his disbelief.
that they have done this kind of thing talking about how he frankly couldn't care less if those who did not support him show up at the state of the union address which is coming up this week he
comments generally about the Support that he gets from the Supreme Court and when that comes for example from the pen of someone like Brett Kavanaugh He refers to that justice as a genius and says yes indeed This is a justice who's supporting America you disagree with this president from the bench and you are a lap dog
and you are a fool.
I would offer to all Americans of every single political persuasion that is contrary to any president of any president who has either been victorious or often lost before the Supreme Court.
What have they done?
Have they been critical of the Supreme Court?
You bet they have.
Presidents of both parties once again have have expressed their unhappiness their dismay about cases that they have lost and That's not unusual and they describe not only the reasons why they do not like the decision
And they also identify with great frequency what they're going to do next, whether they're going to seek some legislative fix, which they often do, whether there's something else that can be done.
But they don't engage in these kinds of vicious and hominem attacks that frankly expose them, that is the members of the Supreme Court, not only to the ire of the American population, if not more, but also denigrates the integrity of the court.
And that's the big takeaway from the president's continued use of name calling and derision and language that is unbefitting of any branch of government, including the executive branch.
We've got a lot there to digest a lot to pull apart plainly in the days and weeks ahead as the impact of this decision becomes known.
But we're also delighted that as a part of our discussion of that this weekend on Amicus Law Review, we've got callers and we so appreciate callers calling in.
Let's begin with Mark.
Mark, thanks for being a part of our broadcast this weekend.
And I found out this morning that the old thing with Andrew Jackson was telling the Supreme Court to stuff that's apparently apocryphal.
It never really was clear that he actually did say that, even though that's what we were taught in history class, that he just said he
was
going to ignore the Supreme Court.
And Donald Trump here is ignoring the Supreme Court and clearly ignoring the Constitution, which clearly states that it's Congress that is supposed to set tariffs, that it's Congress that's supposed to regulate the commerce between nations.
between our nation, other nations, and Trump could easily go to Congress and say, you know, I want to see this happen, and if it's that much of an emergency, he can, you know, encourage Congress and the supporters to support his actions.
But this, again, is once again, you know, Trump's arbitrariness going after, you know, attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game.
I mean, it is just the arbitrary capriciousness of Donald Trump.
I mean, that now he wants to change settle what has been
settled law on birthright citizenship, for example, and say, no, I don't like that, so I'm going to change that.
Changing immigration policy and midstream for people that are actually in the legal process, apparently, and changing it.
Well, now you've committed a crime.
Right.
It's Gorsuch's point, right?
Which is you've got a continuity.
You've got a firm sense of what the law is.
When the legislature passes it,
I can endorse enough your comments about going to the legislature in this particular instance with respect to terrorist study.
All right, Congress, you've got the authority.
James Madison gave it to you.
Let's have those hearings, Mark, as you've just described, to talk about the emergencies that we may be in.
Maybe there are some congressional committees on both sides of Capitol Hill that will endorse that notion and will give you the authority.
And you can sign off on those.
That's exactly your very good point.
That's also, again, you would find yourself plainly in the majority that includes not only the three so-called liberals, but three so-called conservatives on the bench.
Mark, I appreciate, as always, your tremendously insightful comment about what's going on in America, including the authority of this president to act.
I'm thrilled to have Mark's comments.
Also delighted to have Dick from Madison being a part of our broadcast this weekend.
Dick, go ahead.
Well, none of this is a surprise, his reaction.
I mean, he's used to having his attorney general, you know, that's basically his private attorney, and just bow and scrape to anything he, what's next though from this guy is the question I have from you.
Is he going to put the, what I call a former FBI or the fascist bureau of an aptitude?
That's what I refer to him as.
Is he going to
have them possibly, you know, go after him for some type of crimes they committed?
Because we already have the FBI and other agencies.
pursuing his political foes.
We have seen a lot of that.
There are plenty of investigations that have not yet seen the light of day in terms of attempts to indict.
We do have grand juries that are saying no, no, no, more and more of that happening.
But we've already seen, with respect to, again, people like Letitia James and James Comey, the use of the grand jury process, the use of the FBI to investigate.
on grounds that really do not support the kinds of things that these charges would otherwise support.
That's the concern, Dick, right?
Going forward, what is next for a president who does not understand that there are limits?
And that's what six members of the Supreme Court told him this past week.
Perhaps there's a little bit of buyer's remorse, right, Dick, when it comes to that major decision on July 1 of 2024, in which they said, President has great powers.
Aside from his immunity from criminal prosecution, great powers has got to be deft, has got to be very, very rapid and decisive.
Cannot be encumbered by things that would slow him down.
Maybe, just maybe, some of that language also authored by this Chief Justice.
Maybe some members, six members of the Supreme Court are having some second thoughts.
We know three of them at the time that that decision was issued.
That was Trump versus the United States said, this is bad news.
This is changing the Constitution.
Here we have the United States Supreme Court.
Again, not quite two years later coming back and saying.
There are limits, Mr. President, to what you can do and you have crossed it.
Dick, so appreciate your comment as well.
And again, speaking about what's going to happen down the road.
Let's talk about what's going to happen before the Supreme Court in the coming weeks.
We know that there are oral arguments scheduled beginning once again next week, the 23rd, the 24th, and the 25th.
There are arguments continuing throughout the month of March, throughout the month of April by my count, about 18 altogether, a few more yet to be set.
These are among the cases that have not yet been decided.
Many oral arguments are already the subject of review by the Supreme Court.
We've talked about a lot of those, but we also know to Dick's good question about what happens next, that there are lots of things that the Supreme Court will be deciding on when it comes to presidential authority.
We've got this tariffs case, six to three, that's been decided.
But we know, as I indicated in the previous hour, that there are two other major cases involving the powers of the executive.
These prerogatives of the president, he has attempted to fire Lisa Cook, who is a commissioner of the Federal Reserve.
He is attempted successfully to fire Rebecca Slaughter, who is a part of the Federal Trade Commission.
Supreme Court seem to be going in different directions on those.
Those will be coming up next.
And depending upon how the Supreme Court decides on those authority cases, either saying Mr. President, yes or Mr. President, no.
And as Mark and Dick both have directly and indirectly indicated, we've got that big birthright citizenship case coming up, not only for
argument but also decision that too is huge not only with respect to the power of the presidency to unilaterally declare what the law is but also affecting hugely the postures the positions of people in the United States especially
babies born since February of last year, basically babies born for the past 12 months to mothers who were illegally here or here temporarily.
A huge change of the 100-year-old interpretation of our 14th Amendment.
Can the president do that by executive order?
That's also before the Supreme Court.
Some samplings of other things coming up in the days and weeks and months ahead.
We've got election law challenges of various kinds.
There's that major case involving Louisiana.
It's that Calais case.
The Supreme Court maybe, maybe overturning the last remaining vestige, this sort of...
bedrock aspect of the voting rights act of 1964.
They already did decide this case coming out of Illinois somewhat less important, but giving someone the right to challenge an election law that is having to do with the period during which states can count votes and ballots received.
After election day, there's another mailing ballot case.
It's also on the Supreme Court's docket.
There's a campaign finance case about the extent to which individuals, individual parties can support individual candidates.
When we come back a little bit more about the United States Supreme Court, and then we're going to overseas for some rule of law lessons and perspectives here on Amicus.
A lot of you.
This is Amicus.
A lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking a lot about the Supreme Court this weekend because of this major decision, handing the President of the United States of America undeniably a loss, at least with respect to his invocation of a statute.
According to six members of the Supreme Court, they're in the majority.
Supreme Court saying that that particular statute does not override the Constitution, at least without some declaration, some finding by the Congress of a national emergency, a true urgency.
that would mandate the imposition of tariffs.
A huge case in the history of America, certainly in this time and this space of our nation's history.
We know as well that Supreme Court's got a lot of other cases on the stockade, just upriding with some basic information about the kinds of things we're gonna be talking about here on this broadcast in the future, in addition to these major issues having to do with
presidential authority, lots of cases having to do with voting and elections and balloting, including the future of the Voting Rights Act.
There are those major cases involving LGBTQIA rights, whether or not transgender women can participate in women's sports.
There's that case coming out of Colorado about the legitimacy of legislation that prohibits so-called conversion therapy.
They're a case where the Supreme Court, frankly, both of those LGBT cases,
situations where the Supreme Court is likely going to side in favor of the Legislatures that are restricting those particular rights and those positions as always the Supreme Court's got guns cases on its docket including one involving involving the capacity of private individuals to carry weapons on to quasi private lands
arguably public lands, another gun possession case, Second Amendment, once again on the docket of the Supreme Court.
And then we've got a variety of other major cases in many other areas.
There's a death penalty case, religious freedoms under the First Amendment to the Constitution, free speech issues, again, First Amendment, environmental issues, immigration issues.
It is broad.
There is a lot going on before the Supreme Court.
And again, we're entering into that time period.
especially not only with respect to these coming oral arguments, but April, May, and June in which the Supreme Court will be issuing its decisions altogether about 60 opinions by the time they're done.
They've issued about 11 to this point in their docket, in their history, and we're anticipating and we'll talk.
about virtually all of those opinions, at least the big ones, that affect our daily lives and livelihoods here on the broadcast.
As always, delighted to have callers and calling in from O'Connor, Milwaukee.
This weekend is Bill.
Bill, glad to have you with us this weekend.
Thank you so much for what you do.
If you're ever in the area, I'd like to meet you and buy a dinner and learn from you.
You're quite an educator.
That's
Here's my million-dollar question
you today.
How close on a horizon do you see the U.S.
Marshals getting involved with Trump?
So it requires, as you just invited me to do, a little bit of insight into where the marshals are.
And you probably know the answer, I'm guessing, to at least a part of this bill.
United States marshals, of course, are not an independent agency.
They're a part of the United States.
Let's all say it together.
Department of Justice, which means that United States attorneys in Eastern Western Wisconsin are, frankly, responsible for the oversight of them.
Yes, they're U.S.
Marshals.
They are nominated by Presidents.
They're confirmed by the Senate.
The Attorney General ultimately supervises the office of the United States Marshal.
And so this is the great question.
that is before not only you and me bail, but all of our listeners and also these courts that are wrestling with the constitutional crisis, right?
Because U.S.
Marshals are also in our courtrooms.
And what do they do?
They provide safety and security.
They provide security for not only those incarcerated defendants who are appearing in federal court.
They're also responsible for transporting prisoners, providing safety and security for our judges.
And also they're in charge
of those folks who are absconding from authorities.
Those are the fugitive cases.
They do those a lot, and they assist in many other ways, but they're all under the direction of the Department of Justice and U.S.
attorneys in a time when we have federal judges who also do from time to time direct U.S.
Marshals to go arrest someone who is in contempt of court, who has violated a particular directive
and also not been in court by virtue of an arrest warrant.
When that happens, the courts direct the U.S.
Marshals to engage in that kind of behavior.
Traditionally, that's not been a problem.
What happens, Bill, your good comment, your good question, when the Attorney General says, yes, you do this, or no, you don't, and the courts say otherwise?
And that's part of the constitutional crisis that may be looming out there.
Plainly, the Attorney General has principal responsibility for oversight and administration.
But in this atypical time in which we live, Bill, you have just identified one of the peculiar...
possibilities about a breakdown, another breakdown, in the way in which our rule of law system operates.
No clear answer there.
And we'll see what the president does.
We'll see what federal judges do.
We'll see what attorneys general do.
The attorney general will see what US attorneys around the country.
do as well.
Bill, I appreciate so much your participation in our broadcast as well.
We are going to move now from the United States Supreme Court, the decisions that they have made to something else pending before the United States Supreme Court.
It's a bit of a footnote to the other major discussions, but it has to do with an attorney named Alan Dershowitz and his petition.
before the Supreme Court now, that the Supreme Court basically abandoned, if not completely, but the major portions of New York Times versus Sullivan.
You may recall that that's that major case back in the 1970s that basically says that you've got to have actual malice in order to go after public officials, government authorities, for defamation.
When we come back, I'll tell you what Alan Dershowitz wants the Supreme Court to do.
That's coming up on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amica Solaroview on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name's Jim Santel.
Thank you so much.
for spending a portion of your weekend in exposition with me of major issues in the areas of rule of law and justice and government.
We are finishing up our Supreme Court review this weekend with what can only be considered a bit of a footnote, but it's a fascinating one, given what the Supreme Court has said in the area of defamation, which is something with which our president is much acquainted as well with respect to those Eugene Carroll cases.
This is Alan Dursowich, who has been, of course, a major figure on the American landscape for many, many years.
And he brought a lawsuit against CNN, alleging that they, that is the media outlet there, had defamed him in mischaracterizing his defense of Donald Trump during an impeachment trial.
And Alan Dershowitz lost that trial.
He is now seeking a Supreme Court review, and he's asking the Supreme Court, interestingly, not just to review that lower court judgment in which he lost, but Dershowitz is also asking the Supreme Court,
to effectively abandon, or at least cut back dramatically, this major ruling in New York Times versus Sullivan.
And of course, that is the case requiring public officials, government officers, not only proving that the contested statement about them was false and defamatory, but also if they're to be successful, but also that it was made with actual malice, actual intent, sit down and say, I'm going to get this person, meaning knowledge that it was false was
serious subjective doubt about its truth.
That's a very high standard.
We've seen all kinds of cases in which defamation probably happened, but because the targets of the defamation are public officials, public figures, which is important here.
Therefore, the petitioners, the plaintiffs, those public figures, those public officials have lost.
We saw recently
last year that Sarah Palin, for example, the former governor of Alaska, a one-time candidate for the vice presidency, had also sued the New York Times with respect to a particular website.
And in the end, the jury found that she had not overcome the New York Times versus Sullivan standards, showing that the New York Times, even though it published something that was not true,
But nonetheless, they found that it was not done with actual malice, and therefore she lost.
Well, Alan Dershowitz, unhappy with the disposition of his case in the CNN matter, he lost there, now is writing to the Supreme Court and asking them to overturn New York Times versus Sullivan, basically saying, do not continue to extend this to public figures.
Keep it, keep it relevant to and applicable to public officials, but it's gone too broad.
And interestingly, Elena Kagan,
said in a 1993 book review that in extending Sullivan, she said, the court increasingly has lost contact with the cases, premises and principles.
Now that's significant because you've got someone plainly on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Elena Kagan saying, yeah, it may well be that New York Times versus Sullivan has gone too far.
What's the status of this right now?
Well, the Supreme Court is having one of those decision conferences in deciding whether or not to take
Dershowitz's case and along the way it's in that setting that he has also asked the Supreme Court to specifically look to revisit the standard of New York Times versus Sullivan.
It's been around for a long period of time and also very much in our national discussion again as reporters and news people and folks on the electronic media, print media, all across the board.
Even those who are reporting privately as independent journalists Protected by New York Times versus Sullivan this high standard as the government continues with increasing Frequency to go after them for the things they've done and the things that they have said we've seen that in a number of different areas with respect to media and major media outlets New York Times New York Times versus Sullivan
perhaps maybe once again on the docket of the Supreme Court coming up in addition to all those other 50-60 cases to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Let's leave the United States of America for a few minutes and go overseas and revisit a couple of things that we've talked about in previous broadcasts here on Amicus, a lot of you.
Things that have happened just this past week in the area of the rule of law.
One of them, a very big case coming out of South Korea.
Former President Yoon Suk Yol, Y-E-O-L, you recall him well, formerly of South Korea, found guilty of masterminding and insurrection.
when he declared martial law was way back in 2024 remember this a very big story declaring martial law there the people of South Korea coming back and saying no we are not accepting that permitting enabling their elected representatives to go back into the National Congress and overrule that to rescind the the finding of martial law the imposition of martial law and in the wake of that not only did they rebuff
in terms of his continued incumbency in the presidency, but they turned around, that is the authorities there, and charged him with crimes in connection with his attempt to overturn the government.
Prosecutors, prosecutors presenting this case, demanding the death sentence, the death sentence for Mr. Yoon, who is 65, he's been on trial since April.
On these criminal charges, again, they come from this short-lived, very, very brief, martial law declaration a couple of years ago.
The judges of the Seoul Central District Court, just this past week, ruled on the most serious of these various petitions with respect to Yule being the ringleader of an insurrection and the court finding.
that Yoon is in fact guilty of leading the insurrection when he declared martial law and spent, ascent rather, special forces, special military forces, into the National Assembly, that's their Congress, to arrest his political opponents.
The presiding judge said he had pushed South Korean society into what he described as an extreme state of conflict between warring political camps.
And just this past week, based upon that finding, the court imposes not the death penalty, but a term of life imprisonment.
Life imprisonment for the former leader of South Korea for doing this for attempting to overthrow the government plainly plainly something that we should be attentive to here in America We know that the attempts by a former Justice Department to prosecute the present defendant a present president as a defendant when he was a private citizen for attempting to overthrow the government was not successful in Seoul in South Korea is successful
Seoul, the Seoul court there.
that sentenced Joel to life in prison also delivered some other verdicts on seven other officials, people surrounding the president there at the time of this insurrection, attempted insurrection.
And they had also been indicted and charged of playing some role in this martial law decree.
Five of them were convicted and they received prison sentences ranging from three to 30 years in jail.
Two of them were acquitted.
Again, different system by their High Court.
It is once again dividing the South Korean population.
Some of them still very much supporting the former president.
Some of them supporting the new president, who's Lee Jae-myung, M-Y-U-N-G, who is silent as to this, did not comment about the result of that.
A significant rule of law matter, we've got a former leader of a Democratic Republic.
that is South Korea, elected government being found by the courts in violation of the criminal law and being sentenced to prison for life, along with many others, also getting severe sentences for their involvement in an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of that nation.
And then we've got another matter that we also talked about a long time ago, and that is a matter involving a woman named Chazelle Pelico.
You may recall that she was the brave hero.
She's an icon to this day in France because she was told one day a number of years ago that there is evidence that her husband and some 50 other men raped her over a period of many years recorded this.
And as a result of that conduct, that wildly obstructionist, offensive, violent conduct.
by these men, they were not only charged, but they had been sentenced once again to various prison terms of long duration because of what Giselle Pelicote did.
She was the spouse who was victimized.
She survived and more than survived.
She went forward and she said, I want this trial to go forward with respect to my husband and everyone else who did this to me.
She made it public.
and she became and still is a national hero in France for doing what she did.
She was over a decade, she was drugged, she was raped repeatedly by these men in her own bedroom, assaulted, and again, while she was sedated and unconscious.
Again, justice done in France.
Giselle Pelicot, plainly the survivor of this.
She has written a book about all of this.
And she writes in her memoir, it's called A Hymn to Life.
Shame has to change sides.
Shame has to change sides.
Going to be published right about now.
And it speaks volumes about these kinds of things.
Great important stories, again, for Americans to take heed of with respect to the problems, the huge catastrophic impacts of sexual assault, in this case, brutal rape over long periods of time.
mistreatment of individuals, misabuse of people who are unwittingly involved in this kind of horrific criminal conduct.
Along the way, along the way, she said recently, she said she told herself as this process was going forward, as her ex-husband and these other men who had raped her,
were being prosecuted in court.
She told herself, hang in there my dear, you're going all the way.
That's what she told herself.
Her decision to go public about all this moved women around the world, including there in France.
to flood her with letters of support and of gratitude, saying, yes, indeed, this is the kind of thing that we need to do to send the deterrent meshes to try to stop this, not just in France, but plainly around the world, including, of course, here in America as we wrestle with our own decades-long abuse and violation.
of the basic human rights of women and girls in our nation.
She said she understood the impact of her decision.
Again, this is Giselle Pelicote saying, I think entire generations of women have been muzzled and this trial enabled these women to talk openly.
We do not.
We have had a trial of obviously Ghislaine Maxwell here.
She is spending 20 years, hopefully continues to serve that in federal prison.
We did not have a trial of Jeffrey Epstein.
Why?
Because he committed suicide in the wake of his 2019 indictment for his wild misconduct, his wild criminal conduct in not only trafficking, but abusing girls and young women.
He committed suicide.
Now we've got revelations about the extent to which his, his impact, not just here in the United States, but around the world.
We've seen what's happened in England and in other places in Europe, the connections with Jeffrey Epstein are huge.
We're learning more about that.
And again, the lessons of Giselle Pelicote about the importance of pursuing these cases in a timely fashion, supporting the victim survivors, giving them the protections that plainly for many of them, if not most of them, in this particular case, the Department of Justice has not provided them, especially in these recent disclosures, disclosing their names, disclosing information while hiding the names of some of the perpetrators.
the people who are responsible for this.
We've got a lot to learn from Giselle Pelicote about the importance of transparency, the importance of trials that disclose this and accomplish in the end some variation, some imperfect measure of justice for the victims, for the survivors, for those who do not survive this horrific kind of conduct.
When we come back, a few more comments about other things going on in the law here in America.
here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
Let's do some rule of law snapshots here and then we get to our final story all about the First Amendment and free speech and a victory for those of us, all of us concerned about and committed to First Amendment rights in America.
Some quick things in the areas of rule of law.
A Justice Department lawyer in a court in Minneapolis found and contempt by a federal judge.
Her name is Laura Provenzino.
and finding that finding of contempt based upon the failure of the Department of Justice, once again, to comply with the direct orders of the judge in returning some materials to an individual, his identification documents, who is a detained immigrant.
And then in that case again, the U.S.
Department of Justice found in contempt, we go over to the Eastern District of Virginia, that troubled district where we know Lindsay Heligan,
was found not to be properly appointed.
Well, just this past week, after the federal bench there appointed.
a longtime attorney named James Hunley, a veteran defense lawyer to serve as an interim U.S.
attorney.
The answer came from the deputy attorney general firing him.
This is the second time in almost as many weeks in which the courts locally have appointed a U.S.
attorney, which they are empowered to do.
The deputy attorney general issues a pink slip, if you will, on social media.
directing the firing of that person.
The deputy attorney general gets it wrong by saying, where judges do not pick our U S attorneys.
Well, they do in some circumstances.
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, that happening in Eastern Virginia in the district of Maryland.
We've got the judge Paula Zinnis.
We've talked a lot about her.
She is telling the government once again, keep your hands off of.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ordering that he not be redetained by immigration authorities as a part of our continuing supervision of that case.
And we've got a fascinating thing involving some justice, some attorneys who are assembling a particular website, a tool to help track criminal cases to follow the atypical charges and atypical positions being taken by the Department of Justice, not only for the benefit of all of us, but
as we attempt to try to capture across the nation the ways in which our Department of Justice is acting inconsistently, not only from case to case, but also inconsistent with basic policy and practice, inconsistent with the Constitution.
They have created a thing called case tracker.
tracking criminal cases that appear to involve irregular charging practices, and also monitoring cases where government charges of resisting federal law enforcement have been undercut by videos and eyewitness accounts from protesters, lots of things going up there.
And then we also have something that we'll chat about again in the future.
A major
series of cases involving allegations that social media platforms, including Metta and YouTube and others, because of the things that they do, the ways in which their platforms are managed, many lawsuits brought by minors in the school district and state attorneys alleging that these social media platforms, much like cigarettes and slot machines, are addictive and harmful.
And because of that, they have caused harm and danger.
Just this past week, Mark Zuckerberg, head of meta, appeared there in that trial, plainly to defend his own company.
These cases are important to understand and we'll spend some time talking about them.
These are the social media addiction trials that are now taking place in courts around the country.
Finally, we have the results of another trial and that happens in the city of Muskego just this past week.
A Muskego man named Jim Brownlee has been found not guilty, not guilty by the municipal judge there of disorderly conduct for writing the
Frankly, the two words, January 6, J-A-N, period six, on the sidewalk outside of his local post office last year.
Brownlee, who represented himself in this municipal matter in front of the judge, wrote that with the chalk on the four-year anniversary of the attack of the U.S.
Capitol, he initially received a $565 citation for disorderly conduct.
He challenged that in court and he won.
12 pays decision.
issued by Muskego municipal judge Lisa Warwick.
I need to be very clear, Lisa Warwick and I not only know each other, she and I were assistant U.S.
attorneys together in the U.S.
Attorney's Office, an outstanding lawyer, a terrific judge who issued a decision finding him not guilty of disorderly conduct.
She writes that the chalk message, she says, does not disrupt nor have a tendency to disrupt the business of the postal service, its customers, or other strip
She says the questions of whether the chalk writings were protected under the First Amendment are moot based on the ruling of this court.
The conduct does not fall under the disorderly conduct statutes.
In other words, she barely gets to, actually does not get to the First Amendment notion, but it really is a First Amendment case.
And again, Brownlee, representing himself, had argued that writing the message was an act of free speech.
He was invoking that First Amendment right, and he was also saying, listen.
There's no disorderly conduct here, which is plainly what the judge agreed with.
He said, I mean, it's common sense that chalk cannot be violent, can't be loud, disruptive, all the elements of disorderly conduct.
The judge agreed with him.
And as a result of that, the judge, again, Lisa Warwick, wrote her decision.
The chalk message did not meet the state's definition of true threats.
or the specific targeting of individual, Alisa Warwick, Judge Warwick, wrote that the action was not violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, or unreasonably loud, or conduct listed under the state's disorderly conduct statute.
It cannot be said, nor was there any evidence provided that these messages unreasonably offended the sense of decency or propriety in the community.
As a result of that, Jim Brownlee found innocent, not guilty of this.
offense charged by him, by the local authorities, and a voice of really First Amendment rights.
And we conclude in that spirit, this installment of Amicus, a law review on the First Amendment, on the right to speak out, even in shock in America.
Have a good weekend, everybody, and take care.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.
