Due Process, that’s not old fashioned is it? (Hour 2)

Broadcasting across the state of Wisconsin on the Civic Media Radio Network and around the world on the Civic Media app.

This is the Dom Salvia Show.

And now, here's your host, Dom Salvia.

And welcome to the Dom Salvia show happy happy Friday to us all I know it's Friday double check got it down on my notes got just PS working hard on the board and you could join us today as well 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 Civic Genesis hell it's Friday and today is my co-host our good friend James Santel He is the host of amicus a law review you check out his fine program on Saturday

that's tomorrow 9 to 11 a.m.

He takes all your calls and questions as well.

Jim, welcome to the show, man.

Great to see you.

And today I am delighted once again to be with you and just in anticipation of the weekend, but a few things to talk about even before we get there, right?

Man, it keeps on coming.

Lots of national stuff, lots of local stuff.

I want to start, I guess, primarily in the local arena right now.

Um, the Wisconsin Supreme court race, man, we get judge Susan Crawford to say her name a whole lot more.

Thanks, Chris.

Going against BS.

Thank you, Tom.

His name is Brad Schimel.

We're just going to call him BS.

Cause you know, that's what he's kind of full of.

That's what we got.

We got it all figured out here.

Um, and we know Jim, man, this Eli must, the richest man in the world.

Well, he loves himself.

Some Wisconsin Supreme court justice candidates called BS.

He's putting in a lot of money and now he's got a whole new trick man It's kind of like the old trick, but you know, you know, maybe updated for 2025 as Axios reports Musk's pack Offers $100 to Wisconsin voters in pitch against quote-unquote activist judges.

Yeah, man must give me a hundred bucks.

Let's hear more from Axios

His political action committee is offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition expressing their opposition to quote-unquote activist judges, a cause that President Trump is pressing as judges block or delay several of his parts of his agenda.

Well, there's a whole other issue for that because, you know, maybe he's overreaching his mind.

But anyway, I digress.

The move reflects how Musk is throwing his considerable wealth behind Trump's priorities, including an upcoming election in Wisconsin for a crucial seat on the state Supreme Court.

And we all know April 1st is the election.

Again, folks, go out and vote for Susan Crawford, not BS.

Vote for Susan Crawford.

Here's what the petition says.

The Wisconsin campaign is entering its final days as Trump and his allies are attacking federal judges standing the way of his agenda.

Trump has been particularly critical of a judge who was questioning the administration's deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

And I know, counselor, we're going to have that conversation in just

a

bit.

Trump and Musk have called for the impeachment of that judge.

And here's what the petition says.

By signing below, I am rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role, interpreting, not legislating, the petition says.

Now, after a voter signs the petition and is credited with $100, must team won't know for sure whether or how the person voted in Wisconsin's election.

But the groups will have one thing the voters data which will allow the group to contact them again in the future Hmm he did something similar right he was he was putting people they were they could

Sign up for a chance to win a million dollars in the 20 last election, right?

They're

right for registering.

Yes.

Yes.

So, I mean, it seems shady as hell, but I must like, well, if he's giving the money away, folks, you'll get the money then.

But I'm thinking, well, don't do that because now you're just encouraging the bastard.

So, Jim, what are your thoughts on this new hustle from Musk and Trump?

It does seem like a hustle, doesn't it?

Anytime you're paying people to do things,

to express their views, which presumably, if you sign this petition, you believe in what you're putting your name to.

But we still have to encourage you.

We've got to push you over the edge by giving you $100.

And again, that's one of the many problems with this.

We will call also.

This administration also seems to be, again, very money-oriented.

call this other very peculiar thing where the president has said we've got this sort of credit card and you can buy it for $30,000 and you can come here, you can expedite your immigration status.

All these things where there are proper processes that Americans can take advantage of and now we're monetizing them, right?

We're giving people money for again, citing their name.

There is no reason why you should have to do that.

If indeed, you're identifying people who believe that.

And of course, what this really is all about is once again for the media, for consumption by the base that says, yes, indeed.

Yes, indeed.

Here's this stronghold of people in Wisconsin who are rejecting, frankly, Judge Bosberg.

We'll talk about them later.

But frankly, even judges here in Wisconsin who might be labeled as activists, for example, Susan Crawford, she is not.

She doesn't fall in that category.

But this is also really just a campaign trick, if you will, and intended once again to get the attention that he's plainly getting through money, which is the one thing that he and Donald Trump, that's the currency quite literally they

know.

Right.

We're calling them the Musk bucks,

right?

They were Zucker bucks

last time before the make of, you know, embraced.

Zuckerberg and he was seeing him behind Donald Trump with the inauguration, right?

Well,

now putting all of your money into politics and paying people to do what you want, that's great.

And that was definitely happening before.

I mean, you can't come on.

I mean, here's, here's what gets me about this and the granted.

So he's not paying them to go vote.

directly for BS, right?

He's not paying

them.

Just as an aside, Dom, on that

point, yes,

that that would be in violation of something called the Voting Rights Act.

And you can get get sued for that, maybe even criminally.

So we haven't gone there quite.

I know, but it's so close.

But we're just doing a step below

that.

I'm saying, man,

you

can't give people water who are sitting in line like down south at 100 degrees for hours, because of course, it's kind of on purpose that way.

Maybe the

disenfranchise them from voting.

You go give them somebody water who's boiling in the heat and you're committing a crime, but Musk can give you a fake petition and give you a hundred bucks and you gotta do what you want.

Now, again, I get it, but I don't think giving water to somebody who's thirsty, standing in line is a violation of that either, any more than this would be.

It is not.

It certainly is not.

And again, the courts have come down, thankfully, squarely in support of that.

And here's the other point that you just made.

The other thing that this does, of course, is to the extent that these folks who are signing up, presumably, I'm guessing they're providing an email, maybe a phone number.

You get additional numbers, you get additional contacts, so that whether it's in advance of this April 1 election here, down the road for the midterms and 18 months or so,

You've got another great tranche, a great stash of people here that you can go to and say, hey, remember, we were already talking with you about this, this judicial activism thing here.

Now we've got to advance another issue here.

It gives the Trump folks, it gives the Musk people another set of names to reach out to, and again, and even ask for money in support of campaigns down the road.

Ask it

for money?

Hell no.

If I was to engage with the Musk bucks in this case, and they gave me a hundred bucks to sign some stupid ass petition, they came around next time and said, hey, how about this?

I'd be like, sure, but that was too fitty.

You know, the price just went up.

You can't, you can't encourage the guys, you know, they're going to want to get paid every time you pick up the phone.

It kind of goes against the whole thing.

But what, I mean,

it's the state of wisconsin and he's already spent like 20 million dollars uh or close to according to the axios article in the state of wisconsin through his different front groups and jim this thing is already i think like 70 million dollars spent with two weeks still to go uh as the wisconsin democracy campaign has predicted perhaps over a hundred million dollars man it's a dr evil of wisconsin supreme court elections

and shouldn't that point, this business with the survey here, the petition here, it's all very interesting, it's silly, it's stupid, but that's the larger point, Dom, right, which is the extent to which money has not just become a part of our election, it is our election right now.

And again, we thank for that, the Supreme Court, this goes back to Citizens United, yes indeed, there are also restrictions in Wisconsin as well, and things you cannot do, but that's the Supreme Law of the Land.

We need desperately to get back to a time when people are not prompted to vote by the number of ads they see on television, the number of hangers on their door, the number of signs in the front yards.

We need to figure out some way of this becoming more merit-based, a number of debates.

We articulate who these candidates are and we cannot, we just can't continue this.

It is truly, truly obscene.

Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvia show.

That is James Santel, host of Amicus, a law review broadcasting right here on the Civic Media Radio Network Saturdays, nine to 11.

Jim's going to be with us all day.

I want to move on to some of these other topics.

We do have an early caller, Jeanie from Eau Claire.

Thank you for calling Jeanie.

We'll take your call while we have some moments in this first segment.

Welcome, Jeanie.

Happy Friday.

What do you got for

us?

remember tomorrow morning, nine o'clock, great.

Now I have to bring up a point that's really kind of got my fur a mess.

So by signing this, you are having an eligible or maybe ineligible Wisconsin signature on this petition that states a lie about the position that they're voting on.

And that would be

a person endorsing this lie, validating the lie, because people may say, oh, I see.

Oh, he signed it.

I trust him.

Yeah, we need to do this, you know.

And on every postcard that I've gotten, one of them huge ones, I've gotten nine.

I got one the other day again, you know, with negatives on the female candidate, the wonderful one.

I'm saying act activist judge and things like that.

So I just, and not against him being an activist judge, just want to throw that at you.

Really nefarious.

Bye.

Thank

you, Jeannie.

Yeah, it'd be hard to trust anything with Donald Trump and certainly Elon Musk.

Uh, you know, so be careful what you, what you, what you sign up for and what could they do with their signature?

What do they do with the data?

All those kinds of things, certainly.

Uh, but to, to your point, uh, here's, here's what the, uh, the petition says by signing below, I'm rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demand and a judiciary that respects its role interpreting not legislating.

And of course, Jim, this comes on the heels of the criticism.

Uh, this administration is leveling and frankly the.

threats, both physical and threats of impeachment against these judges who have a temerity to

push back against what they seemingly are slinking our unconstitutional executive orders.

That's why, you know, most folks, most presidents have to push their agenda through Congress.

You know, they got to make laws to impact that.

Not executive orders, but I mean, the guy wanted to do this.

So welcome to it, but he can't get mad when these, you know, Cran written orders get tossed out for being overreaching.

Folks come back with us.

James Santel, former U S attorney, going to come back and talk about, we'll get some more of your calls and Brad Schimel, I want to

get your opinion on something he said not so long ago.

girl is empty

And welcome back to the Dom Salvia Show.

Hell must be empty, because everyone's here.

You can join us as well.

855-752-484-2855, 75 Civic Just B.S.

Worker, the board, James Santel, host of Amicus, a law review joining me today.

On the Friday, of course, you know how we roll, wrap the day up with something good.

So if you got something good, think about it.

Join us in the last segment and share it with the audience so we can go home and smile on our face.

Cause I'm getting a little mad right now, Jim.

Some of the textures here, Jack from the Mac.

Geez.

I don't know if I could trust musky to pay off.

I'm still waiting for Soros checks for the three town halls I attended.

Yeah.

Where's our Soros money, man?

I haven't gotten that yet.

What else we got?

Um, isn't what Musk wants to do to our election, a kind of fraud, a texture from the 608 asks, can't Josh call do something?

This just can't be legal.

I mean, unfortunately, WMDX texture.

It might probably is right.

I mean, he's not impacting the vote and that's really what it's all about right counselor

He's not acting.

Thank well.

He is acting in another capacity as a government official Chuck the Iowa senator was laughed out of the

grass Lee

the other night went with grass Lee Yes, that's it when he said no Elon Musk has no power but in this area once again

I can go out.

You can go out tomorrow and circulate a petition if you want to.

Maybe I can attach some money to it.

It's certainly not official in that sense.

But I think the caller there, and Jeannie before, are onto something.

It's fraught with a small F. Why?

Because the cynicism of this is that it assumes that people believe that this actually has number one, some impact.

But beyond that, the things that are said in this particular petition, they're just plain wrong.

We talked before, Jeannie talked about this as well.

I pulled up here during the break, the flyer that I got here on my front door here.

This is Donald Trump, and it's actually for Brad Schimel, of course.

And the cynicism here is that if you vote for Brad Schimel, apparently, you're not only voting for Donald Trump, but you're also going to secure borders.

You're going to make cities safer and you're going to have a sensible spending.

Let's talk about those secure borders.

That's the federal government, not the not the Wisconsin Supreme Court, safer cities.

We all know that's that's village presidents and mayors who work on on crime and sensible spending.

That's basically your county board, your legislature, your assembly, putting together budgets, not with the exception of some small, small little tendrils.

None of these has anything to do.

with the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

And yet, of course, the important thing here is this fellow's picture and this notion that somehow by putting Brad Schimel, this is the cynicism of this, cynicism of this is that by putting Brad Schimel on the court, you're somehow going to make our borders more secure.

That's completely wrong.

And again, that's the fraud, maybe with a small F.

that I think we're talking

about.

Jim, who printed that?

Who was responsible?

They tell you.

Yeah,

this is paid for by America Pack, not authorized by any candidate, I'll say, plainly.

And

that shimmels, I'm sorry, that's musks, I believe, isn't it?

America Pack?

Exactly.

Got the back.

You

got Donald Trump on the front.

You have Susan Crawford on the back.

No picture of Brad Schimmel.

That guy's so bad, man.

They don't even want to promote them.

You have to wait till today's picture.

Or once again, you do get Donald Trump and you get Brad Shim.

Oh, there's one of

Brad.

All right.

All right.

Good to know.

B.S.

We're going to

call him B.S.

It's all cynical.

It's all wrong.

No, but we can't have these political activist judges.

No, right.

I mean, they must, they must, you know, bend to the will of an authoritarian, overreaching, over expansive, you know, monarchy wanting to be executive.

manager.

And let's talk about it.

All right.

So BS recently said once again, Jim, on an interview at a conservative talk radio show, we got to bank our votes, make sure this is too big to rig.

So we don't have to worry at 1130 in Milwaukee.

They're going to find bags of ballots.

They forgot to put in to the machines.

They're throwing this trope out again, Jim, every single time, every time.

And

This could have been fixed.

The assembly, the assembly passed allowing Milwaukee to start counting those votes early.

The Senate blocked it.

It was a bipartisan effort, obviously coming out of Voss's assembly.

They want this argument.

They want this thing to continually scare people about, but this is how the business is done, unfortunately.

And either Brad Schimmel is super, super ignorant, as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Sack

of hammers.

Zach Hamers, or, or he's purposefully misleading the Wisconsin citizens on how voting is done.

Jim, I know, obviously you're, you're a counselor.

You also work at, at your local polling booth.

What's your, what's your thought on, on the way these Republicans continually present how the counting is done in Milwaukee?

two or three things that are wrong with this.

Number one, we know that there really is no voter fraud in America.

It's virtually impossible to have a conspiracy that broad.

So that broad notion is simply wrong.

This issue of finding huge bags of votes and yes, every so often there's an additional group of them that are identified.

They're accounted, they're put in the process, they're part of the final tally.

The impossibility of this happening, wedded with that.

that scare notion once again that, gosh, those other folks are going to take this election away from us.

And so this is the reason why you've got to get to the polls to make certain that the margin is so great, so great that even the fraudsters can't overcome it.

Again, cynicism unbound, frankly, Judge Schimmel and former district attorney Schimmel, lawyer Schimmel, all of that is just contemptuous.

And again, it's intended to invoke

our lowest common denominator when it comes to voting and the way that we do that in America and right here in Wisconsin.

And it's hard to know what goes on in the man's head, but...

Once again, Republicans through the assembly had an option to change it so they could actually start counting those votes early.

There's lots of people in Milwaukee that vote absentee.

It's just, it's the biggest city in the state.

Mathematically, it just is what it is.

And everybody- A 10% of the state's population lives in that city.

Everybody knows how it works, man.

The Republicans, the staffers, I mean, back in 2016, I remember when the votes were coming down or maybe it was an election after that, some of the Republicans even saying, well,

Milwaukee hasn't landed yet.

And you know, you can look statistically at the voting in Milwaukee and assume it's going to be probably around the same, right?

Whatever 80, 20, 70, 30, whatever that number is, Democrat versus Republican is going to come in.

And perhaps because of the absentee nature of them, more of those might be Democratic leaning votes.

And you can look at it.

No, there's a big gap there and a big chunk of that gap that's still to come in is going to be Democratic.

You know that's happening.

Everybody knows that's happening, except Brad Schimmel.

Except for Brad Schimmel.

And of course, what is it really all about?

Those scary black people in Milwaukee don't know how to count.

Right BS?

Hey, come back with us.

We got more on Brad Schimmel.

Doug, this one up.

What do you think he would do about interracial marriage back in the 50s?

Stick around.

Salvia show thank you so much for listening 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 civic just ps working hard on the board James Santel host of amicus a law review broadcasting right here on the civic media radio network

Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.

Joining me for the day.

Thank you, Jim.

And folks, you haven't checked the show out.

Do so.

He dives.

Jim, you do a hell of a job diving into deep into the topics that we really kind of brunch here, man, because I don't do the homework like you do, man.

And we appreciate

you coming around.

It gets a little wonky when my own family says to me afterwards, Jim, way too much.

I need to pull it back a bit, but we try.

We try.

I love it, man.

So thank you for joining us and make sure you check about 9 to 11 on Saturdays.

Real quick, Milwaukee Journal of Sentinel reporting a crash has closed lanes on I-94 Westbound in the stadium interchange here in Milwaukee.

So if you're all getting around, be careful out there.

Make sure you plan a little extra time.

Again, a crash closing lanes on I-94 Westbound according to the Journal of Sentinel.

Collars, we see you there.

Be patient.

We'll get to you in just a moment.

We're talking about the Wisconsin Supreme Court race here and in the candidates.

Judge Susan Crawford vote for her and the other guy BS.

And this guy who's, you know, initials are BS and he spews BS.

And I really get mad when I continue to hear and team Trump fighting for Wisconsin.

Exactly.

Jim's holding up.

Man, you're getting delused over there.

Oh, oh,

I get these

two and three

a day.

This picture, right?

Right.

There's there's the there's the three of them.

Donald Trump, Brad

Schimmel

and and J.D.

Vance.

Yes, totally.

S. He's going to

be team Trump fighting for Wisconsin.

Now he needs to support.

Who's that from?

Jim, if I may.

So so this this is from let's see if this is also the American America pack.

Absolutely.

Austin, Texas.

Austin,

Texas.

And so I take great umbrage with the Republicans continuing to stir the pot in line with people.

And frankly, it's racist.

It's a total lie the way that Milwaukee counts their ballots.

And it bothers me.

So you all know that.

You all know that.

Um, but there's more to BS than just that particular BS.

He's got, he's, he's got a career folks.

And, and I, I got some audio dating back years.

So I dug this one up because it just kind of came to me again.

Cause it bothered me then and it bothers me now.

Here is, uh, Brad Schimmel.

I guess when he was running for eight and 16, maybe it was, it's while ago, nine, 10 years ago, maybe 11 years ago, maybe, um, being interviewed by, I believe it was like Oshkosh, some public.

television in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

But anyway, listen to this and then, Gemma, we'll get your reaction as well.

Play it please, Jess.

The audio's a little crunchy.

Just listen to the words.

But if you had been Attorney General in, say, the 1950s in a state that did not allow interracial marriage, do you think the proper role of an Attorney General then was to not put himself or herself into the mix and say this is wrong?

even even yeah it is

and and and I understand the argument your job is to uphold the law even if it's something that we might look back in the future as a observer it might be distasteful to me okay but that's but right I appreciate your

answer

I gotta stay consistent with that as the state's lawyer I it's not my job to pick and choose

I have so many problems with that.

Number one, sure it is.

He is kind of your job to pick and choose the prosecutorial discretion.

And number two, I think, Oh man, I mean, if I was attorney general in Alabama back during slavery, I mean, I'd really, I'd really not like to, you know, punish these slaves, but it's the law.

It's

the

status quo.

Come on.

This is the guy who

wants to be on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Jim.

Last one, Pachter.

What's your sense as a licensed attorney when you hear something like that?

Right.

It is outrage.

And again, even if it was 10 or 11 years ago, even it was 10 months ago, it doesn't make a difference.

Frankly, go back much longer than that.

Here's your Supreme Court bit for the day, which is 1967, Brad.

I suspect you

may have been born then.

I don't know exactly what your age is, but somewhere right around there.

And the Supreme Court said, yes, let's all put our hands together unanimously, unanimously, that under our constitutions, but around that time, not quite 250 years as it is today, unanimously establishing a privacy right to marriage as you want it, interracial marriage.

Every single member of the Supreme Court, including people appointed by Republican presidents, Democratic presidents,

This is a timeless issue.

The Supreme Court at that time was catching up candidly with civil rights in America and saying, no, no.

Again, it has the wonderful name of loving versus Virginia is the name of the case.

And Brad Schimmel, even of latest says 10 years ago, whenever he recorded that, the response should have been that we live in the time in which we live.

I am proud to embrace the notion of privacy rights.

Everyone has a right to live as they want to live, marry who they want to live with, love who they want to live.

That's the appropriate affirmation.

And this notion is something we have to be consistent and cannot, as you just said, cannot, as the Attorney General, be an advocate for appropriate change that delivers justice, due process, equal protection under the law.

That's the commission.

That's the oath of office that you take, Mr. Attorney General.

completely wrong, Brad, and it's appropriate to raise it again because, again, not so long ago, that kind of mindset is also the mindset that's running right now to be on our Supreme Court in 2025.

So I just want to pick up just a touch on that, Jim.

Schimel says, well, the law might be distasteful, but it's not that.

The law blatantly goes against our U.S.

Constitution.

So is this not a case where if you're trying to become the chief law officer of a state, you have to come out and say, no, I will obey the US Constitution.

And if my state's law goes against that, you better be damn sure I will challenge it.

Absolutely.

And that is exactly, you need to teach law school yourself, among many other things, and that's exactly right.

That's precisely what an attorney general should be doing, ensuring once again that the fundamental principles that are in our Wisconsin Constitution about due process and equal protection, in addition to our federal Constitution, are upheld.

We often talk, it is overstated, but the arc of justice is long, and yes, we continue to move in the right direction.

You've got to be the one as the people's lawyer who's out there advocating for greater civil rights, greater human rights.

That's the commission that you take distasteful.

Again, that's the cynicism that I'm talking about.

That's the appeal to those people who just don't like that notion.

that there may be people of different races who are marrying.

Frankly, we know, again, Obergefell years later, people of the same sex marriages who are marrying, that sort of thing.

That's an application to their inappropriate response, which is, eh, I just don't like that.

He's basically sanctioning those people who would turn back loving versus Virginia and Obergefell and Windsor and all the other cases of talk about privacy rights in America.

Not the least of which, of course, is Dobbs, right?

Overturning Roe versus Wade, the ultimate privacy right case in American jurisprudence.

If they can overturn Dobbs, man, they can go after the other ones, although maybe some Supreme Court justices may have some issue with that.

If or not, we don't know.

There's some interrelational marriage going on

there.

Right.

And to the extent, frankly, to take this one step further, you know, I suspect that our, this present candidate for the Supreme Court,

He hasn't spoken on this directly, but certainly there's an analogy very recently to Clarence Thomas, right?

This is a guy in a concurrence just in the last term I said, you know, maybe we need to visit now only these privacy rights issues but also Brown versus Board of Education Supreme Court Justice said that and one has to wonder out loud if indeed with that kind of encouragement that seed being planted that's also when you say well gee

Maybe we should go back to a time when, again, there was not equality and we did not have something approaching equality in America.

Yeah, we don't we don't have it now and we endeavor more so than we did before But you can't tell me we're there and to think we're gonna go back.

I mean look what they're trying to do with the schools I mean a lot of the work of the Department of Education is to address those kinds of issues and they don't like that and they want to sell their kids to these private schools But they want to pay for it.

They want to use some tax dollars.

They got all sorts of problems But Jim I digress 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 I believe that's the BS update for the day indeed.

All right Cindy

from Appleton.

You are next.

Welcome, Cindy.

What do you

got for us?

Hello, Cindy.

Hello.

Hello.

Well, first of all, I just like to say keep calling him BS and that's what he's full of and his age 12.

He doesn't get much.

Yeah.

He's not a very deep thinker.

Let's just put it that way.

I'm not saying I'm much deeper, but I'm at least I'm

at

least

in my

teens Cindy 752-484-2855 75 civic Ali from the north woods.

You are up.

Happy Friday Ali.

Welcome.

What do you got for us?

Well, my question is for Jim Santel My ears picked up this morning when I heard this first on the news The same as jeans did

When he is asking for all these people to say that they disagree with the activist judges and say 500 or 1,000 people are available enough to take the $100, what happens when Trump takes his appeal against these judges to the Supreme Court?

And they don't necessarily use the information per se, the people's names, et cetera, but they use the amount of people.

And this happens in state after state after state.

Wisconsin's just the first one to go.

What happens then?

Right and so so I think what you're talking about Ali is again.

Here's more Supreme Court wonkiness from Jim Santel Which is you're talking probably about a brand-dice brief It's after a Supreme Court justice and it is you as you've got to just write Ali on a regular basis That may be the other reason for doing this lawyers can in fact look to statistics They look to the things that are out there.

They're not so much legal arguments as much as they are

This is what the population of America is all about.

I'm going to give you some information that will hopefully animate your decision.

And one has to wonder if these kinds of antics involving getting, again, a petition and saying, gosh, in Wisconsin, there are 1,000.

There are 10,000 people who believe strongly on this.

That can end up in a brief to the Supreme Court.

as an attempt to try to persuade them of a particular view.

And so, yes indeed, a Brandeis brief, there's your word for it.

And it usually used for positive purposes to advance civil rights, but can also be used again for inappropriate purposes if lawyers choose to do so and parties choose to do so.

That's the challenge.

Jim, do the courts, when they consider these kinds of petitions, statistics, take into account whether or not they're paid,

You

know what I

mean?

Hey, I got a bunch of people

I paid that agree with me about X, Y, or Z. We better do something about, oh, of course, that's a bunch of bull, right?

I mean, but how do you distinguish that?

I mean, if that were to come around.

And the other thing, could this be used if not necessarily to Ali's point in a court case, but to impeach the judge?

Right, sure.

All those kinds of things.

You go on the floor of the House of Representatives right across the parking lot and you say, look, in the state of Wisconsin, we've got all these people who are outraged by this.

We've got to vote to impeach.

You fill in the name of the federal judge.

Absolutely.

The arguably good news with a very small G is that, yes, if you drop that footnote about what's going on in Wisconsin, you better be sure that the opposing side is going to say,

members of the Supreme Court, this was purchased and they will also do their own version of a Brandeis brief and explain how it is that that particular little package of information should be discarded in their deliberation.

eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five, civic.

You know, I just, I just keep thinking, you know, the, the, the Budweiser distributor, the driver is not drinking Miller products.

You know what I mean?

And what was, it was the Hertz sir.

I forget what he was, but they're not driving the other car.

You know, when you're a paid endorser of a thing, it really is a whole different animal than if it's something organic.

And my humble opinion, folks, come back with us.

Give us your humble or not so humble opinions.

Welcome here.

Eight, five, five, seven, five.

to 484-855-75 Civic.

Lots to get to today, but we'll take your calls next.

And welcome back to the Dom Salvia show.

Happy Friday to us all.

Join us on the lines 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2 hanging out with just PS on the board.

James.

Santel host of amicus the law review joining me today check his show tomorrow on Saturday 9 to 11 a.m.

Thank you Jim got a callers Let's get to them and lots of topics to get to Federal judges.

Are they gonna go after Donald Trump law firms some of her standing up some of her paying off what is happening there?

They're not they're not they're not

selling out.

They're buying in, Jim.

It's called

capitulation, right?

It's capitulation.

And of course, I've been harping all the way trying to get to the point of what's going on with the Democratic Party.

Who's the leadership?

Who are we talking about?

What's the effort?

We're going to get there in the next hour as well.

But in the meantime, we'll get these callers, 855-752-4842.

Joe from Madison, you are next.

Welcome.

What do you got, Joe?

I really want to applaud you for making this change.

I think prompted by Chris yesterday, but to refer to Mr. Schimel is just simply BS.

Yes.

He's the way to

describe him.

He's BS boy.

And let us continue that as we go up to the election because the guy is.

full of it, and his being full of it has real-life ramifications.

I want to return to that issue of the rape kit.

There's an article that people can look at called, titled, it's from January 29, 2025, Urban Milwaukee.

You can find it online.

Title is, Shimo Haunted by Rape Kit Issue.

I would hope that the guy never gets an ounce of sleep for the rest of his pathetic life after reading this.

It is in raging.

He was elected, okay.

He's elected Attorney General in 2015.

All right, 2015.

There

is a backlog of over 6,000 rape kits sitting there.

In September, he gets federal money of, I believe it is $4 million at that time to go ahead and start processing these rape kits.

And he has a nice little press release he reveals.

Isn't that nice?

A year later, Appleton Post Crescent reports that he hasn't processed one single rape kit.

$4 million, 6,000 rape kits, zero.

Then we get another federal grant for another million dollars.

So he's got $5 million to address this problem of the untested rape kits.

And what does he do?

He sits on it.

He said his office says he's tested hundreds.

Two days later, his spokesperson has to say,

It's just nine that have been processed.

Nine in two years.

This is the level of competence we are going to be getting if Brad Schimmel is back in our lives.

He is a BS artist of the most immense proportions, and this matters people.

It's like 25% of those people who are sexual offenders re-offend.

So those untested rape kits, man, that's your daughter, your girlfriend, your wife, your friends.

Think about it.

Do you want to have this level of incompetence in your life?

BS Boy is the way to describe them and pathetic performance.

Anybody who had a performance like that in their private life, private job would be, they'd be canned.

They'd be absolutely canned.

This is pathetic.

BS Boy is the way to describe them.

Thanks,

you guys.

And Joe, it is about competence.

You're right.

You do have to be competent to serve on a Supreme Court.

There's something administrative about that.

I'm going to pluck up and pursue your second portion of your comment, which is it's about the victims, right?

And as a member of the Supreme Court, yes, you can't do things to the southern border.

You can't make the cities necessarily safe or all those other things.

But you can, in fact, enforce laws and you're presiding over cases, challenging criminal convictions, sentences, all kinds of things in which victims are involved.

And if you've got that careless.

kind of devil may care attitude when it comes to preserving the rights of victims of sexual assault and rape in Wisconsin.

When you're sitting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, what is your attitude about all kinds of victims?

Yes, sexual assault victims at the top of list, but also human trafficking, sex trafficking, youth, adults, all monetary victims, white collar victims, all kinds of things.

That is a major role that the Supreme Court has got to embrace.

And they enforce it all the time.

That too is a very important thing when you think about who you want to put on that bench.

Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvi show.

That is James Santel and Joe.

Great call.

Thank you for again, reminding us that it is, it is shameful that that was the.

reaction to an attorney general for that many rape kits and to come out and get the money and then to lie about it and then, you know, finally get it done.

But let's, what, what did he do in the meantime?

Oh, I remember he spent like 10 grand on the kick and ass everyday coins, man.

Apparently he loved to sign off on his emails with KAED.

So he took $10,000 to an out of state firm to make up these little commemorative coins because that's important.

And I will tell you how offended most United States attorneys, and frankly, I would say most other prosecutors around the country were when that came out too.

Prosecutor's role is not to forgive the language, once again, kick ass.

That's not the role of a prosecutor.

Prosecutor's role is to preserve the safety and security of the community.

And yes, along the way, we prosecute crimes.

We ensure that people, if they have in fact committed violent crimes,

probably spend some time in jail.

That's the purpose, not to get after people and kick ass.

Again, it expresses, it reveals an attitude that you do not want.

on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

But you want it on the radio, man?

Cause I kick all the ass and take all the names.

That was your New Year's resolution.

And I think you're living up to it.

Thank you so much.

Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvia show.

I got, and someone got some callers here.

So stick around.

We'll take you on the other side, uh, prior to getting into some of these other topics, James Santel, host of amicus, a law review going to stick around for the whole next hour.

Jim, thank you so much for doing.

So really, really want to get your interpretation of what's going on on the federal bench with these, these

cases against Donald Trump and the Department of Justice used to work there, right?

And what they are saying, what they are saying, telling the judge that you're beating a dead horse.

I mean, is that some, is that the kind of talk you have in federal court?

I just think, man, it sounds like these, these, these prosecutors sound like me sometimes.

Come back with us folks, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five civic.

Broadcasting across the state of Wisconsin on the Civic Media Radio Network and around the world on the Civic Media app.

This is the Dom Salvia Show.

And now, here's your host, Dom Salvia.

And welcome to the Dom salvia show.

Thank you so much for tuning in You can be a part on this gorgeous Friday 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 just piece working hard on the board James Santel my co-host for this our host now faces own show amicus a law review right here in the civic media radio network Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.

Jim thanks for sticking around man always fun, and I know we got

So much.

This is so much.

And we only have so much time.

Um, I want to, we also end the show by telling us something good.

Um, but I'm going to start out by something good because I'm hearing, uh, Bernie Sanders and AOC out on the road.

And, you know, I've been lamenting and a lot of us have what's going on.

Who's doing what?

Who's a, who could we look to for, for leadership in these times, these troubled times?

Um, always love me some Bernie Sanders and starting me to love me more, some AOC.

Uh, so indulge me.

If you will, uh, Bernie and AOC out on tour like Nevada and Arizona, they're going around having these discussions.

A few short clips from Bernie and then one from AOC.

And then we will move on to other topics, but I got to get this out there because it's been something that's been bothering me all week long.

So if you would please just you did the hard work.

Thank

you so

much.

I'll start with Bernie Sanders.

Sure.

This is his message to Trump.

Quite simple.

We will not allow you.

to move this country into an oligarchy?

Not any further to an oligarchy.

Come on Bernie, let's keep going.

Cut number two please.

People like Musk spending $270 million to elect Trump as president and then becoming the most important person in government.

Does anybody think that has anything to do with a democratic form of society?

Hell no it doesn't that's why it is one of the reasons it is so offensive Let's talk about social security Also a couple headlines regarding social security from dredge report social security commissioner threatens to shut down Agency the commerce secretary only fraudsters would complain about a missed social security check That's over the top of the line.

Excuse

me the dredge report.

Yeah, I know but here is Bernie Sanders senator Sanders out on tour the

kick an ass, kick an oligarchy's ass to her.

Talking about social security.

Cut number three, please, Jess.

And they're going after social security.

Some of you may have heard Trump talking about all of these millions of people, 200 years of age, getting social security.

It's a lie.

I know you will be shocked to hear that he lied.

Yes, lie.

It's

a lie.

He

continues to lie.

One more from Bernie Sanders.

Please cut number four.

So we are gonna fight Trump and his oligarchic friends.

We're gonna take on their effort to move us to an authoritarian society.

But we have got to do something else.

We have got to ourselves have a vision

for the kind of country we want to become.

Yes, absolutely Bernie.

And I'm not sure that vision is emanating from the leadership in the Senate.

Let's go there.

AOC up next.

Perhaps you can help articulate that vision for us.

Jess, a little bit longer cut here from AOC.

The promise Americans make to one another.

Let's hear it, please.

This is coming from their appearance in Arizona.

Medicaid, Medicare.

and Social Security were promises that we as a people have made to each other about the kind of country we are and the kind of society we want to live in.

And I don't know about you, Arizona, but I want to live in an America that guarantees health care to every person.

I want to live in America that has a living wage for every person.

I want to live in America where you have free speech to express yourself and not be afraid of getting put on a list or deported.

But these promises that we've made, they are not

They are promises from politicians to the people, or they're not charity from billionaires to everyday Americans.

They are promises we have made to each other.

Neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, teacher to student, family member to family member.

that we want to live in a society that is not depraved, not every person for themselves, but all of us standing together.

This is the promise that we make to each other as Americans.

AOC, I got to tell you.

I love that.

I love the passion.

I love the content.

I love the delivery.

And the promise, bringing community and bringing commitment into the conversation to Bernie's points, I think that is certainly important as far as messaging is concerned.

Jim, your thoughts.

Absolutely.

And again, not always to put a legal cast on things, but what AOC is talking about is a contract with a small C. It's a social contract.

It's a moral contract.

It's a human rights contract that, yes, indeed,

established by the Congress but nonetheless where does Congress come from that's us those are the people and she's talking about this agreement this contract that has been made decades ago into which many people have now contributed billions of dollars quite literally and cannot breach that social contract that's what she's talking about as to Bernie again what 80 83 years old and note as well to what I think is your implicit if not explicit point um where the Democrats remember again

Bernie Sanders is not a card-carrying Democrat,

right?

He ran for the presidency on the ticket, but he is still, again, from his home state, obviously, but 83 years old and is the advocate now.

And as this old stop oligarchy tour began, my recollection is he said, I was holding back for a few weeks just to see if what the Democrats would do, who would step forward?

And he said, no one.

at least not with the volume and the ferocity that he has taken on.

And so he is stepping forward, a non-democrat and independent, he's not a Republican certainly, but an independent in America voices.

And that also speaks to who we should be.

This should not be a political issue, it should not be a partisan issue.

Regrettably, it does take leadership.

And I think to your point, where is that voice of solid democratic leadership?

And that's what he's also bemoaning by doing this.

He's in Colorado today.

A number of visits there.

Same kinds of themes.

Huge crowds.

This is not a matter of a man going out there and not finding a group of people who want to hear him.

This is just the opposite.

America is responding to this.

Where are the Democrats who should be out there in every single state saying and articulating those same important contract messages?

with each other.

I'm not sure they all necessarily, number one, have the ability to connect with people like like burning AOC do number one.

Number two, you know, I've always got different motivations and I got it.

I got to bring up this Chuck, this boat in the Senate, man, Chuck Schumer, you know, leading the this the Dems leading the Dems is that where we're calling it, you know, joining with Republicans and getting nothing for it.

And a couple of things I take

problems with.

And I know it's already said and done, but I think it goes to the point of why people are so angry right now.

Before this most current continuing resolution, we were working on the last continuing resolution, right?

And

what has Donald Trump, what have they done to that?

Well, they pissed all over.

They want nothing to do with it.

They're not honoring the last continuing resolution.

So why would you engage another continuing resolution with disinterested and nefarious parties?

Number one, they're already not doing it.

So what makes you, gives you any confidence they're going to follow this continuing resolutions?

If you're worried about this, you know, fighting right now politically, every day you move closer to the midterm elections, if they would have held firm, if they would have challenged the Republicans to at least come up with something, offer me something, instead of nothing, um, that any political damage would probably have been forgotten by the time the midterms run around if you're looking at it from a political calendar.

Of course, they needed those Democrats.

And they came and they got nothing for it.

Zero zilts nada.

That's not leadership.

That's not dealmaking.

That's acquiescing.

Who to blame?

Short-term gain.

A pain, long-term gain.

What are the Republicans always saying?

Oh, it's gonna hurt for a while.

Well, there you go, Republicans.

If they don't come to try to earn Chuck Schumer's vote and their lack of action, their lack of dealmaking causes, that short-term pain of government getting shut down,

Well, who's gonna own that?

The Republicans would own that.

I saw some polling prior to that vote.

Most people, it wasn't overwhelming, but most people would put the blame for a shutdown on the Republicans.

Come on, man.

They got a mandate, right?

And finally, it would own the news cycle, man.

It would own the news cycle.

Everything would be on the government shutting down.

That would be the conversation every single day.

Now it's free.

Now it's wide open, man.

They don't have to worry about that hanging over their head.

Hell, they can have does go to the Pentagon.

They can do whatever the hell they want, because they don't have to worry about the repercussions of their lack of action, their lack of dealmaking with the Dems.

And she was just gave it away.

And I know the raging Cajun came out recently, says, well, maybe there's some long term wisdom to this.

Well, that cat was right on one thing like 30 years ago, and he's been going to that same party ever since.

Sorry if I don't buy that.

So, man, no, Chuck Schumer, man, you got, go, where's the, and I'm not in the Senate.

I don't know, no, but damn, it looks to me like they gave away everything and got nothing for it.

Jim, sorry for the rant.

What do you think?

The rant is on point.

And again, recall that this particular deal was put together, the budget, which again, you know,

It is stunning beyond just the immediacy that we don't have a budget in this nation, right?

Congress is completely failing.

Your points could not be better stated.

Just historically, when these things have happened, I have lived through several of them.

I've administered offices when indeed the government is set down.

It is uncomfortable.

But it sends a message.

And when you come out at the far end, politically, things I did not get involved in, you've got some benefit to having done that.

What if you had held out at least for a couple more days over the weekend into the following week, and then, as you say, send a message to America?

Send a message to those people showing up in Colorado today with AOC and with Bernie who want some pushback on this.

Here's what we're doing for you.

And again, to your very important point, here is what we've gotten out of this.

And we've also gotten perhaps some agreement about the ways in which we are going to, even resolutions about what the president is and is not doing, we're going to reaffirm this notion that indeed Congress has a role to play, a big one, the big one when it comes to money in America.

Folks you're listening to the Dom Salvia show that is James Santel.

He's sticking around for the entire hour You can join us as well eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic

Let's talk about, let's talk about the, the cases, uh, specifically the, these deportation cases and how the judge is dressing down the department of justice.

You know, look, that crap will use to work for Jim.

Man, really gone downhill since you left, man.

And also these law firms, man, this Paul Weiss law firm, man, is this extortion?

They get an executive order.

They give up $40 million of pro bono.

I'll take that money.

Come back with us.

with them

to the Dom Salvi show.

We are the one you've been waiting for, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five.

Civic got just PS on the board in the tunes.

Man, I love you, rock girl.

And James Santel, host of Emacus, a law review right here on the Civic Media Radio Network Saturdays, nine to 11, eight AM.

Thank you, Jim.

We got some callers.

Let's get to them before we get into this administration's struggles in the federal court.

Wisco Paul, you are up.

Happy Friday, my friend.

Welcome.

What do you got for us?

Good afternoon, gentlemen, first show today.

Basically, in my words, Schumer laid on the ground with his, you know what, in the air, and there was no fight.

We needed a fight here.

It was time to fight, and he didn't do it.

And I think he would be gone down the road here.

This is the old guard of the Democratic Party, and this includes our last president, Biden, Schumer.

They're playing by different rules, the old rules, they don't apply anymore.

And my question, Jim, right now, it seems like the courts are fighting back, which is, which is good, I hope.

Do you think they're going to be able to hold because really they, you know, Trump controls a lot of the agencies himself and he's trying to prove that he can do whatever he wants.

But

It is my hope the courts will hold and once you're opinion on that, Jim, and you guys have a great weekend.

Oh, thank you.

Let's go appreciate it, man.

Jim, your thoughts.

Paul, thanks for that comment.

Right now it is the federal district court judges who are the guardrails against what we're seeing in America.

And again, to a person, almost to a judge in particular, there've been a couple here and there, but they go off on real small technicalities.

Almost every single judge who's addressing any of these things, including

The Musk team's access, for example, the Social Security Administration, all these kinds of things are out there.

USCID, fun.

It goes on and on.

We know them.

There are two numers on the list.

Almost all of them are the guardrails right now.

And why is that?

Well, it's because, in part,

They've got lifetime tenure, right?

And they've been appointed again by Democrats and Republicans alike.

This is across the board.

These judges are saying no, the Constitution says that if you're born in America, you are indeed a citizen.

That is not a question that we need to to figure out anymore.

They're saying that there are the other guardrail.

Paul, the question, the issue that you raise is what happens as these things go up to the courts of appeals?

There are certainly courts of appeals that will uphold those kinds of things.

And then we get to the Supreme Court, which is the big one, right?

And we know, as Dom indicated early in this very broadcast, concerns about what would happen there.

We know I seem to do it every single time.

I'm with Dom and Jess on this wonderful show, reciting once again what John Roberts told us back in July, eight months ago.

He is the one.

He is the one who put all of this in place.

by saying we need to have a strong, a vital, a nimble, can't have a feeble executive, can't have feeble government, you need to be able to respond quickly and decisively, and Donald Trump has done just that.

Now, it may well be, and we'll talk about it, I believe in just a couple of minutes, maybe that John Roberts is having some buyers remorse here.

He has pushed back a little bit this week, not very much.

But right now, I think you're right.

And thank goodness for federal judges saying no, you cannot do this.

And we're approaching very much a, again the words, but the phrase bandied about way too much, constitutional crisis.

If in fact our president continues to say, as he has done, I don't care.

I'm not doing what you're telling me to do.

That's when, that's when we no longer have Madisonian answers to this.

And that's when the nation truly is, Republic is in jeopardy, as Sonia Sotomayor said.

Folks, this is the Dom Salvi show that is James Santel.

Let's talk about this, this, this case.

So writers are reporting that the, this judge who black Trump's administration from be deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members of their 1798 law say government lawyers have been intemperate and disrespectful in court filings.

I mean, yeah, you think, but let's, let's talk about this, Jim.

The premise that they are using a 1798 law, well, we're not at war.

So doesn't it, is that

right off the bat BS bunk, right?

We're not in wartime.

We don't, it's not invasion.

There's no war.

Congress has to declare war.

You can't just do it.

Can't have a police action, Nixon, Trump, Bush, whatever.

Let's talk about the gym.

Where do you stand on this case right now?

And how do you think the judge is responding?

Sure.

The judge once again, again, his name is Joe James Bosberg.

He is the chief judge.

He's the chief trial court judge in Washington, DC.

He is once again exhibiting from my perspective an awful lot of patience.

Remember this began a week ago tomorrow when these planes were in the air and the judge Orly from the bench said, call the back, bring the back here and get on the phone and bring the back here.

He has been attempting for this past week to try to figure out whether or not your Department of Justice, my government violated his directive to bring those planes back.

And he still doesn't have an answer.

There's a hearing again this afternoon.

No readouts on that yet.

But he has been very patient.

And my play on this is, again, that the alien law that is being invoked here is nice try, creative, creative Department of Justice, but not going to get you anywhere here.

Now there's also this notion, well, maybe these are state secrets.

And maybe we need to raise that one.

That one comes up fairly late this week.

The judge is patience is waning when he says to you that you're woefully insufficient.

Government has evaded its obligations.

Those are not good words.

And here is where this should end up candidly.

If indeed, if indeed someone inside the government knew about this order was told to bring those planes back.

It did not.

Then you issue in what's called an order to show cause.

You find someone in contempt and you know what the penalty for contempt is.

Somebody spends some time.

behind bars, quite literally.

And maybe that's the response that the guardrails right now, district court judges need to do.

Maybe it may or may not be a secretary around the cabinet level table, but maybe somebody who's responsible for this, who's out there talking this way, needs to be jailed as a way of saying, no, no, you do in fact follow what the courts are saying, and you do in fact follow what I said.

Don't you dare think about disobeying my orders.

Folks listening to the down salvia show come back with us James Santel just PS your calls a 5 5 7 5 2 4 8

According to the Washington Post, the judge said the government must decide by Tuesday whether would be invoking the state's secret privilege and demanded the government submit a sworn declaration that there are ongoing cabinet-level discussions and whether to do so Friday morning before the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche complied with that request.

Further, the government has separately appealed Bolsberg's temporary restraining order blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral arguments on the matter for Monday.

Come back with us, 855.

752-4842.

Welcome back to The Dom.

This will be a show 8-5-5, 7-5-2, 4-8-4, 2-8-5-5, 7-5 Civic just PS on the board.

James Santel, host of Amicus, a law review.

Check his fine show out on Saturday mornings, 9 to 11 a.m.

sticking around for the next two segments.

Of course, a final segment of the day, folks.

Tell us something good.

It's Friday.

Tell us something good, then we'll get to your questions and comments as well.

We're talking about the Trump administration's use of this Aliens Enemies Act to justify these deportation planes to El Salvador that carried Venezuelans.

I mean, call me crazy, but okay.

A little bit more on the reporting here at the gym.

And then we have some sound of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

I want to play that.

And then we'll get your thoughts, counselor.

Always

good to hear from Pam,

by the way.

Always good to hear from her.

She's on Fox News a lot, man.

I'm just saying that job must be pretty cush.

The administration said in court filings of the US immigration and customs enforcement investigated each migrant sent to El Salvador to verify their alleged

ties to the trend day, uh, Ruga gang, Ruga, Arugula, uh, Robert Sina, the acting ice field director in Harling, Harlingen, Texas, acknowledged that quote, many of those deported under the act do not have criminal records in the United States, but, but that does not indicate that they pose a limited threat.

So.

So what are they basing the threat

on?

probably dark skin and

tattoos.

I mean, he had a soccer tattoo.

Oh, my God.

Terrible.

Um, and just it may well be that that that that they're basing this on that precedent from during World War two, one of three times this was invoked.

when we imprisoned in the western states of this nation, citizens of the United States, because their ancestry happened to be Japanese, Karamatsu, Supreme Court endorses that, that's the precedent that we're now relying upon with respect to these Venezuelan immigrants.

Right, one of the most shameful chapters of American history.

Um, the AG, she's got something to say on this topic.

I'm sure it's going to be great.

Let's hear it.

Sure.

This is on the authority of that federal judge.

How will you respond at the Department of Justice?

Well, our lawyers are working on this.

We will answer appropriately.

But what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions.

You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over.

There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now.

That's because those people are out of this country.

The judge had no business, no power to do what he did.

And well, he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom.

You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges.

You just spoke about that.

It's been a pattern with what they've been doing.

This judge had no right to do

that they're meddling in foreign affairs.

I mean, if you're literally putting people domestically on planes and sending them places that seems domestic to me, Jim, lots to unpack there.

What do you think is most important?

Where do we start?

This is not the most

important, but I

cannot help comment.

My attorney general is serving as my attorney general 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Saturdays and Sundays for US attorneys too.

you enforce the law or in this case, you do not enforce the law.

But that's a small point that somehow we've got our vacation

time.

Oh

my

goodness.

Oh my goodness.

Simply wrong.

Simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

An unelected federal judge.

No, all federal judges are unelected.

They're all appointed Madam Attorney General.

Does she have the authority to interpret the law?

Yes, that's that's

has the early part of the 19th century when the Supreme Court said it is decidedly the purview of the courts to decide what the law is.

No business presiding over this.

Of course there is.

When you have people who are present in the United States of America, you do not have to be a citizen.

You are entitled to the protections of our Constitution.

I can go on and on with the things that are completely wrong with what my attorney general has said this past week.

And I was prompted once again, and I'm going to pursue this, to figure out where she went to law school.

It happens to be a place called Stetson Law School.

It's in the Panhandle.

It's in Gulfport, Florida.

And I would ask some member of the media to go to the dean, go to the provost, and say, this is what the attorney general said.

Is this what you are teaching at this law school?

And if you are, by the way, we need to talk to the accreditation people at the American Bar Association.

This is so fundamentally wrong.

Again, it is cynical.

I know I've used that term multiple times this afternoon.

It is cynical because she thinks that just by saying he's got no power, no jurisdiction, can't do it on a Saturday, and this particular law cannot be reviewed by a court, that somehow people will believe that.

All of that is completely wrong.

How about this, Madam Attorney General?

We disagree with the judge in his interpretation of the law.

And we are going to argue that with him.

We're going to argue that to the Court of Appeals.

But we're not saying that he's got no business doing this.

This is, once again, Donald Trump, a page from his book that simply says, federal judges, as his borders are, has said, we don't care what they say.

We're going to do whatever we want.

And now my attorney general is saying that.

Look in vain for any attorney general, including, including Merrick Carland, including previous attorneys general, would say something like this with a straight face.

They never said it at all.

It is shameful once again that the chief federal law enforcement officer would articulate these fundamentally, not only inaccurate, but misleading and deceptive things to the American public.

Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvi show.

That's James Santel 855 752 4842.

He's a former US attorney.

He has an educated opinion on these matters concluding from the Washington Post in all opponents have filed more than 130 lawsuits against Trump's executive orders and other actions federal judges have issued about three dozen injunctions while the administration has one fair favorable rulings in a little more than a dozen

cases.

So there we go.

855-752-4842.