Good morning, welcome, welcome to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Buck, and Calvin Butenoff coming to you live from our studio here at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us, call or text.
The number is the same.
It's 855-752-4842.
You can leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook, YouTube.
and what used to be Twitter.
It is Thursday, March 13th.
As of today, the average price of a gallon of 2% milk in Wisconsin, 318, same as yesterday, and the average price of eggs, a dozen large eggs in Wisconsin, 624, also the same price as it was yesterday.
When I win I will immediately bring prices down starting on day one.
We have a jam packed show for you Thursday is a really busy
show.
Jim Santel now joining us for our weekly segment.
Jim Santel our friend and colleague from Amicus a law review is going to be joining us after the 1030 news.
The Trump administration was going after a law firm that represented clients apparently he didn't like.
Huh, I didn't know that was legal.
I didn't know retaliation of personal enemies was part of the Presidents.
I thought it was we could we could speak out against the government and that was part of our right as American citizens.
What do
they call it?
Oh, yeah
freedom
a First Amendment
Yeah.
So Jim Santel will be joining us to talk about that and many other things.
By the way, if you ever have a question for Jim, you can always send it into Jane says at civicmedia.us.
And I really encourage you to listen to his shows on Saturday across the network, 9 to 11 amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.
Next hour, Brittany Merleau will be here with a little weather and wine.
We had some crazy weather coming over the over the next few days.
And through the weekend, it sounds like.
We get a little bit of everything.
Grand.
J.R.
Radcliffe will be here at the Journal Sentinel Sports Guru to talk all things sports and we will wrap it up at the very end of the show around 1151.
With this, shouldn't be a thing, today it is the
Keeping it snappy edition.
Oh, yeah, baby.
So
stick around for that.
Did want to start off, though.
Did you watch the Supreme Court debate last night between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimmel?
855-752-4842.
Did you watch last night's Supreme Court debates?
And curious if you did.
What are your takeaways?
I saw something this morning that just kind of jumped out at me.
There's a far right publication in Wisconsin weighing in on the debate last night between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimmel.
Hard-hitting news from them talking about the big topics, the subject that really concerned Wisconsin and all of our citizens.
I know what you're talking about, Jane.
Tell them what they were talking about.
This searing criticism from
this publication
this
morning, here it is.
Did Susan Crawford crack a single smile during the debate?
I woke up realizing and knew that she really didn't come across very warm or likeable.
I'm not laughing at that, by
the way.
I'm laughing at you right
now, Jane.
You know, she'd be so pretty if she only smiled, Greg.
She'd be so, you know, you'd be really pretty if you smiled.
Oh, thank you.
No, not you.
Oh, that's pretty much to women.
You know, women should be smiley.
And does it?
Concern you that Susan Crawford didn't smile enough last night is is that because I know when I look to a Supreme Court justice I want to make sure they're smiley
That is the
first thing I look for when it comes to deciding important cases is
Were they smiling when they heard these arguments?
Did she show in those pearly whites?
She should like... Did she look... Did she look... She doesn't look smiley.
Do I want to hang out with her and drink some wine and talk about sex?
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.
I assume Brad Schimmel was smiley enough.
The whole time.
For this publication.
No, Jane.
Because I
didn't see any criticism of him not smiling.
Man can't smile, Jane.
Manly men don't smile?
Man serious.
Man must make justice.
So that's okay.
Absolutely.
In fact, if he smile, he might be lady or the gay.
Oh, we don't want that.
No.
Yeah, that kind of leads me to wonder if she didn't, at least in the mind of this organization, if she didn't do well.
If that's the one thing they're taking away from last night is that she didn't smile enough.
If that's your searing critique of the debate last night between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimmel, I get the feeling that you must feel she did pretty well.
I mean, the problem, not the problem, but what I've heard is that she did it.
She was prepared.
She spoke on the issues.
Brad Schimmel did not when asked, when asked if there was a case that he, like a case that his.
Supporters don't like his ruling on he's I can't remember a one like that.
He can't remember things and then afterwards Judge Crawford stayed behind to talk to the press and answered questions on her campaign and on her record Brad Schimmel left.
He didn't do the same He didn't want to be bothered by the press.
He didn't stay for questions.
He was too busy.
He was too busy like just you know being justice man Interesting manly man.
I don't know.
I'd say when I
I'm a man, some would argue.
I just can't believe that.
I mean, I know why they did this.
They did this because they want to get the reaction.
We're giving them what they want.
We're not calling them out by name because we're not going to do that for them, but she didn't smile.
She, she, yeah.
Oh, stab me through the heart man.
And when I wake up in the morning, there's a ton of things I think about before.
That's like, I woke up realized that was what you woke up realizing.
Well, they got to come up with something.
Yeah.
During what the debates, one of the moderators on WISN, Geron Jordan asked, and this is a reasonable question.
Why should voters trust or believe either one of you when they claim to be impartial?
Brad Schimmel says he doesn't control the money outside groups have pumped into the race.
Crawford says she has never promised anything to donors.
On the flip side, Brad Schimmel now, he's got big flyers out that say it.
He will support the Trump agenda.
I didn't realize that was part of the job of being a Supreme Court state justice.
That seems like that's new.
That seems new to me.
Yeah.
And right now, as it stands, when it comes to the money issue, Schimmel said that it's much more dangerous.
Who is funding?
Judge Crawford, but not him, but not him.
Well, he's Elon's guy.
He's Elon's guy and Elon has spent nearly three million dollars on his packs for Brad Schimel You know, but old George Soros comes up.
Oh, no
Well, and we talked about this before the show and we're both pretty Straightforward about the fact that we don't think any of these rich people should be able to do this.
No
No.
Citizens United was a terrible decision and we pay for it every single day.
Yes.
But in my estimation, because George Soros comes up all the time, George Soros makes a donation, the Elans make a donation, they cancel each other out.
Essentially, yes.
Elon is his own animal.
There
is no democratic equivalent of Elon Musk.
buying a Supreme Court seat in the Wisconsin State Court.
He's alone in that.
And Brad Schimel is Elon's pick.
Please don't take anything else away from this.
Brad Schimel is Elon's pick.
Elon might have a case going before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
involving his dealerships here in the state.
So, you know, if you have something coming up before the highest court in the state, you want to make sure your guy's on there.
It's an investment.
And I don't, for one, I don't, like, I don't, for a minute, think when it comes to the topics.
I don't believe having
There are a ton of things for me that bother me about Brad Schimel and the money is just one of them You know, I don't believe him when he says he's gonna listen to the people when it comes to issues about abortion I don't believe that for sight.
I think he's nothing more than a Kavanaugh Gorsuch and Barrett where they're saying let the people decide let the people have spoken well No, you would be the person deciding this you would be the person banging your gavel and Stripping people of their rights fundamentally back to the 19th century
Let's go back to the 1800s, things were so good back then.
His words exactly, what is flawed in the 1849 abortion?
No, there is nothing flawed.
What is flawed?
Yeah,
there are no flaws according
to Brad Schimmel.
1849, you guys.
We're talking about last night's debate between Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates, Susan Crawford and Elon's guy, Brad Schimmel, several times, just as Judge Crawford rather accused Schimmel of saying different things to broader audiences.
than two groups made up of his absolute supporters, and he has.
She called attention to reporting by the Washington Post.
Schimel said that Donald Trump was screwed over by the Supreme Court when it came to the 2020 election.
Another reminder, Brian Hagedorn, a conservative, is the only reason that we didn't toss out the results of that election.
He sided with the liberal justices that it was a free and fair.
They did two recounts.
And Robin Voss, who spent our money trying to look for flaws in the election, came out and said this was a free and fair and safe election.
You go back to listen it when, when, when Brad Jimmel is talking to up front, when Brad Jimmel's talking to the, the, the, the local networks, he has cool column, cool, calm, collected and very reasonable.
He seems moderate.
He seems moderate.
He seems level headed, but you'd listen to him on, on, on, on those conservative shows, his real stripes come out and those stripes match the stripes of people like Elon Musk, who is spending big money on him and knows.
knows no matter what Brad Schimmel says.
He says he's not for sale.
He's not for sale because he is sold.
That'd be a good t-shirt.
Oh, Brad Schimmel's sold.
I just imagine that that name tag from the price is right.
It says Brad sold as is.
Wisconsin Examiner also reported that Brad Schimmel told a group of canvassers, again, small private groups, not the general public, not his ads that are going out and airing everywhere.
He told a group of canvassers he would be a support network for Trump.
That doesn't seem impartial to
me.
That doesn't seem
impartial.
Not one bit.
I didn't think that was his job as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice.
And you just made a perfect example, and examples can be made with Amy Baconey Barrett and with John Roberts, putting aside political beliefs and ideologies to go for what is important here, and that is justice, the right decision.
You poopside your own biases.
to issue the correct response.
And someone like Justice Haggadorn should be lauded for that, because it would've been easy for him to say, nope, we're done, but he didn't.
Yep, absolutely.
Did you watch the debate last night?
We'd love to hear your impressions.
855-752-4842.
We will be right back.
I'll work on my smiling, gotta be smiley.
I don't want you to go home at the end of the show and say, oh, she just didn't smile enough.
It wasn't a very good show.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air on the Civic Media Radio Network.
morning.
Welcome.
Welcome to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Box, Sweet Calbee on the board, coming to you live from her studio here at Radio Park in Racine.
You can join us, call or text.
It's the same number, 855-752-4842.
That's 855-75 Civic.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook, YouTube.
and what used to be Twitter.
We got basketball action tonight.
Men's Hoops, Wisconsin at Northwestern.
The broadcast begins today at 12.30.
You can listen on WLAK 107.5 and 12.60 AM in Amory.
WFHR 97.5 FM, 1320 in beautiful Wisconsin Rapids and WRCE 107.7 FM and 1450 AM in Richland Center, Wisconsin at Northwestern Men's Basketball today.
The broadcast begins at 1230, right?
Before the break we were talking about last night's debate, only debate before the...
election on April 1st.
We are, what, two and a half weeks away?
Two and a half weeks.
Two and a half weeks away.
Did you watch the debate last night?
I'd love to hear your impressions.
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2-8-5-5-7-5 Civic.
As we pointed out at the beginning of the show, there is a right wing publication in Wisconsin.
On Twitter this morning, their big takeaway.
Did Susan Crawford crack a single smile during the debate?
I woke up realizing anew that she didn't come across very warm or likeable.
As a woman, there is nothing I love hearing more than
You should smile more.
You know, you'd be really pretty if you smiled.
People would like you more if you smiled.
Yeah, you'd be so much more effective as a justice if only you, if you just smiled a little bit.
I'm pretty sure that John Jay, who was the first chief justice of these United States Supreme Court, one of the things they've said about him is brilliant mind, dedicated to justice.
Great teeth.
Great.
Saw him all the time.
Nice purlies.
Nothing but purly whites all the time because that man was a smiling machine.
Well, and that's the most important thing.
Of course.
When you are considering, you know, someone going on Wisconsin Supreme Court, they better have a nice smile.
All my surgeons who've ever worked on this body right here, this face.
Smilers.
Smiling.
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.
Bill from Akanawa.
Good morning, Bill.
Thanks for joining us.
What was your takeaway from last night's debate?
Well, first of all, I'm smiling.
Second of all, as far as the debate, we can say this emphatically, Shifty Shimmel wasn't smiling.
No,
I just noticed that too.
But here's what's really interesting about last night.
This is really going to be a barometer, thermometer, whatever you want to call it, has America, has Wisconsin had enough of Trump.
Because if they have, she will win.
If they want more beatings, or want the beatings to continue, Schimel will win.
I really think this is going to be more interesting than Trump even winning the presidency.
Because the implication that Wisconsin is going to send throughout the country is either going to be very positive or very negative.
That's a great point Bill.
It's a really important race.
Good heavens There's an article about Brad Schimmel in the Wisconsin or the West the Wall Street Journal this morning
Wall
Street Journal mother Jones I mean there's we have a lot of eyes on Wisconsin as we always do but yeah, this is a big race and and you're right It's gonna it's kind of a referendum.
It's a
commentary on the Musk Trump agenda.
It's so far is in the first quarter of before the first 100 days I believe to yeah and
I mean, we're seeing all sorts of stuff come out of the White House, but just there's people not getting along.
And I mean, the stock market is, I mean, the Treasury Secretary said, oh, it doesn't, this isn't
a big
deal.
Three weeks of tumbling stocks.
And
I mean, do you want that kind of, what uncertainty coming to any sort of elected officials, elected positions here in Wisconsin?
Do you want that kind of uncertainty on the Wisconsin Supreme Court bench?
Do you want a guy who has said his job is to uphold the Trump agenda?
To support the Trump administration, Brad Schimmel has said that, out loud, while not smiling.
When Justice Janet was elected, she was elected handily.
A huge 12-point win.
I cannot believe for one moment that every single person who voted for Justice Janet was a Democrat.
or
unindependent.
I agree with you.
I think there were Republicans in there who were saying, nope, this is a this is a bridge too far.
This is a seat too important.
We need to make sure that we as Wisconsin are protected with good minds, making up good decisions for us.
And I think the same can be said for justice for Judge Susan is that we will have a mind at work here doing the good work for the people versus Brad Schimmel, who is
bought and sold.
We talked about this yesterday.
Is that the role of a judge?
Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to support the presidential administration.
Jane, you know, it'd be amazing
if we had someone who was coming up soon
on the show
where we could ask that question.
Like an actual lawyer,
like a lawyer,
like a lawyer,
not just a lawyer, a lawyer who used to work for the U.S.
government.
If only we knew some.
Oh, wait, we do.
We do.
We do.
We are lawyer adjacent to Jim Santel, who is a lawyer.
A darn good one.
He's a darn good attorney.
He's going to be joining us after the 10 30 news Give us a little perspective on that he I don't know we'll have to ask about his you know his I would like to get his opinion on smiling and how important that is when you know Arguing cases in front of in front of a court.
I'm sure it's really important.
That's an L1 the first-year law school
smiling.
Yeah, there's a whole chapter on that
orts and smiling It's
And you better learn.
You better bring that smile.
Practice.
I just wish we had a
little ting, a little... You weren't loving whatever's coming over the text
line.
There's only so much time and we're just about out of time.
Thank you so much for everyone weighing in.
We can't share everything that comes across unfortunately all the time.
Some of it's not appropriate.
We have news coming up next and then we will come back with the always appropriate Jim Santel, host of Amicus, a law review on Civic Media Saturday mornings from 9 to 11, so stay close.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air on the very smiley Civic Media Radio Network.
We'll be back.
Don't ever say you're on your way down when God gave you style and gave you grace I'm pretty smart
Good morning.
Welcome back to Matt Nair on air.
Jane Matt Nair, Greg Buck, Calvinator on the board coming to you from our studio here at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us, call or text.
The number is the same.
855-752-4842.
Leave a comment if you're watching on the livestream.
On Facebook, YouTube, and what used to be Twitter, he joins us now every Thursday at this time.
Our friend and colleague, he has a great show Saturday mornings from 9 to 11 across the network called Amicus.
a law review, former U.S.
attorney and an acting attorney.
Jim Santel is here.
Good morning.
And you're smiling, Jim.
It's so important.
I only go to lawyers who smile.
That is the principle credential that all of your listeners should look at.
If you're smiling at you, even though you're there, plainly to address some issue of challenge, maybe even great tragedy, let's be sure that we're smiling.
And again, the commentary on this.
Shifts what we should be talking about is you and Greg have just noted.
Well, we're gonna get into that But the reason we're referencing this and I'm having probably way too much fun with this There is a far right publication on social media this morning their big takeaway from a last night's debate between Judge Susan Crawford and Elon's pick a Brad Schimmel and I quote did Susan Crawford crack a single smile during the debate?
I woke up realizing anew that she didn't come across very warm or likeable.
I tell you, Jim, I love it when some stranger tells me, you know, you'd be really pretty if you smiled more.
That's just, it's so life affirming.
And in addition to being misogynist, sexist, discriminatory, all those other things, it's good to know that that's where the campaign is.
Also note in the category of footnotes to this that
The Crawford campaign about a week or so ago did file a complaint indicating that the Shimmel campaign in the course of a video, a televised ad, actually altered her smiling face to make it look like a frown.
Interestingly, here's the quote from the campaign, the Shimmel campaign saying, they acknowledged they did this.
They acknowledged they did it.
After they got
But they said it would be disrespectful to the victim.
This was about a case that Judge Crawford handled, but already been traumatized by the mistake that led to the release to show Crawford smiling when she should be feeling ashamed.
Wow, high marks for gymnastics and trying to explain your being caught.
And it's so very sad.
It really is.
And tragic.
It really is.
Deadly serious.
It genuinely is.
And whoever gets on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is going to rule on things that affect our daily lives here in Wisconsin.
I'm curious, Jim, Brad Schimmel, very proudly now, out with these great big mailers that must have cost a lot of money.
Thank goodness he's got Elon backing him.
That essentially says, oh, you have one.
I am here to support the Trump agenda.
put me on the Wisconsin Supreme Court so I can enact the Trump agenda.
I didn't think judges and we're supposed to do that.
Let's start with your good point, Shane, which is, even though we moved far beyond this, this is supposed to be a non-partisan election.
There was a time in our lifetimes, the time in Greg's lifetime, maybe not in Calvin's, but in Virtuey, everyone else's lifetime.
When these things, these kinds of things, these political statements and promotions would get you in big trouble.
And they don't anymore.
As for these flyers that, yes, are showing up on my door on a regular basis, in addition to the notion that we do not, even in this time of partisan politics for a Supreme Court race, we do not.
We do not.
We cannot.
We cannot be promoting any candidacy.
based upon overtly political agendas.
And aside from that, take a look at this one.
Again, I've spoken about this in the past.
President Trump is winning for our country.
Vote for Brad Schimmel, and therefore you will be promoting advancing the Trump agenda.
Now, Judge Schimmel, former Attorney General Schimmel, you know better than this.
You know that that's not only wrong in terms of basic what you do.
But it's wrong in terms of civics.
Look at what he's telling people, relying upon, presumably, their lack of information, that he will secure borders, he'll make safer cities, and ensure sensible spending.
None of those things, except in the most tangential way, is ever on the docket of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And this is what's so upsetting Jane and Greg, and that is that in addition to, again, it's partisan, but it's also telling the voter from Brad Schimmel,
I think you're stupid.
I think that I can rely upon the fact that you do not know what the Supreme Court does and therefore I'm simply going to appeal to kind of very visceral sense that yes, he can be there promoting Donald Trump on the bench in Madison.
It is civics 101 that he's wrong and it's cynical and should in and of itself be disqualifying.
for his candidacy.
And just briefly, I'm curious, what kinds of cases come up before a state Supreme Court?
Again, this is the point.
The great majority, then we know about some of the big one, right?
Voting issues recently, all kinds of things.
Those are a very small percentage of what the Wisconsin Supreme Court does.
not at all to indicate that the docket is boring.
That's not the message here, but an awful lot of things related to contracts and business and real estate and the interpretation of laws.
And frankly, most people don't need to know about.
Yes, there are also cases involving matters coming up from the lower courts.
Plainly, the circuit courts, the appeals courts, family law, children's matters, criminal cases every so often come up.
We do not hear about the great majority of them because they're addressing some specific legal issues that are not at all partisan in nature.
They're not at all political.
They're still disagreements.
But again, the great majority of the cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, even the lower courts, are just not political.
And let me assure you, regardless of whatever side of the political aisle you may be on,
They're not addressing things like securing the border, the southern border.
That's a federal issue in the Constitution.
Safer cities, those are things for village presidents and municipal mayors, those kinds of things.
Spending, that's legislature, that's a county executive and a county board.
The Supreme Court just doesn't do those
things.
One thing though, if I understand correctly,
One thing that can come up in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are issues related to, say, business.
And if someone has a particular business that wants a particular license that they're unable to get for whatever reason, you would take something like that and work its way up to the state Supreme Court.
Say if I had, I don't know, like a car dealership or something.
And all kinds of things like that come up through the administrative process.
you can appeal from the administrative process into our courts, could get up to the Supreme Court, and it is a reflection of the kinds of nuts and bolts things that a Supreme Court, even the lower courts do on a regular basis, licensing issues, permitting issues, as I said before, real estate property, sometimes divorce issues, things that are very much, again, I think most of your listeners do find these things interesting because they are intellectually engaged, but they don't make the headlines because they're not
of the partisan nature that sometimes animates those headlines.
One of the things we heard in the past year and a half was, you know, especially when it came to the review of the legislative maps, was that Justice Jenin needs to recuse herself immediately.
She needs to recuse herself immediately.
She said they were rigged, so therefore she needs to recuse herself.
Well, based on
all of these statements coming out of Brad Schimel's past, whether it's abortion, whether it's voting, whether it's, he would have to recuse himself for almost any big cases coming through because he has made his, he has given his personal decision on what he believes should happen with these cases, whether it's abortion, whether it's maps, he has said, or, or like, I mean, I don't see January six coming up in front of them, but like,
He's given his opinion on January 6th.
He's given his opinion on the 2020 election.
So it almost seems like he's made himself, if by their standards, who are yelling at Justice Janet, he should be recusing himself on almost a weekly basis then.
And you list some of those things, Greg, that are out there.
Plainly, we should all be moaning the fact that somehow this is now just a part of our regular practice.
It wasn't that way.
I'm looking once again at one of the flyers.
And he is talking about believing Wisconsin voters should determine abortion.
Again, you know, that is a written statement of his.
We can use what he can do.
And this is the reason why it's so sad that we've got these flyers and these advertisements out there.
How about some promotion that say, I am a judge who will interpret the law according to the legislative intent.
I am a judge who will ensure that due process is afforded
every single litigant in our Wisconsin system.
I am a judge.
I'm a justice who will ensure that when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, I will apply contemporary standards, but also be respectful to history.
All those kinds of things.
There's a huge number of things you can, in fact, advocate about and describe yourself as instead of all of this political pablum.
And that's the problem.
I think the reason why a duck
The reason why I can't say that is because I believe that voters nowadays don't want to read that.
They want to read, oh, my biases will be confirmed, the things I like will be here, and the things I don't like will be gone.
I don't want someone who's going to think I want someone who will do doings better than thinking.
If you're just joining us, Jim Santel is our guest, former U.S.
attorney, currently an acting attorney.
Host of amicus a law review Saturdays across the network from nine until 11 talking about last night's debate between Judge Susan Crawford and Elon's pick.
Brad Schimmel also last night and Brad Schimmel has said this repeatedly that he thinks that voters should decide the abortion issue.
Should this man not be aware that we don't decide things like that in Wisconsin?
There is no vehicle.
For state voters to do that, we don't have the referendum system in order to do that, right?
And perhaps you're thinking about other states who do, in fact, we've seen that around the country.
Wisconsin is not one of them.
How does that come about?
That was, again, a procedural decision a long time ago that we do not have that mechanism.
It is a concern, once again, that somehow Judge Schimel is so cynical.
that he believes that just by saying that, he will therefore prompt people to think, oh, oh, in fact, that's what he will accomplish when in fact, not only can't he do that, he doesn't have the authority to do it.
It is
And that's one of the things that, you know, he's playing on people's possible ignorance of the process, too, because he might say, let's let the people decide.
Oh, that's what I believe.
That sounds
great.
That sounds great.
And then like, oh, wait, we don't get to decide.
He said the judge said we get to decide what happened.
And that's another problem, too, because then you have to
Do a process story and you have to educate people on how the things happen and then it's like are you even listening to us at this point?
Wonky is wonky is intellectual.
Wonky is in the weeds.
Wonky is understanding what's going on and sometimes it does require more than just a flyer that has our current president's face on the top of it saying that we will indeed get get Donald Trump
in the Wisconsin Supreme Court by voting for Brad Schimel.
It requires some sophistication and some specificity that we need to bring back into all these campaigns.
And again, to the extent that the voters out there in Wisconsin and other places, I think they're okay with that.
I realize we've got a lot of things going on.
These are important things.
Before you go into the polling place, spend some time figuring out what the reality is and what the civics of all of this
really can support.
And I would really encourage you to check out the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
They recently had an article on both Judge Crawford and on Brad Schimmel.
If you don't feel you don't know enough about them, there are avenues for you to to check that out.
We can include those articles in today's show notes.
If you if you've never checked it out before after the show is over, Greg puts up our podcasts and then includes show notes that include articles to things that we've talked about.
If you would like to find out more, people are busy.
We understand people are busy and you have a life and you don't have time for all of this.
That's why we try to help break things down a little bit and make it a little bit more digestible for us, too.
all of that.
It's so important to smile, Jim.
I was
going to ask on one of those door hangers, is President Trump even smiling?
It's a grimace.
It's so much more effective if he was smiling.
That's really a shame.
We're going to continue our conversation with Jim Santel from Amicus, a law review.
Stay close.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air.
This is the Civic Media Radio Network.
We'll be right back.
Good morning.
Welcome back to Matt and Air on Air.
Jane Matt and Air.
Greg Bach.
Dr. Slide on the board coming to you from our studio here at Radio Park in Racine.
You can always join us.
Call or text.
It is the same number.
855.
7524842 Leave a comment if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook YouTube and what used to be Twitter next hour at that at this time We will wrap up the show as we always do with a segment called this shouldn't be a thing today It is the let's get snappy edition if you ever have a thing you think should not be send it into Greg and me at Jane says at civicmedia.us J A N E S A Y S Jane says
at civicmedia.us.
We are joined every week now at this time by our friend and colleague and host of Amicus, a law review.
Former US Attorney Jim Santel is here.
We were talking about last night's Supreme Court debate between Judge Susan Crawford and former Attorney General and Elon Musk picked Brad Schimmel.
We're going to move on, Jim, to something that has kind of been under the radar, but I do think it's really important that people
understand what's going on.
President Trump signed an executive order a couple of weeks back, stripping lawyers at a firm called Perkins Coy of their security clearance and access to government buildings, essentially because he didn't like the clients they represented, right?
One of those clients, by the way, was a person named Hillary Clinton.
She used to be a presidential candidate.
She was our secretary of state, a senator from New York, and happened to be the first lady, among other wonderful things that she has done in her career.
Perkins Coe does represent a lot of individual campaign folks, and also it takes positions when these things come forward.
Nothing wrong with that.
That's what private law firms do all the time.
They have clients who pay them to represent them in court.
That is the American way.
We've been doing that for 240 years.
And so Donald Trump comes along and once again, in perpetuation of his view that I'm going to be your retribution.
Right.
At which he said during the campaign, now I'm going to go after some of the law firms.
We've gone after the media.
We've gone after many other people.
Let's go after federal employees who aren't doing any work.
Let's now go after law firms.
Let's go after the lawyers.
Again, this is a sort of Shakespearean first thing we do.
Let's kill all the lawyers, which again is not a lawyer joke.
It's an invocation of the notion that lawyers keep us all honest.
Thankfully, we also have a federal district court judge.
And this is the other great news, Jane and Greg, that we've been talking about recently.
We've got a judge named Beryl Howell.
We have seen her a lot in many of these big cases, including some of the January 6 cases.
She issues a temporary restraining order, says no, Mr. President.
Like all those other federal judges, we're approaching 50 now who said, you can't do these things, Mr. President.
And she, yes, she says, you can't stop them from coming into federal buildings.
You can't subject the firm's contracts with federal contractors to review.
All those things are in violation of the First Amendment.
And along the way, she says,
that she talks about how this is a different constitution.
She criticizes Donald Trump saying that it sends little chills down my spine that the Trump administration claimed it as the executive power to label people as threats and bar them from engaging with the government.
She noted that many of the lawyers who worked in the Trump related cases have since departed the firm.
and the language again was overtly broad in targeting the firm.
And indeed, the firm has come forward and said, we've got clients who are now leaving us.
We've got clients who are now afraid by the intimidation of a president of the United States of America.
This is a violation of the First Amendment, commercial rights, all kinds of things of the highest order.
She'll have another hearing coming up next week.
She will almost certainly make this a permanent injunction.
It'll go up to the court of appeals, maybe to the Supreme Court.
The issue which we always are concerned about is, will Donald Trump follow the law?
And we have a judge saying, you can't do this, or will he instead, as he's done in the past, say, I don't care.
And that's once again, when we get the constitutional crisis.
Jim, isn't something like this the thing that sets the US apart from so many other countries, we are able to hire
legal representation and say, I don't like this thing the government did or is going to do to me.
And I have the right to challenge that.
What the Trump administration is saying, I don't want to hear any criticisms against my administration and you don't have that legal recourse anymore.
That should send chills off everyone's back, right?
Yes.
Shane, you've got it just right.
These things are not just in law school.
Oh, they are.
They're implicit and explicit every single day in law schools around the country.
But we've got to recognize, I appreciate a good lawyer joke as much as anybody else does, and smiling through all those genuinely.
But the reality is that it's precisely what you said, Shane, if I've got a reason to believe that I have been damaged in some way,
A civil right has been trampled upon.
I've got a property interest, something related to my family, my children, contracts, the commercial things that you talked about before.
Our approach in this country is you can go into courts.
They're open.
And most often, and this is a big issue in America, of course, I go to lawyers.
Why?
Because they know the system and they can represent me well.
It's kind of like saying, I'll do my own surgery.
You would do that in the medical area, right?
So you go into court with someone who knows something about it.
And indeed, we have said when it comes to criminal cases that you've got a constitutional right to an attorney, and there are an awful lot of people out there, including the State of Wisconsin, who are advocating now for something that is a next big and important step.
It takes a lot of resources, but it's also the notion that maybe you've got a constitutional right to civil representation as well.
That's a bit more controversial, but it underscores the fundamental notion that lawyers, again, in confidence with you, can figure out whether you've got a claim.
can file a lawsuit and can represent you are obliged to represent you as aggressively as they possibly can.
That's our system.
Jim Santel hosts amicus a law review every Saturday morning across the network from nine to 11.
Check it out.
It is a great show.
Thank you so much.
Jim really appreciate it.
Keep smiling.
Oh wait, you
man.
News is coming up next.
Stay close.
You're listening to Matt Nair on air.
This is the Civic Media radio network.
you
