Good morning.
Welcome.
Welcome.
Welcome to Matt and air.
My name is Greg Bach.
I'm sitting in for Jane Matt and air, who is taking a little vacation and she will be returning on Tuesday, but I'll be here in her stead.
As always, I've got Mr Calby on the boards.
Calvin, how are you doing this morning?
I'm doing pretty good.
Great.
How are you?
I'm doing a great, great time.
I'm having a great, great show of already we're just started.
Calvin just started.
We've got a very, very PAC show for you today at 10 30.
Jim Santel, a host of amicus, a law review will be here as he is every, every Thursday to talk about all of the news in the world of law.
We're going to be talking about impeaching justices.
We're going to be talking about, uh, we're going to be talking about that.
We're going to be talking about a surprising decision from justice Roberts on the impeachment of judges from the lower courts, which.
Didn't go exactly the way of President Trump.
We're also going to be talking about the upcoming election on April 1st.
We'll get into that in a little bit in a moment.
And of course, it's Thursday, so in the 11 o'clock hour, we'll be talking to Brittany Merleau with some weather and wine.
Paul Newton is here with the sports and at 1150, as always, this shouldn't be a thing.
But just to give you an update, today, the average price of milk, a gallon of regular milk in Wisconsin is 317.
No change from yesterday as well as the price of a dozen eggs is 561.
No change from yesterday.
Well, better late than never, I guess, who can hurt him for trying, I guess, folks.
As I said before, April 1st is election day, springtime election, smaller election, as we will mention on this show from time to time, not as sexy as an election, but you know what?
We still want you to be a voter and you can do that.
You can actually start voting absentee in person today.
As of this past Tuesday, you can go to your local city hall, town hall, village hall, wherever you.
early vote, you can cast your ballot right now for the April 1st election.
Don't know where that is.
Simple.
Go to myvote.wi.gov, click in your information, and it's going to tell you where you can early vote.
It will also tell you who is on your ballot, what is on your ballot, and who represents you.
As we said, it's not him.
You know, this is not a senatorial.
This is not a Senate race.
This is not a congressional race.
As we were talking about, we're talking about the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which
As we talked about two years ago, hanging in the balance.
Do we want to go backwards?
Or do we want to go forwards with fairer maps?
More balance on the court, more balanced thinking on the court.
Or do we want to go backwards and maybe all the way to the mid 19th century with regard to healthcare access for women?
So that choice is yours.
Go to myvote.wi.gov for more information on that.
And yeah, if you've already voted,
Call us, reach out, find, let us know what's going on with that.
Was it easy?
Was it hard?
Where did you go?
How was your experience?
You can always contact us, 855-75-CIVIC, 855-752-4842.
If you're on the live stream, you can always leave a comment as well.
Tell us how your voting experience has been if you've already voted.
We'd love to hear from you on that matter.
But, Cal, you, if I'm not mistaken, you are a vote on the day guy.
Yes, I always have been I
always have been and I always will be I vote on the day and that's a and they don't make good songs anymore And you got you got all taken care of you all registered.
You're all good to go
Assuming and I know maybe we should not assume anymore assuming I have not been purged from the voter rolls Then yes, I am good to go
well and that actually Calvin.
I'm glad you brought that up because
Whether it's nefarious or whether it's natural names can be dropped from the voter rolls.
We've seen stories from all over the country of attorneys general Trying to purge voter rolls for their various reasons and in Wisconsin, you know, that's not as much of the case But they do come off naturally if you move and you don't re-register or if you don't answer You know correspondence from
the state on your location.
So that's why going to myvote.wi.gov is so important because you can actually see if you register.
Now you can register on the day of election, which is great.
That is wonderful.
I'm waiting for the powers to be to say we should take that away as well because they want voter ID and that's ridiculous.
It's not a thing, but.
right now you can register on the day, but you can register right now by going to myvote.wi.gov.
And that way you're all set to go.
Don't forget you do need your ID, which I'm not going to talk about right now, because I will spend my show, Todd's show, and Maggie's show talking about voter ID.
But go to myvote.wi.gov, get all your information, take care.
If you have any questions,
can touch with them.
They'll be happy to help you out with this.
PJ on the live stream says, yes, I dropped my ballot off yesterday.
Nina has a drop box in the lobby of the city building.
That's excellent.
Good job.
PJ and Cassandra says, I've been reminding my quote, like-minded friends to go to vote early.
Yes.
As we say on the show too, make a plan, take some friends and then treat yourself afterwards.
Go see a movie, get some brunch.
I don't know.
Buy some shoes.
I would buy some shoes.
I love shoes.
But point is vote.
Be a voter.
Voting is cool.
And that's all I'm going to say about it until probably about 30 seconds from now, Calvin.
So we are talking about the election though.
And the election we have, and I want to talk about specifically about the Supreme Court race, which is between judge Susan Crawford and Brad Schimmel.
And as we get closer and closer to the election, I just have a really quick question for everyone out there.
Is Brad Schimmel the best candidate for that side of the party?
Or that mean that's, that's, that's actually my point is we have two candidates and Brad Schimmel is doing everything he can to let you know that he is a conservative, right?
Very right-leaning.
And it's not even that anymore.
It's he's openly hostile towards colleagues, towards members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
He wants to strip away abortion rights to the very bones of the words of 1849.
And I just got to ask, is Brad Schimel the best guy to be running right now?
Is he the one that you want?
I mean, I assume so.
People are going to vote for him.
But this reminds me, Cal, of two years ago when Brian Kelly was running as well.
And it just seemed like this, this hostile, angry, bitter, insulting,
Campaign where you're just saying horrible things about the people who work in the same industry that you do and to me that doesn't represent a fair a Balanced mind to me that just sounds like a toddler throwing a tantrum or just someone who's just not someone you want making these huge decisions for the state
Yeah, I mean even if you expand it beyond judges and you go back to the fat past like five statewide elections
It seems like the Republicans have one playbook and it's only worked once and it was with an incumbent.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, he is referred to, I'm looking at an article here from Daniel Bison, the Milwaukee Journal of Sentinel.
He has referred to justices as dumb as a sack of hammers and another one as addled.
I mean, this is, these are, if he wins, some of these individuals will be his colleagues on the bench.
How is that going to go down?
every day at work when you know that this guy essentially hates you.
I mean, Cassandra makes a very good point.
Sounds like a president.
Very good point, Cassandra.
Very, very good point.
But that's the thing is you want, look, in politics, you shake hands and you smile and you may have a closed door opinion on somebody.
Understood.
But to be this outwardly aggressive, I mean, he's, he has actually gone after
Justice Haggadorn too, and who is a, excuse me, who is a conservative.
And the reason why he's going after him is because Justice Haggadorn had the gall, the gall to say that the 2020 election was not stolen.
That was what sent them over the edge with Justice Haggar.
He's a rhino.
He's all the things.
It just, it doesn't make sense to me that
he should have been allowed to make it this far.
And I think because he's been running for 16 months, he's been running under the radar.
We've only been paying attention to this race for about three and a half months now.
And he's been flying on the radar, going to a lot of events.
He says himself, he goes to a lot of events, shakes a lot of hands.
And he says that the people of Wisconsin, say the Wisconsin Supreme Court is messed up, which I don't know where he gets that information, where that data comes from.
I'm still waiting for him to show his work, but.
This is the kind of mind who would be sitting on the court.
This is the kind of mind who would be interacting with Left-leaning right-leaning conservative liberal justices and it just to me seems like Not someone you want to deal with on a regular basis.
He called Justice Brian Hagedore soft headed He said that we got burned with him because he had the audacity to say that the 2020 election wasn't stolen
Which we know wasn't because we did a lot of research on that.
$2 million worth.
We paid for it.
Robin Voss says it was fine.
Justice Hagedore says it was fine, but that's, I mean, and, and now he's going back to the old days of bringing up bags of ballots in Milwaukee.
Like this is just 2024 all over again, where we had to listen to them plather on about 2020.
Tony on the live stream says Schimel is too dramatic for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
What a diva I don't disagree with that and honestly, I'm thinking about future colleagues I mean, what will he be?
How will he be?
deciding on certain things and also he has made no No bones about Speaking his opinion on abortion on election and how they are run.
He has talked openly about his dislike for
healthcare in this in this country and frankly if any of those things come before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin I would expect Then justice Shimmel to recuse himself, but do you think that's gonna happen Calvin?
Do you think there is a version in the multiverse in the vast gigantic multiverse?
Do you think there's a version of Brad Shimmel that recuses himself even though he's spoken out directly and Passionately about how he cares about these topics
Well, no, obviously not because that would make Elon Musk very upset.
Yeah, and we're
gonna talk about Elon Musk later at 11 o'clock We're gonna talk a little bit about his disinformation campaign here in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel came out with an editorial that basically says
This is, this is disgusting.
This is not good.
We do not like this.
And we'll talk more about Elon and what he is doing to try to get Brad Schimmel to win because this is, you know, he's got his tentacles in Wisconsin for another billionaire, Calvin, another millionaire, billionaire who wants Wisconsin because it just feel it's theirs.
And so he can sell a few cards.
We'll talk more about that one o'clock.
Gene, I see you on the line.
Don't hang up.
We're going to get you when we come back from the break.
We're going to get some water, get a snack, take care of yourself.
Don't go anywhere.
You listen to Matt and air on air on the civic media radio networks.
Stay close.
Good morning.
Welcome back to Matt and Aaron air listening to on the civic media radio network coming at you with some classic 80s rush right there.
Thank you very much, Calvin.
I always love when you play the rush for us.
Uh, we were talking about the upcoming election, the April 1st election.
You can vote.
absentee in person right now, just go to my vote.wi.gov to find out more information on that.
We had some people on the text line.
Mark from Prairie Due Sack says, I voted Tuesday here in Prairie Due Sack as I was leaving another person was asking for a ballot.
And then he said, after I voted, I went to the Capitol 245 Women's Rally, great event.
Thank you so much for sharing that.
And then also,
Yeah, we had a, you had some other people commenting on the, on the live stream as well.
Thank you very much for getting in touch with us.
Um, we wanted to just talk to you basically about the question is, you know, Brad Schimel, is he, is he the best we can do?
You know, Susan Crawford, and when it comes to a judge's race, it's supposed to be an impartial nonpartisan.
Keep it down the middle.
We know that one side swings one way.
We know one side swings the other way.
But they're supposed to stay a little more center balanced and you allow people to Kind of speak on your behalf if you will you like, you know, you know, you know where they'll stand as far as the issues go but People like Justice Janet Prosewicz and Judge Susan Crawford are doing that right now They're keeping it down the middle because you know if they would have said either I mean My goodness Janet Prosewicz said the the maps were rigged and the Republicans
lost their minds saying she has to recuse herself.
Well, she doesn't have to because if, um, if, uh, Brad doesn't have to, if no one's bringing it up, then I don't want to hear anymore about recusal, but Gene has been very patient.
Gene, Gene, you know, Claire's on the phone right now.
Gene, what's going on?
I
think this is a very good topic and thank you for bringing this up because you know what?
I am getting sick to death.
of all the hate.
You know, hatred toward women, hatred toward people of color, hatred toward veterans' assistance, hatred toward the elderly and social security, Medicare, hatred toward the poor, hatred toward those who care about the environment, hate, hate, hate, hate, and we're going to have 10 more years of hate.
Yeah.
I mean, Gene, that's a very good point.
I mean, that's another thing that I don't know why I didn't bring up.
Thank you for reminding me, Gene.
And thank you so much for calling.
Brad Schimmel has said he's going to be the, he's going to help make sure the Trump agenda gets done here in Wisconsin.
And to me, if you do not like the Trump agenda, you should not be voting for Brad Schimmel.
Not to mention the fact that a guy running for Wisconsin Supreme Court should not be saying in the first place.
He just shouldn't be.
His job is to go out there, talk to people, find out what was concerning them, and then on the merits of their job, try to get elected, not by sucking up to a guy who is just today, and we'll talk maybe about this with Jim Santel a little bit, who's just today, and now it's finally, he's going to sign an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education.
So if that's what you like in a guy, I guess Brad Schimmel's your dude, but I think that the way that he's been running this campaign is,
One of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of judges races in the first place, it makes you take a side.
And then it's just about making sure you slam the other one as hard as possible.
Robert and West Dallas is on the phone.
Robert, what's going on, my friend?
Um, you know, I think his temperament is going to be similar to David Prosser's.
Remember doing act 10, he couldn't handle, uh, was it Justice Ann Bradley?
So he decided to choker.
We should have been in prison.
Um, I think that's what we're going to see for Trump Schimel.
And I think overall, I'm really worried about this race.
I think we're in trouble with it.
I think we need to take the blinders off.
We're still trying to pretend this is nonpartisan.
But when we had Lewis Butler's race and they started to darken his skin and try to associate him with some kind of weak on crime type of justice.
Um, that's really where we're in Wisconsin change where where judges weren't judging by the lawn right down the middle I mean, this is the holy enchilada right back in it's fair maps.
We have better maps.
We don't have fair map.
Yeah I would like to see the national people out here.
I want to see aOC show up and bring out the students I went Brock Obama here.
Where's Bruce Springsteen?
God, I mean this this would really set us up for the next 10 years
And then maybe they could start working on Iowa or some of these other states.
If, if we get Schimel in there, we're really going backward.
Yeah.
I don't doubt that.
And I don't disagree with you to the most part.
I feel like we've, you know, when Eric Jr is coming into town to pump, plump for Brad Schimel, maybe then some of the big guns need to be pulled out for the, for the other side.
Thank you so much, Robert, for calling.
I appreciate it.
And also, you know,
Well, we should have learned our lesson with Daniel Kelly, too.
He was just as divisive.
He was just as vitriolic.
He was not a pleasant man to listen to speak.
And if you want any proof of that, look up Daniel Kelly concession speech after he lost to now justice protest, which it was one of the darkest things I've ever heard next to maybe
a Trump inauguration speech.
Robert on the live stream says Brad Schimel doesn't care about the rule of law.
He hasn't given any solid reasons why convicted J6 insurrections were treated, were not treated fairly.
Also, he has, he hasn't given any solid points to Trump's ingenious.
He would, he'd be able to push onto the court because there are none.
Thank you very much, Robert, for reaching out.
Cassandra in New London got a little bit of time.
What say you, my friend?
Welcome back to the show.
Good morning, guys.
So, yes, I agree, like, Schimel's not a good choice.
I think there's also needs to be some education, like, as far as the other things are on the ballot, like, just here in New London, like, we have a school board raise.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think people kind of, people just kind of forget about those.
Yeah.
And it can be very disturbing because you don't really need any qualifications to be on the school board, unfortunately.
And,
you
know,
we
have two people here
in particular, who their biggest thing they're pushing to get votes here in this very red city is that we need to protect our girls from trans kids.
And
it's so, it's, it's gross.
Like one of our candidates is actually talking about how it's a mental illness and that
I mean, really just bringing up conversion therapy, which was really scary.
And it's like, why are we talking about this at a school board meeting?
Absolutely.
Because, Andrew, we're right up at the breaks.
I cut you off there.
I apologize.
But thank you so much for calling.
And I don't disagree.
That's when we got to share what we know, talk to our friends and family.
Find out what's on your ballot and talk to the people who are in your neighborhood because you can make the difference on your block in your neighborhood.
So my vote.wi.gov for more information on what's on your ballot.
When we come back, Jim Santel will be here to talk about the law because he does it so well.
And we're so excited to have him here.
Don't go anywhere.
You are listening to Matt Nair on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Stay close.
Good, good morning and welcome back to Matt and air on air.
My name is Greg box.
Sitting in for Jane, Matt and air who is off gallivanting the world for a few days, but we'll be back on Tuesday.
Of course, we always have sweet Cal B behind the boards and that sound that music can mean only one thing.
It's Thursday.
It's 10 34 and we're welcoming Jim Santel, the host of amicus, a law review to the show again.
Mr. Santel, how be you today?
Excellent.
Well, we are going to be spending the next half an hour talking to Mr. Santel about all the major news that has to do with the law, whether it's a local law or whether it's, you know, coming out of the Supreme Court and something from the Supreme Court dropped.
I believe it was yesterday or maybe two days ago coming from the court regarding the.
Impeaching of lower court justices or lower court judges and a surprising verdict or surprising decision from Justice Roberts.
Jim, can you tell us more about it?
Again, this comes from what is arguably the hottest, but latest story of this week having to do with a US District Court judge.
His name is James Bosberg.
He's in the District of Columbia.
He is the one who is giving the appropriately giving this administration trouble.
And that's understating it wildly for its decision to pack up and transport some Venezuelan migrants.
We don't know exactly what their status is.
The White House maintains that they're gang leaders, and we've got to get rid of them.
And under a centuries old law, the president thinks he can do this in any event.
James Bosberg basically directing the White House to stop it.
And he's having hearings, again, one starting in just a few hours here.
asking the administration to explain whether it violated his own directive to stop those planes, keep them on the ground, not send these folks back.
And again, the White House and the Department of Justice have some explaining to do, as you often say.
We'll see how that plays out.
But all of that, all of that prompts our president, our president to say, contrary to everything we've known for 250 years,
that, you know, just judges should be impeached.
He's plainly focusing on this one, among others who have who are many in the recent weeks and a couple of months who have said no, Mr. President, you can't do unconstitutional things is proposed that they be they be removed from office, that they be impeached.
And yes, indeed, John Roberts in an all too rare statement, all too rare.
John Roberts, nothing wrong with your being out there, articulating what the civics of America says this.
He says, for more than two centuries, it's been established that impeachment is not, not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.
The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.
And he goes on to teach the president of the United States of America a little bit about how this works.
It is stunning that he should have to say that.
And I would go to the next step after we digest that a bit and say,
a little bit too late, John Roberts.
Also, a little bit too late.
Nice for you to say that.
It would also be nice for you to frankly, write a letter.
And he mentions Donald Trump in nothing.
His
name
Here's his address, Mr. Chief Justice is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
I got the zip code for you to 0500 write the letter, publish that and tell him to knock it off.
Don't just issue these.
He's right about it.
And he's good to do it, but it's not enough.
And also, coming as it did, which we can revisit again this morning, eight months ago, basically, it was John Roberts himself who empowered Donald Trump to do exactly what he is doing.
How dare you, Mr. Chief Justice, now maintain.
Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Can't be going this far.
Went back on July 1.
You gave this president in that catastrophic order, incredible powers.
And I can read some of the language.
We've talked about this before, Greg.
But it is stunning that now the Chief Justice says, whoa, this is too far.
You're the one who put him in this posture.
And if we point fingers at all, no violence here,
but point fingers
I mean, the thing is, we can't forget, I believe it was at the
the president's speech two weeks ago, he walked up to Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, and said, I won't forget you for that.
I mean, stunning, right?
And so I guess my question as a non lawyer, non judge, I'm none of those, I'm none of those jobs, you know, he's trying to make, well, first of all, it seems like he's saying.
You can't do that.
Cause I don't want to lose my job.
Cause we always say the same thing.
We say the same thing over and over again, which is you are only as, you are only good to Trump until you are no longer good for him and he will get rid of you.
And so he's trying to, he's trying to put his anchor down to say, you can't do this cause I don't want to lose my job, but I won't say anything cause I don't want to lose my job.
And now I've done my, I've done my duty.
I'll go back to the chambers and I'll pretend it did nothing.
I'll retreat back to my office in the Capitol Hill and he probably, I wonder how much pressure even he was under from other judges around the country, even his fellow justices.
I'm not saying that Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas was pounding in his door saying, gotta do something here.
And maybe the other justices were also saying, we need to do some pushback here.
And thankfully he did it.
But once again, not only, and Greg could not be more pointed.
Why was Donald Trump
tapping the Chief Justice on the shoulder on January 20th saying, we won't forget this because it was John Roberts Penn that kept Donald Trump from being exposed ultimately to a criminal conviction.
What did John Roberts say?
That is visiting again, he says, the President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme.
Not really.
There are three branches altogether, Mr. Chief Justice.
And he talks about how we need, that we need to have, and here's his words.
This is what John Roberts said eight months ago.
Energetic, vigorous, decisive, speedy, placing in the hands of a single constitutionally indispensable individual, ultimate authority.
He goes on to talk about the purpose of a vigorous and energetic executive is to ensure good government because a feeble executive implies
a feeble execution of government, framers a vested president with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.
Those are your words, Mr. Chief Justice, of eight months ago.
And so it's very nice, once again, for you to say, oh, oh, oh, oh, but you can't be impeaching judges.
Yes, that's right.
But you set this up.
Did you not?
And again, if
I were in a position of some responsibility there.
Frankly, even media should be going after him.
Again, not in terms of any violence, but asking him if you ever get the chance, how do you reconcile these two things that you've said?
Can't impeach, and nonetheless, giving this president any executive is huge powers, indispensable, vigorous, can't be feeble, maximum ability, says to do your fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.
Wow.
And now we're saying, but not so much.
You've got to be responsible across the board, Mr. Chief Justice, and this is not it.
No, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but John Roberts, though a conservative, though appointed by George W. Bush, has voted, ruled and written on decisions where he has irked the right.
And he has, he has it.
And it's interesting to me that, you know, he has done all those things.
And now he's writing this letter that's like real milk toast in the face of a much bigger decision from, as you said, in July, where he's saying the president, the president, you can't touch him.
And even though all three branches, you know, all the leaders of the branches should, well, should in a perfect world have some sort of, uh,
standard they're held to and consequences for an action.
But we're seeing that even with the Supreme Court, we're not going to, no, no one's, no one's going to take anyone off the Supreme Court anytime soon.
And they know they can, they can, they can run around with impunity.
And, and it's just sort of the way it is now.
And that's the real frustrating thing for me, Jim, is that it's just kind of feels like, well, that's how things are now.
That's the standard.
When there are any other circumstances, you and I and Calvin also have lived long enough to recall a time
Frankly, it was about three months ago, and certainly before the first Trump term, when Republican and Democratic presidents alike, attorneys general, Republican and Democratic, my boss was Eric Holder.
I worked under nine different attorneys general.
Most of them were under Republican administrations.
You had a sense, you may disagree with him on big picture issues like how much we should emphasize environment and how much we should do, and I trust.
And what should we do in commerce, those kinds of things?
Those are where the political partisan divisions should be, and we can have vigorous disagreements, reasonable people can disagree.
These are the kinds of things that should not be at all the subject of disagreement.
And the fact that we're raising these fundamental notions as first principles and going back to notions about whether or not James Madison did in fact say that there are three branches of government, and oh, by the way, you are not the law.
When in fact that has been established again for all of my lifetime all of yours the lifetimes of all of your listeners and our great great great great grandparents all of that again And your I think your point is well taken now today as we wake up on this wonderful Thursday morning You think well, okay?
That's just the way the world is no our hair should be on fire about
these
to the Chief Justice, but to our representatives, frankly, local state and federal as well, telling them this is not acceptable.
And we should be showing up at all those town hall meetings and insisting on responses from our local representatives.
That's what James Madison contemplated, absolutely.
If you're just tuning in, we're talking to Jim Santel, who is a former U.S.
attorney, current practicing attorney and host of Amicus, a law review, which you can catch every Saturday at 9am here on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Before we go to break really quick, we're talking about a new norm, talking about hair being on fire.
The big news this morning, breaking that the president is going to be issuing an executive order dismantling the Department of Education.
Is this just going to go right in front of a judge?
And we can talk about a little bit and come back to the break and expound upon it.
But it just feels like this is yet another piece of paper that's going to be signed.
It's going to get in front of a judge.
And they're going to be like, no, you can't do it.
Sorry.
We're going to see the president very shortly.
Holding this proudly with his very bold signature at the end of the piece of paper there and he's going to say the Department of Education is no longer For what it's worth if you're the Secretary of Education who we've seen recently I guess she took the job with the anticipation it would not be long-lived But the reality is it will be somewhat long-lived because you're exactly right We could talk about the process where as soon as he does this they're going to be lawsuits probably filed in the District of Columbia
a court once again, challenging his authority to do something, and here's the point, that only the Congress can do.
Only the Congress is the entity.
They created the Department of Education.
They established it.
Again, Jimmy Carter and presidents before him advocated for this.
There's no doubt once again, if you get in the policy on this, that the great majority of dollars and policies are set at the local and state level.
We know that.
But somehow, once again, this attack on the federal government and the good things that it does to ensure access of all people to education, that's what this is all about.
The president getting back to the constitutional issue and the legislative issue does not have the authority to do this.
Look for a federal district court judge, maybe again, right down the street there.
in the next 24 to 48 hours to enter once again, a TRO, again, some more Civic Ceres we always do.
This is the temporary restraining order saying, no, Mr. President, can't do this.
Yeah.
And we have people on the live stream saying that no one will miss the Department of Education.
I disagree with that.
I think that's a foolhardy thought to have in your brain and also liberals again, standing in the way of progress.
Well, the question is, is you want to destroy the, the, you want to dismantle the Department of Education?
What's your next plan then?
How do the children stay educated?
Progress means you have a plan.
Progress means you have a future goal.
This is nothing.
This is saying dismantle and do nothing That is not a plan, but we're gonna talk more about this with Jim Santel and talk about some of the other executive orders and and just other I'm not gonna give them the we're gonna talk more about how the judges are getting are standing up for
the Constitution, more than our current president is with Jim Santel, host of Amicus the Law Review.
Don't go anywhere.
Stay close.
You are listening to Matt Nair on air on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Yeah, he, yeah, he, this coat is now in session.
His honor, judge, pig, meat, marked and besotted.
Yeah, he, yeah, he, the coat of swing.
It's just about ready to do that thing.
I don't want no tears.
I don't want no lies.
Welcome back.
Welcome, welcome, welcome back to Madden air on air.
My name is Greg box sitting in for Jane Madden air who's off gal eventing the world for a few days.
We were turning to us on Tuesday, but I got you today.
I got you Friday and Monday along with sweet Cal B on the boards and wonderful, absolutely fantastic.
The effervescent Jim Santel host of amicus a law review every Saturday of nine AM here on the civic media radio network.
I had Cal play that song.
That is, here comes a judge by Pygmy Markham, one of the earliest maybe rap songs ever.
And the reason why I wanted to play that is because in the past, especially in the face of Doge, which is celebrating a year, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, a month of existence.
In the past, almost since it's been an inception in the past couple of weeks, the judges have been standing up and doing that, which we expected our congressman and our
and our president to do, which is protect the constitution, which they are not.
So these judges are, they're saying with the, they're saying with these executive orders and all these plans and the cuts from Doge and the destruction of jobs.
No, you can't do it.
You cannot do it.
This is not constitutional.
Stop it.
But
And the unanimity with which they're doing it, these are, again, we always hate to describe them as Republican judges or Democratic judges, but unfortunately, again, that's the world we live in.
These are judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike, going back decades, are all saying, no, no, the Constitution is quite clear on this.
And the legislation is quite clear on this.
You cannot do this.
And so procedurally, this is what we're seeing.
Again, it's going to happen quite literally with respect to Judge Bosberg and these Venezuelan migrants who may or may not be, I assume they're no longer in the air.
There is somewhere out there in the world, however, as he's going to try to figure out in just a few hours here.
But what he does is he hears the evidence.
He presumably, he's asking the government now to tell him.
Exactly.
Exactly what's going on here.
Quite literally.
When did the planes take off?
Give me the time.
Who is on those planes?
Who is responsible for them?
Where did they land?
Where are these people now?
And that's what judges do every single day.
They don't always rap with the great rhythm and poetry as we just heard.
But that's exactly what they're supposed to do.
And thank goodness, they are the guardrails.
They are the guardrails right now.
There's one other that we've talked about before, Greg, and I'll mention it as well.
There's some hints as well that we've got federal judges pushing back on some of these criminal attempts to.
This stuff is not going to be in the public domain a whole lot.
But we saw this case involving the District of Columbia, US Attorney, who wanted, again,
to get some movement forward, wanted to open a criminal case.
His criminal chief resigned rather than to go ahead and pursue a case had no merit.
And you had a federal magistrate judge.
We don't know all the details.
And the District of Columbia is saying, no, no, I'm not going to find probable cause.
There is another instance where a federal jurist pushing back on this.
The other one that's still out there again, we don't know because they're completely silent.
are federal grand juries.
These are 23 people pulled together.
It's maybe not me, but it could be you put together to determine whether or not indictments should issue.
That's also out there.
And I just refuse to believe that even in this time, when an awful lot of people think that Donald Trump is is the is the king, he is not grand juries are not going to go along with
this.
here, here to where they're pushing back, requiring evidence in their courtrooms.
And what they're doing procedurally, you're probably wondering what are your listeners who, they probably do figure this out.
A TRO gets issued, putting people in place right now and say, don't move anything until I can get more evidence, keep things.
a static, you can't keep planes in the air forever, but basically bring them back if you need to.
And then I'm going to have a larger hearing, we're going to set aside several hours and have testimony.
And then I may enter an injunction, a formal injunction saying, no, no, from going forward here, you cannot do this further.
And then finally, we circle back to what John Roberts did instruct us again, you shouldn't have to do this.
But he said, if you're unhappy with that, you don't call for the impeachment of the judges who do that.
What you do is you go to the appeals court.
That's what he also said.
And thankfully, he did say that again, a little bit too late, John.
But nonetheless, that's the instruction that all Americans should understand.
It's not getting rid of the judge.
It's not getting rid of what they've done.
It's doing this in a proper way.
It's the process.
It's the process the way we've been doing it for hundreds of years and Side-stepping it overstepping it always comes back There's gonna be someone there and as you said a judge who has been appointed by a Republican or a Democrat to say no You don't get to do that.
There is a process and you must partake in it just like everyone else and you know, that's and if you want to hear more about These types of topics more of the listen to listen to amicus a law review
every Saturday, nine, you can nine AM to 11 AM.
You can always download on the civic media app or I'm sorry, you can go to the website and download as a podcast, listen to it later if you miss it.
But Jim Santel, you know, I'm being called a contrarian in the live stream.
I'm standing up for gang bangers.
I'm a terrible person in the comments in the live stream, but you know what, Jim?
That means we're doing something right.
If they're getting that mad at us.
So Jim Santel, thank you so much for being here today.
We always love talking to you, and we look forward to seeing you next Thursday.
You have yourself a wonderful weekend, folks.
Stick around.
When we come back in the second hour, we've got sports with Paul Newton.
Brittany Merleau's going to have weather, and we're going to have ourselves some fun talking about Elon Musk and misinformation, all that.
And this shouldn't be a thing.
Don't go far.
Stay close.
You're listening to Matt Nair on here on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Thanks, Jim.
