Audioburst Search
|
Last month

Coming up next

Donald Trump, Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed on Fox News Rundown

Fox News Rundown
|
Last month

President trump has a lot of great things are so far in office but perhaps one of his greatest

Morning Drive with Casey and Elliot
|
5 d ago
WCBM 680 AM

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Trump has a bone to pick with two Supreme Court justices both appointed by democratic presidents and I just don't know how they can not use in sales or anything having to do with trump related ideas different reasons why he's critical first justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in the twenty sixteen campaign call Donald Trump a faker with an ego adding how is he got away with not turning over his tax returns he was or perhaps it was for Hillary Clinton he said things that were obviously very inappropriate the president at a news conference in India also expanded on a tweet late Monday night accusing justice Sonia Sotomayor your of trying to shame Republican appointed justices on the court to vote her way everybody agrees to that virtually everybody I've seen I've seen papers on it people cannot believe it she said if he is reacting to a descent it's sort of my your role in the case last week the justices considered more conservative ruled to allow the trump administration to expand the reasons to deny visas given to immigrants trying to come into the US so my your claim those justices have a habit of siding with the trump administration is claiming over over you need emergency stays in a number of cases she added that she fears this could a road the fair and balanced decision making process the court must strive to protect the man really in my view at this point one over the line judge Janet Apollo tonneau is fox news senior judicial analyst to as I'm self come under criticism in recent months for a perceived anti trump bias she hinted that the Republican appointed justices favor the trump administration almost in lockstep okay that's what provoked why is that why is it over the line because that that anything that demeans the court is over the line so she feels that way they're trying to say it is an conference which is just the nine of them and there's no and there's no press there if she thinks that putting public pressure president used the phrase to shame them on Supreme Court justices will work initiation segment of history I know she's not ignorant of history but it will also have the effect of portraying the justices politicians in black robes really make decisions on the basis of what the public cares that's the least of their concerns now when justice Sotomayor your attack to candidate trump she was a taken aside by a justice of the Supreme Court and aggressively degraded are you from again sparkling is were in twenty seven Ginsburg she was taken aside by A. M. justice of the Supreme Court and aggressively be rated for having said that single you're running it for the rest of us Scully I have to go out there apologize no justice Sotomayor OR the very same human as they have done almost the same thing four years later okay all right so why would using sort of way or simply just frustrated what what what causes this I think she's frustrated at a series of cases now I say this as a person that knows her personally okay that has had the opportunity to question are not on a fox venue but I'm not law school venue and I have a lot of respect for I don't agree with her on a lot of things that have a lot of respect for her now she's the only member of the Supreme Court that was once a trial judge so she understands what goes on in in court rooms I think she's frustrated that in a series of immigration law cases the justice department has used the emergency doctrine in cases that are naturally in emergency you know what's the emergency doctrine right right so if if the if the justice department says it's an emergency you have to roll today that means under the law that someone's life liberty or property is in imminent danger of destruction without repair okay is that like when we have death row cases and someone tries a last minute reprieve yes yes but this case was not an emergency this case had to do with applying a means test a financial means test to legal immigrants so that those who fell below the means test could be excluded thereby relieving pressure on welfare systems and those were above the means test could be admitted that is not an emergency by any standard but the DOJ prince persuaded a trial judge that it was an emergency that means that there's no hearing the trial judge just rolls on the basis of which way he or she thanks the case will ultimately turn out and then you bypass the intermediate appellate court and you go to the Supreme Court and they don't rule on the merits they just gas which way they think the case will turn out when this happens two or three times in a row and it's five to four five to four five to four in your in the far western Kurdistan the frustration this is not the way the system supposed to work there's nothing wrong with being in the four she's used to that but being in the four where there's been no trial and no ruling on the merits is profoundly unfair to the system of justice because the DOJ has created the myth that every immigration case is an emergency and this is where it gets a little personal the five Republican justices have bought on the in on this myth I am paraphrasing I'm not quoting let's get to what the president is calling for recusing themselves Gisbergen sort of way or from trump related cases first of all what how wide and how big an umbrella could that be well I don't know why he's through justice Ginsburg again because she did not have anything to do with the soda may our attack on the five conservative justices you know she said what she said in two thousand sixteen and quite frankly she apologized for it and the president accepted the apology and made a big deal about accepting the apology when he visited the Supreme Court shortly after he was inaugurated there is no provision for refusal of Supreme Court justices they can step aside on a case without stating a reason okay and they have right usually it's there is a financial reason rex or they've maybe ruled in a prior job in that same case as justice chief justice Roberts famously ruled as a circuit court judge in a case where he was overruled by the US Supreme Court and then he goes on the Supreme Court and he stepped aside yeah what there is no provision for any eight of them to order the refusal of the night really yes so it's up to the judge justice to do it by themselves that is not the case for trial judges or a circuit court judges but it is a it is the case only for the nine on the Supreme Court so what the president wants is is fanciful unrealistic ends just in some respects impossible but by asking for the you know the nuclear option he makes this point now he has claimed that some of my hours trying to shame the Republican appointed justices on the court to act in a certain way is he trying to do the same to sort of all your to get a little more lenient on yes he is and quite frankly I can't shame quote unquote a Supreme Court justice into doing anything F. E. R. boasted that his court packing stunt which he withdrew because it was almost universally condemn this was an effort to add a justice to the Supreme Court for every justice that was over the age of seventy five at the time but admitted up to fifteen he claimed later in the in his presidency that the court packing heating costs down but it was this time had the effect of shaming justices into voting his way in order to prevent their number from being added to we will never know that but I can tell you from having been on a bench where I had lifetime tenure in for mapping studied and written about and lectured on the Supreme Court for forty five years they are not capable of being shamed either by outside forces or by themselves Tekeli in the modern era where they know they will outlast to the president trying to shame them in recent months there have been discussions about trying to change the way justices are chosen for the court the other day the former Attorney General holder said that you know what maybe we ought to limit a Supreme Court justice term maybe eighteen years is good enough well I would require a constitutional amendment which means two thirds of both houses of Congress type stop right there and then three quarters of the state legislatures have everything got got to that point I don't know where the eighteen came from these efforts to do this are always made by the losing side but when you when you change the makeup of the court or the the structure of the court because you don't like its rulings you produce the court from the anti democratic institution preserving the life liberty and property of the minority that is supposed to be just another bunch of political hacks doing the majority will the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be anti democratic to to prevent the tyranny of the majority of these people I want to change the court would make it another majoritarian institution is the court more political now in your opinion than ever I mean both sides it's a real big deal in the election year to try to to win and then have the chance to pick a justice I think that Donald Trump has succeeded in making it a political in a way to energize his base and perhaps even a majority of the of the country but I don't think it's any more political than it's ever been any time they're all appointed by either a Republican or a Democrat they're all sort of legacy appointments I mean just the ceremony or thanks very much the way the person appointed her jaw is about constitutional issues that president Barack Obama just as just as Chief Justice Roberts thinks that way president George W. bush did or does about a constitutional issues that's not going to change although some Democrats feel like maybe they're pulling Roberts toward their side in some cases well Roberts is a legacy person and the meaning he looks at decisions through a lens a hundred years from now to the stuff you can do that and is really concerned about the institutional integrity of the court which occasionally keeps him from joining the the four conservative so the case that justice are my only motive about yes he was one of the five I don't think you'd enjoy himself in the impeachment trial now and I thought he did a terrible job I thought it was a clerk what the heck you need him there for all he did was read the same thing over and over again I would have said congressman Schiff this is the fifteenth time you've made that argument move on and I also would've ordered witnesses to testify and chose the Senate to overrule it which they would have done most of the president's glad you weren't there in school I'm not around a lot of places children of all its on always gonna talk to you thanks for joining us what is your date of.