Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked

to succeed, and it is unprecedented. We're going to do deep dive and explain what's going on and how it is so far out of step from what any other president has faced. We're also going to talk about the fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has had his student visa revoke the Trump administration. President Trump is serious that if you are an enemy of America,

they are going to remove you from this country. You do not have an entitlement to have a student visa and to be here, and to threaten other students to threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.

may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides.

secure in the days to come. So give a gift to bless Israel. Enter people by visiting support IFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org or call to donate now eight at eight four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight at eight four eight eight four three two five are SUPPORTIFCJ dot org center. So let's remind people of how we got to the point where this is like the new phase

of law fare. Democrats weaponize our government and the court system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump, even raiding his home in mar Lago. But now that he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.

do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump, the voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a Republican House, and the left they don't care. They're angry. They're angry at the voters, and so they're going to the courts to try to prevent the President and the

Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now, let me lay out some numbers to give you just sort of a level of comparison in the entirety of the George W. Bush administration two terms, the Barack Obama administration two terms, and the Joe Biden administration. How many times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued since two thousand and one.

been thirty seven. This is a dramatic shift. And look, let's go back to the history before, before we had a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had the British the common law and in English equity, which is before we had the founding of the United States, you couldn't have injunctions against the crown. A judge could not enjoin the crown because the Chancellor was part of the crown. It was the same authority. And that continued for the first one hundred and fifty years of the

United States. Now what happened. It used to be that there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal, and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let me ask you something, Ben, one of the two of us has a law. Agree. Let me let me ask a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?

An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties of the case. So, for example, if if I keep running over your cats. If you have ten cats and I run over a cat a week, that's it.

limited to the party. So for example, there were sixteen hundred injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision, which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing this statutory provision, this processing taxed on me is contrary to law. And sixteen hundred times judges agreed and ordered the government don't enforce the law with respect to ben.

But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce that law with respect to you, doesn't mean that I was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it, I had to go to court too. So that used to be the way it would happen. And then there were judicial reforms in nineteen thirty seven that Congress took a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court. So ordinarily in the federal courts you have district judges, single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then

you have the U. S. Supreme Court. Well, Congress created this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court. So it was three different judges, but they were a district court, and if you were seeking injunctions against a federal statute, you had to go to a three judge district court, and then you had a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, so it's skipped, it skipped the courts

of appeals altogether. However, that ended in nineteen seventy six, and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court had their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes to a federal Court's of appeals, and then the Supreme

Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it, they can that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of a three judge district court was no longer there to limit how often an injunction would be given. And then it has been really it's been the activist judges that Obama and Biden have put on the courts that has led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing to say, this party in front of me, I'm issuing

an injunction concerning the government's conduct about ben. It's another thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do X against any person in the United States of America. That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by one single judge.

and you're voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The majority of Americans support the agenda, and now you see these judges who were in many cases elected by no one, who are now saying, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump in the entire country with one ruling.

be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell you why. Even if so impeachment would take it actually operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against the president or against an executive officer, which is the House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House. So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge. It is the equivalent of bringing charges.

It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is the same thing. And a majority of the House can impeach any judge. If the House chose to do so, and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge. But the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are zero point zero

zero percent. Now why is that? The reason is because for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial occurs in the Senate, and in order to convict, whether it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge, you need two thirds of the Senate. Now, we do not have sixty seven Republicans in the Senate. We only have fifty three. That means we would need at least

fourteen Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The chances of fourteen Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the President, refuse to applaud for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal

immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refuse to applaud for a thirteen year old kid fighting to overcome brain cancer. The Democrats are not going that they're cheering on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness, and so impeachment is not going to be effective now. Secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jury urisdiction of the federal courts, and Congress has brought authority to restrict the

jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually, Congress could abolish the district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts, the district courts, and the Courts of Appeals to process the volume of cases. But Congress has brought authority to

limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster, which means you would need sixty votes. We have fifty three Republicans. The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean? The remedies are the remedies are number one, Sunshine drawing

attention to it and listen. I am right. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight Agency action and federal rights, and so I am going to be sharing hearings focusing on this, focusing on remedies, and one remedy to consider, should we return to a system where you have a three judge district court to consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. I think

there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again, I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is important to counteract law fair. And then I think the real remedy is nominating and confirming good principal judges to the federal courts, to the district courts, to the court's appeals to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these adjunctions on appeal the legal process. It's going to take the

Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities right now. But the most likely mechanism to rein in this abuse is going to be a Pellet review because the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.

stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I hear what you're saying, but for people that it was saying, well, is there any other option? Like how do we win and yet we still lose?

fourteen were issued against Biden. So those are the numbers for the first term. And then, as I said, in the first two months we've already had thirty seven, so the numbers are are dramatic. Now here's an interesting stat from Professor Bray's article. Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many of them do you think were issued by judges appointed by a Republican?

going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and looking for radicals who will hate the president and who will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact that they're forum shopping. It's frustrating, but there's a longer term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and the shorter term memory it is appeals and hopefully getting

the Court of Appeals to reverse it. And for example, one case that's going on right now, it is a case called Trump versus CASA, and in January, President Trump issued an executive order revoking birth rights citizenship for illegal aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district courts issued preliminary injunctions and response, now, where were those courts?

One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions, and on March thirteenth, the Acting Solicitor General of the United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions

were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents of the states challenging the orders. So it should not be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating and Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor General's request by April fourth, So this is being litigated

right now. Now. It's possible the Supreme Court will decide it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait for full merits briefing, and that could take months or even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.

the Fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues are ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country. So the real answer, hopefully is to get this to the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This is clearly something that is being abused and it is crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.

I feel very confident that that that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are are more than ready to rein in the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if there are five justices or not.

Mind you, when it comes to to Americans speaking, they don't give a damn about free speech. When it comes to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech. American citizens have no First Amendment rights, and the Democrats bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious anti Semite, if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and you're not an American, well then suddenly they think you're protected.

And it is insane. So the latest radical who had his visa revoked is a student at Cornell and he's an individual named Mommodo Tal now Momodo Tal, according to the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has called for the destruction of the United States. Has celebrated the October seventh attacks by Hamas and has said that he takes his quote Q from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now, who is Mammado Tal? He is a British and gam

being dual national, so he's not an American. And he began studying in Cornell twenty twenty two on an F one student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good and Tall received an email from the Department of Justice that said ICE invites mister Tall and his counsel to appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice to appear and for mister Tall to surrender to ICE custody.

And of course what did Tall do? He engaged in law fair and wet and final lawsuits seeking to block it. Now what has Tall said? Tall has said, Number one, He's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues from the arm resistance in Palisine, armed by the way, not just resistance, armed resistance. He has also said, quote, we are in solidarity with the arm resistance in Palestine

from the river to the sea. He also said just after October seventh, hours after he said quote, the dialect demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now the dialect, Look, this guy is a communist, he's a Marxist. We talked about how cultural Marxism they divide the world into oppressors and victims, and they actively cheer on the violent revolution of the so called victims against the so

called oppressors. Now, this is ours after October seventh. This is as women and little girls are being raped, as twelve hundred civilians are being murdered. And here is what he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. That's not all he said. When he applied for his student visa, he wrote quote, and this is on Twitter, the end of the US Empire in

our lifetime in shallah. Months later, the idiots in the Biden administration gave him his student visa and he wrote, student visa issued. We are going to America, baby alham di lula. I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted my hatred of the US Empire knows no bound Walahai. Again, I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing again

it is celebrating against America. One other thing he posted quote when the enemy is US imperialism, then absolutely anyone the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me be clear, this anti American, anti Semitic radical who hates America needs to get the hell out of our country. He has no entitlement to be here, and we have

no obligation. We have no legal obligation, We have no constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey, people who hate America, people who say quote anyone who calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know what if that's true, get your ass out of this country. We don't need you here threatening Americans.

to be very concerning. I think not only for college students, but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing these people in and this is what they're doing.

Zionists living comfortably in the US and Zionist Jewish students at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared, and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in four K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people, and many of these same folks who claim to feel scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF BFFR.

I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is a sick, sick individual and there can be no path forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally. And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are indeed the chosen people chosen for Hell. Now understand one game that anti Semites play, which is many times they use the word Zionist when what they mean is jew and they just think it's It's like, oh, I'm pretending

to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look, they consider an ani Actually, at one point says Zionist slash Jewish students, This is an anti Semite who hates Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism, by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen

for Hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved to deport this radical leftists were protesting in support of him. And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa. No, you had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation on Thursday and they were chanting hands off MoMA do,

waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter ought to ask the Democrats do you believe we have to give student visas to people who say they're enemies of America and hate America. It's there's no legal basis for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat explain why they cheer on pro hamas radicals. But I got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but not swept up the in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Anger.

You gotta ask why Washington Democrats when they look at October seventh, when they look at the radicals on campuses, why the Democrats say we stand with Amas and we stand with the PROPOMAUS protesters. That's got to make you wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat party.

reach new people in the center. And I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.