Share This Episode
Jay Sekulow LIVE! Jay Sekulow Logo

REPORT: Biden Forming Supreme Court Commission - Is Court Packing Coming?

Jay Sekulow LIVE! / Jay Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
January 28, 2021 12:00 pm

REPORT: Biden Forming Supreme Court Commission - Is Court Packing Coming?

Jay Sekulow LIVE! / Jay Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 398 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


January 28, 2021 12:00 pm

REPORT: Biden Forming Supreme Court Commission - Is Court Packing Coming?

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Jay Sekulow LIVE!
Jay Sekulow
Jay Sekulow LIVE!
Jay Sekulow
Jay Sekulow LIVE!
Jay Sekulow

Radio Joe Biden in his administration launched the court packing commission talk about that more today on securing live in Washington DC Judy sexual life.

Phone lines are open for your questions right now called 1-800-684-3110. That's one 800-6841 10 and now your host will so they like between somewhere between nine and 50 on their commission would suit exactly what they want on this report and sharing the Biden commission on the judiciary.

That's all be reported now that they've started putting together the team, but let's start with the lead person I was sick. The chair tells you a lot. The chair was his campaigns attorney is a name that you know if you're that legal world political world Bob Bauer. So who only works for Democrats and he's only works for liberals supporting a partisan attorney chair that already tells you a lot.

He's also happens to be not just a partisan attorney. He's a proponent of term limits on federal judges, which are lifetime appointees. He wants that he wants a constitutional amendment to undo like I'm packing the court with new justices you just get them removed automatically which this would all take by the way constitutional amendments using your taxpayer dollars to put together group.

This mostly bipartisan. So far we can't have any of the names listed either. There's nothing about them or that they've come out and they're actually the head of a group that wants to pack the court under lightheartedness and who this sound like a conservative group like the American Constitution, suicidal or not, it's that progressive liberal she supports. I spoke the expansion of of the court. I've spoken at the American Constitutional Society, their academic primarily their very influential organization very left of center.

I had a portal reception was a it was a was a debate kind of thing so everybody was fine in the days when you can actually have civil debates which is not the way it is right now but what was interesting about that way they're doing this is they would like to literally do what FDR tried to do, which is pack the Supreme Court of United States because they know the court liens conservative now 6 to 3 and probably that way for at least 20 more years so this is a a a I would call the desperate up effort to to do this, but they are any. They're trying to do it. I mean they put this commission together. They're trying this is the interesting thing that I find is that what FDR attempted to pack the court and the authorities to get his new deal legislation through, because the old Supreme Court was declaring all his eggs unconstitutional and that issue was brought up before then.

Sen. Joe Biden. Biden called it, wrote a boneheaded scheme suddenly is not so boneheaded is in fact something that he is putting together a commission that's I know what they're going to come back to do. Then I come back and say we need to add justices we need to have term limits on federal judges, we need to do all the things that Jordan mentioned will require constitutional amendment. But this scheme is nothing new. It was practiced by FDR of the leading progressive Democrat of the 20th century and is now being practiced again by Joe Biden is successor interested in Jordan, is that the guy do with lifetime appointments. Of course, was that to keep the justices free from politics. Knobs that work perfectly know, but it does keep them above the political fray. That is how you can always say you can you pick these justices in Tennessee where they were before.

But you don't really can't predict where the how they're going to age.

If you have an and mature so where they may start out as someone in their 40s with a lot of experience in various fields of law, and their very educated in their there are qualified for the position, but think about how much you can change your mind on issue from 40 to 80 years old and so that was a purpose, is that they can't they have that flexibility that because they don't do not not running out of time and no one is stepping in and so there's no political pressure. They outlast multiple administration and Society societal changes as well and so ultimately they get usually catch up to where society is on cultural issues technology. They caught up better on David along but remember those initial Internet cases that were not even understand how worked, but they catch up because now people on the court. Young utilizes part of their life even though were older and the court, but it's again we got this number give the odd numbers he can get it opinion you win or lose her and you don't have to constantly be going through the confirmation wars challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our value our freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. You are already a member. Thank you. Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God will where you can learn more about our life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/concert first petition of the year that's up ACLJ.org over hundred and 20,000 people have signed this petition in just 24 hours and repetitious to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial of former Pres. Trump. This will go to the US Senators were to break it down by your state, but also by total focus and again we do this, just a few weeks, so we think that again if you want to add your names that you could ACLJ.org right now want to get to the hundreds of thousands and does it cost you think takes about 30 seconds to do, but it provides us the ability to then break this down get this dissenter in your standing with Maria 45 US Senators agree with your position on this. Republicans and I think they need to hear from the American people that they're doing the right thing is there to come under a lot of pressure, even though they said that they don't have jurisdiction to change their vote. This is the way for you to make your voice heard in a time where it's not so easy on some of these issues you so I mean that hundred 20,000 people body respond in a day which is a pretty phenomenal and what were going to do is let the Senators know that you think you view that the process itself getting into the merits of of of what happened here, it's because that that the incident to Capitol Hill was obviously horrific, and may we condemn that we continue to condemn at the the the whole what the entire day was very tragic for the American our conscious Republic. I was no other way to say it but also, even in times like that is important to stick to the text of the Constitution and I just noticed Emily talk about this yesterday and in order augment the judicial backing today might be just for a moment, I just noticed the significant difference. This proceeding will have Andy because the solemnity of having the Chief Justice of the United States. People think John Roberts of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court exactly his title as Chief Justice of the United States. He is the chief justice judge if you will, of the United States.

He's not sitting is not city refused to sit in that chair during this upcoming trial. I don't like calling impeachment trial that really does speak volumes and that it also ties right into this court packing thing to get you note this idea that they can manipulate the court since another it's true there's nothing in the Constitution it says nine doesn't like appointments. He can't change that but there's nothing that says nine but John Roberts not sitting there does send a big signal. I think it sends a huge signal having the team For the United States under the Constitution. Since that impeachment trial before the Senate on the President of the United States John Roberts said I'm not, I'm not sitting on the presiding over this so-called impeachment Prada what you want to call it in the center but I have nothing to do with it. Now what is that really make of it.

It makes it not an impeachment trial, because unless the Chief Justice is in the chair. It is not an impeachment trial, it may be a political trial, it may be a kangaroo court of some kind concocted by Schumer Pelosi and the leadership of the Democrats, but one things for sure without the Chief Justice and without him sitting in that chair and presiding.

It is not an impeachment trial is also to stalk Jordan into and that there should be. This is I guess some of said the censure maybe will do a center instead of an impeachment. My understanding of the rules of the Senate that was once converses once the article impeachment is delivered to the Senate, they have to try the case. So I don't know how does this censure thing work, which I think it's just another ridiculous move, but for that, but it's worth man your understanding of that is correct J and I honestly think plays right into the discussion of power can use this petition with United States Senate.

I'll tell you this one of the Senators were to be talking to the most directly to Sen. Kane from Virginia. Yes, he's a Democrat.

Yes, he says that he thought impeachment would be in for appropriate but he also said that even the outcome is now predetermined. So he thinks it's a waste of time.

So J even though he's talking about censure the case that were making to him is look at the outcome is predetermined. If you think it's a waste of time, then what are you gonna do when the motion did it to dismiss is put in front of you at the outset of this trial, so J it's not just that you you know you need 51 senators you think it's unconstitutional you know you have 45 of those and maybe a few more if you have say 48 that think it's unconstitutional, then maybe you have three or four like Sen. Kane that thinks it's a waste of time, then they could dismiss it J so all of that is in play at the very outset of the trial is interesting. Justice Ginsburg address this issue of court packing on a play that by first request this.

The reason FDR tried this for exactly reason you set he did not like the way the decisions were going yet for three were to switch it for for his for his time. Nothing about long-term implications and so all politicians yeah they they stop the it's about their time in office and are thinking about the next 2030 years or they may not be alive anymore either thinking about right then right there instead of long-term implications. So they played around with this number it throughout history and this is address is Ginsburg discussing it directly.

She was asked anything else they can do in the Constitution to this client has home as he was fine and many as 10/19 to be a good number and been that way for a long time, so she likes the idea. She liked him as a liberal icon. Justice Ginsburg's like the idea of not just do not like the idea of court packing.

Here's what you said about that how some people again I thank thank who was 19 increase in number and catches. I think that was a bad idea when Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt trying to pack the court would change the constitutional balance that every politician if they get control of the chambers could then present come and say you know I'm good to get it cut completely undercuts separation of powers and checks and balances, all Congress would just keep chitchatting and adding I think where you'd actually concentrate read actually end up as world. Some of the world is where your neck and have a nine just the Supreme Court they would end up having to break it down into smaller panels and regulates it to 2 PM some unction lately, which is a vital European countries that I was the city's international tribunals and am I think when we went to the international group or the hag was a five judges sitting there I think. I think it was more than the trial that we had for the hearing that we had. I think that more than note was five judges.

I think that it was five on that one that was considered a panel panel of a larger core.

Yeah, I think the court has 27 yesterday. That's true for a lot of countries and that we really value just to go and so then then you don't have united in one people already. I don't pay enough attention to this report affects her life and there's only nine justices to learn about imagine if there's 20+ in the rotating so you don't know you're getting. I mean, did also the people who you're picking it becomes a much broader pool of people you don't know what you there's no again is that the assessment predicts the court but it's not supposed to be something that you just constantly politicize every hour to politicize everything. Those battles are Artie tough enough to get the nominees through their nasty their hyper- partisan, but then it leases people have decades to move forward past the partisanship so that's why you know people think, oh, because this justice when they went to his nomination and the Democrats really tough and Republicans are really tough and usually to Democrats that there to subtly side with Republicans on everything and that never happens and why is that is because they have lifetime appointments to secure their position and they don't answer to anybody. They don't have to answer to the current administration or the previous demonstration or a political party, which may change significantly. The changes the Republican Party since some of us it's even people like Alito on the court. They may have been at the time more conservative than where their party.

What where the nominee of their party was who put them in place. You but so they kind of had caught the party may have caught up to where they were on a libertarian scale others. You are different.

I think you should but that's it. That's the beauty of having that one place that is it so hyper- partisan. What is the appetite fan for something like this. Well my commission. I think it actually it could be a positive sign because it may be putting it into never never land. But the but eBay were certainly talking about it.

I think there is a distinction in a separation between the base of voters and elected officials in Washington DC. I'll tell you there is an appetite for for court packing on the left in Washington DC J and and this is the argument that I think of people all across America need to be making the voters of all stripes. What does this ultimately do. It takes the power to direct the direction of the court away from who the American voters because right now the American voters have that discretion. Jamming look to who has more authority to shape the future of the court at this particular moment its President Joe Biden. If you make this change. What Jordan said is exactly correct. If if Pres. Tromp or a Republican or any anybody on another side of the aisle as a neck elected next time when the GNU there can retaliate and the people who will lose out or will be the American voters and III think it's a very dangerous move. I think you could look at this.

We recently of checks and balances of separation of powers.

This action completely undercuts talking about action coming up. There's about to be some action today at the White House will be joined by CC Hollifield, a senior attorney on that issue of will get into itself on the life issue with Dragon not surprising that the making this move ever to explain this to saving people say now what were they mean by this term for packing France that she would come back 164 3110 answer quickly means this account for setting up the rules for who and how many justices there on the court is that as we play the late Justice Ginsburg silent. You have to have a Supreme Court you have lower courts or staff psychiatrist, but silence.

How many justices are there now. It would take a course be tough to. I think it through. Imagine it would get through legislatively for the putting government resources behind the idea of his expanding it or put on term limits for think in the opposite way of getting only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable and is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition like it will show you how you personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ secure regularity of phone calls to 164 3110 I did when I quickly answered his care on you to wrote the Surette Tech retirement.

Another issue to the tapping. I today unfortunately but it leads to a bigger battle as well.

Right here at home, but she also asked to what is court packing mean in the basics is the term now. I'm sure to see this two ways. One is a way of saying is more popular for this idea which is what term limits you against young people are 85+ years old on courts and that could be popped because that's that. Sometimes it's popular around politics as well.

Course politics you to elect people he could decision judges different but it be like reverse way of getting at it. The real idea court pack is what FDR tried to do was using Congress while you're there so politically wise, can it benefit you with the time to add or subtract justices from the court correct and both of which are very dangerous. Our Constitution set up a particular way and that is that provides the checks and balances that will be totally Andy absent. If you start being able to the new nominee comes in is is line 1 add three more justices.

This is where the big ruling in my favor tribe that we need to take a lesson from Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers in Federalist number 78 you know there's three branches of government. But I'm very worried about the potential weakness of the judicial branch why the executive branch of government has full course they have power and the authority to call out crews, the legislative branch has money they control the purse they make the appropriations power and money. What does the judicial branch have the only thing the judicial branch has his judgment. The ability to pronounce the judicial review whether acts are constitutional or not that was decided in Marbury versus Madison in 1803, but that is the weakest branch of the most easily manipulable branch of government. If we allow court packing by adding justices to get our President's political agenda through we have guided the judgment and the independence of the judiciary for ever in this country is a terrible idea and it should be rejected.

Logically, leaps into the next topic and will be joined by our senior counsel CC Highland that is today. Pres. Biden is preparing to visit today.

During the beginning and end remove the Mexico City band of the executive order CC birth. Let's explain to everybody what the Mexico City policy has been in 1984.

Yes, stop this Ballantine I'm working overseas was a gloss of the losses yet so again the idea here is Mexico City policy says negative federal funds, electrifying groups to pay for abortions or refer abortions drop administration actually expanded it to not just those groups actually funding or paying for abortions, but also but also those groups that are referring abortions promoting objections so that's actually that you play doctor felt she now got me talk about. I don't know why he's talking about this because I really think you but I might've related but here goes the Welton Pres. Biden will be revoking the Mexico City policy in the coming days as part of his broader commitment to protect women's health and advanced gender equality at home and around the world so this is the covert expert with all due respect, I mean this is getting me the vaccine and many other people instead of engaging in the politics of abortion, but nevertheless that was his announcement LCC. What's the impact of this are tolerant are going to find abortions oversee the we are on this matter.

You are our tax dollars to go overseas to find abortions 6% of Democrats on back starting to order American policy dollars down overseas to find our seats. We say elections have consequences. No matter how you got there they had one of the consequences of this one. Now I will just what happens when Republican Presidents tend to put it in place during Democrats tend to not penetrate me.

This does it.

It is overseen politically for decades now, but it goes to the bigger issue than of you doing your own country to so not only are we to go to your taxpayer dollars. It's interesting right now under our laws so you take your taxpayer dollars and they're going to fund directly abortions internationally can't do that, technically, in the 1990 today Heideman but play parent still gets half $1 billion for there not abortion related activities in the and and if we get the fan. I mean the Hyde amendment is also the reason why they don't get $1 billion for their bookshelves and where will the Heideman fan. Oh that's payment propose the United States Congress as well to do away with the Heideman exactly what CC said is happening overseas. Our tax dollars are to be used directly to fund abortions of a J there is a feeling among the left it in Washington DC and I don't I don't think this is overstating it that they believe there is a constitutional right for tax dollars to be funneled towards abortion that is on the line. I will tell you J just just one glimmer of good news on this front. 200 members of the United States House of Representatives assigned a letter today or yesterday. I believe I saying that they will reject any funding bill that that does away with the Heideman is so that's not enough to get a three United States house gave a look.

There are ways that we can push back against this abuse. The ramifications of literacy. No Democrats on that letter J a a pro-life Democrat in Washington is a rare breed right now. It's like a guy that used to not be the case, and it's it's amazing how this is as turn this way but this also ties right back into the court packing thing and that is this challenges to these restrictions in the various states Andy that we've seen over the years that we've been successful in defending you know health standards that you would have to have a dentist office would have to have in a abortion clinic but you pack the court and you be able to build work right around that. That's the whole idea.

J you get a legislative agenda through not through the legislature which is the legitimate and proper way you do it under the Constitution, but you get your legislative agenda through your judicial officers. That's not the right way to do it. That's not what judges are about there not legislate doors there not put up. They are to make laws there there to interpret and to review the constitutionality court packing turns that whole idea upside down and does exactly what Alexander Hamilton said it trivializes and it weakens an already weak branch of the government and that is the judiciary packing is is a horrible idea. CC really quickly, Allison 30 seconds year, but the we had all the successes on this crisis pregnancy centers being were being forced to compel. Get referring abortions. We won those cases at the Supreme Court. Nine states last year and now you pack the court those are undone.

Yeah, I line all don't think he appreciates easy thing for me was fair coming up a secure radio go to ACLJ.org sent in particular, take your phone calls to people online. When 164 3110 answer for the question of court packing these other issues to the impeachment trial as well. We got the petition of first petition of the year@aclj.org stay with those 45 US sinners, who believe this is unconstitutional exercise by the U.S. Senate ACLJanos and petitioner ACLJ's been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member. Thank you.

If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and secular secure radio.

We are take your phone calls 164 3110 to reset the satiate the big bigger issue to talk about today is dated. Joe Biden is making good on on AC was a campaign promise he didn't want to say directly if he supported putting more justices on the court, but pushed by the kind of left of his party were to see this happen time and time again with Pres. Biden is that he tries to kinda cut it both ways. Now having these commercials listed present binaries at visit during the campaign when he finally came up with for an answer. You never want to say yes or no, but he certainly would say no court packing.

Most people are pretty clear about whether they supported or not he's finally got to answer this is what was if elected, what I will do is put together national commission of bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal conservative, and I will pass them do over hundred and 80 days. Come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it's getting out of whack the way which is Being handled and it's not about court packing result number of other things that are constitutional scholars have debated and look to see what recommendations that commission might make what what exactly is he content lacked was on I was sick with the federal system with a constitutional system that says judges are nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the United States Senate and, if confirmed to that judicial position. They serve for life. So what is out of whack and the other than the last President got to appoint a lot of judges but Joe binds get to get the point a lot of judges to yeah I don't understand when he said the system is out of whack.

I mean, I don't see the court out of whack. I you know I was in the federal court for many many years practicing for five years in the United States attorney's office before 13 federal judges in the Northern District of Georgia. There was nothing out of whack. The judge made a ruling within like it we could appeal that we appeal that the Court of Appeals would sit in the three-judge panel and make a decision.

We didn't like that would try to seek start of the Supreme Court of the United States. I mean, it is work for decades upon decades upon decades of what Saddam you know what's out of whack is that he didn't get the gay got three judges appointed by Pres. front and he couldn't stomach that suit the international criminal court and he has 18 judges if they were to sit in a plenary session which I can even mess a legislative body that's not then that could tie but we have to have an odd number that will be that even numbers together. We had 10 you think we got to a point where you know what, where, how it works. In most cases. Don't make its way to the Supreme Court because they don't need to make their way through court they will need to set precedent for the whole country.

They aren't that they are that big of a deal you big cases that it may have worked extreme course been clear about and so a Court of Appeals can ultimately apply precedent there of the court, the court doesn't like that, you can appeal or they can change that an end to and that happens. But what I think is it we don't want is another part of our government, which seems so politicized and so he time at these out of whack. I mean, it's a pretty it can be a very quick process. If the court decides to case needs to be of that way getting that before and for the most part it if it's not something it's emergency there's emergency actions put stays in place of court can consider that happen with the deportation Executive Order judge Joe Biden already has been told one of the executive orders might be unconstitutional, so the court is a issued at a very temporary injunction product to what consider whether not they can issue a stay and then they'll hear the case. So it's got this a lot of steps there just at the District Court level, which by the way, you could appeal those to the Court of Appeals. I have no plus I know that elections have consequences.

I know that Joe binds getting a lot of nominees, a lot of his nominees are to be confirmed to the to the various courts that's part of it. There was already talk on the diving center this morning that they're expecting Supreme Court vacancy this summer and probably the liberal members of the court that speculation. You never know on these things will be a confirmation fight the personal be confirmed by me. That's just the way it it will talk about what that means but that's the system right now you got a very progressive executive branch of government in a pretty conservative judicial branch of government, you know what that's called constitutional republics.

That's what it's called, challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our value freedom sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. You are already a member. Thank you. Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God, where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications.

40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/secular radio into your phone calls 164 3110 deed in Michigan online three Haydee Walker secular rating on their very much like all of very much particular topics to talk but my question comes back to the impeachment since it is pretty much a little activity based on everyone's opinion. Can I ask what your take of those to what's really going on. Are they trying to direct us to something else that smoking miracle.

What's your thought. I think what's happening is I think this does two things going on.

One is there is this reaction to what took place in the capital, and I think that was in Outlook that was condemned across the board. Mitch McConnell went before the Senate is late as last week, condemning it then and try to tie Pres. Trump into it and reset it so I think there is this kind of visceral reaction to this insurrection attempted the United States capital look, I've said it before, I would say it again, the Confederates could not get a confederate flag inside the United States capital but these these insurrectionist dead they were marching around with a confederate flag inside the United States capital. They were marching around with campouts research on their this was an insurrection attempt now the question is how do you handle that and and here you have a President that is no longer a few of the present that is a little literally, former President is a private citizen and then bringing the claim of impeachment against that private citizen is not constitutional, it's extraconstitutional.

In that sense and and I think the best example of this is the Constitution specifically states and wish that this a lot, but it is worth repeating that when the President is tried. That's what the Senate does. It is the Chief Justice was the presiding officer. Instead, the presiding officer here is the Senate pro tem Sen. Lahey yeah well that makes it not impeachment trial right from the beginning if you don't follow the constitutional mandate of having the Chief Justice of the United States presiding over the proceeding. It is by definition not an impeachment trial is a political trial and we ought not to be holding political trials in the United States Senate based on impeachment on an impeachment article that was debated for 20 hours didn't go through committee and was brought over light and light impeachments are not in the Constitution. Look at the founders of the Constitution and wanted to hold civil officers like the present United States accountable for acts committed while he was in office after he left office.

They would have said so.

I have read tons of law review articles and I have mainly read the Constitution and it's not permissible it's just something that is not in the law. The second part of the question Jordan fan is that there asking the question is why are they doing it and I think that's the week we said this before and I think it's to brand the Presidents to mark Pres. Trump Tutu diminishes political capacity going forward. So it's it's basically a bill of attainder which is supposed to sit in a specifically prohibited in the Constitution, but that's what it looks like they're doing yeah I to be its egg and they want to get to that second part of the votes to ban Pres. Trump from political office probably get it for the first part have to give the first part and then you start taking you to a fundamental liberty of some of the private citizen, which is to run for office of qualified which you meet others, basic qualifications in the Constitution. He does easily, but doubt they can do this but not if they don't impeach you and they would bring up other ways that they would type a sensor.

It's all about this idea. Somehow it but to me it's this.

If you have 90 senators find this on the center, its partisan unit. A few Republicans always never like the present and the Democrats and okay this is just partisan it's it's not a unit you not be graded with anything what's dangerous about this.

I think for the country.

Is that because of the actions of a reckless house of administration led by Nancy Pelosi. Once again, who barely hanging onto their power it keeps falling.

The keep losing power and power that they had this big majority, and it keeps dwindling and wiggly and wiggly even in the year were Joe Biden, one no house Republican incumbent lost but there's a picture of the house.

Incumbent Democrats did you get that little plaque for serving office from the Democrat leadership the barely hanging on the packet to keep within the syndicate stuck with it and get the Tim Kane sent and we know this from doing these trials. This is torture for a politician and people who are responsible for covert relief bills their state to be silent, keep doing the work right now it's tough enough because her staff barely there because covert and their concerns about that so I cut. I think it's even that much harder and the country manager dragging the country through through what a tardy live through elections that had it into thin think the thing I don't understand that I keep saying this is it's it's I know it's gonna happen because it has to happen. Constitutionally, for they didn't vote, they could vote to dismiss it.

They debated so the 45 votes that they had with only five Republicans going to the support the Democratic Guardian. That case does show that the present will be ultimately acquitted. So they're knocking to get to that second page. The barring lifetime bar from holding office or public trust. So were going through this exercise while we still got we had 4000 people die last night or yesterday from covert yet or not to get to that phase, jamming a couple of things one you visited Ben about what they say it's about from the very beginning they could have tried it while Pres. Trump was still in office. There was two weeks between January 6 and January 20. It was not about that, then it's not about it now. It's never been about it. It's been about 2024 and keeping Pres. Trump off the ballot. Here's what I things happening JII think the left has overextended itself, and now can't find an offramp, I really do think that that sound from Sen. Tim Kane.

I think that's what I that's all that he wants in offramp and can't find one.

Why can't TJ because they're beholden to the left edge of their base that site so let me answer this question today lose the impeachment and then try the central route was the appetite can just beget outlets, business well. I think it depends who wins off I think if you asked Sen. Tim Kane. He hopes that they well I shouldn't say that II would expect if you thinking politically, he should want them to move on but Jake is actually said exactly the opposite. He said he wants to move to center so maybe that changes. If a motion to dismiss passes deluxe I go back to this. They literally cannot find an offramp here yet.

It is surprising. That's because they're afraid of Chuck Schumer's afraid AOC's go take your medicine. That's the real problem they're afraid that that that the Democrat leadership is afraid they're going to be run out like some of their some of their colleagues have at the lower levels already in the house by a far left part of their party who said you know who's who still believes who they were.

Relitigate all these issues back to the phone. We ghosted a joy in Arizona online one joy. Welcome to Jay Sekulow live physical point my caller. I am the widow of a lake. Time to get.

During Watergate, my late husband spoke of the danger and harm to the country by going there and how deep I think it wise to our Republic party. Watergate was based totally on everything he felt so strongly that it should be used judiciously and with great deliberation of the facts, after due process has prevailed.

This has not happened in this case. This practical use of the impeachment path that will dilute and weaken all further use of this tool censure devalues its purpose and drive out divides the country.

It simply becomes a tool of political theater where your husband, Congressman Railsback Laycock smiles back is right, he would be appalled by snap impeachment. Yes, but I think this previous congresses who have considered this before remembered ultimately drop that Winn-Dixie just because he left he left twice to lead time present Trump finished his term that they didn't want to write, then rush the trial that because they have all we have is rules what they they make the rules up themselves. So if they wanted to act quickly and have a snap trial. I guess I could try to do that.

The brief is due process concerns on those issues which by the way, they'd really does apply to them so they can apply that because they have class for the dignity and Senate. But we know that's all been thrown out the window by the left.

What they did. Like with present Trump the whole idea of draining the swamp. Was it Republicans had just started. I ate made a lot of consequences for his entire presidency was marred by constant investigations, molar impeachment impeachment again even when he's done because he took on he started acting like them and I said I've said all along if you want conservatives to have any chance of anything you better start acting like them. You better take it to the edge of what's legal two things it really legally illegal but take it to the edge of what is legal because what we do we bust up late. We base if taken, those in power. They don't have the same control them of their own members anymore, but all that I think has to be set is said is it look back in history. Politicians will be appalled of what's happened you how partisan things become cheap and what is the yeah I think it actually bikers. It never happened before and we come back is another interesting point. We come back interesting comment by Justice Ginsburg will take your calls. 100 684-3170 say thank you PAC LJ members as we are closing up the month of January that incredible your support of the ACLJ it's been phenomenal and we thank you for that. I would encourage you to continue that it ACLJ.org but as we close out the first month of the year.

This work that we have had our online giving and mail in place else) wanted all of us PPC on this broadcast the people you don't see that putting this broadcast together to worsen the field. Thank you. We want to give you that unique perspective mostly with this problem, only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is powering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans are substantial time and are now free to insert constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights" in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ684 31 to go back to the phones insert answer a more of of your call so that data New Hampshire line for database hold on your own there. I have a question about always think of the product, together with the packing of the court particular. There they simultaneously talk about making Washington DC estate and I'm look at section in article 1 section 8 of the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District as may become misleading the government of the United States that precluded ever becoming the state. How can you have a date if it's not in charge of its own state government, raising point that's been raised by scholars today, even saying that it would literally take Andy a constitutional amendment for the District of Columbia to be to get state headache, which is noted in Congress now and I will also apply to Puerto Rico, which has also been mentioned as a possible candidate for statehood.

But what the Democrats are doing and trying to get Washington and Puerto Rico in which what would require constitutional amendments for both is to consolidate their power in the Senate because those are purely democratic areas and there than I have. It would have four more Democratic seats and fan that is actually that introduction is had taken place correct that may make that that bill has been introduced. That's correct, and is not a constitutional amendment.

I fully agree with the analysis of the requires one but Sen. Carper from Delaware disagrees. He dropped the bill. Just earlier this week to make DC estate. He's gonna try to do it legislatively. How many books we get from the house could pass it could possibly past the house that it's a very hot tall hurtle in the United States Senate by Jake. We talked about this before. This is a long game. After the letter you see that that eventually, yet they want they want to move it yet you talk about changing the balance of power. The coordinate states add to Democrat US and it is. It's the same ideas the Republicans by the way, the same because the Constitution is all you could get, you know Tennessee to vote and say it's okay split and see that there they get. You get to horses. What is it you see how that can all become a problem is that you should never admit a new state.

We got it out.

It is to happen to this is got to this 50 number that's not some set in stone thing.

But the but you should do it for political purposes should do it because it's a nest it's necessary and that's why we have we have territories replace the report. Puerto Rico chats some of its own sovereignty as well. That's what they get. DC gets all the federal benefits you get funded by our tax. I was a constant facility for thinning Texas has linking to the union.

The ability to break up in the different states we would never say that was a Texas break up the five state and for the five will get to Republican senators and one will get to Democrat to get eight new Republican sickness. That's what starts happening yes is that because all it takes the Constitution's consent from the state in a very red state still hate Abydos in the two get two more senators you know any disc it does fit into the court packing think it's is again it's trying to subvert what the Constitution is laid out and it is this idea of separation of powers and coequal branches of government. You packing you have quarterbacking packing and that is what it is. Both are bad ideas about to be rejected.

So let's go back to phones 164 3110 John in North Carolina online when he John a political question of the whole discussion about the upcoming trial on understand that they needed to fill the votes to convict on the impeachment the Constitution has loaded and obey cement pride that rankled me care about the length of the consultation with the 51 Jody vote to stop and when he again discussed to invoke the 14th amendment was passed after the Civil War, the insurrection part of the 48 says if you were if you and if you were somebody took up arms against the United States and supported those efforts. I you are barred and lasts Congress came back and voted to Anbar you the opposite actually of boring people in barred them and it ended says, but Congress could let you back in and so that that's a given that the reversal so if you are barred. I don't know how to get there under the 14th amendment. I don't either.

And I think pulled politically be held by a court.

Yes or some other place other than Congress that there is the crime of insurrection, of taking up arms against the United States in the present.

I you had to think the President should be the ones doing that is because of the difference of how you thought of speech was in the quick answers no, you must go much further than that, even on a liberal court but will certainly see charges of insurrection and he raised against some of those individualism. This addition that insurrection yet, so maybe sedition. Some may be insurrection that of those that entered the capital grounds with the intent to do what they did met and that the US attorney and the DC Atty. Gen. looking at that right now you know the DC Atty. Gen. of the land have jurisdiction over misdemeanors is looking at that United States Attorney for the District of Columbia would have the right to look at that others are felonies for those people actually broke in and did the damage took over the offices try to help people hostage took over the speaker's office tried to do harm to the vice President, and so forth.

They deserve to be prosecuted for insurrection in an accident nature just like a mutineer on the ship, but whether that happens will be up prosecutorial officials in the government right now it's you know it's interesting to me were talking about the court packing in the political nature of the Justice Ginsburg inflator lot that I she also talked about the partisan nature that take a listen. He mentioned the four point appearing body segment of anything we make the claim.

I definitely believe that one sign saying when, where, and how selling to a nightstand and Jackie selling more people to lay leave blank to so what you got is a center packing attempt by statehood for the District of Columbia court packing attempt by trying to change the number of justices on the court and then you completely eliminate checks and balances. Yeah while they also try to go after private citizen through political court which is never a court you want to be. If you get elected to public office, and why your public servant you have to deal with that you to give the political court, but private citizens. None of us should have to deal with that we should have to go through a process which is highly hyper partisan has no rules and so if you avail yourself of being elected official.

The benefits of beer that come with that and okay within what about when you've left office. So you say that I am not conducive was either promoted out or you, why do they have jurisdiction to punish you know in any way that's actually real. That's different than the sensorimotor saying we don't like what you said and did, but what Susan Collins said is that she's not going to go with the censure, unless there's no trial and I don't think the left is good except that and the pressure on them is going to be his and said that she has a set it's a Lua euros in lieu of not not it's in place of the trial so that we are to go to that process or else I don't think you can get any Republicans, even the ones who would go along with the censure. If you make them go to the trial and the quit. I don't think I can get a sense about it now without masses said you in lieu of not.

In addition to that's why think this is I think this is blowing up on them already. This was a snappy reason you don't have snap impeachments because you make snap decisions we make snap decisions often times it's the wrong decision and they could have responded at the speed of relevant when all this took place in the Senate did not ballasted, not rather. This was the game that Nancy Pelosi paid in the first impeachment. Remember, which was not delivering the articles for 30 days.

The weather is that correct court packing or excited packing by adding states, the American Center for Law and Justice. Your voice in Washington DC around the globe where here for you.

We encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ to go to ACLJ that are q. week at the Brady petition up first petition of your first action either year oppose this unconstitutional trial ACLJ for decades. ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member. Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ

INTERESTING ARTICLES

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime