The President of the United States has never been scared to kill a revolution. The President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, is finally speaking up about the horrors being perpetuated in South Africa. President Trump is weak.
00:03:06.940The president of the United States has never been scared to kill a revolution.
00:03:13.020The president of the United States has never been scared to kill a revolution demand that at some point there must be killing because the killing is part of a revolution act.
00:03:20.180Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition Human Events Daily here live, Washington, D.C.
00:03:41.040Today is May 21st, 2025, Anno Domini. President Donald J. Trump just went full clockwork orange on the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, there in the Oval Office just about an hour ago.
00:04:00.160He said, oh, you want to tell me that there aren't white families being killed and slaughtered on your farmlands? Put the lights down, everybody. Let's play something.
00:04:12.080And he rolled in a TV and made the president of South Africa watch this and then said, how are you going to allow this? How are you going to allow this in your country?
00:04:23.480Why hasn't that person been arrested? Why do you allow this person to go around saying that he's going to kill white farmers at a time when we know white farmers said, oh, it's not happening.
00:04:34.400President Trump started pulling out articles that he had printed out and prepared and said, what about this? What about this family? What about that family?
00:04:42.160Thank God almighty that someone is finally speaking up about the abject horrors and the white genocide that is going on and being perpetuated in South Africa right now.
00:04:56.200Look, President Trump understood this is the weak link of BRICS.
00:05:02.280President Trump understands the leverage economically and geopolitically that it puts on everything.
00:05:08.120Elon Musk standing right there and I just got to salute it.
00:05:12.500Thank God someone is finally speaking out.
00:05:35.340Human events daily, Washington, D.C., a day where the president of the United States just went in and absolutely spoke truth to the president of South Africa on the issue of white genocide that's going on in that country and what they're doing to the white farmers and why the Boer are now being brought and allowed to receive asylum in the United States because of the brutal slaughter of them and their people.
00:06:04.960And their families and their families and their children for the crime of the color of their skin.
00:06:10.880And Big Marco, of course, speaking truth as well in the well of the United States Senate or a Senate hearing room yesterday to Tim Kaine and other Democrats who also seem to have a problem with this.
00:06:22.780He said, why are you why are you talking about the color of their skin?
00:06:27.260And Big Marco responds, they're being killed because of the color of their skin.
00:06:33.040You're here live on Real America's Voice and the Salem Radio Network.
00:06:37.900I want to welcome in third hour of the Charlie Kirk audience as well.
00:06:41.520Folks, while the media is obsessing about Trump getting a jet, something big is brewing and no one is talking about it except right here on Human Events.
00:06:49.240Starting July 1st, 2025, under the Basil III International Banking Regulations, gold will be reclassified officially as a Tier 1 asset.
00:06:59.940Now that puts it on the same level as cash and U.S. Treasuries.
00:07:25.820These guys will help you out to secure real physical gold and silver delivered directly to your home or safely positioned inside your IRA or 401k.
00:07:34.820Now I've been partnered with them for years because I trust them.
00:07:38.240Go to protectwithposo.com or call 844-577-POSO.
00:08:39.700So on that topic, there was a post that President Trump had made.
00:08:44.460It was sort of in the process of his Middle East trip.
00:08:46.920And he was talking about America being a world leader.
00:08:49.380And a very interesting tweet that he said that America should be, or I guess Truth Social Post, I'm not allowed to call those tweets, I suppose, that America should be the worldwide leader in Wi-Fi, 5G, and 6G, talking about connecting every American to the world's best networks, offering up for free plenty of the spectrum, the 600 megahertz in the one big beautiful bill.
00:09:14.940So I wanted to have you on to ask about the specifics of this plan.
00:09:21.420People have heard about 5G, but I don't think people have really understood the difference between 5G, this now talk about 6G, how does Wi-Fi come into the play?
00:09:31.560You know, I'm still trying to figure out how to get my hands on my own personal Starlink.
00:09:34.740So if you could help me out with that, I'd really appreciate it.
00:09:37.700But walk us through what President Trump is planning here.
00:10:06.700And there was this thought that, you know, what if we just open it up and let people experiment?
00:10:10.220The Wi-Fi family protocols came out of that, and thus a lot of home networking was born.
00:10:16.500And of course, we haven't remained idle in that one since.
00:10:19.640We've expanded Wi-Fi to much higher bands, to the 5Ghz and 6Ghz bands.
00:10:24.880And there's been very rapid adoption there.
00:10:26.660Now, the United States is the unquestioned leader in world Wi-Fi, because there are a lot of countries where the 6Ghz band, which is where Wi-Fi 7, the fastest, newest version of the protocol, lives.
00:10:37.160There are a lot of countries where that band is used primarily for cell phones.
00:10:41.360That's the Chinese position, that they don't want that band used for Wi-Fi.
00:10:44.980They want it used for cell phones, for 5G connectivity on cell phones.
00:10:49.300And so countries that want some amount of American technology and some amount of Chinese technology find themselves sort of caught in the middle.
00:11:36.680I think right now 6G is more of an idea than an actual product that you can buy.
00:11:42.720So when the president is talking about opening up spectrum for 6G, he's talking about making sure that we have frequencies and power levels and contours mapped out so that when it comes time to get to the next wireless mobility protocol, we've got a place to park it so that we can get the receivers and transmitters configured appropriately and not run into other services with that.
00:12:07.080Finally, with 5G, that's really the $64 billion question.
00:12:11.740I say that billion with a B advisedly.
00:12:13.520That number is probably too low because American companies have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the necessary licenses and equipment.
00:12:21.440It's the same in Europe, although they're a little behind on spending and their 5G connectivity is not as good.
00:12:26.720But China has put huge investments in this in industrial applications where we haven't yet really caught up.
00:12:33.700So I think there, when you look at what the president wants to do with reshoring industry and with strengthening our defense sector, as well as getting to next generation defense technologies, it's obvious that this road runs through 5G smart manufacturing.
00:12:46.420Also an aspect of international competition, because if we want to be able to compete against China in port development projects and other large scale international industrial projects, we're going to need 5G as the networking protocol because that's become the worldwide standard.
00:12:59.940And so the idea opening up is that companies will be able to then bid for this various space as it becomes open.
00:13:13.560I'm glad you focused on that part because the technique that we pioneered in the United States for figuring out who should be allowed to use what frequencies was simply to auction them off.
00:13:25.480The idea is that if you have a business plan and you can convince a bank to lend you the money to buy the licenses and some other fellow can't get a loan to acquire the licenses, then the banks have more confidence in your business plan than the other guys.
00:13:38.100And we've just used that pricing mechanism to figure out what the public is most likely to benefit from.
00:13:44.800So this concept of spectrum auctions is about 30 years old and there was a Nobel Prize awarded for it to an American professor in 2018.
00:13:55.520Spectrum auctions are here to stay and they've been adopted the world over.
00:13:58.500The alternative is for the government to pick winners and hold beauty contests where they decide just on the basis of some proposal what frequencies to allocate to what players.
00:14:07.540The thing is, first of all, that's inefficient.
00:14:10.020Second, it leads very often to corruption because if those licenses have a higher use, better use that's worth more, then the incumbent will flip them and pocket the proceeds.
00:14:19.960And they shouldn't be doing that because the spectrum is a public trust that belongs inherently to all Americans.
00:14:25.100That's why when the president says we're going to sell this 600 megahertz of spectrum and commercialize it, that's another way of saying he's going to make the wireless industry bid on it for access and then return the money to the treasury.
00:14:36.000Well, that's actually very interesting.
00:14:38.820And so, but he's, look, folks, President Trump is looking at our natural assets as a business asset for the United States of America.
00:14:48.280This is what happens when you put a businessman in the Oval Office.
00:15:19.140All right, Jack Posobiec, here we are back.
00:15:21.360Human Events Daily here live and you're on Real America's Voice.
00:15:27.740And the Salem Radio Network want to give a shout out as well to our folks watching on the live stream, the Rumble Chat, the X live stream, Getter, and wherever else you may be watching.
00:15:39.880And even to you podcast listeners, yes, I know, not everyone gets to watch live.
00:15:43.560So sometimes you got to you got to tune in a little bit later.
00:15:47.560But very honored to have on the FCC commissioner, Nathan Simonton, with us.
00:15:54.120And commissioner, so we were talking about 60 in the previous segment.
00:15:58.280And we were talking about also President Trump's big, beautiful bill.
00:16:03.380And there's a number of outlays that affect telecommunications and others in this bill.
00:16:10.060Is this something that you view as supportive of what President Trump's efforts are, not just for innovation, but also for freedom of speech online and some of these various other issues from your position at the FCC?
00:16:26.700So as far as, you know, we've already talked about the spectrum commercialization part.
00:16:32.060Jack, just to go back to your question, when you can get a Starlink, well, you know, the 6G standard may well stitch together cell phones and satellite internet once we finally have one.
00:16:42.360So, you know, the idea that you'll just have to have different device modalities might be a relic of the past.
00:16:50.540Anyway, but getting back to the big, beautiful bill.
00:16:53.100So freedom of expression online is a real challenging issue at the FCC because we're extremely protective of the First Amendment.
00:17:01.780And I think this is something that has to be underscored over and over and over because people will say that this White House is seeking to restrict freedom of speech.
00:17:11.300First of all, I disagree on the merits.
00:17:13.280But then second, I think there's a larger point to be made that in terms of practical freedom of speech, the ability to publish and say whatever you want online,
00:17:21.680the United States is clearly far, far in advance of all the other industrial developed countries.
00:17:27.820And the simple reason is that the First Amendment, together with the very broad readings that the courts have given to Section 230,
00:17:34.580make it virtually impossible for any federal agency to step in and impinge in any way on anyone's speech online,
00:17:42.060except, of course, unless there's some sort of backdoor coordination, such as, you know, was alleged with the prior administration.
00:17:47.260Or on the other hand, if the speech is illegal for other reasons, such as consisting of an imminent threat that would be a criminal act under any means of communication, whether online or not.
00:17:59.740So in short, the president has very little ability and certainly no desire to impinge on anyone's free speech.
00:18:06.200And we have to begin the discussion with that acknowledgment.
00:18:11.780To the extent that there is illegal speech out there, such as defamation, it shouldn't get special deference just because of the medium by which it's distributed.
00:18:21.000But on the other hand, the idea that there would be some sort of anything for Americans to worry about in terms of freedom of expression online or in broadcast media or in any other medium,
00:18:32.920And it's very notable that the people who complain about this kind of stuff would never complain about much more active control of the media
00:18:40.700and is the presence of state-sponsored media in, for example, Canada or Western Europe.
00:18:49.680That's something that, of course, I know my colleague Charlie Kirk is over there in the UK right now talking about freedom of speech issues.
00:18:58.260J.D. Vance, the vice president, went over to Munich and was talking about these freedom of speech issues.
00:19:02.180I recently had a long layover in London, and I was sort of joking around with saying,
00:19:08.900oh, I wonder what I can post on Twitter while I'm here in London without running afoul of Keir Starmer and these types.
00:19:17.420And this is a serious issue in many parts of the world.
00:20:00.760This just has no place within our political culture.
00:20:03.860So the idea that people operating in that kind of media environment where you can literally go to jail for a tweet,
00:20:10.860some of which, you know, seem pretty innocuous to me,
00:20:15.000and in any case, very few of which are the ones which are alleged to be threatening to reach the Brandenburg standard in the United States to be illegal speech.
00:20:23.480The idea that people in that environment are complaining about us, it just seems totally backward.
00:21:56.520And really, this is only being done because of President Trump.
00:22:00.520This unique individual with his unique constellation of supporters, colleagues, and the cabinet that he has put together is able to do this in a way that I really don't think anyone else would have ever been able to.
00:22:11.540But one of the big issues, now of course we're talking about the issue of immigration, it still comes to pass that we face a lot of, and the Trump administration is facing a lot of these legal challenges to the deportations.
00:22:26.560And so I wanted to bring on Will Chamberlain of the Article III project to walk us through quite a bit of this, including a recent motion, or I believe it was a ruling put out by a sort of response by James Ho to the Supreme Court that, Will, you were talking about last night.
00:22:47.960Will, walk us through the merits of the case, walk us through what's happening here, and what was this really just a rebuke to the Supreme Court all about?
00:23:00.160Right. So about a month ago, the Supreme Court, in a case relating to the Alien Enemies Act, put out an injunction saying that the government needed to not deport a certain class of people under the Alien Enemies Act.
00:23:18.380This was a really bizarre ruling, and it was really bizarre because no underlying court had yet ruled when the Supreme Court stepped in to issue this injunction.
00:23:26.920The Supreme Court didn't actually have jurisdiction because it's a court of review.
00:23:34.140So they need to have some underlying opinion before they actually get to do anything if it's not a case involving one state suing another state over water rights or something like that.
00:23:44.440So I'm going to try to make sure I'm translating for the listeners here.
00:23:49.880What you're saying is that the Supreme Court, of course, has the ability to take up cases on appeal and has the ability to make substantive rulings after the process has worked its way up the ladder, so to speak, to the highest court in the land.
00:24:06.900But this was a case specifically where none of those rulings had yet to occur, and yet the Supreme Court was sort of making the first ruling in an instance where none had been made at a lower court.
00:24:31.780They have appellate jurisdiction, except in a very few number of circumscribed cases where the Constitution actually says cases about this topic or cases between these parties can be heard by the Supreme Court.
00:24:45.300The Constitution famously, as you just said, says when it's a state versus another state over, you know, something like, like, right, I'm from Philadelphia.
00:24:53.500And there's constant fights over, you know, who has to pay for dredging and who has to pay for the harbor and who's going to get who's going to get the jobs, who is this right or that right, even, you know, between the tri-state area, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
00:25:09.640Or, you know, there's also been fights, I think, over Liberty Island, Liberty Island, you know, New Jersey or New York.
00:25:14.860You know, it's one of these one of these types of things because it's, you know, it sort of sits equidistant from from the various, you know, the various states.
00:25:23.100You know, how was it that New York got Staten Island, not Jersey, you know, for example, you know, and all of these sort of works of history.
00:25:29.640But right. That would be something that would be taken up between the directly at the Supreme Court.
00:25:35.080Correct. And so Judge Alito pointed this out.
00:25:38.960Justice Alito pointed this out in his opinion almost a month ago where he said, I don't think we have jurisdiction here, guys.
00:25:46.360And then a week, a week ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its injunction and explained itself.
00:25:53.000And it said in this opinion that in its view, the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had been slow in how they had responded to the plaintiff's request for an injunction.
00:26:04.980Meaning the plaintiff said, these guys are going to be deported immediately.
00:26:10.980And the Supreme Court agreed that these the lower courts were too slow and therefore had constructively denied the motions.
00:26:20.980And so therefore, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction.
00:26:24.260And Judge Ho, in today's opinion, I mean, the substance of this opinion doesn't really matter.
00:26:28.540The Fifth Circuit today, all they did substantively was acknowledge that the Supreme Court had made a ruling and said that the case now needed to be heard again by another Fifth Circuit panel.
00:26:39.700So there's not nothing substantive occurred.
00:26:41.460But James Ho wrote a concurring opinion where he basically pointed out to the Supreme Court that under their logic, it is now basically they are now expecting district court judges to be not just having their courts open for documents to be filed 24 hours a day.
00:26:59.460But rather they need to be following what's happening 24 hours a day because the Supreme Court said, well, the district court waited 14 hours and 38 minutes before resolving this case.
00:27:09.520They started the time at 12 in the morning, at 1230 in the morning, so just past midnight.
00:27:15.300So they're basically saying to all these district judges around the country, like, if you don't get to an injunction and rule on it first thing immediately, we can treat it as though you were lazy and didn't bother to hear the case and will hear it anyway.
00:27:30.440Right. And Judge Ho points out, that's crazy. We're not a Denny's. We're not open for business in the same way, 24 hours a day.
00:27:42.260It's literally in the opinion. He literally says we are not a Denny's.
00:27:44.920Right. And so it's funny that, you know, and this has sort of been, I suppose, a trend now on both sides, you know, sort of like liberal justices making references to like Harry Potter and things that we've seen now.
00:27:58.560And in this, you know, where, you know, this type of language isn't typically included in, you know, legal documents.
00:28:06.720They're known for being very dry. They're being very, very straightforward.
00:28:10.860But I think that, you know, and, you know, you tell me what you think, but to me, it speaks to just the complete aberrant nature of the Supreme Court coming in and essentially picking favorites when it comes to plaintiffs.
00:28:28.100It's like, and by the way, doing so for Trendy Aragua members rather than say, oh, I don't know, a U.S. citizen.
00:28:35.720A U.S. citizen doesn't get to get the fast track like this. And that's basically what Judge Ho is saying here.
00:28:41.540Exactly. And if you look at the way Supreme Court justices in prior opinions, people like Justice Barrett have talked about the emergency docket, which is where this is all happening.
00:28:52.360Right. The emergency docket is when you have these emergency injunctions going up to the Supreme Court.
00:28:57.880All those opinions are about you need to give the district court time.
00:29:01.920They need time to make a reasoned decision.
00:29:04.200We want decisions to be made by the lower court district court and the circuit court.
00:29:08.640So we have the benefit of their consideration and their reasoning.
00:29:13.340There's all the, you know, you have opinion after opinion like this.
00:29:16.320And then the moment the defendants are Trendy Aragua terrorists, they're like, oh, my God, we need to act immediately.
00:29:20.500Right. And he's saying this, this idea that, you know, it is a slapback and it's a it's a it's a rebuke.
00:29:28.700And honestly, I think that there are certain members of the Supreme Court that probably appreciate his words.
00:29:38.160Yeah, I think I mean, certainly Alito and Thomas, who were in dissent here, appreciate his words.
00:29:42.200And I think also it'll be a wake up call for Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, who, you know, maybe were, you know, I mean, all this stuff is happening so quickly and they're so busy.
00:29:53.240Maybe they really didn't think hard, which they should have, but they didn't think hard about the consistency of how they approach the emergency docket across cases.
00:30:00.620And that consistency is it's a big part of their legitimacy.
00:30:05.080If, you know, Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett weren't bending over backwards to let people open their businesses during covid, they weren't bending over backwards to allow people to write.
00:30:17.080There's so many instances of integrity, others where they would say, oh, no, no, we don't want to weigh in.
00:30:22.380We don't want to weigh in. We want to let the process play out.
00:30:24.580We want to let the let the process play out rather than, you know, but we we do we do weigh in when it's a trend day, Aragua member.
00:30:33.900And and I'm sorry, but when you when you tie that to Chief Justice Roberts is interviewed, very rare interview that he gave recently talking about how it is the role of the judiciary to curb the excesses of the executive.
00:30:49.000It seems to me like it's very clear that they're just they're playing politics.
00:30:52.320They're just playing politics. Right. And that's wrong.
00:30:55.560What Justice Roberts said is wrong. It's the judiciary is not standing above the executive curing, looking for problems to cure.
00:31:02.760Their job is to affirm the law and affirm the executive when it is acting in a lawful manner.
00:31:09.600And it's and this is a huge issue, Will, because it's it's been something where and I know our mutual friend Mike Cernovich has talked about this recently,
00:31:17.540where there is a check on the judiciary and it's supposed to be called impeachment.
00:31:22.340It's in the Constitution. It's it's it's very I think it can use like, you know, once or twice at higher levels.
00:31:28.500But but we really have come up into a system now where and this is the wider process or wider problem,
00:31:34.900I think, is that Congress like doesn't really do very much anymore.
00:31:39.140You know, you kind of get him to put up one of these CRs every once in a while.
00:31:42.500But at the end of the day, all of the power in the country right now is centered within the presidency,
00:31:51.520the bureaucracy, which is technically supposed to be part of the presidency.
00:31:55.040But, you know, it's not for a lot of reasons and the judiciary.
00:31:59.480So because power has been separated throughout these areas, we've we've come up with this strange system,
00:32:06.380which is not the founder system, by the way, where we treat the judiciary as if it's literally the supreme highest governing body in America.
00:32:15.660But that's just not right. It's not the system as it was designed, is it?
00:32:19.940No, and it still isn't the system we have.
00:32:22.600I mean, they might want it to be that way. They might try and be trying to encroach on the other branches power.
00:32:27.300But we're a system of of co-equal branches of government, of the separation of powers.
00:32:33.980So the the the judiciary is co-equal to the executive and the legislative branch.
00:32:39.820And it's not that the judiciary gets to check the other branches.
00:32:42.660It's rather that all the branches have the ability to check each other in the performance of their roles.
00:32:47.380So the legislative branch, for example, can check the judiciary by changing the law.
00:32:51.680That based on their rulings or they can also defund the judiciary, the executive branch can defy the judiciary's orders and refuse to obey them.
00:33:00.180That's part of I mean, Marbury versus Madison, if you'll remember, you know, that's a big case that established the concept of judicial review.
00:33:07.560But one of the things that happened in that case is that prior to the issuance of the ruling, Thomas Jefferson said that if we lose this case, if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, I don't care.
00:33:15.660I am not going to rule and give this guy a judicial commission under any circumstances.
00:33:20.160So this interplay between the branches is something that's a part of our constitutional fabric since the founding.
00:33:30.820And unfortunately, what's the actions of this court, the actions of Roberts, the statements of Roberts threatened to perhaps upend this sort of gentleman's agreement between the presidency and the judiciary.
00:33:46.100We're getting into real thorny constitutional issues here on Human Events Daily.
00:34:21.540At Turning Point USA, what we are doing every single day is we are dedicating ourselves and our staff and our students and our activists for a full revival of America.
00:34:33.080Get ready to launch into the future of freedom at the largest student event in the nation.
00:35:24.620We're on with Will Chamberlain, senior counsel over at the Article 3 project.
00:35:27.920And we're talking about how because of sort of the – for a variety of reasons, polarization, the abrogation of power to the bureaucracy, that it really is the executive and the judiciary where we're seeing a lot of the action and a lot of the fights between President Trump and his policies.
00:35:46.720Also, when you look at President Trump's policies, everything that he has done in his first 100 days and really up until this, quote-unquote, big, beautiful bill, it's all been executive action.
00:35:58.940We haven't really seen Congress playing a huge role other than in the approval of the cabinet or in various appointments.
00:36:08.600But when it really comes down to it, it is this interplay between the executive and the judiciary.
00:36:14.620And, Will, when we left the last segment, we were touching on – it's a sensitive topic, but I think it's something that does need to be brought up, that in our original system, there was no idea that the judiciary would be supreme over the executive, that they would be – hold on, let me just say it – separate and co-equal branches.
00:36:34.260So, if they were meant to be co-equal branches – this is like Constitution 101 kind of stuff around here on Human Events Daily.
00:36:43.820Well, if that was meant to be then, the question is, what do you do when you have a judiciary that keeps stomping all over the actions of the executive?
00:36:53.220Well, there are remedies, and I think they should be explored.
00:36:57.780Jurisdiction stripping is one, which is to say that over a certain subset of cases, the courts lose their jurisdiction.
00:37:05.080You can abolish judgeships if, you know, you can simply say, like, merge courts into different courts.
00:37:10.440The only court that is mandated by the Constitution to exist is the Supreme Court.
00:37:15.040All the lower federal courts, those are creatures of Congress, and Congress can alter them, change their jurisdiction, reduce the size of them, increase the size of them.
00:37:25.080So, I think all those options should be on the table.
00:37:29.240But really, I think it's just time for the Supreme Court to understand the problem and to understand the legitimacy crisis that they're facing here.
00:37:36.800I think we were talking about Judge Ho's decision, sorry, Judge Ho's concurring opinion, and what Judge Ho's pointing out, again, is it seems like the Supreme Court is more indulgent of the problems of illegal alien gangbangers than they are of their own citizens, and that just needs to change.
00:37:53.920And so, you know, this really has become the flashpoint of so many of these issues when, I mean, think about it.
00:38:04.020The American people have voted again and again and again for some sort of relief on border and immigration issues.
00:38:19.600And yet it's becoming now that the last – and prior to the current administration, the prior Trump administration, the impediment to any actual action there was Congress, particularly in the Senate with the likes of McConnell and McCain at the time, not wanting to fund any of these things.
00:38:36.460That's why, Will, I remember you specifically during the first admin were one of the first people that came up with this idea of using the emergency order declarations to be able to free up some of the money,
00:38:48.580which is, by the way, done day one of the second administration now, by the way.
00:39:16.240And that's why they'll fight for these people, these these these abject scumbags, because they know that it's something that President Trump is trying to do.
00:39:24.720And they just have this pathological response to it.
00:39:27.940Yeah, it's actually a substantive debate with a procedural sheen.
00:39:30.940That's a good way of thinking about it.
00:39:32.280Right. The procedural sheen is this due process argument.
00:39:34.860The substantive debate is about whether or not we can deport illegal aliens at all, because the Democrats understand that if they can throw enough gum in the works,
00:39:41.860if they can enough sand in the gears, they can impose a certain number of process protections.
00:39:47.200Well, then the 10 million illegal aliens that came across during Joe Biden's term can't be returned.
00:39:52.660And I think that the problem that the judiciary needs to understand is that there's a Democratic legitimacy problem if they do that.
00:39:59.060Because if what what one president did lawlessly cannot be reversed by another president, then and, you know, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to stop what President Biden was doing and didn't.
00:40:12.740But they're going to stop President Trump fixing the problem.