Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Federal Judges are not supposed to be ordering universal injunctions. The DOJ has even been trying to stop this for years “How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her? How is that possible?” “It shouldn't be... possible” “I thought that if you wanted to effect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action” “That's correct — The Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate” “I read Article 3, which defines judicial power. Where does it mention universal injunction?” “It does not” “Federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action.” All of this lawfare should have never been legal to begin withshow more

Wall Street Apes

1,377,224 subscribers

776,395 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Education News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Comments

Sandfort1 year ago

Senator John Kennedy: "Most fair-minded Americans look at the Democratic Party and think it’s about 10 exits past normal."

Rarely Tolerable.1 year ago

Should Trump pardon J6 protestors?

Jacob1 year ago

A federal judge telling 330 million people what to do with one order is the wildest plot twist in legal history. Article 3 isn’t a magic wand, but they think it is.

NotMe1 year ago

🎯 Universal injunctions seem to stretch Article III way beyond its intent. Judges shouldn’t be playing legislator for the whole country. Class actions exist for a reason. This lawfare trend is a dangerous precedent. This is Judicial Overreach 🫤

MissJinxed1 year ago

This is why Trump needs to ignore every one of these judges.

B_Ray4ever1 year ago

Senator Kennedy makes an excellent point and it begs the question ... Why hasn't Congress stepped up here? Clearly, they have the ability and power to restrict judicial overreach. What are they waiting for?

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸1 year ago

What can these district judges do if the federal government ignores their orders?

Usher The Cat1 year ago

Who in this administration is going to have the balls to take the first shot? Time is ticking. People need to be publicly humiliated and locked up or else NOTHING will change.

Not Pucking Around 🇺🇸1 year ago

All need to be removed and jailed

Unknown gatekeeper of The Regnum Key1 year ago

A judge does not rule the world. A robe does not grant dominion over the unseen. Universal injunctions are the illusion of power masquerading as law— A desperate grasp by those who fear the fracturing of the system they can no longer control. Their reach exceeds their realm. And the reckoning draws near.

Chaotic Genius1 year ago

Universal injunctions are a judicial power grab, plain and simple. One judge should never have the power to override national policy for 330 million people. This is lawfare, not justice.

Related Videos

.Scott Jennings schools Ana Navarro on CNN NewsNight after she calls the $1.8 billion DOJ fund to compensate victims of unfair lawfare “reparations.”: Navarro: “Republicans used to balk and be shocked and uh outraged by the idea of reparations to people who suffered slavery. But we're going to be giving money to uh January 6th insurrectionists. That part's okay. Yeah, it's it's disgusting.” … Jennings: Have you ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Navarro] I have been unfairly targeted by this administration, yeah. Jennings] Have you been unfairly prosecuted by the Department of Justice? Navarro] Are those the people that are going to be in uh in this— Jennings] So the answer is no, you haven't. So so the issue is, the question is, has anyone in the history of the United States ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Of course they have. And there ought to be just at a top line a way for people to seek recourse if they have been unfairly targeted. That having been said, this all started by the fact that Donald Trump had his tax returns unfairly and illegally leaked by the IRS. That's where all this started and he was initially seeking damages for that, which he has given up. He'll receive no money as I understand it. And now it has morphed into this idea that there have been people that have been unfairly targeted…. I want a uh do I want a world where if you've been unfairly targeted by the federal government and it was truly unfair and you truly were had something done to you that should not have been done, do I think people should be able to seek recourse for that? Absolutely I do because I think it probably happens and not on a partisan basis but it probably happens all the time. And I think people ought to be able to seek uh some sort of damages if they've been unfairly targeted by the department or by the federal government.”

.Scott Jennings schools Ana Navarro on CNN NewsNight after she calls the $1.8 billion DOJ fund to compensate victims of unfair lawfare “reparations.”: Navarro: “Republicans used to balk and be shocked and uh outraged by the idea of reparations to people who suffered slavery. But we're going to be giving money to uh January 6th insurrectionists. That part's okay. Yeah, it's it's disgusting.” … Jennings: Have you ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Navarro] I have been unfairly targeted by this administration, yeah. Jennings] Have you been unfairly prosecuted by the Department of Justice? Navarro] Are those the people that are going to be in uh in this— Jennings] So the answer is no, you haven't. So so the issue is, the question is, has anyone in the history of the United States ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Of course they have. And there ought to be just at a top line a way for people to seek recourse if they have been unfairly targeted. That having been said, this all started by the fact that Donald Trump had his tax returns unfairly and illegally leaked by the IRS. That's where all this started and he was initially seeking damages for that, which he has given up. He'll receive no money as I understand it. And now it has morphed into this idea that there have been people that have been unfairly targeted…. I want a uh do I want a world where if you've been unfairly targeted by the federal government and it was truly unfair and you truly were had something done to you that should not have been done, do I think people should be able to seek recourse for that? Absolutely I do because I think it probably happens and not on a partisan basis but it probably happens all the time. And I think people ought to be able to seek uh some sort of damages if they've been unfairly targeted by the department or by the federal government.”

Steve Guest

23,762 views • 1 month ago

Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to be sentenced for 34 counts on January 10th ahead of inauguration Judge Merchan was never supposed to oversee Donald Trump’s case, he was specifically assigned the case to weaponize our legal system against Trump, here’s the proof “Understand there's absolutely no reason that Judge Merchan should have even had a chance to be assigned to this case? Now, I'm sure the left is just gonna call this a conspiracy theory. ‌ So I'll issue a challenge to them, and maybe they can tell me how he managed to be the judge. Because for these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. ‌ That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. So even though they're trying to claim that they didn't pick the judge, that it was randomly assigned, that's not possible because judge Merchan isn't in the pool to be randomly assigned. So the only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. ‌ And the wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. ‌ So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats. ‌ But, yeah, I'm sure this was just a coincidence. It was a coincidence that one of the most high profile cases ever, we didn't assign a judge, we assigned an acting judge. ‌ And that that judge somehow got selected even though he wasn't in the pool of judges available to be selected, and that that same judge that was selected also caught 2 other Trump related cases in the same year, and then that judge's daughter makes tens of millions of dollars a year promoting Democrats. Yeah. I'm sure that's all a coincidence.”

Wall Street Apes

514,459 views • 1 year ago

🚨 JUST IN: Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) says his legislation will limit the jurisdiction of federal judges AGAINST nationwide injunctions. They would only be allowed to impact the people inside that SPECIFIC case. Genius idea, Rep Andy Biggs. "Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to limit jurisdiction. And that's what we're doing. I have legislation that would limit the jurisdiction of federal district courts to only the litigants before them and the case before them." "You couldn't issue nationwide injunctions, We're talking about impeachment. We're talking about defunding certain courts and jurisdictional limitation on courts and the areas that they can rule in. But I want to point out something. Most people think that federal judges have lifetime tenure. Everybody is told that, but that's not accurate." "Article 3, Section 1 is very clear that they only get to have their job during a tenure of 'good behavior.' And when you're abusing your power for political purposes, you have violated that clause and you are subject to termination from your job as a federal judge." "And that doesn't even require impeachment. What it requires is Congress to basically issue a resolution saying this judge is acting outside of his scope of conduct. He's engaged in misconduct and is not engaged in good conduct right now."

🚨 JUST IN: Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) says his legislation will limit the jurisdiction of federal judges AGAINST nationwide injunctions. They would only be allowed to impact the people inside that SPECIFIC case. Genius idea, Rep Andy Biggs. "Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to limit jurisdiction. And that's what we're doing. I have legislation that would limit the jurisdiction of federal district courts to only the litigants before them and the case before them." "You couldn't issue nationwide injunctions, We're talking about impeachment. We're talking about defunding certain courts and jurisdictional limitation on courts and the areas that they can rule in. But I want to point out something. Most people think that federal judges have lifetime tenure. Everybody is told that, but that's not accurate." "Article 3, Section 1 is very clear that they only get to have their job during a tenure of 'good behavior.' And when you're abusing your power for political purposes, you have violated that clause and you are subject to termination from your job as a federal judge." "And that doesn't even require impeachment. What it requires is Congress to basically issue a resolution saying this judge is acting outside of his scope of conduct. He's engaged in misconduct and is not engaged in good conduct right now."

Eric Daugherty

487,153 views • 1 year ago

Madeley "This does seem to be part of a pattern.. offensive, crude remarks. It seems to be endemic in Reform" Jenrick ".. theres no evidence that Reform has any more bad apples than other political parties" ".. I challenge what you say. I think Reform is in a class of its own"

Madeley "This does seem to be part of a pattern.. offensive, crude remarks. It seems to be endemic in Reform" Jenrick ".. theres no evidence that Reform has any more bad apples than other political parties" ".. I challenge what you say. I think Reform is in a class of its own"

Saul Staniforth

106,795 views • 3 months ago

Why did Justice Kagan oppose nationwide injunctions in 2022 but support them now? Scott Jennings: "In 2022, Justice Kagan actually gave an interview and said out loud what a lot of conservatives have been saying this year, which is that how can it be that an individual district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction and effectively grind a presidency to a halt and, you know, take years and years and years for it to go through the process?" "Now, she obviously voted the other way this time around. I wonder what caused her to change her opinion."

Why did Justice Kagan oppose nationwide injunctions in 2022 but support them now? Scott Jennings: "In 2022, Justice Kagan actually gave an interview and said out loud what a lot of conservatives have been saying this year, which is that how can it be that an individual district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction and effectively grind a presidency to a halt and, you know, take years and years and years for it to go through the process?" "Now, she obviously voted the other way this time around. I wonder what caused her to change her opinion."

Gunther Eagleman™

349,619 views • 1 year ago

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,812 views • 1 year ago

Adam Silver on tanking in the NBA: “In terms of the tanking, there’s no question that what we saw this season was unprecedented. You talked a lot about it. Your colleagues have talked a lot about it. Again, I think a bit of a group think there obviously by definition it can’t be successful for all the teams that were engaging in that strategy. But on the other hand the analytics which all the sports are using today suggest that it’s a potentially a winning strategy and that is to race to the bottom in order to get higher draft picks. I think it was a bit of perfect storm this year. You have a perception of a very deep draft class, which it appears to be some great players coming into the league. And then even fans in particular cities and even media in those cities to a certain degree were rooting for their teams to tank and saying, you know, how well can your team be managed if you’re sort of just in the middle? You either got to be great or you got to let yourself get bad. And I think we had to respond not just to the narrative but to misalignment of incentives once sort of the guard rails came off and it was an accepted practice in this league.” (Via Stephen A Smith)

Adam Silver on tanking in the NBA: “In terms of the tanking, there’s no question that what we saw this season was unprecedented. You talked a lot about it. Your colleagues have talked a lot about it. Again, I think a bit of a group think there obviously by definition it can’t be successful for all the teams that were engaging in that strategy. But on the other hand the analytics which all the sports are using today suggest that it’s a potentially a winning strategy and that is to race to the bottom in order to get higher draft picks. I think it was a bit of perfect storm this year. You have a perception of a very deep draft class, which it appears to be some great players coming into the league. And then even fans in particular cities and even media in those cities to a certain degree were rooting for their teams to tank and saying, you know, how well can your team be managed if you’re sort of just in the middle? You either got to be great or you got to let yourself get bad. And I think we had to respond not just to the narrative but to misalignment of incentives once sort of the guard rails came off and it was an accepted practice in this league.” (Via Stephen A Smith)

NBA Courtside

11,520 views • 2 months ago

Vance: "I always find it interesting, even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that I believe this or that thing...do you think that it would be moral or appropriate to go out there and whine publicly about a decision the President of the United States had made? I'm not a commentator, I'm the Vice President! I serve in the administration, the American people elected him to be in charge of it."

Vance: "I always find it interesting, even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that I believe this or that thing...do you think that it would be moral or appropriate to go out there and whine publicly about a decision the President of the United States had made? I'm not a commentator, I'm the Vice President! I serve in the administration, the American people elected him to be in charge of it."

Grand Marshall Skrain G. Dukat

51,824 views • 24 days ago

Kash Patel CONFIRMS Judge Juan Merchan should have never been assigned to Donald Trump’s case Kash Patel “I'm calling for the subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchant's Daughter's company who made $15+ million dollars from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom - I wanna know the bank records because money doesn't lie - I wanna know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family and how much of it is going to the family after this false conviction - Then we need to investigate the FEC actual violations that this judge and his family conducted Judge Juan Merchan should never have been overseeing this trial to begin with because of the illicit campaign money that was flowing through there and the unconstitutional due process violations are only the beginning.“ That’s not all, here’s more reasons why he should have NEVER been assigned Donald Trump’s case from The Older Millennial: ‘For these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. The only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. The wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats.’ Insane corruption.

Kash Patel CONFIRMS Judge Juan Merchan should have never been assigned to Donald Trump’s case Kash Patel “I'm calling for the subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchant's Daughter's company who made $15+ million dollars from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom - I wanna know the bank records because money doesn't lie - I wanna know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family and how much of it is going to the family after this false conviction - Then we need to investigate the FEC actual violations that this judge and his family conducted Judge Juan Merchan should never have been overseeing this trial to begin with because of the illicit campaign money that was flowing through there and the unconstitutional due process violations are only the beginning.“ That’s not all, here’s more reasons why he should have NEVER been assigned Donald Trump’s case from The Older Millennial: ‘For these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. The only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. The wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats.’ Insane corruption.

Wall Street Apes

3,331,338 views • 1 year ago

Roughly 70% of the judges President Biden tried to appoint were activists first and lawyers second. It was clear to me that many of them had never read the Constitution. Watching “My Cousin Vinny” does not qualify you to be a federal judge. Victor Davis Hanson

Roughly 70% of the judges President Biden tried to appoint were activists first and lawyers second. It was clear to me that many of them had never read the Constitution. Watching “My Cousin Vinny” does not qualify you to be a federal judge. Victor Davis Hanson

John Kennedy

467,269 views • 8 months ago

Miles Taylor: “If you go back statistically and look, this president has been ruled to have done illegal things, more illegal things in his first year than any president in modern history. That is the data.” Betsy McCaughey: “When you say ruled —” Miles Taylor: “Dozens of federal judges…” Betsy McCaughey: “Yes… so many federal judges, lower court federal judges who will be overturned.” “Let me just point out that the Supreme Court has already slapped the hands of most of those lower court judges for imposing national injunctions which they have no authority to do.” NUKED!

Miles Taylor: “If you go back statistically and look, this president has been ruled to have done illegal things, more illegal things in his first year than any president in modern history. That is the data.” Betsy McCaughey: “When you say ruled —” Miles Taylor: “Dozens of federal judges…” Betsy McCaughey: “Yes… so many federal judges, lower court federal judges who will be overturned.” “Let me just point out that the Supreme Court has already slapped the hands of most of those lower court judges for imposing national injunctions which they have no authority to do.” NUKED!

RedWave Press

649,553 views • 6 months ago

Most people choose belonging over accuracy. The desire to fit in overpowers the desire for truth. "A lot of the time, people will tell you, “Don’t care what other people think about you,” but we all care what other people think—often for very good reason, which is that if people think well of you, it benefits you in life. It puts you in a good position; you are rewarded for it. It helps you accomplish things. It makes you safer. It just feels good. Belonging is a critical part of being human. However, especially in the modern world, the desire to belong can often run counter to the desire to understand or be accurate. If you have to choose between “I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community” or “I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community,” a lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand." James Clear on The Knowledge Project

Most people choose belonging over accuracy. The desire to fit in overpowers the desire for truth. "A lot of the time, people will tell you, “Don’t care what other people think about you,” but we all care what other people think—often for very good reason, which is that if people think well of you, it benefits you in life. It puts you in a good position; you are rewarded for it. It helps you accomplish things. It makes you safer. It just feels good. Belonging is a critical part of being human. However, especially in the modern world, the desire to belong can often run counter to the desire to understand or be accurate. If you have to choose between “I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community” or “I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community,” a lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand." James Clear on The Knowledge Project

Shane Parrish

63,966 views • 6 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal's letter to Delhi High Court Chief Justice, Sacchin Puri, Advocate & Vice President Of Delhi High Court Bar Association says, "I believe that this is not correct. It is politicising the entire issue. The judgment has come. If you don't agree with the judgment, you have a remedy to appeal or revision or as the case may be. But to issue this kind of a letter in which you are acknowledging the fact that I have a right to appeal and without prejudice, I'm writing this to those rights, then you are taking the system on and saying today that you are bringing the prestige of the system down. It is not acceptable. There was no reason for such a letter to be posted in the public domain. You had a right which was right to appeal or revision. You should have exercised that. This is only scandalising the entire issue and trying to put pressure indirectly or directly on the judicial system."

#WATCH | Delhi: On AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal's letter to Delhi High Court Chief Justice, Sacchin Puri, Advocate & Vice President Of Delhi High Court Bar Association says, "I believe that this is not correct. It is politicising the entire issue. The judgment has come. If you don't agree with the judgment, you have a remedy to appeal or revision or as the case may be. But to issue this kind of a letter in which you are acknowledging the fact that I have a right to appeal and without prejudice, I'm writing this to those rights, then you are taking the system on and saying today that you are bringing the prestige of the system down. It is not acceptable. There was no reason for such a letter to be posted in the public domain. You had a right which was right to appeal or revision. You should have exercised that. This is only scandalising the entire issue and trying to put pressure indirectly or directly on the judicial system."

ANI

46,793 views • 2 months ago

Seeing Trump's aggressive move to denaturalize foreign nationals who secured citizenship through fraud I began to wonder ... ... American has a number of LIFETIME APPOINTED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES who were NOT BORN IN AMERICA but rather are naturalized citizens. I wonder what a review of their visa/green card/naturalizations process would reveal. Absolutely 100% clean? Not a single false statement? Not a scintilla of deception or fraud? No reason at all to justify denaturalization and loss of citizenship? Because that would be an interesting ALTERNATIVE METHOD of FIRING these federal judges short of impeachment--because one can not BE a federal judge if one is not a citizen.

Seeing Trump's aggressive move to denaturalize foreign nationals who secured citizenship through fraud I began to wonder ... ... American has a number of LIFETIME APPOINTED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES who were NOT BORN IN AMERICA but rather are naturalized citizens. I wonder what a review of their visa/green card/naturalizations process would reveal. Absolutely 100% clean? Not a single false statement? Not a scintilla of deception or fraud? No reason at all to justify denaturalization and loss of citizenship? Because that would be an interesting ALTERNATIVE METHOD of FIRING these federal judges short of impeachment--because one can not BE a federal judge if one is not a citizen.

Andrew Branca Show

25,127 views • 6 months ago

A Federal court blocked Trump’s tariffs. Judicial coup is trending again and of course the GOP does absolutely nothing America has been SO RIGGED by Democrats “There are nearly 700 federal district court judges across the country. Barack Obama and Joe Biden held the White House for 12 of the last 16 years. They appointed 72% of the federal district court judges. Those are left wing federal district court judges. — Those left wing robed radicals are routinely using nationwide restraining orders against the Executive Office of the United States. - The President, for example, Barack Obama only faced 12 nationwide injunctions during his eight years in office - Joe Biden had 14 injunctions in 4 years - But Donald Trump in his first 60 days, actually, the first Trump term saw 64 judicial injunctions against his agenda And the left's lawfare against Trump's second term is off to a blistering start with more than 120 lawsuits that have been filed against the administration and 15 nationwide injunctions against his orders just in the last 30 days. So the obvious tactic of the left is to cripple the Trump administration. They can't do it with legislation, can't do it in other ways. So they're going to try to prevent you from getting what you voted for by using activist judges. The Supreme Court alone can rein this in. The Supreme Court alone. I worried about Justice Roberts. I'm worried about Amy. I'm worried if we have Supreme Court judges that aren't under pressure in Washington to move to the left, let's be aware that the only tactic they've got now is judicial activism.“

A Federal court blocked Trump’s tariffs. Judicial coup is trending again and of course the GOP does absolutely nothing America has been SO RIGGED by Democrats “There are nearly 700 federal district court judges across the country. Barack Obama and Joe Biden held the White House for 12 of the last 16 years. They appointed 72% of the federal district court judges. Those are left wing federal district court judges. — Those left wing robed radicals are routinely using nationwide restraining orders against the Executive Office of the United States. - The President, for example, Barack Obama only faced 12 nationwide injunctions during his eight years in office - Joe Biden had 14 injunctions in 4 years - But Donald Trump in his first 60 days, actually, the first Trump term saw 64 judicial injunctions against his agenda And the left's lawfare against Trump's second term is off to a blistering start with more than 120 lawsuits that have been filed against the administration and 15 nationwide injunctions against his orders just in the last 30 days. So the obvious tactic of the left is to cripple the Trump administration. They can't do it with legislation, can't do it in other ways. So they're going to try to prevent you from getting what you voted for by using activist judges. The Supreme Court alone can rein this in. The Supreme Court alone. I worried about Justice Roberts. I'm worried about Amy. I'm worried if we have Supreme Court judges that aren't under pressure in Washington to move to the left, let's be aware that the only tactic they've got now is judicial activism.“

Wall Street Apes

29,661 views • 1 year ago

Same credit score. Same symptoms. But if you are Black, the AI says no. NAZI SCUMBAG #ElonMusk is in federal court right now fighting to keep it that way. Colorado passed a law: If you build AI that makes decisions about people’s housing, their jobs, or their healthcare, that AI has to be fair. That is the entire law. Musk filed a federal lawsuit to block it. His argument? Forcing his AI not to discriminate violates his First Amendment rights. Read that again. He is arguing in federal court that “do not discriminate against Black people” is a political opinion he should not have to follow. Never forget that Musk is all over the #EpsteinFiles.

Same credit score. Same symptoms. But if you are Black, the AI says no. NAZI SCUMBAG #ElonMusk is in federal court right now fighting to keep it that way. Colorado passed a law: If you build AI that makes decisions about people’s housing, their jobs, or their healthcare, that AI has to be fair. That is the entire law. Musk filed a federal lawsuit to block it. His argument? Forcing his AI not to discriminate violates his First Amendment rights. Read that again. He is arguing in federal court that “do not discriminate against Black people” is a political opinion he should not have to follow. Never forget that Musk is all over the #EpsteinFiles.

TasetiReloaded2 🇧🇫🇳🇪🇲🇱🔴⚫️🟢

23,550 views • 2 months ago

Is Alan Dershowitz is saying on this clip that people who made accusations are being protected and there is evidence that undermines those accusations that needs to come out? In addition to people who were accused? Dershowitz is not a fire starter. I don’t agree with him on many things politically but when it comes to legal matters that is a different story. I have to be honest and we have to be able to critique our own side. This is not a good look in terms of transparency. So I will say this again, when you make this issue central in your conversations with the American people, you better be prepared to deliver because if you do not deliver, and instead of being honest about why you failed to deliver you below the American people that does not look good . I’m not sure what’s going on with Pam Bondi but I really think that it is in the best interest of the Department of Justice to just have an honest dialogue and disclose whatever they are able to disclose legally. Just explain what happened and be done with this.

Is Alan Dershowitz is saying on this clip that people who made accusations are being protected and there is evidence that undermines those accusations that needs to come out? In addition to people who were accused? Dershowitz is not a fire starter. I don’t agree with him on many things politically but when it comes to legal matters that is a different story. I have to be honest and we have to be able to critique our own side. This is not a good look in terms of transparency. So I will say this again, when you make this issue central in your conversations with the American people, you better be prepared to deliver because if you do not deliver, and instead of being honest about why you failed to deliver you below the American people that does not look good . I’m not sure what’s going on with Pam Bondi but I really think that it is in the best interest of the Department of Justice to just have an honest dialogue and disclose whatever they are able to disclose legally. Just explain what happened and be done with this.

Insurrection Barbie

22,917 views • 1 year ago

Ezra Klein: "Having AI summarize a book or paper for me is a disaster. It has no idea what I really wanted to know and wouldn't have made the connections I would've made. I'm interested in the thing I will see that other people wouldn't have seen, and I think AI typically sees what everybody else would see. I'm not saying that AI can't be useful, but I'm pretty against shortcuts. And obviously, you have to limit the amount of work you're doing. You can't read literally everything. But in some ways, I think it's more dangerous to think you've read something that you haven't than to not read it at all. I think the time you spend with things is pretty important." Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein: "Having AI summarize a book or paper for me is a disaster. It has no idea what I really wanted to know and wouldn't have made the connections I would've made. I'm interested in the thing I will see that other people wouldn't have seen, and I think AI typically sees what everybody else would see. I'm not saying that AI can't be useful, but I'm pretty against shortcuts. And obviously, you have to limit the amount of work you're doing. You can't read literally everything. But in some ways, I think it's more dangerous to think you've read something that you haven't than to not read it at all. I think the time you spend with things is pretty important." Ezra Klein

David Perell Clips

2,054,141 views • 4 months ago