Ankush Khardori

I think we're right on the cusp of it, sort of teetering, actually. I mean, first of all, he's absolutely right. Justice Roberts gives a state of the judiciary speech, issues a report.

But a comment like this, sort of right in the middle of a news cycle, the only real precedent I can recall is during the first term when Roberts issued a statement sort of chastising Trump for describing judges as Obama judges. And Roberts issued a statement saying, well, we're just all judges. We're not Obama judges. We're not Bush judges. We're not Trump judges. And this is very comparable.

but I'm sure it wasn't made lightly. So it really, I don't think it could be emphasized enough how kind of extraordinary Robert's intervention is.

Yeah, I mean, it's a very narrow distinction. And actually, I think the notion or the concept of a constitutional crisis, I think is not a great fit for this moment because it sort of suggests an on-off switch, right? Or there will be a dramatic turn. And I think instead what we're going to see is this sort of creep, this sort of effort to kind of push the line a little bit further and further.

And, you know, we're seeing a bit of a disjunction, by the way, I should say, because... Pam Bondi, the attorney general, the lawyers in the Justice Department have been very strident, as you say, not even just saying the judge is wrong, but that he shouldn't even be able to weigh in on this issue at all.

At the same time, President Trump has been saying, including this week, that he will not defy a court order, that that is a red line that they won't cross. So we're kind of hearing mixed messages. But I think Trump at least understands the significance of this issue. The polling is very bad for them on this.

Multiple polls show something like 80 plus percent of Americans would disapprove if the government defied a court order. So it's very, very worrisome for them to be any kind of question. And it does escalate an already tense situation in a very, very unproductive way.

It would be hard to understate the gravity of this situation because the First Amendment is central to American identity. It's the First Amendment for a reason. And it is sort of elemental to the way our democracy functions. And if people feel like they cannot express opinions about politics, about their government,

government, about their government's dealings with other nations, which is firmly every American's right to do, that is really awful. It will curb dissent. It will curb speech. It will be very unhealthy for our democracy. It will harken back to really some of the worst chapters in American history. I mean, this is not entirely without precedent.

About 100 years ago, government executed something called the Pomerades, where they rounded up thousands of foreign nationals, deported hundreds of them on the theory that they were potential communists and sympathizers. And who were those people? They were largely Italians and Jewish immigrants from Europe. And the other thing I would just add to your description of all of these cases is,

Not only are they not getting due process, they're really not getting any process before the administration attempts to deport them, right? The Venezuelans, they've claimed are criminals, but they've just sent them on their way, right? Sent them to El Salvador without presenting any evidence. The grad student at Columbia, Mahmoud Khalil, who they're trying to deport.

Is this guy going to get a day in court to contest these allegations for us to understand what the government is actually claiming and whether or not we agree that there should be a basis for someone to be deported? But if it's true, as the administration claims, that these are all criminals, it should be extremely easy for them to produce that evidence.

So we should be very skeptical of these claims.

That's a very good observation because Trump does very well in his polling on the immigration issues. But at the same time, you know, it's also central to our democracy that we adhere to principles and certain sort of constitutional legal rules of the road, even if those things are unpopular. And the other thing I would say is Trump has a way of shifting public opinion on these issues.

And particularly when the whole Republican Party gets behind him on something, you will often see polls like this flip. And we saw this, for instance, in the January 6th polling, right? There was mass disapproval immediately after January 6th and the months following. That turned.

So it is something to keep an eye on because there has been such a full court press from the Republicans in Congress about not just impeaching these judges, which I think most of them probably privately realize is a bad idea because it will never happen since they will not be able to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate at a trial to impeach anyone.

But also just all of the commentary about how judges are usurping executive power, it's a judicial coup, they shouldn't be weighing in on these things at all. All of these things are very, very harmful and wrong. And I worry could even perhaps erode public opinion over time, which is why I'm hoping that we will see some sort of resolution to this in the near term.

It is a fundamental reordering of our constitutional system. It would be very, very, again, difficult to understate how broad the implications would be because we're seeing a very, very significant shift of power from our elected branch, who are more democratically responsive to Americans than the presidency per se.

shift from them to the executive branch, which is less responsive, more powerful, and the power is more centralized. And I think we would have a less democratically responsive government, and we would be going through very, very turbulent times any time an administration turned over.

Because if you concede that the president has all of this power, the taxing and spending powers, the decision to pass laws, how we want to organize our government, all of these things are usually within the congressional wheelhouse. And we would be seeing wild swings between administrations.

Once you create a set of tools, pull them out of the toolbox, you leave them there for their successor as well. And I think the consequences would be very, very bad. We would have a very unstable government, a very unrepresentative government, and a government that is very, very vulnerable, and I think already is, very, very vulnerable to corruption.

That is correct. It is actually happening because Congress has not put up a fight, at least the Republicans in Congress who comprise the majority, both in the House and the Senate. They're not putting up a fight on any of this stuff. The closures of the agencies, you know, the spending issues.

And so it is remarkable to see one of our three branches of government, which are supposed to be co-equal branches of government, cede this much power. It is very, very historically rare. And yes, you're exactly right. It is kind of happening in real time. The question is going to be whether at some point some breaks are put on.

And we're seeing some breaks in the form of judiciary halting some of these plans. It's a very, very positive sign, the health of our democracy, that they are holding the line there. But it is extremely troubling and very unwise for the administration to be antagonizing the judiciary, undermining confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

And there will be further options for Americans to express their disapproval up to and including not just the town halls we're seeing, but the midterms next year. And so my hope is that we will see these checks remain robust and head off the worst case scenario with the administration outright defying orders and claiming that they have the power to do so.

It is harmful to our democracy even to be doing what they are doing.

Thanks for having me. Thank you.

Historically, and our Constitution relies on this, there is supposed to be a healthy amount of tension and competition between our three branches of government, with each branch exercising its power to check the other branches and without just rolling over.

it would completely usurp the power of the purse from Congress. And there is a reason that Congress, our legislature, has that power, right? Because they are far more responsive and representative of the country as a whole and can aggregate the interests of their constituents throughout the country, which vary across demographics and geography and things like that.

And we have this very complex process. It's messy. It's far from perfect, right? But that is the process that is supposed to generate our budget.

This is a moment that the Republican Party has been waiting for for a long time, decades, right?

They have been waiting to have a Supreme Court that is stacked with their appointees, which they now have six to three, including three Trump appointees, and five of whom have, you know, very, probably some inclination toward expansive views of executive power, and also a president who is willing to push those boundaries.

One thing that Trump and I think the Supreme Court are going to need to grapple with is that, you know, when a president tries to acquire one of these new tools, it's not just a tool for him, it's a tool for his successors too.

This is a mistake that many presidents have made throughout American history, not really appreciating that the power that they want for themselves is a power that goes to their successors too.