Dr. Ronald Pestritto

setting the situation up for this kind of rhetoric. And the other thing that I haven't heard mentioned very much is, of course, there's a layer of courts in between the district court level and the Supreme Court level, and these are the courts of appeal.

setting the situation up for this kind of rhetoric. And the other thing that I haven't heard mentioned very much is, of course, there's a layer of courts in between the district court level and the Supreme Court level, and these are the courts of appeal.

And where most of these cases are being brought, and they're being brought here for obvious reason, they're being brought in the District of Columbia. And the appeals court in the District of Columbia, the federal appeals court, is the one that was notoriously stacked with Democrats by Harry Reid.

And where most of these cases are being brought, and they're being brought here for obvious reason, they're being brought in the District of Columbia. And the appeals court in the District of Columbia, the federal appeals court, is the one that was notoriously stacked with Democrats by Harry Reid.

And so it's not as if once these district court decisions get up to the appellate court level, there's not likely to be a terribly sympathetic hearing there either. And so these are really matters that should be in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should be policing this. You saw four justices in the case on the USAID funding. get really quite angry.

And so it's not as if once these district court decisions get up to the appellate court level, there's not likely to be a terribly sympathetic hearing there either. And so these are really matters that should be in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should be policing this. You saw four justices in the case on the USAID funding. get really quite angry.

Justice Alito was quite angry at the court for not intervening in that case sooner. So it'll be a matter of when the Supreme Court wants to get involved.

Justice Alito was quite angry at the court for not intervening in that case sooner. So it'll be a matter of when the Supreme Court wants to get involved.

Well, I think ultimately the most likely recourse is there being overturned by a higher court and especially by the Supreme Court. That's the most likely. Now, you know, we have heard talk of impeachment and I'm certainly not not opposed to impeachment for judges who knowingly betray their judicial duty. The problem is it's simply not a realistic remedy.

Well, I think ultimately the most likely recourse is there being overturned by a higher court and especially by the Supreme Court. That's the most likely. Now, you know, we have heard talk of impeachment and I'm certainly not not opposed to impeachment for judges who knowingly betray their judicial duty. The problem is it's simply not a realistic remedy.

Impeachment requires a supermajority vote in the Senate that is simply never going to happen. And so it's just, to my mind, not a very practical remedy. And the leftists know this. They know how to judge shop. Quite frankly, the Republican lawyers, when President Obama and President Biden were in office— they knew how to judge shop as well. It's very easy to do at the district court level.

Impeachment requires a supermajority vote in the Senate that is simply never going to happen. And so it's just, to my mind, not a very practical remedy. And the leftists know this. They know how to judge shop. Quite frankly, the Republican lawyers, when President Obama and President Biden were in office— they knew how to judge shop as well. It's very easy to do at the district court level.

There are 90 some odd district courts and you only need to win in one of them, right? That's the great problem with a lot of these universal injunctions is you can go district court to district court to district court and lose, lose, lose. And then if you find just one district court judge who's willing to enjoin the government, then that's it. They only have to go for one out of 94, essentially.

There are 90 some odd district courts and you only need to win in one of them, right? That's the great problem with a lot of these universal injunctions is you can go district court to district court to district court and lose, lose, lose. And then if you find just one district court judge who's willing to enjoin the government, then that's it. They only have to go for one out of 94, essentially.

And it's not hard to do. It's like getting an indictment. You know, a prosecutor getting an indictment, you can indict a ham sandwich. And getting an injunction in district court, especially in D.C., if you can't do that and you're a Democratic attorney, you should consider a new line of work.

And it's not hard to do. It's like getting an indictment. You know, a prosecutor getting an indictment, you can indict a ham sandwich. And getting an injunction in district court, especially in D.C., if you can't do that and you're a Democratic attorney, you should consider a new line of work.

You bet. And in one sense, it is illegal under existing Supreme Court precedent, under the Humphrey's executor precedent from 1935 that you just named. And of course,

You bet. And in one sense, it is illegal under existing Supreme Court precedent, under the Humphrey's executor precedent from 1935 that you just named. And of course,

The Trump administration knows that, and one has to guess that the very reason that they have decided to go after these officers from the FTC is they know that that will put the question squarely before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Trump administration knows that, and one has to guess that the very reason that they have decided to go after these officers from the FTC is they know that that will put the question squarely before the Supreme Court of the United States.