Josh Hammer

So there's – I think it's in all three branches at once gang up on these rogue lower courts. So we can start with the United States Supreme Court itself, and then we'll kind of work our way backwards from Article 3 to Article 1, I suppose. So we'll start with Article 3 there.

So the easiest way to rein in lower court judges is for the United States Supreme Court to do so because the federal judiciary actually does work as a legitimate hierarchy where SCOTUS has the ability to do whatever it wants to in essentially its discretionary power – to overturn lower court judges that are running amok and have run amok.

So the easiest way to rein in lower court judges is for the United States Supreme Court to do so because the federal judiciary actually does work as a legitimate hierarchy where SCOTUS has the ability to do whatever it wants to in essentially its discretionary power – to overturn lower court judges that are running amok and have run amok.

So they can and they must take a direct challenge to the entire practice of a so-called nationwide injunction, and they should declare that that exceeds the judicial power of which Article III speaks. The Supreme Court should also expedite some of these other cases on the actual underlying substantive constitutional merits.

So they can and they must take a direct challenge to the entire practice of a so-called nationwide injunction, and they should declare that that exceeds the judicial power of which Article III speaks. The Supreme Court should also expedite some of these other cases on the actual underlying substantive constitutional merits.

So for example, the birthright citizenship case is a very good example there. We've now had three lower court judges that have put a temporary restraining order or some sort of other injunctive relief And joining the Trump administration, preventing it from enforcing its correct interpretation of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

So for example, the birthright citizenship case is a very good example there. We've now had three lower court judges that have put a temporary restraining order or some sort of other injunctive relief And joining the Trump administration, preventing it from enforcing its correct interpretation of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

SCOTUS should fast track an oral argument on that. They should get that opinion out by the end of this term in June there. I'm not going to confidently predict that there are five votes for the correct interpretation there. I tend to be a little bit pessimist when it comes to that particular issue there. But there's at least a possibility. So that thing should be fast tracked.

SCOTUS should fast track an oral argument on that. They should get that opinion out by the end of this term in June there. I'm not going to confidently predict that there are five votes for the correct interpretation there. I tend to be a little bit pessimist when it comes to that particular issue there. But there's at least a possibility. So that thing should be fast tracked.

kind of working your way backwards, the executive branch there. Well, I mean, let's take Judge McConnell in Rhode Island, Charlie, just for example here. So this judge in Rhode Island is threatening to put criminal contempt there. So at that point, the Trump administration should basically just flip its fingers at this judge and say, okay, you and what army?

kind of working your way backwards, the executive branch there. Well, I mean, let's take Judge McConnell in Rhode Island, Charlie, just for example here. So this judge in Rhode Island is threatening to put criminal contempt there. So at that point, the Trump administration should basically just flip its fingers at this judge and say, okay, you and what army?

I mean, who's actually going to enforce this criminal contempt order in practice?

I mean, who's actually going to enforce this criminal contempt order in practice?

Well, let's play it out a little further, Charlie. So look, the judge in Rhode Island, Judge McConnell here, he's threatening criminal contempt here. Okay, so who's actually going to enforce this criminal contempt? That would probably be one of the U.S. Marshals, right?

Well, let's play it out a little further, Charlie. So look, the judge in Rhode Island, Judge McConnell here, he's threatening criminal contempt here. Okay, so who's actually going to enforce this criminal contempt? That would probably be one of the U.S. Marshals, right?

Because as Hamilton says in Federalist 78, the judiciary has neither force nor will but merely judgment and literally depends upon the efficacy of the executive branch even to enforce its judgments. What he means by that is because the U.S. Marshals, in actuality, they're not part of Article III. They're part of Article 2. They're actually part of the Department of Justice. The U.S.

Because as Hamilton says in Federalist 78, the judiciary has neither force nor will but merely judgment and literally depends upon the efficacy of the executive branch even to enforce its judgments. What he means by that is because the U.S. Marshals, in actuality, they're not part of Article III. They're part of Article 2. They're actually part of the Department of Justice. The U.S.

Marshals sit under Attorney General Pam Bondi. So even if McConnell, Judge McConnell, that is, not Senator McConnell, even if Judge McConnell can get a U.S. Marshal to try to enforce his contempt order, fine, let that play out. Donald Trump can then just issue a pardon, make everyone happy.

Marshals sit under Attorney General Pam Bondi. So even if McConnell, Judge McConnell, that is, not Senator McConnell, even if Judge McConnell can get a U.S. Marshal to try to enforce his contempt order, fine, let that play out. Donald Trump can then just issue a pardon, make everyone happy.

He can literally then just issue a pardon for whichever official has been found in contempt by this rogue judge. End of story, constitutional crisis totally averted there. And then finally, Article 1, when it comes to Congress, that's kind of what you and I were just talking about there.