Senator Eric Schmitt

And if he wants to celebrate when some company stock value goes down, it's up to him. It's weird here, given that his own state retirement fund is pretty heavily invested in Tesla, as I understand it. So, he's celebrating the diminution in value of his own state workers, his own state retirees' retirement benefits. That's kind of weird.

And if he wants to celebrate when some company stock value goes down, it's up to him. It's weird here, given that his own state retirement fund is pretty heavily invested in Tesla, as I understand it. So, he's celebrating the diminution in value of his own state workers, his own state retirees' retirement benefits. That's kind of weird.

But what's doubly weird and concerning is that if he's going to bring up Tesla at all, why wouldn't he take that opportunity to say, by the way, regardless of whether you want to celebrate when Tesla's stock price goes down, knock it off with the violence. He didn't do that. There's a reason he didn't do that. And I fear what it means for the future of our country.

But what's doubly weird and concerning is that if he's going to bring up Tesla at all, why wouldn't he take that opportunity to say, by the way, regardless of whether you want to celebrate when Tesla's stock price goes down, knock it off with the violence. He didn't do that. There's a reason he didn't do that. And I fear what it means for the future of our country.

And Democrats should fear what that means for the future of the Democratic Party.

And Democrats should fear what that means for the future of the Democratic Party.

Look, there are things that can be done. I'll be introducing legislation next week that would require a separate procedure to be followed for this type of injunction. When I mean this type of injunction, I mean a type of injunction that has nationwide applicability

Look, there are things that can be done. I'll be introducing legislation next week that would require a separate procedure to be followed for this type of injunction. When I mean this type of injunction, I mean a type of injunction that has nationwide applicability

within the US government and is focused on a presidential policy decision, those should have to go, rather than being considered by a single federal district judge, they should have to go before a three-judge district court panel.

within the US government and is focused on a presidential policy decision, those should have to go, rather than being considered by a single federal district judge, they should have to go before a three-judge district court panel.

This is a procedure that's utilized in some limited cases, most of them dealing with the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives or the drawing of federal legislative boundaries.

This is a procedure that's utilized in some limited cases, most of them dealing with the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives or the drawing of federal legislative boundaries.

But we could add this to the list, and that's what my legislation would do, make it infinitely more difficult to game the system, to judge shop, to file the case in a place that suggests from the outset you'll get a very favorable audience from a leftist judge. And then just as importantly, anytime you've got a three-judge district court panel, you've got an immediate automatic appeal to the U.S.

But we could add this to the list, and that's what my legislation would do, make it infinitely more difficult to game the system, to judge shop, to file the case in a place that suggests from the outset you'll get a very favorable audience from a leftist judge. And then just as importantly, anytime you've got a three-judge district court panel, you've got an immediate automatic appeal to the U.S.

Supreme Court, not the opportunity to seek certiorari, or discretionary review from the Supreme Court, which is how it usually works there, but rather a direct appeal, meaning the Supreme Court has to review it, or if it chooses not to, it's still setting precedent.

Supreme Court, not the opportunity to seek certiorari, or discretionary review from the Supreme Court, which is how it usually works there, but rather a direct appeal, meaning the Supreme Court has to review it, or if it chooses not to, it's still setting precedent.

This would expedite the process, diminish the amount of time that these leftist activist judges could tie up the Trump administration in these legal proceedings, And it would also dramatically impair the ability of the plaintiffs to judge Shupp so as to rig the system in their favor.

This would expedite the process, diminish the amount of time that these leftist activist judges could tie up the Trump administration in these legal proceedings, And it would also dramatically impair the ability of the plaintiffs to judge Shupp so as to rig the system in their favor.

Yeah, this is maybe roughly analogous to the fact that there are circumstances in which a direct order from someone in your chain of command at the military isn't something that you follow. I don't know that the parallel works exactly, but yeah, there are theoretical limits beyond which a chief executive might deem it appropriate not to follow something.

Yeah, this is maybe roughly analogous to the fact that there are circumstances in which a direct order from someone in your chain of command at the military isn't something that you follow. I don't know that the parallel works exactly, but yeah, there are theoretical limits beyond which a chief executive might deem it appropriate not to follow something.