Will Chamberlain
speaker
298 appearances
8 recordings
2 series
first heard Apr 2025
last heard 10 Jul
Will Chamberlain’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 7 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 2.
Appearances
And the All Writs Act, which is the basis on which they exercise, they tried to give this injunction, it only allows you to issue writs in aid of your underlying jurisdiction. If there was never a lower court opinion, then what's going to the Supreme Court is so-called original jurisdiction.
And we know if you're a lawyer and you remember your con law, that's for like when a state is litigating against another state, the Supreme Court hears the case in the first instance. But that's it. So, I mean, it's a brazen error procedurally.
And, you know, all this talk, I mean, my basic understanding of what actually happened here is that the ACLU spazzed out and then the Supreme Court took them at their word. And the ACLU did all sorts of crazy litigation stuff. Like they went to the district court, told them they had 42 minutes to get their opinion out before we go to the appellate court and treat it as a constructive denial. Right.
The district court didn't rule. It only had 40 minutes. They went to the appellate court, did the same thing, and went to the Supreme Court.
Yeah. And I'm also at the point where I just simply don't believe what the lawyers for immigrant, you know, the plaintiffs in these cases say anymore. Like I have a default skepticism of what they say. So, you know, maybe they say, oh, this is why the bus is turned around.
I would point out that, well, you seem to know who your plaintiffs were and who got these notices, which means they got notice and had time to file the habeas petition, which is exactly what the Supreme Court demanded in the opinion that came out a couple of weeks ago.
Yeah, I think so. Because I don't think that The judiciary is competent to determine when there has been a predatory incursion or a military invasion. They have no intelligence services. They have no military. They don't know what the president knows. So in every other context where that's the case, the amount of deference given to the executive is massive.
So, you know, there was like a district judge in Colorado who just enjoined this whole thing herself on the basis of saying, well, this doesn't seem like a predatory incursion to me. It's like, well, who are you and what do you know? I mean, this is not it's not your call.
Right. I think the only hiccup here is that essentially I think the Supreme Court will ultimately say that they need a chance to prove they're not Trendyaragla. They have a chance to prove that they're not in the class of alien enemies that are covered by the proclamation. And who knows what that looks like?
I think my guess is it'll be more efficient than the normal process, which allows you to get access to, you know, argue for withholding of removal, argue that you shouldn't be sent to the country based on the Convention Against Torture. But who knows? It might actually be less efficient. It's possible. I think that's what the ACLU is ultimately fighting for.
They're trying to... I don't think they think they can stop the use of the Alien Enemies Act, but if they can gum it up enough to make it, you know, as slow or only slightly more efficient than normal immigration processes, then maybe the administration stops trying to use the alien enemies act.
I like his chances. I think there's been a cultural shift also at the Supreme Court. You know, we have the hearings about the craziness going on in Montgomery County where, you know, they're trying to force kids to listen to, you know, discussions of bondage or something and telling them it's like, well, you can just unenroll in the school if you don't like it.
But so, and I, you know, the questions from people like Gorsuch made clear they didn't think very much of those arguments. I think in general, they're going to look at this and say, especially when it comes to military readiness, you know, I mean, I have ADD, for example, and if I were young enough to join the military, that would be sufficient to block me from joining up.
If ADD is a sufficient disorder to constitute that, I don't know how believing, you know, that you were born into the wrong gender and that you need massive physical surgery to change yourself isn't also something that should bar you from military service.
I mean, the lawfare against Trump is remarkably aggressive. There's a part of it that's a product of the fact that this Trump administration is much more aggressive than the first one. They're trying to push the limits a little more to see where their power lies. So you'd expect a few more injunctions. With that said...
The judiciary has reacted in an unbelievably aggressive manner, and the constitutional crisis is being created by the judiciary. I mean, just, you know, again, look at that Supreme Court ruling that just came out where they literally took a case without jurisdiction and issued an injunction on Good Friday evening.
They have an unbelievably quick trigger finger with the Trump administration, both district judges and apparently now the Supreme Court. And they got to get it together because, you know, they need to follow their own rules and their own laws if they're going to start accusing the administration of wild lawbreaking.
Absolutely. Great to be with you, Megan.
Showing 281–298 of 298 · page 15 of 15
← Previous