“Where were the judges for four years? Where were the Democrats for four years saying that Biden’s breaking the law, he’s allowing a border invasion and a huge border crisis which you and I reported on this whole time… they didn’t care because they wanted this to happen, that’s the only conclusion you can come to.”
Posobiec opened the conversation by framing the issue as one of constitutional urgency: “This idea of the Alien Enemies Act. You know, I kind of have been phrasing it as, when is an invasion an invasion? Who actually gets to determine this? Under the Constitution, it certainly says under Article Four, it states that the authority is for the federal government to protect the states from invasions. So, Congress and the president, we know that national security is of course under the president of the United States, so Libby, tell us what you read in Alito’s dissent and give us the backstory on all this?”
Emmons then walked through the timeline of the events and the controversies that came from those events: “The ACLU on Friday brought suit in three different courts to try and block the deportation of about 50 Venezuelans from a facility in Anson, Texas. They freaked out, the ACLU freaked out and said that these people were being loaded up on planes right now... They went to the Northern District Court of Texas and filed their complaint there; they wanted the deportations stopped. They also simultaneously filed with the 5th District Court in New Orleans, a federal court. They also filed an emergency order with the Supreme Court, so the case was opened in two lower courts but the Supreme Court took it up anyway, which they’re not supposed to do because ultimately the Supreme Court is an appellate court, like once you have your case in the Supreme Court it has been through a bunch of lower courts.”
“So, the Supreme Court decided that they would weigh in on this. They did that shortly after midnight on Friday. It was a ruling where there were only two dissenters, and the opinion was unsigned and said that the Trump administration, the government, could not do any deportations until further order from this court—meaning the Supreme Court who took up the case," Emmons continued.
“Alito later put up a statement, it was a five-page dissent, it’s very much worth reading. He criticized the court saying that the Supreme Court did not actually have jurisdiction over this case because it was in the two lower courts and hadn’t gone through that process all the way. That’s one thing he took issue with. He also took issue with something that had been in the brief from the ACLU, and that was mentioned in the court’s decision shortly after midnight. That was where the ACLU said they wanted to block the deportations of everyone that’s part of this putative class, and Alito said ‘what class?’”
“The ACLU’s goal is to take all illegal immigrants who may be subject to the Alien Enemies Act, refer to them as a single class, and then attempt to bring national cases, because part of the Supreme Court’s April 7th ruling—I believe it was April 7—the cases cannot be brought to block operations except in the districts where the detainees are held. And that’s just a lot of running around for the ACLU, which used to protect Americans’ civil liberties but now clearly does not. That’s a lot of running around for them, and they want to bring a bunch of national cases… Alito doesn’t like any of it. He says the court doesn’t have jurisdiction and these people are not part of a class.”
Posobiec called on listeners to recognize the importance of Alito’s legal reasoning and to reach out to the show:
“I want everybody out there, if you want to get into this, if you want to have this discussion—because it’s one we need to have—that Alito, that’s clearly the correct take from a legal perspective. But walk it back to the constitutional perspective for a second here as well, because these are constitutional issues.”
"I think that’s exactly where Alito is putting his finger here, to say, ‘wait a minute, hold on. We can sit there and say we’re the judicial branch and we get to criticize the executive, and yet at the same time we need to hold ourselves to the same standard. We can’t say the executive is violating the law while we ourselves are violating the law and our own procedures by not waiting for lower courts to weigh in.’”
"At the same time, when it comes down to it, this is a political question as well as a legal question and a constitutional question,” Posobiec said, urging viewers to write in to [email protected] to answer the question: “Is the United States under invasion, and who has the authority to declare one?”
He continued:
“Certainly, we know that President Trump declared one with his executive order… So that is the legal basis of declaring an invasion under the Constitution. That is national security, that is directly—defense of the nation is directed under the Constitution, as I read before under Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, it is that the federal government is obligated to protect states against invasion.”
“And then of course, when it comes to Congress, certainly the Congress has the power to declare and fund war. But of course the president, as we know, has the ability to declare emergencies. Of course, this is why we have a president to begin with. It’s why we don’t have a parliamentary system—we have a president specifically for the cases of national emergencies. And I really want everyone to weigh in on this. Libby, you’ve done a lot of reporting on this as well… you’ve written op-eds on it on humanevents.com, because this is the salient question. I really think that when you talk to liberals, they think that we’re joking or something when we say the United States is currently under invasion, don’t they?”
Emmons agreed, slamming the Biden administration’s reversal of Trump-era policies:
“They do think that, and they talk about immigration law, and we need to be empathetic, and they forget that the border was under control in 2020. The border—Donald Trump had sealed that up. He had done a great job and that’s why he was elected in 2016.”
“When Joe Biden came into office, he reversed so many of Trump’s executive orders, including the ones that had tightened up the border. He flung the doors open wide and said, ‘There’s nothing I can do about it; Congress needs to make new laws.’ He decided not to enforce the existing laws, so did his DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. You saw some in the GOP try to impeach Mayorkas, but he rode out his term as if he was doing a great job.”
“He literally invited the world in in March 2021, while the administration said there’s nothing we can do about it. They facilitated this invasion, they didn’t pay any attention to the existing laws, and now when the Democrats are saying ‘rule of law, this and that,’ I mean I get it, checks and balances, I’m all in favor, but you spent four years flouting immigration law and now you want to beg mercy at the court? Is that seriously your jam? Is that what you’re doing?”
“Where were the judges for four years? Where were the Democrats for four years saying that Biden’s breaking the law, he’s allowing a border invasion and a huge border crisis which you and I reported on this whole time… they didn’t care because they wanted this to happen, that’s the only conclusion you can come to.”
“And now that all of these people are in the United States, their goal is to keep them here forever. That’s why they have multiple different varying kinds of semi-legal statuses for these people—refugees, asylum seekers, temporary protected status—because their goal is to keep them here forever. Chuck Schumer has said it, AOC has said it, Jasmine Crockett has said it, that’s what they want. This is what they want. They don’t want to let any of them go. They facilitated the invasion, they ignored the laws, and now they want to keep everyone here.”
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the unsigned Supreme Court ruling released in the early morning hours of Saturday. Alito objected to the Court issuing emergency relief in a case that had not completed review in lower courts. He also criticized the notion of a "putative class" of illegal immigrants, as cited by the ACLU, and argued that class-wide relief was improper in a habeas case.
Watch the full episode below:
Source link