Trump BLINDSIDED by Secret WH REVOLT over using INSURRECTION ACT?!? | Unprecedented
YouTube · CKumYjNw0l0
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in US v. Rahimi overturned a conviction for possessing a gun while on controlled substances, with Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion controversially referencing historical drinking practices.
- ❖The 'history and tradition' test, introduced by Justice Thomas in Bruen, is deemed 'unworkable and ridiculous' by legal experts, selectively applied to gun cases but ignored for presidential immunity.
- ❖A new book by Haberman and Swan details how Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance advocated for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota, a move opposed by White House counsel Will Scharf.
- ❖The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill for cameras in the Supreme Court, a measure supported by hosts to increase transparency and public accountability of justices.
- ❖Clarence Thomas is criticized for historically not participating in oral arguments, suggesting he gains 'no value' and is a 'ringer for the right' rather than an impartial arbiter.
- ❖Trump's pattern of floating extreme ideas, like invoking the Insurrection Act or challenging birthright citizenship, often follows internal legal advice telling him he cannot legally do so.
Insights
1Supreme Court's 'Drunk History' Approach to Gun Rights
The Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision in US v. Rahimi, overturning a conviction for possessing a firearm while on controlled substances. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion controversially referenced historical drinking practices of the 1800s to determine the scope of Second Amendment rights. The hosts criticize this 'history and tradition' test, established in the Bruen case, as an 'absurd' and 'unworkable' standard that is selectively applied by the conservative majority to advance specific political agendas, rather than consistently across all constitutional issues, such as presidential immunity.
The 9-0 decision in US v. Rahimi, with Justice Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, and the hosts' interpretation of its reliance on historical context regarding alcohol consumption and firearm possession.
2Unusual Supreme Court Alliances and Judicial Transparency
A recent 5-4 decision in TM v. University of Maryland revealed an unusual lineup of justices, with Sotomayor, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Jackson in the majority, and Barrett, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Roberts dissenting. This atypical split contrasts with the more common 6-3 ideological divisions. Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill to allow cameras in the Supreme Court, a move supported by the hosts to increase transparency and public accountability, especially given historical criticisms of justices like Clarence Thomas for his lack of participation in oral arguments.
The specific lineup of justices in TM v. University of Maryland and the Senate Judiciary Committee's bipartisan approval of cameras in the courtroom.
3Internal White House Revolt Over Insurrection Act
Revelations from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's upcoming book, Regime Change, detail a significant internal conflict within the Trump administration. Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance aggressively pushed for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota following the killings of Renee Good and Alex Preddy by ICE agents. However, White House counsel Will Scharf, described as a 'Leonard Leo buddy,' successfully blocked this move by arguing it was legally indefensible. This incident highlights the tension between radical advisors and more pragmatic legal counsel within the administration, and Trump's tendency to float extreme ideas even after being advised against them.
Reporting from the unreleased book Regime Change by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, detailing the roles of Stephen Miller, J.D. Vance, and Will Scharf in the discussion about invoking the Insurrection Act in Minnesota.
4Stephen Miller's Constitutional Recklessness and Project 2025
Stephen Miller is criticized for consistently advocating for legally unsound and constitutionally defiant policies, such as suspending habeas corpus and unilaterally rewriting the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause. The hosts argue Miller, who is not a barred lawyer, operates without accountability for his 'ridiculous' legal opinions. This behavior aligns with the broader 'Project 2025' agenda, which aims to implement radical, reactionary policies designed to act in defiance of the Constitution, with the complicit Roberts Court often ruling in Trump's favor on shadow docket issues, effectively giving him a '90% chance of winning' his legal challenges.
Stephen Miller's advocacy for suspending habeas corpus and challenging birthright citizenship, his lack of legal credentials, and the hosts' connection of these actions to Project 2025 and the Roberts Court's rulings.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in US v. Rahimi, while seemingly a consensus, masks a deeper ideological divide on judicial methodology, where the 'history and tradition' test is selectively applied to advance specific political agendas, creating an unpredictable legal landscape for future constitutional challenges.
This selective application means that legal outcomes are less about consistent jurisprudence and more about the court's political leanings, making it difficult for lower courts and citizens to anticipate how rights will be interpreted, particularly in contentious areas like gun control and presidential power.
Legal scholars and public interest groups can leverage the inconsistencies of the 'history and tradition' test to challenge its legitimacy and push for more principled judicial standards, potentially influencing future appointments or legislative efforts to rein in judicial activism.
Key Concepts
History and Tradition Test
A judicial philosophy, primarily asserted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Bruen case, that mandates modern gun laws be consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Critics argue this test is 'unworkable and ridiculous,' leading to absurd historical inquiries (e.g., 'how drunk were the founding fathers?') and is selectively applied to advance a right-wing agenda, while being ignored in cases like presidential immunity where historical precedent would contradict conservative outcomes.
Lessons
- Familiarize yourself with the 'history and tradition' judicial test, particularly its application in Second Amendment cases like Bruen and Rahimi, to understand how the Supreme Court's conservative majority interprets constitutional rights.
- Support efforts for greater transparency in the Supreme Court, such as advocating for cameras in the courtroom, to allow public scrutiny of judicial behavior and interactions during oral arguments.
- Stay informed about reports and books detailing internal White House dynamics, like Regime Change, to understand how advisors influence presidential decisions and the mechanisms used to either promote or block extreme policy proposals.
Quotes
"This ridiculous test that was imposed by Clarence Thomas and his fellow Republicans in the Bruen case, uh this history and tradition is just a completely unworkable and ridiculous standard."
"They're only applying this so-called standard in gun cases, basically cases to help a right-wing political agenda on guns."
"If I walked into a casino and the house told me I got a 90% chance of winning, which is what the Supreme Court has told Donald Trump, I'd be betting every day."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
LIVE: DEM SENATORS ADDRESS UNLAWFUL WAR!!
"Democratic Senators, joined by VoteVets, forcefully condemn the administration's 'unlawful war' in Iran, citing constitutional overreach, devastating human and economic costs, and a deliberate lack of transparency and congressional oversight."
Justice Department CAUGHT pulling Epstein CON
"The Department of Justice released only half of the promised Jeffrey Epstein files, a move the hosts condemn as a deliberate 'rope-a-dope' strategy to suppress transparency and protect powerful figures."
Trump DOJ REACHES NEW LOW Trying to SAVE Trump
"Professor Aziz Huck dissects the foundational principles of the rule of law, revealing how modern political partisanship and the Justice Department's 'weaponization fund' challenge core constitutional mechanisms and legal predictability."
Trump's HEATED Call + AOC's Data Center Deep Dive | PBD #804
"This episode dissects the week's most impactful events, from Trump's contentious call with Netanyahu and Elon Musk's path to trillionaire status, to the societal implications of AI-driven job displacement and AOC's unexpected political alignment on data center concerns."