This Could be Hegseth's Biggest Mistake Yet (w/ David French) | Bulwark Podcast

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision upholding birthright citizenship, striking down a Trump executive order that sought to change centuries of American law and precedent. David French expressed surprise at the three dissenting votes, including Gorsuch, suggesting a narrower margin than anticipated after oral arguments.

The 6-3 decision struck down Trump's EO. Gorsuch was the third dissenter. Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing Congress could overturn the 1950s law, but not the President.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) revocations was criticized for its cruel policy implications, but legally, it exposed congressional malpractice. The law granted immense discretion to the administration and explicitly stated that TPS revocation was not reviewable by courts, making legal challenges difficult.

The law gave enormous discretion to the administration and stated revocation of TPS status is not reviewable by courts. The court's reasoning on racial targeting was questioned, as it noted the Trump administration cut off all TPS designations, regardless of country, but these were all from majority-minority countries so far.

David French identified an inconsistency in the Supreme Court's treatment of race. In the Hawaii gun control case, the court rejected a historical comparison to 1865 Louisiana 'Black Codes' due to their discriminatory intent, even if facially neutral. However, in the TPS case, despite overtly racist statements from the Trump administration, the court emphasized the 'neutral application' of the policy.

In the Hawaii gun case, the majority called out the 1865 Louisiana law as 'Black Codes' and discriminatory (00:10:38). In the TPS case, the court focused on the neutral application of cancelling all TPS designations, despite racist rhetoric (00:08:48).

The Supreme Court's 'Slaughter' ruling significantly increased presidential power over executive branch agencies. The court asserted that any agency with lawmaking or law enforcement powers must be accountable to an elected official (the President for executive agencies, Congress for legislative ones), challenging the independence of many multi-member commissions.

The core of the ruling is that executive branch agencies must be accountable to a political figure, specifically the president, if they have lawmaking/law enforcement powers. This allows a new president to sweep out previous appointees.

In the 'Cook' ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the independence of the Federal Reserve, essentially carving it out from the principles established in the 'Slaughter' case. The majority argued the Fed is 'just different,' tracing its lineage to pre-founding entities and citing 'reliance interests' as a reason to maintain its unique structure, despite its significant governmental role.

The majority opinion stated the Fed is 'just different' from other agencies, tracing its lineage back to quasi-public/private entities before the founding, and that Hamilton and Madison supported such a structure. Kavanaugh's concurrence emphasized upholding the Fed's independence to avoid introducing uncertainty into world markets, citing 'reliance interests' as a strong legal justification.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down coordinated spending limits between candidates and party committees, extending the logic of Citizens United. This decision weakens individual campaigns by leveling the playing field for party committees, allowing them to spend unlimited coordinated money, further complicating the campaign finance landscape.

The ruling struck down limits on coordinated spending between candidates and party committees, allowing party committees to have equal power to spend. French argued the existing labyrinth of regulations diminishes political parties and campaigns, empowering Super PACs.

While Trump secured wins in the Slaughter and TPS cases, he also suffered significant losses. These included the upholding of birthright citizenship, a defeat on tariffs (a centerpiece of his domestic policy), and the loss of his appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case, indicating a mixed, but on balance, challenging term for his agenda.

Trump lost on birthright citizenship and tariffs, and his appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case. He won on executive firing power (Slaughter) and the TPS ruling.

David French discussed the concept of a 'dual state' justice system, where the legal system operates normally for most but applies differently to those favored or disfavored by the regime. He criticized the DOJ for potentially overcharging and slandering citizens in cases against left-wing protesters, while Trump allies receive impunity, creating a 'justice for thee, not for me' scenario.

French cited the Prairieland case involving Antifa protesters where a cop was shot, but also mentioned other cases in Chicago where charges against protesters were dropped despite initial overcharging and slander by the administration, highlighting a double standard compared to Trump allies' impunity.

The forced removal of General CD Donahghue by Hexith (a hypothetical Secretary of Defense) is seen as a '2x4 that broke the camel's back' for many, including Republicans. Donahghue was a universally respected warfighter, and his ousting, amidst other military issues and Hexith's claims of meritocracy, signaled that 'excellence can't trump politics' in Hexith's military.

Hexith forced out General Donahghue, described as one of the most respected warfighters. This occurred after a floundering military adventure in Iran, a flu outbreak due to voluntary vaccines, and other general firings, despite Hexith's claims of promoting meritocracy and lethality.