TODAYS JUDGES ARE POLITICAL ACTIVISTS MAKING UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS- ANDREA WIDBURG

➡ Dave Hodges, host of the Common Sense Show, interviewed Andrea Whitberg, a former liberal who now identifies as a constitutional conservative. They discussed the importance of maintaining editorial independence in media, the role of funding in universities, and the influence of money on political ideologies. Whitberg, who is also the managing editor of American Thinker, shared her experiences as a lawyer and her views on the current state of the judiciary.
➡ The speaker criticizes leftist judges, claiming they use their positions to advance their political philosophies rather than uphold the law. They argue that these judges ignore constitutional guidelines and make decisions based on their personal beliefs. The speaker suggests that Congress should take action to limit the power of these judges. They also express concern about the potential for a constitutional crisis if President Trump refuses to abide by certain decisions.

Everybody, Dave Hodges here. I’m the host of the Common Sense Show, and we’re glad to be with you. Hey, I just did an interview with a wonderful, wonderful person and intelligent, reformed liberal. Maybe I shouldn’t use the word reform, but let’s say a little flipperoo took place, and I want to play excerpts of that interview for you. You don’t have to sift through the entire 56 minutes, but it’s really informative and it speaks to that. We’re going to play the intro, and then we’ll go to the part that I think is really salient to today’s discussions and the interference of the Trump agenda.

Let’s tune in to our intro, and then we’ll go from there. And we would ask you to continue to share our work, and my personal thanks to all of you who’ve given us such a high rating on Listen Notes. We’re ranked in the top 0.5% of all podcasts in the world, and it’s because of you guys and because you’re sharing. So I want to know from the bottom of my heart. We truly appreciate that. We’re humbled by your attention. We’re coming to you live from the Noble Gold Studios, and you know my background here. I’ve been a customer of Noble Gold for seven and a half years, multiple times, and I have been an advertiser for eight and a half, and I have to tell you, although there’s no guarantees, they’re the best people to deal with.

No pressure, no call centers. They’re just going to give you info, and you know the banks can take your money. They can take your retirement if it’s in the bank under Dodd-Frank 2010. Don’t let them do that. Don’t even risk it. Noble Gold can help you out of that. For more information, go to DaveHodgesGold.com. That’s DaveHodgesGold.com, or call 877-646-532-7 877-646-5347-877-6465347. We have such an interesting guest here, and this is going to be an interesting journey, and I’m going to read directly from the biography of our guest, Andrea Whitberg. This is absolutely an incredible background that you would think that Andrea, with her background and my background, we’d be on the same side on many issues, and we are.

Listen to this, ladies and gentlemen. Andrea is the managing editor of American Thinker, which great, great publication, and has been with that site since 2020. She’s a former Democrat who was raised in San Francisco and received a BA from UC Berkeley, and then received a JD from the University of Texas at Austin. She’s worked as a lawyer in the Bay Area for 30 years, raised two kids, and she’s appeared in many leftist-run courts, raising children against a culture hostile to childhood innocence. What a great expression that is. I’m going to have to remember that. I like that phrase, and she’s witnessed the Democratic Party turn against Israel, along with shock therapy of 9-11, and it’s made her re-examine her political beliefs, leading her to embrace constitutional conservatives, and her website, and we’ll give it out again before the end, is AmericanThinker.com.

Andrea, it’s such a pleasure to have you on. First time guest on the Common Sense show, and this is really terrific. I really like the American Thinker. I’ve been exposed to it several times, and you guys do fantastic work. You really do. I’m just curious. How much interference do you guys get from the powers that be that aren’t happy with what you produce? We don’t get interference. Our founder and editor emeritus, Thomas Lifson, because the interference would come from the right, correct? Because we’re not a huge player like Fox News or Newsmax. It would come from people pushing us from the right, but Thomas Lifson always rejected the sugar daddies of big conservative money, and in that way, he kept his editorial independence.

Yeah, I wanted to play that part for you, because then we’re going to go to some substantive content. But I had on Sam, you heard Sam, the president and CEO of yournews.com that’s going to dwarf all news agencies, because he’s doing news with thousands of journalists from the zip code to international. And she just said, I don’t want and we didn’t want and our founder didn’t want to be hamstrung by big money from the right. I would argue the left two in some cases, although not in their case, but they don’t want to be hamstrung by donors with large donations, because then you’re beholding to them.

And Sam Anthony said the same thing on this show. That’s the guiding philosophy behind your news. You could become an investor for $200 or more, but they won’t let you put a million in. There’s a cap. And not only that, you can become an investigative reporter. So go to yournews.com, scroll down to the bottom, and all the information you need right there is on the links at the bottom of the page. And his philosophy is identical to what you just heard right here. Pretty interesting stuff. Um, I’m going to go forward to some substantive comments here and play them out for you.

Okay. Preliminarily to this, and then we’re going to get right to the heart of the matter here. Uh, there’s a preparatory point I want to make about funding of universities and it’s come to the forefront with the Trump administration and their conflict with Ivy league schools like Harvard. And to the point here, our guest makes an excellent point about cutting off their funding, which is exactly what Donald Trump is doing. And by the way, you missed the part where she said she became a conservative because what the liberals were doing made no sense and it wasn’t good for the people and it was expensive and really without philosophical background.

And she said, if you want to stop communism, you have to cut off the money. And this is where we’ll start this particular part of the discussion. And I said, you can just, money’s fungible. If they’re pulling 400 million, fire a bunch of your assistants to the assistants and your, uh, your useless. Well, let me, here we go. Little glitch with, uh, their endowments that are bigger than the whole GDP of small countries should be getting any federal money at all. And if you take away the money, there is no one more invested in money and the meaning of money and the power of money than a communist.

If you take money away from communists, you take the air out of their balloon. Yeah. What have I been telling you for years that the movement on the left really could be described as Bolshevik communism carries a lot of the same traits. And then she’s saying, take the money away from communists and they fold. And then we’re talking in reference to pulling out funding from a lot of these universities. They don’t get, they don’t deserve the endowments from universities. They don’t, it’s absolutely insane. You know, I’m so glad to, you’re an attorney and I couldn’t agree with more of what you just said.

And I agree cutting off the money is the first big step, but with regard to the judiciary, we see federal district court judges ruling in their area, but also nationally against the Trump administration’s policies. Yeah. Let me define my question a little bit because this came up in a preparatory statement earlier. I’m the district court judge for a certain district and I make a ruling for my district. I don’t have the right to have that ruling generalized across the nation. Okay. That’s why they call it district court judge. Like Boseberg, he thinks he’s a one person Supreme court.

And I say that later in this interview here and that really couches what’s wrong here. And then we talk about solutions towards the end and the impediment to solutions. And I’m wondering here as a layman, as not a lawyer, how is it legal for a federal district court judge to set national policy? Well, it isn’t. I litigated for 30 years in the San Francisco Bay area. I didn’t do a lot of federal litigation. I hated doing federal litigation because of all the regulations, the 175,000 pages or something like that of regulations, because you were up against a government attorney who knew his chapter and you’re trying to learn it and you’re dealing with it.

So we as attorneys who weren’t specialists dealt with exactly the same thing as layperson who’s in the crosshairs of the federal government. It’s pure Levanti barrier, show me the man and I’ll show you the crime, the regulations. And Trump has taken a stand against it and it’s one of the smartest, best things he can do. Apropos the judges. I had a judge tell me, I don’t care what the law is. I think there’s something here. I had another judge when he was shown that the law simply wouldn’t support him. Say, well, there’s more than one way to skin the cat.

And when I was sworn into the San Francisco bar, there was a federal judge who was one of the judges at this giant swearing in there were 500 people in a big auditorium. And the person who was a master of ceremony said, and on my right is judge so-and-so of the federal district court and judge so-and-so gaffod and said, that’s the first time anybody’s described me as being on the right. So I was in the heart of it. What I can tell you about leftist judges is that the law is a skin suit.

In other words, you heard her examples. They say they don’t have to follow the law. So Boseberg says, I don’t care what you say about I’m confined to my own district. I don’t have to worry about article four, section four. I can completely ignore it. The president has no jurisdiction over the border and immigration and deportation. And I can control what he does from my own little district. That’s basically what she’s saying is happening. And I agree, it’s illegal. But stay tuned, because we’re going to talk about what’s the answer. But then we’re going to identify what’s the impediment to the answer.

They already have their preferred outcomes, which are based on communist class metrics. I represented banks and businesses, and we simply lost going in. The thing was to stem the loss. And the law didn’t matter. They do what Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other leftist judges do in their decisions, which is to throw a bazillion case citations at you to confuse you. It’s just throwing so much that you can’t see the through line, which is that they’re making it up as they go along. Roe v. Wade put penumbras and emanations. The Constitution doesn’t have penumbras and emanations.

This started with Chief Justice John Marshall, who was virulently anti-Jeffersonian. And he and Jefferson got into a political fight about political appointees. And it was in that context that Marshall irrigated, took for the Supreme Court, the power to make all constitutional decisions. That is not in the Constitution. Arguably, the only way to decide if a law is good or bad, or even constitutional or unconstitutional, is through the voters, through their elected representatives. So I have a problem overall with the federal courts and the power they claim for themselves. Up until now.

But it’s the human power, though. I mean, if I’m a federal district court judge in, say, District 9, whatever it is, my rulings apply there. They don’t apply 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12. They don’t. Right. Cases and controversies. It’s supposed to apply to the people in front of the court. And then traditionally, if enough different jurisdictions started interpreting the law differently as to the case and controversy in front of the court, then it would rise up to the Supreme Court, which in its John C. Marshall, Chief Justice Marshall Wisdom, would do a global constitutional analysis.

And this system actually worked honestly right up until the era of progressive judges, when they started politicizing them. I mean, I am so hostile to leftist judges in courts, but you have to understand that they are not arbiters of the law. They are politicians who use the law to advance their political philosophy. I can’t emphasize this enough. In her legal experience, she’s saying that these federal district judges, they are not judges. They’re politicians who use their position to facilitate their political position. Judicial, to control the politics. Total conflict of interest, totally unconstitutional, totally unethical.

And I think there are grounds for disbarment here. And the problem is, unless Congress acts and this Congress, which has a very narrow margin, Republican margin in both the House and the Senate, unless Congress acts, the only thing that Trump can do, and this is what the left wants him to do, is refuse to abide by decisions, which will create a constitutional crisis. And average voters do not want a constitutional crisis. So the left is waiting for the headline saying Trump creates constitutional crisis. And then the average people will turn on him.

So Trump has no good options here. Congress has to act, and Congress so far has not acted. Let’s see, that’s my point. We have low hanging fruit from individuals that committed heinous crimes under the Biden administration that are known and could be prosecuted and they’re not. And Congress isn’t even taking legislative action against closing those loopholes. And then Congress could impeach judges or cut off their funding, like Boseberg, who’s trying to be a Supreme Court justice of one. And I just, they don’t do it. And it just drives me up the wall. And Congress is the one failing to act.

I think Congress and the pressure point on Congress is the key to turning around a lot of this stuff. One short example in the time we have left, you have the American end of court, and I researched this. You got Kataji Brown, Sotomayor, but you also have the Supreme Court justice, the head of the Supreme courts in this. And I believe Amy Coney Barrett is too. And I’m thinking, okay, why are you guys who are breaking the constitution from different political backgrounds supposedly? Why are you in one organization? Well, they would say collegiality, but a quick thing regarding impeachment won’t work because you need either the two thirds or three quarters majority to impeach and that the Congress can’t sustain that.

But they do have a majority for passing legislation that constrains the district court judges. And they need to do that. As for the Supreme Court justices, they would say collegiality, we have to work with each other. It’s helpful to blah, blah, blah. But basically what it is, is that the judges are the Supreme Court justices, especially the leftists, again, are highly political animals who see the Supreme Court as a way of advancing political goals. And you and I are beginning to think that maybe Roberts and Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch might be on board with that.

And they came out of the Federalist Society, which I’ve always honored and admired, but I’m beginning to think, wait a minute, you guys, you need to do some better vetting here. Yeah. Well, especially Coney Barrett, what a deception she was. Very quickly, we had about 30 seconds left. What about rid of habeas corpus as an option for Trump to overcome this? I think that is an incredibly dangerous move. I have not researched it. Even now, scholars are debating how much authority Lincoln had under it and anything I say would be stupid and misleading.

Okay. That’s a fair answer, but I’m hearing that floated a lot out there. Even some of Trump’s people have floated out there and I think they’re looking to see what the reaction would be. I think they’re just testing the market. Okay. So you’re the americanthinker.com. How do people follow you other than that? Is that your primary method of expression? Americanthinker.com. Yes. And we’re also on Facebook and on X. And again, Rush Limbaugh used to call us our show prep. So we get, I can see why what an intelligent lady, well articulated, well informed, but obviously, by the way, in the interview earlier, and I won’t play this part, she’s a liberal or liberal background, came from a liberal family, went to UC Berkeley, hated it, hated it.

And she emphasized the word ate, went to law school at the University of Texas in Austin, mostly conservatives, and she loved it. He said the people were a whole lot different. It’s interesting. There are personality differences. And I think that we need to do some studies on personalities of liberals today. There have been those studies in the past, but I think we need to do them again because the democratic party has changed. They don’t stand for anything. They stand for whatever Trump is against. And that’s not good. I said this in the interview too.

We don’t need a dominant market party. Only one party that will eventually lead to an autocracy, a dictatorship. We don’t want that. We need a healthy democratic party or some such party to counter and balance and cooperate and compromise and make sure that most people in this country feel like they have a voice. And the Democrats are self-destructing and they’re taking away true options to the conservative point of view. Interesting thought, but anyway, I want to thank my guest, Marjorie, for coming on. I’ll tell you what, I mean, Andrea, excuse me, Andrea, for coming on.

What a knowledgeable person. You can catch this entire interview on our podcast in over on our TV show at the commonsenseshow.tv. I’m Dave Hodges. This is The Common Sense Show, and I want to thank you so much for joining us. God bless all of you. See you back here next time. [tr:trw].