Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. As I announced last week, this is the first time my podcast coming out twice in a week, so that means twice as much data and stories and mean So thank you all for being here again this week. Please like and subscribe and give me a five star review to wherever you're listening. It really helps from the podcast. In December nineteen sixty, the band The Crickets released a new iconic song where they declared I fought the law and the law won. When the song was covered by The Clash in nineteen seventy nine, it became a punk rock classic. Turned to twenty twenty five, and President Donald Trump is having his own fight with the legal world. It's not over a girl or a gun like the Cricket song, but it's over executive orders and liberal judges' efforts to stop his agenda. From the start of his administration to April first, President Trump has signed one hundred and nine executive orders and there have been fifty three rulings by district court judges to halt his actions. Now, I think it's worth explaining the difference between different kinds of judges for a second, district court judges are lower on the level of federal judiciary. There are six hundred and seventy judges who receive a lifetime appointment by the president, and like the titlet in their job describes, they're just allowed to hear federal complaints within a district. Once a complaint is heard at the district level, it makes its way up to the appellate court in each respective region of the country, and there are thirteen appellate courts in the entire country. Anyone who's paid attention to politics, especially over the last decade, realized that the Supreme Court seats have become a highly politicized issue because of the makeup of the court and how it has become substantially more conservative, especially compared to three or four decades ago. What people and the media have paid less attention to is how much President Obama, Trump, and Biden have remade the lower courts. President Obama appointed fifty five Appellate Court judges in two hundred and sixty eight circuit court judges over his two terms. President Trump appointed fifty four appellate Court judges, almost as much as President Obama in two terms. In one and one hundred and seventy four court judges. President Biden appointed forty five appellate court judges but one hundred and eighty seven Circuit court judges, so President Biden got the most amount of judges in the least amount of time. That means if you're a liberal organization like the ACLU, the Campaign Legal Center, or the State Democracy Defender's Fund, you have over one hundred appellate court judges and four hundred and fifty five district court judges appointed by the last two Democratic administrations who are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues, not to mention the judges who were brought in during the Bush and sometimes Clinton years. It's called judge shopping, where nonprofits and liberal activists will look for sympathetic judges to give them favorable rulings, issue nationwide injunctions, and hold everything up in court for months and sometimes for well over a year. This was evident during the first term of the Trump administration, when a number of executive orders were held up by the Supreme Court judge and spent up to a year or closer a year in legal limbo because of district court judges. One such case was Judge on Tiger. He's an Obama appointed judge in California's Northern District, like around San Francisco. He's a favorite of liberal activists since his decision in twenty fifteen to force the California Department of Corrections to use taxpayer fund and medical care to provide inmates with gender reassignment surgery. So like, yeah, it's as crazy, Yes, you're hearing it as what I'm reading it, So force taxpayers to give gender reassignment surgery to inmates. In twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen, Judge Tigar issued Nation one injunctions on Trump's executive orders to deny asylum to anyone who didn't enter the country through legal ports of entry, and against his Safe Third Country agreement were asylum seekers who passed through multiple safe third countries countries they could have declared asylum and but didn't they waited to be in the United States. That was unconstitutional as well. Another judge was Judge Derek Watson. He was another Obama appointed judge from the US District Court in Hawaii. On March fifteen, twenty seventeen, he ruled that Trump's travel ban against several majority Muslim countries was illegal and placed a nationwide hold on Trump's executive order. It means he couldn't enforce it. It wasn't until June twenty six, twenty eighteen, when the Supreme Court finally weighed in and Trump the Hawaii that the Trump's executive order was in fact legal, and followed decades of legal president where the president has the right to control who and who is an admittency the United States. Fast forward twenty twenty five. Thirteen Court District Court judges, six appointed by Biden, three by Bush, three by Obama, and one by Reagan. Yeah, there are still Reagan appointed judges on the bench put temporary holds on a series of Trump executive orders. John McConnell, Junior, and Obama appointed judge, placed a nationwide hold on Trump's freezes of federal grants. Amir Ali, a Biden appointed judge who was born in Canada, placed a nationwide injunction on cuts to funding to federal assistance programs governed by USIAD and in the Department of State. John Bates, a Bush appointed judge, that it was illegal for Trump to fin fire federal workers that worked under Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs. And then there's John Bassberg, an Obama appointed judge who ruled a Trump's use of the Alien's Edition Act that was created in seventeen ninety eight was illegal and even said that it was the responsibility of the American government to fight illegal aliens who were deported back into the United States. This is unprecedented to have this many nationwide injunctions against a single president. During the first from the Trumpet presidency, he had sixty four nationwide injunctions. This is more than all nationwide injunctions for all previous presidents combined. My buddy josh Hammer, a very smart guy who should follow on Twitter. He said the judicial overreach is unprecedented. And Judge Clarence Thomas Justice Clarence Thomas rather addresses in his decision over Trump the Hawaii district court judges do not have this insane right to is that they're to actually make decrees in district courtships for the sake of the entire nation. During a call with josh, I describe a situation and Joshua basically there were no nationwide injunctions before the nineteen sixties that this judicial power laid on an article through the Constitution does not have the right to make decisions for the entire country. Congress does have the ability, however, to reign in the power of district court judges and abolish it tomorrow. The Congress could solve this issue tomorrow. Actually, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, he put out a bill to sit there and solve this problem. The Supreme Court could reign in district court judges. America is not a nation governed by a king, and these judges remind themselves that they wear robes and not a crown.

Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. As I announced last week, this is the first time my podcast coming out twice in a week, so that means twice as much data and stories and mean So thank you all for being here again this week. Please like and subscribe and give me a five star review to wherever you're listening. It really helps from the podcast. In December nineteen sixty, the band The Crickets released a new iconic song where they declared I fought the law and the law won. When the song was covered by The Clash in nineteen seventy nine, it became a punk rock classic. Turned to twenty twenty five, and President Donald Trump is having his own fight with the legal world. It's not over a girl or a gun like the Cricket song, but it's over executive orders and liberal judges' efforts to stop his agenda. From the start of his administration to April first, President Trump has signed one hundred and nine executive orders and there have been fifty three rulings by district court judges to halt his actions. Now, I think it's worth explaining the difference between different kinds of judges for a second, district court judges are lower on the level of federal judiciary. There are six hundred and seventy judges who receive a lifetime appointment by the president, and like the titlet in their job describes, they're just allowed to hear federal complaints within a district. Once a complaint is heard at the district level, it makes its way up to the appellate court in each respective region of the country, and there are thirteen appellate courts in the entire country. Anyone who's paid attention to politics, especially over the last decade, realized that the Supreme Court seats have become a highly politicized issue because of the makeup of the court and how it has become substantially more conservative, especially compared to three or four decades ago. What people and the media have paid less attention to is how much President Obama, Trump, and Biden have remade the lower courts. President Obama appointed fifty five Appellate Court judges in two hundred and sixty eight circuit court judges over his two terms. President Trump appointed fifty four appellate Court judges, almost as much as President Obama in two terms. In one and one hundred and seventy four court judges. President Biden appointed forty five appellate court judges but one hundred and eighty seven Circuit court judges, so President Biden got the most amount of judges in the least amount of time. That means if you're a liberal organization like the ACLU, the Campaign Legal Center, or the State Democracy Defender's Fund, you have over one hundred appellate court judges and four hundred and fifty five district court judges appointed by the last two Democratic administrations who are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues, not to mention the judges who were brought in during the Bush and sometimes Clinton years. It's called judge shopping, where nonprofits and liberal activists will look for sympathetic judges to give them favorable rulings, issue nationwide injunctions, and hold everything up in court for months and sometimes for well over a year. This was evident during the first term of the Trump administration, when a number of executive orders were held up by the Supreme Court judge and spent up to a year or closer a year in legal limbo because of district court judges. One such case was Judge on Tiger. He's an Obama appointed judge in California's Northern District, like around San Francisco. He's a favorite of liberal activists since his decision in twenty fifteen to force the California Department of Corrections to use taxpayer fund and medical care to provide inmates with gender reassignment surgery. So like, yeah, it's as crazy, Yes, you're hearing it as what I'm reading it, So force taxpayers to give gender reassignment surgery to inmates. In twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen, Judge Tigar issued Nation one injunctions on Trump's executive orders to deny asylum to anyone who didn't enter the country through legal ports of entry, and against his Safe Third Country agreement were asylum seekers who passed through multiple safe third countries countries they could have declared asylum and but didn't they waited to be in the United States. That was unconstitutional as well. Another judge was Judge Derek Watson. He was another Obama appointed judge from the US District Court in Hawaii. On March fifteen, twenty seventeen, he ruled that Trump's travel ban against several majority Muslim countries was illegal and placed a nationwide hold on Trump's executive order. It means he couldn't enforce it. It wasn't until June twenty six, twenty eighteen, when the Supreme Court finally weighed in and Trump the Hawaii that the Trump's executive order was in fact legal, and followed decades of legal president where the president has the right to control who and who is an admittency the United States. Fast forward twenty twenty five. Thirteen Court District Court judges, six appointed by Biden, three by Bush, three by Obama, and one by Reagan. Yeah, there are still Reagan appointed judges on the bench put temporary holds on a series of Trump executive orders. John McConnell, Junior, and Obama appointed judge, placed a nationwide hold on Trump's freezes of federal grants. Amir Ali, a Biden appointed judge who was born in Canada, placed a nationwide injunction on cuts to funding to federal assistance programs governed by USIAD and in the Department of State. John Bates, a Bush appointed judge, that it was illegal for Trump to fin fire federal workers that worked under Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs. And then there's John Bassberg, an Obama appointed judge who ruled a Trump's use of the Alien's Edition Act that was created in seventeen ninety eight was illegal and even said that it was the responsibility of the American government to fight illegal aliens who were deported back into the United States. This is unprecedented to have this many nationwide injunctions against a single president. During the first from the Trumpet presidency, he had sixty four nationwide injunctions. This is more than all nationwide injunctions for all previous presidents combined. My buddy josh Hammer, a very smart guy who should follow on Twitter. He said the judicial overreach is unprecedented. And Judge Clarence Thomas Justice Clarence Thomas rather addresses in his decision over Trump the Hawaii district court judges do not have this insane right to is that they're to actually make decrees in district courtships for the sake of the entire nation. During a call with josh, I describe a situation and Joshua basically there were no nationwide injunctions before the nineteen sixties that this judicial power laid on an article through the Constitution does not have the right to make decisions for the entire country. Congress does have the ability, however, to reign in the power of district court judges and abolish it tomorrow. The Congress could solve this issue tomorrow. Actually, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, he put out a bill to sit there and solve this problem. The Supreme Court could reign in district court judges. America is not a nation governed by a king, and these judges remind themselves that they wear robes and not a crown.

You're listening to it's a numbers game with Ryan Gradsky.

You're listening to it's a numbers game with Ryan Gradsky.

We'll be right back to quote Wenny Williams, my guest this week, is a legend. She's an icon. She is the moment and culture. A best selling writer has an amazing substack you should all subscribe to. I'll put in the link below and thank you for being here.

We'll be right back to quote Wenny Williams, my guest this week, is a legend. She's an icon. She is the moment and culture. A best selling writer has an amazing substack you should all subscribe to. I'll put in the link below and thank you for being here.

Well, this is quite a switch.

Well, this is quite a switch.

You can see lots of my interviews with Ryan on a substat which I know.

You can see lots of my interviews with Ryan on a substat which I know.

I was thinking that before. I've never interviewed you before, so this is a big deal. So, and I said in my monologue earlier that the federal judges have done a number on the Trump administration and putting federal injunctions from a local district court judge. This is unprescedented. First in Volume be two, that it's happening on issues that the executive really has sole decision making on, like immigration. Do you We've talked this privately, but is this normal?

I was thinking that before. I've never interviewed you before, so this is a big deal. So, and I said in my monologue earlier that the federal judges have done a number on the Trump administration and putting federal injunctions from a local district court judge. This is unprescedented. First in Volume be two, that it's happening on issues that the executive really has sole decision making on, like immigration. Do you We've talked this privately, but is this normal?

Like what?

Like what?

What? Like? How does a federal judge in San Francisco have ruling over the whole country on immigration?

What? Like? How does a federal judge in San Francisco have ruling over the whole country on immigration?

No, it's really shocking, and I am hoping and I think it's very possible the Supreme Court is going to put an end to the nonsense. For one thing, what you say, a lot of their rulings are things that are clearly part of the president's plenary power, like immigration. I wrote about it in my column this week, remember or the Arizona whatever it was, speed ten or something. Chris Coback wrote it, and by the way, the paper's police part of the law was upheld, but the rest of it was basically Arizona law saying we're just going to comply with federal law. Congressional laws written, you know, passed by the House and the Senate and then signed by all kinds of presidents of different political parties. All Arizona wanted to do was follow the federal law, but the Supreme Court found that no, the president has control over immigration because of his soul control over international relations. And so since Obama had decided not to follow the law, Arizona couldn't butt in and follow federal law, which was I think was kind of crazy enough. During the Clinton administration, little eight year old Eleon Gonzalez was sent back to a brutal communist dictatorship.

No, it's really shocking, and I am hoping and I think it's very possible the Supreme Court is going to put an end to the nonsense. For one thing, what you say, a lot of their rulings are things that are clearly part of the president's plenary power, like immigration. I wrote about it in my column this week, remember or the Arizona whatever it was, speed ten or something. Chris Coback wrote it, and by the way, the paper's police part of the law was upheld, but the rest of it was basically Arizona law saying we're just going to comply with federal law. Congressional laws written, you know, passed by the House and the Senate and then signed by all kinds of presidents of different political parties. All Arizona wanted to do was follow the federal law, but the Supreme Court found that no, the president has control over immigration because of his soul control over international relations. And so since Obama had decided not to follow the law, Arizona couldn't butt in and follow federal law, which was I think was kind of crazy enough. During the Clinton administration, little eight year old Eleon Gonzalez was sent back to a brutal communist dictatorship.

And what was the reasoning on that? One thing? And one thing?

And what was the reasoning on that? One thing? And one thing?

The president has exclusive plenary power over immigration if Clinton wanted to send him back, Clinton send him back, and he and Janet Reno, lovely woman, they wanted to send him back. Most recently and not covered heavily by by the media, the New York Times, including a guy from Cato, you'll like this when Trump. When Trump issued his I don't care if it doesn't say Muslim. I like to call it the Muslim band. It warms my heart. When he issued his Muslim band, the New York Times op ed page was bristling with with opinion pieces hot sneering this is so unconstitutional, including some jackass from Cato Institute. I looked him up at the time, and he went to I mean, normally I don't I don't raise these things, as you always point out.

The president has exclusive plenary power over immigration if Clinton wanted to send him back, Clinton send him back, and he and Janet Reno, lovely woman, they wanted to send him back. Most recently and not covered heavily by by the media, the New York Times, including a guy from Cato, you'll like this when Trump. When Trump issued his I don't care if it doesn't say Muslim. I like to call it the Muslim band. It warms my heart. When he issued his Muslim band, the New York Times op ed page was bristling with with opinion pieces hot sneering this is so unconstitutional, including some jackass from Cato Institute. I looked him up at the time, and he went to I mean, normally I don't I don't raise these things, as you always point out.

You're a college dropout and you're one of the people I know. But this guy went to an utterly bush lea in college. And I was thinking, New York Times, have.

You're a college dropout and you're one of the people I know. But this guy went to an utterly bush lea in college. And I was thinking, New York Times, have.

You ever published anyone who went to this college before put Oh he comes on and sneers about how, oh Trump doesn't understand the Constitution or the history Muslim ban upheld by the Supreme Court, and why because the president has exclusives.

You ever published anyone who went to this college before put Oh he comes on and sneers about how, oh Trump doesn't understand the Constitution or the history Muslim ban upheld by the Supreme Court, and why because the president has exclusives.

Power over immigration.

Power over immigration.

So this isn't a matter of Trump defying court orders. This is a matter of the courts defying presidential powers in a really obvious and egregious way. I mean the number of district course one thing I will give the New York Times credit for.

So this isn't a matter of Trump defying court orders. This is a matter of the courts defying presidential powers in a really obvious and egregious way. I mean the number of district course one thing I will give the New York Times credit for.

I salute them here.

I salute them here.

I was looking through some of the some of the cases there are twenty seven district court rulings on arguing we refuse to comply with Trump's policy on immigration, blindingly unconstitutional for them to do this.

I was looking through some of the some of the cases there are twenty seven district court rulings on arguing we refuse to comply with Trump's policy on immigration, blindingly unconstitutional for them to do this.

Courts are stepping in. And one great thing in the New York Times.

Courts are stepping in. And one great thing in the New York Times.

List was which I've noticed they have not been doing all the time. You have to go look it up yourself, but I think probably enough people were asking it was Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Obama judge, Biden judge.

List was which I've noticed they have not been doing all the time. You have to go look it up yourself, but I think probably enough people were asking it was Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Obama judge, Biden judge.

It's overwhelmingly democratic.

It's overwhelmingly democratic.

There's like two or three Bush judges, one ray in Dress judge who's still around for somehow, and it's all Biden Obama judges. Otherwise it's completely one sided. The judge the case you mentioned, which is the Trump and the Hawaii case over the Muslim band, which wasn't a Muslim ban, but we'll.

There's like two or three Bush judges, one ray in Dress judge who's still around for somehow, and it's all Biden Obama judges. Otherwise it's completely one sided. The judge the case you mentioned, which is the Trump and the Hawaii case over the Muslim band, which wasn't a Muslim ban, but we'll.

Call it that.

Call it that.

There was, if not decades one hundred years of precedent, the president has exclusive power to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens that he deems inadmissible or not for the benefit of the United States. And they were like, no, I no, I don't believe it. And like Clarence Thomas in his in his opinion, in his ruling the approve running so there and said, did your court judges don't have the right to do this. They just this is insane.

There was, if not decades one hundred years of precedent, the president has exclusive power to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens that he deems inadmissible or not for the benefit of the United States. And they were like, no, I no, I don't believe it. And like Clarence Thomas in his in his opinion, in his ruling the approve running so there and said, did your court judges don't have the right to do this. They just this is insane.

Yes, he is insane, and I mean I Trump seems pretty cheeky about all this. He's my favorite, My favorite case is the administration admitted.

Yes, he is insane, and I mean I Trump seems pretty cheeky about all this. He's my favorite, My favorite case is the administration admitted.

That they inadvertently deported.

That they inadvertently deported.

Someone who wasn't maybe definitely a gang member, and he's now in an l.

Someone who wasn't maybe definitely a gang member, and he's now in an l.

S gang member, maybe gang member Jason.

S gang member, maybe gang member Jason.

But their argument is, but sorry, you courts, we have exclusive jurisdiction over this and we're not bringing them back, which I'm totally totally in favor of.

But their argument is, but sorry, you courts, we have exclusive jurisdiction over this and we're not bringing them back, which I'm totally totally in favor of.

I can't believe how great this Trump administration is.

I can't believe how great this Trump administration is.

As you know, we'll get back to that in a second. But it is the fact that an American judge said to a present, you need to bring back someone who was here illegally. That alone the two things that infuriate me, and I'm very partisan in one way, but one is that. The second one is that when I read somebody says born in Mexico or Canada, went to college there, and as a forty year old, like you've been in America for how long we're or you were a federal judge exactly, that was noticeable too.

As you know, we'll get back to that in a second. But it is the fact that an American judge said to a present, you need to bring back someone who was here illegally. That alone the two things that infuriate me, and I'm very partisan in one way, but one is that. The second one is that when I read somebody says born in Mexico or Canada, went to college there, and as a forty year old, like you've been in America for how long we're or you were a federal judge exactly, that was noticeable too.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm glad you mentioned that Ryan grew Dusky. I suspect do you remember that after Trump's magnificent Mexican rapist speech, there was somebody was suing him. I forget what it was for you probably remember.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm glad you mentioned that Ryan grew Dusky. I suspect do you remember that after Trump's magnificent Mexican rapist speech, there was somebody was suing him. I forget what it was for you probably remember.

I remember that he complained about the case. Yes, I remember that he was Mexican. The judge the case.

I remember that he complained about the case. Yes, I remember that he was Mexican. The judge the case.

Do you remember the case. I don't remember the case.

Do you remember the case. I don't remember the case.

I remember the inderal case, but I remember the judge was Mexican. He made a big hurrah that the judges partisan because he was born in Mexican.

I remember the inderal case, but I remember the judge was Mexican. He made a big hurrah that the judges partisan because he was born in Mexican.

Right, That's what I wanted to address here.

Right, That's what I wanted to address here.

Everyone, I mean, everyone went mental over that. Oh how dare you mention that he's a Mexican? Okay, except for my entire life, I have been told that a criminal conviction has to be thrown out if it's all white people on the journey. So we cannot trust white Americans steeped in the Magna carta and the rule of law, who have been here for generations to rule on a criminal case with a black defendant. If it's all white jurors, well that it's just prime facia. That can't be a correct jury verdict. Nope, throwing out the conviction. But Trump meant mentions that this guy is a Mexican. With the entire media is claiming that he called all Mexicans rapists.

Everyone, I mean, everyone went mental over that. Oh how dare you mention that he's a Mexican? Okay, except for my entire life, I have been told that a criminal conviction has to be thrown out if it's all white people on the journey. So we cannot trust white Americans steeped in the Magna carta and the rule of law, who have been here for generations to rule on a criminal case with a black defendant. If it's all white jurors, well that it's just prime facia. That can't be a correct jury verdict. Nope, throwing out the conviction. But Trump meant mentions that this guy is a Mexican. With the entire media is claiming that he called all Mexicans rapists.

It's like there's a movie I forget what it was, was like a who done it? And they were like, I mean it was a lib woke movie during COVID or during BLM, and they were like, the Mexican character was so pure they couldn't tell a lie without throwing up. It's that's how they treat a lot of these form board judges who do make rulings, and I'm sorry they are. I don't understand how you could be in America for less than I don't know, fifty years and you're sitting there and you're making rulings for the country as a whole. President Trump in his first term, during the Mexican Muslim ban or whatever last of it was, he had more nationwide injunctions than all previous presidents combined. And he said to Eclipse that during this term.

It's like there's a movie I forget what it was, was like a who done it? And they were like, I mean it was a lib woke movie during COVID or during BLM, and they were like, the Mexican character was so pure they couldn't tell a lie without throwing up. It's that's how they treat a lot of these form board judges who do make rulings, and I'm sorry they are. I don't understand how you could be in America for less than I don't know, fifty years and you're sitting there and you're making rulings for the country as a whole. President Trump in his first term, during the Mexican Muslim ban or whatever last of it was, he had more nationwide injunctions than all previous presidents combined. And he said to Eclipse that during this term.

Yes, now I think he should ignore them. He is doing the right thing. This is a point I've made. I'm not just making it for Trump.

Yes, now I think he should ignore them. He is doing the right thing. This is a point I've made. I'm not just making it for Trump.

I just looked it up. I think I made it when.

I just looked it up. I think I made it when.

Bush was president and the issue was military trials for terrorists captured on the battle field in the commander in chief's wheelhouse, I think you would say, and judges were saying, no, no, no, no, no, we want them in an Article three court.

Bush was president and the issue was military trials for terrorists captured on the battle field in the commander in chief's wheelhouse, I think you would say, and judges were saying, no, no, no, no, no, we want them in an Article three court.

They must be in an Article three And at the.

They must be in an Article three And at the.

Time, I've always argued these are three co equal. I love that word. It's like flammable and inflammable. So equal branches of government. And worse than that, I mean the executive branch, which is.

Time, I've always argued these are three co equal. I love that word. It's like flammable and inflammable. So equal branches of government. And worse than that, I mean the executive branch, which is.

Equal to the entire judiciary.

Equal to the entire judiciary.

One man holds the power of all the executive power of the United States, the legislature, you know, white camera legislation.

One man holds the power of all the executive power of the United States, the legislature, you know, white camera legislation.

Everybody gets the gist of that. These district court judges hold like one.

Everybody gets the gist of that. These district court judges hold like one.

Even even acting as if you know, Chief Justice John Roberts is as important as some puny district Court judge, it's still about one two thousandth of the people.

Even even acting as if you know, Chief Justice John Roberts is as important as some puny district Court judge, it's still about one two thousandth of the people.

There.

There.

There are eight over eight hundred district cork and Appellate court judges. So the fact that there are six hundred and seventy district court judges so more than Congress, more than both houses combined. No Senator can make a ruling for the entire United States, but one of six hundred and seventy ken It makes it feel like there is a judicial supremacy versus a coequal branch.

There are eight over eight hundred district cork and Appellate court judges. So the fact that there are six hundred and seventy district court judges so more than Congress, more than both houses combined. No Senator can make a ruling for the entire United States, but one of six hundred and seventy ken It makes it feel like there is a judicial supremacy versus a coequal branch.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure there are at least five justices who would agree with that. I not only should Trump ignore the orders, I think he ought to start calling up Chief Justice John Roberts and saying, I see you have an interesting bunch of interesting cases on the docket coming up. Would you mind setting a tenth chair up on the dais because I'd like to hear the oral arguments, maybe write an opinion or two. You should start writing to district court judges. I would like to be included in the evidentiary hearing. I'll be making a ruling on that. It is just it is totally beyond the power of judges what they're doing.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure there are at least five justices who would agree with that. I not only should Trump ignore the orders, I think he ought to start calling up Chief Justice John Roberts and saying, I see you have an interesting bunch of interesting cases on the docket coming up. Would you mind setting a tenth chair up on the dais because I'd like to hear the oral arguments, maybe write an opinion or two. You should start writing to district court judges. I would like to be included in the evidentiary hearing. I'll be making a ruling on that. It is just it is totally beyond the power of judges what they're doing.

And you know, maybe I'll write about this.

And you know, maybe I'll write about this.

But besides the fact that the president completely should be ignoring them, it is as if he is calling and asking to sit in on, you know, district courts engaging in criminal sentencing.

But besides the fact that the president completely should be ignoring them, it is as if he is calling and asking to sit in on, you know, district courts engaging in criminal sentencing.

This is an.

This is an.

Extension of the left using the courts to get what they can't get through democracy. And in particular, I think to explain this simply because the course have been doing this for such a long time, most people don't even recognize the outrage that is going on courts, all courts, including the Supreme Court. Per the Constitution, decide cases and controversies the parties before them. That is what they are deciding. They aren't finding anyone else to these cases. Now, they may have to interpret a law in order to decide that case or controversy.

Extension of the left using the courts to get what they can't get through democracy. And in particular, I think to explain this simply because the course have been doing this for such a long time, most people don't even recognize the outrage that is going on courts, all courts, including the Supreme Court. Per the Constitution, decide cases and controversies the parties before them. That is what they are deciding. They aren't finding anyone else to these cases. Now, they may have to interpret a law in order to decide that case or controversy.

But the way all courts.

But the way all courts.

Have kind of been operating, certainly the Supreme Court, where I don't know, I think most of my life is let's look at the law and the Constitution and we will prommel gates an.

Have kind of been operating, certainly the Supreme Court, where I don't know, I think most of my life is let's look at the law and the Constitution and we will prommel gates an.

Overarching rule for the entire country.

Overarching rule for the entire country.

Okay, that's making a law that isn't deciding.

Okay, that's making a law that isn't deciding.

A case or controversy between two parties.

A case or controversy between two parties.

So, for example, one of the cases I wrote about this week, which I made clear in my column, the Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. Technically, what the Supreme Court did was decide a case between Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard.

So, for example, one of the cases I wrote about this week, which I made clear in my column, the Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. Technically, what the Supreme Court did was decide a case between Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard.

That's it.

That's it.

By implication, every other college and university in America. I mean, I guess they can start, you know, just openly continue. Well, they are openly continuing their discrimination. But you could sue each one of these over and over and over again, but you're just going to get these procureum decisions by the Supreme Court right.

By implication, every other college and university in America. I mean, I guess they can start, you know, just openly continue. Well, they are openly continuing their discrimination. But you could sue each one of these over and over and over again, but you're just going to get these procureum decisions by the Supreme Court right.

If you're a lawyer and you want to make a lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way, law schools, business schools, states, businesses. I mean for NTUIE discrimination, you have a cattle cade ahead of you.

If you're a lawyer and you want to make a lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way, law schools, business schools, states, businesses. I mean for NTUIE discrimination, you have a cattle cade ahead of you.

Yeah, but all of these cases, I mean, it's easy to explain when the Supreme Court discovers mysteriously a clause given providing a right to abortion in the Constitution, or I might add or write to gay marriage that you can read the Constitution and there's nothing about abortion, there's nothing about gay marriage.

Yeah, but all of these cases, I mean, it's easy to explain when the Supreme Court discovers mysteriously a clause given providing a right to abortion in the Constitution, or I might add or write to gay marriage that you can read the Constitution and there's nothing about abortion, there's nothing about gay marriage.

But we are so used to courts issuing.

But we are so used to courts issuing.

Over arching rules by e laws and then applying the law they have just invented to the dispute before them that most people I think don't recognize.

Over arching rules by e laws and then applying the law they have just invented to the dispute before them that most people I think don't recognize.

No, they're getting this exactly backwards.

No, they're getting this exactly backwards.

And what they're doing most of the time is absolutely unconstitutional.

And what they're doing most of the time is absolutely unconstitutional.

They aren't a legislature.

They aren't a legislature.

We have a legislature. The judicial power is to decide cases and controversies.

We have a legislature. The judicial power is to decide cases and controversies.

Right, And it's a very post I mean it's post FDR, but it's even really post Johnson that they or post Kennedy, rather that they really just started becoming the de facto decider of national policy eradicating both legislative rights but also state rights in the meantime.

Right, And it's a very post I mean it's post FDR, but it's even really post Johnson that they or post Kennedy, rather that they really just started becoming the de facto decider of national policy eradicating both legislative rights but also state rights in the meantime.

Yes, And I'd add that the Constitution says, this is a rough paraphrase, that they decide cases and controversies when the law. I don't know this is the Constitution or one of the founding fathers. They determine the laws and facts when the laws and facts.

Yes, And I'd add that the Constitution says, this is a rough paraphrase, that they decide cases and controversies when the law. I don't know this is the Constitution or one of the founding fathers. They determine the laws and facts when the laws and facts.

Are disputed by two people, two parties. The party could be Harvard.

Are disputed by two people, two parties. The party could be Harvard.

So you know, notice in this phraseology used by.

So you know, notice in this phraseology used by.

Our founding fathers. I don't know if it's in the arguments. I think it's just.

Our founding fathers. I don't know if it's in the arguments. I think it's just.

I think the Constitution just says cases are controversy and any even it doesn't stay using their policy judgment to decide the cases. When two parties disagree law and facts, that's it they decided. Then they bind only those parties. Now another party comes along and makes the exact same argument. It could be an estoppel doctrine or other things going on. But technically the Court is deciding only the case of the two parties before. And so imagine these nationwide injunctions, I mean talk about making laws.

I think the Constitution just says cases are controversy and any even it doesn't stay using their policy judgment to decide the cases. When two parties disagree law and facts, that's it they decided. Then they bind only those parties. Now another party comes along and makes the exact same argument. It could be an estoppel doctrine or other things going on. But technically the Court is deciding only the case of the two parties before. And so imagine these nationwide injunctions, I mean talk about making laws.

It's it's so beyond the pale.

It's it's so beyond the pale.

Because Trumpy Hawaii mentioned before which was the Muslim ban. It took sixteen months to go from district court to Supreme Court. You do that two or three times, and the administration's over. It's done, with the next presence to go. I mean, that's what their ultimate goal is, through both judge shopping and through law fair in this practice of finding the nonprofit that will sponsor the lawsuit, the judge that will hold it up, and then you know, Ninth Circuit or whatever circuit holds it until the Supreme Court finally hears it and you start another lass in the same issue. It just goes on and on on. What has surprised you the most about the tru administration thus far.

Because Trumpy Hawaii mentioned before which was the Muslim ban. It took sixteen months to go from district court to Supreme Court. You do that two or three times, and the administration's over. It's done, with the next presence to go. I mean, that's what their ultimate goal is, through both judge shopping and through law fair in this practice of finding the nonprofit that will sponsor the lawsuit, the judge that will hold it up, and then you know, Ninth Circuit or whatever circuit holds it until the Supreme Court finally hears it and you start another lass in the same issue. It just goes on and on on. What has surprised you the most about the tru administration thus far.

That I'm in heaven every day.

That I'm in heaven every day.

We finally got the executive order on birthright citizenship.

We finally got the executive order on birthright citizenship.

We finally got the president. I voted for them.

We finally got the president. I voted for them.

We finally got the president I wrote a book about, I campaigned with in twenty sixteen.

We finally got the president I wrote a book about, I campaigned with in twenty sixteen.

We finally got them.

We finally got them.

I'm and thank you liberals for just an absurd number of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot in Colorado and the New York and Latisia.

I'm and thank you liberals for just an absurd number of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot in Colorado and the New York and Latisia.

James and Atlanta.

James and Atlanta.

They were all preposterous, as I think I've said before, the only case where there was actual a law broken was the documents he had squirreled away at mar A Lago. But you know, considering and he did, and he did sort of egregiously refuse to return them. I don't know that a dawn raid was necessary.

They were all preposterous, as I think I've said before, the only case where there was actual a law broken was the documents he had squirreled away at mar A Lago. But you know, considering and he did, and he did sort of egregiously refuse to return them. I don't know that a dawn raid was necessary.

I don't think they right Malani is underpants draw.

I don't think they right Malani is underpants draw.

Right, right right? I mean, knowing who he is, it wasn't like the liberals accused that he's going to sell this to the Russians. It was probably just to show his friends, like, look what I have. This is totally yeah. I mean it's just a brag. I mean, knowing who Trump is, it was just a brag to somebody. How what the president?

Right, right right? I mean, knowing who he is, it wasn't like the liberals accused that he's going to sell this to the Russians. It was probably just to show his friends, like, look what I have. This is totally yeah. I mean it's just a brag. I mean, knowing who Trump is, it was just a brag to somebody. How what the president?

Oh what if he sells them to the enemy. No, it was one to brag about him. And look at this letter I got from Kim John.

Oh what if he sells them to the enemy. No, it was one to brag about him. And look at this letter I got from Kim John.

No.

No.

I mean, he's been extremely aggressive on immigration, on trade. I I know we're going to agree, So what's I mean? I hate him asking this question. They know what's going to agree. I think the absence of Jared Kushner speaks volumes to this administration, and.

I mean, he's been extremely aggressive on immigration, on trade. I I know we're going to agree, So what's I mean? I hate him asking this question. They know what's going to agree. I think the absence of Jared Kushner speaks volumes to this administration, and.

No one giving Stephen Miller the run of the place. You know when they.

No one giving Stephen Miller the run of the place. You know when they.

Okay, fine, Miller, you hung in there, and maybe you are going to save the country now. But when Trump signed his third funding bill term one, as he's about to lose, I think that was right. But we still had the Republican House in the sense, yeah, with.

Okay, fine, Miller, you hung in there, and maybe you are going to save the country now. But when Trump signed his third funding bill term one, as he's about to lose, I think that was right. But we still had the Republican House in the sense, yeah, with.

No Wall funding.

No Wall funding.

And by the way, Fox totally ignored it. It was only because I went ballistic and Drudge threw it up on when it was actually Drudge threw it up on the Drudge Report that people even knew this is the third funding bill you are signing. You've said the last two times, I'll never sign a funding bill again without without Wall funding.

And by the way, Fox totally ignored it. It was only because I went ballistic and Drudge threw it up on when it was actually Drudge threw it up on the Drudge Report that people even knew this is the third funding bill you are signing. You've said the last two times, I'll never sign a funding bill again without without Wall funding.

And I emailed.

And I emailed.

Miller at the White House and at the time and said, congratulations, you've wrecked the country.

Miller at the White House and at the time and said, congratulations, you've wrecked the country.

He's made up for it.

He's made up for it.

I mean, you know what I respect about you and I want to say to you on my podcast is that unlike ninety nine point ninety nine eight percent of the people who are in conservative media, you don't seek to be to lose yourself in order to stay in the sphere of influence, which everyone else kind of does. They don't care what they say, what they believe, because they want to be in the sphere of influence. What has changed in your I think third decade in political media as far as the media, the way that political figures have influenced politicians, I mean, was only three cable news networking. I'm SOMEBCCN in the box news. It was a much more you know, they package what a Republican was supposed to sound like. And you were always out of the box because and you were interesting because you're out of the box. What is it now like when you have social media and a million because it feels like there should be more different opinions, but there's a lot more of the same. They all want to be in the sphere of influence.

I mean, you know what I respect about you and I want to say to you on my podcast is that unlike ninety nine point ninety nine eight percent of the people who are in conservative media, you don't seek to be to lose yourself in order to stay in the sphere of influence, which everyone else kind of does. They don't care what they say, what they believe, because they want to be in the sphere of influence. What has changed in your I think third decade in political media as far as the media, the way that political figures have influenced politicians, I mean, was only three cable news networking. I'm SOMEBCCN in the box news. It was a much more you know, they package what a Republican was supposed to sound like. And you were always out of the box because and you were interesting because you're out of the box. What is it now like when you have social media and a million because it feels like there should be more different opinions, but there's a lot more of the same. They all want to be in the sphere of influence.

Yes, And actually, the way the reason I even remember what the answer to that question is, that's how I began my first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Because until I moved to Washington to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn't own a TV. And then I got one because I wanted to be able to.

Yes, And actually, the way the reason I even remember what the answer to that question is, that's how I began my first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Because until I moved to Washington to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn't own a TV. And then I got one because I wanted to be able to.

Watch c SPAN because I'm cool that way.

Watch c SPAN because I'm cool that way.

And so for the first time I'm watching TV while while workings in a Judiciary committee, and then and then doing a lot of TV on on. Luckily we had a president who was a felon, which was really.

And so for the first time I'm watching TV while while workings in a Judiciary committee, and then and then doing a lot of TV on on. Luckily we had a president who was a felon, which was really.

Great for a lawyer trying to not practice law.

Great for a lawyer trying to not practice law.

And what I noticed was, for one thing, the hurting everyone, everyone will say the same thing, and for protection who I don't know who the first person is, you know who's the first move or here, and then they will all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize what the rules were, so I'd come along and the first like ten times this happened, I thought, Wow, I must be misunderstanding something, because I think that's totally wrong. For example, how the Supreme Court was going to come out on Jones v. Clinton or I guess at that point it was Clinton v.

And what I noticed was, for one thing, the hurting everyone, everyone will say the same thing, and for protection who I don't know who the first person is, you know who's the first move or here, and then they will all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize what the rules were, so I'd come along and the first like ten times this happened, I thought, Wow, I must be misunderstanding something, because I think that's totally wrong. For example, how the Supreme Court was going to come out on Jones v. Clinton or I guess at that point it was Clinton v.

Jones.

Jones.

I'd written articles for Human Events saying, she's totally going to win. This is what the precedent is. Of course she wins. She won nine to zero. I was the only person saying that. I was writing the article. The day after the night of the Supreme Court argument, I hear the flop of the New York Times in front of my apartment. I get up and I read Linda Greenhouse and what everyone was saying was they're going to split the baby, split the baby. She'll be able to sue, but it won't be during his presidency. They're going to split the baby. And it did make me sit back and think, am I Am I wrong about this? And no, I looked at the case law again. Nope, I think I'm right, and I swear to you, Ryan grew Dusky. I was the only person saying that. But then when the result comes out, not that I'm demanding credit, but you know, a little pat on the head would be nice.

I'd written articles for Human Events saying, she's totally going to win. This is what the precedent is. Of course she wins. She won nine to zero. I was the only person saying that. I was writing the article. The day after the night of the Supreme Court argument, I hear the flop of the New York Times in front of my apartment. I get up and I read Linda Greenhouse and what everyone was saying was they're going to split the baby, split the baby. She'll be able to sue, but it won't be during his presidency. They're going to split the baby. And it did make me sit back and think, am I Am I wrong about this? And no, I looked at the case law again. Nope, I think I'm right, and I swear to you, Ryan grew Dusky. I was the only person saying that. But then when the result comes out, not that I'm demanding credit, but you know, a little pat on the head would be nice.

No, no one will remember it. And why will no one remember it?

No, no one will remember it. And why will no one remember it?

Because they all were saying the same wrong thing, so no one can point it out.

Because they all were saying the same wrong thing, so no one can point it out.

And you, yeah, and you still have today, is that the same wrong thing? Because it's what's acceptable, Like it's acceptable even in like the conserved ghetto, as I call it, Like this is what the opinion is. It could be asked and it could be wrong. And sometimes you'll hear like during the first step back when Trump passes. Not to muddy any love on Trump, but it was a bad bill that he said.

And you, yeah, and you still have today, is that the same wrong thing? Because it's what's acceptable, Like it's acceptable even in like the conserved ghetto, as I call it, Like this is what the opinion is. It could be asked and it could be wrong. And sometimes you'll hear like during the first step back when Trump passes. Not to muddy any love on Trump, but it was a bad bill that he said.

Now his first term really sucks.

Now his first term really sucks.

Yeah, so he would say the first step back, which was horrendous, and he later, according to several juris, regretted it. But you would hear conservatives. Conservatives sit there and say, well, here, Hillary Clinton talk about a minority of black people committing a majority of crimes, and how racist she is. I'm like, she's right. Everything she's saying here is correct, and you shouldn't oppose it just because she's saying it when it's correct, and it will drive me personally insane.

Yeah, so he would say the first step back, which was horrendous, and he later, according to several juris, regretted it. But you would hear conservatives. Conservatives sit there and say, well, here, Hillary Clinton talk about a minority of black people committing a majority of crimes, and how racist she is. I'm like, she's right. Everything she's saying here is correct, and you shouldn't oppose it just because she's saying it when it's correct, and it will drive me personally insane.

I will.

I will.

I think the highlight of the Trumps stupidity term one was in his first debate with Biden.

I think the highlight of the Trumps stupidity term one was in his first debate with Biden.

I include it in like every third column I write. Now.

I include it in like every third column I write. Now.

It still makes me so angry. After eight months of BLM riots and cities being burned down and the homicide rate going through the roof Donald's Trump bragged, I'm letting people out of jail now. Black people hate you. You call them super predators. And by the way, he didn't call black people. Neither Biden or no one else called black people super predators. They called super predator super predators. As you're we're seeing in New York City right now. I mean, it's always the case that like ninety percent of the crime is being committed by ten percent of the people. Lock them up and you go a long way to solving the crime problem. That's the super predator issue. It's a perfectly legit issue. The way to attack Biden was that he's weak on crime, not that I'm letting people out of jail on that.

It still makes me so angry. After eight months of BLM riots and cities being burned down and the homicide rate going through the roof Donald's Trump bragged, I'm letting people out of jail now. Black people hate you. You call them super predators. And by the way, he didn't call black people. Neither Biden or no one else called black people super predators. They called super predator super predators. As you're we're seeing in New York City right now. I mean, it's always the case that like ninety percent of the crime is being committed by ten percent of the people. Lock them up and you go a long way to solving the crime problem. That's the super predator issue. It's a perfectly legit issue. The way to attack Biden was that he's weak on crime, not that I'm letting people out of jail on that.

But let's talk about happy days the new Trump administration.

But let's talk about happy days the new Trump administration.

Now, I go back to the media appointment. What is the biggest change you've seen in three decades in conservative media? Has it gotten better than it was in the nineties or has it gotten in two thousands and tens or has it gotten worse.

Now, I go back to the media appointment. What is the biggest change you've seen in three decades in conservative media? Has it gotten better than it was in the nineties or has it gotten in two thousands and tens or has it gotten worse.

Well, they're just as stupid, but and just as heard like. But oh my gosh, it's a huge difference. I've done a podcast on it. I mean, it blows me away every single day. When after Romney lost, and long before that, I mean, Republicans just kept pushing an amnesty, kept pushing an aim amnesty.

Well, they're just as stupid, but and just as heard like. But oh my gosh, it's a huge difference. I've done a podcast on it. I mean, it blows me away every single day. When after Romney lost, and long before that, I mean, Republicans just kept pushing an amnesty, kept pushing an aim amnesty.

McCain did it, Bush did it. Romney didn't.

McCain did it, Bush did it. Romney didn't.

But as soon as Romney loses, but he was the toughest on immigration, believe it for sure. Yeah, in twenty twelve, then you know the RNC I think tank, they get together the brains of the operation and their ideas.

But as soon as Romney loses, but he was the toughest on immigration, believe it for sure. Yeah, in twenty twelve, then you know the RNC I think tank, they get together the brains of the operation and their ideas.

We've got to be for an amnesty.

We've got to be for an amnesty.

And I think Rush was I know Hannity came out for an amnesty.

And I think Rush was I know Hannity came out for an amnesty.

And so, I mean those were those were dark days.

And so, I mean those were those were dark days.

It was down to I mean I didn't know you then I assume you me Stephen Miller was that drouge A few drudge Yeah, basically anyone who's ever lived in LA. That great talk radio host McIntyre. I can't remember his first name, but he was KABC LA. He wouldn't I think he didn't vote for Reagan. He didn't vote for Bush because of because.

It was down to I mean I didn't know you then I assume you me Stephen Miller was that drouge A few drudge Yeah, basically anyone who's ever lived in LA. That great talk radio host McIntyre. I can't remember his first name, but he was KABC LA. He wouldn't I think he didn't vote for Reagan. He didn't vote for Bush because of because.

That lady from southern California. Two. She was a big anti immigration, right remember her name either. There were very very Michelle Malkin at the time. She wasn't work anymore in the media, but there were very very very few because and then we turned out that the autopsy was doctor to make it seeling and it wasn't even real begin with because special interests always had I tell I give special I like talks to people who are like twenty one twenty two I employees or twenty one twenty two who never knew the nineties, unfortunately, who never knew how great America was unfortunately, and they also never knew how bad it was in the when I started coming writing articles like six o seven, and it was at that time and I became a Republican, as I said, anyone who's against amnesty for legal immigrants, I am for because I saw how it transformed Queens, New York, where I'm from born and raised, and I said, this is they have like dead chickens in backyards now formerly very nice German or Italian neighborhoods. So I just was like, this is not the neighbor I grew up, and this is I see the transformation having for my eyes, and it is a remarkably better Republican party than it was, even though it's even just that.

That lady from southern California. Two. She was a big anti immigration, right remember her name either. There were very very Michelle Malkin at the time. She wasn't work anymore in the media, but there were very very very few because and then we turned out that the autopsy was doctor to make it seeling and it wasn't even real begin with because special interests always had I tell I give special I like talks to people who are like twenty one twenty two I employees or twenty one twenty two who never knew the nineties, unfortunately, who never knew how great America was unfortunately, and they also never knew how bad it was in the when I started coming writing articles like six o seven, and it was at that time and I became a Republican, as I said, anyone who's against amnesty for legal immigrants, I am for because I saw how it transformed Queens, New York, where I'm from born and raised, and I said, this is they have like dead chickens in backyards now formerly very nice German or Italian neighborhoods. So I just was like, this is not the neighbor I grew up, and this is I see the transformation having for my eyes, and it is a remarkably better Republican party than it was, even though it's even just that.

All the idiot talking heads, I mean, it's just stunning to me.

All the idiot talking heads, I mean, it's just stunning to me.

And you know, I'll retweet them sometimes, but they're like direct quotes from Adios America, and I don't know if you know.

And you know, I'll retweet them sometimes, but they're like direct quotes from Adios America, and I don't know if you know.

Adios America was not well.

Adios America was not well.

Received at Fox News, it was not well received. It wasn't well received by my own publishers, Salem.

Received at Fox News, it was not well received. It wasn't well received by my own publishers, Salem.

They wouldn't allow me to participate in radio events. I used to always do it to promote any other book.

They wouldn't allow me to participate in radio events. I used to always do it to promote any other book.

Now they've actually published this book and I would be banned from from.

Now they've actually published this book and I would be banned from from.

Really yeah all of well you told me one time. So in publishing, the way it works is if you have a first time bestseller, you don't make money off it. You make it money off of year advance of your second book. You didn't make money for your second book. I don't think right. Is that correct?

Really yeah all of well you told me one time. So in publishing, the way it works is if you have a first time bestseller, you don't make money off it. You make it money off of year advance of your second book. You didn't make money for your second book. I don't think right. Is that correct?

No one would publish it.

No one would publish it.

What was your second Bookander Slander? And it was a bestseller number one?

What was your second Bookander Slander? And it was a bestseller number one?

All summer.

All summer.

I publishers are all summer, but no one would publishing. My agent, Jonie Evans, would forward me some of the emails, and she was in with all the publishing houses. You couldn't have a better book agent. And I just remember one of them with the publishers saying, we do not think this would move the public dialogue forward. So I responded to Joni saying, wow, that's so weird. I thought publishers made money. And how many books they sold.

I publishers are all summer, but no one would publishing. My agent, Jonie Evans, would forward me some of the emails, and she was in with all the publishing houses. You couldn't have a better book agent. And I just remember one of them with the publishers saying, we do not think this would move the public dialogue forward. So I responded to Joni saying, wow, that's so weird. I thought publishers made money. And how many books they sold.

I had no idea.

I had no idea.

It was how many inches they moved the public. And there's a chapter in Slander about how publishers they would give quotes about how they kept remember that woman Naomi Wolf, They kept giving home million dollar advances, they kept losing money on them, and then the head of the publishing company would say yes, but was so proud to have her as an author, and there were all these books. Actually it was my mother who pointed this out to me. When High Crimes and Mister Meanors was a smash bestseller, my mother got a little resentful that everyone kept referring to it as a surprise bestseller. My mother's very sensitive to any slight toward me. And I thought, huh, that's funny, And so I looked up on Nexus and there was one massive conservative blockbuster after another, and they were all described as surprise best sellers. They were literally published by a mainstream publisher. Yeah, there was God and Man at Yale. I think Whittaker Chambers witness some of the really big ones. Probably the one on true story of Chapelquitica, I don't remember, but it's.

It was how many inches they moved the public. And there's a chapter in Slander about how publishers they would give quotes about how they kept remember that woman Naomi Wolf, They kept giving home million dollar advances, they kept losing money on them, and then the head of the publishing company would say yes, but was so proud to have her as an author, and there were all these books. Actually it was my mother who pointed this out to me. When High Crimes and Mister Meanors was a smash bestseller, my mother got a little resentful that everyone kept referring to it as a surprise bestseller. My mother's very sensitive to any slight toward me. And I thought, huh, that's funny, And so I looked up on Nexus and there was one massive conservative blockbuster after another, and they were all described as surprise best sellers. They were literally published by a mainstream publisher. Yeah, there was God and Man at Yale. I think Whittaker Chambers witness some of the really big ones. Probably the one on true story of Chapelquitica, I don't remember, but it's.

In that chapter.

In that chapter.

And luckily my publisher for Slander was Steve Ross, God bless him, who actually did think that a publishing company Crown should make money, and so they wanted it. But I've been sitting with this book for a year.

And luckily my publisher for Slander was Steve Ross, God bless him, who actually did think that a publishing company Crown should make money, and so they wanted it. But I've been sitting with this book for a year.

Anyone ever apologize or say, hey, we lost money on you. I wish you would have done it.

Anyone ever apologize or say, hey, we lost money on you. I wish you would have done it.

No, but Steve Ross was happy because he he published it, and I forced the publishing industry.

No, but Steve Ross was happy because he he published it, and I forced the publishing industry.

They said it would take a year to turn around. That used to be.

They said it would take a year to turn around. That used to be.

It's hard to believe now given technology, but it used to be you'd turn in a book and it would come out as a book one year later. And they said, okay, this will come out one year later. I said, I can't do that. I got to go back to Regnory. I just I can't sit with this book anymore. It's got to come out now. I know it's got to come out now. And and so they fiddled around and they said, okay, we'll put it out in June. And my editor later told me that the reason they were resisting so much was they always knew they could do it in two months, but no one wanted to work that hard. So now everybody well very quickly.

It's hard to believe now given technology, but it used to be you'd turn in a book and it would come out as a book one year later. And they said, okay, this will come out one year later. I said, I can't do that. I got to go back to Regnory. I just I can't sit with this book anymore. It's got to come out now. I know it's got to come out now. And and so they fiddled around and they said, okay, we'll put it out in June. And my editor later told me that the reason they were resisting so much was they always knew they could do it in two months, but no one wanted to work that hard. So now everybody well very quickly.

Now it's so much easier with con writer.

Now it's so much easier with con writer.

Well, and thank you so much for coming on my podcast. Before I leave you, I have I mean, there's I have so many friends who always like, well next to me, see An, can you bring me with me? And I'm like, uh, you'd probably be too spanished, whatever, but I want to ask one of their questions. You very famously had a lot of arguments on television with like Barbara Walters and Katie Couric, and you know, just like you know spats on air, Chris Matthews when you called John Edwards a woman one of your best moments. Who is someone on TV that you enjoyed personally that you just argued with for the for the sake of it on televisor working for the political reasons?

Well, and thank you so much for coming on my podcast. Before I leave you, I have I mean, there's I have so many friends who always like, well next to me, see An, can you bring me with me? And I'm like, uh, you'd probably be too spanished, whatever, but I want to ask one of their questions. You very famously had a lot of arguments on television with like Barbara Walters and Katie Couric, and you know, just like you know spats on air, Chris Matthews when you called John Edwards a woman one of your best moments. Who is someone on TV that you enjoyed personally that you just argued with for the for the sake of it on televisor working for the political reasons?

A fair number of them.

A fair number of them.

I don't know if they exist anymore. Alan Combs, obviously, Bill Joy Behar. There was a guy, Rick Sanchez on CNN who hilariously was canceled for he said something about how.

I don't know if they exist anymore. Alan Combs, obviously, Bill Joy Behar. There was a guy, Rick Sanchez on CNN who hilariously was canceled for he said something about how.

Jewish power over.

Jewish power over.

The media, and to prove him wrong, they got him fired.

The media, and to prove him wrong, they got him fired.

Way to go, Wow, he was wrong, all right?

Way to go, Wow, he was wrong, all right?

And where can people get your substack? You're fantastic substect that everyone should subscribe to.

And where can people get your substack? You're fantastic substect that everyone should subscribe to.

Thank you and Culter dot substack dot com. I have an interview with Michael Shellenberger comming and right now the Seth Dylan interview is up.

Thank you and Culter dot substack dot com. I have an interview with Michael Shellenberger comming and right now the Seth Dylan interview is up.

And you got my columns every week.

And you got my columns every week.

Her comms are great, her podcasts are better. And Coulter, you're amazing. Thank you for being here.

Her comms are great, her podcasts are better. And Coulter, you're amazing. Thank you for being here.

Good to talk to you. Ryan, You're dusky.

Good to talk to you. Ryan, You're dusky.

Hey, we'll be right back after this This is the ask Me Anything part of the show where listeners can sit there and send me an email Ryan at Numbers Game podcast dot com.

Hey, we'll be right back after this This is the ask Me Anything part of the show where listeners can sit there and send me an email Ryan at Numbers Game podcast dot com.

That's ryanat numbers Plural podcast dot com. Chew me an email about literally anything, and I'll ask. I'll answer for you the best my ability. This question comes from Wes West asked, your school board pack did very well in Wisconsin while the Supreme Court candidate lost by double digits. Why do you think you were successful locally more than statewide? Conservatives work? That's a great question. So I have a school board pack the seventeen seventy six project. We do school board races across the country. We did I think twenty seven races in Wisconsin and we won twenty of the twenty seven twenty six We had a seventy five percent victory rate in a day that wasn't very good for Republicans. Statewide one, school boards are more localized, so we had a lot of regions that were very conservative and they voted for the conservative judge. Those a conservative rather school board canate as well as a conservative judge. That partly benefited us. But I think when he comes to Wisconsin and why Republicans and Conservatives fell short. I think there's a number of reasons. One, I think Elon Musk. I know Conservatives love him, but among Americans as a whole, they don't like Elon. Elon's favorability ratings are very low, much lower than President Trump's or Vice president of vanceas he comes across as you know, obviously very wealthy and possibly doing business with a federal government or having control in federal government that he gets brands from which people find, you know, not tasteful. But they find him weird. That's just the truth of the matter. They find him weird. He's somebody who's talked about things like putting chips in people's brains and having you know, multi planet empires, and he's just talked about things about humanity and a post human world that I think people find very very off putting, including Republicans, including Christians. That makes people question things. His love of AI, I think gives a lot of people some anxiety. So him going to Iowa doing events, being the face of the rally instead of something like Trump, I think actually hurt the conservative candidate. Secondly, on early vote, the Democrats did a very robust early vote plan. They got people out early, so on election theydempt to wait for election day. We've seen this problem for so long. Republicans like we have seen this problem constantly where we do not get our lowro pensity voters out and they get theirs out through the early voting system. Republicans got a lot of voters out. We had a good candidate, he did a hard work, he did a good job. He wasn't a bad candidate. But election day, just the way we run elections now, it starts way before the actual first Tuesday November. It starts months ahead of time in some places because the early vote, and we have to treat it like that. And I think that lastly, as I said before, we worked in certain regions like Waukesha County and other counties that may be more conservative than to it, and we were reinforcing conservative margins. We did flip two school board districts, but that mattered immensely to it. But I think that when it comes to Wisconsin and all future elections, I don't think that Elon Musk should be the face of the of the anti liberal movement. I just think that people find him strange at best and off putting at worse. The Roman salute Nazis lootsuff doesn't help, and we have to do a better job of that. I'm not saying he has no value. I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm not saying that. But for the face of voters when they question who would you like to have a beer with? I think they might like to ask elon a couple questions, But autistic men in their mid forties with fourteen kids, team kids, what HA made is with five or four different women is not their first choice. That's my best opinion of it. And that's why I think we do better locally than conservatives did statewide. Anyway, thank you so much. Please submit questions for next week and every question every every show afterwards. It's Ryan at Numbers game podcast dot com. Ryan at Numbers thoral podcast dot com. I appreciate you all being here. I appreciate you all for listening. Please like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast where you get your podcast. I'll see you guys next week. Thank you again for listening.