The Definitive Case Against Judicial Supremacy | 2/11/25

Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz

Blaze Media

Politics, News Commentary, News, Society & Culture

4.8 • 3.4K Ratings

🗓️ 11 February 2025

⏱️ 76 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Unless we terminate the erroneous notion of judicial supremacism, we will be left with tyranny, and Trump and red states will be powerless to change anything. In today’s extra-long episode, I offer the definitive history, legal case, and philosophical argument against judicial supremacism and in favor of constitutional decompartmentalization. I explain the system our founders adopted and rejected, the true lesson of Marbury v. Madison, and the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacism. There is no such thing as a judicial veto on a law and policy, and the other branches have an even greater obligation and power to push back against bad rulings that affect broad political questions. I explain how Trump can "walk before running" and slowly inch away from judicial supremacism in cases where judges try to mandate affirmative executive actions on issues that are clearly out of their jurisdiction. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Politics without the soap opera with unfiltered constitutional conservative truth.
0:06.6	The Conservative Review with Daniel Burns.
0:09.8	And welcome back fellow American patriots and Minutemen standing at the ready to fight anew
0:15.0	for the issues that matter in the way they matter at the time they matter.
0:19.6	And that time is today, February 11th here at Sierra Podcast, Blaze Media, your host,
0:24.8	Daniel Horowitz, and the issue today is judicial supremacism.
0:30.8	Because really, there is no greater issue than that.
0:35.7	Think about everything you and I want to accomplish together,
0:39.1	federally state, you name it. And unless we end this erroneous assumption, practice,
0:50.0	legal theory of judicial supremacism, we're done.
0:54.7	We're done as a people.
0:56.7	Because part of the problem is we have rhinos, we can't do anything, but let's say we had a real party.
1:03.0	Name me the thing you want to do.
1:05.5	And as we're seeing, the few good things that are being done, mainly or almost exclusively
1:10.6	at an executive level,
1:13.5	we so-called have this injunction from any random district judge.
1:20.2	And we are told that at any given time, no matter the issue,
1:48.4	one of 677 federal district judges could grant standing to a party and then rule and have that rule have an effect of creating a political rule regarding any issue affecting the whole of the people,
1:59.3	and that that ruling is irrevocably the final law unless it's overturned by a higher court itself. And then, of course, once the Supreme Court does it or agrees with,
2:03.9	that lower court, it's irrevocably fixed into our law,
2:08.4	like the word of the Lord.
2:10.6	And that, of course, is the most tyrannical premise imaginable.
	...

Transcript will be available on the free plan in -47 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Blaze Media, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Blaze Media and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.