The courts need to get out of the way, and I don’t mean that as something lawless, I mean that as stay in your lane and stop abusing your authority to protect illegal alien criminals. I don’t know what to make of the Supreme Court. Sometimes they issue rulings that are competent, other times they are completely rogue. And I was talking about this issue on Fox News the other night. I want to bring in the author of Rights and Freedoms and Peril, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. How surprised were you, my friend? At the ruling, 7-2 is a pretty big win for the, well, for those who are fighting for the migrants.

It is. It follows on Supreme Court skepticism of the President’s ability to protect the country from an invading force of foreign terrorists that he found as Commander-in-Chief under this federal law that’s been around forever and a day. And it’s, I don’t recall seeing any Supreme Court justice on the presidential ballot list, and no one elected them to be Commander-in-Chief. And under this new ruling, who knows how much so-called due process these illegal alien terrorists are going to get in a way that makes it nearly impossible to reverse the Biden invasion. And at least with this particular group, these Venezuelans with this nasty gang that’s an arm of the Venezuelan government.

And it’s interesting because, as I’m sure you may have read, Stephen Miller said something similar when he pointed out the fact that, what does that mean now, if we’re talking about millions, literally perhaps even tens of millions of people who have come here, if there is no process for those, not everybody, but for those who have been accused of violent crimes, it could be a real problem. Has been his argument, and I think this ruling is an interesting one. I want to share it really quickly. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights.

To contest that removal surely does not pass muster, but it is not optimal for this court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. Yeah, and the Supreme Court is enticing lower courts, to put it charitably, to engage in more of this lawlessness. You had a court, I forget which jurisdiction, but it doesn’t matter, because they all think they’re running the country, no matter the jurisdiction. It’s ordering the president to take steps to bring back murderous individuals from the south of Sudan, or who knows where.

Non-citizens, criminals, deported lawfully in my view, and they’re kind of trying to take over the president’s ability to protect the country as commander in chief, as I said, defend our borders. It’s harming the public safety, it’s allowing effectively criminals to stay here who shouldn’t be allowed to stay here under law, and it looks to me, as I suggested with the Supreme Court, they’re making it up as they go along. And so we need to continue to blow the whistle on it, and I just hope the president doesn’t slow down. I mean, thankfully, the budget is going to provide, or I shouldn’t say is going to, it plans to provide, because it hasn’t been passed yet, this reconciliation package, more money to support deportation efforts, because they’ve basically maxed out their capacity in terms of money they’re able to spend to deport literally the millions of people they need to deport.

And this is the first big tranche of money that would help the Trump administration deport even more. So this is going to be an ongoing battle, and they need more money, they need more support, even though this budget reconciliation package is a first good step. But the courts need to get out of the way, and I don’t mean that as something lawless, I mean that as stay in your lane and stop abusing your authority to protect illegal alien criminals. Now, I say that, maybe I shouldn’t be saying these things, because the court’s hearing some judicial watch-related issues, or considering them, including this week, they had a conference.

And what happens is the Supreme Court has conferences that are private, where they consider whether to take up cases or petitions for cert, which is what it’s called. And as I told you, judicial watch has been suing in courts across the land to ensure that ballots that arrive after election day are not counted. Because federal law sets an election day, not an election week, not an election month. We sued in Illinois, where they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election day. We sued in Mississippi, where they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after election day.

And we just most recently sued on behalf of Congressman Darryl Issa in California, which counts ballots that arrive up to seven days after election day. And creating a situation in which the Republicans in Congress lost two seats to Democrats due to, solely, ballots that were counted that arrived after election day. So, in our view, unlawful ballots. So, that case just started. In Mississippi, the case went up on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and we won. The Fifth Circuit found that counting ballots that arrive after election day is unlawful. In Illinois, we didn’t win on the merits because the court found that there was no standing to challenge the rule by our client.

We’re representing Congressman Bost in Illinois and two electors, two voters. And the court found, oh no, they don’t have standing. Which, with all due respect, is absurd. Why wouldn’t a federal candidate have standing to challenge the illicit counting, as alleged, of ballots? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not going to spend a lot of time explaining the court decision why. But we’re hoping the Supreme Court considers taking up this issue. So, the court won’t necessarily address the issue on the merits, but will hopefully rule or consider that why are candidates being frozen out of election challenges, some of which, to me, is tied to Trump and anti-Trump animus.

Oh, Trump challenged elections, therefore we can’t let any other candidate challenge elections. And I think there’s that politics in that anti-Trump animus taints this decision-making process by certain courts. Even pointees appointed by Trump, it’s not sensible what they’ve been doing. In this case, specifically, I have something I wanted to share with you from that. Hold on one second. So, we filed the writ of certiorari, the cert petition, and the Supreme Court considered it this week. Despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election day, Illinois has expanded election day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots.

And as I said, in our other case in Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit already found the counting of such ballots is unlawful. And the court, in our case in Illinois, two weeks. And my understanding is they don’t even necessarily have to be postmarked. And a member, a candidate for federal office can’t challenge that lawlessness? For over 130 years, we asked the court, or tell the court, this court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time, place, or manner regulations affecting their federal elections. Until recently, recently being, you know what, 2020, boo, right? It was axiomatic.

The candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Look up axiomatic. You’ll see how important that is. It’s almost without question. It’s like a truth on its face. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has more a particularized injury than the candidate has. And that’s a quote from a case. That is because a candidate who pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail, and who puts her name on a ballot has an undeniably different and more particularized interest in the lawfulness of the election than some random voter.

Petitioners are a sitting, multi-term congressman, Congressman Boss, B-O-S-T. Thank you, Congressman Boss, for being willing to fight with Judicial Watch here. We’re honored to represent you. And two federal electors. It is a scandal. This is how I term it. It is a scandal that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted. Illinois’ 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud. The Supreme Court should take up the case and reaffirm the right of federal candidates to challenge unlawful election schemes.

So the standing issue is a big deal. We’re running into issues on it in our fights over the cleanup election rolls as well. So it’s concerning. But 18-19 states count, well, maybe now it’s 17 because Mississippi’s law was overruled. Although I think they’re going to appeal that to the Supreme Court. So who knows what the status of that is. Well, the point is 18-19 states count ballots that arrive after Election Day. And a candidate can’t challenge that. That’s what the judge in Illinois said. That’s what the appellate court said. And we hope the Supreme Court fixes that as soon as possible.

So we’re going to know next week, or maybe we won’t know next week, but typically it will be announced next week if it is decided whether to take the case up. So I guess it’s too late to pray for wisdom and discernment since the decision may have been made. But, you know, who knows, maybe they put it off and they will consider it another day. Either way, we’re hoping for justice from the Supreme Court on this important issue. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. See you next week.

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.