SCOTUS vs Constitution: An American Crisis, Parental Wins & Natural Law

SCOTUS vs Constitution: Courts Violating Natural Law, Democrat Court Packing Threats & Big Wins for Parents & Borders | The Ryan Samuels Show
In this powerful episode, we expose the history of Supreme Court failures — from Dred Scott and Plessy to Roe — where judges ignored the Constitution and natural law in favor of precedent and politics. We break down how appointments are political by design and why originalism is the fix.
Recent Conservative Wins: • 6-3 parental rights victories (opting out of LGBTQ indoctrination) • 9th Circuit blocks California gender secrecy law hiding transitions from parents • Trump deportation & immigration enforcement upheld • Likely SCOTUS green light for state bans on men in women’s sports • Gun rights, free speech, and Voting Rights Act limits
The left’s desperate response? Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Ro Khanna pushing court packing and term limits. This is the American crisis we face.
Live conservative commentary on judicial review, stare decisis vs originalism, and restoring the Republic.
🔔 Subscribe for daily America First truth 👍 Like | Share | Comment your thoughts on court packing
Timestamps: 00:00 Opening Monologue - Judicial Review & Natural Law 07:00 Recent SCOTUS Wins 27:00 Democrat Court Packing Exposed 44:00 Parental Rights & Border Victories
#SCOTUS #CourtPacking #ParentalRights #Constitution #AmericaFirst #Trump #NaturalLaw #JudicialReview #SupremeCourt #BorderSecurity

Semper Fi

Uncle Ted says subscribe on Facebook!

Transcript

SPEAKER_13 0:50

Good evening, America. Welcome to the Ryan Samuel Show. Tonight we're talking about the courts, the third branch of government that was meant to be the guardian of the Constitution, not its editor. We're going to look at judicial review, the long and painful history of when the Supreme Court got it catastrophically wrong, how judges too often decide cases based on what other judges said before them instead of what the Constitution actually says. And why the appointment process has never been the neutral, impartial exercise some of us pretend it is. Now let's start with the formation and foundation in 1803 in a case called Marbury versus Madison. Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. The idea is simple and correct in its core. When the law passed by Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, the courts have the duty to say so and refuse to enforce the unconstitutional act. That power flows from the structure of a written constitution and the judicial oath to support it. It was never meant to be a blank check for judges to rewrite the document or impose their own policy or preferences. But power, once claimed, tends to expand and expand it did. History is littered with the Supreme Court decisions that were not just legally flawed, but morally catastrophic. Decisions that trampled natural law, the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the founders recognized as pre-political and unalienable. If we look at Drew Scott v. Sanford in 1857, the court ruled that black people, whether free or enslaved, were not citizens and had no rights. They had no rights that white men were bound to respect. It protected slavery as a constitutional right and struck down the Mississippi the Missouri Compromise. The decision didn't just misread the Constitution. It violated the natural law that's written on the human heart of every person on earth. It helped push the nation towards civil war. It was eventually overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments, but the damage had already been done. Then we had Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the old separate but equal. The court greenlit Jim Crow. They greenlit segregation across the South for decades, again, a directive violation of equal protection and the neutral equality of persons. It took the courage of a later justices in the civil rights movement to begin correcting that stain. If we fast forward even to World War II, Karamatsu v. the United States, the court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, including U.S. citizens based on race and national origin alone. It was a shameful surrender of due process and the individual liberty in the name of wartime expediency. And of course, Roe v. Wade in 1973. The court discovered a right to abortion hidden in the penumbras of the Constitution, a right nowhere mentioned in the text, history, or tradition. It violated the most fundamental natural right of all, the right to life of an unborn child. For nearly 50 years, it distorted our law until and our culture until another case came along, Dobbs v. Jackson, which was a women's health organization. It finally returned the question to the people and the states where it belonged. These weren't small errors. These were the court acting as a super legislature, imposing outcomes that contradicted the plain meaning of the Constitution and the natural law that undergirds it. But why does this keep happening? And it's simple. It's because too many judges have treated precedent or stare decisis, as it's called, as more important than the Constitution itself. They chain themselves to the previous bad decisions and call it settled law. Even when those decisions were built on sand, they practice living constitutionalism. The notion that the meaning of the document evolves with the times and with the policy preferences of the current majority on the court. That's not judging. That is legislating from the bench. The proper approach approach is originalism and textualism. Ask a simple question. What did these words mean to the people who ratified them? What is the original public meaning? If you read it in light of the structure of the Constitution and natural rights, is it was it designed what was it designed to protect? With that method, that method, it doesn't guarantee perfection. Judges are fallible human beings, but it keeps them tethered to something outside their own will, the written law and enduring principles of ordered liberty. And let's be honest about how judges get on the Supreme Court bench. The appointment process is not and has never been a neutral technocratic exercise in finding the most objective legal mind. Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to nominate and the Senate the power to advise and consent. Presidents from both parties have always chosen nominees who share their constitutional philosophy. That is not a bug. It is a feature of our system. The people elect a president who reflects their vision of the country, including how the constitution should be interpreted. For decades, presidents have appointed justices committing to a living constitution that could be stretched to reach desired policy outcomes on abortion, guns, religion speech, and the administrative state. The results were predictable. More recently, we've seen appointments of judges who believe in the Constitution as a fixed meaning that the judge are duty bound to apply. Even when the results are unpopular in elite circles, that shift is not what the left calls packing the court. It is restoring balance after years of judicial activism. Tonight, we're going to look at where we are right now. We'll examine recent Supreme Court decisions and the ones still to come. Cases on birthright citizenship, presidential power, transgender participation in women's sports, and more. We're also looking at what's happening in the state's courts, where parents are finally winning battles against secret school gender policies and where common sense laws protecting women in sports and parental rights are being defended. The courts were never meant to be the final word on every moral and political decision. They were meant to be servants of the Constitution and protectors of the natural rights it recognizes. When they forget that role, the people through their elected representatives and through constitutional amendments have the ultimate authority to correct the record. That's the conversation we're having tonight. Stick around. This is Ryan Samuels. We will be right back. This is an American crisis, as far as I'm concerned. Now, the the Supreme Court was created to protect our founding document. That's literally why it exists. The other fun fact is they uh they established themselves, essentially, through judicial review. But we'll get into that maybe a little bit if there is time. But what we've seen throughout history is the Supreme Court rewriting itself, rewriting the Constitution to bend for whoever appointed them or whatever political party that they're aligned with. As always, you can call discuss any questions you have on the subject. Now, we've completely distorted where we started in the United States of America. If if Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, even the most far-left um lunatics like Hamilton came here and they uh saw what this country had, they would vomit. They would throw up, it would be completely out of control. They wouldn't be able to understand uh the control the federal government has. So the the Constitution is not a suggestion or a living document that evolves with culture. It is a written charter of liberty ratified by the people and for the people, right? It's listed in the Constitution. In the preamble, it says, we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and secure blessings of liberty. Now, Article III, Section One, the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court. Awesome. Article six, clause two, this constitution shall be the per supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Even the Tenth Amendment to the United States. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by it to the states are reserved to the states respectfully or to the people. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist number seventy eight, the ju said this quote, the judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment. The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter in 1827, the Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape it into any form they please. That's what our court systems do. You know, James Madison, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, excuse me, who wrote the Constitution, warned against judicial power, becoming a privileged class above the people. Even in George Washington's farewell address, he emphasiz he emphasized the importance of separations of powers. The Supreme Court is supposed to take something and read the Constitution and then say, hey, uh, we decide this. Right? Say they arrest you because you're carrying a firearm. And then you go to the Supreme Court. It gets to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the state said, Well, we have a right to have a permit. We have a right to have this. They're supposed to look at the Constitution and go, okay, Second Amendment, um, well-regular, well-regulated militia. Yep, yep. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say you should just keep arms, it says you also have the right to bear them, which means carry them around with you. So you look at that and you go, yeah, no, they have a right to keep and bear arms, just like they have a right to speak, uh, overruled. Let that man out of jail. Same thing with uh assemble or freedom of speech. They're very simple decisions to make. And that this isn't me oversimplifying it. This is the Supreme Court overcomplicating itself and over evaluating its own existence. Because that's what courts do, that's what lawyers do. I mean, you can there is there are many court rulings, which we went over in the opening monologue, but there are many court orders from the Supreme Court that are just clearly wrong, that clearly go against the Constitution of the United States. Sure, you can make the argument that um yeah, slavery was legal. Horrible. Should have never been. Should have been outlawed when Thomas Jefferson tried to outlaw it in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. True story, by the way. But Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857. The court said black people had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. Black people, not just slaves. Anybody of that color. It's true. That is true. Over a hundred years ago. That I mean, that ruling doesn't affect anybody today, but still it made that ruling. It it ignored the cut the the text of the Constitution. It it ignores the natural law to which the Constitution was founded on. You know, I I'm I've watched judges ignore statutes. I've watched judges who have they have this uh it's called Lobido Dominande, the lust to dominate, which Saint Augustine gave us that term. But you know, I I've seen it as a police officer, I've seen it as a dad in court, I I've seen it uh everywhere, I've seen it when I cover stories. I I see them just do whatever they want with unlimited power with no consequences because they have absolute immunity. But it's a disease at the highest level, and it has been for years. And what do you do to fix it? You know, those those outside of power looking at power, it's easy to criticize. But then once you get into power, all of a sudden you start abusing it, no matter who the person is. But the Dred Scott decision is awful, it's terrible. It it constitutes itself as the complete opposite of what it's supposed to do. So when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and slavery was omitted, the it was expected that the United States would progress towards freedom, that it would you would gain more freedom, not lose more freedom. That was at least the highest hope. And that's why they made it so hard to get anything done. That's why it's taken 250 years to get a lot of rulings done, to get a lot of things done, to prevent the government from slowing down this process. We have a lot of very important rulings coming up. We have Democrats who want to stack the Supreme Court. FDR tried to do the same thing. So you get into office, you have nine justices, six of them are conservative, three of them are liberal, and you're a Democrat and you say, you know what, we're gonna add 10 more judges, and then I'm gonna just overwhelm them with uh 10 Democrats. So now there's 13 Democrats to six Republicans, you create your own supermajority. That's literally what the left is arguing. They're actually arguing that. They have argued that. FDR tried to do that. Trump accused Biden of trying to do that in their debate in the 2020 election. But that would be an abuse of power, abuse of the court. And they're appointed for life. I, for one, think this is a good thing. They can't be removed or pressured. There's no financial benefit. There's nothing to keep them beholden to anybody's will. They can basically make whatever decision that they want. That's a good thing. There are people who want to set term limits. There are people who want them out every 10, 18 years. There are people who want to stack the court. There are people who feel that they're in an unelected body and shouldn't be able to overrule any politician ever. That's Bar one of Barack Obama's takes. But you know They've overturned their own rulings at times, too. They have. And they've set good precedents. They've also set bad precedents.

SPEAKER_06 19:17

So here's the children out from here is Corey Booker.

SPEAKER_13 19:21

And now you're hearing this from the left because the left is afraid because we are winning on the right side of the aisle, we're winning a lot of rulings that are hurting Democrats. So you're going to hear a lot of criticism of the Supreme Court. If the left was winning, you'd hear a lot of criticism too. Let's listen to what he has to say.

SPEAKER_14 19:42

Here's what I believe. And we in America now have normalized a level of corruption in all three branches of our government that cannot stand. It is a cancer that's it that is corroding our body politic. All three branches of government need massive reforms. The Supreme Court, if municipal court people in New Jersey did what Supreme Court members do are doing now, they would be let out and handcuffed. So my plan is very simple: two things. One is stop Supreme Court members from accepting unlimited gifts from billionaires who have matter interest in matters before the court. And number two, put term limits on Supreme Court members to 18 years. So we normalize a system that is actually fair, that says every time we elect a president, they get two people on the Supreme Court. We stop people hanging on well past their prime and make sure that we have a court that operates with the kind of integrity and fairness that America deserves and should be a fundamental expectation from every citizen.

SPEAKER_13 20:50

Reading books in the classroom that so I the Supreme Court of judges should not be accepting presents from anybody who has anything before criminal illegal that's basic, basic illegal immorality. So recently the Supreme Court came out with a 6-3 decision that ruled that parents are allowed to opt their children out of being, quote, I guess this person who posted this about being indoctrinated with LGBQ plus propaganda. What happened with this case is uh your child's going to public school. The public school is saying you have to read this gay friendly book. And I'm a parent who's a Catholic, which is true and true. And I say to the teacher, no, my child is not reading that book. I want my child nothing to do with that book. Oh, they have to read that book or they're gonna fail the class, you're gonna kick them out. Where are they gonna go? Right? So now you can't take them to another school because you don't have the financial means to put them in a uh private school, possibly, depending on who you are. But um the the the the public school is overstepping its. Boundaries by forcing people against their religious practices. And parents should be able to opt their children out of anything that they don't like. Anything that they don't like. It's their child. It's not the school's child. But that's what happens with government. When it gets its power, it feels as if you are property. They treat your children as if they're property. Don't forget, you can always call in 561-786-2916. Let's watch this.

SPEAKER_06 22:33

Shannon Bream is at the Supreme Court. We were watching for this one. What's the verdict?

SPEAKER_11 22:40

We were, Dana. So this brought together a coalition of parents of different religious faiths and backgrounds who said there used to be a rule in this particular school district that would let them know when there were books that dealt with issues that may be in conflict with their religious faith. Well, so many parents were opting out that the school board and the school district quit doing it. Well, six to three today in a justice, a decision by Justice Alito, they said these parents haven't earned at least a preliminary injunction. So while this case plays out, they said the board has to notify them about a book that's in question or anything similar so that their kids can be excused if it's in conflict with their faith. He says, um, as we've explained, without that, parents are left this choice, either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. Because at one point, Justice Jackson during the arguments has said, had said, why don't they just go to a different school? Why don't you put them in private school or homeschool them? Justice Alitos and others saying that's not practical for a lot of people. The dissent by Justice Sodemeyer, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, says, um, today's ruling threatens the essence of public education. She says it's not about bringing kids together to learn about a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project until now. She didn't think the dissenters didn't think that the parents should get the opt-out. Justice Salito and the majority say they should.

SPEAKER_13 24:00

Of course she didn't, because she's an activist judge. She's not there to make proper decisions that align with the Constitution of the United States. This is the whole premise of this show. This is what I'm trying to show everybody. They should be ruling based on what the Constitution says. They should not be ruling based on what their political philosophy is, their political ideology is, or even what the justices before them thought it meant. That's that's not how Why would they do that to their citizens? That's not how it goes at all. And you know, uh Kamala Harris, this is what they want to do, and this is how they want to circumvent what is happening. So Kamala Varris, Kamala Harris was on Don Lemon's show, I guess you could call it a show. And w what she said is absolutely it it'll crack your your mind in half. Let's just listen to it.

SPEAKER_17 24:57

Does that sound like something that would be possible? And do you think that it should be expanded uh for however many? He says thirteen because of thirteen circuits.

SPEAKER_13 25:08

Oh, I've been saying So what they want to do is they want to expand the Supreme Court. Now, by expand, they want to take nine justices and make thirteen of them for whatever excuse that they can. But the real truth and and the real position is that they want to get more people on there not to look at the Constitution to make decisions, but to legislate from the bench. And that is not the role of the Supreme Court of the United States. They're there to determine to determine whether or not a law violates the Constitution. In this case, about the the children being forced to read homosexuality is homosexual material where the teachers don't want, where their parents do not want that overwhelmingly, and then they force them to do it anyway when they cite religious exemptions is a violation of your individual rights under the United States Constitution. You have a right to worship a god or not worship a god. It's the same thing as if a public teacher pulled out the gospel and said, We're going to teach this to the class, and uh an atheist family or a Muslim family or a Hindu family said we want to opt out of this, and the the teacher said, Nope, you can't. You have to be forced to sit here. It's the same thing. Public schools are government officials, they're government entities, and they should be held accountable. Let's listen to this whole video.

SPEAKER_17 26:26

Does that sound like something that would be possible? And do you think that it should be expanded uh for however many? He says 13 because of 13 circuits.

SPEAKER_04 26:37

Oh, I've been saying for quite some time. I think that we absolutely have to explore what we need to do because of the Supreme Court and what what it um has done to destroy um so many of the elements of the Constitution that were designed to protect, in particular the minority, those who were marginalized, including expansion of the Supreme Court.

SPEAKER_13 27:06

And um she didn't say anything in that whole sentence there. She said nothing. It's just a word salad of nonsense. I mean, she has the the the brains of a friggin' mashed potato. I swear, is she even a human being? Is she like some robot or some lizard person that was sent here, but the lizard person's only three years old trying to speak? I mean, she makes m less sense than a toddler. Yeah, well, I think we should, you know, look at that because of uh yep, with the uh the district and you know what the Supreme Court has done, particularly to insert racism, insert racism now, and then say there's been bad things and then circle back to nothing.

SPEAKER_04 27:51

Yes, I absolutely believe that we should be exploring that.

SPEAKER_13 27:55

Does that this was almost your president of the United States, everybody? I am almost your president of the United States. What about the Electoral College? It was on the menu to happen. I'm not saying it happened. I'm very glad it did not happen. But that's what happened. She was the front runner for the Democratic Part Party. This is also her breaking news. This is also a little this is a little bit off topic, but we're gonna jump onto it anyway because it's so atrocious. It's just another violation of the Constitution. Let's listen to this.

SPEAKER_04 28:33

I think we need to look at that too. I think we need to look at that too. Yes. Yes, I do.

SPEAKER_17 28:40

Because it's clear to me, this is me, I don't know if it's words in your mouth, that we are being governed by a minority in this country. Because most people in this country aren't as extreme as the the folks who are they're not MAGA, they're not extreme right. Um, they believe that a woman should have a right to choose. But incorrect. That's not actually what we're living under right now. They believe that there should be a separation of church and state where you can worship who whatever god you want, or you don't have to at all.

SPEAKER_13 29:08

These people are so out of touch. Don Lemon actually believes that people in the United States cannot worship whatever God that they want. That there is no separation of church and state. There's it doesn't exist, it's not there, and that he's not allowed to not worship God. That if he doesn't go to church on Sundays, he's gonna wind up in a gulag. Or somebody's gonna wind up in a gulag. They they actually believe this stuff and then they spew it out. And she doesn't have a brain cell left to friggin' understand it. So she's like, look at her face. She's just staring off into the void, going, Yeah, how do I agree with this statement? Oh, I'll say what he said, I'll repeat it back to him, and then I'll call it an atrocity.

SPEAKER_17 29:57

And it seems like we're moving into, because of this minority, into Christian nationalism, um, and into you know have having the majority of Americans' freedoms uh diminished or restricted because we're being governed by the minority.

SPEAKER_04 30:13

Yes, and I think that there is some real shaking up that we have to do of the rules and the structure.

SPEAKER_17 30:21

And is that get rid of the electoral college?

SPEAKER_04 30:25

I think we should that should be in a discussion that we should have. I don't think we should eliminate that as a point of of discussion.

SPEAKER_13 30:36

This is how done Don Lemon is and Kamala Harris. The Electoral College is specifically set up to protect you from minority power. He doesn't know the term, but I'll tell Don so he can hear it. I hope you hear this, Don. Tyranny of the minority is the is the geopolitical term that you're looking for. What you fail to recognize, Don Lemon, is that the Electoral College has handed down the rule and temporarily blocking or tyranny of the country. It gives you equal access to representation. Here's what I believe. Why do these all keep doing that? Regarding me to be properly represented in Congress or the Senate. That's what it protects you from. And the minority do have rights. Here's the problem with getting rid of the Electoral College, right? Let's put let's do it on a very macro level. If there's ten people standing in a circle and we're all there with bicycles, and nine people look at me and they go, Ryan, we want your bicycle. And say, No, this is my property. This is my you can't have this. And they all say, Well, let's take a vote. And they all raise their hand. I'm outvoted. I just gave away, uh, they just came and took my property. We all agreed. That doesn't protect me, the minority, from the tyranny of the majority. So the electoral college gives that representation to that person so that the federal government will protect their rights or their state government will protect their rights. There's also tyranny of the majority. There tyranny he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. If you get rid of the electoral college, you're going to have just cities making laws for people who live in the country. And it's a totally different cultural aspect of life. Country people, I live in the country. I live in the very deep woods, right? You know what I have around me? I have bears. I have bobcats. I have mountain lions. I have alligators, coyotes. I also have a child. So I need a gun to protect myself from maybe aggressive wildlife, or protect my livestock in my yard, which is my food from being stolen from me from other animals, or maybe predator human beings who want to come in my house and hurt my family. I have that's a real option for me, because if I call the police, they're very far away. They're not going to be here in 30 seconds, man. So somebody who doesn't live my experience and live my life cannot be represent, cannot represent my my what's best for me, and how to properly insert that my rights do not get messed with. That's why I have equal protection and equal represent representation in the law. You remove the Electoral College, the inner cities, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles, they're all going to have their interest hammered down on all of America. The Supreme Court also came out with another ruling recently the past couple of days that um was very favorable to Donald Trump's election.

SPEAKER_03 34:12

Aaron should be Does that immigration policies appearing set to I am trying to find a video?

SPEAKER_13 34:24

Essentially what they did currently a system where they're they've there it sounds like they're getting ready to get rid of birthright citizenship. Right? Here is um here's John uh John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General on Fox News talking about it right now. Let's watch this. So here's what they're arguing whether or not on what the the restrictions are on deportation, okay? So he's fighting for this, and this is continue Brian Jackson. She's an advocate, she's not an actually impartial justice, she's going to rule a certain way. But this is audio inside the Supreme Court. These should all be public hearings, right? I'm tired of getting audio from the Supreme Court. This should be these should be live arguments. These should be put on Fox News. You do not, as a Supreme Court justice, have any expectation of privacy. You it should all be live. I want to see your face. I want to see what you're answering to, and I want to hold you accountable for your decisions. Or at least ensure that the process is being done properly.

SPEAKER_16 35:54

So we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions. What what are we doing to figure this out?

SPEAKER_15 36:00

No, as I pointed out earlier, the executive order turns on lawfulness of status. So if you if you if you give birth to a baby in the hospital right now, it's gets the birth certificate in the system, it's a computer system.

SPEAKER_16 36:11

So there's no opportunity, there's apparently no opportunity then for the person to prove or to uh say that they actually intended to stay in the United States. Absolutely not. The opposite is true of their opportunity to dispute if they think they were wrongly denied, which would only happen in a tiny minority case after this directly addressed that guy, after the fact, after after the baby has been denied citizenship, then we can go through the process.

SPEAKER_15 36:31

And the way that I mean I'm summarizing because I'm not expert at computers, but there's a computer program that currently automatically generates a social security number. As to say, look, a social security number, non-citizens can have them if they work authorized agents who doesn't prove citizenship. We'll give you a social security number, provided that there is the system automatically checks the immigration status of the parents, which they're robust databases for, and then you you you it it appears no different to the vast majority of birthing parents.

SPEAKER_13 36:58

Right now in the United States, if a child is born in the United States, that child is automatically a citizen. We have lots of there's a lot of breaking news. I'm trying to make sure that we organize it all properly for you guys. I'm trying not to jump around. Here is let's watch this video. Why does it keep autoplaying like that? All right, I'll figure that out on my end. Let's listen to this.

SPEAKER_05 37:31

Politicians say, Don't take my criminal illegal aliens. Let me keep them. Why would they do that to their citizens?

SPEAKER_00 37:39

A couple of things. Number one is about hatred for President Trump. They don't want President Trump to have a win. Second of all, look, where we see with four years open borders with millions of illegal aliens, many criminals released in the United States. Where was she then? She was complicit. She didn't say a thing. And this is why. That four years open borders wasn't an accident. It wasn't mismanagement. It wasn't incompetence. That was by design. Released millions of illegal aliens in our sanctuary cities. And they overturned the Trump census rule, which means they'd be counted the next census, which means what? More seats in the house for the Dems. And they're hoping that another Democratic administration comes in and awards amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. This is about future political power. They don't care about national security, they don't care about public safety. All they care about is future political power. They sold this country out for future political power, and she's part of it.

SPEAKER_13 38:33

He's talking about the Supreme Court ruling that just came down that essentially sound like and whether parents should be informed and be able to opt their which sounds like he like if you have your green card and you're not you're on your way to be a citizen, but you're not a citizen yet, that you're basically on probation and that we can revoke it any time that we need to. That's that's that's exactly what they're um talking about.

SPEAKER_03 39:01

Here is another video set that is appearing set to uphold the ban on biological.

SPEAKER_13 39:09

Here is a video on my goodness.

SPEAKER_03 39:12

Here is a video on for the transgender issue of the Supreme Court. That is appearing set to uphold a ban on biological men playing in women's and girls' sports, as both sides of the debate remain on edge. Constitutional law attorney, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley weighing in on the ruling.

SPEAKER_12 39:33

From the headcount I made, it seemed like they did have a likely five justice majority at a minimum, but we'll have to wait to see. Uh these states, uh Idaho and West Virginia, said that look, we believe that California and other states can go ahead and let these transgender athletes play sports, that we agree that they have a right to make that decision, but so do we. We want to to keep these these sports separate according to birth uh uh to your your sex at birth. And uh that did not go over well with the with the liberal justices, uh, who felt that uh this would could still be a a f a form of discrimination.

SPEAKER_13 40:19

They think it's discriminatory to leave men of women's two reform proposals. Make that make sense to me. Is that somebody who's an actual fair justice who's looking at the Constitution? Or is that somebody who's there who's who's there to shove an agenda down the throat of the American people? I would argue it's the latter. Here is you're gonna see the same word tracks. Here are the word tracks for stacking the Supreme Court. They're they're teeing it up for the next democratic victory in the presidency.

SPEAKER_07 40:59

I am for judicial independence, but I'm for common sense bipartisan reform. Two reform proposals. First, Supreme Court justices should have term limits. They should be there for 18 years and then take senior status where they can be uh on the circuit. There's no reason for people to be there 40, 50 years. I'm for term limits on Supreme Court justices and members of Congress and senators. And second, uh our court in its history has had six justices, has had ten justices. Under Abraham Lincoln, we went up to ten justices.

SPEAKER_13 41:31

I wonder why under Abraham Lincoln we went up to ten justices.

SPEAKER_07 41:35

I believe we should have thirteen justices like we have thirteen circuits, but it shouldn't be partisan. Every president should get two appointments, uh, and this would be a common sense reform that would make the court function better for the modern times.

SPEAKER_13 41:50

I am for it's not about modern times. We figured all of this is not a lot of things. We figured all of this out in 1776. We made the decisions in an ironclad document that does not change with the times. There's zero reason to change it or mess with it. But that's just what the left does. They don't make anything, they just destroy things. Here is the Supreme Court ruling 6-3 decision. Scotus rules that the Department of Homeland uh security can, in fact, strip green card holders, lawful permanent residents, of their legal statuses if they leave the country and travel abroad abroad while they are facing criminal charges, even if they are just pending and not convicted yet.

SPEAKER_10 43:28

So this was a six to three decision, and this decision centers around an immigration officer's 2012 decision to put lawful uh permanent resident, uh, one of them, on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime. So this defendant argued that overstepped the officer's authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security to begin deportation proceedings after he pleaded. Guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey. Well, the High Court disagreed, stating, this is an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, quote, border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau, the defendant, had committed a crime involving moral turpitude. Justice Kataji Brown Jackson disagreed, writing that the decision put Lau on immigration parole effectively, sentencing him to immigration limbo before he had been convicted of any crime. She's a good question.

SPEAKER_13 44:47

You should get kicked out if you are under criminal conviction or under susp like pending charges. Like it's this this says if you just leave the United States. Here is Samuel Alito.

SPEAKER_19 45:19

Phrases that involve uh two words, the last of which, the second of which is day. Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, uh Birthday, and Election Day. And they're all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, um I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, and or almost everything. And then we have three points in time. Uh 1844, 1872, 1914. And we can ask, what would people have thought on those days is meant by this phrase election day? Which which of those should we choose? Which of those days, dates should we choose?

SPEAKER_01 46:10

Well, I think you could choose any of the three. I mean, honestly, I think the single best one, if you're just going to choose one, is 1872. And the reason I say that is because 1914 is the latest in time, but that's with the one that Congress gave us.

SPEAKER_13 46:26

Sounds to me like they're going to come out and hammer that one home, too. And that would be a good one. That would be absolutely great. Roe v. Wade was a huge thing. We didn't expect it to even come out. We didn't expect it to um become exactly so out of control as it has. And that, you know, when you're young and you're growing up in it, it's just normal. It's normal, it's normal. And you don't learn it from school. They don't teach you in school, like, hey, by the way, Jimmy, Supreme Court is completely screwing you over. Because they're run by a federal, federal uh they're the the Board of Education, the Department of Education. And then you have your State Department of Education. It's all government run.

SPEAKER_18 47:32

What about the Electoral College?

SPEAKER_06 47:34

We have lots of news from Fox News the I'm trying to Kamala and guarding religious liberty and whether parents What a joke.

SPEAKER_13 47:47

You you have a right in this country to to religious liberty, to to not be subject your children to violations of your religious practice in public schools. You have that right. You have the right to stand up to public schools, to the government, and say no. You have the right to walk freely and not let your elected officials give illegal aliens amnesty. But you more importantly, you have a right to a Supreme Court that actually looks at the Constitution. Chef Lady said she never says anything of value. That is about Kamala Harris. She never says anything of value. It makes zero sense. She's a friggin' soup sandwich. She's never said anything of that that has made any sense that I have ever seen. Never a logical remark. Never a quote. Can somebody find me a Kamala Harris quote? Because I don't I don't have one. I don't even know where one would be. Stack the Supreme Court. They've been trying to do that for years. But it's important you don't let them. It's important you put your foot down. You. It's important you guys call your Congresspeople and let them know how you feel. Call your senators, even your local elections. I cannot express to you how important it is to be extremely involved in your local politics, your school board hearings, your school board meetings. I don't care if you're outnumbered. I don't care if you're all alone with your political philosophy. You need to go in there and project it because this country has completely lost its way. And yes, we had major wins in the recent election by getting Donald Trump back into office and getting us back on track. But do you know that that's not going to unwind all of this? That's not going to unwind all. We just we just covered last night uh about Dr. Falsey. Really good video. If you haven't watched the video, go watch it now about Dr. Falci and the document dump that Tulsi Gabbard threw out to the world. I mean, what an absolute disgrace. I mean, but it just disclosed just how deep the tentacles of this whole thing has gone. I mean, if you don't think it's infiltrated the Supreme Court, and these Supreme Court decisions aren't unilaterally making decisions without influence. I mean, I don't know what to tell you. I got a nice bridge you can buy. If they all just looked at the Constitution and then read what they meant and how they were designed, uh then there there would be no problem. That was their original intent. Hey Michelle, love seeing you here. Yeah, you should watch it. It was a really good show. I had a really good time. But if they just looked at the original intent of whatever amendment it is, you can even look at the Articles of Confederation or the Federalist Papers, because it's kind of repetitive in those, and then the Bill of Rights. You could read Madison's writings, you could read Jefferson's writings, you could have a deep understanding of what it is, but they don't have that. I'm sorry to say that. The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't have that. Your lawyer at your local at your local courthouse doesn't have that. Your judge at your local courthouse doesn't under does not have that. Trust me, I know. Your local judge does not understand the Constitution of the United States of America. It does not have a firm grasp on the Bill of Rights, it doesn't understand due process. Because it's just kind of withered away. It's withered away in the in our country. Right? What was originally designed is no longer here. And what happened between year one and year 250? That's a very important question to answer and to ask. You know, you think you think you're free because you're told you're free. But name something you can do without a permit. Without some sort of government oversight. Anything. Name anything. Can't drive, can't ride a dirt bike, can't go fishing, can't hunt. I mean, what what what can you do without a government permit? I mean, maybe walk down the street, but what if you walk down the street on the wrong side of the road and then you're subject to the government giving you a ticket? Or what if you ride your bicycle on a sidewalk, then you're subject to give it to a ticket? And you know, I understand certain things, but if we're going back to the original intent, the original intent was not to stop the way that you were walking, because if you're what you're doing doesn't violate the rights of another person, then what you're doing is perfectly fine. And I just I struggle with this question. How did we let it get so far? How did we let populism overturn everything? To where the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are just some nostalgic piece of writing that we talk about and pretend it exists, but it doesn't. It's just a fairy tale. I said this last night, so forgive me for being repetitive. But if you want to go protest down in your town square, go ahead and do it on your own and then see what happens when code enforcement comes up and asks you if you have your permit to be here and protest. What if I'm protesting code enforcement? What if I'm protesting the governor of City Hall and he's in charge of code enforcement and he sends code enforcement down to stop me from protesting? Is that a violation of your First Amendment right, your freedom to assemble and protest? Yes, it is a violation of that. So how do they get away with that? How do you take it to a court and then the court makes a decision because the mayor or the governor is the one who that they agree with politically who passed this law and now all of a sudden it gets codified by law when they're supposed to be looking directly at the Constitution and go to the governor and say, absolutely not. This is public property. They have every right to protest, they have every right to assemble. You are in violation of violating their rights. I think we're we're seeing a change, but we're not seeing the full, complete change that I want. The only change we're seeing is a return to normalcy in the Supreme Court. Like, yeah, obviously, if you have your green card or you're here temporarily and you're under suspicion over a crime, you we can kick you out. Why is the Supreme Court even talking about that? Like, obviously, we have that power. Your green card is a privilege, it's not a right. Being born in this country, I do not believe makes you a citizen. I think if your parents are citizens, then you should be a citizen. But what's to stop everybody from just fleeing across the border, shooting at a baby, getting a social security number, and now all of a sudden your parents are both citizens. Or they have a pathway to citizen because you were born as a citizen. Birthright citizenship needs to go. You you don't get it by being born here when both of your parents are illegal. I'm sorry. If your parents are legal, then you get it. You that's not what the Constitution says. That's an amendment. That's a conversation for another day. But hopefully, we can get all of this nonsense overturned. Hopefully, a very simple question about whether a man should be with women in women's sports should have to be handled by the Supreme Court of the United States. I, you know, I hear things like that, and it gives me nightmares that that is the stuff that they are handling. What about the, you know, all of the Twitter files, all of the government spying, the Edward and Snowden stuff? What about what about the serious things and the serious violations of civil liberties of American citizens everywhere in this country? We're not talking about that at the Supreme Court. We're talking about whether or not a transgender person should be playing in a sport of the gender they are not assigned. It's embarrassing. It's humiliating. It's a disgrace to the court. It's a common sense issue that yes, according to the United States Constitution and natural law theory, you can transition if you want to. There's nothing saying you can't. And I already hear that there's nothing saying you can. Yes, there is. The freedom. Freedom of personal choice, freedom of body autonomy, freedom to make decisions, your pursuit of happiness, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's in there. You're allowed to do that. I don't think anybody's questioning whether or not you should be allowed to transition. I don't care what you do. I only care when you violate my rights. And you transitioning doesn't violate anybody's rights. If it's a child who's five years old, it's I'm of the opinion that you're violating that child's rights. That's me. That's what I have to say. I don't think if they're of sound mind and body to make that decision and somebody makes such a catastrophic decision for them that is not life-threatening but life-altering, then you should be held accountable. I don't think that this should be at the Supreme Court. I don't think the illegal alien question should be at the Supreme Court. These are all very easy things to decipher. But the lawyers and the judges and the Democrats who are appointed by Democrats, or even in some cases, Republicans, who turn the simple complexes, simple simple things into complex problems without resolutions that just create a giant gray area on a certain subject have destroyed judicial review. I mean, it's a joke. Judicial review has become it's just a laughing stock. And Jordan's John Marshall would be rolling in his grave. John Jay would be rolling in his grave. Thomas Jefferson would be like, I told you so. I told you so. That's what Thomas Jefferson would say. Hamilton might be happy, because he's an idiot. Don't like Hamilton. I will never like Hamilton. I like the show though, the movie that they made. But this is why I'm saying that this is a this is a crisis. This is absolutely a crisis. That's that's why the natural law was so important to the American founding fathers. Because it's something that can't be changed and can't be abridged and can't be taken away from you. That's why Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. He's my favorite, my absolute favorite founding father. Will always be my absolute faving favorite founding father. But hopefully. Hopefully we can change it. Hopefully we can keep the power to appoint justices that will overturn these insane rulings. And hopefully we can save this country. If it's gotten this bad since July 4th, 1776, to July 4th, 2026, 250 years, if you've lost so much freedom and rationale, and states are no longer states, they're just provinces of the royal family of the elected term, then you're not truly free. Thank you for tuning in. This is Ryan Samuels. Don't forget that hit that like, share, and subscribe button. I have a really good show planned for tomorrow. I'm not going to tell you what it is, but I will be here at nine o'clock. We are live Monday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on YouTube, X, Rumble, and Facebook. Thank you for tuning in. I love seeing all of you here. I'm grateful to have you guys here night after night, and I will see you tomorrow.

SPEAKER_08 1:01:32

Thanks for tuning in to the Ryan Family.