Asmongold TV - MSNBC's worst nightmare came true.. | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: June 28, 2025

MSNBC's worst nightmare came true.. Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ------------- ------- Keywords: world of warcraft, gaming culture, gaming takes, gaming content creator, streamer content Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

MSNBC melting down. Not able to issue nationwide injunctions. Okay, thank you. Stand by, and I know you want to dig into the case. So we'll let you do that, Julia. I'm going to bring in Lisa Rubin. You just pulled it up. What are we learning?

We're learning today that the court, by a 6.3 majority, Anna, has decided to stay the injunctions partially. They're saying that they will grant the government's application for stays, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to promote. provide complete relief to each plaintiff was standing to sue. Let me go back a second. Zoom out for a second if I can. One of the questions here was, if the court was going to stay these injunctions,

how were they going to do it? Were they going to say that each injunction could only apply in the district where it was entered? Yeah, that's what they said. I'm pretty sure that's what they said, yeah. Two cases here, those districts were actually statewide, the district of New Jersey, the district of Massachusetts. But the other question was, or could you limit it to just the plaintiffs in these particular cases? Remember that two of these three cases are brought by states. So how this changes that result?

What does it mean then when the individual plaintiffs who have standing to sue are states? Does that mean that we're going to get sort of a patchwork result as one of the attorneys general, Matt Plattkin of New Jersey, described to me in an interview earlier this year. Does that mean that citizenship could be conferred solely by an accident of birth? And he described to me a situation where citizen or a resident of his state gives birth over a state line in Pennsylvania, for example. What happens if a New Jersey resident gives birth in Pennsylvania? This is what happens, bro. this is what karen's do

they make everything complicated they confuse fucking everything they add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy this is unbelievable how does this happen

is a plaintiff to these cases Pennsylvania is not if the child to two undocumented immigrants is born in Pennsylvania what is the result with respect

to that person's citizenship They're not a citizen. These are a bunch of questions that are now going to result. But at the very least, we are going to see a circumstance where the president's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship is going to effectively be allowed to be implemented in certain states but not in others. Okay, so the Leah Lippman, what does this mean for Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship? Let's get the council of Cairns to come together and complain about this. Now in effect in certain places, just not in the places that initially were where these cases were brought? So unfortunately, that is going to be worked out by the lower courts on remand because what the Republican justices decided is as to the individual plaintiffs who filed suit, courts cannot award them nationwide injunctions.

That is the only thing courts can give these individual plaintiffs is a determination that their children. would be United States citizens. But as to the states that challenge this executive order, the Supreme Court says, we are not deciding whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief. And therefore, they send the case back down to the lower courts to make that determination initially. Now, that doesn't mean the executive order. This is the reason why everything the government takes a long time. And this is the reason why companies end up,

being bloated and they can't do anything. It's because you get a council of Karens together and they peck apart any sort of efficiency and they turn it into this like abstraction that has 50 parts together that have to fit together so they can justify in a lot of cases having useless jobs. That's why they hate Doge. Yep, that's right.

going to go into effect immediately. The executive order indicates that it contains a 30-day period in which the administration will create some sort of guidelines and process to figure out how it will be implemented. And during the oral argument, the Solicitor General said their position is that 30-day period had not started because the lower courts had enjoined the executive order before it went into effect. And so therefore, there will be at least a 30-day period before the executive order is allowed to go into effect. And again, during that period, it's likely that lower courts will be determining whether the states in order to remedy the harms that this order causes that can receive nationwide relief.

I just want to note the Democratic appointees strong dissents in this case. Justice Katanji Brown-Jackson calls the court's decision an existential threat to the rule of law. Oh, no. Oh my gosh. Oh, what? Everything's existential. What a ridiculous thing to even say. Jesus. Your honor's dissent says, no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.

She calls the court complicit in a grave attack on our system of law. The reality is the Supreme Court's Republican justices took away lower courts' single powerful tool. the most powerful. Yeah, because they shouldn't have it. That's the reason why. It's fucking retarded. Why the fuck should a lower court be able to undo a presidential order for the entire country if it's only legislating in one area?

It doesn't even make sense. It's weird. It's broken. That's why they're mad. They don't care about this. That's it. They're not mad about it. this because it's oh well it's uh it's hurting the courts it's about so but no they're mad because

this limits the ability that they can have to push their agenda there's no principle behind this at all all you have to do is think about this for five seconds you're going to realize how stupid it sounds yes that's when we need more authoritarians you understand that these people are the authoritarian's right like this entire premise that one side wants freedom and the other side wants authoritarianism. This is a delusion. Both sides want to control the outcome. The people that don't have control over the outcome

fight against it by saying they want freedom. And the people that have control over the outcome fight against it by saying they want to guarantee safety. This is a tale as old this time. Don't get hoodwinked, confused, and misled by vocabulary. them accountable to the law. Chuck, let me get your reaction. This sounds like a giant win for the Trump administration

and could likely trigger chaos now across the country. Well, let me address the second point first, Anna. And since you have Leah and Lisa, I'm not sure why you would ask me anything. They're both way smarter than me, but it strikes me. You're all brilliant. Well, I'll prove otherwise in a moment, Anna. But it strikes me that now individual plaintiffs in almost 100 separate federal judicial districts can seek individual relief. If a federal district court judge in Seattle can't enjoin nationwide President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship but could only do so in the Western District of Washington where he sits, then...

Seems pretty fair. similarly situated plaintiffs women who would give birth to a child who would otherwise be a U.S. citizen could bring suit in Maine and in Vermont and in the northern district of Florida and everywhere in the country and right now you have in my view binding Supreme Court precedent from an 1898 case that says these women would win this is a procedural decision from the Supreme Court it's not a substantive decision on the underlying executive order. It does strip from federal judges on a lot of power that was exercised increasingly over the last two, three, four decades against presidents of both parties. Now, mainly Trump, let's be honest. And it was clear to me from the argument that a number of the

more conservative justices were going to go exactly this way, that they were opposed to this notion of a single federal judge having nationwide injunctive powers. Yeah, because it doesn't make any fucking sense. Like, that's the reason why it's stupid. Obviously. They didn't like the notion of judge shopping. Yeah. That an aggrieved plaintiff would bring a case in a district that best suited him or her.

But will there be more chaos? There'll be more cases, and whether or not you think of that as chaos, I'll leave that to you. But I think more individual plaintiffs will bring more individual cases seeking similar relief. Yeah, of course. Well, the reason I ask Chuck about the chaos is I'm trying to envision a situation in which... You see how they try to scare people. They try to scare people. Oh, my God, it's going to be chaos.

It's going to be so scary. You have to have a case. You have to bring your own case in order to get the relief, right? So if you are a person who is in this country right now in a state that wants to enforce Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship and you're an immigrant and you have a child. No, they're not an immigrant. They're an illegal alien. That's a big difference. There's plenty of immigrants that aren't having this affect them. This crazy, crazy misrepresentation does so much damage to legal immigrants. It does a massive amount of damage. And I think that we're

already seeing the effects of that damage whenever you go on social media and you have huge conservative content creators and thought leaders that are pushing now for no immigration period Johnny thanks for to 10 subs it's left-wing semantics yeah that's another word for a lying does that mean for this child they're just lying compared to what it means for a child who's born in another state right so right now you fall into the trap of blaming everything on immigrants I'm not blaming. Why would I blame everything on immigrants? Of course not.

Arguably, children in certain states, and I think this was Lisa's point, have protections that children in other states in 30 days may not. And I take your point, Anna, is going to require other plaintiffs to come forward and to seek conjunctive relief. It doesn't mean everybody in the Northern District of Florida

or in the Western District of Texas or in the Eastern District of New York has to file a lawsuit. But it does mean that lawsuits have to be filed in all these jurisdictions because you no longer, at least according to the Supreme Court for individual plaintiffs, have nationwide injunctive relief available to similarly situated plaintiffs, similarly situated mothers and their children. And so, yes, it invites a lot more litigation in a lot more places,

and I think perhaps fairly characterized as more chaos. I mean, even Justice Kavanaugh asked during the oral arguments, What do hospitals? As if it's not chaotic to have people coming over, having kids and then getting stuck in the country because you don't want to deport the kid because the kids a citizen and the parent isn't. Of course, that's not chaotic and problematic at all. What do states do with a newborn? Outrageous. Justice Gorsuch pointed at the patchwork problem that this could create.

Leah, is there any resolution that is within this opinion that you're reading through? I think this opinion is going to create additional legal questions for lower court. Yeah, I'm so glad this is finally happening, man. Yeah, sending them home, that's too bad. Weaponizing the kids is not chaos. Yeah. And it's insane. That's clearly what they're trying to do.

We've got special flights just for deporting babies with Disney characters on them. Oh, that's a good idea. Yeah, I like that. You know, like Florida, you know, like they're working with Disney World and stuff like that. So you could kind of get all these things put together. Yeah, no, that's how, yeah, that would make a lot of sense. Watch this last part. The action, Melissa, to this ruling.

I think this is a really huge win for the Trump administration. I'm glad that we're talking about it in those terms because I think one of the great fears with this case was that if the court did not say anything about the substance and scope of the 14th Amendment, media would say that the court had saved birthright citizenship. The court has not saved birthright citizenship. It simply kicked that can down the line and made the legal conditions under which I think, I think, future suit over birthright citizenship can actually be resolved. Leah is exactly right. This is a huge way. I just, I can't see the logic that birthright, like that amendment was written with the

intent of having it apply to illegal aliens that have kids here. Like if you had a time machine and you ask the guys that, you know, thawed up the 14th Amendment, like, was this what your goal was? I, I feel like the answer is 100% no, right? Like, yeah, like, what is this? For the Trump administration, because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it engages in lawless and unconstitutional behavior. And Lisa makes a really important point. This is all happening in an environment where the Trump administration is not only going after undocumented persons and deport.

Total Karen obliteration. I used to pray for times like this. people without the benefit of due process. They're doing so while they are also upending the legal landscape, but making it harder for pro bono outfits to secure the health they need from law firms to bring these suits. And now with this decision, they're essentially saying that litigants will have to file in each particular jurisdiction around the United States in order to be clear that their resolution will have legally binding effect.

And that means you're just going to need a flood, an army of lawyers, at a time when the army of lawyers... The Fourth Amendment seems pretty straightforward to me. Well, like, okay, so think about it like this. The right to bear arms. That's the... That's what the Second Amendment says. There's very clearly...

And they even had... I think it was in like 1790 or something like that was the first ruling because they were looking at the intent of what that amendment was. And it was like, can somebody own a... ship cannon. And the answer to that was no. So I think that really, just to say that like it looks that plain and clean cut to me, I think that's a very, very surface level analysis. Very, very certain. Because you have to look at what the intent of it is. That's wrong. Well,

I'm not sure. The answer was yes. Oh, that was yes with that one, but it's been no with other ones, right? Like you can't own like a tank, right? You can't own, you know, this, you can't own a two bomber, like, as a private citizen. So, like, there's a lot of things that you're not able to have. What, want a ship can't? Yeah, yeah. And so you can own a tank. Well, you can't use it in the same way as what I'm trying to get.

Like, obviously, you can own them, but you can't use them in that same way. Like, you can have something like that for a historical reason, but that's different than driving it around. It's not going to be forthcoming. So make no mistake about this. It's the same with, like, a, like, certain types. of guns. Like, I think it's a 50 caliber machine gun. You're not even able to have that unless I think the sheriff lets you have it. Court has given this administration an enormous win. If you want to

take, it must be disarmed. They have put one hand behind the backs of those who are trying to fight against this administration. Everybody's wrong? I think it's for state. Well, let me see here. Why would you need it? It's a federal thing for automatic weapons. Can you own a fully automatic weapon in the U.S. Because of the Second Amendment. Only a foil on Mac weapon is heavily restricted and not directly guaranteed. Okay, so this is the first example I can come up with, right? And so, like, the tank and the cannon, like, all these are just random examples.

So if one of them is inaccurate, that's fine. That's not really the point that I'm making. The point isn't the thing itself. It's the idea behind it. Very clearly, when a law is made, even an amendment is made, the intent of that amendment is taken into consideration and applied in terms of how it's enforced. That's my point that I'm making. It doesn't matter whether it's a tank, an automatic machine gun, a ship cannon, or anything like that. They have dealt a death blow to the rule of law.

Yeah. Let me read from the opinion written by Justice Amy Coney-Barrant. quote the box and that's it and open carry versus concealed carry yeah exactly and machine guns combat is cost of a commercial car it's not quite illegal but it's basically illegal for the most part yeah no i i know that there are ways that you can do it but those ways are usually um allowed by the government basically right and so that's really the point that i was making