Judging Freedom - Ask The Judge - Viewer Questions answered LIVE w/ Judge Nap

Episode Date: December 22, 2023

Ask The Judge - Viewer Questions answered LIVE w/ Judge NapSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, December 22nd, 2023, three days before Christmas. Most of us are slowing down a bit, but we're at Judging Freedom trying to give you a full week and today a full day's worth. But today it's you and me. It's your questions and my answers. And if you care to, your follow-ups.

So we've gone through the questions that arrived before we came on air and I've looked at them and I'm happy to start with them, Sonia, if you want to, or Chris, if you want to pop them up there. This is from Luke J. Judges serve for life. Judges that serve for life are supposed to be impartial and not let politics sway them. However, we have left-leaning, right-leaning judges and even a six to three split in the Supreme Court. Why is that? Because presidents appoint justices on the court who basically

mirror the political, or if they're lawyers, the president's legal philosophy of the president. Donald Trump appointed conservative Republicans and even one unabashed libertarian, Justice Neil Gorsuch. Barack Obama appointed, you know, I don't know that he appointed anybody. Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. You appoint justices who have your view of the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a Republican view or a Democrat view. It could mean it's a literalist view. Like Justice Scalia, the Constitution means literally what it says, or it's sort of a big picture view. The Constitution doesn't mean literally what it says. It means what the value judgments that the framers embraced when they wrote those words had in mind. So it just depends on how the brain of the justice works.

I know it is basically six to three on the conservative side of things now, even though Justice Gorsuch is a libertarian. That's because that's the attitude of the people who appointed them. Not all appointments are for life. Federal appointments are for life. Federal trial judges, federal appellate judges, obviously the U.S. Supreme Court. My appointment was for life, but there's only three states that do that. Other states appoint for a finite period or you run for office. And when your term is over, you have to run again unless you reach a certain age beyond which you can't serve. It's different in all states. Next one, Chris.

What's the difference between lobbying and bribery? Okay. Bribery, okay. So lobbying is an effort to point out to a legislator why certain legislation is good or why certain legislation is bad. It does not involve a quid pro quo. You are not giving the legislator anything. The legislator, let's say a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, in fact, is giving you time to make your pitch. Bribery is when you give the legislator something of value and they exercise, watch my hand, the levers of government power to satisfy you because you paid them to do it. The reason I'm going like this is because the Supreme Court has

narrowed the definition of bribery so that if a member of Congress does something and you paid them to do it, and that thing they do is outside their official job, like they help your daughter get into college, that's not a bribe. It's only when they exercise their official government power to please the person who paid them that they have engaged in a bribe. So if Senator Jones receives a $500 dinner, an expensive restaurant in Manhattan, I'm just making this up, and as a result helps the person who bought him the dinner get his daughter into Princeton, since that's not part of Senator Jones's official job, that is not bribery. But if Senator Jones receives a $500 dinner in return for voting yes or no on a certain piece of legislation to please the person who bought the dinner for him that's bribery. Lobbying of

course is just saying here's why we think you should vote for this here's why we think you should vote against that there's no quid pro quo. From Cam C. Will corrupt politicians and officials ever be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity they are guilty of committing? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. God bless. Merry Christmas to you as well, Cam C. I don't think so. I don't think that Prime Minister Netanyahu will be held accountable for the war crimes he's committing, and he's committing thousands of them. If you watched Professor Mearsheimer on this program yesterday, and if you watch Max Blumenthal at 5.15 this afternoon here, you will see that the numbers of murdered innocents are staggering. 20,000

Palestinians murdered, about 16,000 of them women and children, excuse me, 14,000 women and children. The remaining 6,000, about two-thirds innocent males, and maybe the remaining 2,000 Hamas fighters. So the death and destruction, the torment, the denial of food, shelter, clothing, heat, medical supplies is catastrophic and overwhelming. And so there's no dispute that this is a war crime. The question is, will Netanyahu be prosecuted? Will Joe Biden be prosecuted for facilitating this? Will Tony Blinken be prosecuted? Lloyd Austin be prosecuted? No, no, no, and no.

Because the American government controls the, here we go again, levers of power at the courts that do these prosecutions. It's usually only low-level people that you never heard of who are prosecuted for some sort of a war crime, and sometimes they're convicted and sometimes they're acquitted. Very sad. Patrick Jean-Claude, what would a, ask the judge, be without you, Patrick? Judge, unelected, Dems-controlled, Colorado Supreme Court

removed President Trump from the state's ballot in the next election. Is this not the definition of dictatorship? Thanks and Merry Christmas. I read the 201-page opinion by the jurists, and it was a very, very well-written, very sophisticated legal argument. Even though I would not have ruled that way, I don't think it's the definition of dictatorship. I think that a majority, and there are seven on that court. The chief justice is a Republican. There are three Democrats and three independents. All were appointed by Democratic governors. That's the system.

You know, in New Jersey, we have all Democratic governors. But in New Jersey, a Republican jurist has to replace a Republican jurist and a Democratic jurist has to replace a Democratic jurist. So it stays roughly equal. As for what Colorado did, I think it's wrong because I don't think that the 14th Amendment was intended to keep somebody off the ballot on the basis of hearsay. I think there should actually have to be a criminal trial prosecuting them for insurrection, and if they're convicted, they can be kept off the ballot. There was a trial. Trump's people did not take it seriously. They sent lawyers, but Trump didn't attend. The only witnesses they put on were historians who testified as to what an insurrection is. They should have put eyewitnesses on who said Trump

was there and he didn't do this and he didn't do that and he did this and that was good and he did that and that was good. They didn't do any of that. They didn't take it seriously. So the trial judge said there was an insurrection, and Trump aided and abetted it. They are stuck with that finding of fact. Without a jury there, the judge acting as a jury, they're stuck with that finding of fact. The question is, is that enough to keep him off the ballot? And the opinion of four of the seven Colorado justices, yes. In my opinion, no. I'm convinced that the Supreme Court will get involved. If the Supreme Court doesn't get involved, it's curtains for the former president. Because once one state can get away

with this, many, many others will follow. But I think I know the minds of many members of the Supreme Court. I think they'll get involved because they'll want to set down one standard for what the 14th Amendment means and what proofs you have to come up with before you even by amendments that were intended to keep former Confederate soldiers out of the Union central federal government. It should be decided by voters, and I think the Supreme Court is going to come down in that direction. Andrew L. "'What is your favorite Italian dish on Christmas?' Actually, my favorite Italian dish on Christmas is Christmas Eve, when the Italians have a vigil dinner.

And if you are from Southern Italy, as my grandparents, it's seven different kinds of fish, one for each of the seven sacraments. That is my favorite Italian dish on Christmas Eve. The tradition is fading away, but I will get about three different kinds of fish this Christmas Eve, which is Sunday night. Thank you for that question. Gas station sushi. I know you're allowed to use whatever moniker you want. I condemn this Nikki Haley stuff. You got to say who you are. But the thought of eating sushi in a gas station just crushes my appetite. Question. Judge, I believe NATO is an outdated and unnecessary entity which should have been dismantled when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1791. Who or what decides the existence of NATO? president just to say, I'm not going to honor it again. And that's wrong. And it's unconstitutional, but presidents have gotten away with it. George W.

Bush did that to the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, was a great treaty, a great treaty. It stopped the Russians and it stopped the Americans from the arms race. Once Bush decided he didn't want to follow up, the arms race heated up again. The other way is for a formal rescission of the treaty, and that would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Presidents don't do that because they don't want to take the time and the effort and the political effort to persuade two-thirds of the Senate. Remember how a treaty comes about. President proposes, two-thirds of the Senate ratifies.

It doesn't go to the House. It is a rare thing in American law that is only passed by one House. And where does it rank in American law? Equal to the Constitution. I'll say that again. Equal to the Constitution. I'll say that again, equal to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that way many times because of the way Madison worded the phrase. So if Joe Biden signs a treaty and two-thirds of the Senate ratifies it, that treaty is American law, equal in force

to the Constitution. Will we withdraw from NATO? I think if Trump is elected, we will withdraw from NATO. If anybody else is elected, we won't. It's a big government bash the Russians club, which is outdated, expensive, unnecessary, and Europeans can defend themselves from enemies real and imagined? Thank you for that question. Douglas Roderick, good morning or afternoon, Your Honor. My question is this. My favorite attorney is Clarence Darrow. You'll know why I'm smiling in a minute. My favorite book is Summertime for the Gods. Is that case relevant today? Okay, Summertime for the Gods is a book about the monkey trial. The monkey trial, that's the popular name for it, was a prosecution by the state of Tennessee against the man named John

Scopes. Scopes was a school teacher who taught evolution, and that was a crime in Tennessee at the time. And Clarence Darrow defended Scopes and William Jennings Bryan, who had run for president of the United States three times, was brought in as the prosecutor. The case was wildly and maniacally followed by the media. The courtroom was so oppressively hot that they moved the case to a parade stand in a public square outside the courtroom. So the famous cross-examination by Clarence Darrow of William Jennings Bryan took place outside. The jury could barely hear it. Well, if Bryan was the lawyer, how did he end up being a witness? Ah, he offered to be his own expert witness on the meaning of the Bible. Clarence Darrow said, be my guest. Darrow demolished him

in cross-examination. I've read the transcript of the trial. A lot of us do that in law school. However, the jury convicted Mr. Scopes. He didn't go to jail. He was fined $100. The reason I smiled when you mentioned Clarence Darrow was because I am performing in a one-man show called Clarence Darrow Tonight, and we actually had a rehearsal last night at an off-Broadway show in Manhattan, which is New York City, which is why my voice is a little hoarse today. The show will be at Theater 555, which is 555 West 42nd Street in New York City. It's an off-Broadway theater, which under New York City ordinance means it can't have more than 199 seats. So we hope to pack the place. I'll let you know when I'm going to be doing this. Right

now, it's tentatively scheduled for the spring, April, May, and June, if it lasts that long. If you don't know who Clarence Darrow was, he was the greatest trial lawyer in American history. He was the attorney for the damned, and he specialized in keeping people away from the hangman's noose, and he almost always succeeded. Next, Chris. Grassy Knoll. Man, another handle that you got to shake your head about. Next, Chris. Grassy Knoll. Man, another handle that you got to shake your head about. So Grassy Knoll. Judge, in your opinion, when was the last time we had a government that upheld the Constitution? Probably Thomas Jefferson.

Although I'm not so sure that the Louisiana Purchase was consistent with the Constitution, which tripled the size of the United States when Jefferson sent $15 million in cash to Napoleon, who desperately needed it to continue fighting the Napoleonic Wars. And as a result, he got everything from Ohio to Minnesota and all the way down to Louisiana. The last president that I know of who vetoed legislation because it was unconstitutional and stated so was Calvin Coolidge, a president who actually hated the presidency and hated being in the White House. But if you heard the conversation I just had with Gary Barnett, you've heard me say this and I'll repeat it. You if you heard the conversation I just had with Gary Barnett, you've heard me say this and I'll repeat it. You may have heard me say it before.

Formally, we still have a constitution. Basically, we still have a president, still have a federal judiciary, we still have a Congress, still have two houses in the Congress. The House of Representatives sits for two years. The Senate sits for six years. But functionally, we don't have a constitution anymore at all, because the purpose of the constitution was twofold, to constitute, to establish the federal government, and to restrain the federal government. So as an instrument of restraint, the constitution has failed miserably. The federal government's powers are radically out of proportion to what's written down in the Constitution. This takes us back to two or

three questions ago, because the federal government bribes. It bribes the states with bailouts, with cash. We want you to lower your speed limit to 65 miles an hour, and in return, we'll give you a couple hundred million dollars to repave the highways in your state. That's the way the federal government gets the states to bow down and do whatever the feds want by giving them cash. Why didn't Congress just lower the speed limits? Because even Congress knew that it didn't have the authority to do that. So the federal government bribes the states with cash, the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax cuts, the poor with wealth distribution. And as long as it keeps engaging in that bribery, it will stay in power. But one day, enough people will say enough is enough. We're not listening. We're not paying attention. We're leaving the government. I hope I state? Lowercase s. It is that which has a monopoly

of force in a given geographic area. Try and hire your own police department. Forget about it. You and they will all be arrested. You will obey the government that has the monopoly on force in your area. That is, of course, the attitude of the state. Government is force. The state is force. It is not logic. It is not reason. It is not morality. It is force. Until we recognize that and until we starve it to death so it can't pay for the force that keeps it in power, it'll keep its thumb on us. Bernadette Nespoli, a dear friend of mine who came to both of my off-Broadway shows that I did earlier this year. Judson Politano, what are your thoughts on the Rudy Giuliani situation and the bankruptcy he's facing?

Bernadette, thank you very much for the question, my dear friend. Listen, I know Rudy and I feel sorry for him. I think he spoke some untruths and I think he did defame those ladies, but A, he is not responsible for what other people did. And the vast majority of harm to them came from what others did to them, threats and near assaults in public. B, whatever Rudy said wasn't worth anywhere near $148 million. It wasn't worth anywhere near a million. So I feel sorry for Rudy that he's in this situation where he owes more than he owns. He's lost his licenses to practice law. He's still fighting a criminal prosecution and a half dozen other legal cases.

I don't know how it's going to end up. Bankruptcy is probably the only solution available to him. Be careful how you use words, particularly when you mention people by name. Defamation cases are very difficult to win, but the plaintiffs won it in this case. What Rudy said was outrageous. It was beyond an opinion, but no, it didn't cause anywhere near the amount of money that was assessed against him. I don't know how this is going to end up. I'm on WABC radio, which if you're in the New York City area is the biggest talk radio in the New York City metropolitan area. I think it's the biggest talk radio in the country. I'm not sure. And the show I'm on called Sid and Friends of Sid Rosenberg, and Sid's a very good friend of Donald Trump. And I have said on the show, because I know President Trump listens, you know, Mr. President,

Rudy did all this for you. Help him out. Pay his legal fees. Negotiate for him to get these judgments down. Let the guy clear his name and let the guy get on with his life. I didn't get a response, but I don't think the president is going to go for it. Okay, I think we'll do one more, and then I'll rest my voice. Mark Brown. Hi, Judge. How does the U.S. administration sleep at night after it vetoes the ending of an ongoing genocide? They are cold, calculating killers who perpetuate genocide and who refuse to stop it, and they don't have consciences, and that's how they sleep at night uh three o'clock today one of your favorites the intelligence community roundtable larry johnson and ray mcgovern how big how bad were the intelligence community blunders in 2023 and 5 15 today a new favorite a new tentpole, meaning he pushes up our ratings. Max Blumenthal,

our Bibi Netanyahu, and Joe Biden on a collision course. We'll see you then. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.