Considering a Potential Trump Administration Judicial Reset
Nov. 7, 2024
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest(s): David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 11/7/24. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer: Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition here of Standing the Gap Today, and it’s also our bi-monthly focus on the Constitution and American history with constitutional attorney, author and speaker David New. Now, yesterday on this program with recurring guest Dr. Carl Broggi, we considered implications of the Trump and Republican victories on election day. And we did it from the perspective of Israel and biblical prophecy and the ways of God. I’ve said routinely, and we all know this to be true, that elections do have consequences, often immediate some and definitely many long-term. Some are predictable, others are frankly totally unknown. Elections represent times of choice for people all involved because when they consider in their vote, they’re also not considering just that person or the issue for which they’re voting, but a much larger aspect of it, does truth exist and how should truth guide them in what they say, morality, God, freedom, character, and then based on all those things commensurate with their worldview, understanding the cast a vote, we all did that, all those things are involved.
Sam Rohrer: Elections represent times when people are able to also witness the will of God. As in the end it is God who raises up and puts down leaders and frankly entire nations and to consciously consider shaping their future decisions as we all are now based on what happened. And this is regardless, it is where around the world based on that occurrence of a change of leaders. Now, based on that, for those in office and the people themselves, how will they approach their living and their choices in the days ahead? Will there be an accountability to God in mind, for example, or will business be as usual guided by pride in rejecting the will of God, which is what is happening in most all cases, the many consequences of Tuesday’s choices across the nation, I think are going to be felt in many ways in the days and the weeks ahead and will impact global events as we’re already seeing.
Sam Rohrer: But I think ultimately them, if we understand how God works, it’ll be according to his design. Now, for the believer it should be, I’ll resolve to look to God always, not men in our hope for our nation to be more consumed with living holy lives as salt and light as God’s way to impact the culture for Christ, rather than focusing a greater hope in reality on politicians and the careful crafting of laws to produce our view and interpretation of prosperity and greatness and be more concerned about a hearing at the end, God, to say to us, well done, good and faithful servant than along the way aspiring to any human leader or political party extending a momentary praise. And I believe as many, many, many have done, I’ve seen it over the years becoming intoxicated with the proximity to power and forming an addiction to which even the most astute, even religious leaders I believe can become diluted. While today, David and I are in keeping with our constitutional focus, are going to examine certain judicial implications. We’re going to take that perspective judicial implications arising from this election. The title I’ve chosen to frame this program is this, considering a potential Trump administration judicial reset. In other words, a lot of things that can happen. David, welcome to the program.
David New: Well, blessings to you and so nice to be with everybody.
Sam Rohrer: David, there’s a lot that we’re going to cover today in here and a lot of people are again, commenting have their opinion about what happened and what didn’t happen. Some are very happy, some are very sad. There are listeners opportunity to hear what David knew. Thanks From your perspective, so let me just give it to you this way, regarding the outcome of the election as knowing certain things are not yet fully known, what areas actually met your expectations as you had them going in, in what areas perhaps were you surprised by what’s taken place?
David New: Surely one of the things I want to do right now though, before we get into the details, as you know ladies and gentlemen, Pennsylvania, the state of Pennsylvania was considered the gateway to the White House for both President Trump and also for Vice President Kamala Harris. Maybe I suspect most of, but maybe not everybody knows that the American Pastors Network stand in the gap and the television program, these are Pennsylvania based ministries. So this program is airing from Pennsylvania what that means in terms of this election, because of the importance of Pennsylvania, this ministry and all the Christian ministries within the state of Pennsylvania had an extra responsibility and burden to promote the worldview of God in the culture to get the vote to come out a good vote. So I want to compliment the American Pastors Network. I want to compliment Stand in the gap. I want to compliment all of the hosts and the president, Sam Rohrer, Gary Dull, Dave Kistler, Isaac Crockett, Jamie Mitchell, and the producer Tim Schneider. I want to compliment these people. Stand in the gap is the largest media ministry has nationwide coverage. If it’s not the largest, it’s one of the largest in the state of Pennsylvania. It’s impossible to know, ladies and gentlemen, the extent to measure how much of a contribution they made. But there is no question it was very helpful. So congratulations, Sam,
Sam Rohrer: David, thank you so much for that. I didn’t even think that, frankly, I hadn’t even thought that through, but your outside evaluation taken and noted and for that we give God the praise. Go ahead, David.
David New: Well, I was quite surprised, shocked. I couldn’t believe what was happening, but clearly the election of Donald Trump means that the public rejected all of these stupid trials that he was involved in. And it looks like one of the most damaging things that happened to Sister Kamala was when she went on the view and one of the hosts there said, what different things would you do that President Biden did? What would you do differently? And she said Nothing. And that was poisonous. That came up over and over again. If Morning Joe is correct on that show, 30,000 times the Republicans aired a commercial about Sister Kamala views about giving free sex change operations to prisoners and migrants. No doubt that was very damaging. They pushed that more than the economy and immigration. And then of course, to my complete shock, I never knew how important french fries were to becoming president.
Sam Rohrer: Or actually being able to drive a trash truck either. Right David, it’s kind of interesting. So ladies and gentlemen, interesting perspective. Is it not? We all have a perspective. It’s good. David, thank you for sharing yours and you could have had shared a lot more in the balance of the program. Ladies and gentlemen, David’s going to bring his perspective as a constitutional attorney on this focus today, constitution, American history to bear as we walk through this election and we’re going to cover judicial implications, consequences, alright, if you’re just joining us right now, we’re doing a consideration for more of a constitutional judicial perspective here today on this program. Constitutional attorney, David New, all of you listening to the program recognize him. And this day is our bimonthly emphasis on American history and the Constitution. And it just happens to, I think the way the Lord worked it up just happened to follow the election on Tuesday.
Sam Rohrer: So as we did yesterday, Dr. Broggi and I, it was a Israel focus day, evaluated and considered the election here, elections generally how God works with nations, how he raises up and puts down from that perspective and considered the election results. Today we’re going to look at this from a judicial perspective. So David, now going to the judiciary, the judicial court implications of elections. Elections have an unusual way to impact a lot about the court in ways I think most people probably maybe either forget or have never known. So just an historical perspective here first before we get into some specific things in this election that pertain to our current court. From an overall historical perspective, what kind of impacts can occur or perhaps have occurred in past elections and as consequences of a win at that time that could compare to this significant win on Tuesday? Wherein no doubt about it, Trump won both the electoral college vote and the popular vote not always done. So from a historical perspective, give us some history of the importance of
David New: This. One of the first things that you learn when you go to law school, ladies and gentlemen, is that at some point, one of the law professors or several of them will say something very similar to this. Judges read the election results, judges read the election results. People don’t realize how important elections are. You not only are electing specific individuals, but you are also electing a cultural shift in thinking. And that cultural shift in thinking has a definite impact on the judiciary, federal, state, and local. Now, one of the things people don’t know about courts is that they tend to take on the character of the community in which they sit.
David New: Courts basically have the atmosphere and character of wherever they are, whatever the local city is like the capitol is like that will spill over into the judiciary, into the court system. For example, Washington DC where I practice law, that is a very nasty court. It’s a mean court. People are always trying to stab each other in the back of that court. You can get sanctioned, a lawyer can get sanctioned quicker in Washington DC than just about anywhere else in the United States. Why? Because the federal, and to a lesser extent, the local DC courts take on the character of the political atmosphere of Washington. Washington is full of people and the senate, the house, the president, all fighting each other like cats and dogs trying to stab each other in the back. There’s just so much power to go around and they’re all fighting over it.
David New: That spills over into the DC judicial system. So sometimes when I’m in Maryland where I practice law and I go out into the countryside and you go in those courtrooms, they’re far more relaxed. Local counsel aren’t threatening each other with rule 11 sanctions. Rule 11 is a fearful rule for any lawyer to be concerned about. That’s where somebody has some of the lawyer is going to charge you with violating something and that you’re going to have to pay up for it. Rule 11 sanctions happens all the time in DC but not in the countryside. They’re more relaxed. So where the court sits means a lot. Well, here we have an election here, we’ve got an election right now with Donald Trump and he wins the popular vote, not just the electoral college. And that’s big, not just the electoral call, the popular vote is big, it’s almost about 5 million right Now.
David New: Why is that important? Because judges, even those on the Supreme Court of the United States are more willing to take more chances in favor of the policy of the President, then they otherwise might. Now you take another hot issue, look how much stink there’s been in this country all over the abortion issue where they said it was not a federal issue and they returned to the States. They did legally constitutionally the correct thing. Read the Bill of Rights, look at the last amendment, the 10th Amendment, that’s where abortion belongs. But now there’s another issue. What do you think would happen if this court, the Supreme Court was to rule against same sex marriage and say it is not a federal right? And that has to be returned to the state. If you think the abortion controversy was loud, oh that would be supersonic. Now here’s where the popular vote of Trump comes in.
David New: He’s got six conservatives on the Supreme Court because of that popular vote, he might get all six to rule against same sex marriage as a constitutional right, but if it was a squeaker, he might’ve only gotten four, he might’ve only gotten five. So the election results do have an impact. Now for those of you who know your history, well know what FDR did. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he tried to pack the court because the court kept voting down his New deal programs. So what does he do? He does what a lot of these Democrats are talking about right now. Let’s pack the court with more people and force some of these Supreme Court justices to retire. Well of course it didn’t work. He was rejected. The public turned him down. But here’s what the public doesn’t know. His public move to pack the Supreme Court did work even though he couldn’t do it.
David New: The mere threat was enough to where the Supreme Court turned around and started approving his New deal programs. They were afraid he might be able at some point to get it. And this is what could be dangerous right now because some of these people are talking about adding 14 justices. So to reduce the conservative vote, the second big issue is also Justice Clarence Thomas. A lot of these Supreme Court justices prefer to retire with their president and the White House with people that they will be replaced by people who are like them. And Justice Thomas has been on there longer than anybody who’s been there since 91, 33 years. That’s generally the time if he’s going to do it, do it now while the Republicans have the control of a Senate in the first two years after this first two year cycle, more Republican seats will be up for grabs in the next cycle. So he needs to do it now. And this Supreme Court, this conservative supreme Court is really Justice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s court, she refused to step down. Amy Coney Barrett got on there as number six conservative and that ruined everything for the liberals. She basically created the conservative court we have today.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, David. So there are like Clarence Thomas, a likelihood that there could be a replacement with what appears to be if more Republican senate now going into next year. That should help as you’re saying, the ability of a Trump administration to do replace what’s there. But every president also has an ability to put an awful lot of appointments on the lower levels of the federal court when Trump was in the first time he put in a lot. I’m not sure how much Biden has put on, but that also is something that will be influenced by this election as well, won’t it?
David New: You’re absolutely right. One of the big areas that’s underrated is the effect of how many court of appeal judges in the federal circuits a president can make because it’s hard to get on the Supreme Court. They take maybe seven or 80 issues a year. It is very, very difficult to get a case before the US Supreme Court, which means the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the 10 circuits are going to decide many, many key issues. So a president wants to also, and Trump got allotted in his first term and so Biden, so he didn’t do quite so well. He didn’t get nearly what Trump got because the Senate blocked everything that Obama wanted to do. In any case, US district courts, but the circuit courts are very important and they will decide so many important issues that make a big difference to this country. So you’re absolutely right
Sam Rohrer: Ladies and gentlemen. So consequences, elections have many consequences, some immediate, as we’re already seeing people lining up what they’re going to do and what they anticipate the next administration’s going to be. World leaders are changing opinions and doing things. Some of that’s predictable, but then there are a lot of things unpredictable that comes up. But that being the case, I’m going to ask David in the next segment to share what he believes are areas and agenda more or less that a Trump administration should try to achieve in judiciary changes. Alright, David, let’s just stay on this path again as we are today considering the implications, the consequences of this election on Tuesday. And ladies and gentlemen, if you’re just joining us right now, that is the perspective about which we are looking at today’s program. I’m entitling considering a potential Trump administration judicial reset and we’re talking about that.
Sam Rohrer: So if you’re just joining us in missed the first part, you need to go back and listen to this program and pick up how it is building. But the fact that a president and somebody who gains a significant advantage in the popular vote, although we know that does not elect the president, the electoral college does. You put both of those together, it gives more or less a mandate can be interpreted that way. In many respects, it is something of that flavor. It is significant, and so with it, there comes opportunities that must not be squandered in far I’m concerned. I think one of the things we need to pray and be praying now that the Trump team and all that comes together and assembled there do not squander this opportunity because it is unique. But that being the case, everybody’s got their own set of hope, their wishlist for legislation or for regulations or new things to be passed or things to be undone.
Sam Rohrer: Everybody’s got their own perspective. But David, you’re going to come here from a perspective of policy or laws or issues that this administration can achieve and can be achieved through inter involvement with the court and or the judiciary. So that being the case, you’ve thought this through, I think you have five different ones, you may have more, but let’s see what we can do. Just start down through the top and say what do you think would be the most productive, the most effective, the most impactful changes this new administration can achieve through judicial related action?
David New: Yes sir. Ladies and gentlemen, if I had to pick a year a time in which America took the wrong direction one year, two years, when did it start? When did it start? When did America start going south big time in terms of culture and morality and decency? I believe it is 1962 and 1963, those years were pivotal. The America we have today is a direct result of what happened in those two years. There was a prayer said in the public schools of the state of New York that almost destroyed America. The prayer is a good prayer. It should be said by students who wish to do so. An opportunity should be made for them. But this is 1962 and this is where the United States Supreme Court in violation of American history took out prayer from the classroom. I’m going to read that prayer to you. It’s 22 words long. It’s known as the Regent’s Prayer by the New York Board of Regents. Here it is, almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.
David New: End of the prayer. That prayer, when that prayer was removed from the New York State public school system, that was the beginning of the end. This is the prayer. It doesn’t even have Jesus in it. That was the beginning. This is when America took the wrong turn. We now have what we have today. We are not living in normal times. These are not normal times. Western civilization protected the family. We now have this giant L-G-B-T-Q thing. This has never happened before in the history of the world. We now have abortion on demand in many areas of this country. Western civilization has always placed an enormous premium on human life. Now, the United States has been baptized in blood and ocean of blood. We do not live in normal times. This is not America in many ways, and it was the beginning of 1962. So what’s number one on the agenda for David New It is to restore the Bible and prayer back in school.
David New: You do that if that could happen, we’ve got some cases in Oklahoma and Louisiana right now in the process. You do that, you will see a sea change in America in 10 to 15 to 20 years. So that’s number one on my list. Number two, give a federal tax credit for each child that wishes to attend a religious or secular charter school. Get them out of the public schools. The public schools of the United States are a disaster. Would you like to improve the public schools of the United States? Push charter schools. They will improve your local public schools and give a federal tax credit for going to a religious charter school. Good move. Third thing, take this same sex stuff, send it back to the states. Now Californians already think that’s going to happen. I hope it does. They had an initiative on the California ballot yesterday and it passed.
David New: That said, same-sex marriage is protected in this state. So even if the Supreme Court says it’s no longer a federal right, it now is protected by California state law. The vote came out 60 to 39% in favor. Get rid of same-sex marriage, get back to the family fourth and legal fees to groups like the A CLU who fight public displays of the 10 Commandments and the Christian Cross on public property in that you cannot imagine how many times local communities just by the mere threat of a lawsuit caused them to take down their religious symbol on public property. Happens over and over again. I was in Elkhart, Indiana. Perhaps you remember the fight over the 10 commandments there. I was retained at the very end of the case to try to keep the 10 commandment display on public property. We met with the mayor of Elkhart.
David New: We met with the city attorney of Elkhart and I said, look, this federal judge did not tell you to remove those 10 commandments. Read the case. You know what they said, David, if we don’t remove those 10 commandments and we lose in court, the citizens of Elkhart are going to come after me because the legal fees will be outrageous. So the 10 Commandments were removed. The American rule in the United States is each side pays its own legal fees. The British rule in Britain is that the losing side pays the winner’s legal fees. Now, I have no problem with the loser paying legal fees, but not for religious displays because the intimidation factor comes in there. The rule is good for people who are violating the civil rights for racism, sexism, or something like that. That’s good. That way the local community that’s doing something bad towards African-Americans, that’s good.
David New: They will back down because they’re going to have to pay for it. But this business of public space of religion that is secularism on steroids, that’s got to stop. The last thing I want to see done is shut down the Department of Education. The moment the federal government got involved with public education in the United States, it has gone south right now, the incredible Hulk gets to participate in female sports. Why? Because Biden, through the Department of Education said, if you want our money, you’ve got to let the incredible Hulk compete against girls. One of those disgusting and unjust things you could do. So those are the five things I could say right now.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, David, we didn’t talk about this ahead of time and I don’t know right off, but of these five that you have cited, do you know if Donald Trump or the campaign around him have taken an official position on any one or more of these issues?
David New: Oh, I think the first one on my list is very high. Getting prayer and Bible back in the public schools, that agenda 2025, those guys want to restore the Sabbath in some communities, this heritage foundation, it would be really good. So there’s a lot in here that the Trump administration would back for sure. I’m certain of it.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, ladies and gentlemen, again, we’re close here at the break. I’m not going to go too much further into this, but those were five areas I think most of us would understand all of those things, those areas from Bible reading, prayer, 10 Commandments, the Supreme Court taking decisions that should reside within the states, the 10th amendment issue and all of that. Those have been talked about for a long time, the Department of Education, which federal government has no involvement in education at all. A good reason why they ought to be completely out. All of those reasons, those have been up there before. So those are David’s ideas. David, I would second you on most of those I believe. And so ladies and gentlemen, they are the kind of things by which an administration can exercise significant influence, particularly as a consequence of what we saw on Tuesday.
Sam Rohrer: When we come back, we’re going to talk about some other ballot measures that we’re also up for voting. Well, as we go into our final segment here today, trying to do a little bit of wrap up without going back and revisiting what we’ve already covered. David New and I have covered in this program. If we go on, go to one other area that is for some commentary on other aspects that were on the ballot because the election was not just about president and vice president, it was the various states had their own elections for house and Senate as we know. But some states also had other ballot provisions. There were a number of different areas. I’m going to say probably the lead area. And even as that one information piece in that break right before here, that individual commented on the area, which I’m going to comment on now and ask David to, is that in 10 states the people who went to the polls had a decision to make relative to in enshrining some aspect of abortion rights into their state constitution. Some aspect of it was covered there. Alright, now David, let me go to you first. I’ve done an analysis and I think that election and the results of that tell quite a story and a lot of analysis is appropriate to do. But let’s go there first. From your perspective, what is your overall evaluation of what happened, what it means? Also, in result of those referendums on abortion in 10 states,
David New: One of the most important things that happened because that happened is that the voters were able to split their vote. And even though they voted for abortion protections, they still were able to for Donald Trump. And he still carried several of those states that had pro-abortion laws or passed them. Arizona is one, Nevada is another one, Montana is another one, Missouri is another one. So this was an enormous danger before the election is the minefield of abortion because Sister Kamala was playing that card big time. At the end, they felt that these women younger than 30 were really coming out in droves and that this could turn the election in favor of her in several key states. Well, that did not happen. What needs to happen, I do believe in the abortion area in terms of the law, is that these state legislatures who do pass laws and have laws to protect children, unborn children, which is the right direction to go, America should be pro-life.
David New: But they need to clarify some of these laws because many of these laws date back to the 19th century. They need to update them and bring them up in terms of modern science. So we don’t have these situations for the life of the mother where the doctors and the nurses aren’t sure what to do. I do give an exception for the life of the mother and people attack me for doing that. How can you say that her life is more important than the unborn child’s life? Don’t. What I say is the mother has a preexisting right to life. So I do believe the life of the mother is a good exception to permit abortion. But the state legislatures need to clarify these laws. So you don’t have these horrible situations where the doctors don’t know what to do with this young lady that’s before them,
Sam Rohrer: David. Alright, thank you for that. Ladies and gentlemen. David and I haven’t talked about that, but I was in the legislature here in Pennsylvania for nearly 20 years. I did have votes on this measure and David, how I dealt with that. I was a no exception person and I know what you said, but this is how I explained that ladies and gentlemen. If in fact my wife has had six children, I have 18 grandchildren. So we’ve gone through the birth process a lot in our family. Lemme put it this way, if, and it is so very rare, but if the life of the mother is actually threatened by that baby, if it is, and I don’t know of any, but it may possibly be, then it becomes a medical procedure. I don’t call it an abortion. Alright? So that’s how I distinguish it, David, and that way it can hold to a consistent position.
Sam Rohrer: But ladies and gentlemen, so it’s very important on all of these issues, and as David so rightly what you just said, legislatures can clarify. They absolutely can clarify so that doctors are not perhaps stuck in the middle. But ladies and gentlemen, most cases on this matter of issues, doctors aren’t stuck in the middle. They know exactly what they’re doing. And here’s something I’ll walk away that I have what I said, and I thought and said before this election on Tuesday, there were actually two things I was looking for that would come out of this election. One of them would be yes, in fact, what would the people say towards Trump, Vance versus Kamala and her cohort? Okay, that’s one. So now we have that clear. But the other one was what will the people say about this most important area of the sacredness of life?
Sam Rohrer: Abortion. Now we call it this taking of life. What will the people say when they actually have a choice? And here’s a walkaway, David, I just put that on then for some comment to you. There were 10 that were on the ballot. Three as you heard, were somewhere in middle two were defeated. But when I look at these, including Florida being cited as a state that defeated putting abortion as a right into the constitution, but here’s a number that’s really important to me. Even Florida had a majority of the people who voted, voted for abortion, 57%. That’s way more. The only reason it failed in Florida was because they required a 60% threshold and it failed by 3%. That’s all Florida by a large majority. 57% did vote to say that killing innocent life is a right. So when I take these seven there and consider that in 2022, Kansas, California, Michigan, Vermont, and I think Ohio should be on that list as well, all voted to enshrine legalized murder.
Sam Rohrer: It only leaves two states, Kentucky and South Dakota. South Dakota, on Tuesday, Kentucky in 2022. They were the only two. As I’m looking at all of these who actually said, no, we are not going to extend that, right? That is another issue for which I believe we’ve got to consider ladies and gentlemen, because as Americans, the majority in those states, all of them except those two states, Kentucky and South Dakota, since Roe versus Wade was sent back to the States have when given the opportunity said murdering our babies is a moral and constitutional right. That is something that God, I guarantee has not overlooked. David, final comments here just because we’re just about to go into the final break here.
David New: One of the things I think we need to do is what Nevada did. Nevada passed a ballot measure that said, you’ve got to have ID to vote. If the Congress won’t do it, if the Democrats will stop it, well not allow it to get passed federally that these states need to get it together and pass their own ID requirements. Also, several states passed the law that said only citizens could vote. Can you believe that is necessary? Not a court to North Carolina?
Sam Rohrer: Hey David, we’re just going to have to hold it. There we’re about out of time. But ladies and gentlemen, those are the kinds of things. There were other things on the ballot. Each of them deserved further commentary. Maybe we can come back and visit them because they all tell a story about the attitude of what our American people believe is important and not important. That’s perhaps the real message coming out of all of it. The story and the consequence implications will continue to unfold. Thanks for being with us today. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.
Recent Comments