Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
<context>100 Days of Trump: Law & Disorder 特朗普执政100天：法律与混乱 美国有线电视新闻网（MSNBC）的阿里·梅尔伯在一个直播的法律特别节目中，对新政府最重要的法律时刻进行了分析，包括特朗普政府继续拆解关键联邦机构、针对私人律师事务所以及司法系统和美国最高法院的回应。梅尔伯与法律专家和内部人士一起，包括MSNBC的《主要司法》播客的主持人安德鲁·魏斯曼和玛丽·麦考德。访问msnbc.com了解更多报道。 </context> <raw_text>0 Businesses come in all shapes and sizes. Maybe you're a small business expanding into a new space, a mid-sized company planning for the future, or a large operation investing in the latest equipment. Whatever your needs, Atlantic Union Bank is here, providing easy access to knowledgeable bankers with local market insights and the right digital tools to keep your business moving forward. Because you deserve a relationship manager who cares.
企业规模大小不一。也许您是一家小型企业，正在向新的领域扩张；也许您是一家中型公司，正在为未来做规划；也许您是一家大型企业，正在投资最新的设备。无论您的需求是什么，大西洋联盟银行都在这里，为您提供方便快捷地联系了解当地市场情况的银行家，以及合适的数字工具，以帮助您的企业不断发展壮大。因为您值得拥有一个关怀备至的客户经理。
Call, visit us online, or stop by a branch today. Atlantic Union Bank. Any way you bank.
今天就致电、访问我们的网站或到分行来吧。大西洋联盟银行。随您怎么存取款。
Want the same expert advice from the pros at a discount tire store while shopping for tires online? Meet Treadwell, your personal tire guide. Treadwell is an online tire buying guide that gives you personalized recommendations based on your location, driving habits, and tire performance. Just enter your vehicle info, zip code, and driving routines, and then Treadwell will match you with the perfect tire for your vehicle. Shop for tires with Treadwell at DiscountTire.com. Let's get you taken care of.
想在网上购买轮胎时，获得折扣轮胎店专业人士的同样专业建议吗？认识一下 Treadwell，您的私人轮胎指南。Treadwell 是一个在线轮胎购买指南，它会根据您的位置、驾驶习惯和轮胎性能为您提供个性化推荐。只需输入您的车辆信息、邮政编码和驾驶习惯，Treadwell 就会为您匹配最合适的轮胎。在 DiscountTire.com 使用 Treadwell 购买轮胎。让我们来帮您解决问题。
Welcome to this MSNBC special, 100 Days of Trump, Law and Disorder. And good evening to you. I'm Ari Melber. And I'll be joining you for this special hour as we aim for some perspective on what has been, of course, a very litigious first 100 days in office. President Trump testing the limits of the law itself and the Constitution.
欢迎收看 MSNBC 的特别节目《特朗普执政 100 天：法律与混乱》。晚上好。我是阿里·梅尔伯。在这个特别时段，我将与您一起，对上任后的头 100 天进行一些回顾，当然，这 100 天充满了诉讼。特朗普总统正在测试法律本身和宪法的极限。
We have a very special panel assembled of individuals you recognize, Melissa Murray, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissman. We'll be hearing from them not only in a moment, but also across the hour. So we're hoping to aim for some more depth and perspective. Indeed, if you're watching and thinking, I know about some of this stuff, I bet you do. But we promise with the time we've allotted to go even deeper if you're interested in that kind of thing.
我们组建了一个非常特殊的专家小组，成员都是您认识的人，梅丽莎·默里、玛丽·麦考德和安德鲁·魏斯曼。我们不仅会在稍后听到他们的发言，而且还会在整个小时内听到他们的发言。因此，我们希望能够更深入地了解情况，并获得更全面的视角。事实上，如果您正在观看并认为自己了解其中的一些事情，我相信您确实了解。但是，如果您对更深入的了解感兴趣，我们承诺会利用我们分配的时间来做到这一点。
Now, many have been pushing for even stronger efforts to find ways to combat President Trump's obvious and extreme power grabs across these 100 days. And those words, obvious and extreme, are based on the facts and the evidence in the cases where he's continued to run into trouble. Not an opinion, but rather the extremes that have drawn rebukes, not only from lower court judges and both parties' appointees, but all the way up through the Supreme Court.
现在，许多人一直在呼吁付出更大的努力，寻找方法来对抗特朗普总统在这 100 天里明显的和极端的权力攫取行为。而“明显”和“极端”这两个词，是基于他在案件中持续遇到的麻烦的事实和证据。这并非意见，而是那些招致谴责的极端行为，不仅来自下级法院法官和两党的被任命者，而且一直到最高法院。
The president has claimed war powers to openly plot a bid for an illegal third term. Neither of those things are acceptable under the law. Both are testing the courts.
总统声称拥有战争权力，公然策划竞选非法第三任期。这两件事在法律上都是不可接受的。两者都在考验法院。
I'll tell you that coming up in the special, we also have a booking of one of the nation's top civil rights lawyers who's doing this work in court, including bringing some of the very lawsuits which stopped Trump's power grab at the Supreme Court. An ACLU litigator will be joining us this hour and discussing the blueprint for facing down Donald Trump's DOJ and winning. That's not something that every guest or lawyer can say, but our guest can get into that later tonight.
我告诉您，在这个特别节目中，我们还邀请了一位全国顶尖的民权律师，他正在法庭上从事这项工作，包括提起一些阻止特朗普在最高法院攫取权力的诉讼。一位美国公民自由联盟的诉讼律师将加入我们，讨论对抗唐纳德·特朗普司法部的蓝图以及如何获胜。这并非每位嘉宾或律师都能做到的事情，但我们的嘉宾今晚晚些时候会详细介绍。
So what am I going to be asking our legal vets? Well, they're also going to break down what we've learned across these 100 days about combating the flood the zone strategy. Trump has done more than an executive order per day on average across these 100 days. In fact, 140 total. And his lawyers know that some of them are clearly dead on arrival in the courts. They're trying to overwhelm as much as govern, according to many critics. So that is obviously plenty to cover.
那么，我将向我们的法律专家们提出什么问题呢？他们还将分析我们在过去 100 天里在应对“泛滥成灾”策略方面学到了什么。据许多批评人士称，特朗普在这 100 天里平均每天签署的法令数量超过一份，实际上总共有 140 份。他的律师知道，其中一些法令在法院中显然是“死胎”。他们试图通过压倒一切来进行统治，而不是真正地治理。因此，这显然有很多内容需要讨论。
As we begin, though, I want to share a point that cuts actually against President Trump and that no one could fully predict when he began his tenure 100 plus days ago. Trump is facing the worst stock market opening since Richard Nixon. The economy flashing red with recession signs as those 100 days hit this week.
然而，在我们开始之前，我想分享一个实际上对特朗普总统不利，而且在他 100 多天前开始任期时没有人能够完全预测到的观点。特朗普正面临自尼克松以来最糟糕的股市开盘。随着这 100 天在本周结束，经济正发出红色警报，显示出衰退的迹象。
And historians and legal experts have often noted in various ways and arcane histories that what's happening out in the country can shape the public and judicial mood around a president's actions. In other words, what they get away with. Now, in theory, you'll be told, well, courts simply state the law and they're supposed to do that regardless of what's happening out there.
历史学家和法律专家经常以各种方式和晦涩的历史记录指出，全国各地发生的事情可能会影响公众和司法界对总统行为的情绪。换句话说，就是他们能逃脱什么。现在，理论上，你会被告知，法院只是陈述法律，他们应该这样做，而不管外面发生了什么。
In practice, though, we have seen times when a war is on or the nation's economy is booming and courts may in various moments defer a bit more to a president than when the mood sours. As one legal scholar recently put it, Donald Trump has been testing the democratic system. And while courts can respond, it is also up to the nation, the people, if I can be so bold, to show that we all have the democratic systems back.
然而，在实践中，我们已经看到，当战争爆发或国家经济蓬勃发展时，法院在某些时刻可能会比情绪恶化时更多地顺从总统。正如一位法律学者最近所说，唐纳德·特朗普一直在考验民主制度。虽然法院可以做出回应，但如果我可以大胆地说，国家、人民也有责任表明我们都支持民主制度。
Now, we're seeing that already in mounting protests far more often than the first hundred days of most modern presidents, people in the streets. Trump is responding with a free speech crackdown. If you recall during the campaign, he and some of his allies like Elon Musk using the words free speech.
现在，我们已经看到，与大多数现代总统的前 100 天相比，抗议活动正在增加，而且频率远高于前 100 天，人们走上街头。特朗普正在以压制言论自由的方式回应。如果您还记得竞选期间，他和一些盟友，如埃隆·马斯克，使用了“言论自由”这个词。
Well, it turns out for them, according to a lot of experts, it was just words because they have now been trying to abuse government power to target everyone from students who speak out on policy to universities based on the learning and science or facts they deal with that offends Donald Trump's MAGA movement all the way out to law firms, an issue you've probably heard about.
好吧，据许多专家称，对他们来说，这只是说说而已，因为他们现在一直在滥用政府权力，将目标对准从对政策发表意见的学生到大学，原因是他们处理的学习、科学或事实冒犯了唐纳德·特朗普的“让美国再次伟大”运动，一直到律师事务所，这是一个您可能听说过的问题。
Judges drawing the line, though, against Trump claiming war powers that he does not have. There is no declared war. And that is on behalf of a mass deportation agenda that is an area where presidents have power, but not the same powers as conducting war.
然而，法官们正在划清界限，反对特朗普声称拥有他不具备的战争权力。没有宣战。这是为了大规模驱逐出境的议程，总统在这个领域拥有权力，但权力与发动战争的权力不同。
So I mention all that because with those headwinds in mind, we have some top line results as the 100 days land. The administration has been contending with 225 legal challenges. Trump 2.0 bans purges and retribution, as The New York Times dubbed it, with losses for various efforts. The Musk group purge has all of those problems. You can see just in summary over the 100 days, judges rejecting attempts to freeze grants.
我之所以提到所有这些，是因为考虑到这些逆风，在我们度过这 100 天后，我们有一些重要的结果。政府一直在应对 225 起法律挑战。《纽约时报》称之为“特朗普 2.0 禁令清洗和报复”，各种努力都遭受了损失。马斯克集团的清洗也存在所有这些问题。您可以看到，在过去的 100 天里，法官们拒绝了冻结拨款的企图。
to break down federal agencies without Congress involved, but also upholding certain executive firings, for example, of groups of workers and even some inspectors general who were not deemed protected under the precedents that we have. Trump has made attacks on the trans community and tried to purge diversity programs. In some ways, he might have moved the conversation or the culture, as it is called. But legally, he's also faltered with some of those efforts facing partial or temporary blocks in federal court.
在没有国会参与的情况下，拆解联邦机构，但也维持某些行政解雇，例如，对一些工人甚至一些总检查员的解雇，他们不被认为受我们现有的先例保护。特朗普对跨性别群体发起了攻击，并试图清除多元化项目。在某些方面，他可能改变了对话或文化，正如人们所说的那样。但在法律上，他也失败了，他的一些努力在联邦法院面临部分或暂时的阻挠。
The immigration agenda is where you see, and this is what we're tracking for you to get a sense of it, as so much of these headlines have come so fast over the 100 days. If you look at all the X's on your screen, what you see is all the places where we've documented them losing or having setbacks, especially on immigration.
移民议程是您所看到的，这也是我们正在跟踪的内容，以便您了解情况，因为在过去的 100 天里，这些新闻标题来得如此之快。如果您查看屏幕上的所有 X，您会看到所有我们记录到他们失败或遭遇挫折的地方，尤其是在移民问题上。
President Trump's promised mass deportation operation is now underway. The Trump administration says it sent hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ban on the deportation of hundreds of immigrants. Trump administration officials admitted to a, quote, administrative error.
特朗普总统承诺的大规模驱逐行动现已展开。特朗普政府表示，他们已将数百名据称是委内瑞拉帮派成员送往萨尔瓦多。联邦上诉法院维持了下级法院对驱逐数百名移民的禁令。特朗普政府官员承认犯了一个“行政错误”。
that they made when they deported a Maryland father. That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us. How can I return him to the United States? Like, I smuggle him into the United States or whatever it is. Of course, I'm not going to do it.
他们在驱逐一名马里兰州的父亲时犯了这个错误。如果萨尔瓦多想让他回来，那是萨尔瓦多的事，与我们无关。我怎么才能把他送回美国？比如，我把他偷偷带进美国，或者其他什么方法。当然，我不会这么做的。
That's how this played out on the actual international stage in the seat of power of the White House. Trump's immigration agenda also garnering pushback from the majority conservative Supreme Court, which ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of the man that you just heard referenced in that meeting. That has not happened. So when you take it together,
这就是这件事在白宫权力中心实际发生的国际舞台上的表现。特朗普的移民议程也受到了多数保守派最高法院的抵制，最高法院命令特朗普政府协助遣返您刚才在会议中听到提到的那个人。但这件事并没有发生。因此，当您把这些事情放在一起考虑时，
They're flooding the zone precisely to overwhelm the courts and there would be judicial and legal opponents, the plaintiff lawyers who deal with these cases, but also in a very real sense to leave a kind of chaotic feeling out in the country that it's working or they're getting away with it. And we will yet see if you watch the news, you've seen nights where it seems like they are getting away with a lot. And yet I want to be very clear as we take stock of this in general that
他们泛滥成灾正是为了压倒法院，并且会有司法和法律上的反对者，即处理这些案件的原告律师，但从非常现实的意义上来说，也是为了给全国留下一种混乱的感觉，即他们的做法有效，或者他们正在逃脱惩罚。如果您关注新闻，您会看到一些晚上，他们似乎正在逃脱很多惩罚。然而，我想在总体上对这件事进行评估时，非常明确地指出，
The immigration agenda is where Trump has tried to push the farthest. And it is where he has actually created the beginnings of a new alliance on behalf of Democratic presidents and against Donald Trump. And it includes three Trump appointees on the Supreme Court.
在移民议程上，特朗普试图推进得最远。而这正是他实际上为民主党总统创造了一个对抗唐纳德·特朗普的新联盟的开端。这其中包括最高法院的三位特朗普任命者。
One of the most significant rulings of these first hundred days was a rare overnight weekend ruling that blocked what I mentioned before, the effective attempt to seize those war powers. Now, you're not looking at a final merits decision. In other words, a lot more could happen in the future. But this was not the result that even Donald Trump's lawyers were expecting. Seven to two, at least on that first step of whether the war powers could be used for these deportations.
在这前 100 天中最重要的一项裁决是罕见的一个周末夜间裁决，该裁决阻止了我之前提到的有效夺取战争权力的企图。现在，您看到的不是最终的实质性裁决。换句话说，未来可能会发生更多的事情。但这并不是连唐纳德·特朗普的律师都预料到的结果。至少在战争权力能否用于这些驱逐出境的第一步上，结果是七比二。
There are also concerns that all of this could hit U.S. citizens, as reports of American children deported alongside their undocumented mothers. A state judge arresting, getting arrested, I should say, by the FBI over a very controversial case revolving arresting
人们还担心，所有这些都可能波及美国公民，因为有报道称，美国儿童与他们的无证母亲一起被驱逐出境。一位州法官因一起围绕逮捕的非常有争议的案件而被联邦调查局逮捕。
A federal arrest of a detainee there for immigration offenses. SCOTUS also handed Trump a win, we should note, for attempts to fire certain classes of workers and rejected Trump's request to avoid paying USAID contractors amid efforts to dismantle an agency. So you see a different ruling breakdown there. Federal courts also intervening when Trump wanted to strip international students of their legal status. One video that's gone more than viral shows the Tufts student
一名被拘留者因移民罪被联邦逮捕。我们应该注意到，最高法院也让特朗普在试图解雇某些类别的工人方面取得了胜利，并在试图拆解一个机构的过程中拒绝了特朗普避免向美国国际开发署承包商付款的要求。因此，您在那里看到了不同的裁决结果。当特朗普想要剥夺国际学生的合法身份时，联邦法院也进行了干预。一个传播范围超过病毒式传播的视频显示，塔夫茨大学的一名学生
detained by what were plainclothes federal officers that has sparked questions about the practice and the deportation agenda. There's a larger pattern here, as the Trump administration says, that students are
被便衣联邦警官拘留，这引发了人们对这种做法和驱逐议程的质疑。正如特朗普政府所说，这里有一个更大的模式，那就是学生们
We'll just be declared linked to terrorist organizations, but without what has been the traditional due process, let alone terror charges for that. Most students targeted have also been outspoken. I should say many, depending on the case you look at, have been outspoken in the Mideast conflict. A broader crackdown on the elite universities, Trump threatening their funding, the retribution tour against the prominent law firms. Some have cut deals, others fighting back.
将被宣布与恐怖组织有关联，但没有传统的正当程序，更不用说恐怖主义指控了。大多数被针对的学生也都很直言不讳。我应该说，许多学生，取决于您所看到的案例，在中东冲突中都很直言不讳。对精英大学的更广泛打击，特朗普威胁要削减它们的资金，对知名律师事务所的报复之旅。一些律师事务所达成了协议，另一些则进行了反击。
What we see here is that courts so far have been one of the last lines of defense against an administration that clearly wants not only expand executive power, but sort of show and test how much they can get away with.
我们在这里看到的是，到目前为止，法院一直是反对政府的最后一道防线之一，政府显然不仅想要扩大行政权力，而且想要展示和测试他们能够逃脱多少惩罚。
With all that in mind, under 10 minutes, we try to do a summary. We bring in our guests for the hour. NYU law professor Melissa Murray, Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security at DOJ and Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel and a Mueller prosecutor. Mary and Andrew also co-host the MSNBC main justice podcast. And if we wanted to pull out Wikipedia, we could add many more details and accolades about all of your careers. Welcome, Andrew. Your thoughts tonight.
考虑到所有这些，在不到 10 分钟的时间里，我们试图做一个总结。我们邀请了本小时的嘉宾。纽约大学法学教授梅丽莎·默里、前司法部国家安全代理助理检察长玛丽·麦考德和前联邦调查局总法律顾问、穆勒特别检察官安德鲁·魏斯曼。玛丽和安德鲁也是 MSNBC 主要司法播客的联合主持人。如果我们想查阅维基百科，我们可以添加更多关于你们职业生涯的细节和赞誉。欢迎，安德鲁。你今晚有什么想法？
So I was thinking when you were talking that one way that I try and think about this is divide things into the illegal. Another group is the incompetent and another group is the unwise. And it's worth mentioning.
所以，当你在说话的时候，我在想，我尝试思考这个问题的一种方法是将事情分成三类：非法的、无能的和不明智的。值得一提的是，
Right.
是的。
pardoning people who assaulted our democracy, but actually also assaulted law enforcement. Then there's this bucket of just the incompetent. Ebrego Garcia could be an example of that. The claim that the Harvard letter was a mistake, which I think is palpably not true, given subsequent
赦免那些袭击我们民主，实际上也袭击执法部门的人。然后就是这一类纯粹的无能。埃布雷戈·加西亚可能就是一个例子。声称哈佛大学的信是一场错误，我认为鉴于随后的情况，这显然是不真实的。但是请记住，对那里发生的事情的辩护是政府说，哦，不，那是一个错误。所以这将是严重的无能作为对哈佛大学所说的非法行为的辩护。然后，我们花费大量时间讨论的事情是，法院反复说过，这是非法的。但我认为将其置于
actions. But remember, the defense of what happened there is the government saying, oh, no, that was a mistake. So that would be gross incompetence as the defense of doing something that Harvard says is illegal. And then the thing that we spend a lot of time on is things where the courts have actually said over and over again, this is illegal. But I think it's useful to put it in the context of
行为。但是请记住，对那里发生的事情的辩护是政府说，哦，不，那是一个错误。所以这将是严重的无能作为对哈佛大学所说的非法行为的辩护。然后，我们花费大量时间讨论的事情是，法院反复说过，这是非法的。但我认为将其置于
of number of different things, things that could be legal, but just in my view, outrageous that in terms of what the administration is doing. So I think it's useful to think about that in terms of all three of those things going on. - And you left out one that we've talked about on the podcast, cruel, just cruel, right? Some of these things might be lawful, might be unlawful, but they're with a malevolent intent.
许多不同的事情的背景下是有用的，这些事情可能是合法的，但在我的观点看来，就政府的行为而言，这是令人发指的。所以我认为，从这三件事都在发生的角度来考虑这个问题是有用的。——你遗漏了我们在播客中讨论过的一点，残酷，仅仅是残酷，对吧？有些事情可能是合法的，也可能是非法的，但它们带有恶意意图。
And I think an intent to really create multiple tiers of people in this country and particularly targeted at immigrants, whether lawful or unlawfully here, but also at the LGBTQ community and really sort of anything other than white men, honestly. But on the illegal part, I think one of the key things here that we've just never seen in
我认为，这是一种真正想要在这个国家创造多个阶层的意图，特别是针对移民，无论他们是否合法地来到这里，也针对 LGBTQ 社区，老实说，基本上是除了白人男性以外的任何群体。但在非法方面，我认为这里的一个关键点是我们从未见过
in anything like this magnitude is the steamrolling the other two co-equal branches of government, right? Plowing right over congressional statutes, dismantling departments and agencies that not only Congress statutorily created, but a president signed those statutes that created those departments and agencies, right?
如此规模的事情，那就是碾压其他两个同等地位的政府部门，对吧？直接无视国会的法令，拆解不仅由国会依法创建的部门和机构，而且总统还签署了创建这些部门和机构的法令，对吧？
ignoring appropriations that Congress, under the spending clause, had the constitutional authority to appropriate for certain purposes and just cutting off that funding. So lots of times just ignoring Congress. But also now we are up against the very edge, if not having crossed over into violating court orders, too, which then you're starting then then we're talking about trying to steamroll the judiciary. And Melissa, when you talk about that steamrolling,
无视国会根据支出条款拥有宪法权力为某些目的拨款的拨款，并直接切断这些资金。所以很多时候只是无视国会。但现在我们正处于边缘，如果不是已经越过界限，违反法院命令，那么我们就是在谈论试图碾压司法系统。梅丽莎，当你谈到这种碾压时，
the political messaging over the legal clashes is almost joyous or cartoon villain style. Take a look at Carolyn Livet from earlier this week.
政治信息与法律冲突之间的对比几乎是喜悦的或卡通反派风格的。看看本周早些时候卡罗琳·利维特的情况。
Would you ever arrest somebody higher up on the judicial food chain, like a federal judge or even a Supreme Court justice? That's a hypothetical question. Again, I defer you to the Department of Justice for individuals that they are looking at. So anyone who is breaking the law or obstructing federal law enforcement officials from doing their jobs is putting themselves at risk of being prosecuted, absolutely.
你是否会逮捕司法系统中更高层的人，比如联邦法官甚至最高法院法官？这是一个假设性问题。再说一次，对于他们正在调查的个人，我将您转介给司法部。因此，任何违反法律或妨碍联邦执法官员履行职责的人都将面临被起诉的风险，绝对如此。
You heard it there. They know exactly what they're doing. We haven't really covered this that much. I don't know that many news outlets have covered it. But last week, America's first legal, which is Stephen Miller's legal outfit, not an arm of the administration per se, but certainly in league, I think, filed a lawsuit against John G. Roberts, the chief justice of the United States, in his capacity as the chief administrator of the Federal Judicial Conference. And the whole
你听到了。他们确切地知道自己在做什么。我们并没有过多地报道这件事。我不知道有多少新闻媒体报道了这件事。但上周，美国的第一个法律机构，即史蒂芬·米勒的法律机构，本身并非政府部门，但我认为肯定与政府有联系，以其作为美国联邦司法会议首席行政长官的身份，对美国首席大法官约翰·G·罗伯茨提起诉讼。而整个
idea behind this lawsuit is that the Federal Judicial Conference, which has always been the administrative branch of the federal courts, is actually a part of the executive branch. And again,
这起诉讼背后的想法是，联邦司法会议一直是联邦法院的行政部门，实际上是行政部门的一部分。再说一次，
It seems wildly implausible that that is the case, but I think the point of this lawsuit is, like, we can do whatever we want to you. We can issue these threats against judges. We can say we're not going to abide by judges' orders. And we can also sue the chief justice and make him an actual defendant in his official capacity in a lawsuit. And, you know, Mary made a good point about this administration essentially giving the double middle finger to both Congress and the courts. They've been doing that from day one. We don't talk about the TikTok case that much, but...
这似乎是极不可能的，但我认为这起诉讼的重点是，我们可以对你为所欲为。我们可以对法官发出这些威胁。我们可以说我们不会遵守法官的命令。我们还可以起诉首席大法官，并让他以其官方身份成为诉讼中的被告。而且，你知道，玛丽很好地指出，政府实际上是对国会和法院竖起了中指。他们从第一天起就这样做了。我们没有过多地讨论 TikTok 案，但是……
The court issued a unanimous opinion upholding Congress's bipartisan ban on TikTok, requiring TikTok to divest itself of Chinese ownership on the Friday before the inauguration. And the president-elect over the weekend said he had a better idea. He was going to do a deal. And to my mind, that was the first constitutional crisis. And we don't even really talk about that. Why don't we talk about it? Great question. I mean, we should be talking about it because it has been an harbinger of
法院发布了一致意见，支持国会对 TikTok 的两党禁令，要求 TikTok 在就职典礼前的星期五剥离其中国所有权。当选总统在周末表示，他有一个更好的主意。他将达成一项协议。在我看来，这是第一次宪法危机。我们甚至没有真正讨论过这个问题。为什么我们不讨论它呢？这是一个很好的问题。我的意思是，我们应该讨论它，因为它一直是
everything that has followed. It was the template for what we are seeing now, just the abject defiance of the courts and Congress on the sidelines. So one of the things that you're such a Supreme Court guru is that
随后发生的一切的预兆。这是我们现在所看到情况的模板，只是对法院的公然蔑视，而国会则袖手旁观。因此，你是一位最高法院专家，其中一件事是
Essentially, you have the administration in the Abrego-Garcia case, just as one example, doing something that, to my mind, is, as our colleague Ryan Goodman said, it sort of thrice denied what it is that the courts have said. Whether it is the initial court saying, do not send him to El Salvador, whether it's saying you have to give him due process, whether it's saying you have to facilitate his return, that's sort of the thrice statement.
基本上，正如我们的同事瑞安·古德曼所说，政府在阿布雷戈-加西亚案中所做的事情，只是一个例子，在我看来，这是一种三次否认法院所说的话的方式。无论是初审法院说不要把他送到萨尔瓦多，还是说你必须给他正当程序，还是说你必须协助他返回，这都是一种三次声明。
Is the Supreme Court going to stand up? I mean, the number one question we get, and I'm sure you get on your podcast as well, is what are the courts going to do? Because they don't have an army.
最高法院会挺身而出吗？我的意思是，我们收到的最常见的问题，我相信你们在播客中也收到了，是法院会怎么做？因为他们没有军队。
They don't have an army. I think one of the reasons why you saw the court's decision, the earlier decisions around Judge Boasberg's order, they initially said it should not have been filed in Judge Boasberg's court. It should have been filed in Texas, where the detainees were before they were expelled to El Salvador. And then they said that habeas was the appropriate vehicle to go forward. Real questions about whether you can aggregate evidence.
他们没有军队。我认为，您看到法院的裁决、围绕博阿斯伯格法官命令的早期裁决的原因之一是，他们最初表示，不应该在博阿斯伯格法官的法院提起诉讼。它应该在德克萨斯州提起诉讼，因为被拘留者在被驱逐到萨尔瓦多之前在那里。然后他们说，人身保护令是前进的适当途径。关于您是否可以汇总证据的真正问题。
habeas proceedings, like they're usually done singly, that means each individual detainee likely has to have their own lawyer in order to proceed. Whack-a-mole. Terrible, terrible. But I think part of it is like the court a little worried that this administration is not going to listen and they're trying to find ways to kind of play out the clock a little bit. One thing, though, I do think is encouraging about
人身保护令程序，就像它们通常是单独进行的一样，这意味着每个被拘留者都可能需要自己的律师才能继续进行。打地鼠游戏。太糟糕了，太糟糕了。但我认为，部分原因是法院有点担心，政府不会听取意见，他们正在寻找方法来拖延时间。然而，我认为关于
about the court's order that you mentioned, Ari, is, you know, it was a seven to two order. I think we ought to wonder why it wasn't nine to zero, why Justices Alito and Thomas weighed in on, in favor of the administration. But, you know,
你提到的法院命令，阿里，是一件事，你知道，这是一个七比二的命令。我认为我们应该想知道为什么不是九比零，为什么阿利托大法官和托马斯大法官支持政府。但是，你知道，
The fact that they issued that ruling at one in the morning and did not wait for Justice Alito to file his dissent, that came later, suggests that this court knows that the administration cannot be trusted. The presumption of regularity in the executive no longer exists. So just unpack that a bit more, because when those when those stories break, Melissa, I
他们在凌晨一点发布该裁决，并没有等待阿利托大法官提交他的异议，该异议后来提交，这表明法院知道不能信任政府。行政部门的常规推定不再存在。所以让我们更详细地解释一下，因为当这些故事被报道出来时，梅丽莎，我
People say, oh, my gosh, seven to and the Trump appointees and that's sort of the headline. And my view is both a legal reporter and lawyer is that is the first headline because you say, whoa, seven to two and the Trump folks. But then underneath that is you're hard pressed to find other modern examples in the last decades where to distill what you observe, the court looks over and says, no.
人们会说，哦，我的天哪，七比二，还有特朗普的任命者，这是一种标题。而我作为一名法律记者和律师的观点是，这是第一个标题，因为你会说，哇，七比二，还有特朗普
然后你会得到我们的反击，我认为这就是正在发生的事情，你知道，忘记每一个小小的举动，但那些大的原则正在发挥作用，我认为你会看到两党的人都说，等等，等等，这可能是任何送你的人，如果你没有任何能力去抗议，我认为这在宏观层面是正在发生的事情？
这很有趣，因为你正在处理第一次影响紧急情况，实际受此影响的人。你救了一些人。有些人被困在外国监狱里。没错。但你正在处理这个问题。然后还有一个更广泛的受众，正如我们所报道的那样，乔·罗根和其他播客在11月份实际上支持唐纳德·特朗普，现在却说……
是的，但我们没有认可这一点。继续。不，不，不。你完全正确。因为我认为当人们说我们想要更严厉的驱逐出境或我们想要更多驱逐出境时，这是一种抽象的概念。有点含糊不清。所以，正如你们两位所说，
当人们看到实际发生的事情时，他们就会说，等等，就像你说的那样。等等，我们没有认可这一点。所以在第一任期内，家庭分离就发生了这种情况。我做的另一个案例，人们说，是的，我们想要更多的驱逐出境。我们想要，你知道，加强移民执法。但是等等，我们不想让小婴儿被带走。现在这种情况，突然之间没有正当程序了。而且是
然后他们说，等等，那不是我们认为你在谈论的内容。这些联邦法官不是新手。他们长期以来为政治言论留下了很大的空间。他们明白，政客会在竞选活动中说一些话。他们有允许这样做的原则。然而，你已经能够在法庭上证明，这远远超出了这个范围。我们正在处理我们在本小时早些时候讨论过的问题，即这些人中的一些人被发现撒谎。
恶意，试图绕过命令，无论是技术性违规，你可以让它诉诸法律，但他们显然是在这样做。所以让我们再听一听你在法庭上的更多说法，你基本上对法官说，我想让你在另一边解释一下，这些人并不诚实。他们试图秘密行动。让我们来听一听。
整个事情都是秘密进行的。总统应该公开宣布。他在3月14日签署了它。直到3月15日下午才公布。人们已经被安排带到普莱恩斯。这是史无前例的举动，仅在我国历史上第四次使用《敌侨法》，而没有宣布战争。是的，我的意思是，我认为这就是区别所在，你们两位都提到了这一点，
特朗普1和特朗普2之间，真的试图将法院置于一边。一直以来都试图将国会置于一边，但现在也试图将法院置于一边。我的意思是，他们在做几件事。一是他们一直在调动人员，试图阻止我们进入正确的法院。所以我们去一个法院获得禁令，然后他们把人转移到另一个法院。我的意思是，即使是这个《敌侨法》，你刚才播放的那段，他在3月14日签署了它
没有告诉任何人，但我们发现他们开始准备人了。然后他们终于在15日公布了它，但该法令非常清楚地规定，如果你想使用《敌侨法》公告，你应该公布它。如果你想使用它，就公开它。但他们已经在试图在它公开之前就转移它了。我们发现人们正在被转移。我们去法院，然后他们说，好吧，你太早了。它甚至还没有公布呢。
但是人们已经走了。正如你所说，有些人已经走了。所以我认为这些程序上的诡计非常重要，需要强调。我正在考虑博斯伯格法官面前的听证会，博斯伯格法官最初曾告诉政府律师，你们必须调转这些飞机，把他们送回去。后来，当他们没有被送回时，博斯伯格法官说，你们没有听我的话。他们说，好吧，这是一分钟或……
命令，口头命令，而不是书面命令。我不知道我应该这样做。我的意思是，这只是，这些是联邦法官。他们不习惯人们当着他们的面玩花样。就像，他们习惯了服从，而这并不是发生的事情。即使对于像博斯伯格法官这样的人，我认为没有人会称他为自由派软弱派。对。对。对。这个人是诚实的，他说，你在说什么？就像，你知道我的意思。
是的，当然。我的意思是，我认为他对他们说过，在我担任法官的所有时间里，我从未见过这样的事情。我也没有。我认为这是特朗普一号和特朗普二号之间的一个有趣之处。他们在法庭上真的非常强硬。他们寸步不让，即使你知道任何其他律师都会说，好吧，这是合理的。他们被解除了职务。我的意思是，我们有那位律师在法庭上承认。
阿布雷戈·加西亚的驱逐是一个行政错误，那个人被司法部除名了。对，我与他对抗过很多很多届政府，民主党和共和党，我知道他是一个狂热的倡导者。
但他对法庭坦率。这就是你作为司法部律师应该做的。司法部律师不应该不择手段地取胜，即使这意味着操纵法院。他们应该主持正义。他们应该是狂热的倡导者。对。他们是法院和美国的官员。没错。最后，当我们……
在我们结束与你的这次采访时，你是否看到任何一条途径，美国的官员会因我们看到的政府的这种恶意抵抗而被判犯藐视罪，被处以制裁或监禁？这是一个非常好的问题。你知道，我不太确定。我的意思是，我们正在对这个进行诉讼。博斯伯格法官说，
有犯藐视罪的可能原因。他们已经去了巡回法院。我怀疑他们会非常努力地对这件事进行诉讼。我不太确定这一切会在哪里结束，是否可能是民事藐视或刑事藐视。但我的意思是，我们正在努力关注。他说，看，如果你把那些被非法送往萨尔瓦多的男人带回来，你就可以摆脱这种藐视。他们拒绝这样做。这就是我们关注的重点。
对。然后我们有总统最近在一次采访中承认，是的，我可以遵守命令，但我不会，这再次，我们将看看最高法院是否会认真对待这件事。李，你一直在这个任务上，并且势头很好，所以我们感谢你加入我们在这次特别节目中。我们的整个法律小组接下来会和我在一起。我们将休息一下，但我们将看看大学在特朗普的言论自由镇压中的目标以及前一百天。我们有一些非常特别的东西要给你看，这可能会帮助你更好地理解这一切。
非常适合那些为家人打理好一切的女人。
在这个母亲节，做个去杰瑞德买东西的爸爸。现在母亲节全场享受20%的折扣。部分商品除外。详情请见店内。
本集由摩根士丹利的E-Trade赞助。使用E-Trade易于使用的工具深入市场，现在更有值得喜爱的地方。获得摩根士丹利的专家见解，帮助您驾驭市场。开设账户，并通过合格存款获得高达1000美元或更多的奖励。了解更多信息，请访问E-Trade.com。适用条款和其他费用。投资涉及风险。摩根士丹利史密斯巴尼有限责任公司。SIPC成员。E-Trade是摩根士丹利的业务。
工作管理平台。哎。无尽的入职培训，IT瓶颈，管理请求。但如果情况不同呢？
Monday.com与众不同。无需冗长的入职培训。几分钟内即可生成漂亮的报告。您可以自己构建的自定义工作流程。易于使用，无需提示的AI。嗯。事实证明，你会喜欢一个工作管理平台。Monday.com，你第一个会喜欢使用的办公平台。
嗨，我是阿里·梅尔伯。欢迎回到我们的《法律与秩序》特别节目。特朗普总统现在已经度过了100天。你可能听说过这件事。我想给你看一些我们整理的东西，试图弄清楚法律部分与天数的关系，并获得一些视角。然后我们的法律专家又回到了我们身边。
一位联邦法官刚刚暂时阻止了特朗普总统试图终止出生公民权的命令。总统本人无法修改宪法。一位联邦法官说，埃隆·马斯克在财政部支付系统内部的人必须停止。大规模解雇浪潮。我不知道我将如何从这件事中恢复过来。对联邦政府被肢解的愤怒。特朗普总统在最高法院以重大方式输掉了官司。总统援引了1798年的《敌侨法》。那些本应停止的计划中的驱逐出境仍在继续。特朗普政府已经承认，他们鲁莽地驱逐了他。我们现在从最高法院获得了突发新闻。最高法院一致命令加西亚回来。这一切都是关于法治的侵蚀。