June 26th, 2024

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court just ducked a critical free speech and government control of communications issue thanks to Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts. Barrett decided she’s a politician, not a Justice. Kavanaugh will go one way or the other and Roberts is destroying the Court. They just handed the Biden administration a massive iron fist by allowing them to continue to moderate ‘misinformation’ on social sites. It seems the Supreme Court has a new tactic – to let stand what’s being appealed to the Court by simply claiming there is no standing. The idea there wasn’t standing in this case is preposterous. The other big Supreme Court case we’re waiting on, that no one is talking about is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This was the mother of all attacks on capitalism, it gave so much power to the bureaucracy. This decision will impact your lives for decades to come. Also, the crime from this illegal immigrant invasion didn’t start occurring to this extent until Biden became president. President Biden will point fingers and blame Donald Trump and the Republicans for not passing his bipartisan immigration reform. Democrats have a new answer when confronted on illegal immigrant crime – Americans are worse than illegals. Later, a Biden law that claimed to boost renewable energy is helping a solar company reap billions of dollars. This is the greatest economic scam in American history, and they wrap themselves in self-righteousness. Afterward, the DNC is now officially linked to lawfare against Trump. Dana Bash and her ilk constantly ask where’s the evidence tying Biden and the Democrat Party to lawfare against Trump. Here’s the evidence, “DNC Sent Millions To Law Firms Behind ‘Unprecedented Lawfare’ Campaign Against Trump.” Biden is the head of the DNC. Nothing of this kind is done without at least Biden being informed about it. Biden uses government resources to register Democrats in violation of the Hatch Act. He uses tax dollars to buy votes in violation of the Constitution, like the student loan program. He issues executive orders and his administration issues regulations in furtherance of his radical base’s demands. He lies about everything, including the Hunter laptop, his business activities with Hunter, his use of classified information to secure a massive $8 million book advance, and on and on. Biden is a diabolical, cynical, unethical person and politician. Finally, candidate Tim Sheehy calls in to discuss his election run against Montana Senator Jon Tester.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Well, I’m noticing a pattern, a problem at the United States Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen. That the left on the court. Kagan. Jackson. Sotomayor. And more and more, the rhinos on the court led by the Chief Justice Roberts. Kavanaugh, who’s unreliable, and Barrett, who by the end of her term, I believe, will have flipped all the way to the left. They have a new tactic. The tactic is to let. To let stand what’s being appealed to the court. By simply claiming there’s no standing. Well, standing is a legitimate issue, but in the case. Involving the attorneys general of two states. Who challenged. But the Biden administration was doing particularly with Facebook, but also Twitter, that is. Significant pressure placed on them. To determine what would be made available to the American people to. Manipulate and control. Information providing to the American people on the social sites. The idea that there wasn’t standing is really preposterous. In a federal district court. They were so appalled by the factual evidence that. That it received in the district court. Is the trial court lower level that that judge actually imposed an injunction on the government. Then you had the appellate that is the circuit court above him, the Fifth Circuit, a panel that lifted the injunction, but also said that this is. A significant breach of the First Amendment. It raises many questions. And then you have the Supreme Court that says, I’m sorry, there’s no standing here, Mr. Producer. What? If you really want to understand what’s at stake, you read Sam Alito’s. Opinion for the dissenters. The dissenters are the hard and fast constitutionalist, Thomas Gorsuch, and of course, Alito, who wrote the opinion. I’m extraordinarily troubled by this. And I notice I’m not going to demand that the Supreme Court be eviscerated as an institution. I’m talking about something else. I’m telling you that Barrett has decided that she’s a politician, not a justice. Kavanaugh puts a wet finger in the air and will go one way or the other. Roberts claims he’s protecting the institution of the Supreme Court, when in fact, he’s destroying it. And so immediately. The spokesperson for Biden said that they’re going to now continue what they were doing. And that is trying to ensure that this information doesn’t reach you. This is a fascistic slash Marxist mindset. The Supreme Court just ducked. A critical free speech. First Amendment issue. With a government. The Biden regime is trying to manipulate and control information that’s provided to you and me. Whether it’s involving the vaccines, whether it’s involving the one laptop. So now the Biden regime and other like minded. Police states. Are going to be encouraged, motivated. To do this and more. And the person who wrote this majority opinion hiding behind the standing issue. But it’s Amy Coney Barrett. I’d been the first to call her out with you. The first to say, You better watch out. What she’s doing is problematic now. Then a piece came out. About how she disagreed with Clarence Thomas, who did a historical analysis and one of the opinions. And she said, we’re not bound by that. And I said, Oh, here we go. It underscores the fact that she doesn’t think she’s bound by anything. So there you have it. There you have it. This isn’t Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It’s Chief Justice John Roberts. He’s a disgrace. He’s buddies with Thomas Friedman. He’s gone full. Washington. Social Circle. This is often typical of justices like Anthony Kennedy. Among others. The late Sandra Day O’Connor. Even Harry Blackman, the author of Roe v Wade. It’s a huge problem. Maybe the Supreme Court should be placed in another place, maybe Palestine, Ohio. I don’t know what game the court’s playing now. We’re waiting for the immunity case. The obstruction case and what nobody’s talking about. Even our brothers and sisters on Fox. Is the case involving the Chevron decision? The Chevron decision. Was really the mother of all. Attacks on capitalism and representative government. And it is the decision. There are other decisions, but it’s the pinnacle. They gave so much power to the bureaucracy to write laws and rules and to rule over us as opposed to Congress. And as I told you the other day. Unfortunately. Antonin Scalia was involved in that. But later on he regretted it and he was poised. To reverse on that. But, of course, he passed away. So there’s a case in front of the court right now that Landmark Legal Foundation is also involved in. To fight this former Chevron decision and give us our republic back in. All the so-called legal scholars on TV. Not one of them has mentioned it. Not one. They also want to remember when the immunity issue was raised by President Trump. There is only one lawyer in the media. Only one who said this is a serious challenge. Remember, that must reduce her. Remember this. I mean, it’s amazing. Now they’re all that this there’s a serious case. I don’t know what the Supreme Court’s going to do. Nobody does. Three of them follow the Constitution. Three of them are up in the air and three of them hate the Constitution. So there you go. But the fact of the matter is, it was always a serious matter. And it remains a serious matter. Your host is also the first woman to call out the so-called documents case. Oh, that’s a slam dunk, said Bill Barr. And his acolytes. In cable legal analyst world says slam dunk. You know he should have turned it over He was asking for it. It’s not a slam dunk. And again. We were right here and they were wrong. That’s why you’re here. Quite frankly, because I don’t. I don’t go with the crowd. I go with what I know. There’s nobody more experienced in filing briefs. In dealing with appellate courts in the Supreme Court. I’m being honest with Dan, I. From my work with Landmark Legal Foundation. I saw one person wrote a piece long, long piece, as is the individual’s one. Basically cherry picking from the two briefs that were filed. In a challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith under the appointments clause. I don’t work that way. I don’t cherry pick other people’s briefs. I will read from them and quote from them and give them the credit they deserve. But it was somewhat confounding and incomprehensible because. You got to learn when you’re a lawyer to say things in a way. That the average person who didn’t go to law school and didn’t get all confused by all that stuff can understand and relate to. If you don’t, it doesn’t matter. You just writing to impress yourself and people around you. It doesn’t work. It’s different when you file a brief with the court, you’re dealing with the same kind of background, the same kind of profession. That’s fine. It’s like when everybody asks, What medicines do you take by the name of the medicines? Mr. Produce are so complicated. I don’t I don’t know. I just take what they tell me to take powers at this point. And I don’t know. And. Same thing. You had me wire a house as an electrician. I’d burn it down If you asked me to do the job of a plumber. I wouldn’t know. Hot from cold. I know what I know. And I know what I don’t know. But if I’m. Using information provided by somebody else, so forth. I would say plumber, X, Y, Z, Tommy, good guy. And that’s what we do know. Doesn’t work that way apparently, anymore. This is basic ethics. So the piece was picking from the two briefs, the Meese Mukasey brief and the landmark brief. And. Well, that’s not the way you’re supposed to do the things. But the documents case has many serious aspects to it, as we said here. The appointments clause is a very, very serious matter. As we said here had it. I know because Landmark’s been working on it. And because my former boss and mentor, Ed Meese. Working with two professors, one of whom was a colleague of mine at the Justice Department, Professor Stephen Calabrese. He told me we knew. I read it. Serious matter. So the appointment clause is a serious matter. The documents case has serious constitutional issues. Everybody’s now sitting and waiting for the immunity case where they all dismissed it. Every damn one of them, didn’t they, Mr. Producer? Way over the top. I’m way over the top. And I don’t know how the Supreme Court’s going to rule America. I don’t know if they’re going to cut the baby in half or hand the baby over to Biden or whatever. I’m sure Trump won’t carry a full victory if he gets a partial victory. But I don’t even look at things that way. I look at it. What is the Constitution saying if it says nothing? Did the framers provide us with any guidance whatsoever? And if they didn’t, then you know what the third test is for me? Then how do you do the least amount of harm to these institutions? How do you do the least amount of harm to these institutions? Barrett has become a disaster. However she votes, does it matter? She has no working doctrine on how you interpret a court. She’s clearly not an originalist. And if you if you stray from being an original last year, nothing. You’re making up your own rules as you go along. But you have nothing principled. Based on the Constitution, based on the framers, based on the history to apply to your decision other than you happen to be somebody who’s on the court and you feel this way or that way. So this was an abomination today. The court did not have the courage to take on. What is a black and white case? I’m an administration. Undermining the First Amendment. Trying to control. Freedom of speech. And now it’s going to go further. Supreme Courts in the past have made horrendous decisions. The fact that this court made a decision to hide behind standing with a lower court and the circuit court didn’t find any standing problems. Will be one of the reasons why he will be condemned. There’ll be reasons why it will be. Praised. But this will be one of the reasons it’ll be condemned because. Without free speech. We have a tyranny. And this is a black and white case. Where every aspect of the bureaucracy was used to try and shut down even discussion online among American citizens. Sharing information, right or wrong, good or bad. And yet the irony is it was the federal government. The six foot rule was based on nothing. The vaccines were not adequately tested. And all the rest. They just handed the Biden administration. A massive iron fist. Good job. Be right back.

Segment 2
It’s really kind of amazing how wrong the legal analysts really are, really across the map. They seem to be wrong. I mean, wrong about immunity issue, that it wouldn’t be a big issue. Wrong about the documents case. I don’t follow the crowd because the crowd. Doesn’t think. The crowd is a faction it. They want to be agreeable one with the other. It’s the truth. When I write a book, I write the book myself. When I prepare an opening statement on Fox, it’s an opening statement on Fox. When I get behind this microphone, Mr. Produce will tell you, nobody’s writing anything for me. And I don’t need to hear what anybody else has said. I. I study it. I think about it. The documents case always had multiple problematic issues, regardless how it winds up. The immunity issue was always a very serious constitutional issue for now and in the future. This Chevron related case that I just told you about, nobody else is talking about. And yet it is a huge matter. Huge. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
So how bad is the crime? Illegal aliens are doing to American citizens. We don’t know. They’re not keeping records. How many people have been killed, raped? Sultan. The sex slavery? We don’t know. We don’t know. We only hear about the tip of the iceberg. In the tip of the iceberg is very bloody. There is a fairly long clip. Trump Campaign Ad clip. We’re not going to play at all. But I want you to listen to some of this. Go ahead. Police have tracked down a killer whose crimes spanned the country. The man accused of killing a maryland mother of five on a popular hiking trail has been captured in Oklahoma. Rachel Morin was dragged from a hiking trail in Maryland where she was raped and murdered. Hernandez allegedly has ties to the notorious Ms. 13 gang and entered the country illegally in February of last year. The sheriff says that he fled to the U.S. illegally after murdering a woman in El Salvador in January of 2023, just one month before he entered the U.S. Last year, Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Hernandez. We are 1800 miles away from the southern border, and the American citizens are not safe because of failed immigration policies. This is the second time in just two years that an innocent Hartford County woman has lost her life to a criminal in our country illegally. As far as I’m concerned, the Biden administration has the blood of Rachel Martin in their hands. Two officers were shot overnight. The suspect also shot in the exchange of gunfire. Police also say that suspect, Bernardo Raul Castro. Mazza currently resides at a migrant shelter not too far away from here. Christian Engel was arraigned today in New York City on charges of sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl after school. Last week it was shocking daylight attack. Police say the 25 year old migrant from Ecuador approached two teams in the park at knifepoint. According to the criminal complaint, the suspect tied the boy and girl to one another, gagged them, then raped the girl before fleeing the scene. Police say anger entered the U.S. illegally through Eagle Pass, Texas, back in 2021. We’ve also learned from law enforcement here in New York that Christian England was actually ordered to go back to Ecuador just a year later in 2022. Had he been deported. We may not have this case, but it’s really struck a chord with people here in New York City, leading people around the country. A Venezuelan gang known as the renegade Iowa has victimized thousands through extortion, drug and human trafficking, kidnapping and murder. And now U.S. law enforcement, including Customs and Border Protection and the FBI, say the gang has made their way into the country. U.S. Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, who has confirmed multiple arrests of alleged friendly members over the last year, issued a warning in early April after reporting yet another arrest. Watch out for this gang, he said. It is the most powerful in Venezuela known for murder, drug trafficking, sex crimes, extortion and other violent acts. Today, an illegal immigrant who killed someone in Troy is set to be sentenced. Carlos Carlos Ramirez pleaded guilty to the deadly stabbing last month. He had admitted to killing a man near River and Dao Streets last September. The Honduras native was also charged with a stabbing in Maryland last February. He was arrested for that crime but was later released because Maryland officials never extradited him. Eight individuals, all from the Central Asian country of Tajikistan, were arrested in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia. They entered the United States this year and in 2023, crossing the Mexican border. They were vetted and allowed to remain in the country. CBS News has learned further investigation uncovered the men had possible ties to ISIS cave Five men in the US illegally were arrested Monday morning in northeast Missouri after a teenage girl was reported missing. All right. It goes on and on and on. These are things that shouldn’t be happening in our country. Law enforcement is getting overwhelmed by this and we’re not going to catch them all. And we look at the people, the inhumanity that’s taking place here. And Bynum will go up there and say, I told him to pass bipartisan immigration reform. Ladies and gentlemen, this. The level of illegal immigration. This invasion. The crimes. The terrorists. Didn’t start occurring. To this extent until Joe Biden became president. He can point fingers anywhere else. And you’ll see during this debate that’s all he does. Trump and the Republicans. And the Republicans and Trump. NBC as per Breitbart. Biden’s deputies hunt for 50 plus migrants delivered by Islamic State. Islamic State tied smugglers. President Joe Biden’s deputies are hunting for at least 50 migrants who were delivered by a smuggling network. The claim tied to the Islamic State Jihad network. NBC News, reported the official leak two days before the 2024 presidential debate. They reported the Department of Homeland Security has identified over 400 immigrants who have come to the U.S. from Central Asia and elsewhere as subjects of concern because they are brought by an ISIS affiliated human smuggling network. Three U.S. officials tell NBC News. Well over 150 of them have been arrested. The whereabouts of over 50 remain unknown, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is looking to arrest them on immigration charges when they are located. Officials said the alarm follows Biden’s deliberate policy. Right paper to admit millions of unidentifiable migrant men from more than 150 countries around the world. The inflow includes tens of thousands of people from Afghanistan, which was the home base for al Qaeda’s attack on the Twin Towers in 2001. And, by the way, Afghanistan. Is like the Star Wars bar scene, but with terrorists. Every leading terrorist organization now. Is populating Afghanistan. Al Qaida, ISIS. All of them. I wonder what they’re plotting, Mr. Produce? Since the start of fiscal 2021, almost 400 migrants who appear on the terrorist watch list have been detained along the border attempting to enter the United States. 400 over 400. In mid-June, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, told News Nation that border agents often have no background information on the people who are caught and then released under Biden’s pro migration policy. We’re going to get background information on people sneak in from Afghanistan. Communist China. Or Iran or Syria. You’re not. There can’t be serious vetting. And there won’t be. It’s quite common. Well, there’s just nothing. You don’t have anything. There’s no criminal conviction. There’s no threat information or whatever on these individuals. As soon as we. Become aware of any information like this case where working and collaborating with the FBI, we went out and we got them, says Patrick Ladner. However, the accuracy, timing and purpose of the claim to NBC are unclear. The leak report may be designed to help freeze or flush out the 50 remaining. McGarrett. I don’t know what the. Thinking is behind it. I just know that it. It is what it is. Is that not appalling? It’s no big deal. How big? What’s the big deal? It’s the big deal. They have their argument ready. I’ve told you this for weeks now. The argument is going to be when something horrific happens, it’s Trump’s fault. And the Republicans, they didn’t pass our bipartisan bill. Ladies and gentlemen. Since Joe Biden has been in office, since he issued that executive order, that phony order about a month ago still. Criminals strengthen. All terrorists are coming across the border as a fig leaf. It was a fraud and a phony. That’s why they issued a secret memo. In the San Diego sector with 100 countries exempted from his executive order. Paul Joe Biden talks about is we’re going to pass laws and do that. That’s not the test. The test is action. The test is consequences. And the point is, at this level, in this way, it simply wasn’t happening until Joe Biden became president. It’s that simple. Hillary Vaughn asked Democrats, Hillary Vaughn, the great reporter on the Hill from Fox. About the murder of Jocelyn Nungarrayi. She’s on Capitol Hill yesterday. Take a listen. But to go ask you quickly about the 12 year old girl in Houston that was tortured to strangers, I don’t even know who you are. I don’t know who she is. I live in Pittsburgh. Okay. But there was a child who was killed if they knew anything about it. You don’t know about the child that was killed by illegal immigrants. So what should we. Releasing people until we were absolutely certain of their intentions and whether or not they were potentially going to end up killing an American. I think it really is important to make sure that we know people’s intentions and we have a process for that. Sometimes people slip through the cracks. It’s unfortunate anybody’s killed, obviously, but. But immigrants, legal or illegal, commit crimes at a rate far lower than ours. Where does he get that information from? But look, look. He immediately moves to a political response. But as I’ve said for years behind this microphone, over 20 years. One has nothing to do with the other. We deal with American citizens who are criminals, who, by the way, Jerry Nadler has no problem with either soft on crime, activist judges and so forth. But look. The fact is we have a lot of criminals in America who do horrible things. But that doesn’t mean you open your borders to other criminals from other countries who do horrible things to our people. What is the rationale here? Where’s the logic? There is none. But that’s the answer. If you don’t want to do anything about it and you don’t give a damn and Nadler doesn’t give a damn, this four Representative Summer League from the Pittsburgh area, she doesn’t give a damn. This guy Maxwell Frost is no Maxwell Smart, that’s for sure. He doesn’t give a damn. Now, Pramila Jayapal, if that is your name of Seattle, go with documented immigrants. Commit far fewer crimes than anyone else. So aren’t these crimes preventable if we didn’t patrol them into the country? And she walks away because the answer is 100% preventable if we didn’t patrol them into the country. But they have their answer now. Americans are worse than foreigners. Now, ladies and gentlemen, let’s listen to the logic. How many? 911 terrorists were there? Most of it is 19, something like that. It’s not a lot. That’s not a lot. And so is the answer is while Americans do commit far more crimes. An illegal alien. Well, that’s ladies and gentlemen. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. So why would you throw out pablum like that? Because you don’t care. This Representative Sommer Lee. She knows who the hell this young girl is. Jocelyn. It’s all over the news. She knows. She and care. Maxwell Frost. He doesn’t care. Gerry Now, look, you give a damn. Pramila Jayapal doesn’t say anything. They don’t say We need to secure the border. We need to protect our people. That’s why the American people, I think I hope on Election Day, are going to be fed up with this no matter what happens in the debate tomorrow night, no matter what happens. Because these are Biden’s policies. Well, you know, we we had a bipartisan piece of legislation. And you, Donald Trump, you told them that as if that would stop a thing when in fact it enshrines. 2 million illegal aliens coming into this country every single year. It fixes nothing. The money in the bill. This is the problem. They’ll throw this stuff out. Takes time to answer and the moderators won’t give Trump that time isn’t even spent until 2028. And most of its for processing. Not for securing the most secure bill ever passed. No, it isn’t. They just lie. I think Donald Trump called him a lying machine today. Mr. Producer, we’ll get to that. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
I am doing my best not to alert the powers that be about this. This other big case that I was discussing with you folks that can change the way the bureaucracy works. And it is a big case. And I want to tell you about it a little bit through the SCOTUS blog site, which is actually pretty good, but they have different writers. By Amy Howe. Supreme Court could likely discard Chevron. Well, Mark, what does it have to do of us? We’re very busy listening. She writes, It’s been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron versus National Natural Resources Defense Council. That court should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three and a half hours of oral argument in January, seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case known as the Chevron Doctrine. We’ll survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seem ready to jettison the doctrine, or at the very least, significantly limit it. You see what they’re doing to automobiles? You’re seeing this this would effect that. The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Although the doctrine was relatively non-controversial when it was first introduced in 1984. In recent years, conservatives, including some members of the Supreme Court, had called for it to be overruled again. Landmark Legal Foundation, of which I am chairman, has filed a brief a friend of the court brief in this case as well. The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the herring industry to bear the cost of observers using fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law. But the fishing companies came to the Supreme Court asking the justices to weigh in on the rule itself, but also to overrule the Chevron doctrine that gives all this power to the bureaucracy. Roma martinez, representing one group of fishing vessels, told the justices the Chevron doctrine undermines the duty of courts to say what the law is and violates the federal law governing administrative agencies, which similarly requires courts to undertake a fresh review of legal questions, not just defer to the bureaucracy. Under the Chevron Doctrine, he observed. Even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the government’s interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was quote unquote, reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded. Such a result. Is not consistent with the rule of law. So I’ve asked our friends various media outlets, it’s time to pay attention to this as well, because it will be coming down. It will have an impact for decades to come on your lives. I shall return.