March 19th, 2025

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, unelected federal district judges, particularly in Democrat-leaning areas, are overstepping their authority and undermining the separation of powers by issuing vague or overly broad orders that interfere with presidential duties, such as immigration enforcement and border security. This is judicial overreach, unchecked by the Supreme Court or Chief Justice John Roberts, and it threatens the constitutional framework, potentially leading to a judicial oligarchy or tyranny. The judiciary needs to respect the elected executive branch, and the Supreme Court needs to intervene and uphold constitutional principles. These federal judges are acting beyond their role, not just interpreting laws but effectively rewriting the Constitution. These are rogue judges or ‘rewriters’ who are overstepping their authority and undermining the judicial system’s purpose. Also, Sen Bernie Sanders is a Stalinist. To him, the Democratic Party isn’t wrong—it’s just not committed enough. Why is it acceptable for a man who shares the ideology of Castro and Mao to be treated like just another liberal? Bernie worships Marxism. He uses the language of the Constitution to attack the Constitution, which is typical of Marxists. Finally, Josh Hammer calls in to discuss his new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.

Photo by Drew Angerer

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. You know. The truth of the matter is America. They’re behind this microphone. On the Blaze digital platform and my FOX show. We’ve led the effort now. To push back against the rogue judiciary. We don’t have judges anymore. We have. Judicial oligarchs. Now understand how this works. They have their own courtroom, but they have their own office and they have a conference room and they tend to have some law books like they look like they’re actually using them. At the district court level, depending on the judge, they have two or three clerks. So there is a lawyer with two or three recent law graduates sitting together and apparently deciding how to run the country. I can tell you. And as you listen to this program over the years, you know. This is not. America’s constitutional republic. These judges were their own little fiefdoms. You meet in the conference room, sit with their clerks, decide what they want to do as the ends justify the means. They don’t even respect the fact that they’re federal district judges in a federal district. Which is where their rulings are supposed to be effective. So they sit there with their two or three law clerks. Sometimes the judge will sit there alone and he or she will decide, No, the president of the United States cannot and will not do this. No. And I’m going to issue a ruling that extends far beyond the courthouse, far beyond the jurisdiction I’m in for the entire country. But wait a minute. You’re in San Francisco. Wait a minute. You’re in Seattle. Wait a minute. Here in New York, you’re in Providence, Rhode Island. You’re in Boston. You’re Washington, D.C.. That’s right. That’s right. Well, where’s your authority? They have no authority. They have no authority whatsoever to do what they’re doing. Nothing Donald Trump has done since the election has gone without judicial review. And most of those cases judicial. Obstruction and interference. Martha MACCALLUM on Fox. She’s a real journalist, a very lovely person, by the way. She has integrity. She tries to do the right thing. And she does. She invited us. That is me on the program. She invited me last week. I couldn’t do it. She invited us again today, so I did it. So I want to play the next 6 minutes for you. On Martha’s show I’ve gotten. Endless texts and emails. For most people you would know. Who appreciated it. I don’t believe I’ve ever done this before. They have. It’s rare. So take a listen. Up the volume set back. Here we go. Cut. 15. Go. This I want to put up here the Landmark Legal Foundation, which you were arguing on behalf of in your part of versus EPA decision back in 2003, which essentially says that this kind of directive injunction from a judge must be recorded in writing, not just a verbal decision by the judge. Explain how this impacts what’s going on with Boasberg and these flights to El Salvador. Let me try and help this renowned radical left wing judge. This is called Judging 101. If you want people to do something, they need to understand what you want them to do. Martha, there’s a lot of people in between that courtroom and that flight in the United States and in the courtroom. The attorney general is not in the courtroom. The secretary of DHS is in the courtroom. Literally hundreds and hundreds of people are affected by this judge’s order. He knows this. He’s a judge in the District of Columbia where the bureaucracy thrives. So when you’re a judge, Judge 101, you don’t just sit at the bench and say, you know, you ought to stop doing this and stop doing that. It doesn’t necessarily get to everybody, certainly not in a timely way. He figured it out. It was a little late. It’s only been the custom practice and tradition in that courtroom for at least 23 years. When I litigated this case, which is Put your damn order in writing, Judge. So the people you’re bullying around and ordering around know exactly what you’re doing. It’s called giving them notice. That’s what it called. So let me help the appellate judges, some of whom were equally renowned for being left wing, which is this this is separation of powers. The fact that petitioners are radical leftist Democrats, attorney general and blue states, union bosses and worse, who are bringing these cases in these cities where they know these judges from Biden, Obama and and Carter and Clinton exist. This whole thing is becoming a sham. The American people are losing faith in the judiciary. We can’t have a judicial oligarchy of unelected judges at the trial court level who aren’t even in the Constitution telling the president what to do on human resources, on the border, on deporting criminal illegal aliens. I mean, wait until we get to non-criminal illegal aliens. Can’t tell him he can’t look at payroll, He can’t look at data. What is it that the president can do, Martha? These are ministerial tasks. These are normal tasks for a president of the United States. Notice it only goes one way by violating immigration laws. The borders wide open and criminal aliens are coming in. Terrorists are coming in. Federal coming in. And the judges sit on their hands. And I go over and over. This is the greatest assault. Listen to me. On the Constitution, separation of Powers. Article two, The power of the presidency in Modern American history. So while they may not talk to each other, they see what each other are doing. So there’s 600 and some judges at this level. You know, in terms of the Supreme Court, if it’s as egregious as you say, what would you expect to hear from them? We know yesterday Justice Roberts weighed in really on behalf of the judges write to to say this and the process is going to play out. There’s a hearing on March 21st. What do you think the Supreme Court should do, if anything? I would say that John Roberts, who I knew before he was a judge when we both worked in the Reagan administration. It’s time to grow up here, Judge. Think about Justice Rehnquist. What would just one request the chief justice have done when those four originalists two weeks ago, when this case involving another rogue Democrat judge ordered the president of the United States to spend money on foreign activities, what would Rehnquist have done? Would he have joined the four or would you have joined the radical three? This is a an issue of separation of powers. And if it’s not resolved, you basically, in the form of your question, have answered it. How the hell are we going to have 680 in the page for unelected federal judges? Their federal district judge is not federal national judges all sitting there behind their desks with their two or three clerks saying, you know, I don’t like this idea. Trump sending this. I don’t like this idea of banning transfer. I don’t like this idea. This is exactly what Locke and Montesquieu and Jefferson and Madison warned. When you have a combination of branches rather than separation of branches, and Scalia did, too, you have a tyranny. And I don’t care about what John Roberts pronounces from the bench. Do your job. Chief Justice of the United States. Don’t get into the political fight. Fix it. Because if you don’t fix it, we’re going to lose our constitutional construct or Congress is going to have to figure out some way to fix it. One other thing, the idea and I’ve even heard it on my beloved now. From some of these former whatevers that we shouldn’t raise our voice. That’s our job. This government exists for we the people. It doesn’t exist for John Roberts, the judges, Congress or anybody else. This whole thing was set up for us to protect us. When these judges are conducting themselves this way, when they’re interfering with an election, when they’re grabbing, seizing power in front of our eyes. We’re all smart. We see it from the executive branch, a president of the United States. He’s elected nationally. They’re created by Congress. They’re not even in the Constitution. They’re using a power judicial review that’s not even in the Constitution that was created by the Supreme Court in 1803. They should at least have some level of deference to the president of the United States. And notice one other thing. Compare the number of restraining orders, injunctions and reversals that Donald Trump has had with the last ten. We didn’t have those up on the board. It is grotesque.

Segment 2
So, ladies and gentlemen, we have not genocidal monsters, but rogue judges and their advocates in the Democrat Party and the radical left. They’re ideologues in the American media and in John Roberts. The use of the word judges. When these judges aren’t judging. The rerating. The Constitution of the United States. They’re not judges. They’re writers. That’s what they are. Carolyn Leavitt at the White House briefing today when she’s asked about this. This is one sharp young lady had seven go since you brought up the judges. I would like to point out that the judges in this country are acting erroneously. We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration’s agenda. And it’s unacceptable, as the president said last night. We will continue to comply with these court orders. We will continue to fight these battles in courts. But it’s incredibly apparent that there is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop, to pick judges who are clearly acting as partisan activists from the bench in an attempt to derail this president’s agenda. We will not allow that to happen. And not only are they usurping the will of the president and the chief executive of our country, but they are undermining the will of the American public. Tens of millions of Americans who duly elected this president to implement the policies that are coming out of this White House. It’s important, important, ladies and gentlemen, especially in this audience, when I say this, I mean civilly, civilly and legitimately to speak out and to speak out a lot. Because here’s the thing. The Constitution belongs to you. The Constitution was written for you. We, the people are the sovereign, not the government. The Constitution was written to protect you, to protect your unalienable rights. It is not up to a handful. Of radical Democrat. Out of control lawyers. Who got the lottery? Who hit the lottery? Who are now federal district judges acting like federal national potentates to take your liberty from you, to take your Constitution from you. There’s not a single not a single delegate to the Constitutional Convention. There’s not a single delegate to any of the state ratification conventions. Not one. I’m aware of nine nine of those states in which there are fairly extensive notes of the proceedings. Nine of the 13. I’ve read them all. And then writing my books. There’s not one. Not one. But the rate of failures, not one of the drafters. Who talked about a judiciary with this kind of power. They would not recognize this government. They would be disgusted. It’s time to speak out. It was Montesquieu talked about the combination of two branches out of the three. He said when that occurred, you have a tyranny. So it’s occurred. It’s a soft tyranny. By the judiciary, and it’s getting more aggressive. John Roberts proclamation the other day was utterly irresponsible. Particularly considering his lack of action two weeks ago in a case that reached the court about another rogue judge who was directing the president to spend money. On foreign activities that he didn’t want to spend. And in fact, John Roberts was so arrogant. And dismissive of you, the people. That is decision came down to one sentence. We just rejected the president’s appeal. And upheld the actions of the district court. He didn’t even provide an explanation to the prisoners. But even more to with people. His cabin belongs to us. If separation of powers is destroyed by any branch, your liberty is at stake. Limited governments at stake. We have three branches. The division of power. To protect us. All this talk about the rights of judges. My buddy Hugh Hewitt is very concerned. He even posted this morning or last night that it’s the job of John Roberts to defend every judge and every employee in the judiciary. How preposterous, my rhino friend. How ridiculous. My rhino friend. Is that the job of the president? Of course not. Is that the job of Congress to protect every one of their employees? No. In fact, many of them aren’t. It’s the job of the chief Justice of the United States to protect our Constitution and us.

Segment 3
Garrett Hack a.k.a. Key probably. Hakan says Judge Boasberg was originally appointed by George H.W. Bush and then elevated by Barack Obama. I just feel I should clear that up. Let me explain something to this hack at NBC News. I’ve explained this many times, there are appointments that are made by Republican presidents as part of. A deal or deals that are made with the Democrats to get more Republican judges on the bench than Democrats. When we are Republican presidents. And this tends to play out in the lower courts and other courts, not the circuit courts and not the Supreme Court. Every president in modern times has done it. And so let me explain it again, because apparently Garrett had cake or hacky. Hacky doesn’t quite get it. For example, in New York. You have two Democrats, senators. They can block a Republican president. Let’s say they have three vacancies at the district court trial level. And they could just block it, which means three judgeships are empty. So over the course of probably almost a century or so, deals are cut again only at the trial court level, not at the circuit or Supreme Court level. And so what judges have done and I remember this under Reagan. The Democrat senators and the Republican president would agree. Okay. Look, there’s two nominees that Reagan wants to get through. There’s one that the Democrats want. So Reagan will nominate all three of them. It says, Hard to follow, Mr. Producer. Even an NBC reporter should be able to follow this. Right. And so that’s how you get to originalist, you hope. To originalist, you hope. Plus. A lefty or a Democrat or both appointed by a Republican president. I explained that the judge on senior status in Seattle, who’s quite radical. Is a Reagan appointee. Reagan didn’t support him. He was part of a deal in Washington state. To get other. Nominees on the bench. More Republicans than Democrats. That’s Judge Boasberg. And so this NBC reporter says, I want to clear this up. I want to clear this up. But he’s asking Caroline Lovett the question. And, of course, let’s be clear. Let’s be clear. Caroline would not know this. She would have no way of knowing this. But see, the the goal of NBC News and all the other corporate media. Ah, to defend rogue judges. Hard to defend the annihilation of separation of powers. Ah, to defend the denuding of authority under Article two of a Republican president, especially Donald Trump. So they ask gotcha questions like this rather than asking questions about what I would say one branch of government the president do when another branch is obstructing him, seizing power under the Constitution from him. That is a real question. Let’s see how this played out. Correct. Go for the judge who was originally appointed by George H.W. Bush and then elevated by Barack Obama. I just like that. Well, let me just say something to that effect, Garrett. 67% of all of the injunctions in this century have come against which President Donald J. Trump Let me say that again. 60% of the injunctions by partisan activists in the judicial branch have come against President Donald Trump, and 92% of those have been from Democrat appointed judges. This is a clear, concerted effort by leftists who don’t like this president and are trying to impose or slow down his agenda. You can look at the background of this Judge Boasberg to show what a moron, what a schmuck this this reporter actually is. He has access to the same information we do, La Lumiere and put out pretty powerful information yesterday about his daughter. He’s a radical. We had Julie Kelly on the program, how this man conducted himself during the January six cases. He’s a radical. The things he said about Donald Trump completely out of line. He’s a radical. He’s conflicted. He’s a leftist. He’s a Democrat. And the reason George W Bush appointed some lower level court is for exactly the reason I stated as part of a deal, not because he wanted him on the court, but out of necessity to get others on the court. That’s what happened. Now I’ve stated this the liberal media monitor every syllable that comes out of my mouth. Let’s see if they report that. Let’s see if they report that. Don’t hold your breath. But the killer point that she’s making is this. Injunctions. The judicial branch have come against Donald Trump. 92%. Have been from Democrat appointed judges. You know, we make the mistake I have as well. But that’s clarified something. When John Roberts comes out and does his little drama act with a statement he releases from the comfort of his conference room. He’s not defending the judiciary. He’s defending the radical Democrats in the judiciary. The vast majority. Not all. Some of them were Never Trumpers. Some of them again have been appointed as a as a matter of compromise in a deal. But the vast majority of judges appointed by Republicans don’t conduct themselves as way. By philosophy. They’re originalists. They know. Where the line is or where about where the line is when it comes to separation of powers. They’re not interested in judicial activism. They’re not interested in interfering with another branch of government. That’s not how they think. That’s not why they were appointed. That’s not how they conduct themselves as judges. So when John Roberts comes out and defends the rogue judges, the radical judges, the Democrat judges, he’s undermining all the good judges. That’s what he’s doing. So he’s not even defending the judiciary. He’s spending the people who are destroying the judiciary. He’s defending the re writers of the Constitution, the radical leftists. Now, let’s be clear about something. The more radical the judge, the more associated they are with American Marxism. Many of these judges. You can ask the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can ask Senator Kennedy. You can ask Senator Cruz. You can ask other senators. Many of these judges on the Senate excuse me, many of these judges. Are the most radical elements in the Democrat Party, which means that the most anti-American Marxist. Democrat lawyers they could find to put on the federal bench because they rammed them through near the end of the Biden regime and they ran him through throughout the eight years of the Obama regime and so forth. These are not people who respect the Constitution. They have nothing but contempt for it. They embrace the 1619 project. They embrace CRT. They embrace the AEI. They embrace the the smearing. Now the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution. These are the people who are making rulings. These are the people who are, quote unquote, judging. We had lawfare against Donald Trump. Were these rogue prosecutors? And the Biden regime and the Biden Department of Injustice. In the Biden Federal Bureau. A so-called investigation. All focused. Well, destroying Donald Trump. Putting him in prison and bankrupting. A local DA’s followed back working concert. That’s what they did. That’s what they’re doing. Now they’re trying to destroy his presidency. Many of the same judges. But more judges. Because the plaintiffs here are of the same party as the judges. They’re of the same ideology. The judges there have the same belief system of the judges. They are American Marxists. And isn’t it funny? They know which judges, which courtrooms to seek out. And they hope to get. How do they know? How do they know where to go? How do they know which judges to cherry pick? How do they know? Isn’t it funny that they know? They know who the radical judges are. They know who the friendlies are. They know who the American Marxists are. So do we. So does John Roberts. So we’re supposed to play a game. And pretend we don’t. We have some of these former federal whatever they call themselves on TV and so forth. And they like to say, you know, I brought a zillion cases and I have had 100 and hundreds of judges, and they’re wrong from time to time and so forth. But I don’t attack them. I don’t speak out against them. Well, number one, shame on you. But that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. That’s one case involving one person. We’re talking about an assault on the constitutional system. Not a case. In some courtroom. In Timbuktu. Where the litigant is the president of the United States or one of the cabinet secretaries. Not Ernie Grabowski, who is jaywalking. Exposing himself in the public square. We’re not talking about that. If judges limited themselves to that, who would care? That’s not what we’re talking about. Something much more greater than former federal prosecutors have ever dealt with, ever in their careers. Ever. And yet so many of them. Who have voices, who have pens to defend this. Because this is how they were raised. This is how they were brainwashed. This is how they think. They need to get outside their little cocoons. They need to take a bigger look at what’s taking place. We cannot have 680. Judges. Or let’s say, 400 of them or so appointed by Democrats. Looking over president shoulder and a president unsure of what he can and cannot do. We cannot have that kind of instability in the law and in our constitutional. Undertakings. There’s separation of powers. It’s not complicated. There’s three branches of government. It’s not complicated. There’s some overlap there. There’s some areas that overlay. Yes. But not fundamental principles. No. The whole idea of checks and balances and everything you’re taught in third grade are under attack. Was John Locke wrong? Was Montesquieu wrong? Were they wrong when they talked about the division of powers? Well, the founders of our country wrong. When they wrote and fought for a free nation under the. Declaration of Independence with Iran. They fought for representative government, not for a lifetime. Judges. Who can issue edicts, not decisions edicts. Was James Madison wrong to fight over the Constitution? Who was repulsed by Marbury versus Madison? Who was the secretary of state serving? Thomas Jefferson. The author of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson and Madison were repulsed by Marbury versus Madison, and they were repulsed. But what the federal judiciary had done. Imagine what they would think today. You would think. That federal district judge is not federal national judges. What have some self-restraint knowing that they are not in the Constitution and the power they exercised. Judicial review is not in the Constitution, that they’re a creation of Congress and their power is a creation. Of a Supreme Court. You would think that they would have some deference. To the branches that were created by the Constitution. You would think they would have some deference to the president of the United States. He and his vice president, the only officials in our nation who present themselves for election by the entirety of the citizenry. Instead, we have judges holed up in their own conference rooms with a couple of law clerks fresh out of law school, deciding what is and is not constitutional. Can you imagine what Jefferson and Madison would be saying today? This constitution would never have been ratified, ever, and there wouldn’t have been a single vote for it in Philadelphia or any of the state capitals. Not one. Not one. That’s why I say we live in a post constitutional period and it’s getting worse. And those who defend it do not support the Constitution. Period. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Man. Oh, Manischewitz. You want to hear our shows this weekend? A week and a half. I’ve only had on her on one. She’s a firecracker. We love to have her in a very brilliant attorney. This is Saturday. Life, Liberty and Levin. Robert Greenway, one of the great experts on Iran in the Middle East. He worked in the first Trump administration on the National Security Council. Fantastic. You’ve seen him before. Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, 8 p.m. Eastern. Pete Hegseth, our first guest. He hasn’t been on the program since his secretary of defense, and Kayleigh MCENANY, who I think is so smart and just fantastic. That’ll be Sunday show. I hope you’ll join us. If you can go ahead and set your DVR, your TiVo or whatever else are used to record the program. You should do that ahead of time. 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Saturday, 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Sun, Life, Liberty and Levin what they call around here. Mr. Producer, the 3 hours. Is that funny? You’re three else. All right, you get on. Okay, Let me look. We got two power hours, ladies and gentlemen. I’ll be right back.