‘Let Me Explain It a Little Bit More Slowly’: Abby Phillip to Scott Jennings Claiming Trump Can Defy Court Orders

HONIG: “Let me just understand where you stand. If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?”
JENNINGS: “If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it. There‘s a difference between broad policy decisions and discreet disputes between parties. That‘s the difference. If I want a policy decided, I‘ll take it to the Supreme Court.”
Carlson: “What about checks and balances?”
PHILLIP: “Well, Scott, you‘re always — “
JENNINGS: “Of a district court judge? Who elected them?”
PHILLIP: “What I can‘t get with is you talking in these bizarre, broad generalities?”
JENNINGS: “It‘s not bizarre.”
PHILLIP: “Every single one of these cases deals with a discrete issue. Okay? It deals with funding. It deals with certain constitutionally or statutorily appointed roles. Every single one of these things is a distinct thing, and they‘re all being dealt with by different judges. So it‘s not broad swaths of policy here.”
JENNINGS: “It is.”
PHILLIP: “When the court says — when the court says, ‘Congress, you know, appropriated this money, you must unfreeze it while we litigate this,’ why can‘t Trump comply with that?
JENNINGS: “So he — so you‘re saying that a judge should decide how and when money is spent — “
PHILLIP: “A judge is saying — “
JENNINGS: “ — for years and not the president of the United States?”
PHILLIP: “Scott, let me explain to you. Let me explain it a little bit more slowly. A judge is saying — “
JENNINGS: “You don‘t have to talk to me like that.”
PHILLIP: “Congress.”
JENNINGS: “I have a position on this. And you have an opinion. We can disagree.”
PHILLIP: “But I‘m saying — listen to me, because you‘re not listening and you‘re making claims that are not connected to the facts. The judge is saying — “
JENNINGS: “Maybe you are.”
PHILLIP: “ — ‘Congress appropriated certain amount of money. We need to litigate this. While we litigate this. We‘re going to put a hold on the actions that you took, that might be unconstitutional.’ That’s part of the process. Why does it not work?”
JENNINGS: “So while we litigate — while we litigate this, I‘m a judge and I‘m in charge of the executive Branch and you‘re not? Forget it. I totally disagree.”
SUNUNU: “You just can’t compel the executive Branch to spend the dollars. You can‘t do that. They can‘t say we‘re going to start — the judge is going to start writing checks — “
PHILLIP: “Okay, have you heard of the Impoundment — have you heard of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974?”
SUNUNU: “No.”
(Laughter)
PHILLIP: “Okay, well, let me play this — let me play this — “
SUNUNU: “By the way, None of your viewers have either.”
(Laughter)
PHILLIP: “Well, I‘m going to — “
HONIG: “I can explain it in a sense.”
PHILLIP: “I‘m going to play this clip for you. This is in Congress. Russ Vought, who is the architect of a lot of this, was being questioned in Congress about the Impoundment Control Act, which actually says that the executive Branch should spend the money how Congress appropriated it. Here‘s what he said is going on right now in the federal government.”

[Clip starts]
PETERS: “Do you believe the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is the law of the land that you must follow?”
VOUGHT: “It is the law of the land. As you know, the president has run on that issue. He believes it‘s unconstitutional. For 200 years, presidents had the ability to spend less than an appropriation, if they could do it for less. And we have seen the extent to which this law has contributed to waste, fraud and abuse.”
[Clip ends]

PHILLIP: “So, Elie, this is the law of the land. They might be wanting to challenge it, but it is the law.”
HONIG: “Right. The Impoundment Control Act says essentially that the president cannot block money allocated by Congress. To the power of district court judges — and I understand your point, Scott, I understand the frustration people have when a district court judge blocks a broad mandate from the chief executive, the elected chief executive — ultimately, you know, the big issues go up to the Supreme Court. But I guess I would ask both of you, what if a district court judge had blocked Barack Obama‘s DACA plan, the DREAMers plan, right, and he said, ‘Heck with you, I‘m doing it anyway?’ Would you be okay with that? Or would you have a problem with that?”