D.L. Hughley Says Mike Pence Winning Courage Award Shows How Far U.S. Has Fallen
D.L. Hughley Says Mike Pence Winning Courage Award Shows How Far U.S. Has Fallen
D.L. Hughley says Mike Pence winning the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award captures just how bad things in the country have become ... 'cause Pence shouldn't have been in danger when certifying election results in the first place.
The comedian joined us on "TMZ Live" -- as he does every Tuesday -- and, Harvey and Charles asked him about the former Vice President taking home the huge honor for "putting his life and career on the line to ensure the constitutional transfer of presidential power on January 6, 2021."
Mike Pence and Trump Happier Times - Click image to open gallery
D.L. says he understands why Pence won the award ... but, he thinks it speaks more to how much the political climate in the country has changed, rather than actually accomplishing anything above and beyond.
Hughley explains Pence was just doing what so many dozens of politicians and other American citizens have done before him -- upholding the Constitution of the United States like he pledged he would when he was sworn in as vice president.
Mike Pence Presidential Campaign Trail - Click image to open gallery
This shouldn't be a big deal, Hughley says ... but, the country's so out of whack that even the simple act of performing one's duty is a big deal these days.
D.L. adds that Donald Trump's reelection last year proves his point ... because Pence's act of patriotism only ended up putting a four-year pause on DJT's return to the Oval Office.
Mike Pence Emotional Over Trump's Jan. 6 Tweet About Him Having No Courage
Hughley does have some kind words for Pence, calling him a principled man ... but, ultimately, D.L.'s looking at the bigger issues in the country.
During his award acceptance speech last week, Pence talked about how the Constitution binds the nation together ... adding that January 6 was a "tragic day but it became a triumph of freedom. History will record that our institutions held."
D.L. says all of that shouldn't have been necessary back in 2021 ... and, that the country's in trouble because it was.
Want more of D.L.'s hot takes? Check out The DL Hughley Show.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests Show Caption Hide Caption California officials take on Trump over National Guard deployment California officials accuse President Donald Trump of inflaming protests by mounting a federal response. Protests continued to roil Los Angeles, California for three days straight over the weekend, as demonstrators clashed with law enforcement across the greater area over a series of federal immigration raids. The protests began Friday, June 6 after Homeland Security officials detained dozens of people across multiple locations in the city. By that evening, more than 100 people gathered at a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where some immigrants had been held. The demonstrations gained steam throughout the weekend in response to a Saturday morning gathering of Border Patrol agents the Latino suburb of Paramount and as National Guard troops deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, June 8. Live updates: Gov. Newsom blames Trump for unruly protests Timeline: LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded The National Guard deployment, along with statements from Trump and other officials, has raised the specter of further executive actions while the administration takes a heavy hand in responding to the demonstrations and tensions escalate. Trump was asked about the potential of invoking the Insurrection Act, an unprecedented move in recent memory, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement. Here's what to know. What is the Insurrection Act? The Insurrection Act is an 1807 law that empowers a president to deploy the U.S. military to suppress events like civil disorder. 'The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military inside the United States and use it against Americans, making it one of the executive branch's most potent emergency powers,' according to a 2022 report by the Brennan Center for Justice. It's also one of the oldest emergency powers available to the president, the center says, traced back to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. It's Congress's authority under the Constitution to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,' and is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the center's experts say, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. What has Trump said about invoking the Insurrection Act? In a social media post on Sunday, Trump called the demonstrators "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and said he was directing his cabinet officers "to take all such action necessary" to stop what he called riots. When asked on Sunday by reporters if he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act, he said, "It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection." Prompted as to whether he thinks there currently is an insurrection, he said, "No, no, but you have violent people and we're not going to let them get away with it." In Trump's presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops, he said the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and referred to the demonstrations as a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. It is the first time in decades a president has moved to deploy troops in such a manner without a governor's consent or explicit invitation, Reuters reported, and the move has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to say he plans to sue the administration over the deployment. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X Friday that active duty Marines at its West Coast base were on 'high alert' and would be mobilized if 'violence continues,' claiming the demonstrations were a national security risk. In his statement on X, Hegseth repeated the unfounded claim of an invasion by immigrants facilitated by criminal organizations, a once-fringe theory that now undergirds the administration's immigration crackdown. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." More: Videos show Waymo cars on fire amid LA protests; service reportedly suspended Has the Insurrection Act been used before? In 230 years, the Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises, according to the Brennan Center for Justice report, but it has not always led to the actual deployment of troops. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the Brennan Center says in a report that lists out the history of the act's use. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, also in response to unrest and demonstrations in California. Unlike the current immigration raid protests, the governor of California at the time requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial, after four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in their trial for beating the Black motorist. The unrest had already been mostly quelled by state-controlled National Guard troops before the federal troops arrived, the Brennan Center said. Contributing: Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia's return should not end Trump contempt probe, lawyers say
By Luc Cohen NEW YORK (Reuters) -The return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last Friday after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador in March should not end a judge's investigation into whether Trump administration officials should be held in contempt for violating a court order, Abrego Garcia's lawyers said. In a court filing on Sunday, Abrego Garcia's lawyers disputed the administration's assertion that it was in compliance with Greenbelt, Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' order to facilitate his return from El Salvador because it had brought him back to face criminal charges of migrant smuggling in Tennessee. "Until the Government is held accountable for its blatant, willful, and persistent violations of court orders at excruciating cost to Abrego Garcia and his family, this case is not over," Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote. "The executive branch's wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution." Spokespeople for the White House, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Abrego Garcia's March 15 deportation to his native El Salvador, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he not be sent there because he could be persecuted by gangs, has emerged as a flashpoint for Republican President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration policies. Trump critics say the deportation of Garcia, a 29-year-old who had a work permit and whose wife and young child in Maryland are U.S. citizens, was a sign that the administration was disregarding civil liberties in its push to step up deportations. Critics also said the administration's failure to bring him back, even after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Xinis' order that it facilitate his return, suggested the Trump administration was willing to defy unfavorable court rulings even though the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution. Xinis on April 15 demanded U.S. officials provide documents and answer questions under oath about what it had done to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, in an investigation that could result in officials being held in contempt. Trump administration officials have accused the judiciary of overstepping and interfering with the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy. They also alleged Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, though he had not been charged with a crime at the time of his deportation. Officials on Friday portrayed Abrego Garcia's criminal indictment as vindication for their approach to deportations. A grand jury in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 21 indicted him on charges of transporting undocumented migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border to locations around the country. Abrego Garcia has not yet entered a plea and is detained pending his next court hearing on Friday. His lawyer has called the criminal charges "fantastical." In their filing on Sunday, Abrego Garcia's lawyers said his immigration case would need to be handled as it would have been if he were not deported in order for the administration to be in compliance with Xinis' order. It was not immediately clear when Xinis would rule.
