Dan Bongino argued that several recent Supreme Court decisions involving immigration and constitutional issues reflected the plain meaning of federal law, while accusing Democrats and their allies in the media of attempting to redefine language to achieve political objectives.
Bongino discussed the Court’s recent rulings involving asylum, Temporary Protected Status, and the Second Amendment, contending that the legal disputes should never have reached the nation’s highest court because, in his view, the governing statutes were written clearly.
“Folks, they love to go to war with objective truth,” Bongino said.
He argued that Democrats reject fixed definitions because they view them as obstacles to expanding government authority.
“The Democrats can never stick to a predefined set of rules or laws, because why it limits them,” Bongino said.
According to Bongino, that approach extends beyond legislation to the meanings of words themselves.
“So, you’ll see them changing the definition of words, telling you two plus two equals seven, because they think all knowledge is made up by white men, and that knowledge is a construct of their power. So, you should dispute everything that is what critical theory is,” Bongino said.
Bongino then turned to what he described as a significant day for the Trump administration before the Supreme Court.
“Why am I bringing this up? There were a bunch of Supreme Court wins yesterday for President Trump. Huge, you had the Supreme Court ruling on asylum, you had the Supreme Court ruling on temporary protection status for Haitians, Syrians, and others. You had a Supreme Court ruling about the Second Amendment. It was huge,” Bongino said.
He said he found it unusual that one of the immigration cases was litigated despite what he considered to be straightforward statutory language.
“It was a big day yesterday, but what was bizarre yesterday is that these cases are in court at all,” Bongino said.
Discussing Temporary Protected Status, Bongino referenced the law enacted in 1990.
“One of the cases about temporary protected status is very simply this: there was a was a 1990 law that said, due to a crisis, I think it was in South America, El Salvador, that we can bring some of these people here under temporary protected status for a limited period of time, was subject to like an 18 month or so review, and then after that they were either going to be sent back, or we would extend it again,” Bongino said.
He argued that the statutory language leaves little room for interpretation.
“But the word in there, TPS stands for what, Justin, temporary,” Bongino said.
Bongino emphasized that the word “temporary” carries an ordinary meaning.
“Now temporary to the non-imbecile class, i.e. the liberals and the media, wondering why, wondering why the United States is winning, and how we aren’t more puzzled by it, like you are the word temporary has a meaning,” Bongino said.
He added, “Let me define it by what it word temporary means, not permanent. This is not hard when you grant TPS, or temporary protected status. When they wrote the law in 1990 they meant it was temporary because they called it temporary protected status.”
Bongino also cited language in the statute that, according to him, limits judicial involvement.
“When the law was written to give temporary protected status to some of these folks from other countries to bring them here for a temporary amount of time, they specifically wrote in the law… that there is no judicial review of any determination with respect to the designation or termination or extension of a designation of a foreign state,” Bongino said.
He argued that this language means courts are not authorized to review those determinations.
“So, when they wrote in the law, no judicial review, that means no court action, that means you couldn’t bring it to the court,” Bongino said.
Turning to the Court’s asylum ruling, Bongino argued that the relevant statute likewise uses plain language.
“There was another Supreme Court case yesterday… written in the law, you have to arrive in the United States to claim asylum,” Bongino said.
He used a hypothetical example to illustrate his interpretation.
“Now, if I were to say to anyone who’s not a moron or a liberal in this case, you know, if I were going to claim my party favor by arriving at the party, it would mean you would have to arrive at the party where the party is. It doesn’t mean you can claim your party favor outside of the party, you’d have to arrive in the party,” Bongino said.
Bongino said the Court concluded that asylum applicants must first arrive in the United States before seeking asylum.
“So, Supreme Court ruled in a six three decision… that you do not automatically get asylum at the border, and what they, what Sam Alito said, is you have to arrive in the United States to get asylum, you can’t claim it from Mexico,” Bongino said.
He concluded by arguing that these disputes reflect a broader effort to reinterpret laws and language for political purposes.
“Folks. This is intentional. Yes, there are useful idiots, and a lot of them in this subsection of the Democrat party that wants America destroyed and is troubled by the United States’ success in the World Cup, they hate it. They want us to lose to Iran, they want us to lose to Turkey in the World Cup. They hate you, they hate this country and everything about it. They have shown their ass to you 1000 times,” Bongino said.
WATCH: