Speaker 1: We are potentially days away from the Supreme Court of
Speaker 1: the United States potentially overruling Row versus Wade. This would
Speaker 1: be the biggest bombshell from the Supreme Court in fifty years,
Speaker 1: I guess, since the ruling of Row versus Wade, and
Speaker 1: this is going to fuel the already pretty loud demands
Speaker 1: from Democrats to pack the Supreme Court. I am very
Speaker 1: privileged to be joined by not just one, but two
Speaker 1: United States Senators, both of whom have a whole lot
Speaker 1: of experience inside the Court. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: This episode A Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to
Speaker 1: you by Jennie Cell. How old does your mirror say
Speaker 1: you are? You can delay this question by five, ten,
Speaker 1: even fifteen years with Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum.
Speaker 1: You can see it sitting right here on the desk.
Speaker 1: Here's a testimonial from Marina. Marina lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Speaker 1: She says, great product, My skin loves it. I have
Speaker 1: spent more money, she says, on creams over the years,
Speaker 1: enough to pay off my house. Just kidding, but it
Speaker 1: feels like that this product has changed my life like
Speaker 1: no other. Now Marina is flying high with Genia Cell's
Speaker 1: new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid. This works to
Speaker 1: hydrate your skin at the cellular level. It builds on
Speaker 1: this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects. And gentlemen,
Speaker 1: you know that we ladies, we wives use your razors
Speaker 1: in the bathroom when you are not looking. Likewise, we
Speaker 1: know that you use our face products are skincare products,
Speaker 1: and it's fine. All's fair in love and war. Now,
Speaker 1: if you go to my uurl that is genu cell
Speaker 1: dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty
Speaker 1: percent off genia Cell's new ultra retinal serum. That is
Speaker 1: fifty percent off if you go to genie cell dot
Speaker 1: com slash cactus. It's spelled gn u cel dot com
Speaker 1: slash cactus, genua cell dot com slash cactus. Today's episode
Speaker 1: of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by
Speaker 1: ip Vanish. Did you know that browsing online using incognito
Speaker 1: mode doesn't actually protect your privacy Without added security, you
Speaker 1: might as well give all your private data way to hackers, advertisers,
Speaker 1: your Internet service provider, and who knows who else. IP
Speaker 1: Vanish helps you securely and privately browse the Internet by
Speaker 1: encrypting one hundred percent of your data. This means that
Speaker 1: your private messages, passwords, emails, browsing history, and other information
Speaker 1: will be completely protected from falling into the wrong hands.
Speaker 1: Ip Vanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple.
Speaker 1: Just for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering an insane
Speaker 1: seventy percent off their annual plan. That's like getting nine
Speaker 1: months for free. You have to go directly to ip
Speaker 1: vanished dot com slash cactus to get this seventy percent
Speaker 1: off discount. Ip vanish is super easy to use. Just
Speaker 1: tap one button and you're instantly protected. You won't even
Speaker 1: know it's on. You can use ip vanish on your computers, tablets,
Speaker 1: and phones, whether you're at home or in public. Don't
Speaker 1: go online without using ip vanish. Don't forget. Verdict listeners
Speaker 1: get seventy percent off the ip vanish annual plan. Just
Speaker 1: go to ip vanish dot com i slash cactus to
Speaker 1: claim your discount and secure your online life. That's ip
Speaker 1: va nish dot com slash cactus. This episode, A Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruze is brought to you by Matt Walsh's
Speaker 1: new film, the new Daily Wire documentary What Is a Woman.
Speaker 1: I've been waiting for this film since the day Matt
Speaker 1: announced it, and it does not disappoint. Radical gender ideology
Speaker 1: is corrupting our nation right now. It's seeping into our
Speaker 1: children's classrooms as young as kindergarten and preschool. It's even
Speaker 1: poisoned corporate culture. We see Disney and their queerness agenda
Speaker 1: that they're inserting into their children's programming. This has become
Speaker 1: a cultural phenomenon that is assaulting women, that is trying
Speaker 1: to erase biological women. And so Matt Walsh is fighting
Speaker 1: this fight. He he goes on a global on a
Speaker 1: world tour, asking a very simple question, what is a woman?
Speaker 1: And fortunately he took a film crew with him, so
Speaker 1: we all get to come on this journey with him.
Speaker 1: And you will be shocked to hear how many people
Speaker 1: can't answer what you would think is a very simple question,
Speaker 1: or they have a very warped, twisted idea of what
Speaker 1: a woman is. The leftist in this film actually admit
Speaker 1: to Matt Walsh what their ulterior motive is, what their
Speaker 1: underlying agenda is. You will laugh, you will cry, You
Speaker 1: will scream, probably all at once. I highly recommend this film.
Speaker 1: It's available for Daily Wire subscribers only go to what
Speaker 1: is a Woman dot Com? What is a woman dot Com?
Speaker 1: And join Matt on this cultural battle What is a
Speaker 1: woman dot Com? Not just one, but two senators in
Speaker 1: this episode, not just one guy who's written a book
Speaker 1: about the Supreme Court, but two guys who have written
Speaker 1: a book about the Supreme Court. And both guys really
Speaker 1: really don't think that the Democrats should pack at Senator Cruz,
Speaker 1: as always, thank you for being on your own show.
Speaker 1: And Senator Lee, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1: A senator from Utah, Mike Lee, an expert on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and the author of a wonderful new book
Speaker 1: on how we can save the nine Justices and not
Speaker 1: destroy one of the branches of our government. I will
Speaker 1: tell you, Michael, two interesting bits of trivia that has
Speaker 1: to with our guest on the pod today. Number One,
Speaker 1: he is the first Supreme Court clerk in the history
Speaker 1: of the United States to become a United States Senator.
Speaker 1: There have been clerks for many, many years, no clerk
Speaker 1: had ever become a Senator until Mike was elected. There
Speaker 1: now four so Mike got elected the same year as
Speaker 1: Richard Blumenthal, who was a clerk for Harry Blackman, so
Speaker 1: they were together the first two. I was the third,
Speaker 1: and then Josh Holly's the fourth. But prior to twenty ten,
Speaker 1: when Mike got elected, no clerk had ever gone to
Speaker 1: the Senate. But secondly, and I want Mike to amplify
Speaker 1: on that in a second. But secondly, he is also
Speaker 1: the only person I know, and certainly the only Senator
Speaker 1: I know, whom Harry Reid has locked in a garage.
Speaker 1: Harry Reid's son Josh, became my best friend when I
Speaker 1: was in the sixth grade. This was while my dad
Speaker 1: was serving as a solicitor General and there was this
Speaker 1: new congressman elected from Nevada elected to the House. Harry
Speaker 1: Reid and his son Josh became my friend and I
Speaker 1: got to know him well. One day, for no particular reason, Harry,
Speaker 1: who liked to play practical jokes, figured out a way
Speaker 1: to lock us into the garage. We couldn't get it
Speaker 1: out of it, either in through the house or out
Speaker 1: the garage door, so we just rode bikes and skateboards
Speaker 1: in there for a few hours. It was a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. Harry was an eccentric guy, and he had
Speaker 1: a wonderful sense of humor. He was always very nice
Speaker 1: to me. You know, we disagreed on almost everything politically,
Speaker 1: but until the moment he left the Senate, he would
Speaker 1: bring me into his office periodically just to ask how
Speaker 1: my family was doing and check in on me. He
Speaker 1: was a wonderful person in many respects. Michael. This is
Speaker 1: reflective of the relationships that exist within the Senate and
Speaker 1: also within the Supreme Court, relationships that transcend party affiliation
Speaker 1: and political ideology of every kind. It actually is a
Speaker 1: place where the relationships are much better than the appear
Speaker 1: on TV. That is good to hear, though, Senator Lee,
Speaker 1: I don't want to just skip over read left you
Speaker 1: in the garage for hours. This wasn't a fifteen minute
Speaker 1: practical joke. That's that man. He has real hootspa and stamina,
Speaker 1: or certainly he did. That's a great story. Yeah. My
Speaker 1: wife used to joke that maybe Harry had accidentally sparked
Speaker 1: the creation of the Tea party movement by doing so.
Speaker 1: It may have been overstanding it, but that's a good observation.
Speaker 1: A Senator Cruz, I guess I'll have you lead it off,
Speaker 1: because I know basically nothing about the Supreme Court beyond
Speaker 1: what I learned from the bill up on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: in Schoolhouse Rock. But I do know from reading the
Speaker 1: news that the Supreme Court appears to be in greater
Speaker 1: peril than at any time in my life. Support for
Speaker 1: the court. Trust in the court seems to be dropping.
Speaker 1: You have this major decision that could be coming out
Speaker 1: after the leaked opinion, which itself seemed unprecedented, and now
Speaker 1: you've got major calls to bed the whole institution. Well, look,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. The Left is launching unprecedented attacks at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, at the rule of law, at the Constitution.
Speaker 1: They're trying to politicize the Court. They're trying to intimidate
Speaker 1: and bully the justices. They're trying to directly threaten their families.
Speaker 1: They're sending angry protesters to their homes to threaten their families.
Speaker 1: And all of this is a naked desire attempt to
Speaker 1: destroy one of the foundational institutions that protects our fundamental liberties.
Speaker 1: You know, I have to say, I'm really glad that
Speaker 1: Mike is joining us again on verdict. So Mike is
Speaker 1: now the first and only repeat guest on this podcast.
Speaker 1: He was an early guest, and he's now the first
Speaker 1: recitivist to be back, and he's back with a brand
Speaker 1: new book. Mike, tell us about your brand new book.
Speaker 1: What's the title, where can they get it? And why
Speaker 1: is it essential that they rush out and buy it
Speaker 1: right now? The name of the book is Saving Nine.
Speaker 1: I wrote Saving Nine because a little over a year
Speaker 1: ago I started seeing all the warning signs that the
Speaker 1: Left was getting ready to pack the Supreme Court, something
Speaker 1: they haven't tried since nineteen thirty seven. As soon as
Speaker 1: I realized that they might actually be serious, I started
Speaker 1: thinking about it, and I realized, oh my gosh, nobody's
Speaker 1: comprehensively written, at least in modern times, a book explaining
Speaker 1: how you defeat this and why it needs to be defeated.
Speaker 1: But I had long been of the belief that one
Speaker 1: of the worst things that happened in American constitutional history
Speaker 1: was in nineteen thirty seven. It's my belief, and that
Speaker 1: belief is borne out in Saving Nine, where I tell
Speaker 1: the story of Associate Justice Owen Roberts flipping his vote
Speaker 1: in a seminal case called NLRB versus Jones and Laughlin Steele.
Speaker 1: That case was decided on April twelfth, nineteen thirty seven,
Speaker 1: two years from to date that the Supreme Court had
Speaker 1: moved into its new marble palace, first time in history
Speaker 1: it had had its own courthouse. Associate Justice Owen Roberts
Speaker 1: flipped his vote in that case and effectively redefined the
Speaker 1: Commerce Clause. He amended the Constitution as it were. Had
Speaker 1: it been a constitutional amendment, this would have been among
Speaker 1: the most impactful constitutional amendments ever adopted into the Constitution
Speaker 1: because it changed the nature of the federal government. It
Speaker 1: turned it from a limited purpose federal government into a
Speaker 1: general purpose national government. All of this because Owen Roberts
Speaker 1: was afraid of FDR's threats. It worked. Even though FDRs
Speaker 1: court packing plan failed legislatively, it succeeded and left an
Speaker 1: ugly indelible mark, one that's costing the American people dearly
Speaker 1: to this day. So you're pointing out that even though
Speaker 1: by the numbers, FDR's plan did not work, the political
Speaker 1: pressure that came about because of that really did transform
Speaker 1: the Court. So is there something about the number nine
Speaker 1: I don't want to diminish your book sales by having
Speaker 1: you give away the answer into the main quest of
Speaker 1: the book. But what is it about this number nine
Speaker 1: that is so important? The number has changed over the
Speaker 1: course of the court, though it hasn't changed in recent
Speaker 1: memory for the not just for Republicans or Democrats, or
Speaker 1: conservatives or liberals, but for the functioning of our republic.
Speaker 1: Why is nine the right number to keep? So? As
Speaker 1: I explained in chapter two of Saving Nine, there's nothing
Speaker 1: magical about the number nine. It's not foreordained by the Constitution.
Speaker 1: It's anything that. It's not the inexorable result of common sense.
Speaker 1: It is rather a compromise that was reached. It was
Speaker 1: a number that we arrived at as a country in
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty nine. So for more than a century and
Speaker 1: a half it's worked, and we've stuck with it because
Speaker 1: it works. The Court isn't understaff. There's no need from
Speaker 1: a human resources standpoint to add justices to spread the
Speaker 1: work around. Now, it's not that at all. It's just
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden well number one. He views himself as
Speaker 1: the modern reincarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's something that's very
Speaker 1: scary in and of itself. But number two, he wants
Speaker 1: to pack the court so we can change the court,
Speaker 1: so we can remake it in its own image, so
Speaker 1: that the court can be brought to heal to do
Speaker 1: his will and make sure that whatever he wants goes
Speaker 1: on the court. Well, you know, if if Joe Biden
Speaker 1: were here, Mike, I think he'd say, Mike, I knew FDR.
Speaker 1: FDR was a friend of mine, and I think he
Speaker 1: probably thinks he's talking to Eleanor Roosevelt. Now, well, this
Speaker 1: was one of my favorite observations in the book. Actually
Speaker 1: is I didn't realize, Senator Lee, I knew that both
Speaker 1: of you, gentlemen, have a long history with the court.
Speaker 1: Senator Cruz, you clerked for a Chief Justice ran Quist.
Speaker 1: You've argued cases before the court. Senator Lee, you clerked
Speaker 1: for Justice Alito. And also your father was the Solicitor
Speaker 1: General the United States under Ronald Reagan. So you've got
Speaker 1: this chapter in the book where you talk about going
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court as a kid, and I loved
Speaker 1: your scription of walking up the steps of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And even though obviously the courts right there in Washington,
Speaker 1: d c. You describe it as feeling as though you're
Speaker 1: leaving the petty swamp of Washington and going into a
Speaker 1: place with a little more dignity that might be a
Speaker 1: little bit above the usual fray of politics. That's right,
Speaker 1: it was. It was different than any proceeding I had
Speaker 1: ever been a part of. It was different than other
Speaker 1: government offices that I had ever seen. There was a
Speaker 1: reverence for the court, and there was a careful deliberation
Speaker 1: that I saw in there. You know, at the age
Speaker 1: of ten, when I started watching Supreme Court arguments for fun,
Speaker 1: I didn't understand everything that was going on. I didn't
Speaker 1: understand most of it. It felt like church in a
Speaker 1: foreign language. You had old still you had to be
Speaker 1: really quiet and pay close attention. But over time I
Speaker 1: started figuring out the rhythm of the place, and I
Speaker 1: developed a great respect for it. My late father taught
Speaker 1: me that, you know, even when you disagree with the
Speaker 1: court's ruling, you've got to respect the court because our
Speaker 1: entire system depends on the integrity and the independence of
Speaker 1: the court, and that this is not a tribunal. This
Speaker 1: is not a court that sometimes does good things and
Speaker 1: is mostly bad. It's quite the opposite. It's a good court.
Speaker 1: It's the best of its kind. I believe anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world, warts and all, it is a court that
Speaker 1: is basically good, that sometimes makes mistakes because it's run
Speaker 1: by mortals. But what Joe Biden and the Democrats are
Speaker 1: trying to do, they're trying to demonize and delegitimize the Court.
Speaker 1: They're trying to isolate those justices who dare to actually
Speaker 1: interpret the Constitution based on what it says, and they
Speaker 1: want to remake it in their own image in order
Speaker 1: to achieve a different policy outcome. The minute you do that,
Speaker 1: you rip off that band aid, bad things will happen.
Speaker 1: And it's not limited to abortion. This will extend into
Speaker 1: all sorts of other things, and it will end up
Speaker 1: reflecting the political will of power incumbents, principally presidents of
Speaker 1: the United States. So let me take a digre in here.
Speaker 1: You know, Michael, you and I have talked about how
Speaker 1: Mike is my closest friend in the Senate by far.
Speaker 1: I love this man. Um, he is both his staff
Speaker 1: and my staff get frightened when we get together. Um.
Speaker 1: It is not over boozed because Mike is a teetotaler.
Speaker 1: Although being Cuban, Irish and Italian I am not, as
Speaker 1: as mister Knowles can attest, since since between Scotch and cigars,
Speaker 1: we have killed a few liver cells together. But but
Speaker 1: when when Mike and I get together, we we geek
Speaker 1: out as law geeks in a way that really scares
Speaker 1: our staff and that they're actually like, okay, enough of this,
Speaker 1: like like like, But but I gotta say, I want
Speaker 1: to take a digression for something. You two we're talking
Speaker 1: about a second ago, which is Mike's dad. So so
Speaker 1: I never had the privilege of knowing Mike's dad, but
Speaker 1: he is a legendary so listen. The position of Solicitor
Speaker 1: General of the United States is a unique position in
Speaker 1: our nation's history. It is the only position in all
Speaker 1: of government that is required by statute. It is written
Speaker 1: into statute that the Solicitor General must be learned in
Speaker 1: the law. That is a requirement of the job. And
Speaker 1: there have been legendary solicitors general. There have been legendary
Speaker 1: solicitors general who were among the finest advocates ever to
Speaker 1: be in those marbled halls. And I say with no
Speaker 1: exaggeration that universally, Mike's dad is considered one of the
Speaker 1: finest Solicitors General to have ever served. He is considered
Speaker 1: to be simply an extraordinary Supreme Court advocate, and Mike
Speaker 1: is a kid. One of the reasons I love hanging
Speaker 1: out with Mike because he literally grew up watching arguments
Speaker 1: and around the dinner table debating bills of attainder and
Speaker 1: debating obscure obscure aspects of the Constitution. On one occasion,
Speaker 1: he was arguing a case on behalf of the corporation
Speaker 1: of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: of Latter day Saints, and there was a question in
Speaker 1: there about a janitor who had not obeyed the teachings
Speaker 1: of the church. Justice Scalia asked him a question. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this janitor, if he were a good member of
Speaker 1: the church, he would neither drink nor smoke. My dad
Speaker 1: said something to the the effect of yes, Justice Scalia, and
Speaker 1: that's a lot more than I can say for some
Speaker 1: of the Catholics I know. Apparently, the courtroom entirely quiet.
Speaker 1: You could hear a pin drop because everybody was nervous
Speaker 1: about what was going to happen. Fortunately for my dad,
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia belted out laughing, and the rest of the
Speaker 1: court joined him, but he developed this kind of fluidity,
Speaker 1: this kind of comfort with the court. It was not impertinence,
Speaker 1: it was respect, but a degree of familiarity that helped
Speaker 1: them trust him. We have this sense right now that
Speaker 1: things used to be more cordial, they used to be
Speaker 1: more professional, the Court used to function a little bit better,
Speaker 1: and now it's not functioning well, and you're getting leaked
Speaker 1: draft opinions for goodness sakes, and you're getting really petty fights,
Speaker 1: especially between the other branches of government, Chuck Schumer saying
Speaker 1: we're coming for you, Bret Gavinaugh, I mean direct threats
Speaker 1: to the justices. What is your historical sense here? Are
Speaker 1: our conditions at the court really at some relative low
Speaker 1: right now? Or is nostalgiais history after a few drinks?
Speaker 1: And have things really always been just about this bad? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, I don't think we should confuse a
Speaker 1: lack of decorum and cordiality and civility among and between
Speaker 1: the justices within the Court itself. I think it's in
Speaker 1: pretty good shape. I mean, we're certainly better often we
Speaker 1: were in other prior eras, like with Associate Justice James McReynolds,
Speaker 1: who was openly contemptuous of a number of his colleagues.
Speaker 1: He was bigoted, he was mean, he was rude, and
Speaker 1: that's sort of thing happened in previous eras of the court.
Speaker 1: You don't have that today. I think you actually have
Speaker 1: a pretty healthy degree of respect and civility among in
Speaker 1: between the justices. But this one is different. You're what
Speaker 1: you're getting up, Michael, is a very significant thing. We
Speaker 1: have never ever had a draft opinion of the court
Speaker 1: leak like this, for reasons I don't entirely understand, or
Speaker 1: maybe I do. The mainstream media keeps trying to downplay
Speaker 1: this leak by saying, oh, leaks have happened. Leaksh Meg,
Speaker 1: It's not that big of a deal. Happens all the time. Well, yeah, so,
Speaker 1: once or twice in a decade, somebody will leak a
Speaker 1: rumor about which way a case is going to be decided.
Speaker 1: It's like betting on the roulette table, red or black.
Speaker 1: You've got a fifty shot at being right, and so
Speaker 1: sometimes those predictions would turn out to be correct. None
Speaker 1: of them or anything like this where somebody took a
Speaker 1: draft majority opinion and leaked it. This is horrendous. So
Speaker 1: this speaks not ill of the justices themselves, I believe,
Speaker 1: but of everyone around the court. The way others treat
Speaker 1: the court has changed. And what you were pointing out
Speaker 1: a moment ago, Michael, is very significant. Chuck Schumer going
Speaker 1: to the steps of the Supreme Court talking about unleashing
Speaker 1: the whirlwind. I mean, what's up with that? The fact
Speaker 1: that you would have I suspect a law clerk with
Speaker 1: the temerity to go out and violate everything we know
Speaker 1: about an attorney's duty of confidentiality and about attorney's duty
Speaker 1: to safeguard property and material that's not his or her
Speaker 1: own and leak it to the press. There's something terribly
Speaker 1: wrong with that, especially because I suspect what we will
Speaker 1: find is whoever did it knew that they would likely
Speaker 1: be disbarred and we'll never practice law again, but also
Speaker 1: knew that they'd probably get a tenured track faculty position
Speaker 1: at Yale for it, and an anchor position at MSNBC
Speaker 1: millions of dollars a year. That's what's new, and that's frightened.
Speaker 1: When Mike and I were both clerks at the Court
Speaker 1: that the two justices who were the closest friends were
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and they hung out,
Speaker 1: they went to operas together. They're very different. It was
Speaker 1: almost like the odd couple, like you know, Felix and Oscar.
Speaker 1: You know, he was the ebulent, loud, Italian conservative. She
Speaker 1: was the librarian ish, prim and proper. But they got
Speaker 1: along beautifully. I remember Center a beautiful photo of them.
Speaker 1: I believe they went to India or something together, or Egypt.
Speaker 1: I don't know. They were somewhere riding an elephant. And
Speaker 1: some feminists were angry with Justice Ginsburg because she allowed
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia to sit in front of her on the elephant.
Speaker 1: But she did point out that the issue was less
Speaker 1: one of patriarchy and more one of sheer weight. So
Speaker 1: fair enough, you know it. Uh, it's good that the
Speaker 1: institution works. And I'll actually say, even on the political side,
Speaker 1: in the Senate, most senators get along. And the House,
Speaker 1: that's not true. There is some genuine nastiness and unpleasantness
Speaker 1: in the House, but in the Senate, out of a
Speaker 1: hundred senators, I'd say there are at most maybe five
Speaker 1: who are unpleasant, and and it's unusual enough that it's
Speaker 1: an outlier. And most Senators, even though they have strong disagreements,
Speaker 1: get along. Well. I just wrote a remembrance in a
Speaker 1: book for Harry Reid's family for his passing, and I
Speaker 1: wrote a story to his family about one time when
Speaker 1: I was a brand new senator and Harry Reid was
Speaker 1: on the Senate floor and was lambasting me, lighting into me,
Speaker 1: and then when he finished, he started to walk off
Speaker 1: the floor. He turned to me and winked with a grin,
Speaker 1: and it was kind of I laughed out loud. It
Speaker 1: was it was pretty funny. So, Mike, you mentioned that
Speaker 1: your book talks about the fundamental reason why packing the
Speaker 1: cord is bad. And the listeners and viewers of this
Speaker 1: podcast are smart, educated and formed. They care about substance,
Speaker 1: they care about understanding what's going on. And so if
Speaker 1: you're a Verdict viewer and you're standing at the water
Speaker 1: cooler tomorrow and somehow the topic of packing the court
Speaker 1: comes up, what are the best reasons why that is
Speaker 1: a really, really, really bad idea. Okay, the very best
Speaker 1: reasons why it's a bad idea is because in a
Speaker 1: constitutional republic like ours, we aspire to live under the
Speaker 1: rule of law, the rule of law as opposed to
Speaker 1: the rule of individual men and women. Because we started
Speaker 1: to live under the rule of law. We need an
Speaker 1: independent branch to resolve disputes about what law means. We've
Speaker 1: got three branches of government. It's essentially two pens and
Speaker 1: a sword. You've got the legislative pen that writes the law,
Speaker 1: decides what the policy should be. You've got the executive
Speaker 1: branch that wields the sword and enforces the law. But
Speaker 1: then from time to time, people will disagree about what
Speaker 1: the law passed by the legislative branch means. You've got
Speaker 1: to have somebody who can resolve that. You want that
Speaker 1: somebody that's something to be independent and immune from the
Speaker 1: political winds that can change from time to time. That's
Speaker 1: why you need an independent judiciary. The reason I wrote
Speaker 1: Saving nine and the reason court packing is so bad,
Speaker 1: is because if you pack the court in order to
Speaker 1: achieve a preferred political outcome, you will have destroyed the
Speaker 1: independence of the judiciary, and we will no longer live
Speaker 1: under the rule of law. Without the rule of law,
Speaker 1: the constitution itself crumbles, and the greatest civilization the world
Speaker 1: has ever known, which has been facilitated by the US Constitution,
Speaker 1: will exist no more. It is that simple, and it
Speaker 1: is that easy to do. And this is the irony
Speaker 1: of this. So one of the things that I describe
Speaker 1: in saving nine is the fact that it's funny. It's
Speaker 1: curious that something so fundamentally counter constitutional, anti constitutional, is
Speaker 1: itself not unconstitutional. It should be, And that's why I
Speaker 1: support at Ted's constitutional amendment that he's proposed to lock
Speaker 1: this in through the constitution. But it's not unconstitutional. But
Speaker 1: this is a way in which you could really destroy
Speaker 1: the Constitution without ever having to amend it. We can't
Speaker 1: let that happen. Now, Senators, before I let you both go,
Speaker 1: we've been speaking from your positions of expertise on the
Speaker 1: court and your legal careers and all your experience up
Speaker 1: there in that great marbled hall. But now I want
Speaker 1: to hear about your political guts, because you are both
Speaker 1: United States senators, and you have a pretty good sense
Speaker 1: of which way the winds are blowing. So we know
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't go past nine justices on the Court.
Speaker 1: But will we, Senator Lee, I believe we will not.
Speaker 1: I believe in something that's a statement attributed to Winston Churchill,
Speaker 1: that the American people can always be counted on to
Speaker 1: do the right thing. After they've exhausted every other alternative,
Speaker 1: and because I believe in the American people, I don't
Speaker 1: believe will do that. I think the American people will
Speaker 1: stop it. But you know that part remains unwritten. It's
Speaker 1: up to us to decide that. But I want the
Speaker 1: American people to be armed with this, So whether they
Speaker 1: buy the book or not is less important to me
Speaker 1: than that people read this. I want all of your
Speaker 1: readers to be able to read this. So if you
Speaker 1: want to just buy one copy and loan it thousands
Speaker 1: of times, that's fine too. But read this book. Read
Speaker 1: Saving Nine for a couple of reasons. Number One, Senator.
Speaker 1: At first, I just have to interrupt you very quickly,
Speaker 1: before you know, you are just such a kind, polite,
Speaker 1: nice man. But absolutely you should not be sharing this
Speaker 1: book with your friends. Go buy the book. Put your
Speaker 1: money on the line, folks. Absolutely you're going to launch
Speaker 1: your own copy. Sorry digression over you were saying. And
Speaker 1: they do sell it on Amazon, thank you, Michael. But yeah,
Speaker 1: so buy your copy of Saving Nine and read it,
Speaker 1: because when you read it, you're going to be armed
Speaker 1: with the facts. You're going to be armed with the
Speaker 1: arguments that you'll need to make in fact, once you
Speaker 1: read Saving Nine, you will never lose another political argument
Speaker 1: again in your life. It's not just about the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: This is about the fundamental relationship between the three branches
Speaker 1: of our government, and the relationship between the federal government
Speaker 1: and the states. In the end, it's also about the
Speaker 1: relationship between the individual and society, the individual and government
Speaker 1: in general. And so this book is a first of
Speaker 1: its kind. It synthesizes all of these points and will
Speaker 1: allow the American people to stand up to this form
Speaker 1: of attempted tyranny. But we have to be able to
Speaker 1: recognize it as such, and we need to be armed
Speaker 1: with the facts in order to be able to stop it.
Speaker 1: You asked a minute ago politically, what is the likelihood
Speaker 1: of the left succeeding in packing the court? And I
Speaker 1: agree with Mike. I think it's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: But I also think we are unbelievably close to it happening.
Speaker 1: So my last book was one vote away, and the
Speaker 1: Senate on this, I think we're two votes away. We
Speaker 1: are two votes away. Joe Mansion and Kirsten Cinema are
Speaker 1: the only two Democrats who are refusing to end the filibuster.
Speaker 1: There are fifty Democrats in the Senate, forty eight of
Speaker 1: them are ready to do so we're two votes away.
Speaker 1: If those two votes flip, they'll end the filibuster. And
Speaker 1: I think if they end the filibuster, they will pack
Speaker 1: the cord, you know, the way you open the pod, Michael.
Speaker 1: The pressure from the left lighting their hair on fire.
Speaker 1: If and when the Dabb's decision comes down an overturns Row.
Speaker 1: We've already seen crazy left wing activists rowing up in
Speaker 1: kayaks to yell at mansion, at his house, bow and
Speaker 1: chasing Kirsten Cinema into the ladies room. That's how bad
Speaker 1: it's been. And to use a spinal tap reference, I
Speaker 1: think they'll take it to eleven. So I hope and
Speaker 1: believe Joe and Kirsten will withstand that pressure. But understand
Speaker 1: how unbelievably close we are to this happening, and why
Speaker 1: it matters to engage and not to wake up one
Speaker 1: day a week after the Supreme Court decision and go,
Speaker 1: oh crap, we now have a thirteen justice court. That
Speaker 1: is the key. The urgency here is the key. The
Speaker 1: best time to have figured this out and fight back
Speaker 1: against it is yesterday. The second best time is today,
Speaker 1: And Senator Lee, I think your book is a wonderful
Speaker 1: contribution to that fight. Thank you. I certainly think so too,
Speaker 1: And I want to emphasize what Ted is saying here.
Speaker 1: The pressure that those two are under is immense. When
Speaker 1: you couple that with the amount of emotional intensity it's
Speaker 1: likely to flow from at Dabb's ruling one that reflects
Speaker 1: the draft opinion of Justice Alito. And by the way, you're,
Speaker 1: regardless of how you think you stand on roversus way,
Speaker 1: everyone should read Justice Alito's masterpiece of a draft majority opinion.
Speaker 1: In that case, it's phenomenal. It makes the case abundantly
Speaker 1: clear as to why this is an issue to be
Speaker 1: decided by lawmakers rather than judges. But the pressure that
Speaker 1: they're going to feel is going to be intense. The
Speaker 1: bad things that happen in government, they're always due to
Speaker 1: what's coined to be an emergency or an exception. And
Speaker 1: the pressure that we've brought to bear on Mansion and
Speaker 1: Cinema will focus on the fact that, look, this time
Speaker 1: it's different. They got rid of Row. That's you know,
Speaker 1: that's a sacrament on the left, and so this one
Speaker 1: could flip, and that's why we've got to be ready.
Speaker 1: The only way we can be ready is if people,
Speaker 1: not just lawmakers, but Americans generally, if we're educated on
Speaker 1: the facts, if we understand what happens, what happens when
Speaker 1: you even threatened to pack the court, then we can
Speaker 1: stop it. Otherwise it's going to be an uphill slog
Speaker 1: one that we might eventually lose. That is why people,
Speaker 1: right now the show's over, there's no more to listen to.
Speaker 1: You now have the opportunity to go order the book.
Speaker 1: By the way, Michael, I gotta say just there. I
Speaker 1: loved that you channeled Ferris Bueller at the end of
Speaker 1: the movie. Go home. The movie's over, it's done, go home,
Speaker 1: it's done. The podcast is done, well, you know. I
Speaker 1: also I don't want to leave without saying one, congratulations
Speaker 1: on the book, Senatorally. Two congratulations on being our only
Speaker 1: repeat guest. We're going to have to make it a
Speaker 1: three peat very soon. Thank you for coming. Best of
Speaker 1: luck with the book. I know it's going to be
Speaker 1: a big hit. Everyone should go buy it. Senator Cruz,
Speaker 1: thank you as always for being on your own show.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This
Speaker 1: episode of Very with Ted Cruz is being brought to
Speaker 1: you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action
Speaker 1: committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across
Speaker 1: the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security
Speaker 1: Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress
Speaker 1: and help the Republican Party across the nation.