WEBVTT - One Vote Away 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:04.160 You've probably heard a lot by now about Amy Coney Barrett, 0:00:04.200 --> 0:00:07.600 President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Some of it true, most 0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:11.360 of it probably false. How do you separate fact from fiction? Well, 0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:14.560 luckily we're about to speak with someone who just sat 0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:17.279 down with Judge Barrett about an hour ago. This is 0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:27.000 Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. 0:00:27.200 --> 0:00:31.440 I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. One thing I love so much 0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:34.680 about this show is that I get the inside scoop 0:00:34.920 --> 0:00:38.720 from you. I have been absolutely flooded with a ton 0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:41.600 of information about Amy Coney Barrett by the press. I 0:00:41.680 --> 0:00:44.760 assume most of it is complete nonsense. You just sat 0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:49.240 down with the Supreme Court nominee. What can you tell us, Well, 0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:53.239 she's very impressive. So I had a meeting this afternoon 0:00:53.280 --> 0:00:56.880 at two o'clock at the Capitol. Normally, what happens with 0:00:57.080 --> 0:01:00.320 Supreme Court nominees as they come around all us to 0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:04.160 office and they come to each senator's office. This time, 0:01:04.200 --> 0:01:06.200 because of COVID, they did a little bit differently. So 0:01:06.240 --> 0:01:09.000 they did it in a big room in the Capital 0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:12.360 called the Mansfield Room that they set up with the 0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:16.080 chairs separated so we could socially distance, and so I 0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:20.200 went by and visited with her. Went in, initially said hello, 0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:23.319 did the elbow bump thing with masks, and then sat 0:01:23.360 --> 0:01:27.440 down in the chairs, invited the reporters in, and I 0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:29.880 shared a few thoughts in front of a bunch of 0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:34.720 reporters who as is their want or screaming out questions. 0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:39.320 And then we threw the reporters out of the room 0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.920 and she and I visited and we talked probably forty 0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:48.120 five minutes. And it's an impressive you know, I mean, 0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:50.720 most of us by now have heard the facts, and 0:01:51.040 --> 0:01:54.480 she's very impressive in terms of her record. Number one 0:01:54.480 --> 0:01:58.160 in the class at Notre Dame Law School, law clerk 0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:01.000 for Larry Silberman on the DC Circuit and then law 0:02:01.040 --> 0:02:04.840 clerk for Scalio in the Supreme Court, law professor at 0:02:04.880 --> 0:02:10.080 Notre Dame for twenty years, federal judge. Actually, you know 0:02:10.160 --> 0:02:11.920 where I started talking with her. A lot of what 0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:13.799 I asked about is how her family was doing that 0:02:14.160 --> 0:02:17.040 this has been you know, she's got seven kids and 0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:19.400 including a number of kids who are young kids, and 0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:24.000 this process is brutal, and you know, I shared with her, 0:02:24.919 --> 0:02:29.000 being a dad, I've been through some pretty tough battles 0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:32.440 with little kids. Our girls are nine and twelve, and 0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:35.919 they've seen all the nasty things said and it's hard 0:02:35.919 --> 0:02:37.359 on them. So, I mean, I just tried to visit 0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:39.880 with her a little bit about the family aspect of 0:02:39.919 --> 0:02:44.920 it and talk with her. So she clerked at the 0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:49.320 Supreme Court the year after I did, and she's very 0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:52.079 good friends with some very close friends of mine who 0:02:52.120 --> 0:02:55.720 are both professors at Notre Dame Law School. So we 0:02:55.880 --> 0:03:00.880 visited about some of the challenges of this process, and 0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:05.840 I asked her some questions in terms of her approach, 0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:08.880 how she approaches cases, how she approaches being a judge. 0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:12.920 But I also try to just share with her my 0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:16.600 thoughts and advice in terms of approaching this hearing. It's 0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:19.440 a pretty daunting thing to be facing a hearing where, 0:03:20.480 --> 0:03:22.280 you know, I think Senate Democrats are going to come 0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.119 after her really hard. Oh, they've more or less promised 0:03:25.120 --> 0:03:27.239 it already. I mean, we saw what happened to Brett Kevin. 0:03:27.560 --> 0:03:30.679 They're basically promising more than that. So I think it's 0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:32.919 almost a guarantee that it's going to be brutal. What 0:03:33.480 --> 0:03:36.920 advice did you give Judge Barrett, Well, my advice to 0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:39.040 her is actually the advice I've given a lot of 0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:42.240 nominees or coming before hearings, which which is be boring. 0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:45.680 You don't want to make news. You don't want to 0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:51.240 you want to calmly answer the senator's questions. Right now, 0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:54.280 the Senate Democrats haven't really found any attacks. They're sticking, 0:03:55.320 --> 0:03:57.160 and so part of their strategy is going to be 0:03:57.200 --> 0:03:59.480 to try to provoke her to say something foolish. I 0:03:59.600 --> 0:04:02.960 don't think she's going to. This is a very poised, 0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:09.280 very mature, experienced judge and experienced professor. One of the 0:04:09.280 --> 0:04:11.280 things I told her is, I said, listen, to be honest, 0:04:11.720 --> 0:04:14.960 none of the Senate Democrats are nearly as intimidating as 0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:19.520 as Scalia was. She and she worked for Scalia, knew 0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:22.559 him well. We talked a bit about Scalia. I asked 0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:25.480 her her thoughts on Scalia, what he did right, when 0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:28.040 we did, what he did wrong? You know. I talked 0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:32.880 about her approach to questions. I tried to walk through 0:04:33.040 --> 0:04:38.239 some of the natural pitfall so the reporters are all asking. 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.279 For example, they asked me, is she going to recuse 0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:45.719 herself if there are any election related disputes? Why would 0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.839 she even recuse herself because she's a Trump nominee. Shouldn't 0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:52.400 Kavin or recuse himself then, because it's the Democratic talking points, 0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:56.440 So all the reporters are repeating it, and I said, no, 0:04:56.520 --> 0:04:59.280 of course she wouldn't. I said, she wouldn't recuse herself 0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:03.320 any more than Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayora would. They 0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:07.240 were both appointed by during the Obama Biden administration. Does 0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:09.640 the fact that Biden was vice president mean they should 0:05:09.640 --> 0:05:13.640 recuse themselves? Of course not. I actually afterwards explained to reporters. 0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:17.159 I said, look, all nine justices were appointed by presidents, 0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:20.640 all are virtually all of them have had to adjudicate 0:05:20.680 --> 0:05:23.680 cases in which the president or the administration that appointed 0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.880 them was a party before them may have had one 0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:29.279 particular side or another, and that that's just part of 0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:31.880 being a judge. I mean, there's a standard legal standard 0:05:31.880 --> 0:05:36.599 for recusal, but the fact that the president or the 0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:39.719 Senate that appointed or confirmed you is a party is 0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:43.800 not a recognized standard for recusals. So that question, they 0:05:43.839 --> 0:05:47.640 asked me, I answered it, she'll she'll have to address 0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:51.280 that at the hearing, and I'm confident she'll be able to, 0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:55.640 you know, one thing I talked with her about. Also, 0:05:55.680 --> 0:06:01.440 there's a question for every judicial nominee about what do 0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:04.120 you say about precedent. So, for example, a question that 0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:08.840 gets asked if every judicial nominee was Brown versus Board 0:06:08.839 --> 0:06:13.880 of Education correctly decided Brown is the seminal case that 0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:18.719 overruled Plessy against Ferguson and that ruled that schools had 0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:21.520 to be desegregated, that we had to have integrated public schools. 0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:25.560 Plessy had was an abomination. It had ruled that separate 0:06:25.600 --> 0:06:28.760 but equal was acceptable under the equal Protection clause to 0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:33.599 the Constitution. And it's interesting if you look at particular 0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:37.080 Trump nominees, that question gets asked, if not to every nominee, 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:40.560 just about every nominee, and some of them answer it, 0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:47.000 some of them don't. Those who answer it, so they're 0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:49.800 downsides to both if you don't answer, and I've seen 0:06:49.800 --> 0:06:52.440 some of the the judicial nominees say, well, I'm not going 0:06:52.480 --> 0:06:55.279 to share my thoughts on any pending case or any 0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.080 case that might come before the court. The problem is 0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:00.680 if you don't answer it, it lets the Democrats demagogue 0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:03.000 you don't even believe in Brown? What kind of crazy 0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:06.279 radical are you? And you can't say that you you 0:07:06.320 --> 0:07:07.960 don't want to comment on an issue that will come 0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:11.040 before the court, because Brown versus Bore dramatic Jason obviously 0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:15.920 already came before the court well, and the Brown question 0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:20.560 is really all a setup to get at if you 0:07:20.640 --> 0:07:24.080 answer it and say you agree with with with Brown, 0:07:24.320 --> 0:07:27.040 the next question where this is headed is all right, 0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:29.760 what about Row versus Wade? What about Heller versus District 0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:33.440 of Columbia? What about Citizens United? And it's the slippery 0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:36.400 slope that if you're willing to answer question about one case, 0:07:38.800 --> 0:07:41.960 as I said, judicial nominees have taken it both ways. 0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:45.280 They've refused to answer any or some have said, yes, 0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:48.960 Brown was rightly decided. Personally my view on it, It 0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:50.880 is the right way to answer to say, of course 0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:54.800 Brown was rightly decided. Nobody disputes that there's no likelihood 0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:57.960 of litigation on it. There is no active side before 0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:04.120 the court challenge that, And that is quite different from 0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:08.040 the other examples I gave where there is litigation every 0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:12.240 term that potentially touches on those issues. And so you know, 0:08:12.280 --> 0:08:15.200 the reporters afterwards all rushed up to me and they said, okay, 0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.160 did did she make any commitments? To you on how 0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:21.200 she would rule on anything, And I was like, well, no, 0:08:21.360 --> 0:08:23.680 of course, not that that would be inappropriate for me 0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:26.920 to ask, and it would be even more inappropriate for 0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:29.080 her to answer me. I wouldn't want to judge who 0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:32.679 would make a commitment. I'm going to rule X or 0:08:32.920 --> 0:08:35.760 Y way. Please give me your vote, and I promise 0:08:35.800 --> 0:08:37.800 you all rule this way. That's that's not how this 0:08:37.840 --> 0:08:39.800 is supposed to go. But you know what, that's how 0:08:39.840 --> 0:08:43.800 democrats approach it. I mean they are they treat the 0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:47.520 chord as an arm of politics. I'm looking for a 0:08:47.679 --> 0:08:50.160 justice who will follow the law and the Constitution. And 0:08:51.600 --> 0:08:53.720 I think what I was most impressed with sitting down 0:08:53.760 --> 0:08:58.439 with her was her calmness and demeanor. I mean, it's 0:08:58.480 --> 0:09:01.840 been you know, she had a pretty quiet life as 0:09:01.840 --> 0:09:05.240 a law professor and a pellet judge, and suddenly she's 0:09:05.280 --> 0:09:08.160 in the middle of this maelstrom. Where where this this 0:09:08.240 --> 0:09:11.839 political attack machine. I actually advised her, I said, look, 0:09:11.840 --> 0:09:14.439 they're trying to dig of everything they can to attack you. 0:09:15.240 --> 0:09:18.280 They're looking right now for someone who went to third 0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:21.360 grade with you that doesn't like you, and so just 0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:23.959 be aware and be ready, and just be calm and 0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:29.960 deal with whatever. Unfortunately, and I don't know if you remember, 0:09:30.000 --> 0:09:33.280 there was a guy, Anthony Lake who was nominated to 0:09:33.320 --> 0:09:36.040 a position under Bill Clinton, not a judicial position, but 0:09:36.080 --> 0:09:38.959 a position in the executive and he went through a 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:44.400 really brutal confirmation and he described the confirmation process afterwards. 0:09:44.440 --> 0:09:48.079 He said it is nasty and brutish without being short, 0:09:50.480 --> 0:09:53.720 which is of course you will appreciate it as a 0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:58.000 classically educated man. That's a reference to Thomas Hobbes Leviathan 0:09:58.080 --> 0:10:01.679 who described Hobbes described the state of nature as nasty, brutish, 0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:06.240 and short without government stepping in to protect people's rights, 0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.439 and so that was he was making a pun on that. Well, Senator, 0:10:09.440 --> 0:10:13.319 I think that's excellent advice for the judge. I'm glad 0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:15.440 that you got to spend that much time with her. 0:10:15.880 --> 0:10:19.400 But you mentioned that there's something strange about this particular 0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:23.160 confirmation process because of COVID. Something else is strange too, 0:10:23.160 --> 0:10:26.600 which is that typically the judges meet with a whole 0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:29.679 lot of senators, ideally all of the senators before they 0:10:29.720 --> 0:10:33.319 go and testify. This time, there are a number of 0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:36.880 Senate Democrats who are refusing to meet with Judge Barrett 0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:41.120 because they're saying that she's an illegitimate nominee. Well, and 0:10:41.200 --> 0:10:43.559 it's it's really bizarre. I don't know if any precedent 0:10:43.600 --> 0:10:46.520 that that's happened. Quite a few Democrats have said they're 0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:47.679 not going to talk to her, they're not going to 0:10:47.720 --> 0:10:50.360 meet her. There've been a handful who are willing to 0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:53.040 meet with her. So I credit them with not making 0:10:53.120 --> 0:11:00.440 the entire process of farce. But it shows. Look the 0:11:00.480 --> 0:11:04.040 Democratic base a week ago, even before this vacancy, that 0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:08.480 they were enraged that they had they were furious. They 0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:13.440 hate Trump. Yeah, when this vacancy happens, you know, it's 0:11:13.480 --> 0:11:16.160 it's it's like, to quote the movie spinal Taps, suddenly 0:11:16.200 --> 0:11:19.360 it goes to eleven. Yeah, I mean it's it's they're 0:11:19.360 --> 0:11:21.880 out of their minds. And so I think Democrats are 0:11:21.880 --> 0:11:24.160 in a hard position because they don't really have any 0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:27.880 criticisms that are are sticking. They tried to paint her 0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:31.200 as sort of a kooky religious person. I mean, they 0:11:31.200 --> 0:11:34.880 were these stories saying that like she's the inspiration for 0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:37.280 the Handmaid's Tale. I don't know if you saw a 0:11:37.280 --> 0:11:40.560 senator the article that came out that said the group 0:11:40.679 --> 0:11:43.760 that Amy Barrett is a member of is the inspiration 0:11:43.800 --> 0:11:45.360 for the Handsmaid's Tale. And then you look at the 0:11:45.360 --> 0:11:47.640 bottom of the article and there's a correction and it says, oh, 0:11:47.679 --> 0:11:50.280 actually it was a different group, but the rest of 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:52.120 the article is true. You say, well, that's the whole article. 0:11:54.360 --> 0:11:58.960 It's kind of a bizarre last I checked. Having a 0:11:59.080 --> 0:12:03.000 mom of seven who is a renowned law professor and 0:12:03.080 --> 0:12:05.640 federal judge it about to be Supreme Court justice, is 0:12:05.720 --> 0:12:10.480 not exactly a model for female subjugation. Like it's it's 0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:16.079 a bizarre narrative of Okay, I haven't seen the show, 0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:18.439 but that sure doesn't seem to be what it's about 0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:22.120 from what little I've seen I get, although judges do 0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:25.680 wear robes, so in that respect, it's entirely accurate. That's 0:12:25.720 --> 0:12:27.640 what they were talking about. You know, there was another 0:12:27.679 --> 0:12:31.280 attack lobbed against her by some other prominent leftists on 0:12:31.320 --> 0:12:33.800 Twitter and in other places, saying that there's no way 0:12:33.800 --> 0:12:36.240 that she could have been an attentive mother because she's 0:12:36.240 --> 0:12:38.600 had this wonderful career. And you say, gosh, I can't 0:12:38.600 --> 0:12:41.320 believe feminists are now telling women they can't have it all, 0:12:41.400 --> 0:12:44.040 you know, they can't work that Those attacks seem to 0:12:44.040 --> 0:12:47.360 have been really ill advised, the attacks on her family, 0:12:47.559 --> 0:12:50.360 the attacks on her religion. I know that Dick Durbin, 0:12:50.440 --> 0:12:53.120 who is the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate 0:12:53.280 --> 0:12:56.640 Senate Minority Whip, he went on George Stephanopolis's show just 0:12:56.679 --> 0:12:59.640 a few days ago and he said that the Senate 0:12:59.640 --> 0:13:03.160 Democrat can slow down the process, but they cannot stop 0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:07.120 the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Why is he coming 0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:09.880 out now and just more or less admitting defeat. I 0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:14.079 don't remember the Democrats doing that during the Kavanaugh hearings. Well. 0:13:14.120 --> 0:13:16.560 I think he sees a mismatch between what their base 0:13:16.679 --> 0:13:19.520 is demanding and what they can do. I believe we've 0:13:19.559 --> 0:13:24.319 got the votes. Barring some shocking revelation that no one's anticipating, 0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:27.079 I think we will have the votes to confirm Judge Barrett. 0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:29.120 And I think it'll happen by the end of the month. 0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:31.320 It'll happen before election day, which which I think is 0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:35.840 really important. Durban can count count noses. He can see 0:13:35.880 --> 0:13:38.000 that they don't have the votes. I think he's probably 0:13:38.040 --> 0:13:41.800 politically worried that if their base gets totally ginned up 0:13:41.800 --> 0:13:46.880 and demands you must stop this, they don't. If we 0:13:47.080 --> 0:13:50.760 hold onto the votes, there's not anything they can do 0:13:50.800 --> 0:13:53.640 to stop it, and so I think he's trying to 0:13:54.280 --> 0:13:58.200 calibrate expectations. Now that being said, I fully expect them 0:13:58.240 --> 0:14:01.760 to try and engage in a fishing expedition, and I 0:14:01.760 --> 0:14:06.679 think we'll see some procedural tools to try to delay it, 0:14:06.720 --> 0:14:11.240 to force unnecessary votes, but procedurally, and I'm spending a 0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:14.439 lot of time talking with with MITCHA. McConnell, the Majority leader, 0:14:14.480 --> 0:14:17.600 with the Senate lawyers, with my lawyers, to think through 0:14:17.640 --> 0:14:20.120 all the procedural tools they can they can try to 0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:23.480 do to delay this. But the long and short of 0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:28.680 it is, if the majority stays stays solid and committed 0:14:28.680 --> 0:14:32.160 to moving forward on this nomination, we will get it done. 0:14:32.160 --> 0:14:34.480 And I think we will well. Senator. I think one 0:14:34.480 --> 0:14:37.360 of the reasons that Dick Durban and the Democrats basically 0:14:37.480 --> 0:14:39.160 are throwing in the towel here and they want the 0:14:39.160 --> 0:14:41.760 confirmation process to be shorter is because the longer it 0:14:41.840 --> 0:14:44.240 drags on, the more copies of your new book that 0:14:44.280 --> 0:14:47.000 you're going to sell. One vote away. Obviously, we currently 0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:49.200 have eight justices on the Supreme Court. We have that 0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:52.600 one vacancy, so that one seat, that ninth seat could 0:14:52.760 --> 0:14:55.480 be the swing vote that could determine how cases go. 0:14:55.760 --> 0:14:59.040 And just coincidentally or providentially, you've got a book that 0:14:59.080 --> 0:15:02.360 has just come out on this topic. Yeah, well that's right. 0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:05.160 So this is Thursday, Tuesday afternoon that we're recording this. 0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:07.080 The debate's going to be tonight, so we're not going 0:15:07.160 --> 0:15:09.400 to talk about the debate on this podcast. It'll come 0:15:09.400 --> 0:15:11.880 out tomorrow, but we'll do a pod on the debate. 0:15:11.920 --> 0:15:14.200 So I imagine there'll be some fireworks this evening at 0:15:14.240 --> 0:15:18.600 the debate. But today Tuesday, the book came out, and 0:15:19.600 --> 0:15:21.600 here it is right now. It's actually we've been talking 0:15:21.600 --> 0:15:24.000 about it for a while, but it's it's out. It's 0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:26.600 we accelerated. It was actually due to come out next week, 0:15:27.080 --> 0:15:29.960 and given the nomination, given that this fight is front 0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:35.160 and center, we accelerated it to move it earlier. Now. 0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:37.960 As you know, I wrote this book this spring and 0:15:38.000 --> 0:15:41.600 summer during the COVID lockdown. I was working from home, 0:15:41.640 --> 0:15:43.360 and so I in my living room and sat down 0:15:43.400 --> 0:15:46.840 at the computer and wrote it. And it's designed to 0:15:46.920 --> 0:15:50.400 do really a deep dive into the Supreme Court into 0:15:50.440 --> 0:15:53.240 what's going on. Every chapter is on a different constitutional 0:15:53.320 --> 0:15:56.960 right and and to tell the inside story of what's 0:15:56.960 --> 0:16:01.120 happening at the Court. And obviously I didn't know we'd 0:16:01.120 --> 0:16:02.880 be in the middle of this fight right now. I 0:16:03.520 --> 0:16:06.640 anticipated the book coming out in the fall, going into 0:16:06.640 --> 0:16:09.960 the presidential election, because a huge issue in the election 0:16:10.680 --> 0:16:13.600 is the Supreme Court and what kind of nominees we're 0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:16.680 going to have. Well, this is actually the point, Senator 0:16:16.720 --> 0:16:18.960 that I want to hit on because it's it's the 0:16:19.040 --> 0:16:21.560 thing that was most striking to me about the book's release. 0:16:21.600 --> 0:16:24.160 You know, publishers always want to release books when they're 0:16:24.160 --> 0:16:27.440 going to sell the most copies. That's obvious, and it's 0:16:27.520 --> 0:16:31.560 so interesting to me that during a presidential election they 0:16:31.640 --> 0:16:34.400 slated a book about the Court. And this has been 0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:37.440 cropping up in every presidential election in my lifetime, but 0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:41.040 it seems increasingly so that the Court seems to become 0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:46.479 this central issue almost and often it is of the campaign. 0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:49.080 Obviously that's true this stump, but it was true in 0:16:49.120 --> 0:16:53.080 twenty sixteen as well. It was so it ended up 0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:56.360 being the single biggest reason that I voted for Donald Trump, 0:16:56.400 --> 0:17:00.200 and one of the things I talk about at in 0:17:00.240 --> 0:17:03.480 the introduction. So the first chapter of the book goes 0:17:03.520 --> 0:17:06.000 back through some of the details of twenty sixteen. And 0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:09.680 we had a rollercoaster presidential campaign, to put it mildly, 0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:15.040 And you know, Trump and I had a good relationship, 0:17:15.080 --> 0:17:16.960 and then we beat the living daylights out of each other. 0:17:17.160 --> 0:17:21.960 And my campaign won a bunch of states, but we 0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.760 didn't prevail. Trump prevailed, and I for the first time 0:17:25.840 --> 0:17:29.960 really tell the story about the convention in Cleveland, which 0:17:29.960 --> 0:17:35.680 you'll recall. The speech I gave there prompted booing and 0:17:35.880 --> 0:17:39.240 angry reactions because I didn't endorse Trump at the time. 0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:44.399 I actually the language I used in that speech was 0:17:44.640 --> 0:17:48.760 almost word for word the language Ronald Reagan used about 0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:52.240 Gerald Ford when Ford had just beaten him in the primary. 0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:54.919 And it was almost word for word the language that 0:17:54.960 --> 0:17:58.119 Ted Kennedy used about Jimmy Carter when Jimmy Carter had 0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:00.199 just beaten him in the primary. Neither one of them 0:18:00.280 --> 0:18:04.680 endorsed the person who had prevailed. Rather, they laid out 0:18:04.720 --> 0:18:08.000 a vision they wanted the candidate to follow, And I 0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:10.679 was really trying to lay out a vision for Trump. 0:18:10.720 --> 0:18:13.560 At the time, it was not clear to me and 0:18:13.600 --> 0:18:17.919 clear to many others, whether Trump would governors as a conservative, 0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:20.399 whether he would continue to campaign as a conservative, and 0:18:20.440 --> 0:18:22.720 so what I tried to do in the speech was 0:18:23.560 --> 0:18:26.159 to say, we should vote for candidates we can trust 0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:29.960 to defend freedom and defend the Constitution. And what I 0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:36.680 described in the first chapter of the book is much 0:18:36.720 --> 0:18:40.560 to my pleasant surprise, Trump continued campaigning as a conservative 0:18:40.600 --> 0:18:44.119 after he won the nomination. Many Republicans moved to the 0:18:44.160 --> 0:18:46.480 middle or the left after they win the nomination. Trump 0:18:46.560 --> 0:18:50.399 did not do that. And when I decided to endorse him, 0:18:50.440 --> 0:18:54.119 which was in September of twenty sixteen, the Supreme Court 0:18:54.160 --> 0:18:57.200 was front and center in terms of why. And so 0:18:57.920 --> 0:19:01.040 I negotiated with a Trump campaign and there was an 0:19:01.040 --> 0:19:03.760 explicit quit pro quo. There was an explicit exchange we 0:19:03.840 --> 0:19:07.000 had that that there were two conditions that I wanted. 0:19:07.680 --> 0:19:09.760 Number One, you remember Trump had put out a list 0:19:09.800 --> 0:19:14.560 of eleven potential judges in the heat of the campaign, 0:19:14.760 --> 0:19:18.399 but the list was not exclusive. So he said at 0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:22.080 the time, these eleven are the kinds of judges I 0:19:22.080 --> 0:19:26.000 will appoint or anybody else on planet Earth. Right, I 0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:28.880 elander as someone like so and somebody could be could 0:19:28.920 --> 0:19:31.919 be anybody else. And so I was very concerned about that. 0:19:32.000 --> 0:19:36.200 I wanted greater certainty the Scala of vacancy was front 0:19:36.200 --> 0:19:39.080 and center, and so so the conditions that I negotiated 0:19:39.119 --> 0:19:41.240 with a Trump team or that he put out an 0:19:41.240 --> 0:19:45.960 explicit list and bind himself to it, explicitly commit these 0:19:46.040 --> 0:19:48.800 names and only these names will be the pool that 0:19:48.960 --> 0:19:52.520 that that we will use, and also that he add 0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:55.000 centator Mike Lead to the list. I still think Mike 0:19:55.080 --> 0:19:57.400 Lee would be the best nominee. Had I won Mike 0:19:57.480 --> 0:20:00.159 Lee as who I would have nominated U and the 0:20:00.160 --> 0:20:02.560 Trump campaign agreed to both. So they put out a 0:20:02.600 --> 0:20:04.800 new list. It's when it went from eleven to twenty one. 0:20:04.880 --> 0:20:07.720 They added ten names. Mike Lee was one of them, 0:20:08.160 --> 0:20:10.520 and they put out in writing, these twenty one are 0:20:10.560 --> 0:20:15.400 the only people from whom Scalia's choice will come. They 0:20:15.480 --> 0:20:17.919 put it out and within minutes I endorse. So we 0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:21.639 coordinated those two announcements simultaneously. I think there was a 0:20:21.680 --> 0:20:25.359 lot of information and misinformation going around at the time. 0:20:25.920 --> 0:20:29.480 You were criticized because you did not come out and 0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:32.440 explicitly endorse at the convention. Yeah, and we were told 0:20:32.480 --> 0:20:35.480 you didn't endorse at the convention like Ronald Reagan endorsed 0:20:35.920 --> 0:20:39.520 Gerald Ford, and I guess in the popular imagination I thought, 0:20:39.520 --> 0:20:41.480 so I thought Reagan had endorsed Ford. Then you look 0:20:41.520 --> 0:20:43.560 through the stage and you say he didn't do it. 0:20:43.840 --> 0:20:47.200 And so at that time it was being covered as 0:20:47.200 --> 0:20:49.040 though this was a huge insult to Trump and it 0:20:49.080 --> 0:20:51.520 was totally breaking with precedent. But then what you're saying 0:20:51.600 --> 0:20:55.560 is behind the scenes, you're talking to the campaign and 0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:58.080 you're saying, look, I'm willing to endorse as long as 0:20:58.119 --> 0:21:02.560 you agree to certain political promises. Here about political meaning, 0:21:02.680 --> 0:21:05.159 you're going to govern as a conservative and all of it. 0:21:05.200 --> 0:21:07.120 I mean, this is probably the most interesting thing of all, 0:21:07.600 --> 0:21:11.080 all of it's about the court. The book begins the 0:21:11.160 --> 0:21:14.879 day Scalia died, which happened to be the day of 0:21:14.920 --> 0:21:18.280 the South Carolina presidential debate in twenty sixteen. So I 0:21:18.359 --> 0:21:21.600 was actually huddled in a conference room prepping for the 0:21:21.640 --> 0:21:27.879 debate and my body guy comes in and interrupts us 0:21:27.920 --> 0:21:30.320 and says, hey, hey, you heard about the thing, and 0:21:30.320 --> 0:21:32.480 we're like, what thing? And he goes the Scalia thing. 0:21:33.240 --> 0:21:36.240 What Scalia thing? Oh, no, it was, Oh he died, 0:21:37.160 --> 0:21:41.000 And we're just like what and what had happened? So 0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:44.800 Scalia was a hunting lodge in West Texas, and the 0:21:44.800 --> 0:21:48.040 sheriff's office found him dead in his bed, and so 0:21:48.119 --> 0:21:51.200 the West Texas sheriff had called me and had called 0:21:51.280 --> 0:21:53.680 John Cordon, So the two Texas Senators, we both got 0:21:53.720 --> 0:21:57.000 calls from the sheriff saying we just found Justice Scalia dead. 0:21:57.560 --> 0:21:59.359 So when I found out about it, it was a 0:21:59.359 --> 0:22:03.879 couple hours before the news broke, and so that totally 0:22:03.960 --> 0:22:06.959 our debate preparation all shifted over to what to do 0:22:07.000 --> 0:22:10.440 about the scully of vacancy. And I wrote a statement 0:22:10.640 --> 0:22:14.520 calling on the Senate to keep this seat open, not 0:22:15.440 --> 0:22:18.040 to consider a nominee, and let the voters decide. And 0:22:18.160 --> 0:22:20.280 the instant the news broke publicly, I didn't want to 0:22:20.280 --> 0:22:22.520 break the news, but once it was public, I put 0:22:22.520 --> 0:22:26.840 the statement out instantaneously, and you may remember shortly thereafter 0:22:27.760 --> 0:22:31.480 a number of other Republicans followed suit, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, 0:22:32.080 --> 0:22:34.240 And one of the things I describe in the book 0:22:34.400 --> 0:22:38.679 is that Mitch McConnell's former chief of staff later told 0:22:38.720 --> 0:22:41.760 a New York Times reporter that one of the reasons 0:22:41.800 --> 0:22:43.760 Mitch jumped out early and said we're not going to 0:22:43.840 --> 0:22:46.840 take up this nominee is he knew at the debate 0:22:46.920 --> 0:22:50.119 that evening, I would call for keeping the seat open, 0:22:50.800 --> 0:22:53.280 and he didn't want to be seen as following my lead, 0:22:53.480 --> 0:22:55.640