1 00:00:00,880 --> 00:00:05,200 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court Confirmation hearings have just ended on Capitol Hill, 2 00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:08,080 Speaker 1: which means that Senator Cruz has got to go do 3 00:00:08,240 --> 00:00:10,680 Speaker 1: his second job, which is to come on over to 4 00:00:10,720 --> 00:00:14,920 Speaker 1: the studio with us. This is an extraordinarily consequential week. 5 00:00:15,160 --> 00:00:19,040 Speaker 1: This could fundamentally reshape the balance of power on the 6 00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:21,279 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And we're about to talk to a guy 7 00:00:21,480 --> 00:00:25,040 Speaker 1: who sat through all twelve hours of the hearings. This 8 00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:33,040 Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with 9 00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:36,519 Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. It occurs to me 10 00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:39,760 Speaker 1: as we sit here about to discuss the Supreme Court 11 00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:45,519 Speaker 1: Confirmation hearings. We've got impeachment, We've had the COVID quarantines, 12 00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:48,959 Speaker 1: we have the Supreme Court confirmation hearies. With the possible 13 00:00:48,960 --> 00:00:52,360 Speaker 1: exception of murder Hornets. You have been at the center 14 00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:56,160 Speaker 1: of just about every major story of twenty twenty and 15 00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:57,840 Speaker 1: maybe I don't know, maybe you've been involved in murder 16 00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:02,280 Speaker 1: Hornets too. I don't know. Well, I will say this 17 00:01:02,280 --> 00:01:07,120 Speaker 1: this that podcast feels reminiscent of the beginnings of Verdict 18 00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:11,240 Speaker 1: and and and spending all day then in the impeachment trial, 19 00:01:11,520 --> 00:01:17,399 Speaker 1: now in the Judge Barrett confirmation hearings and then recording 20 00:01:17,440 --> 00:01:20,480 Speaker 1: this late in the evening, although it's only what is it, 21 00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:23,640 Speaker 1: nine twenty nine thirty as compared to midnight or one 22 00:01:23,680 --> 00:01:26,840 Speaker 1: in the morning, So we're we're we're more humane than 23 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:30,320 Speaker 1: that than we started. But it is, uh, look, it's 24 00:01:30,360 --> 00:01:32,360 Speaker 1: it's it's. Part of what this podcast is all about 25 00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:35,280 Speaker 1: is to is to try to bring folks inside the 26 00:01:35,319 --> 00:01:38,520 Speaker 1: battles real time as they're playing out in Washington, and 27 00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:41,480 Speaker 1: that's what we're doing right now. I think in this 28 00:01:41,560 --> 00:01:45,160 Speaker 1: case to Senator maybe some people were watching all of 29 00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:47,960 Speaker 1: the impeachment hearings. I don't think anybody has been sitting 30 00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:51,760 Speaker 1: through all twelve hours of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, 31 00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:54,440 Speaker 1: And frankly, I think a lot of people, and I 32 00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,400 Speaker 1: include myself in this to some degree, don't even really 33 00:01:57,440 --> 00:01:59,920 Speaker 1: know how this whole process plays out. So I want 34 00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:03,240 Speaker 1: to get into the specific moments and how you're shaping 35 00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:05,760 Speaker 1: the process. But I'd like to begin just by zooming 36 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:11,040 Speaker 1: out and asking what was today, What is the timeline 37 00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:13,800 Speaker 1: going to look like? And is this judge going to 38 00:02:13,840 --> 00:02:16,520 Speaker 1: be confirmed to the Supreme Court. So I think today 39 00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:21,079 Speaker 1: was a very consequential day today we now know Judge 40 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:24,840 Speaker 1: Barrett is going to be Justice Barrett. Today was the 41 00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:28,560 Speaker 1: first big day of questioning. So the way this is 42 00:02:28,680 --> 00:02:32,359 Speaker 1: play played out. The President made his announcement a couple 43 00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:35,919 Speaker 1: of weeks ago of Judge Barrett as the nominee. We 44 00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:38,200 Speaker 1: had a couple of weeks where she filled out there's 45 00:02:38,240 --> 00:02:42,560 Speaker 1: a whole elaborate questionnaire that a Supreme Court nominee has 46 00:02:42,600 --> 00:02:44,960 Speaker 1: to fill out to the Senate that that requires them 47 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:49,399 Speaker 1: to turn over any writings they've had, a speeches they've given. 48 00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:52,600 Speaker 1: They're all these elaborate questions that any judicial nominee has 49 00:02:52,600 --> 00:02:55,320 Speaker 1: to submit and that takes a little bit of time 50 00:02:55,360 --> 00:03:00,480 Speaker 1: to compile. And then the hearing started. This week started yesterday, 51 00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:04,000 Speaker 1: so but yesterday was just opening statements. So everyone had 52 00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,360 Speaker 1: a ten minute opening statement and Judge Barrett had to 53 00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:08,960 Speaker 1: sit there and listen to each of us talk for 54 00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:13,840 Speaker 1: ten minutes. And then she gave her opening statement and 55 00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:17,000 Speaker 1: it was a very brief. It was introductory, and it 56 00:03:17,040 --> 00:03:19,520 Speaker 1: was introducing her family. She had her kids there, so 57 00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:22,040 Speaker 1: she introduced her husband and her kids she had. She's 58 00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:25,600 Speaker 1: got six brothers and sisters, so she introduced them. That 59 00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:30,000 Speaker 1: was yesterday, So today is when the questioning started and 60 00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:32,840 Speaker 1: the way it worked today as every senator got thirty 61 00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:37,760 Speaker 1: minutes of questioning, so it alternated Democrat Republican, Democrat Republican 62 00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:40,600 Speaker 1: thirty minutes to each and so Judge Barrett is there 63 00:03:40,640 --> 00:03:43,720 Speaker 1: just answering the questions. And the reason I say today 64 00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:46,120 Speaker 1: as when we know that she's going to be confirmed, 65 00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:49,520 Speaker 1: is because the Democrats couldn't lay a glove on her. 66 00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:54,040 Speaker 1: I mean they that they really had. There was no 67 00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:58,600 Speaker 1: moment in the hearing where they not even scored blood, 68 00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:02,000 Speaker 1: where they even put a nick in her. I think 69 00:04:02,040 --> 00:04:06,560 Speaker 1: she was a fabulous witness. She was calm, she was cool, 70 00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:10,520 Speaker 1: she was collected. She had and has I think a 71 00:04:10,600 --> 00:04:15,480 Speaker 1: very scholarly, a very judicial demeanor. She was unflappable, and 72 00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:19,720 Speaker 1: there were some moments where she could have been forgiven 73 00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:25,640 Speaker 1: for flapping and she didn't. But I think every bit 74 00:04:25,640 --> 00:04:27,599 Speaker 1: as revealing as the fact that they didn't lay a 75 00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:30,120 Speaker 1: glove on her is for a lot of them, they 76 00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:35,560 Speaker 1: didn't even really try. What I read today as is 77 00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:38,360 Speaker 1: the Democrats have basically given up that they know they 78 00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:39,960 Speaker 1: don't have the votes, they know they're not going to 79 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:43,560 Speaker 1: stop her, they don't have any substantive issue, and so 80 00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:47,160 Speaker 1: they're going through the motions. But but it actually felt 81 00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,200 Speaker 1: today like like more than a few of the Democratic 82 00:04:50,200 --> 00:04:52,680 Speaker 1: senators were basically phoning it in like they had to, 83 00:04:53,839 --> 00:04:56,160 Speaker 1: they had to fill their thirty minutes, but they didn't 84 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,360 Speaker 1: really believe they were going to get anywhere in terms 85 00:04:59,360 --> 00:05:02,520 Speaker 1: of stopping the nomination. I know, early on when Judge 86 00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:05,920 Speaker 1: Barrett was announced in the nominee, you heard what I 87 00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:10,320 Speaker 1: felt were very ugly and politically ill advised attacks on 88 00:05:10,400 --> 00:05:13,760 Speaker 1: her family and on her religion, and the attacks didn't 89 00:05:13,760 --> 00:05:17,000 Speaker 1: play very well. And fortunately we're not really seeing any 90 00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:19,719 Speaker 1: more of those. I remember Dick Durban, now the number 91 00:05:19,720 --> 00:05:22,640 Speaker 1: two Democrat in the Senate. He came out and more 92 00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:25,960 Speaker 1: or less said that all Democrats could do was slow 93 00:05:26,040 --> 00:05:28,560 Speaker 1: this thing down a little bit, but ultimately they couldn't 94 00:05:28,600 --> 00:05:31,520 Speaker 1: do anything to stop Barrett on the court. So if 95 00:05:31,560 --> 00:05:34,120 Speaker 1: they're not going to lob those attacks, and the attacks 96 00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:37,760 Speaker 1: they're lobbing aren't working, what are they doing? What was 97 00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:40,720 Speaker 1: the line of questioning that the Democrats were pursuing. So 98 00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:43,760 Speaker 1: there was an iron needed Durban putting that message out 99 00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:47,760 Speaker 1: because the last time Judge Barrett was up, when she 100 00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:50,680 Speaker 1: was nominated at the Court of Appeals. Durban was one 101 00:05:50,720 --> 00:05:52,640 Speaker 1: of the people who went after her for her faith, 102 00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:55,520 Speaker 1: and he asked her then, this is three years ago, 103 00:05:56,480 --> 00:06:01,640 Speaker 1: if she was an Orthodox Catholic. Orthodox was the adjective 104 00:06:01,720 --> 00:06:05,880 Speaker 1: he used. Now, I'm pretty sure that she's not a 105 00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:09,680 Speaker 1: member of the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox churches, So 106 00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:13,520 Speaker 1: I'm not Look, you're Catholic. What is an Orthodox Catholic 107 00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:17,840 Speaker 1: other than beyond I guess from a Senate Democrats perspective, 108 00:06:17,880 --> 00:06:19,920 Speaker 1: someone who actually believes the stuff. I think that's what 109 00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:21,760 Speaker 1: he meant by it. But I think you've hit the 110 00:06:21,839 --> 00:06:23,920 Speaker 1: nail on the head. She's not Eastern Orthodox. She doesn't 111 00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:26,359 Speaker 1: have one of those long beards. She is Catholic, and 112 00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,640 Speaker 1: she's Orthodox, meaning she believes what the Catholic Church believes. 113 00:06:29,680 --> 00:06:32,520 Speaker 1: This would be as opposed to say, a Heterodox Catholic 114 00:06:32,760 --> 00:06:34,880 Speaker 1: such as I'm just throwing out a name here, the 115 00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:38,880 Speaker 1: Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who says that he does 116 00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:41,520 Speaker 1: not agree with the Church on certain issues. So I 117 00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:45,160 Speaker 1: can understand Senator Durban's confusion. He probably doesn't know very 118 00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:48,400 Speaker 1: many Orthodox Catholics. But as you say, I recall that 119 00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:51,200 Speaker 1: attack did not play very well for Senator Durban three 120 00:06:51,279 --> 00:06:53,800 Speaker 1: years ago, and I think he probably wanted to caution 121 00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:58,680 Speaker 1: his colleagues now well. Feinstein infamously said, with regarded Judge 122 00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:03,040 Speaker 1: Barrett three years ago, the dogma lives loudly in this one. 123 00:07:03,279 --> 00:07:07,359 Speaker 1: And it was a moment of really I think contempt 124 00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:11,080 Speaker 1: and religious bigotry that that backfired, as I'm glad it did. 125 00:07:11,200 --> 00:07:14,400 Speaker 1: I'm glad the reaction was so strong. So somebody sent 126 00:07:14,400 --> 00:07:17,880 Speaker 1: out the marching orders to the Democrats, don't go down 127 00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:22,200 Speaker 1: the road of the attacks on faith again and listen. 128 00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:25,480 Speaker 1: For whatever reason, the Democrats, when they get talking points, 129 00:07:25,480 --> 00:07:28,680 Speaker 1: they stick to them. And so it was order, you're 130 00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: not allowed to attacker on this, and they all stayed 131 00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:35,080 Speaker 1: away from it. So that's good. I mean that. I 132 00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:37,280 Speaker 1: think they were nervous about the election coming up in 133 00:07:37,320 --> 00:07:39,760 Speaker 1: a couple of weeks, and they didn't want to tick 134 00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:43,520 Speaker 1: off Catholic voters or people of faith because it's it's 135 00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:48,080 Speaker 1: persecuting someone, you know. Maintaining the position that no one 136 00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:50,840 Speaker 1: of faith can be a judge is a pretty extreme position, 137 00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:54,160 Speaker 1: and it's also on constitutional I mean the Constitution explicitly, 138 00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:57,400 Speaker 1: the text of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for 139 00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:02,480 Speaker 1: anyone serving in public office. Given that, what's interesting is 140 00:08:02,480 --> 00:08:06,440 Speaker 1: they didn't even really decide to go after her record, 141 00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:10,760 Speaker 1: to go after anything. The principal talking points that the 142 00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:15,600 Speaker 1: Democrats are emphasizing is attacking the President. That they're just 143 00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:18,800 Speaker 1: using this to say Trump, Trump bad, Orange Man bad, 144 00:08:19,520 --> 00:08:23,920 Speaker 1: and it's all about Obamacare. It's all about Obamacare. And 145 00:08:23,960 --> 00:08:31,760 Speaker 1: their argument is that if Judge Verridis confirm, the Supreme 146 00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:36,760 Speaker 1: Court will strike down Obamacare, and a gazillion people will 147 00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:39,439 Speaker 1: be denied healthcare and people with pre existing conditions will 148 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:44,240 Speaker 1: be denied healthcare. And they basically are making it's You've 149 00:08:44,240 --> 00:08:46,640 Speaker 1: got to be impressed at the discipline that virtually every 150 00:08:46,679 --> 00:08:49,160 Speaker 1: Democrat says that almost word for word. I mean, they 151 00:08:49,200 --> 00:08:54,120 Speaker 1: read from their talking points, and the arguments they're making 152 00:08:54,200 --> 00:08:59,000 Speaker 1: are not judicial arguments. They're not actually arguments. It's not 153 00:08:59,040 --> 00:09:04,240 Speaker 1: the Supreme Courts to decide them. Listen, every Senator agrees 154 00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:07,760 Speaker 1: we're going to protect pre existing conditions. Every Republican agrees 155 00:09:07,800 --> 00:09:11,880 Speaker 1: with that, Every Democrat agrees with that. Now their disagreements 156 00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:15,800 Speaker 1: on how you protect pre existing conditions. And I think 157 00:09:15,840 --> 00:09:19,400 Speaker 1: Obamacare has been a train wreck. It's driven premiums through 158 00:09:19,440 --> 00:09:23,400 Speaker 1: the roof, and it's very unpopular, but that is a 159 00:09:23,480 --> 00:09:27,400 Speaker 1: policy question for Congress to debate. That's not the Court 160 00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:32,239 Speaker 1: is not going to decide what's the best system of healthcare. 161 00:09:32,280 --> 00:09:35,680 Speaker 1: And so one of the main general election arguments the 162 00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,520 Speaker 1: Democrats are mounting is this pre existing conditions attack. And 163 00:09:38,559 --> 00:09:41,920 Speaker 1: it was striking a number of the Democrats. They all 164 00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:45,000 Speaker 1: but ignored Judge Barrett. They just had their talking points 165 00:09:45,559 --> 00:09:48,600 Speaker 1: Trump pat you and wants everyone to die and it, 166 00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:51,480 Speaker 1: and you know, Judge Barrett just kind of sat there 167 00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:53,760 Speaker 1: and smiled. Well, I mean, you know, that was not 168 00:09:54,800 --> 00:09:58,720 Speaker 1: directed to her and her fitness and record to serve 169 00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:01,000 Speaker 1: on the court, I thought, But I thought it was 170 00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:04,640 Speaker 1: interesting how halfhearted they were and going after her. They 171 00:10:04,640 --> 00:10:07,920 Speaker 1: barely tried well on the healthcare point. I was speaking 172 00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:11,240 Speaker 1: to a fairly prominent Democrat operative during the mid terms 173 00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:14,360 Speaker 1: a couple of years ago, and this operative told me 174 00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:18,160 Speaker 1: that basically the only winning issue for Democrats was healthcare 175 00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:20,720 Speaker 1: and not Obamacare, by the way, just sort of broad 176 00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:24,760 Speaker 1: healthcare reform, healthcare protections, right, because the promises on the 177 00:10:24,800 --> 00:10:26,400 Speaker 1: campaign trailer always We're going to give you a lot 178 00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,199 Speaker 1: of free stuff, and it's going to make everybody healthier 179 00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:32,040 Speaker 1: and better, So they keep hammering that home. It's obviously 180 00:10:32,320 --> 00:10:36,320 Speaker 1: much less contentious than say abortion or going after somebody's 181 00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:38,320 Speaker 1: faith or something to that effect. Well, you know, in 182 00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:42,480 Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, Chuck Schumer dropped several million dollars in attack 183 00:10:42,520 --> 00:10:46,560 Speaker 1: ads against me in the closing week of my reelection campaign, 184 00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:50,440 Speaker 1: and it was all pre existing conditions. It was ted 185 00:10:50,480 --> 00:10:53,720 Speaker 1: once to takeaway coverage preexisting conditions. Now we immediately pivoted 186 00:10:53,720 --> 00:10:55,079 Speaker 1: and hit him back and said, no, we're going to 187 00:10:55,160 --> 00:10:58,920 Speaker 1: protect preexisting conditions. And you've driven costs through the roof 188 00:10:58,920 --> 00:11:01,640 Speaker 1: and people can't afford health here and it. I mean, 189 00:11:01,679 --> 00:11:05,280 Speaker 1: we have always been a very data driven operation, and 190 00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:09,560 Speaker 1: the polling showed that when we counterpunched, it completely neutralized 191 00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:12,240 Speaker 1: the attack. But they put hundreds of millions of dollars 192 00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:15,719 Speaker 1: behind that attack nationally in twenty eighteen, and they're doing 193 00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:18,000 Speaker 1: it again this cycle. Well, I want to get into 194 00:11:18,040 --> 00:11:20,640 Speaker 1: those hundreds of millions of dollars because I agree with 195 00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:22,800 Speaker 1: you watching I didn't watch twelve hours of it today, 196 00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:26,280 Speaker 1: but watching what I did, it did seem halfhearted. Senator 197 00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:29,280 Speaker 1: Feinstein went for a row versus Wade that kind of flopped. 198 00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:31,920 Speaker 1: I felt Kamala Harris flopped. I just felt so many 199 00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:34,040 Speaker 1: of the attacks were weak. The only one that caught 200 00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:37,840 Speaker 1: my interest was from your colleague, the Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, 201 00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:43,120 Speaker 1: who launched an attack at the funding of the conservative 202 00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:47,680 Speaker 1: judicial movement, basically saying that dark money was behind the 203 00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:50,680 Speaker 1: selection of Judge Barrett. And then he didn't quite explain 204 00:11:50,760 --> 00:11:53,880 Speaker 1: what that meant. But the conclusion, of course was Barrett 205 00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:56,000 Speaker 1: is an illegitimate nominee and there's no way we should 206 00:11:56,000 --> 00:12:00,240 Speaker 1: confirm her. Where is all that dark money? Senator? So 207 00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:05,280 Speaker 1: I it was a fairly extraordinary So Sheldon talked for 208 00:12:05,320 --> 00:12:08,560 Speaker 1: thirty minutes. He didn't ask Judge Barrett a single question, 209 00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:11,560 Speaker 1: So she just sat there while he put on and 210 00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:14,120 Speaker 1: he had these little charts he had and it was interesting. 211 00:12:14,200 --> 00:12:17,320 Speaker 1: Ben Sass later in the afternoon referred to it as 212 00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:25,359 Speaker 1: a beautiful mind presentation. But there's a reason for his presentation. 213 00:12:25,440 --> 00:12:30,800 Speaker 1: So white House has been pushing this for a long time. 214 00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:35,280 Speaker 1: There's a concerted effort to delegitimize the court, and that's 215 00:12:35,360 --> 00:12:38,120 Speaker 1: part of his narrative, is that he says that that 216 00:12:38,440 --> 00:12:45,199 Speaker 1: secretive corporate billionaires are funding Republicans, and the Court is 217 00:12:45,320 --> 00:12:48,000 Speaker 1: bought and paid for, and it's illegitimate. And this is 218 00:12:48,080 --> 00:12:52,079 Speaker 1: connected to their whole effort to pack the court. This 219 00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:55,760 Speaker 1: is all Sheldon's objective is to delegitimize the Supreme Court. 220 00:12:56,679 --> 00:13:01,400 Speaker 1: And my questioning was immediately after his. And that's usually 221 00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:05,160 Speaker 1: the case in terms of the seniority. I normally go 222 00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:10,319 Speaker 1: between white House and Klobuchar, and so often I'm often 223 00:13:10,360 --> 00:13:13,120 Speaker 1: have a chance to respond to white House, and then 224 00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:15,880 Speaker 1: Klobuchar is discovered. She gets lots of likes when she 225 00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:18,240 Speaker 1: likes says something nasty about me, which is Amy and 226 00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:21,280 Speaker 1: I actually get along quite well, but it makes it 227 00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:23,480 Speaker 1: makes lefties really happy when she attacks me. So she 228 00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:26,440 Speaker 1: often will chime, you're going to totally kill her credibility. 229 00:13:26,520 --> 00:13:28,600 Speaker 1: Now that you say that you and she get along 230 00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:31,360 Speaker 1: very well. There go all the Facebook likes. So white 231 00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:34,079 Speaker 1: House I took the chance to really lay into his 232 00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:37,959 Speaker 1: premise as as you know, in the world of campaign 233 00:13:38,080 --> 00:13:40,520 Speaker 1: finance reforms. So and this is something Sheldon says all 234 00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:42,320 Speaker 1: the time, but Democrats say all the time is big 235 00:13:42,360 --> 00:13:46,200 Speaker 1: money is behind the Republicans. It just happens to be. 236 00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:48,920 Speaker 1: There's a lot more big money behind Democrats. That that 237 00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:50,840 Speaker 1: if you want to know where the big money is. 238 00:13:51,160 --> 00:13:55,080 Speaker 1: So if you look at, for example, in twenty sixteen, 239 00:13:56,160 --> 00:14:00,880 Speaker 1: of the top twenty superpack donors in America, do you 240 00:14:00,920 --> 00:14:04,160 Speaker 1: know how many gave almost exclusively to Democrats. Of the 241 00:14:04,200 --> 00:14:08,880 Speaker 1: top twenty fourteen gave almost exclusively to Democrats, three gave 242 00:14:08,920 --> 00:14:12,360 Speaker 1: about evenly Democrat and Republican, and only two of the 243 00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:17,160 Speaker 1: top twenty gave primarily to Republicans. It's overwhelmingly and by 244 00:14:17,200 --> 00:14:19,720 Speaker 1: the way, the difference in dollars and that cycle twenty 245 00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:24,040 Speaker 1: sixteen cycle h Republicans had one hundred and eighty nine 246 00:14:24,120 --> 00:14:28,120 Speaker 1: million dollars spent supporting their elections. Democrats had four hundred 247 00:14:28,120 --> 00:14:30,600 Speaker 1: and twenty two million dollars. And it was you know, 248 00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:33,400 Speaker 1: and and and you know, Sheldon was bellowing, you know, 249 00:14:33,480 --> 00:14:37,400 Speaker 1: these mysterious dark money donors, they want something for it, 250 00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:40,360 Speaker 1: they want something. You don't give that kind of money 251 00:14:40,360 --> 00:14:41,800 Speaker 1: for nothing. I mean, he was, he was, I was 252 00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:44,680 Speaker 1: really tempted to jump in and be you know, Sheldon, 253 00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:47,240 Speaker 1: that they're decaffeinated brands of the market that are just 254 00:14:47,280 --> 00:14:54,080 Speaker 1: as tasty just to relax their son. But look, if 255 00:14:54,120 --> 00:14:59,000 Speaker 1: you look at this cycle, the fortune five hundred overwhelmingly 256 00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:03,120 Speaker 1: supporting Joe Biden over Donald Trump. Wall Street overwhelmingly supporting 257 00:15:03,160 --> 00:15:09,560 Speaker 1: Joe Biden over Trump. The entire narrative that it's big 258 00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:15,120 Speaker 1: corporate interests supporting Republicans. It's just not right. What you've 259 00:15:15,160 --> 00:15:17,720 Speaker 1: pointed to here, Senator, I think is key because I couldn't. 260 00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:20,000 Speaker 1: I couldn't make sense of it. I knew that he 261 00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:21,960 Speaker 1: was putting on a big show, but the whole time 262 00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:24,360 Speaker 1: I was watching it, I thought, what is the point 263 00:15:24,480 --> 00:15:27,320 Speaker 1: he's trying to make? You know, he had step one 264 00:15:27,880 --> 00:15:31,080 Speaker 1: raise a lot of money. Step two, I don't know. 265 00:15:31,400 --> 00:15:33,040 Speaker 1: Step three you have a judge on the court, but 266 00:15:33,080 --> 00:15:35,080 Speaker 1: then often the judges disappoint the people who want to 267 00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:37,240 Speaker 1: appoint them. Anyway, I just couldn't get what the point was. 268 00:15:37,280 --> 00:15:40,800 Speaker 1: But what you're saying is there's no point about the money. 269 00:15:40,880 --> 00:15:46,480 Speaker 1: It's simply part of a broader performance to delegitimize the court. Yes, 270 00:15:47,640 --> 00:15:50,520 Speaker 1: and that, and it's also to say the court has 271 00:15:50,560 --> 00:15:54,240 Speaker 1: bought and paid for. But it's also to justify a 272 00:15:54,360 --> 00:15:58,720 Speaker 1: democratic power grab and a regulation of speech. And so 273 00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:02,160 Speaker 1: I used my questioning to talk quite a bit about 274 00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:07,160 Speaker 1: what the Democrats want to see from left wing Supreme 275 00:16:07,200 --> 00:16:10,200 Speaker 1: Court justices. As you know, my new book came out 276 00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:12,080 Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago, One Vote Away, How a 277 00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:14,600 Speaker 1: single seat on the Supreme Court can change history? A 278 00:16:14,720 --> 00:16:17,320 Speaker 1: New York Times bestseller, I believe, is that correct? It is, 279 00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:19,400 Speaker 1: and it was the number one bestseller in the country 280 00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:21,040 Speaker 1: on Amazon, So I mean it really A lot of 281 00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:22,680 Speaker 1: people have been buying it. A lot of folks who 282 00:16:23,040 --> 00:16:25,280 Speaker 1: listened to Verdict, thank you for that. I appreciate that 283 00:16:27,320 --> 00:16:31,480 Speaker 1: there's a chapter in the book on Citizens United. And 284 00:16:31,560 --> 00:16:35,240 Speaker 1: so my questioning today, I wanted to explain, you know, 285 00:16:35,280 --> 00:16:37,240 Speaker 1: a lot of folks have heard of Citizens United, but 286 00:16:37,280 --> 00:16:39,000 Speaker 1: they don't know what the case is about. They know 287 00:16:39,120 --> 00:16:44,920 Speaker 1: Democrats hate it, and so I explain Citizens United was 288 00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:50,040 Speaker 1: at its heart about whether we can criticize politicians, and 289 00:16:50,200 --> 00:16:53,320 Speaker 1: in particular, so what happened. Citizens United is a small 290 00:16:53,360 --> 00:16:57,920 Speaker 1: nonprofit organization based in DC. They made a movie that 291 00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:01,880 Speaker 1: was critical of Hillary Clinton, and the Obama Justice Department 292 00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:04,959 Speaker 1: went after them and wanted to be able to find 293 00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:09,080 Speaker 1: them for daring to criticize Hillary Clinton in a movie. 294 00:17:09,520 --> 00:17:11,800 Speaker 1: And the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, 295 00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:15,200 Speaker 1: and there was one exchange at the oral argument Michael 296 00:17:15,200 --> 00:17:19,919 Speaker 1: that was really chilling. Where Justice sam Alito asked the 297 00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:24,800 Speaker 1: lawyer for the Obama Justice Department, said, under your theory 298 00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:30,679 Speaker 1: of the case, can the government ban books? And the 299 00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:33,800 Speaker 1: Obama Justice Department lawyer said, yes, yes, the government can 300 00:17:34,000 --> 00:17:39,119 Speaker 1: ban books if they're critical of a politician. And ultimately 301 00:17:39,160 --> 00:17:44,960 Speaker 1: the court struck that down five to four. But there 302 00:17:44,960 --> 00:17:48,160 Speaker 1: were four justices ready to say that the government can 303 00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:52,600 Speaker 1: ban movies and the government can ban books. And it's 304 00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:55,439 Speaker 1: what I tried to do in the book, want to 305 00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:58,520 Speaker 1: vote away, as every chapter emphasizes, Look, we had four 306 00:17:58,680 --> 00:18:01,720 Speaker 1: votes to say the government, never mind what the First 307 00:18:01,720 --> 00:18:05,080 Speaker 1: Amendment says, never mind free speech. The government has the 308 00:18:05,119 --> 00:18:07,840 Speaker 1: power to ban movies or books if they don't like 309 00:18:07,960 --> 00:18:11,680 Speaker 1: the content of them. That's really terrified. And that's what 310 00:18:11,760 --> 00:18:14,080 Speaker 1: white House and the other Democrats were trying to build 311 00:18:14,080 --> 00:18:17,800 Speaker 1: the predicate for. They want to be in charge, frankly, 312 00:18:17,840 --> 00:18:20,760 Speaker 1: of silencing you, of silencing me, of silencing anyone who 313 00:18:20,800 --> 00:18:23,359 Speaker 1: says something they disagree with. Before we get to mailbag, 314 00:18:23,400 --> 00:18:25,600 Speaker 1: I do want to get to a mailbag question. I 315 00:18:25,640 --> 00:18:28,040 Speaker 1: do have to ask this though, Senator, I know we 316 00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:30,920 Speaker 1: had all been joking on the right that the Democrats 317 00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:34,040 Speaker 1: were going to pull a Cavanaugh on Judge Barrett that 318 00:18:34,080 --> 00:18:37,080 Speaker 1: they were going to accuse her of sexual harassment or 319 00:18:37,119 --> 00:18:40,320 Speaker 1: something like that, and then tell me I'm crazy, tell 320 00:18:40,359 --> 00:18:43,160 Speaker 1: me I misheard it while I was watching today. Did 321 00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:48,880 Speaker 1: Senator Mazie Harrono of Hawaii actually ask Judge Barrett if 322 00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:52,880 Speaker 1: she had sexually harassed anybody since you became a legal adult. 323 00:18:52,960 --> 00:18:57,080 Speaker 1: Have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or 324 00:18:57,080 --> 00:19:01,760 Speaker 1: committed any verbal or physical harassment assault of a sexual nature? No, 325 00:19:01,920 --> 00:19:05,360 Speaker 1: Senator Horono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered into 326 00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:09,600 Speaker 1: a settlement related to this kind of conduct? No, Senator. 327 00:19:11,520 --> 00:19:14,200 Speaker 1: So she did, and I will admit it was one 328 00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:18,159 Speaker 1: of the most incongruous moments. Like, if you were to 329 00:19:18,200 --> 00:19:22,119 Speaker 1: pick perhaps the least likely person on planet Earth to 330 00:19:22,160 --> 00:19:25,760 Speaker 1: sexually harass someone, it may well be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 331 00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:32,760 Speaker 1: I will say in Mazie Horono's defense, and I don't 332 00:19:32,800 --> 00:19:39,520 Speaker 1: often come to Mazie's defense. She consistently asked that question 333 00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:43,880 Speaker 1: of every nominee before her, and she's done that since 334 00:19:43,880 --> 00:19:48,600 Speaker 1: she got elected. And so it's if you're nominated to 335 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:52,160 Speaker 1: be a judge, if you're nominated to be in anything 336 00:19:52,200 --> 00:19:54,439 Speaker 1: where Mazie is going to be on the committee confirming you, 337 00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:58,720 Speaker 1: she will ask that same question. And I actually respect 338 00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:01,880 Speaker 1: that she asked that. I mean, I think it certainly 339 00:20:01,920 --> 00:20:05,840 Speaker 1: caused a lot of nominees to think twice about, Okay, 340 00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:09,159 Speaker 1: how are they going to answer it? And look, I 341 00:20:09,200 --> 00:20:11,399 Speaker 1: think it's a reasonable thing for the Senate to ask, 342 00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:14,840 Speaker 1: and I think it's fine that she applies it even 343 00:20:14,920 --> 00:20:17,320 Speaker 1: handedly and consistently. I think it's actually a good thing 344 00:20:17,359 --> 00:20:20,280 Speaker 1: that she applies it to everyone. Well, a very fine 345 00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:22,480 Speaker 1: kind word to say about Senator her own. And I 346 00:20:22,480 --> 00:20:25,120 Speaker 1: think we're all very pleased that Judge Barrett was able 347 00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:29,479 Speaker 1: to answer that very quickly. They moved on before we go, 348 00:20:29,680 --> 00:20:31,480 Speaker 1: we've only got a couple of minutes left. I do 349 00:20:31,840 --> 00:20:34,120 Speaker 1: want to get to a couple of mail bag questions. 350 00:20:34,880 --> 00:20:37,600 Speaker 1: This first one is from I promise you this is 351 00:20:37,640 --> 00:20:40,679 Speaker 1: not my account. I think it's a listener or verdict. 352 00:20:40,760 --> 00:20:43,679 Speaker 1: The account is verdict Sir Noel's commander of the British Empire, 353 00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:48,320 Speaker 1: not me. What would happen if the Senate majority just 354 00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:52,400 Speaker 1: refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for an extended 355 00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:54,680 Speaker 1: period of time, so not a few months of a campaign, 356 00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:58,680 Speaker 1: but let's say two years or three years, look, the 357 00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:02,800 Speaker 1: seat would remain vacant. You know, it does seem we 358 00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:06,840 Speaker 1: are moving in that direction where I am not sure 359 00:21:06,880 --> 00:21:10,800 Speaker 1: we will see a Senate filling Supreme Court seats for 360 00:21:10,840 --> 00:21:17,120 Speaker 1: the opposite parties president, and it's just judicial nominees. If, 361 00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:22,639 Speaker 1: for example, we started next year with let's suppose Trump 362 00:21:22,720 --> 00:21:26,439 Speaker 1: won and Schumer took the Senate, I think the odds 363 00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:28,840 Speaker 1: are pretty high that they might not even fill any 364 00:21:28,840 --> 00:21:33,280 Speaker 1: Court of Appeals judge seats. At a minimum, if you 365 00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:36,600 Speaker 1: had the Senate and the president of opposing parties, there 366 00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:40,840 Speaker 1: would have to be major compromise on the nominee to 367 00:21:40,960 --> 00:21:43,800 Speaker 1: get someone through, because I think it has become such 368 00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:48,320 Speaker 1: a partisan divide in terms of what people are looking 369 00:21:48,359 --> 00:21:51,120 Speaker 1: for in judges that I think both parties right now 370 00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:59,280 Speaker 1: would be hesitant to although to be fair, Republicans have 371 00:21:59,400 --> 00:22:04,159 Speaker 1: demonstrate did a lot more willingness to confirm Democratic nominees 372 00:22:05,600 --> 00:22:09,520 Speaker 1: than vice versa. I remember, I think it was Justice Kennedy, 373 00:22:09,760 --> 00:22:13,800 Speaker 1: but as recently as Justice Kennedy was confirmed unanimously, Justice 374 00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:18,320 Speaker 1: Ginsberg was confirmed overwhelmingly. Now it seems that all of 375 00:22:18,320 --> 00:22:21,000 Speaker 1: these are the are the biggest battleground of all well 376 00:22:21,080 --> 00:22:24,920 Speaker 1: looks and Soda Mayor and Kagan. So both of Obama's appointees, 377 00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:27,360 Speaker 1: there were a number of Republicans that voted to confirm them. 378 00:22:27,840 --> 00:22:30,280 Speaker 1: So there were many more Republicans I forget. I wasn't 379 00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:33,600 Speaker 1: there for Sodomayor and Kagan, but so Lindsay Graham voted 380 00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:36,000 Speaker 1: to confirm both of them. You remember when he got 381 00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:39,840 Speaker 1: Lindsay got so mad at the Kavanaugh thing, and he 382 00:22:39,920 --> 00:22:42,720 Speaker 1: kind of blew up and had sort of the viral moment. 383 00:22:42,800 --> 00:22:45,320 Speaker 1: In fact, I told you when Lindsay did that, my 384 00:22:45,359 --> 00:22:47,760 Speaker 1: mom texted me and said, Okay, I love Lindsay Graham. 385 00:22:47,840 --> 00:22:52,680 Speaker 1: Now that was in the Kavanaugh hearing it And by 386 00:22:52,680 --> 00:22:56,640 Speaker 1: the way, my mom is quite conservative, and I think 387 00:22:56,640 --> 00:23:00,680 Speaker 1: it's fair to say she did not previously lovely. And 388 00:23:01,080 --> 00:23:04,480 Speaker 1: so the passion with which he unloaded. But one of 389 00:23:04,520 --> 00:23:06,399 Speaker 1: the things he said there is he said he voted 390 00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:10,160 Speaker 1: to confirm both Sodamar and Kagan, and the Democrats had 391 00:23:10,280 --> 00:23:14,920 Speaker 1: none of that reciprocity for Trump's nominees. One last question 392 00:23:14,960 --> 00:23:16,720 Speaker 1: before we go. I know this is on a lot 393 00:23:16,720 --> 00:23:19,080 Speaker 1: of people's minds because they keep asking me about it. 394 00:23:19,320 --> 00:23:22,439 Speaker 1: This is from coal. Coal is a poly sized student 395 00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:29,080 Speaker 1: in Wisconsin. What is the difference between originalism and textualism. 396 00:23:29,080 --> 00:23:32,240 Speaker 1: We hear these terms use as if they are synonyms, 397 00:23:32,240 --> 00:23:35,359 Speaker 1: but they're not synonyms, right, So they're not. And the 398 00:23:35,480 --> 00:23:40,960 Speaker 1: simplest difference is originalism refers to the Constitution and textualism 399 00:23:40,960 --> 00:23:44,800 Speaker 1: refers to statutes, which are federal laws passed by Congress. 400 00:23:44,840 --> 00:23:48,399 Speaker 1: But it's not the Constitution. So let's unpack that a 401 00:23:48,400 --> 00:23:51,240 Speaker 1: little bit. But that's the simplest way to think about it. 402 00:23:51,320 --> 00:23:57,960 Speaker 1: So originalism is, how do you go about understanding the 403 00:23:58,040 --> 00:24:01,639 Speaker 1: lang the terms of the Constitution should an originalism is 404 00:24:01,680 --> 00:24:06,359 Speaker 1: you should understand the terms based on the original public meaning, 405 00:24:06,440 --> 00:24:10,040 Speaker 1: not what the framers were thinking in their heads, not 406 00:24:10,160 --> 00:24:15,760 Speaker 1: their subject the intentions correct. So let's take for example, 407 00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:18,040 Speaker 1: the Second Amendment, the right to keep in bear arms. 408 00:24:18,280 --> 00:24:21,480 Speaker 1: The operative language of the Second Amendment is the right 409 00:24:21,480 --> 00:24:23,800 Speaker 1: of the people to keep in bear arms shall not 410 00:24:23,920 --> 00:24:28,160 Speaker 1: be infringed. And if you look at Justice Scalia's opinion 411 00:24:28,240 --> 00:24:31,719 Speaker 1: in Heller, which is the landmark Second Amendment case, it 412 00:24:31,800 --> 00:24:34,960 Speaker 1: has a great deal of analysis on what the phrase 413 00:24:35,160 --> 00:24:40,919 Speaker 1: the right of the people was understood by the American 414 00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:44,080 Speaker 1: people when the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. 415 00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:46,640 Speaker 1: The Second Amendment was ratified, so in seventeen ninety one. 416 00:24:46,680 --> 00:24:48,840 Speaker 1: What that and the right of the people, It turns 417 00:24:48,880 --> 00:24:53,399 Speaker 1: out as a term of art, it's used elsewhere in 418 00:24:54,000 --> 00:24:56,439 Speaker 1: the Bill of Rights, it's used the right of the 419 00:24:56,440 --> 00:25:00,800 Speaker 1: people peaceably to assemble, so that it's clear an individual 420 00:25:00,880 --> 00:25:03,280 Speaker 1: right there. It's also you. That's in the First Amendment, 421 00:25:03,280 --> 00:25:06,080 Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be 422 00:25:06,160 --> 00:25:10,080 Speaker 1: secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. So one of the 423 00:25:10,160 --> 00:25:12,320 Speaker 1: things Scalia walked through is the right of the people. 424 00:25:12,320 --> 00:25:14,840 Speaker 1: Who is a term of art that always referred to 425 00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:20,600 Speaker 1: an individual right, something that you, as an individual can claim. 426 00:25:20,640 --> 00:25:26,040 Speaker 1: And what keeping bare arms means not what James Madison 427 00:25:26,119 --> 00:25:28,679 Speaker 1: was thinking, but what the American people, when when it 428 00:25:28,720 --> 00:25:33,720 Speaker 1: was ratified, understood it to be. That's originalism. Textualism is 429 00:25:33,760 --> 00:25:41,359 Speaker 1: how you interpret a statute, a federal law, and the 430 00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:45,040 Speaker 1: principle is it's actually it has similarities, and that it 431 00:25:45,160 --> 00:25:51,080 Speaker 1: is again the plain, plain meaning of the language based 432 00:25:51,240 --> 00:25:57,879 Speaker 1: on the public what was understood, what a reasonably informed 433 00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:02,240 Speaker 1: observer what understood the language to be. Now there's some 434 00:26:02,320 --> 00:26:05,320 Speaker 1: potential tension between the two and actually Some of the 435 00:26:05,400 --> 00:26:10,439 Speaker 1: very last questioning today was from Senator John Kenny or Kennedy, 436 00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:12,399 Speaker 1: a Republican, who got into some of the tension on it. 437 00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:14,800 Speaker 1: And it's interesting, you know, Kennedy's a very smart guy. 438 00:26:15,440 --> 00:26:19,000 Speaker 1: He kind of plays sort of like a Matlock country lawyer, 439 00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:22,960 Speaker 1: but he's he's got some real great gray matter. And 440 00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:26,119 Speaker 1: I think he was enjoying pushing Judge Barrett. He was 441 00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:29,840 Speaker 1: having he was he was like a pig and slop. 442 00:26:29,880 --> 00:26:32,159 Speaker 1: He was having so much fun kind of just pushing 443 00:26:32,200 --> 00:26:37,840 Speaker 1: her on this. There is some arguable tension in that 444 00:26:38,080 --> 00:26:44,439 Speaker 1: textualism avoids relying on what's called legislative history. And to 445 00:26:44,640 --> 00:26:46,480 Speaker 1: understand that some of it is you have to go 446 00:26:46,520 --> 00:26:48,840 Speaker 1: back to how courts you used to interpret statutes. If 447 00:26:48,840 --> 00:26:51,800 Speaker 1: you go back to the nineteen sixties the nineteen seventies, 448 00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:57,680 Speaker 1: there were decisions that would start with they'd basically ignore 449 00:26:57,760 --> 00:27:01,000 Speaker 1: the language of the law, they'd ignore the text of 450 00:27:01,040 --> 00:27:04,959 Speaker 1: the statue, and they'd say, well, here was the legislative intent, 451 00:27:05,160 --> 00:27:08,320 Speaker 1: here's what Senator so and so said on the floor 452 00:27:08,600 --> 00:27:11,240 Speaker 1: he wanted to do, so that's what the statutes trying 453 00:27:11,280 --> 00:27:14,840 Speaker 1: to do, or here's what this committee report said. They 454 00:27:14,840 --> 00:27:18,400 Speaker 1: were trying to do. By the way, committee reports are 455 00:27:18,440 --> 00:27:21,280 Speaker 1: often written by staffers who are never elected, and they'll 456 00:27:21,320 --> 00:27:26,480 Speaker 1: put things in committee reports to influence litigation later on. 457 00:27:26,600 --> 00:27:29,400 Speaker 1: So it was a particular way of sort of hiding 458 00:27:29,480 --> 00:27:33,280 Speaker 1: something in there to influence a case that's not the 459 00:27:33,400 --> 00:27:36,440 Speaker 1: law of the United States. And so the leading proponent 460 00:27:36,480 --> 00:27:41,879 Speaker 1: of textualism as a means of interpreting federal statues was 461 00:27:41,960 --> 00:27:45,879 Speaker 1: Justice Scalia. And when he started really the nineteen eighties, 462 00:27:45,960 --> 00:27:48,000 Speaker 1: started in the seventies, but really the nineteen eighties, and 463 00:27:48,040 --> 00:27:50,719 Speaker 1: went onto the Court of Appeals in the nineteen nineties 464 00:27:50,760 --> 00:27:54,760 Speaker 1: and two thousands on the Supreme Court, he refused to 465 00:27:54,800 --> 00:27:57,520 Speaker 1: look at legislative history and he said it's illegitimate, it's 466 00:27:57,520 --> 00:27:59,320 Speaker 1: not the law. I'm not going to look at it. 467 00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:03,960 Speaker 1: A majority of the Supreme Court doesn't agree with that methodology. 468 00:28:05,320 --> 00:28:09,280 Speaker 1: But Scalia almost single handedly changed how courts look at statutes. 469 00:28:09,320 --> 00:28:12,320 Speaker 1: Now everyone starts with a text now, I mean, it's 470 00:28:12,320 --> 00:28:16,480 Speaker 1: really an amazing If you grab any statutory interpretation case 471 00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:20,000 Speaker 1: from the sixties compared to today, it's night and day. 472 00:28:20,080 --> 00:28:22,920 Speaker 1: Where even the most lefty judges start with the text. 473 00:28:22,960 --> 00:28:26,920 Speaker 1: They might disregard it, but they at least the analysis 474 00:28:27,000 --> 00:28:30,800 Speaker 1: begins there, and so that and I think that's a 475 00:28:30,920 --> 00:28:35,520 Speaker 1: much fairer and more predictable way to decide cases. One 476 00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:40,720 Speaker 1: of the things you want in a nation of laws 477 00:28:41,000 --> 00:28:46,480 Speaker 1: is predictable outcomes. And you know, if you're a private 478 00:28:46,520 --> 00:28:48,920 Speaker 1: citizens you're trying to determine what's the law say, the 479 00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:50,360 Speaker 1: easiest way to do it is go look at the 480 00:28:50,400 --> 00:28:52,200 Speaker 1: text of the law and if it's clear that, if 481 00:28:52,280 --> 00:28:55,240 Speaker 1: you know that's going to be the answer, you can 482 00:28:55,320 --> 00:28:59,840 Speaker 1: behave accordingly. If a judge might follow the language, might not, 483 00:29:00,240 --> 00:29:02,680 Speaker 1: might set it aside if he or she disagrees. That's 484 00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:05,600 Speaker 1: much harder to predict when you don't know what judge 485 00:29:05,640 --> 00:29:07,560 Speaker 1: is going to be deciding some case in the future. 486 00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:12,200 Speaker 1: And so that's that's textualism in our remaining few seconds here, 487 00:29:12,240 --> 00:29:15,920 Speaker 1: speaking of predictable outcomes, do you have any predictions for 488 00:29:16,000 --> 00:29:19,280 Speaker 1: what we'll go on during the hearings tomorrow or is 489 00:29:19,280 --> 00:29:22,480 Speaker 1: it anybody's guess? So tomorrow we're gonna have another round 490 00:29:22,480 --> 00:29:25,240 Speaker 1: to hear of questions. It'll be shorter tomorrow, it's only 491 00:29:25,240 --> 00:29:28,400 Speaker 1: twenty minutes so instead of thirty minute round. So the 492 00:29:28,480 --> 00:29:31,840 Speaker 1: day presumably will end several hours earlier, which will be good. 493 00:29:34,840 --> 00:29:37,360 Speaker 1: I think the Dems have run out of steam. I 494 00:29:37,400 --> 00:29:44,000 Speaker 1: think they've lost lost a lot of their energy. I 495 00:29:44,040 --> 00:29:46,080 Speaker 1: will say, by the way, Michael, I've got to credit you. 496 00:29:46,120 --> 00:29:48,200 Speaker 1: One of the better moments and in the hearing, was 497 00:29:48,240 --> 00:29:52,560 Speaker 1: when my colleague John Cornan asked Judge Barrett said, you know, 498 00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:54,320 Speaker 1: what notes do you have in front of you? And 499 00:29:54,400 --> 00:29:57,000 Speaker 1: she hadn't. She didn't have any binder, she had nothing 500 00:29:57,080 --> 00:29:59,720 Speaker 1: she was reading from, and she just held up a 501 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:05,120 Speaker 1: blank notepad. And I will say, I'm impressed, Michael, that 502 00:30:04,920 --> 00:30:07,240 Speaker 1: that that she held up what was apparently a page 503 00:30:07,280 --> 00:30:10,200 Speaker 1: from your book. It was entirely blank, and that's what 504 00:30:10,280 --> 00:30:13,440 Speaker 1: she was relying on. And let me sk you something, Michael, 505 00:30:13,840 --> 00:30:16,960 Speaker 1: how do I write a book on the US friggin 506 00:30:17,040 --> 00:30:19,200 Speaker 1: Supreme Court and she reads from your book and not 507 00:30:19,280 --> 00:30:23,000 Speaker 1: my book at the hearing. You know, a senator, you've 508 00:30:23,040 --> 00:30:26,640 Speaker 1: shared so much of your wisdom with me at some point, 509 00:30:26,680 --> 00:30:28,760 Speaker 1: I'm more than happy to brief you on my book. 510 00:30:29,040 --> 00:30:31,960 Speaker 1: I'm really honored you've you've played, i think a more 511 00:30:32,240 --> 00:30:36,200 Speaker 1: direct role in the history of this Supreme Court nomination 512 00:30:36,600 --> 00:30:39,600 Speaker 1: and confirmation process. I am pleased that I could play 513 00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:43,000 Speaker 1: a modest role as a judge. Barrett raised what was 514 00:30:43,080 --> 00:30:46,280 Speaker 1: clearly a page from my blank book. We will look 515 00:30:46,320 --> 00:30:48,720 Speaker 1: forward to tomorrow. By the way out a reprint. You 516 00:30:49,280 --> 00:30:51,320 Speaker 1: might want that image on the cover of your book 517 00:30:51,360 --> 00:30:55,320 Speaker 1: now for holding up the blank page. At a minimum, 518 00:30:55,360 --> 00:30:57,600 Speaker 1: that's got to be like your online ad for the book. 519 00:30:57,760 --> 00:30:59,600 Speaker 1: I know, I wonder does it count as a blurb 520 00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:01,880 Speaker 1: if she didn't say anything out of Perhaps perhaps we'll 521 00:31:01,920 --> 00:31:05,080 Speaker 1: add it to the next edition, Senator Best of Black 522 00:31:05,080 --> 00:31:08,600 Speaker 1: tomorrow at the hearings. Until then, I'm Michael Knowles. This 523 00:31:08,680 --> 00:31:20,640 Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with 524 00:31:20,680 --> 00:31:23,440 Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom 525 00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:27,320 Speaker 1: and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting 526 00:31:27,360 --> 00:31:31,959 Speaker 1: conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In twenty 527 00:31:32,040 --> 00:31:35,360 Speaker 1: twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate 528 00:31:35,400 --> 00:31:38,959 Speaker 1: to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican 529 00:31:39,000 --> 00:31:40,520 Speaker 1: Party across the nation.