Speaker 1: Last Thursday night, in this incredible term for the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: we had just gotten a major ruling on the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: So Senator Cruz and I sat down middle of the night.
Speaker 1: He had just come from the Senate, from the Capitol,
Speaker 1: and we were discussing this issue from the Court, what's
Speaker 1: going on with the legislators trying to pass gun control.
Speaker 1: And the very next morning we got the ruling in Dabbs,
Speaker 1: the most important Supreme Court decision, certainly of my lifetime,
Speaker 1: one of the most important ever in the history of
Speaker 1: the United States. And so we came out emergency episode,
Speaker 1: breaking news, Verdict episode. But we still want to bring
Speaker 1: this to you. This is still incredible news. While Dabbs
Speaker 1: is the big headline, there are so many other great
Speaker 1: things that have come out of this Court term. So
Speaker 1: without further ado, here is our discussion of the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: A major loss for Second Amendment rights and a major
Speaker 1: win for Second Amendment rights, all in the same day,
Speaker 1: and in true Verdict style. It is the middle of
Speaker 1: the night. Senator Cruz is coming straight off the Senate floor.
Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. This episode, a Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruise is brought to you by American Hartford Gold. Now,
Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
Speaker 1: the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
Speaker 1: Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your
Speaker 1: hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
Speaker 1: your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
Speaker 1: to get started. All it takes is a short phone
Speaker 1: call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
Speaker 1: right to your door, or if you prefer inside your
Speaker 1: four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy.
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three,
Speaker 1: or if you prefer texting. You can text the word
Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two. Again. The phone
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word cactus to six five
Speaker 1: five three two. This episode a verdict that Ted Cruise
Speaker 1: is brought to you by Jenna Cell. How old does
Speaker 1: your mirror say you are? You can delay this question
Speaker 1: by five, ten, even fifteen years with Jennie Cell's new
Speaker 1: ultra retinal serum. You can see it sitting right here
Speaker 1: on the desk. Here's a testimonial from Marina. Marina lives
Speaker 1: in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product, My skin
Speaker 1: loves it. I have spent more money, she says, on
Speaker 1: creams over the years, enough to pay off my house.
Speaker 1: Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has
Speaker 1: changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying
Speaker 1: high with Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid.
Speaker 1: This works to hydrate your skin at the cellular level.
Speaker 1: It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects.
Speaker 1: And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use
Speaker 1: your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking likewise,
Speaker 1: we know that you use our face products, our skincare products,
Speaker 1: and it's fun. 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 genu cell dot
Speaker 1: com slash cactus. It's spelled g n u cel dot
Speaker 1: com slash cactus, genua cell dot com slash cactus. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, and
Speaker 1: I am totally cheating this time because it is Thursday
Speaker 1: evening right now when we are filming this, and it
Speaker 1: is a lovely nine thirty pm where I am here
Speaker 1: in California, Senator. For you, it is after midnight, you've
Speaker 1: just come off the Senate floor and we're about to
Speaker 1: start a show. You know, it really feels like we're
Speaker 1: reliving our past, our origin story. I think all verdicts
Speaker 1: ought to be filmed after midnight, and the show would
Speaker 1: get much better if we did a tequila shot after
Speaker 1: every topic. Well, I did want to take some tequila
Speaker 1: shots after I saw the machinations, and the Senate today
Speaker 1: and the Democrats and the squishes pushing gun control. You
Speaker 1: saw it a lot closer than I did. What happened,
Speaker 1: you know, today was a really frustrating day. Today the
Speaker 1: United States Senate passed the most significant gun control bill
Speaker 1: since nineteen ninety four. And it's even more frustrating. So
Speaker 1: in the last podcast, we talked about the broader issues.
Speaker 1: But I told you then that I would have more
Speaker 1: to say in the hours and days coming forward. Well
Speaker 1: earlier this week, in fact, right after the last podcast,
Speaker 1: I introduced my own legislation, and my own legislation. I
Speaker 1: teamed up with John Barrasso, who is the number three
Speaker 1: Republican in the in the conference leadership. He is the
Speaker 1: senator from Wyoming. Great guy, great friend, great conservative. Actually
Speaker 1: we've had John Barrasso on the show, That's right, a
Speaker 1: former guest on Verdict. Yes, So we teamed up and
Speaker 1: introduced legislation that was called Cruz Barrasso. By any measure,
Speaker 1: the legislation I introduced and I fought for, would do
Speaker 1: much much more, would be much more effective, was much
Speaker 1: more serious in stopping mass murders and stopping mass shootings
Speaker 1: and keeping our kids safe, and yet every single Democrat
Speaker 1: lined up against it, and they said, we don't want
Speaker 1: to double the number of cops in schools, We don't
Speaker 1: want to prosecute gun criminals. Instead, our objective is to
Speaker 1: meet our political priorities of restricting the Second Amendment rights
Speaker 1: of law abiding citizens. It's really frustrating and it's maddening.
Speaker 1: So you come up with the legislation with John Barosso,
Speaker 1: and you you bring it in, you introduce it into
Speaker 1: the Senate, and then while you're waiting for Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: to come sign on as a co sponsor, because this
Speaker 1: basic stuff. If Democrats really wanted to solve this, then
Speaker 1: they would they would do it. Meanwhile, the Democrats are
Speaker 1: picking off fourteen Republicans to support their legislation, which, whatever
Speaker 1: you think about gun control, is just far less relevant
Speaker 1: to these actual shootings than legislation like yours would be.
Speaker 1: And then the legislation that the Democrats proposed passes the Senate.
Speaker 1: So it's done, right, it's it's over. It's going to
Speaker 1: go to Biden's desk, and then it's going to go
Speaker 1: It has to go to the House next, but the
Speaker 1: House is expected to take it up in the House,
Speaker 1: I will pass it, so it will go to Biden's desk,
Speaker 1: but the House has to pass it first, and the
Speaker 1: Democrats there are going to support it. And look, the
Speaker 1: Democrats understand, this is the camel's nose under the tent.
Speaker 1: The provision in this bill that is the most problematic
Speaker 1: is the red flag provision. So this this bill provides
Speaker 1: significant federal funding for states to pass so called red
Speaker 1: flag laws. And the problem is red flag laws really
Speaker 1: can invite abuse because they're a mechanism to take away
Speaker 1: the guns from law abiding citizens. And it varies state
Speaker 1: by states, but we've seen some blue states enact red
Speaker 1: flag laws where they can take away your guns with
Speaker 1: little to no due process, with to know judicial protection. Now,
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment is not just some sort of privilege
Speaker 1: that various political communities have decided to pass. The Second
Speaker 1: Amendment is a constitutional right. The right to keep in
Speaker 1: bear arms. No matter what you think of it is
Speaker 1: a basic civil right. So my question is, how can
Speaker 1: the Democrats and these fourteen Republicans lower the threshold so
Speaker 1: much to deprive someone of their basic civil rights? And
Speaker 1: will this if it's challenged in court, would would this
Speaker 1: kind of legislation be overruled. So it depends the Democrats
Speaker 1: by and large don't care. And more and more Congressional
Speaker 1: Democrats are becoming quite candid that their objective is gun confiscation,
Speaker 1: that they want to take guns away from the American people.
Speaker 1: They used to hide that. More and more Democrats are
Speaker 1: being very open. Beto O'Rourke famously said, hell, yes, we're
Speaker 1: going to take your R. Fifteen. I mean, they're yes,
Speaker 1: embracing it. Justice John Paul Stevens, a lion of the left,
Speaker 1: wrote an op ed saying we should repeal the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: That is more and more becoming The position of the
Speaker 1: hard left is, screw the Second Amendment, we want your guns.
Speaker 1: With Republicans, it's more complicated a number of Republicans. So
Speaker 1: we had at lunch today with the Senate Republicans. We
Speaker 1: had a hot lunch. It's it's as hot as an
Speaker 1: AI can remember in years. People were angry and yelling
Speaker 1: at each other. This this this look. It's an emotional issue.
Speaker 1: It's a divisive issue on the question of red flag laws.
Speaker 1: What the defenders of this bill we're saying as well, gosh,
Speaker 1: no courts have struck down the state laws as being unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: No courts have concluded that they don't adequately protect due process. Well, look,
Speaker 1: there are lots of things that are unconstitutional that have
Speaker 1: yet to be adjudicated. And if your standard is whatever
Speaker 1: New York or Connecticut does is just oki doki by me,
Speaker 1: unlessen until a court structs it strikes it down, you're
Speaker 1: on pretty dangerous territory. So I found that argument particularly unpersuasive.
Speaker 1: We heard, we have heard in the Judiciary Committee significant
Speaker 1: testimony about how these laws have been abused. And one
Speaker 1: of the things I said on the Senate floor is,
Speaker 1: as a consequence of this bill tonight, we will see
Speaker 1: people assaulted and lose their life. So we had a
Speaker 1: big argument today at lunch over my amendment. So we
Speaker 1: started the day with me being told by multiple senators, Oh,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer is going to schedule a vote on your amendment.
Speaker 1: He's agreed. We're gonna have one amendment. It's your amendment.
Speaker 1: It's the cruise barosso amend. We're gonna vote on that
Speaker 1: and then we'll be done. And at lunch several of
Speaker 1: my colleagues asked, Okay, is your amendment? Is it simply
Speaker 1: an addition to this bill adding new provisions, or is
Speaker 1: it a substitute. A substitute is delete what you got
Speaker 1: and replace it with this right, And I said, guys,
Speaker 1: it's a substitute. I don't like what you're doing. What
Speaker 1: you're doing is bad. It's a bad bill. It undermines
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment. So I don't want to add my
Speaker 1: bill to yours and undermine the Second Amendment and do
Speaker 1: something good. I'd just like to do something good. I'd
Speaker 1: like us actually to pass a straight up bill going
Speaker 1: after criminals and keeping people safe. I will tell you
Speaker 1: my Republican colleagues who are in support of this bill
Speaker 1: were furious. That was the cause of much of the
Speaker 1: fireworks at lunch, as they're like, we don't want to substitute.
Speaker 1: We want you just to just add our bill, add
Speaker 1: your bill ours, and we'll be fine with it. In
Speaker 1: your estimation, Senator, I don't want to make you play
Speaker 1: psychobabble or anything like that. But is your read from
Speaker 1: your squishier colleagues who backed the DEM's gun control bill.
Speaker 1: Is your read that they did it for political reasons
Speaker 1: to appease their purple or blue constituencies, or did they
Speaker 1: do it because of conviction, because they think it's actually
Speaker 1: good to take away guns from more Americans. Oh look,
Speaker 1: there were a number of them from pretty red states
Speaker 1: that weren't from blue or purple states. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not an armchair shrink. I think it is consistently
Speaker 1: the case that when a Republican compromises with the Democrats
Speaker 1: and does what the Democrats want, that the press will
Speaker 1: praise them. It's an easy path. If you want the
Speaker 1: press to call you a statesman, just do what the
Speaker 1: Democrats want, and as a Republican, it's simple. One hundred
Speaker 1: percent of the time you give into the Democrats, the
Speaker 1: press says, oh, you're so wise, you're so enlightened. And
Speaker 1: it's a pattern we see over and over again. You know,
Speaker 1: you think about this bill. This is a bill that
Speaker 1: united all the Democrats. Every Democrat voter for this bill,
Speaker 1: the most left wing Democrats happily voted for this bill,
Speaker 1: and less than a third of the Republicans voted for
Speaker 1: this bill. More than a few of us were asking
Speaker 1: of our leadership, why are we teeing up a bill
Speaker 1: that unites all the Democrats and divides the Republicans and
Speaker 1: makes us fight with each other. I get by this
Speaker 1: makes sense for Chuck Schumer, Why does this make sense
Speaker 1: for us? But when I said my amendment is going
Speaker 1: to be a substitute, I'm not willing to just rubber
Speaker 1: stamp what you're doing. It made the proponents of the
Speaker 1: bill pretty angry, and Schuber ended up saying no amendments
Speaker 1: at all, and so he blocked amendments. Now, the way
Speaker 1: you block amendments, and let's get into a little bit
Speaker 1: of our kne Senate procedure. When you have a bill
Speaker 1: pending on the floor, there is what's called the amendment tree,
Speaker 1: which is there are open slots for amendments. And what
Speaker 1: Schumer did is what's called filling the tree, which is
Speaker 1: he brings up the bill, then he files an amendment,
Speaker 1: he files another amend and he fills the legs on
Speaker 1: the tree. And typically the blocking amendment is something really
Speaker 1: minor and inconsequential. It's something like changing a date from
Speaker 1: September first to September second. I mean, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what it is. It's just an amendment to block that
Speaker 1: slot so no one else can file an amendment. So
Speaker 1: because Schumer refused to allow any amendments, what I did
Speaker 1: tonight is I exercised the prerogatives of a senator to
Speaker 1: move to table a pending amendment, and in particular, I
Speaker 1: moved to table Schumer's amendment that was filling the tree,
Speaker 1: that was blocking the tribe. And under Senate rules, a
Speaker 1: motion to table an amendment is a privileged motion with
Speaker 1: no debate, that forces a vote. So it was a
Speaker 1: way for me to force a vote. And I stood
Speaker 1: up and said, look, I moved to table this in
Speaker 1: order to force a vote on Cruiz Barosso. And this
Speaker 1: is a chance for everyone here to decide which one
Speaker 1: you want. Do you want to pass a bill that
Speaker 1: is serious about going after violent criminals, about locking up
Speaker 1: gun criminals, and that provides much much more funds and
Speaker 1: resources to make schools safe, to double the number of
Speaker 1: cops in schools to protect our kids. Or do you
Speaker 1: want to pass a political bill that satisfies the partisan
Speaker 1: urges of the Democrats. That's your choice. That's what we
Speaker 1: voted on tonight, and unfortunately that vote failed. We got
Speaker 1: a total of thirty nine votes to table the amendment,
Speaker 1: which meant all the Democrats and eight Republicans voted to
Speaker 1: block any more amendments to prevent consideration of the serious
Speaker 1: legislation that actually would put real resources on the table
Speaker 1: to stop violent crime. So that means that six Republicans
Speaker 1: backed the Democrats gun control bill but also didn't didn't
Speaker 1: try to shoot down your amendment. Correct a way to
Speaker 1: sort of split the baby there, But I guess we'll
Speaker 1: take what we can get. Yeah, we picked off about
Speaker 1: half the Republicans who were supporting this, and so that
Speaker 1: was that was an incremental benefit. And by the way, look,
Speaker 1: I'll also say we were working with gun rights groups
Speaker 1: so that the NRA actively supported my amendment and publicly
Speaker 1: urged Senators to vote for it. Why because it targets
Speaker 1: the bad guys, it targets criminals. It actually focuses on
Speaker 1: how you stop gun crimes rather than disarming law abiding citizens.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, a majority of the Senate wanted to go
Speaker 1: down a political road instead. So the Democrats run the Senate,
Speaker 1: so the Democrats get their way on their gun bill.
Speaker 1: The Democrats do generally do not run the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: We have a vaguely conservative, vague majority on the Court,
Speaker 1: and the Court handed down a major victory for the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment today. That was the New York Rifle and
Speaker 1: Pistol Association versus Bruin, And it was a case that
Speaker 1: decided whether and how New Yorkers are allowed to keep
Speaker 1: and bear arms. Could you describe a little bit about
Speaker 1: the case. Sure, it's a big case. It is a
Speaker 1: big victory, and it is caused for celebration. So New
Speaker 1: York has in place a law that severely restricts the
Speaker 1: ability of New Yorkers to carry a firearm outside the home. So,
Speaker 1: if you want to conceal carry a handgun, New York
Speaker 1: had a handful of very narrow circumstances in which you
Speaker 1: were allowed to do it, but as a practical matter,
Speaker 1: you couldn't. It was illegal to carry a firearm outside
Speaker 1: your home. So if you're on the subway, if you
Speaker 1: want to protect yourself, New York made it illegal to
Speaker 1: do that. This was a lawsuit saying, look, making it
Speaker 1: illegal to protect yourself, it's contrary to the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: which says the right to keeping bear arms shall not
Speaker 1: be infringed. The Supreme Court agreed. The decision is six three,
Speaker 1: so it was a big majority decision. Justice Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: wrote the majority, it's a fantastic majority opinion, and it
Speaker 1: vigorously gave life to the Second Amendment, and it said, look,
Speaker 1: you've got a right to protect your own life. The
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. It's not about hunting, it's not about skeet shooting,
Speaker 1: it's not about recreational use of firearms. The Second Amendment
Speaker 1: is about the fundamental right you have, you, Michael Knowles,
Speaker 1: to defend your life, to protect your life, and to
Speaker 1: defend your family. And that right of life and self defense,
Speaker 1: the ability to both keep and to bear arms, to
Speaker 1: carry them with you to protect yourself is fundamental. And
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said restrictions that are not in the
Speaker 1: tradition of what has been allowed with the right to
Speaker 1: keep in bear arms are beyond what is allowed under
Speaker 1: the Constitution. It was a big, big victory. I remember
Speaker 1: when I was living in New York, I did a
Speaker 1: little research to see what it would take to allow
Speaker 1: me to carry a weapon. Even just to have a
Speaker 1: weapon in my apartment. It was difficult enough, but to
Speaker 1: carry a weapon outside of my apartment, and it was
Speaker 1: it was virtually impossible. And in the law at issue here,
Speaker 1: New York decided that you had to prove that you
Speaker 1: had a cause to have to keep in bear this weapon,
Speaker 1: and it would it would seem to me that the
Speaker 1: cause would be the government's trying to take away my
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights. That would seem to be a sufficient
Speaker 1: cause to exercise my Second Amendment rights. Will this have
Speaker 1: ripple effects around the rest of the country, So it will.
Speaker 1: I think you will see litigation against other significant constraints
Speaker 1: the right to keep in bare arms. And I think
Speaker 1: you will see gun grabbing restriction struck down. The left
Speaker 1: wants to make it hard, if not impossible, for you
Speaker 1: to protect yourself. And I think this decision, this decision
Speaker 1: is the biggest Second Amendment decision since Heller versus District Columbia, which,
Speaker 1: as you know, I led a coalition of states in
Speaker 1: Heller defending the Second Amendment right to keep in bear arms.
Speaker 1: That was a landmark five four decision. Antonin Scalia wrote
Speaker 1: the opinion. It's probably the finest majority opinion. Justice Scalia
Speaker 1: ever wrote. In this case, I led an amicus brief
Speaker 1: for twenty four senators defending the Second Amendment right to
Speaker 1: keep in bare arms. So we filed a brief of
Speaker 1: the court, and the court agreed with us. The Court
Speaker 1: agreed with us down the line that the right to
Speaker 1: keeping bare arms is real, it's significant, it's meaningful, it
Speaker 1: needs to be protected. And you know, the Bill of
Speaker 1: Rights is not optional. It's not a recommendation. If you
Speaker 1: don't agree with it, who cares? It is in the Constitution.
Speaker 1: If you don't agree with it, try to amend the Constitution.
Speaker 1: But you don't get to ignore it just because you'd
Speaker 1: like to ignore it. And so I think this was
Speaker 1: a big decision and a really important long term victory
Speaker 1: for the Second Amendment. I will tell you something amazing.
Speaker 1: So imagine for a second, Michael, that you're the lawyer
Speaker 1: who argues the New York case wins a six three
Speaker 1: landmark case defending a constitutional right. Imagine you are also
Speaker 1: a partner at a law firm who's just one a
Speaker 1: landmark victory at the Supreme Court. What do you think
Speaker 1: the reward and the response from your law firm would
Speaker 1: be and should be. I would imagine I should get
Speaker 1: a big, fat, gigantic bonus. I think I should get
Speaker 1: an upgrade to my office if I'm in some little
Speaker 1: kind of I'd like that corner office now, maybe a
Speaker 1: nice leather chair into coco bolo desk, that's what I
Speaker 1: would expect. Look, all of that makes sense, and you
Speaker 1: got it almost exactly right. What happened in this case
Speaker 1: is the lawyer who argued the case was Paul Clement.
Speaker 1: He was the former Solicitor General of the United States. Paul,
Speaker 1: someone I know very well, is an incredibly talented advocate.
Speaker 1: He won six to three. He was a partner at
Speaker 1: Kirkland and Ellis, and immediately after the decision came down,
Speaker 1: Kirkland fired he was fired. They fired him, and they
Speaker 1: fired Aaron Murphy, who was also his partner. What the
Speaker 1: law firm said is, we have decided we are no
Speaker 1: longer willing to defend the Second Amendment. So you, Paul
Speaker 1: and you Aaron, have a choice. Fire your client, who
Speaker 1: is a long standing client, tell him you will no
Speaker 1: longer represent them, or get the hell out of the firm.
Speaker 1: And Paul and Aaron, God bless them, said nice knowing
Speaker 1: you guys, see you later. We won't let the door
Speaker 1: hit us on the ass on the way out. And
Speaker 1: they left the firm today, literally within hours of winning
Speaker 1: this landmark decision. Do you want to know something even
Speaker 1: more amazing? I can't imagine what would be more amazing
Speaker 1: than that. But sure, this is not the first time
Speaker 1: this has happened to Paul Clement, So more than a decade,
Speaker 1: you're going to say, this is not the first time
Speaker 1: that this has happened in the history of the court.
Speaker 1: This poor man, this has happened to multiple times. So
Speaker 1: over a decade ago. Paul was a partner at King
Speaker 1: and Spaulding, one of the top Supreme Court litigators on
Speaker 1: the planet, and the US House of Representatives, controlled by
Speaker 1: Republicans at the time, hired Paul to defend the Defensive
Speaker 1: Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress that Barack Obama
Speaker 1: refused to defend and so the Republican House wanted somebody
Speaker 1: to defend it in the Supreme Court. They hired Paul.
Speaker 1: King and Spalding said either refused to represent the United
Speaker 1: States House of Representatives or leave the firm, and Paul
Speaker 1: left the firm. He formed his own firm. That particular
Speaker 1: case he lost five four, so he didn't he didn't
Speaker 1: win it, but he got four votes at the court.
Speaker 1: It was it was a very important case. He went
Speaker 1: to a little litigation boutique, practiced there for years and
Speaker 1: then twenty sixteen Kirkland and Ellis, which is a big
Speaker 1: whiteshoe firm based in Chicago, one of the most profitable
Speaker 1: firms in America, brought him in and brought his team in.
Speaker 1: He was representing the New York State Rifle Association. He
Speaker 1: had these clients. He was doing the Second Amendment representation
Speaker 1: at the time, and Kirkland agreed at the time, you
Speaker 1: can keep these clients. We know who your clients are.
Speaker 1: You can keep your clients. It's all good with us.
Speaker 1: And the thing to understand about this, Michael, this is
Speaker 1: woke corporate America. Law firms are the handmaidens for the
Speaker 1: giant companies, and this is woke general counsels saying our
Speaker 1: politics matters more to us than anything else. And this
Speaker 1: is law firms being cowards and saying, okay, then we've
Speaker 1: decided certain parts of the Bill of Rights we don't
Speaker 1: care about. If their clients that are unpopular, we don't
Speaker 1: care about. And they literally are chasing away. They're marquee
Speaker 1: like like Paul is their top Supreme Court litigator. So
Speaker 1: by the way, they're also telling all the corporate clients,
Speaker 1: if you have a Supreme Court case, oh well, we
Speaker 1: can't do it anymore. We don't have the big dog
Speaker 1: anymore because our politics is more important than actually representing
Speaker 1: your interests. It really is shameful what's happened to law
Speaker 1: firms and what has happened to corporate America that is,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess it's a mark of honor for
Speaker 1: Paul in the sense that the guy is obviously very
Speaker 1: very effective, very very successful, and the soft power that
Speaker 1: has a lot of power in this country. Corporate power
Speaker 1: really doesn't like him and is punishing him. Good on him.
Speaker 1: He should he should fire the pink slip that he received.
Speaker 1: All in all, especially as as we're looking at these
Speaker 1: big wins and big potential wins from the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: you're seeing that rise in the vitriol from the left
Speaker 1: and danger as well. We will have to leave it
Speaker 1: there on that sort of ominous cliffhanger with lots of
Speaker 1: big decisions awaiting their final conclusion. But that's it for
Speaker 1: right now. It's it's one o'clock. I know that's an
Speaker 1: early night for you, senator, but we will let you
Speaker 1: get the sleep. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is
Speaker 1: being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack,
Speaker 1: a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations,
Speaker 1: and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs
Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates
Speaker 1: running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.