Speaker 1: Falling up on the Supreme Courts. A number of Republicans,
Speaker 1: as you know, and as you've been asked about, to
Speaker 1: have spoken out about the president's pledge to pick a
Speaker 1: black woman for the hot sport. How do you respond,
Speaker 1: specifically to Ted Cruz who overnight solve it offensive and
Speaker 1: defensive the black woman they really make that WoT. Well,
Speaker 1: here's what I would say. First, Just over a year ago,
Speaker 1: the previous president also promised to select a woman for
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Not only were there no complaints about
Speaker 1: choosing a nominee from a specific demographic from the same corners,
Speaker 1: but there was widespread praise of now Justice Barrett on
Speaker 1: those grounds, with Republican lawmakers widely highlighting that they thought
Speaker 1: this was positive for women in America. So take Senator
Speaker 1: Cruz himself. He had no objection to Donald Trump promising
Speaker 1: he'd nominated a woman in twenty twenty. Repeat, no objection
Speaker 1: at all. In fact, he praised her on these grounds
Speaker 1: during praised her on these grounds. The nominee during her
Speaker 1: confirmation hearing, Senator Cruz said quote, I think you're an
Speaker 1: amaze using role model for little girls. What advice would
Speaker 1: you give little girls? When President Reagan Honors campaign pledge
Speaker 1: to place the first woman on the court. He said
Speaker 1: it symbolized the unique American opportunity. There is no outcry
Speaker 1: around that. The President's view is that after two hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty years of their Supreme Court being in existence,
Speaker 1: the fact that not a single black woman has served
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court is a failure in the process,
Speaker 1: not a failure or a lack of qualified Black women
Speaker 1: to serve as Supreme Court justices. This episode, A Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz is brought to you by Thompson's Cigar.
Speaker 1: I don't have to sell you. The gentleman on this
Speaker 1: show like cigars. Well so does my husband most times. Actually,
Speaker 1: that's what we do after the show. We go smoke
Speaker 1: cigars and tell ourselves what a great show it was.
Speaker 1: That's why you've got to check out Thompson's Cigar. Whether
Speaker 1: you're working from home or just kicking back after a
Speaker 1: week of being essential, there's no better way to relax
Speaker 1: than with a premium cigar. They've got the best prices
Speaker 1: on the best brands in the business, from Macanudo to
Speaker 1: Monte Cristo. Looking to try a new, rare, top rated blend,
Speaker 1: but don't want to splurge on box as well, check
Speaker 1: out Thompson Cigars Tour, a smattering of five different blends
Speaker 1: delivered to your doorstep each month. Now. Michael and my
Speaker 1: husband have been fans of Thompson even before they became
Speaker 1: a partner. In fact, I think Thompson Cigar sponsors to
Speaker 1: Michael Moles Show as well. No one has more selection
Speaker 1: than Thompson. Their customer service is the best. So sit
Speaker 1: back and take a break from all the craziness with
Speaker 1: a cigar from Thompson Cigar Company. This guy, these guys
Speaker 1: rarely do offers, but right now Thompson is offering our
Speaker 1: listeners fifteen percent off orders over seventy five dollars or
Speaker 1: twenty percent off orders over ninety nine dollars. To take
Speaker 1: advantage of these incredible savings, simply go to Thompson Cigar
Speaker 1: dot com and use the promo code cactus when you're
Speaker 1: ready to check out. That's website is Thompson Thompson Cigar
Speaker 1: dot com and use promo code cactus. Thompson Cigar dot
Speaker 1: Com promo code cactus. This episode of Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruiz is also sponsored by American Hartford Gold I'm sure
Speaker 1: I'm not the only one who's noticed everything is getting expensive.
Speaker 1: We are in the biggest economic crisis since two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, with the government that's printing trillions and trillions
Speaker 1: of dollars. Consumer prices are the highest we've seen in
Speaker 1: thirty years. Inflation is certainly here to stay, and if
Speaker 1: the government continues it's out of control printing and spending,
Speaker 1: the dollar could continue its free fall and lose its
Speaker 1: coveted role as the world reserve currency. So how do
Speaker 1: you protect your money, your retirement, your savings. Well, American
Speaker 1: Heartford Gold can show you how to head your heart
Speaker 1: earned savings against inflation by helping you diversify a portion
Speaker 1: of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. They'll even
Speaker 1: help move your existing IRA or four O one K
Speaker 1: out of the volatile stock market into a precious metals IRA,
Speaker 1: and they make it easy. They are the highest rated
Speaker 1: firm in the country, with an A plus rating from
Speaker 1: the Better Business Bureau and therefore thousands of satisfied clients.
Speaker 1: And if you call them right now, they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first qualifying order. So don't wait. Call them now
Speaker 1: call eight five five, seven, six, eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: That's eight five five seven, six eight one eight eight three,
Speaker 1: or text cactus to six five five three two. Again
Speaker 1: that's eight five five seven, six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or text cactus to six five five three two. This
Speaker 1: episode of Verdict is also brought to you by stamps
Speaker 1: dot Com. If you've got a small business, and I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you do, you know that there's
Speaker 1: nothing more valuable than your time, so stop wasting it
Speaker 1: on trips to the post office. Stamps dot com makes
Speaker 1: it easy to mail and ship right from your own computer.
Speaker 1: You can save time and money with stamps dot com
Speaker 1: send letters and packages for less with discounted rates from USPS,
Speaker 1: UPS and more. Stamps dot Com brings the services of
Speaker 1: the Postal Service and UPS shipping right to your computer.
Speaker 1: So whether you're in office sending invoices, a side hustle
Speaker 1: Etsy shop, or a full blown warehouse shipping out orders,
Speaker 1: stamps dot com will make your life easier. All you
Speaker 1: need is a computer and a standard printer, no special
Speaker 1: supplies or equipments. Within minutes, you're up and running printing
Speaker 1: official postage for any letter, any package, anywhere you want
Speaker 1: to send and you'll get exclusive discounts on postage and
Speaker 1: shipping from usps and ups. Once your mail is ready,
Speaker 1: all you have to do is schedule a pickup or
Speaker 1: drop it off. No traffic, no lines, there's no risk.
Speaker 1: With our promo code Verdict, you get a special offer
Speaker 1: that includes a four week trial plus free postage and
Speaker 1: a digital scale. No long term commitments or contracts. Just
Speaker 1: go to stamps dot com, click on the microphone at
Speaker 1: the top of the homepage and type in Verdict. That's
Speaker 1: stamps dot Com promo code Verdict. Never go to the
Speaker 1: post office again. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles and Liz am I correct to assume
Speaker 1: that there is going to be even more content for
Speaker 1: the Verdict Plus subscribers after the show. You are correct
Speaker 1: to assume that. Thank you, Michael, Thank you Senator for
Speaker 1: having me back on. I'm excited to introduce today the
Speaker 1: Cloak Room on Verdict Plus. This is only for Verdict
Speaker 1: Plus subscribers. You can join us over there Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot Com Slash Plus. It's a brand new
Speaker 1: series with Senator Ted Cruz, co hosted by me, Liz Wheeler. Basically,
Speaker 1: I'm going to pick his brain like I would in
Speaker 1: a strategy session. It's a behind the scenes peak into
Speaker 1: details of what goes on in DC, just like the
Speaker 1: actual cloakroom of the Senate. Today, we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about how to apply a constructed foreign policy to a
Speaker 1: real life situation like Ukraine. We're going to talk about
Speaker 1: Whoopie Goldberg, and we're going to talk about Tom Brady again.
Speaker 1: You can join us Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com
Speaker 1: slash plus. In fact, to get a one month free
Speaker 1: trial on your annual subscription. You can use the promo
Speaker 1: code Cloakroom. That is promo code Cloakroom at Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot Com Slash plus for a one month
Speaker 1: free trial on your annual subscription. That sounds absolutely magnificently
Speaker 1: is I can't wait to head over there, and I
Speaker 1: know the new show is going to be a huge success.
Speaker 1: And then after that, we are of course going to
Speaker 1: launch a show with the Senator and the Cactus. We
Speaker 1: are going We're going to and then we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a show with me and you and the Cactus without
Speaker 1: the Senator. There is going there is a lot of
Speaker 1: content for you over there at Verdict Plus. So please
Speaker 1: head on over subscribe, do not hesitate to join today. Liz,
Speaker 1: We will see you a little bit later. Senator First,
Speaker 1: you're in trouble again. You have, You've gotten us both
Speaker 1: in troubled again. Verdict some weeks ago was I think
Speaker 1: the first podcast in American history to be referenced at
Speaker 1: during a White House press briefing. Now I think we're
Speaker 1: also the second podcast in history to be referenced because
Speaker 1: of your comments on this show about the Supreme Court nominee.
Speaker 1: You know, I gotta say, the media and Democrats are
Speaker 1: really phenomenal. So we saw our last podcast. We talked
Speaker 1: a lot about the Supreme Court, and you and I
Speaker 1: talked about how it is offensive that Biden threw down
Speaker 1: that the only criterion he would look look for in
Speaker 1: nominating a replacement for Justice Briars that it had to
Speaker 1: be a black woman, and the media lost their mind.
Speaker 1: I mean, there were stories all over the country with
Speaker 1: media reporters saying this is terrible. And you know, you
Speaker 1: look at Jensaki there, she actually engages in the logical
Speaker 1: sleight of hand, were actually the illogical slight of hand
Speaker 1: the left does often because she says, well, if you
Speaker 1: don't support a quota, then you don't like whoever it is.
Speaker 1: Whatever the characteristic is about the person that they're putting
Speaker 1: a quota in place. So for example, she says, well,
Speaker 1: when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, you said she was
Speaker 1: a great role model for little girls. Well, of course
Speaker 1: she is the fact that that you're saying someone's a
Speaker 1: woman and a mom and an amazing scholar and an
Speaker 1: amazing judge. Yes, she is a woman. We are aware
Speaker 1: of that, you know. Do I think Clarence is Thomas's
Speaker 1: life story growing up as a poor kid an African
Speaker 1: American and Pinpoint Georgia overcoming poverty is an amazing story. Absolutely, yes.
Speaker 1: But here's the weird thing. Democrats today, the modern left
Speaker 1: in this includes all of the corporate media. They embrace
Speaker 1: discriminating based on race. They believe in discriminating based on race.
Speaker 1: So there's a difference between nominating someone who's a woman,
Speaker 1: or nominating someone who's a black man, or nominating someone
Speaker 1: who's a black woman, and saying, at the outset in
Speaker 1: this instance, ninety four percent of Americans are categorically ineligible.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what their qualifications are I Joe Biden
Speaker 1: won't consider them. And you know it's it's interesting, Michael,
Speaker 1: if anyone else tried to do this in your business.
Speaker 1: Let's say you're running a business. Let's say Daily Wire
Speaker 1: puts up an ad we're looking for a copy editor.
Speaker 1: Only black women need apply, or only Native American men
Speaker 1: need to apply, or only white guys need to apply.
Speaker 1: It would be obviously illegal, It would be obviously wrong.
Speaker 1: And what Biden is doing here, and it's amazing. Look,
Speaker 1: he could have done the exact same thing, said we're
Speaker 1: going to look for qualified jurists, for someone with a
Speaker 1: great record, and nominated someone who happened to be a
Speaker 1: black woman, and that would have been perhaps have been
Speaker 1: a wonderful thing. But but you know, one of the
Speaker 1: tells that shows that Biden actually really doesn't care about
Speaker 1: crossing that threshold. Do you know who is one of
Speaker 1: the very few people on planet Earth to have ever
Speaker 1: filibustered a black woman nominated to be a federal judge.
Speaker 1: I think I know the answer. But who that would be?
Speaker 1: Joseph Biden. So when George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown,
Speaker 1: an incredibly qualified jurist, to the DC Circuit, the Federal
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals. What did Joe Biden do he filibuster
Speaker 1: not once twice. Not only Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer did it.
Speaker 1: Dick Durbin did it. The Democrats all stood together and said,
Speaker 1: not that black woman, because she actually believes in the
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. We want a left wing activist. And
Speaker 1: it's bizarre that that it is become an article of
Speaker 1: faith among the left, that discriminating based on race, doing
Speaker 1: it explicitly at the beginning, we are only looking at
Speaker 1: black women. That's that almost takes on like this, this
Speaker 1: religious significance to them. They believe in it. And I
Speaker 1: got to say, you know, I'm reminded of something Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts said. He said, it's a sordid business that's
Speaker 1: diving us up by race and drawing distinctions. Look, when
Speaker 1: we were putting this podcast together, I was looking for
Speaker 1: a host. But I didn't say, give me an Italian yalee.
Speaker 1: I said, let's let's find the host. Look at Italian yale.
Speaker 1: I would have that would have limited the field somewhat
Speaker 1: and we would have landed on you. Nonetheless, it did.
Speaker 1: It's true. You know, I don't think anyone has ever
Speaker 1: put out a call for an Italian Yale, they usually
Speaker 1: they say no, thank you need not apply. But that's
Speaker 1: true because it was color blind and degree blind casting.
Speaker 1: I got to do it. And I think your point
Speaker 1: is really important here, which is Joe Biden could have
Speaker 1: fulfilled his campaign pledge and just happened to have nominated
Speaker 1: a black woman. But what he did was so crass,
Speaker 1: it was so tactless, and if it were any other industry,
Speaker 1: it would be illegal to say I'm taking ninety four
Speaker 1: percent of Americans out of the running here. If you
Speaker 1: look at public polling, people don't like this. The majority
Speaker 1: of Americans think that Joe Biden should have considered all
Speaker 1: of the nominees, even if he ended up with a
Speaker 1: black woman in the end. So I think the proof
Speaker 1: of the pudding there is in the tasting. Yet seventy
Speaker 1: six percent of Americans disagree with what Biden's doing. And
Speaker 1: let's take for an example, because SAKI in the media,
Speaker 1: this is their talking point. They're going to is oo,
Speaker 1: Trump did this with Amy Coney Barrett. Well, actually no,
Speaker 1: he didn't. So what they're referring to is that Trump
Speaker 1: at a rally just a few days before he announced
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett's a nomination, said he's gonna he's gonna
Speaker 1: nominate someone, and she's a woman. Well, yes, he was
Speaker 1: aware she was a woman, so once he decided who
Speaker 1: he was going to nominate, he acknowledged that she was
Speaker 1: a woman. But if you think about how Trump did this,
Speaker 1: Trump did it in a way There's never been a
Speaker 1: president who's done it this way. He put out a list,
Speaker 1: a detailed, specific list of potential Supreme Court nominees while
Speaker 1: he was still a candidate for president. He had twenty
Speaker 1: one names honored initially. Then he supplemented that list. He
Speaker 1: added ten more names, and in fact, we've talked about
Speaker 1: on the podcast how the ten more names he added
Speaker 1: were a condition of my endorsing Trump. He added Mike
Speaker 1: Lea to that list, and he added Neil Gorsuch to
Speaker 1: that list. That was the second list, and then he
Speaker 1: put out a third list, where among others, he stuck
Speaker 1: me on it. So I think the third list got
Speaker 1: much much weaker. The quality dropped dramatically, precipitously. But look
Speaker 1: Trump's lists, they were racially diverse. They had men, women,
Speaker 1: they had had folks of all sorts. Of different races,
Speaker 1: but they were jurists selected because Trump believed they would
Speaker 1: be faithful to the Constitution. They had jurispredential outlook that
Speaker 1: would protect the Bill of Rights. And in this instance,
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett was the third nomination Trump had made,
Speaker 1: So when Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh, he had interviewed Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett. He had sat down and interview her, so
Speaker 1: she didn't get that slot, but he knew he liked her.
Speaker 1: In fact, I talked to Trump at the time and
Speaker 1: even after Kavanaugh, He's like, she's going to be the
Speaker 1: next one. She's really good. As far as I know.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden hasn't interviewed anyone. He doesn't know who any
Speaker 1: of the potential candidates are. He's just said, if you're
Speaker 1: not fitting my racial category and gender category, you are ineligible.
Speaker 1: So Merritt Garland, no matter how good Merritt Garland might
Speaker 1: be in his interview with Joe Biden, he's the wrong
Speaker 1: skin color. And today we had a hearing in the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee. One of Biden's nominees is an Asian American
Speaker 1: woman who's been nominated to be a federal judge, and
Speaker 1: she wrote in law school. She was actually in law
Speaker 1: school with me, a year behind me. I didn't know
Speaker 1: her in law school, but she was a year behind
Speaker 1: me in law school. She wrote this article that is
Speaker 1: really radical, that is actually blasting Asian Americans who oppose
Speaker 1: discrimination against Asian Americans. She calls them neo conservative Asian Americans,
Speaker 1: and she explains that really woke Asian Americans should embrace
Speaker 1: Harvard and Yale and other elite schools discriminating against Asian Americans.
Speaker 1: That that's really a sign of being woke. And my
Speaker 1: opening question, Michael, to her was is racial discrimination wrong? Now?
Speaker 1: That ought to be a really simple question to answer.
Speaker 1: Is racial discrimination wrong? Absolutely? Hell yes. She refused to
Speaker 1: answer it. She wouldn't answer it. She said, well, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has said blah blah. I said no, no no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, I'm asking you is it wrong? And by
Speaker 1: the way, she wouldn't defend her article. She just said, wow,
Speaker 1: I don't know what I was thinking. I said, I
Speaker 1: didn't ask you what you were thinking. Do you agree
Speaker 1: with what you said? She wouldn't answered. It's much the
Speaker 1: same thing the far left supports as a matter of principle,
Speaker 1: discriminating based on race and it's it's weird, it's and
Speaker 1: it's really Look, it's the same thing that's in critical
Speaker 1: race theory. Again. They believe race is the defining characteristic
Speaker 1: and if they can discriminate based on race and it
Speaker 1: suits their politics, they're all for it. So this is
Speaker 1: playing out as I think a lot of us expected
Speaker 1: it would, which is the left has come out. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has come out in favor of explicit racial discrimination,
Speaker 1: and conservatives have objected to that and said racial discrimination
Speaker 1: is a bad thing. And then the Democrats have come
Speaker 1: back and said, well, you're racists. If you oppose racial discrimination,
Speaker 1: you're racists and you hate black ladies or whatever. Okay,
Speaker 1: we all knew that was going to happen. That is
Speaker 1: the playbook. They can't fire you for you're elected by
Speaker 1: the people of Texas, so unfortunately for them, you're in
Speaker 1: your job for the time being. They can fire other
Speaker 1: people who have said exactly the same thing. And you
Speaker 1: saw it happen at Georgetown Law School. Elias Shapiro, he
Speaker 1: is a libertarian lawyer. I believe you're friends with him.
Speaker 1: I think you know Elias Ilia has been around a
Speaker 1: long time. He's a very well known lawyer. He came
Speaker 1: out and made almost the same sort of comment. He said,
Speaker 1: this is bad. We shouldn't be choosing people based on
Speaker 1: race and sex. We should just choose the best available candidate.
Speaker 1: He has been placed on administrative leave. There are struggle
Speaker 1: sessions going on in the law school at Georgetown right now.
Speaker 1: There is a crying session hosted by the dean of
Speaker 1: the law school. It looks like they're going to fire
Speaker 1: Ilia at this point. What has happened to American law schools.
Speaker 1: Let me just start by saying there should never be
Speaker 1: a crying session at any university or any law school.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of a league of their own. There's
Speaker 1: no crying in baseball, and if you want to be
Speaker 1: a lawyer, don't be crying. Like, if you disagree with
Speaker 1: what Elias said, argue against it. Yeah. I know Elio well.
Speaker 1: He's a very smart lawyer. He's a libertarian, he's been
Speaker 1: with Cato forever. He's a scholar, he's well respected. I
Speaker 1: don't know how Georgetown screwed up and hired him in
Speaker 1: the first place, because he's not a radical leftist, and
Speaker 1: I thought they insisted you must be a radical leftist
Speaker 1: to get hired, but they did. And actually it's it's
Speaker 1: more ridiculous even than you described. So Ilia was arguing
Speaker 1: that that Biden should nominate the most qualified left of
Speaker 1: center judge, and he advocated someone in particularly advocated Sree
Speaker 1: Strin of Assen. So Sreesan of Assen is the chief
Speaker 1: judge of the DC Circuit. I know Sree. Srie and
Speaker 1: I clerked together on the Fourth Circuit. He's very smart,
Speaker 1: very talented Supreme Court litigator, was a Supreme Court clerk.
Speaker 1: Sree is an Indian American Liberal Democrat judge. And Elio argued, well,
Speaker 1: he'd be a great choice for Biden to nominate. And
Speaker 1: then Elia had a stupid phrase because he said he
Speaker 1: shouldn't go with a lesser nominee, and he used the
Speaker 1: word lesser. It was a badly phrase tweet, right, And
Speaker 1: what happened is the left said, well, you're saying all
Speaker 1: African American women are lesser, and it's like, well, no,
Speaker 1: he didn't say that. He said he thought that Tree
Speaker 1: was the most qualified nominee. Therefore every other nominee would
Speaker 1: be a lesser nominee. But I'm sorry, that's that's logic
Speaker 1: and reason and and and the woke mob. They're ready
Speaker 1: to burn you to the ground that they don't want
Speaker 1: to engage it is. It's it's amazing that that they
Speaker 1: want to cancel you. And and look, I think Elia
Speaker 1: may well be fired for it. They put him on
Speaker 1: unpaid administrative leave. You know, what does it say that
Speaker 1: our law schools don't believe in in anything resembling free speech,
Speaker 1: That you can get fired for your job by arguing
Speaker 1: for a liberal Democrat to be nominated to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: which is what Ilia did. That the very idea of
Speaker 1: considering people based on their qualifications is now anathema to
Speaker 1: the left. It is a vicious I mean, cancel culture
Speaker 1: is alive. And well, if they could cancel me, they would.
Speaker 1: The only reason they can't is that I'm elected by
Speaker 1: twenty nine million Texans. It and so that they and
Speaker 1: you think of the interorum effect. It has not only
Speaker 1: is Ilia potentially losing his job, but every other professor
Speaker 1: that's terrified to open their mouth, every other person in
Speaker 1: their job that the mob will come and say fire them.
Speaker 1: It really is ridiculous. Well, I give the student radicals,
Speaker 1: I give them a little bit of credit, actually a
Speaker 1: credit at least for their honesty. I don't give them
Speaker 1: credit for sobbing in front of their dean and demanding
Speaker 1: people's heads on pikes. No, you can't say heads on pike.
Speaker 1: Remember Steve Bannon a podcast said we want heads on pikes,
Speaker 1: and they accused him of calling for murder for remember,
Speaker 1: the nutty people are really nutty, So you can't use
Speaker 1: that phrase anymore. You're right, only metaphorical pikes and figurative heads.
Speaker 1: But what the student asked was, listen this guy, Elias Shapiro.
Speaker 1: He's a lecturer at Georgetown Law and he's the director
Speaker 1: of the Center for the Constitution. Seems like an unobjectionable
Speaker 1: sort of place, but he advocates an originalist position on
Speaker 1: interpreting the Constitution. And what the student asked was why
Speaker 1: do we need this, Why do we need this center,
Speaker 1: Why do we need this perspective? Why do we need
Speaker 1: originalism to be taught at Georgetown Law? And I thought
Speaker 1: it was actually a pretty good question, in that the
Speaker 1: law school overwhelmingly is leftist. The law school does not
Speaker 1: teach students generally speak, that originalism is a good or
Speaker 1: valid interpretive principle. They're trying to churn out leftist, leftist lawyers,
Speaker 1: and so why do they need it? Why does Georgetown,
Speaker 1: a left wing law school, need to have these pesky
Speaker 1: conservatives making all the students cry well, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the view of a lot of the left. And I'll
Speaker 1: give you at least one reason. Let's assume you don't
Speaker 1: care about an intellectual diversity. Let's assume you don't care
Speaker 1: about learning anything other than the orthodoxy and propaganda that
Speaker 1: you're being spoon fed. Presumably at least some of the
Speaker 1: students at Georgetown Law want to practice law. They would
Speaker 1: actually like to be practicing lawyers, and presumably that means
Speaker 1: they'd like to go in a courtroom and argue to
Speaker 1: judges that the judges should do what is in their
Speaker 1: client's interest. I can tell you they're a heck of
Speaker 1: a lot of judges and the district courts and the
Speaker 1: courts of appeals in the US Supreme Court that believe,
Speaker 1: I think quite rightly, that the text of the Constitution
Speaker 1: and the text of the Statute is controlling, and that
Speaker 1: you know that the regional understanding of that text has
Speaker 1: at a minimum a major interpretive weight. You can disagree
Speaker 1: on how much weight, and there are disagreements among judges.
Speaker 1: But if you got a law school that is graduating
Speaker 1: lawyers who don't know what originalism is, who don't know
Speaker 1: how to argue on originalist basis, you're going to graduate
Speaker 1: crappy lawyers. You're going to graduate lawyers who don't know
Speaker 1: how to actually litigate in court. And part of the
Speaker 1: problem is in some of these law schools they're okay
Speaker 1: with this because you've got a bunch of deans and
Speaker 1: professors and Ivory towers who don't actually engage in the
Speaker 1: practice of law, and it's just all politics for him instead. Well,
Speaker 1: that is a sort of silver lining. I hope that
Speaker 1: Eliot can keep his job. But if he can, and
Speaker 1: if the cancel culture mob really claims all these originalist scalps,
Speaker 1: at least the next generation of liberal lawyers will not
Speaker 1: perform very well in front of conservative judges. And Michael,
Speaker 1: I'll point out also, so the left's game, they say
Speaker 1: at the outset, we're going to discriminate based on race.
Speaker 1: In this case, we know Joe Biden is going to
Speaker 1: nominate a black woman. We also know from the pattern
Speaker 1: of Biden's nominees that the odds are overwhelming whoever he
Speaker 1: nominates will be a radical left wing activist, because most
Speaker 1: of the judicial nominees Biden's made this past year have
Speaker 1: been radical left wing activist. But we also know the
Speaker 1: next step in this game, they're going to say anyone
Speaker 1: that opposes the radical left wing activist is a racist
Speaker 1: and sexist who hates black women. That that's their gameplay.
Speaker 1: And I mentioned, you know, when Joe Biden and the
Speaker 1: other Democrats filibuster Janie Rogers Brown, she was a black woman,
Speaker 1: but of course there they just didn't want a constitutionalist.
Speaker 1: There's another example. The same time they filibuster Janie Rogers Brown,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden also filibustered a guy named Miguelistrata. Miguelistrata, it's
Speaker 1: a Hispanic, an amazing Supreme Court advocate. Supreme Court Clerk
Speaker 1: George W. Bush nominated him to the DC Circuit. The
Speaker 1: Democrats had a real tough problem because Miguel was unquestionably
Speaker 1: qualified and there was nothing in his record that was disqualifying.
Speaker 1: And actually one of the Democratic staffers for Ted Kennedy
Speaker 1: wrote a memo to Ted Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: along with Joe Biden. The Democratic staffer says we must
Speaker 1: defeat Miguel Estrada, Why because he is Hispanic. I'm quoting there.
Speaker 1: They say we must defeat him because he is Hispanic.
Speaker 1: And it was widely anticipated if Miguel had been confirmed
Speaker 1: to the DC Circuit that Bush would put him on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and he would be the first Hispanic
Speaker 1: ever on the Supreme Court. And so not only our
Speaker 1: Democrats willing to discriminate based on race when they're favoring
Speaker 1: someone who meets their ideology, they are even more eager
Speaker 1: to discriminate on race against someone who disagrees with their ideology.
Speaker 1: And there was Joe Biden filibustering an Hispanic inly qualified nominee.
Speaker 1: Now is it because I think he hates Hispanics? No,
Speaker 1: he's a leftist who hates anyone who disagrees with his
Speaker 1: orthodoxy and is willing to divide based on race. And
Speaker 1: he believes in his heart, like most Democrats, that discriminating
Speaker 1: based on race, if they think the cause is righteous
Speaker 1: and just, is a good thing. And I think it
Speaker 1: is a terrible thing in America to discriminate on race period. Well,
Speaker 1: I hope Eliot Shapiro can make it through. They're trying
Speaker 1: to cancel him. There is an even more prominent person
Speaker 1: than a libertarian law professor who's got a cancel attempt
Speaker 1: on him right now. That would be not a conservative,
Speaker 1: not even really I think a libertarian. That would be
Speaker 1: a left winger, a guy who supported Bernie Sanders, Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: who has been up in backed into a corner. Now
Speaker 1: he's got some of the most powerful voices of the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies coming after him. We're talking Neil Young, we're
Speaker 1: talking Joan Mitchell, people who at one time actually were
Speaker 1: somewhat relevant, and it looks like it looks like he's
Speaker 1: actually sort of on the ropes. So I gotta say, Michael,
Speaker 1: just at the outset, who knew you Neil Young was
Speaker 1: still live? Who knew Joni Mitchell was still a lie?
Speaker 1: You know? Graham Natch, Peter Frampton. I mean, we've got
Speaker 1: every geriatric rocker who was playing when I was in
Speaker 1: diapers and you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye.
Speaker 1: That's when these guys had their heyday. And I gotta say,
Speaker 1: I think it's funny as hell that a bunch of
Speaker 1: seventy and eighty year old rock and roll stars from
Speaker 1: prior eras got more pressed this week than they've had
Speaker 1: in thirty years. And what they're saying is bizarre. They're saying,
Speaker 1: we really don't like that that many people are listening
Speaker 1: to Joe Rogan. And I think maybe they have a
Speaker 1: plan here, which is nobody wants to listen to their songs.
Speaker 1: So if they get big tech to ban the things
Speaker 1: that they're actually listening to, maybe you'll have no more
Speaker 1: choice but to listen to their songs because they'll be
Speaker 1: the only things left. I mean, it really is Assinine,
Speaker 1: Neil Young and Crosbie Stills and Nash went on a
Speaker 1: free speech tour in two thousand and six that was
Speaker 1: named of the Tour, and I think people are beginning
Speaker 1: to wake up to this fact that maybe they weren't
Speaker 1: so much in favor of free speech. Maybe they just
Speaker 1: wanted to smash whatever standards existed of the day and
Speaker 1: they wanted to just install their own standards. And now
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan is contradicting that. So they are the defenders
Speaker 1: of the entrenched power. But the thing that's crazy to
Speaker 1: me is, as you say, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, these
Speaker 1: people have not been relevant in decades and yet they
Speaker 1: do seem to be potentially getting Joe Rogan not to
Speaker 1: back down, but to permit a disclaimer on his controversial
Speaker 1: episodes to get more left wing guests on. I mean,
Speaker 1: it does seem that they really are putting a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure on them. Well, you raise a very good point.
Speaker 1: I'd say two things in response. One, I hope Rogan
Speaker 1: doesn't give in. I mean, look, he's got it's been
Speaker 1: reported like one hundred million dollar contract with Spotify. One
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars is a lot of leverage. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, he has shown a lot of courage, a
Speaker 1: lot of boldness. But but I have to assume Spotify
Speaker 1: they haven't given in yet, but to the extent I
Speaker 1: mean Spotify is kind of at the intersection of big
Speaker 1: tech and Hollywood music. So you've got to assume everyone
Speaker 1: in that world is arguing surrender, surrender, surrender, give in
Speaker 1: to the woke mob. And and I do think it
Speaker 1: will do real damage to free speech if Rogan knuckles under,
Speaker 1: because what people will say is, if they could force
Speaker 1: Rogan to comply, how does anyone else have a chance.
Speaker 1: But you bring up the hundred million dollars, Senator, Let's
Speaker 1: say you're Joe Rogan. And look, Joe Rogan seems like
Speaker 1: a perfectly principled guy. Let's say he weren't. Let's say
Speaker 1: he's totally unscrupulous and he's looking at that big paycheck. Sure,
Speaker 1: it would be a big blow to the American free
Speaker 1: speech tradition if he backs down. But what about numero uno?
Speaker 1: What about Joe Rogan? What what incentive does he have
Speaker 1: not to just give in here? Look, the only incentive
Speaker 1: his integrity that his viewers listen to him because they
Speaker 1: believe he's speaking from the heart and he's telling the truth.
Speaker 1: And I got to say, you know, anytime you sell
Speaker 1: out for cash and you're intimidated, when you give into
Speaker 1: the mob, it does lessen your credibility. And I want
Speaker 1: to give him a lot of props. He has shown
Speaker 1: a ton of courage. I also think, you know, he
Speaker 1: it really got his attention when CNN went after him
Speaker 1: for Iver Mecton. He has become a fantastic defender of
Speaker 1: free speech. I think that's really important. And one thing
Speaker 1: that it's important I think for Rogan to understand everyone
Speaker 1: else to understand, is when the mob comes after you,
Speaker 1: it's not even about the topic you were out. So
Speaker 1: we were talking a minute ago about Biden's Supreme Court nominee.
Speaker 1: I sent a tweet today somewhat tongue in cheek, which
Speaker 1: was simply Candice Owens for Supreme Court. Yeah. But you know,
Speaker 1: if Biden said it must be a black woman, you
Speaker 1: and I both know Candice. We like Candice. She is
Speaker 1: both black and female. According to the left stated criterion,
Speaker 1: she is an obvious choice. And it's funny like the
Speaker 1: twitter verse and their media stories written about my tweet,
Speaker 1: We're like, oh my god, Cruz thinks Candace. As far
Speaker 1: as I know, I don't think Candice is a lawyer.
Speaker 1: She isn't a lawyer. I don't know about it. I
Speaker 1: am assuming if she has the qualifications to be a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice, I am unaware of those. But and
Speaker 1: she's a fantastic podcast host and thinker and provocateur illustrating
Speaker 1: the idiocies of the left. But but what I've enjoyed
Speaker 1: is since that tweet, watching leftist explain no, no, no,
Speaker 1: not that black woman. You you can oppose people, and
Speaker 1: we oppose her because she's conservative. We can hate on her.
Speaker 1: We mean only leftist black women. It is. It's all ideology,
Speaker 1: it's all politics. Racist part of the politics. But anyone
Speaker 1: on the wrong side they go after. And so Rogan
Speaker 1: may think, okay, well, if I all right, I've had
Speaker 1: some some doctors on my show who are skeptical of
Speaker 1: some of the things they're saying about COVID. Saul have
Speaker 1: some people on the other side who say, believe whatever
Speaker 1: Saint Fauci says, and maybe the mob will be satiated.
Speaker 1: The mob will never be satiated. That is the nature
Speaker 1: of the mob. And when when they see they can
Speaker 1: bow you into submission, they'll come back again and again
Speaker 1: and again. I think that's the fear. You know, Rogan
Speaker 1: is speaking two and four a wide variety of Americans.
Speaker 1: It's not rock ribbed right wing Republicans, probably not very
Speaker 1: many of them at all. I think it's ordinary people,
Speaker 1: maybe some disaffected liberals, maybe some leftists. For goodness sakes,
Speaker 1: he endorsed Bernie Sanders, so he's got he's got leftists
Speaker 1: in there too, And he's speaking like the kind of
Speaker 1: guy who is not ideologically rigid. And I think that's
Speaker 1: part of why he's been able to amass such a
Speaker 1: huge audience. And I agree, I think so far, He's
Speaker 1: played this pretty smart. But this is a big fear.
Speaker 1: Do not show them your neck, do not give in.
Speaker 1: You will never I assume I'm not saying anything that
Speaker 1: Joe doesn't already understand, But you will not win. The
Speaker 1: moment that you start to appease them, you're dead. You're
Speaker 1: going to be dead in the water. I guess figuratively
Speaker 1: again too. I don't want hateful rhetoric in junior high.
Speaker 1: If you give in to the bullies, they take your
Speaker 1: lunch money tomorrow too, and the next day and the
Speaker 1: next day. That principle was true then, and it's true now.
Speaker 1: That's right. And you know, Rogan is actually important to
Speaker 1: conservative sits on the future. But we've talked a lot
Speaker 1: on this show about how when I was a kid
Speaker 1: that the caricature of the GOP was that it was
Speaker 1: rich uncle pennybag smoking a cigar, shilling for corporations, keeping
Speaker 1: the working man down, and that that is not the
Speaker 1: case anymore. You're seeing you're seeing it just in exit polling.
Speaker 1: You're seeing it in the lawn signs and people's yards,
Speaker 1: and you're seeing it in the behavior of Democrats who
Speaker 1: are now very clearly the party of the global elite,
Speaker 1: and Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of the
Speaker 1: working man. My question is, why is it that Americans,
Speaker 1: who have such a history of loving freedom and fighting back,
Speaker 1: why is it that we are currently being outdone by
Speaker 1: America's hat are polite, lovely neighbors to the north, the Canadians,
Speaker 1: where Canadian truckers by the thousands are showing up to
Speaker 1: the nation's capital and protesting these draconian vaccine mandates. What's
Speaker 1: going on with the Americans? It is absolutely awesome. God
Speaker 1: bless the Canadian truckers. And I will say, look, look,
Speaker 1: I love the we were just talking about Joe Rogan.
Speaker 1: I love big bald, angry, working class people who were
Speaker 1: pissed off and fighting back. That that is that is awesome. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Canadian truckers, those convoys are spectacular. Watching Justin Crudeau
Speaker 1: Trudeau runaway. I had fun tweeting out someone did a
Speaker 1: mashup of Simpson's videos where there was an old Simpsons
Speaker 1: episode that had Homer driving a truck and he gets
Speaker 1: in a convoy and then they cut to Trudeau as
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Canada, crawling out the window to run away,
Speaker 1: and you know, it actually says something that there were
Speaker 1: a bunch of fact checkers today who fact checked that
Speaker 1: Simpson's mashup said, it's actually not factually correct that the
Speaker 1: Simpsons predicted the Canadian truckers, because these were two different
Speaker 1: episodes that someone put together. And I'm just like, all right,
Speaker 1: you guys are nim wits and idiots, and the Canadian
Speaker 1: truckers look, they're standing up for freedom. And you know,
Speaker 1: a year ago, we listen to people pontificate online very
Speaker 1: solemnly the truck drivers are heroes in America. We also
Speaker 1: listened to them to say doctors and nurses and police
Speaker 1: officers and firefighters, they're heroes for America. All these people
Speaker 1: are being persecuted right now. Right the totalitarian left wants
Speaker 1: to fire those truck drivers. They want to fire doctors
Speaker 1: and nurses and cops and firefighters and soldiers and sailors
Speaker 1: and Navy seals. Why because they won't knuckle under their
Speaker 1: COVID mandates and vaccine mandates. They won't obey their totalitarian dictates.
Speaker 1: And I got to say, those Canadian truckers are awesome,
Speaker 1: and they're fighting for American freedom in a way we
Speaker 1: all should be doing and we could we could take
Speaker 1: a lesson from you. If there is an irony that
Speaker 1: the left, for over a hundred years said, workers of
Speaker 1: the world, you night. And now the workers of the
Speaker 1: world have united, and their leaders like Justin Trudeau, are
Speaker 1: running as far as they possibly can. There's a Trudeau
Speaker 1: shaped hole in the wall where where he once was
Speaker 1: because he doesn't want to face the crowd. So I
Speaker 1: will say the Canadian truckers when they drove their convoyant
Speaker 1: and they protested, they did it very politely. And and
Speaker 1: and having having been born in Calgary, I will say
Speaker 1: the Canucks, God bless them, are wonderfully polite. But you know,
Speaker 1: in this instance they are warriors for freedom and their
Speaker 1: message is being heard not just throughout Canada, but throughout
Speaker 1: America across the world hopefully. So this raises an important question.
Speaker 1: We're running a little late, and so we're not going
Speaker 1: to get into a ton of mail bag, but I
Speaker 1: do want to get into one mail bag question that
Speaker 1: came up from Eudaemonia. It was this the pseudonym of
Speaker 1: the good old ancient Greek references here in our mail bag,
Speaker 1: very educated audience. He asked, what concrete policies are the
Speaker 1: is the GOP going to put forward to now that
Speaker 1: the GOP is positioning itself as the worker's party. So
Speaker 1: is it simply that the GOP is saying the doors open,
Speaker 1: You're welcome to come in, but we're not going to
Speaker 1: change anything about the way that we look at economic issues,
Speaker 1: social issues. We're not we're not actually going to change
Speaker 1: the policy. We just want you to vote for us.
Speaker 1: Or is there going to be some kind of substantive
Speaker 1: shift in what the goops actually offering. So I think
Speaker 1: we've seen pretty significant shifts, and I think Trump played
Speaker 1: a big part in that. Number One, We're the party
Speaker 1: of jobs. You want a job, you ought to be
Speaker 1: a Republican. We're the party of small businesses. We're the
Speaker 1: party of the energy. Joe Biden. The Democrats hate energy,
Speaker 1: they hate oil, they hate gas, they hate coal. They're
Speaker 1: destroying jobs across the country. They're shutting down pipelines, they're
Speaker 1: they're putting people out of work. Where the party of
Speaker 1: keeping small businesses open? You look at Biden the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're happy to shut down a restaurant, a bar, They're
Speaker 1: happy to shut down anyone who won't comply with their mandates.
Speaker 1: We're the party of opportunity, but Democrats are shutting down rules.
Speaker 1: We're keeping schools open. We want to give you a
Speaker 1: school choice. We want to give you opportunity. Immigration is
Speaker 1: critical to this. Democrats are the party of open borders.
Speaker 1: When you have millions of people coming illegally into this country,
Speaker 1: they're driving down wages, They're hurting working men and women.
Speaker 1: You want you want to help protect jobs, You stop
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. And I think every single policy the Democrats embrace.
Speaker 1: Ask yourself what San Francisco and Manhattan billionaires want, that's
Speaker 1: what Democrats support, one hundred percent, straight down the board.
Speaker 1: And ask yourself every policy that Ohio steel workers or
Speaker 1: Texas truck drivers support. Those are the policies that Republicans
Speaker 1: I think ought to be supported, including by the way,
Speaker 1: protecting free speech and religious liberty in the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: Democrats want to take away the guns of working men
Speaker 1: and women across this country. It is a radically anti
Speaker 1: worker agenda. And I will say one of the things
Speaker 1: I think Republicans have gotten better at, but there's still
Speaker 1: too much of, is corporate chronyism giving into big business.
Speaker 1: Look when it comes to big business, big business has
Speaker 1: gone woke. For too long, Republicans behave that whatever big
Speaker 1: business wanted they listened to. I think Trump helped break that.
Speaker 1: I think we have shifted. You know, the giant companies
Speaker 1: are fine. I don't have anything against them, but they
Speaker 1: don't need any favors from me. They don't need any
Speaker 1: favors from government, they don't need any subsidies, they don't
Speaker 1: need any mandates to benefit them. We ought to be
Speaker 1: the party of the little guy, of the small business,
Speaker 1: owner of the worker, and Democrats are the party of
Speaker 1: taking away your job. And I think that's playing out
Speaker 1: in a very very real way now. I do because
Speaker 1: some of those things the GOP has talked about for
Speaker 1: a long time, but especially when you're talking about the
Speaker 1: big corporations, that would be a shift. When I was
Speaker 1: a kid, the GOP was the party of helping out
Speaker 1: every gigantic corporation. They would assist them in shipping jobs
Speaker 1: overseas and getting sweetheart deals from the government. Corporate welfare,
Speaker 1: of total corporate welfare. And that is a big shift.
Speaker 1: And it does tie into the small businesses too, because
Speaker 1: if the GOP is going to be the party of
Speaker 1: the big woke, multinational corporations then sort of by definition
Speaker 1: they're not the party of the small businesses. So that
Speaker 1: shift is very important, as you say, keeping jobs here,
Speaker 1: and Democrats are the party of corporate welfare today, they
Speaker 1: embrace it openly. Yeah, that's very important. And as you
Speaker 1: say to this idea that when you have two million
Speaker 1: illegal aliens pouring across the border, that's going to depress wages.
Speaker 1: And it's not going to depress Mark Zuckerberg's wages or
Speaker 1: I guess Mark Zuckerberg's capital gains. I don't think he
Speaker 1: makes most of his money from his salary. It's going
Speaker 1: to depress wages for working class Americans. And so that
Speaker 1: that's a big shift. If the Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: be the party of more and more and more and
Speaker 1: more immigration, then the Republicans really can offer something different
Speaker 1: there as well. That was a good answer. That really
Speaker 1: all right, That makes me hopeful for the future center
Speaker 1: even as we're all getting canceled, even as we're going
Speaker 1: to get radical leftist judges all over the courts, there
Speaker 1: does seem to be some hope looking ahead to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. In twenty twenty four, well, we've got to
Speaker 1: leave it there. You know. One thing you can do
Speaker 1: to really express your enthusiasm, not merely for the upcoming elections,
Speaker 1: but for this very show, is to go get some merch. Everybody.
Speaker 1: We've got superb emerged. I don't have my hat on
Speaker 1: me right now. Hats sometimes make my head look like
Speaker 1: a peanut. But this hat is so good looking that
Speaker 1: I have to wear it. It is our famous cactus
Speaker 1: microphone hat. You can get that some really great T shirts,
Speaker 1: some have expressions coined by Lindsey Graham. For goodness sakes,
Speaker 1: what is a podcast. We've got a lot of Verdict
Speaker 1: merch you can you can get that at Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz dot com slash shop, and especially if you
Speaker 1: have a non peanut shaped head, the hats will look
Speaker 1: really really good on you. Really wonderful stuff over there.
Speaker 1: And then you can stick around and head on over
Speaker 1: to the Verdict Plus community and check out more content
Speaker 1: from the Senator and from But as for me, Michael Knowles,
Speaker 1: that's all I've got right now. 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.