Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict.
Speaker 2: With Ted Cruz the Weekend Review, Ben Ferguson with you,
Speaker 2: and these are the stories you may have missed that
Speaker 2: we talked about this past week.
Speaker 1: First up, the Democrats.
Speaker 2: Well, they've released a list of the people they believe
Speaker 2: are corrupt officials within the Democratic apparatus.
Speaker 1: And the deep state.
Speaker 2: And now they're claiming this is an enemy's list of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. Why do they do it because they want
Speaker 2: them to all get pardons. Yes, we're going to dive
Speaker 2: into this list and what it means for Democrats. Also,
Speaker 2: Cashpittel has been tapped for FBI director and the media
Speaker 2: turning on him. Try to make sure it never happens.
Speaker 2: We'll explain that. And finally, the Supreme Court dealt with
Speaker 2: a transition case when it comes to minors, as the
Speaker 2: Left says that you should be able to chemically castrate
Speaker 2: or cut off certain body parts of kids even as
Speaker 2: young as two, three, four, and five years old. Will
Speaker 2: break that down for you as well. It is the
Speaker 2: week in Review and it starts right now. All right,
Speaker 2: So let's go back to this list, and it was
Speaker 2: a list that Democrats put out. They started adding names
Speaker 2: to the list and saying this is somehow Trump's list,
Speaker 2: even though they're the ones creating out a thin air
Speaker 2: so early in the day yesterday, it started with, well,
Speaker 2: it needs to the president needs to pardon himself. That
Speaker 2: also means he would need to pardon his brother. And
Speaker 2: then they added Joe Biden to the list. And then
Speaker 2: the list just started expanding to like everyone that worked
Speaker 2: for him that may have done something wrong or illegal.
Speaker 2: Alex Majorkis, for example, was on the list, James call
Speaker 2: Me on the list, Andrew McCabe on the list. Peter Struck,
Speaker 2: you may remember that guy who said we're gonna stop
Speaker 2: back in sixteen, We're gonna stop Donald Trump from becoming president.
Speaker 1: Bruce or Nelly or Rod Rosenstein.
Speaker 2: And then it expanded from there to the point where
Speaker 2: The Atlantic has an article saying there needs to be
Speaker 2: mass pardons. And this conversation took place on MSNBC.
Speaker 3: You argued, we defend norms by defending norms, not preaching them.
Speaker 3: A lot of happens between now and then, and I
Speaker 3: wonder how you're thinking about the president's pardon power today
Speaker 3: and how he should wield it.
Speaker 4: Well, back in twenty seventeen, I thought that Trump was
Speaker 4: an aberration and unusual and black swan, if you will.
Speaker 4: And my thought was that you had to defend the
Speaker 4: norms of the rule of law, good governance, and the
Speaker 4: only way to do that was to maintain them even
Speaker 4: in the face of his aberrational behavior. Today, I think
Speaker 4: we know that Trump is not an aberration.
Speaker 1: He's a phenomenon.
Speaker 4: He's a movement, and as such, what we have to
Speaker 4: do is recalibrate how we respond to that. And it
Speaker 4: now strikes me as essential to at least begin to
Speaker 4: play to the edge of the field, to go as
Speaker 4: far as the law permits in combating the authoritarian excesses
Speaker 4: of Trump. And the way I wrote about in The
Speaker 4: Atlantic is the pardon power. A pardon for Hunter Biden,
Speaker 4: a pardon for Trump's critics would be completely normative breaking,
Speaker 4: and it would be out of character, out of historical tradition.
Speaker 4: But at this point I was listening to your.
Speaker 1: Earlier broadcast. You were talking about kash Fatel.
Speaker 4: He's got a list of sixty people he wants to prosecute.
Speaker 1: That's a real list. Will he do all of them?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Will there be resistance of the FBI, probably, but one
Speaker 4: of the realities of being investigated is that investigation has
Speaker 4: a cost, even if you're not prosecuted in the end,
Speaker 4: you have to hire a lawyer, the mental cost, the time,
Speaker 4: the resources. And so it strikes me as perfectly reasonable
Speaker 4: to ask, what can President Biden do within the bounds
Speaker 4: of law, even if it would not be normatively traditional,
Speaker 4: to save his allies from that. And the answer is obviously,
Speaker 4: pardon them.
Speaker 2: Let's just stop there, And he said more, but let's
Speaker 2: just die. Let's break that down, Senator. He's saying, it's
Speaker 2: personally perfectly reasonable for Biden to pardon any Trump critic
Speaker 2: and says, well, it's a cost issue because.
Speaker 1: You'll have to get a lawyer.
Speaker 2: Well, no crap, Like everybody around Trump knows that they
Speaker 2: tried to financially break so many people around Donald Trump
Speaker 2: that worked at the White House tried to financially ruin them.
Speaker 2: I have friends, I'm not going to say their names
Speaker 2: who worked at the White House who were strapped with
Speaker 2: legal bills over a half a million dollars just having
Speaker 2: to answer questions in and around what happened on January sixth,
Speaker 2: even though they weren't involved in it.
Speaker 5: Look, that's absolutely right, But I got to say the
Speaker 5: hypocrisy is even more rich than that. So the person,
Speaker 5: the man whose voice you're hearing, is a guy named
Speaker 5: Paul Rosenwick. Now, who is Paul Rosenwick. Well, he was
Speaker 5: a deputy Assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 5: under George W.
Speaker 6: Bush. And listen, I know Paul.
Speaker 1: A little bit.
Speaker 5: I don't know him well, but I know him socially
Speaker 5: around DC lawyer circles. He wears a bow tie every day,
Speaker 5: and he was one of the like he would run
Speaker 5: around Federalist Society events and he was part of the
Speaker 5: sort of Republican lawyer cadre during the George W.
Speaker 6: Bush campaign.
Speaker 5: He is also someone who Donald Trump has broken his
Speaker 5: brain and Trump derangement syndrome is a very real phenomenon,
Speaker 5: and he is he is now advocating that Biden pardon everybody,
Speaker 5: Pardon every critic of Trump, Pardon every member of the cabinet,
Speaker 5: pardon his entire family, Pardon anyone who may have committed
Speaker 5: any crime, because he doesn't want anybody to be held
Speaker 5: account for breaking the law. Now, I'm going to tell
Speaker 5: you what the particular irony is. Paul Rosenwig is also
Speaker 5: one of the leaders of a group called the sixty
Speaker 5: five Project. Now what is the sixty five Project? It
Speaker 5: is this left wing group, and it's Paul Rosenwig, and
Speaker 5: it's also David Brock, who was Hillary Clinton's attack dog,
Speaker 5: who went around filing complaints trying to get Republican lawyers
Speaker 5: disbarred for supporting Donald Trump, and Paul Rosenwig his group
Speaker 5: filed a complaint with the Texas Bar asking that I
Speaker 5: be disbarred. Understand this guy way before the Texas Bar.
Speaker 2: I remember that story. But this is the guy that
Speaker 2: was actually doing it.
Speaker 6: Yes, yes, he was doing it.
Speaker 5: And so I'm going to read to you from the
Speaker 5: New York Times story when they filed this complaint, and
Speaker 5: it says, this is a quote from the complaint quote,
Speaker 5: mister Cruse played a leading role in the effort to
Speaker 5: overturn the twenty twenty elections, and will the same can
Speaker 5: be said about several other elected officials. Mister Cruse's involvement
Speaker 5: was manifestly different. This is what the complaint says. He
Speaker 5: chose to take on the role of lawyer and agreed
Speaker 5: to represent mister Trump and Pennsylvania Republicans in litigation before
Speaker 5: the US Supreme Court. In doing so, mister Cruz moved
Speaker 5: beyond his position as United States Senator and sought to
Speaker 5: use more than his Twitter account and media appearances to
Speaker 5: support mister Trump's anti democratic mission. So understand their complaint
Speaker 5: is that when I was asked when the appeal in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty challenging Pennsylvania's violating the Pennsylvania Constitution and changing
Speaker 5: the law in Pennsylvania, when that was appealed to the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court, I was asked, if the court takes it,
Speaker 5: would you be willing to argue the case? And Donald
Speaker 5: Trump asked me that, and I said, yes, if the
Speaker 5: Court takes it, if for justices decide they want to
Speaker 5: hear this case, and I believe they should have heard
Speaker 5: the Pennsylvania case, that I'll do the oral argument. Their argument,
Speaker 5: Paul Rosenwagg's argument is because I said yes, I would
Speaker 5: represent a client before the Supreme Court, I should be disbarred.
Speaker 5: So he's talking about the costs of frivolous complaints at
Speaker 5: attacking people. Well, he was one of the point people
Speaker 5: doing it. And by the way, thankfully the Texas Bar
Speaker 5: is not an insane, woke nest of lunatics, and so
Speaker 5: what did the Texas bar do. They threw their complaint
Speaker 5: out as frivolous and baseless, so it got thrown out.
Speaker 6: It was absurd.
Speaker 5: But this is someone who was asking that I be
Speaker 5: barred from practicing law. And by the way, this group
Speaker 5: has gone after over and over and over again lawyers
Speaker 5: who dared to represent Donald Trump. So they're willing. When
Speaker 5: we talk about weaponization, weaponization of law, enforce spending, weaponization
Speaker 5: of law. I gotta say Paul Rosenwegg is a great
Speaker 5: example of that. He's happy to go and attack and
Speaker 5: try to bankrupt people. You mentioned the look at the
Speaker 5: end of the day, if they come after me, I
Speaker 5: am a sitting senator. I have the ability to raise money,
Speaker 5: I can defend myself. I am not a particularly faint flower.
Speaker 5: I am not a vulnerable person who if they want
Speaker 5: to come after me, let's go. And they're going to
Speaker 5: regret picking that fight. But they're a bunch of people
Speaker 5: in the Trump administration who were twenty somethings or thirty somethings.
Speaker 5: They were young people, and these bastards when after them
Speaker 5: tried to bankrupt them, they had hundreds of thousands or
Speaker 5: more in legal expenses, and they tried to make it.
Speaker 5: And by the way, these are the same people that
Speaker 5: publicly said, if you worked for Trump, we're gonna do
Speaker 5: everything we can to make you unemployable, to pressure law
Speaker 5: firms they shouldn't hire you, to pressure companies, they shouldn't
Speaker 5: hire you. They wanted to destroy anyone who was willing
Speaker 5: to work with Donald Trump.
Speaker 6: That's the viciousness.
Speaker 5: And at the same time, they're urging Joe Biden pardon
Speaker 5: everybody because people who actually committed felonies, we don't want
Speaker 5: them investigated and we certainly don't want them prosecute.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. All right,
Speaker 2: so we originally thought we were going to start this
Speaker 2: show tonight. Senator talking about the FBI and Caspertel being
Speaker 2: named the FBI director. This is a name that Democrats
Speaker 2: do not like, Caspertel. So if you want to understand history,
Speaker 2: this is the guy that actually the deep state went
Speaker 2: after when he was working for Donald Trump the first
Speaker 2: time with Russia, Russia, Russia, and he found out about
Speaker 2: it that when when apparently Google five years out up
Speaker 2: to the fact, sen him a letter saying, hey, we
Speaker 2: had to disclose to you now that we gave a
Speaker 2: bunch of your information over to the FBI. That's the
Speaker 2: now the guy that will be running the FBI if
Speaker 2: he gets confirmed.
Speaker 5: Your reaction, well, I think this is a strong nomination.
Speaker 5: I think we're seeing Democrats and we're seeing the media
Speaker 5: freaking out, and they're freaking out not because they think
Speaker 5: cash Battel is unqualified, but rather because they believe he
Speaker 5: will actually do what Trump promised he would do. They
Speaker 5: believe he will actually clean out the corruption at the FBI,
Speaker 5: that he will take on the partisans that have burrowed
Speaker 5: into senior career positions. This is something we've been calling
Speaker 5: for on this podcast for a long time, to have
Speaker 5: leadership that is willing to really root out the partisanship
Speaker 5: and corruption and say no more. The FBI needs to
Speaker 5: restore its integrity. I think this is a nomination. The
Speaker 5: reason people are losing their minds is because they believe
Speaker 5: cash Battel is going to do exactly what Trump said
Speaker 5: he would do.
Speaker 2: And Senator you actually talked about this on Sunday morning
Speaker 2: on Face to Nation on CBS, and it was very
Speaker 2: interesting to see the back and forth.
Speaker 1: Take a listen to that for people that may have
Speaker 1: missed it.
Speaker 7: Cash Battel suggested by Trump as the new leader of
Speaker 7: the FBI. How enthusiastic are you about that?
Speaker 1: Listen?
Speaker 5: I think cash Battel is a very strong nominee. I
Speaker 5: think the entire slate of cabinet nominees President Trump is
Speaker 5: put forward is very strong. I believe every one of
Speaker 5: these cabinet nominees is going to be confirmed by the Senate.
Speaker 5: I think cash Battel is going to be confirmed by
Speaker 5: the Senate. You look at his background. He has a
Speaker 5: serious professional background. He was a prosecutor, He was a
Speaker 5: public defender. He was a senior intelligence staffer on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 5: He was a senior intelligence staffer in the White House.
Speaker 5: He was the chief of staff of the Department of Defense.
Speaker 5: He was the deputy director of National Intelligence. And I
Speaker 5: got to say, all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth,
Speaker 5: all of the people their hair out, are exactly the
Speaker 5: people who are dismayed about having a real reformer come
Speaker 5: into the FBI and clean out the corrupted partisans who
Speaker 5: sadly have burrowed into senior career positions at the FBI.
Speaker 5: The FBI and the Department of Justice, or two institutions
Speaker 5: incredibly important to the rule of law in the United States.
Speaker 5: I revere both, and one of the most tragic consequences
Speaker 5: of four years of Joe Biden Kamala Harris is both
Speaker 5: DOJ and the FBI have been politicized and weaponized. And
Speaker 5: I think Cash Pattel is a very strong nominee to
Speaker 5: take on the partisan corruption in the FBI.
Speaker 7: As you know, Senator, there isn't a vacancy at the
Speaker 7: top of the FBI. What should become of Christopher Ray
Speaker 7: appointed by President Trump.
Speaker 5: Well, I think he'll make a choice. I think either
Speaker 5: he will resign or President Trump will fire him. But
Speaker 5: it's no secret to anybody, including Chris Ray, that he
Speaker 5: is not going to continue to serve as the head
Speaker 5: of the FBI under Donald Trump. Listen, if you look
Speaker 5: at James Comy and Chris Ray, there has never been
Speaker 5: a period in our nation's history where the FBI has
Speaker 5: suffered a greater loss of respect where more Americans doubt
Speaker 5: the fundamental integrity of the FBI. And it's because James
Speaker 5: Comy and Chris Ray presided over allowing the FBI to
Speaker 5: become a partisan cudgel, to be used to target parents
Speaker 5: at school board meetings, to be used to target people
Speaker 5: who chose not to take the COVID vaccine, to be
Speaker 5: used to target President Trump, and to target the political
Speaker 5: opponents of Joe Biden and the White House. It is tragic.
Speaker 5: That is not what the FBI is for. That is
Speaker 5: not what the DOJ is for. And I got to say,
Speaker 5: Pam Bondi and Cash Patel, I think together are a
Speaker 5: very strong slate of nominees to go and restore integrity
Speaker 5: to both institutions.
Speaker 1: I don't think it can be better said than that.
Speaker 2: And that's why there's so many that are freaked out
Speaker 2: over Patel, because he's going to go in and do
Speaker 2: his job the way it's supposed to be done. And
Speaker 2: also that means part of the part of this is
Speaker 2: clearinghouse clearinghouse and the political partisans that are in there
Speaker 2: that have weaponized the government.
Speaker 6: That's exactly right, and we've seen it. You know.
Speaker 5: I wrote a book called Justice Corrupted, How the Left
Speaker 5: is weaponized the legal system, And in the book, I
Speaker 5: described how starting with Barack Obama, we saw the Department
Speaker 5: of Justice, and the FBI and the CIA and the
Speaker 5: alphabet soup of the federal government turned into a weapon
Speaker 5: to target and persecute the political enemies of Barack Obama.
Speaker 5: When Trump became president, those partisans, what they did is
Speaker 5: they went into senior career positions in the agencies, and
Speaker 5: from day one, from the first day of Trump's first term,
Speaker 5: they waged war on Donald Trump from within the deep state.
Speaker 5: They wanted to destroy him, they wanted to stop his agenda.
Speaker 5: They hated him. And then when Joe Biden became president,
Speaker 5: they came out in the open. They were brazen, that
Speaker 5: they were completely that they were not pretending anymore. And
Speaker 5: so listen, as I said, I think Cash Mattel will
Speaker 5: be confirmed, and when he is, I think it is
Speaker 5: going to be hugely important that he followed through on
Speaker 5: those promises to get rid of the partisans. And listen,
Speaker 5: a point I made. Major Garrett was pressing back saying,
Speaker 5: when this is terrible that Chris Ray would be fired. Listen,
Speaker 5: in the entire history of the FBI, we have never
Speaker 5: seen the respect for the FBI diminished as greatly as
Speaker 5: it has been under Chris Ray and under James Comy
Speaker 5: before him, that the American people no longer trust the
Speaker 5: integrity of the FBI. That is listen with James Comy.
Speaker 5: I think he's a hard partisan. I think he was
Speaker 5: the point of the spear. With Chris Ray, I think
Speaker 5: it's different. I actually think Chris Ray he's not a Democrat,
Speaker 5: he's a Republican, he's.
Speaker 6: Not a leftist.
Speaker 5: But he views his job as protecting the institution. And
Speaker 5: I think he made a fundamental mistake that he believes
Speaker 5: that protecting the career senior officials who themselves are vicious partisans.
Speaker 5: I think he thinks that's somehow protecting the FBI, where
Speaker 5: the result is that the public respect of the FBI
Speaker 5: has been profoundly damaged. I think the new director of
Speaker 5: the FBI has a very important job to root out
Speaker 5: those partisans and to bring it back to a fidelity
Speaker 5: to law. By the way, I think the other political
Speaker 5: prosecutions that have been brought are natural candidates for the
Speaker 5: pardon power if you look at Donald Trump, I think
Speaker 5: Donald Trump should pardon those people who've been prosecuted for
Speaker 5: January sixth, who did not engage in crimes of violence.
Speaker 5: If you engage in a crime of violence, if you
Speaker 5: physically and violently assaulted a police officer, you shouldn't be pardoned.
Speaker 5: You should face criminal prosecution if you committed a crime
Speaker 5: of violence against a police officer. But if you were
Speaker 5: engaged in peaceful protest, I think those are natural candidates
Speaker 5: for pardons. I also think Lauren Handy, who is the
Speaker 5: pro life protester who's right now serving six years in
Speaker 5: federal prison for nonviolent protest against abortion. I think Lauren
Speaker 5: Handy is a natural candidate for a pardon from President Trump.
Speaker 5: I think there's a very substantial likelihood she will receive
Speaker 5: a pardon. I think the nonviolent January sixth protesters are
Speaker 5: likely to receive pardons, and that is going to cause
Speaker 5: Democrats in the media to lose their mind, because not
Speaker 5: only are they happy to look the other way at
Speaker 5: the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI,
Speaker 5: they are vested in defending that weaponization.
Speaker 6: And that is a mandate. Understand.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump campaigned to the American people saying I will
Speaker 5: root out this corruption, and I think this nomination and
Speaker 5: his following through on that promise is fundamentally about respecting democracy.
Speaker 5: The American people said, yes, we don't want the federal
Speaker 5: government weaponized against the political opposition of the White House
Speaker 5: as before.
Speaker 2: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 2: on this topic, you can go back and down the
Speaker 2: podcasts from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 2: I want to get back to the big story number
Speaker 2: three of the week you may have missed SATA. I
Speaker 2: want to move to this other case, and it is
Speaker 2: a case that has really.
Speaker 1: Been interesting to follow.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court hearing this case on gender transitions for minors.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: This has all come out of a case in Tennessee
Speaker 2: where Tennessee was arguing that you must protect children from
Speaker 2: harm and body mutilation, especially at very young ages, and
Speaker 2: the left and the federal government saying, well, hold on
Speaker 2: a second, we are in favor of this transgender care,
Speaker 2: arguing that even those that are two and three and
Speaker 2: four years old, they know that they're trands, so let
Speaker 2: them be sterilized and castrate themselves.
Speaker 1: Els.
Speaker 2: That is what the ACLU lawyer said in his own
Speaker 2: words while he was arguing this on TV on CNN.
Speaker 1: I want you to listen and get your reaction to that.
Speaker 8: I would say is nobody has to provide this medication
Speaker 8: to adolescents. These are not doctors being forced to provide
Speaker 8: this medication. These are doctors who are wanting to treat
Speaker 8: their patients in the best way that they know how,
Speaker 8: based on the best available evidence to us. And these
Speaker 8: are young people who may have known since they were
Speaker 8: two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for
Speaker 8: six seven years before they had any relief. And what's
Speaker 8: happening here, it's not the kids who are consenting to
Speaker 8: this treatment, it's the parents who are consenting to the treatment.
Speaker 8: And as a parent, I would say, we when our
Speaker 8: children are suffering, we are suffering.
Speaker 1: And these are parents.
Speaker 8: Who love their children, who are listening to the advice
Speaker 8: of their doctors, of the mainstream medical community, and doing
Speaker 8: what's right for their kids. In the state of Tennessee
Speaker 8: has displaced their judgment.
Speaker 2: Now you hear that argument, and that to me is
Speaker 2: just I'm sorry, child abuse if you're mutilating a child
Speaker 2: too and three and four years old, And that's what
Speaker 2: Tennessee was saying.
Speaker 5: Well, Tennessee passed I think a very reasonable law that
Speaker 5: that prohibited puberty blockers and hormones and sterilizing children, sterilizing minors,
Speaker 5: and and we're seeing multiple state legislatures that are acting
Speaker 5: to protect children. I think that is a reasonable and
Speaker 5: common sense step. And and what happened is is unsurprisingly
Speaker 5: that that the state got sued and the ACLU argued
Speaker 5: that that that making it illegal for a small child
Speaker 5: to be sterilized and made permanently unable to have children
Speaker 5: or even to be mutilated, that that prohibiting that violated
Speaker 5: the fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Speaker 5: That that was the argument.
Speaker 6: And this the.
Speaker 5: Court of Appeals upheld the Tennessee law, and the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court took the case. And and so that that was
Speaker 5: the argument you heard right there, the ASLU lawyers arguing
Speaker 5: UH for being able to sterilize eight year old. Just
Speaker 5: using the math the lawyer laid out. The lawyer talked
Speaker 5: about a child at the age of two might know
Speaker 5: that he or she is transgender, and they might have
Speaker 5: had to wait six years. Last I checked, two plus
Speaker 5: six is eight. And so the legal argument is that
Speaker 5: eight year old, the parent should be able to sterilize
Speaker 5: that child. And you know what if that child decides
Speaker 5: that at eighteen he or she wants to be a
Speaker 5: dad or wants to be a mom. Well, too late now,
Speaker 5: because when you were eight, we went ahead and sterilized you.
Speaker 5: So there's no going back. And this argument went back
Speaker 5: and forth. Right, I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction,
Speaker 5: I think the Supreme Court is going to uphold Tennessee's law,
Speaker 5: and I think we may see a breakdown that plays
Speaker 5: out along pretty familiar ideological lines.
Speaker 6: Now, it was pretty striking.
Speaker 5: The three liberal justices all were asking questions that I
Speaker 5: got to say, we're really extreme and showing the modern left.
Speaker 5: They are all in on mutilating and sterilizing children. This
Speaker 5: is not a fringe view on the left. Today's elected
Speaker 5: Democrats and sadly the left wing activists they put on
Speaker 5: the courts are absolutely committed to this extreme agenda. So
Speaker 5: I want you to listen to.
Speaker 2: This side of my org justice, side of my order
Speaker 2: downplaying the risk of mutilation of miners in this back
Speaker 2: and forth, in these aural arguments, this is what she said.
Speaker 9: Cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a
Speaker 9: pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk, and the question
Speaker 9: of how many miners have to have their bodies irreparably
Speaker 9: harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk, even
Speaker 10: taking ascron. There is always going to be a percentage
Speaker 10: of the population under any medical treatment that's going to
Speaker 10: suffer a harm.
Speaker 6: So the question, in my mind is not.
Speaker 10: Do policy makers decide whether one person's life is more
Speaker 10: valuable than the millions of others who get relief from
Speaker 10: this treatment. The question is can you stop one sex
Speaker 10: from the other one?
Speaker 2: I mean, she's saying this is not a big deal
Speaker 2: at all if you're mutilating a child, because even aspirin
Speaker 2: has risks and effects, so therefore, just put it under
Speaker 2: the category of everything goes.
Speaker 5: Well. That sums up today's radical left. In their view,
Speaker 5: severing a child's genitals is comparable to taking aspirin. She
Speaker 5: also claimed, quote million ens of people are getting relief
Speaker 5: from this. Now, thankfully we do not currently have millions
Speaker 5: of children being sterilized. But let's be clear, that's the
Speaker 5: left's worldview, is that sterilizing little boys and little girls,
Speaker 5: mutilating them, making them permanently unable to have children. That
Speaker 5: should be happening on the scale of millions and millions
Speaker 5: of little boys and little girls. That is Justice Soda
Speaker 5: bay Or here to take a listen to Justice.
Speaker 6: Justice k. Katanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 11: Drawn by the statute that was sort of like the
Speaker 11: starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because
Speaker 11: it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious
Speaker 11: or whatever. But you know, as I read the statue here,
Speaker 11: excuse me the case here. You know, the court starts
Speaker 11: off by saying that Virginia is now one of sixteen
Speaker 11: states which prohibit and punished marriages on the basis of
Speaker 11: racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of
Speaker 11: that law, it looks in terms of incontinuing you can't
Speaker 11: do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics.
Speaker 6: It's sort of the same thing.
Speaker 11: So it's interesting to me that we now have this
Speaker 11: different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten
Speaker 11: away with what they did here by just making a
Speaker 11: classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that's exactly right.
Speaker 11: That there is absolutely a parallel between any law that
Speaker 11: says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic and
Speaker 11: all other contents.
Speaker 1: You hear it there.
Speaker 2: This is another example of just how extreme these and
Speaker 2: this is one of the elections, by the way, are
Speaker 2: so important center. I mean, this is why Donald Trump
Speaker 2: being elected was so important, because when he's not, when
Speaker 2: you don't have a conservative in the White House, you
Speaker 2: get these radical activists who are Supreme Court justices, and
Speaker 2: if they have the majority, this is what they want
Speaker 2: you to be able to do.
Speaker 1: This is what they want to happen to your children.
Speaker 5: Well, and let me break down what that exchange back
Speaker 5: and forth was. So Katanji Brown Jackson, who Joe Biden
Speaker 5: put on the Supreme Court, is comparing this Tennessee law
Speaker 5: to the law in Loving versus Virginia. Now, Loving versus
Speaker 5: Virginia's a Supreme Court case. It's a landmark case that
Speaker 5: struck down Virginia's ban decades ago, many many years ago
Speaker 5: on interracial marriage on African Americans and Anglos choosing to
Speaker 5: get married. And she says, quote, it's sort of the
Speaker 5: same thing. Now, Virginia's law was an abomination. It was
Speaker 5: restricting adults making the decision to get married. It was
Speaker 5: deliberately doing so. On the basis of race, which, mind you,
Speaker 5: we fought a civil war in significant part to end
Speaker 5: slavery and to vindicate equal rights. And we passed and
Speaker 5: adopted the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendments to end slavery,
Speaker 5: to protect equal protection, and to give African Americans the
Speaker 5: right to vote, to ensure that there's not race discrimination.
Speaker 5: But in the less view, not sterilizing an eight year
Speaker 5: old is the same thing like that is bizarre. And
Speaker 5: by the way, the person who responds to Justice Jackson
Speaker 5: is Joe Biden's solicitor General, the top lawyer for the
Speaker 5: Biden administration before the United States Supreme Court, She say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 5: they're exactly the same thing. In our worldview, you ought
Speaker 5: to be able to mutilate children. It doesn't matter how young.
Speaker 5: The Constitution protects your right to mutilate your child. That
Speaker 5: is a bizarre view. That is an extreme view, and that,
Speaker 5: sadly is is where where today's modern left is.
Speaker 2: Final question on this issue with this case coming out
Speaker 2: of the Supreme Court, and if you look at the
Speaker 2: way that this was being argued, and I think one
Speaker 2: of the other things that's just so unhinged about this
Speaker 2: the argument for medically mutilating minors. Is the fact that
Speaker 2: the issue really does seem to come down to money.
Speaker 2: The amount of money that people are now making off
Speaker 2: these surgeries that's saying it is it is an increase
Speaker 2: year over year of over fourteen point four percent on average,
Speaker 2: So the transgender surgery world and then the lifetime of
Speaker 2: care is expanding at a fourteen point four percent rate
Speaker 2: year over year. That's why so many medical areas, doctors
Speaker 2: and hospitals are advocating for this because they make money.
Speaker 2: Vanderbilt said very clearly to their doctors, either you get
Speaker 2: on board with this or you get out. We're not
Speaker 2: going to let you say no to this because there's
Speaker 2: too much money to be made in quote gender care.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there are vast amounts of money at stake, and
Speaker 5: it has become it really is a strange obsession of
Speaker 5: the radical left. It is it is a virtue signal.
Speaker 5: Remember we had on verdict a couple of months ago.
Speaker 5: Sean Theory Shawn Theory was an African American Democratic state
Speaker 5: rep in Texas.
Speaker 6: She was an elected Democrat.
Speaker 5: She had been elected for four terms and on this issue,
Speaker 5: there was a bill in Texas to prohibit mutilating minors,
Speaker 5: and she ended up voting for it and the Democrat Party.
Speaker 5: She described on the podcast, if you didn't listen to
Speaker 5: that podcast, she ought to go back and listen to
Speaker 5: it because it's incredibly revealing. She described how her fellow Democrats,
Speaker 5: African Americans, and the Texas State Legislature would come to
Speaker 5: her and she said, did you have you study the
Speaker 5: damage this does to children? That if you give puberty
Speaker 5: blockers and you sterilize a child, that it does lifelong
Speaker 5: medical damage to him. It's horrible, And she said the
Speaker 5: many other Democrats she described said, oh, we know, we agree,
Speaker 5: it's terrible, but you cannot oppose this in our party.
Speaker 5: They will end you. Our party will end you. Well.
Speaker 5: She ended up doing the courageous thing and voting for
Speaker 5: common sense and voting for kids, and the Democrats recruited
Speaker 5: a primary challenger to her and beat her in the primary,
Speaker 5: and they spent over one million dollars in a Democrat
Speaker 5: primary for a state house seat. That is how radical
Speaker 5: this issue is. So there is money, There is big
Speaker 5: money on the other side, and it is enforced.
Speaker 6: In the US Senate.
Speaker 5: Every single Democrat has voted in favor of mutilating minors.
Speaker 5: There is no dissension that is allowed on this. And
Speaker 5: I got to say, and Joe Biden is enthusiastically in
Speaker 5: favor of it, you know, I gotta say, also, look
Speaker 5: this Supreme Court case. Part of the reason that there
Speaker 5: is is such focus on it is there was a
Speaker 5: previous Supreme Court decision called boss Stock and boss Stock
Speaker 5: is a decision that interpreted federal anti discrimination law on
Speaker 5: employment discrimination.
Speaker 6: And it is.
Speaker 5: Currently illegal under federal law to discriminate in employment based
Speaker 5: on race and other characteristics, including sex. And in Bostock,
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court took a prohibition on discrimination based on
Speaker 5: sex and construed sex to mean also being transgender.
Speaker 6: And that decision that was a six to three decision.
Speaker 5: That decision was authored by Justice Gorsuch, and it was
Speaker 5: a fairly shocking decision. A lot of people were shocked
Speaker 5: that Justice gorsicic wrote that opinion.
Speaker 6: It was joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
Speaker 5: In addition to what were then for liberals who were
Speaker 5: on the Court at the time, Justice Ginsburg was still
Speaker 5: on the court. It was before amy Cony Barrett had
Speaker 5: been nominated and before Justice Ginsburg obviously had passed away.
Speaker 5: So that was six ' three. On the other side,
Speaker 5: I don't think we will see the same outcome. I
Speaker 5: will say, at the oral argument, Justice Gorsu should not
Speaker 5: say a word, not a word, so we do not
Speaker 5: have any indication from him as to how he will vote.
Speaker 5: But Justice Roberts was quite vocal and and what he
Speaker 5: laid out is actually the reason why I'm confident the
Speaker 5: Tennessee law will be upheld, which, as he laid out,
Speaker 5: the proposition that the Court should be deferring to state
Speaker 5: legislatures and particularly when you're dealing with contested medical evidence,
Speaker 5: that state legislatures are far better suited to assess contested
Speaker 5: medical evidence and make it a termination and make a
Speaker 5: policy decision. That that's that's how our democratic system works.
Speaker 5: And and I think Chief Justice Roberts reasoning that he
Speaker 5: articulated at the oral argument is going to lead him
Speaker 5: to vote to uphold the law.
Speaker 6: I think we will see.
Speaker 5: I think we will certainly see Justice Alito and Justice
Speaker 5: Thomas and Amy Cony, Barrett and Cavanaugh also their arguments
Speaker 5: at oral arguments suggested that they would defer to the
Speaker 5: Tennessee state legislature as well. I hope Justice Gorsuch will
Speaker 5: as well. I think there's a very good chance that
Speaker 5: this will be a six to three decision upholding the
Speaker 5: Tennessee law. But the fact that the Court decided Bostock
Speaker 5: the other way. Now, Bostock was a question of federal
Speaker 5: statute and interpreting the words Congress had adopted. It was
Speaker 5: not a constitutional case. It was not interpreting the equal
Speaker 5: protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And I'll note, by
Speaker 5: the way, there is a third outcome. So what could
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court do here? They could do three things.
Speaker 5: They could do more than three things, but three key things.
Speaker 5: One they could affirm the Tennessee law. That's what I
Speaker 5: think they are likely to do. Two, they could strike
Speaker 5: down the Tennessee law. They could rule that this law
Speaker 5: violates the Constitution and therefore is null and void. I
Speaker 5: do not think they're likely to do that, but I
Speaker 5: think the three Liberals will vote to do exactly that.
Speaker 5: The third option they could do is they could reverse
Speaker 5: the decision and conclude that this law is sex discrimination,
Speaker 5: and under the Constitution, sex discrimination is subject to what's
Speaker 5: called intermediate scrutiny. Now, the toughest standard constitutionally for legal
Speaker 5: analysis is what's called strict scrutiny, and racial discrimination under
Speaker 5: the Constitution by government is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex
Speaker 5: discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny. So the middle ground
Speaker 5: they could do is they could vacate the decision below
Speaker 5: and send it back to the lower court to apply
Speaker 5: intermediate scrutiny. I hope they don't do that, and I
Speaker 5: don't think they will, but there is a non zero
Speaker 5: chance they might do that, which is what makes this case.
Speaker 5: Concerning all of that being said, my prediction is they're
Speaker 5: going to conclude correctly that that's Fannesse law is constitutional,
Speaker 5: and that is a judgment for the state legislatures to make.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Sentner,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 2: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.