Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a Week in Review.
Speaker 2: Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the major stories
Speaker 2: that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 2: First up, when will the media stop attacking Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: It's very clear they're trying to take him out right now,
Speaker 2: but will they get back in line? We're going to
Speaker 2: talk about the timeline and how important that is. Also,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump had a massive victory this week at the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court dealing with presidential immunity and what did the
Speaker 2: media do. They immediately lied to you about what this
Speaker 2: actually means, and now they're saying we may leave the
Speaker 2: country if Donald Trump is re elected as president. Will
Speaker 2: break that down for you as well. Plus a major
Speaker 2: court case that you did not hear about in the
Speaker 2: media this week that we're going to break down for you.
Speaker 2: It's the weekend Review and it starts right now. One
Speaker 2: Democrat that went on TV, I guess he's like the
Speaker 2: sacrificial lamb is representative Democratic Representative Dan Goldman. He said
Speaker 2: this about the president trying to reassure Americans he's really fine,
Speaker 2: there's no cognitive decline.
Speaker 3: And the people who are with him every day have
Speaker 3: indicated as well that it was an aberration and it
Speaker 3: is an anomaly, and if that is the case, then
Speaker 3: we will see that, and we will see that over
Speaker 3: the next week, and he will restore our faith and
Speaker 3: confidence in his fitness.
Speaker 4: And then everything else between the two of them cuts
Speaker 4: in favor of Joe Biden. So people are right to
Speaker 4: have some concerns after that performance. And I don't think
Speaker 4: there's any excuse that Joe Biden offered. I think he
Speaker 4: was trying to explain how he had such a poor performance.
Speaker 4: But he's accepted it, he's owned it, he's acknowledged it,
Speaker 4: as we all have. And what we need to see
Speaker 4: from him is that vibrant and whip smart president that
Speaker 4: we have had for the last three and a half years.
Speaker 2: And the people, I mean, you listen to him, and
Speaker 2: then you go to the facts. Biden's post debate checkup
Speaker 2: actually conjured what the White House set. They have now
Speaker 2: confirmed that and President Biden confirmed And again I'm quoting
Speaker 2: reports coming out of the White House to the Democratic governors.
Speaker 2: Remember they had this nine to one to one, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, all hands on deck meeting with Democratic governors
Speaker 2: to try to reassure them that he had a medical
Speaker 2: checkup following the president of debate, despite earlier statements from
Speaker 2: the White House pres Secretary on multiple occasions that he
Speaker 2: had not received any medical exam since February.
Speaker 1: We played some of that in the last show.
Speaker 2: The White House later clarified that Biden was seen by
Speaker 2: a doctor for a brief quote brief checkup due to
Speaker 2: the lingering symptoms from a cold, which did not include
Speaker 2: any major tests. Uh So, even when they lie to you,
Speaker 2: they still can't there. They're now lying to either the
Speaker 2: governors or the American people, or they're just lying about
Speaker 2: all of it.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts.
Speaker 5: Yeah, look, the cold is nonsense, the jet lag is nonsense.
Speaker 5: Everyone knows that the issue is that he's too old
Speaker 5: and he's suffering from dementia. That that is bleakasly true.
Speaker 5: They're trying to distract from this. Look, I'll give you
Speaker 5: a sense of how bad it is, even the Praetorian Guard,
Speaker 5: even the most zealous defenders of Joe Biden, the Democrats,
Speaker 5: and by that I mean the New York Times, even
Speaker 5: their turning on her. On Wednesday of this week, The
Speaker 5: New York Times wrote a story the headline of which
Speaker 5: is Biden tells allies he knows he has only days
Speaker 5: to salvage candidacy. Here's what The New York Times wrote.
Speaker 5: By the way, this is not an editorial, this is
Speaker 5: a news story. President Joe Biden has told key allies
Speaker 5: that he knows the coming days are crucial and understands
Speaker 5: that he may not be able to salvage his candidacy
Speaker 5: if he cannot convince voters that he is up to
Speaker 5: the job after a disastrous debate performance last week. According
Speaker 5: to two allies who have spoken with him, Biden has
Speaker 5: emphasized that he is still deeply committed to fight for
Speaker 5: his reelection, but understands that his viability as a candidate
Speaker 5: is on the line. The presidents sought to project confidence
Speaker 5: Wednesday in a call with campaign staff, even as White
Speaker 5: House officials were trying to calm nerves inside the ranks
Speaker 5: of the Biden administration. Quote, no one's pushing me out,
Speaker 5: Biden said in the call. I'm not leaving. Vice President
Speaker 5: Kamala Harris was also on the line. Quote we will
Speaker 5: not back down. We will follow our president's lead. She said,
Speaker 5: we will fight and we will win. Rah rah rah.
Speaker 5: Still Biden allies said the President had privately acknowledged that
Speaker 5: his next few appearances heading into the July fourth holiday
Speaker 5: weekend must go well, particularly in an interview scheduled for
Speaker 5: Friday with George Stephanopolovis of ABC News and campaign stops
Speaker 5: in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Quote, he knows that if he
Speaker 5: has two more events like that, we're in a different
Speaker 5: place by the end of the weekend, said one of
Speaker 5: the allies, referring to Biden's halting and unfocused performance on
Speaker 5: the debate. That person who talked to the President in
Speaker 5: the past twenty four hours spoke on the condition of
Speaker 5: anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. The accounts of his
Speaker 5: comment coversations with allies are the first indication to become
Speaker 5: public that the president is seriously considering whether he can
Speaker 5: recover after a devastating performance on the debate stage in
Speaker 5: Atlanta last Thursday, A new poll from The New York
Speaker 5: Times in Siena College showed the former President Donald Trump
Speaker 5: now leads Biden forty nine to forty three percent among
Speaker 5: likely voters nationally, a three point swing towards the Republican
Speaker 5: from just a week earlier before the debate this is
Speaker 5: they're terrified. And note they're terrified about one thing. They
Speaker 5: think Biden's going to lose. If they thought a mentally
Speaker 5: incompetent person was going to win, they'd be fine. But
Speaker 5: they're terrified that there are at least some people who say, gosh,
Speaker 5: maybe the commander in chief should be aware of what's
Speaker 5: going on around him.
Speaker 1: Final two questions for you.
Speaker 2: One, when do you think the media has to stop
Speaker 2: this onslaught of attacks on the president because they're going
Speaker 2: full court press is in another week and then they
Speaker 2: got to dial it back in case he does continue
Speaker 2: to be the nominee, they can't push him out. And
Speaker 2: number two, how important is this prime time taped interview
Speaker 2: Friday night for Joe Biden's future?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, let me start with number two. The
Speaker 5: interview on Friday is very important. If he goes and
Speaker 5: just craps the bed, that could be fatal. I think
Speaker 5: ABC and Stephanopoulos are going to do everything they can
Speaker 5: to prevent that from happening. I think they're going to
Speaker 5: edit the heck out of the interview. They should run
Speaker 5: it live and anyone who cares like ABC should be
Speaker 5: embarrassed about itself that it's not running it live because
Speaker 5: their editing will be designed to create a false impression,
Speaker 5: to protect Joe Biden, to turn it into a campaign video.
Speaker 5: If they're a real journalistic outlet, you know what I do.
Speaker 5: I do them live, and if I say something dumb,
Speaker 5: you know what. The camera catches it and all the
Speaker 5: world can hear. And it's not ABC's job to be
Speaker 5: doing the pr and damage control for the Democrats, but
Speaker 5: that's what they're doing. I think the interview matters a lot.
Speaker 5: I also think it's interesting you're seeing Democrats publicly breaking ships.
Speaker 5: So Lloyd Doggett, very liberal Democrat from Austin, Texas, became
Speaker 5: the first Democrat member of Congress to say the president
Speaker 5: should step aside. Two others, Jared Golden and Maine and
Speaker 5: Marie Glusen camp Perez of Washington, both Democrats, both said
Speaker 5: they believe Biden will lose in November. That's significant that
Speaker 5: you're seeing elected Democrats coming out saying that. Another one,
Speaker 5: Seth Moulton, another Democrat from Massachusetts, raised real questions about
Speaker 5: whether Biden can win. He said, quote, I deeply respect
Speaker 5: President Biden and all the great things he's done for America,
Speaker 5: but I have grave concerns about his ability to defeat
Speaker 5: Donald Trump. Winning will require prosecuting the case in the media,
Speaker 5: in town halls and at campaign stops all over the country.
Speaker 5: President Biden needs to demonstrate that he can do that.
Speaker 5: The unfortunate reality is that the status quo will likely
Speaker 5: deliver us President Trump. We're seeing that happening more and
Speaker 5: more and more. Now, your first question was how long
Speaker 5: will the media continue to attack Listen on the debate night,
Speaker 5: I predicted if this is going to happen, it's going
Speaker 5: to shake out in twenty one days, So we're a
Speaker 5: week into it. I think we have two more weeks
Speaker 5: ahead of us. We will go into the Republican Convention
Speaker 5: in two weeks. I think we'll know what happens by then.
Speaker 5: A final point in one that has not been discussed
Speaker 5: a great deal. I think all of this drama impacts
Speaker 5: President Trump very significantly, and in particular, it impacts his
Speaker 5: vice presidential choice. Trump is in the middle of presumably
Speaker 5: picking who he wants to beat VP. Lots of names
Speaker 5: have been floated, there are lots of shortlists, lots of
Speaker 5: things discussing. Well, normally when you're picking a VP candidate,
Speaker 5: you know who your opponent is, you know what you're
Speaker 5: fighting against. In this instance, it's a very difficult situation
Speaker 5: for Trump because the kind of VP he might pick
Speaker 5: if he's running against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could
Speaker 5: be a very different VP than if he's running against
Speaker 5: Michelle Obama. I think right now the Trump team is
Speaker 5: feeling incredibly confident. I think they think they're gonna win,
Speaker 5: They're gonna beat Joe Biden. I think they're feeling on
Speaker 5: top of the world. I can tell you if the
Speaker 5: news broke tomorrow that Biden was not the nominee anymore
Speaker 5: and it was gonna be Michelle Obama, the Trump team,
Speaker 5: if it were not at a major emergency mode level
Speaker 5: of this is serious, then they misreading the situation because
Speaker 5: Michelle Obama's the Democrat nominee is incredibly dangerous and that
Speaker 5: could easily impact the vice presidential nominee. So, for example,
Speaker 5: if it's Michelle Obama, maybe Trump picks Tim Scott, deciding
Speaker 5: that he wants to go fight and fight more aggressively
Speaker 5: for African American votes. That's one possible consideration that maybe
Speaker 5: that's a little bit less of a consideration. If Joe
Speaker 5: Biden is at the top of the ticket.
Speaker 6: So there are.
Speaker 5: Complicated, complicated chess moves that are playing out right now
Speaker 5: because of the uncertainty of who's going to be the nominee.
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. Well,
Speaker 2: even on MSNBC, they were having this conversation on this
Speaker 2: scot of immunity ruling, and they said, in their words,
Speaker 2: Trump could target like journalists could target. Quote me, That's
Speaker 2: what Wallace said, and then he said, people, if he wins,
Speaker 2: will be forced to flee the country.
Speaker 5: Listen, frame court in Russia exists, but none of us
Speaker 5: think that there's a rule of law there.
Speaker 1: When you look at this opinions, it just doesn't know it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly, Mark Elias. We should pull the curtain back
Speaker 7: on what's actually happening, shouldn't we. People are exploring options
Speaker 7: to live in other countries if they think they could
Speaker 7: be targeted for prosecution by Donald Trump, because targeting you,
Speaker 7: or targeting me, or targeting Andrew would be an official
Speaker 7: act based on today's decision.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean they could target for criminal prosecution, they
Speaker 8: could target or administrative investigation, the IRS, the SEC, the EPA.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're not just talking about death, they're talking
Speaker 2: about using the president saying I'm going to target everybody
Speaker 2: I want to and use all of the things, by
Speaker 2: the way, which Democrats have done. They've used the justice system,
Speaker 2: they use the IRS, the Tea Party for example, They've
Speaker 2: gone after people and raid their homes.
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon's in jail right now. Goes on and on
Speaker 1: and on.
Speaker 2: Of all the things that they're doing actually right now
Speaker 2: before this ruling that had nothing to do with this ruling.
Speaker 2: Now they're like, well, we're going to have to leave
Speaker 2: the country because he's just going to target all of us.
Speaker 5: So I gotta say, what utter garbage the two of them. Oh,
Speaker 5: they're going to target us. They're going to target us.
Speaker 5: That's what Joe Biden is doing right now, Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: This Justice Department is the most lawless, partisan, weaponized abuse
Speaker 5: system of justice ever seen. The absolute irony of those
Speaker 5: people saying, oh, Trump's going to do that. You know what,
Speaker 5: when he was president before, he didn't do that. It
Speaker 5: is you, you dishonest partisan hacks that are going after that
Speaker 5: have the four indicement against Trump. As you noted, Steve
Speaker 5: Bannon is in jail right now. They they are, Peter
Speaker 5: Navarro is in jail right now. You're going after pro
Speaker 5: life protesters, you're attacking, you're refusing to go after people
Speaker 5: are fire bombing pregnancy resource centers. The absolute hypocrisy. The
Speaker 5: people who invented weaponization are now saying, well, we're scared
Speaker 5: we'll be targeted. It's utter garbage. You know, I got
Speaker 5: to say, you're and my friend Jesse Kelly, he tweeted
Speaker 5: it in response to this. I think his tweet was
Speaker 5: very insightful. He said, you know what you call it
Speaker 5: when Scotus reveals the president has immunity, and the first
Speaker 5: thought the communists have is about using the military to
Speaker 5: execute political opponents. In poker, that's known as a tell.
Speaker 5: For instance, if you told me that the president can
Speaker 5: do whatever he wanted without restriction, my very first thought
Speaker 5: would be about firing government employees and eliminating entire federal agencies.
Speaker 5: For communists, their thoughts go directly to murder. Again a tell.
Speaker 2: It's a great point, and it goes back to the
Speaker 2: insanity of all of them. They do this, and then
Speaker 2: you know, you look at the Spring Court and again
Speaker 2: I go back to listen to Norm Essen on CNN
Speaker 2: immediately after this happens.
Speaker 1: Listen to what he says.
Speaker 9: When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.
Speaker 9: So in this context, with what the Court has decided,
Speaker 9: Norm does this mean that Nixon basically would have been
Speaker 9: able to do what he did completely legally without any recourse.
Speaker 10: You could have had substantial portions of Richard Nixon's wrongdoing
Speaker 10: that drove him from office because it was conducted from
Speaker 10: the Oval office, using his official advisors to engage in
Speaker 10: break ins, a wide variety of other illegal activity would
Speaker 10: have been impossible to prosecute. Essentially, what the Supreme Court majority,
Speaker 10: again including terribly conflicted justices who have no business sitting
Speaker 10: on this case under any standard of udicial ethics, what
Speaker 10: they've done, Sarah, is rewrite American history. It goes all
Speaker 10: the way back to the founding American idea. We overthrew
Speaker 10: King George the Third because we did not want a
Speaker 10: ruler to have this kind of absolute immunity, and the
Speaker 10: Supreme Court has now altered that. And we have to
Speaker 10: be honest that we're facing a major party political candidate
Speaker 10: who has said he wants to be a dictator on
Speaker 10: day one, he wants to assert autocratic powers. They've just
Speaker 10: given him a license for dictatorship within the purview of
Speaker 10: official acts. That should be extremely alarming, And it makes
Speaker 10: this momentous election really a referendum on the future of
Speaker 10: American democracy.
Speaker 2: A license for dictatorship, Like, come on, CNN.
Speaker 6: What utter garbage.
Speaker 5: And again, the Freud projection is so utterly rich. It
Speaker 5: is Joe Biden whose Department of Justice is targeting its
Speaker 5: political enemies. It is Joe Biden who is engaged in
Speaker 5: rampant censorship of the free speech of American citizens. It
Speaker 5: is Joe Biden who issued a blatantly illegal vaccine mandate
Speaker 5: that was thrown out by the courts, but fired thousands
Speaker 5: and thousands of active duty service men and women, fired
Speaker 5: FBI agents, fired Border patrol agents because they refuse to
Speaker 5: comply with his illegal vaccine mandate. And to be clear,
Speaker 5: the court struck down his vaccine mandate, but he had
Speaker 5: already gotten rid of the people he wanted to get
Speaker 5: rid of. It is Joe Biden who repeatedly issues lawless
Speaker 5: orders trying to give away a trillion dollars in student
Speaker 5: loans that he has no legal authority to do. He
Speaker 5: knows they'll get struck down in court, but he's trying
Speaker 5: to buy votes. That is utterly lawless. It is Joe
Speaker 5: Biden who on the border is ignoring the entirety of
Speaker 5: federal immigration law and is released has allowed eleven million
Speaker 5: people to come into this country illegally, who is ignoring
Speaker 5: the Americans who are being murdered, who are being raped
Speaker 5: by the criminals he's releasing. And yet you have these
Speaker 5: numbskulls go on CNN and say, oh, well, this means
Speaker 5: Trump can be a dictator. Trump didn't do any of that.
Speaker 5: Everything I just listed Trump actually followed the law. He
Speaker 5: exercised his power. He implemented policies that proved very beneficial
Speaker 5: for the American people. It is the Democrats. And look
Speaker 5: look when Alejandro Majorcas was impeached for utterly defying the law,
Speaker 5: for refusing to follow immigration law, every single Democrat in
Speaker 5: the Senate, all of them voted to throw out the
Speaker 5: case and to hear no evidence. So they don't care
Speaker 5: about the rule of law. They care about power. The
Speaker 5: reason they're angry and hyperventilating. Is because this case is
Speaker 5: an effort to weaponize the justice system to stop the
Speaker 5: voters from voting to elect Donald Trump, and this ruling
Speaker 5: they view as getting in the way of what they
Speaker 5: want to do, which is weaponized the justice system to
Speaker 5: subvert democracy. The irony is, he says, this is a
Speaker 5: blow to democracy. What they're doing is an attack on democracy,
Speaker 5: and they're frustrated that their attack on democracy is not working.
Speaker 1: Center.
Speaker 2: My final question for you now is the politics of this.
Speaker 2: You got Twitter going crazy in the left saying, all right,
Speaker 2: we'll just take out Donald Trump, which is I thought
Speaker 2: against all but apparently not. You've got the media saying, well,
Speaker 2: this means that Donald Trump, if he gets elected, is
Speaker 2: going to be a dictator and a tyrant and he
Speaker 2: can just lock everybody up, so people are going to
Speaker 2: have to flee the country. And now, in a weird way,
Speaker 2: this kind of gets the Democrats out of.
Speaker 1: Jail free card.
Speaker 2: With the court cases, which I believe have been backfiring
Speaker 2: on them. They've only been helping every time they go
Speaker 2: after Trump legally, it seems to help Donald Trump. Is
Speaker 2: this in a weird way of blessing in disguise politically
Speaker 2: for the Democrats, they can kind of just put pause
Speaker 2: and Jack Smith can go away, and Alvin Brad can
Speaker 2: kind of go away for a little bit, and we
Speaker 2: just kind of have a normal election.
Speaker 5: Now, you know, I think you may be overthinking it.
Speaker 5: I don't think they're capable of thinking strategically or rationally
Speaker 5: on this. They just hate him. They want to attack
Speaker 5: him on every front. It is always about Orange Man bad,
Speaker 5: it is always about Trump is the devil. And so
Speaker 5: they're just gonna have You're gonna see cries of frustration.
Speaker 5: You're gonna see tears on MSNBC. Trump winning terrifies them. Look,
Speaker 5: these cases, the Jack Smith case is not going to
Speaker 5: proceed before the election. It's going to take significant time
Speaker 5: to brief out and decide the immunity questions that now
Speaker 5: have been sent to the Lower Court. And it's not
Speaker 5: clear that any of the jack Smith case survives once
Speaker 5: you go through the analysis of what constituted an official action,
Speaker 5: either an exclusively official action or an official action with
Speaker 5: shared authority with Congress. Very little, if any of the
Speaker 5: Jack Smith indictment will survive that analysis. But and and
Speaker 5: actually Alvin Bragg, it's interesting, you know, we were supposed
Speaker 5: to have the judicial sentencing of Trump two days before
Speaker 5: the Republican Convention.
Speaker 6: That now is going to be delayed.
Speaker 5: And the reason it's going to be delayed is as
Speaker 5: soon as this decision came down, Trump's legal team asked
Speaker 5: to brief the judge there as to why those convictions
Speaker 5: should be thrown out under the reasoning in in this
Speaker 5: Supreme Court decision, and and and the court said yes,
Speaker 5: that that that the court will consider legal arguments on
Speaker 5: that question, and that meant that the sentencing had to
Speaker 5: be delayed. And Alvin Bragg agreed to delay the sentencing. Now,
Speaker 5: I got to say he pretty much had to. With
Speaker 5: this decision coming down, it is obvious that the court
Speaker 5: at least needs to consider what is the relevance of
Speaker 5: this decision to the convictions against Donald Trump. Now, the
Speaker 5: court said when it was scheduling arguments that it thought
Speaker 5: that the arguments were baseless. So I'm going to predict
Speaker 5: right now the New York judge is going to say, no,
Speaker 5: that decision doesn't change anything. And it is true that
Speaker 5: the conducted question occurred before Trump was president, and so
Speaker 5: it is in no way, shape or form an exercise
Speaker 5: of presidential authority, and so there are lots of reasons
Speaker 5: why the decision from the New York Trial Court is
Speaker 5: an absolute abomination and an abuse of power, and why
Speaker 5: it will be reversed on appeal. But it may well
Speaker 5: be that it's not going to be because of this decision,
Speaker 5: because this decision concerns the exercise of presidential powers, and
Speaker 5: Trump was not president when the conducted question occurred.
Speaker 2: As before, If you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 2: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 2: dow the podcast from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 2: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 2: story number three of the week. You may have missed, tender.
Speaker 2: There's another important issue. I know you wanted to bring up.
Speaker 2: It is one that has not been on the front
Speaker 2: pages of newspapers, and that doesn't mean it's not important.
Speaker 2: In fact, it's very important. Explain to us about this
Speaker 2: significant ruling that came down.
Speaker 5: So last week, the US Supreme Court decided a decision
Speaker 5: called lowp or Bright Enterprises Versus Raymondo. And what the
Speaker 5: court did is it overruled a nineteen eighty four decision
Speaker 5: of the Supreme Court. The Chevron decision, and that was
Speaker 5: a decision Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chevron
Speaker 5: decision created something that is called Chevron deference. Now, what
Speaker 5: is Chevron deference. It was a doctrine that said the
Speaker 5: courts will defer to federal agencies on rules and regulations
Speaker 5: so long as that rule and regulation is quote reasonable.
Speaker 6: What it did is it.
Speaker 5: Gave enormous powers to unelected bureaucrats, and Chevron you can
Speaker 5: trace in a very direct line, the rise of the
Speaker 5: administrative state, the rise of unelected bureaucrats issuing rules that
Speaker 5: are incredibly costly to the American people, incredibly harmful to
Speaker 5: the American people. You can trace that rise to the
Speaker 5: Chevron doctrine because when an agency of unelected bureaucrats issued
Speaker 5: a brand new rule, the courts would enforce that rule
Speaker 5: and say, well, it's the expert agency, and so we're
Speaker 5: going to get forced to what they say, even if
Speaker 5: Congress never passed this into law. And so the court
Speaker 5: last week overruled Chevron. What that means now is that
Speaker 5: it is Congress. It's the elected members of Congress that
Speaker 5: have to make policy decisions that impact the American people,
Speaker 5: not the armies of bureaucrats who have no democratic accountability.
Speaker 2: What type of present that will this have moving forward?
Speaker 2: And what is a state of corporations as well?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 5: What it will do is weaken federal regulators. And let's
Speaker 5: take for example, the facts here. So the facts here
Speaker 5: concerned a family fishing company, and the federal government issued
Speaker 5: a regulation that required the family fishing Company number one
Speaker 5: to allow a fishing monitor a person on board their ship,
Speaker 5: but also forced the family fishing company to pay the
Speaker 5: salary of the federal fishing monitor, even though the law
Speaker 5: passed by Congress had no such requirements. So, in other words,
Speaker 5: this regulator said, okay, you the fisherman, you got to
Speaker 5: allow a federal bureaucrat on your ship, and you got
Speaker 5: to pay a salary. Why because we said so, because
Speaker 5: we want you to pay a salary. And the court said, well,
Speaker 5: wait a second. When Congress passed the law, it didn't
Speaker 5: say that where did you this come up with? Where
Speaker 5: did you come up with this? You just made this up.
Speaker 5: And so in this case I led an amicus brief,
Speaker 5: a friend of the court brief in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: It was joined by seventeen other senators Mike Johnson, the
Speaker 5: Speaker of the House, led an amicus brief in the
Speaker 5: House of Representatives. Let me read you the first couple
Speaker 5: of paragraphs of the brief that I filed in the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: Here's the summary of the argument. Quote.
Speaker 5: The Court should unequivocally abandon the contemporary Chevron deference doctrine
Speaker 5: because it contradicts Articles one, two, and three of the Constitution.
Speaker 5: Decades of application of Chevron deference have facilitated the exercise
Speaker 5: of functions by the executive branch that more properly belong
Speaker 5: to the legislative and judicial branches. Agencies exploit general or
Speaker 5: broad terms and statutes to engage in policy making functions
Speaker 5: of questionable legality, with the assumption that the courts will
Speaker 5: grant deference and not independently evaluate the lawfulness of those
Speaker 5: agency interpretations. And then I quote from from a dissent
Speaker 5: of Justice Thomas's quote. The founders expected that the federal
Speaker 5: government's powers would remain separated and the people's liberty secure
Speaker 5: only if the branches could check each other. Therefore, the
Speaker 5: Constitution imposes structural constraints on all three branches, and the
Speaker 5: exercise of power free of those accompanying restraints subverts the
Speaker 5: design of the Constitution's ratifiers. The court agreed with the
Speaker 5: amicus brief that I filed for seventeen senators. It agreed
Speaker 5: with the amicus brief Mike Johnson, the Speaker the House,
Speaker 5: filed for a number of House members. And the result
Speaker 5: today is there is more power in the elected members
Speaker 5: of Congress. And the reason that matters is where power resides.
Speaker 5: You want it to reside where there's accountability. If Congress
Speaker 5: votes for an idiotic law that hurts the American people,
Speaker 5: you know what the voters can do. They can throw
Speaker 5: the bums out. If an unelected bureaucrat issues a rule
Speaker 5: that says, I don't know, fishermen, you got to let
Speaker 5: a bureaucrat on your vote and you got to pay
Speaker 5: a salary. Well, you know what, you can't fire that bureaucrat.
Speaker 5: That bureacrat doesn't run for office, that bureaucrat doesn't do
Speaker 5: town halls, that bureaucrat never sees the people he's hurting.
Speaker 5: And so this was a victory for democracy and a
Speaker 5: victory for the Constitution, which of course means democrats and
Speaker 5: the media are horrified.
Speaker 2: You know this reminds me so much of the parallels
Speaker 2: and what you're describing with what we saw with doctor Fauci,
Speaker 2: a guy elected by no one making more money than
Speaker 2: anybody else in the United States government. Literally that's not
Speaker 2: a joke, making more than the president makes and being
Speaker 2: able to basically make up and put laws on all
Speaker 2: of us in certain lockdowns, etc. On all of us
Speaker 2: and change the entire way we did our life. And
Speaker 2: there was in essence no checker balance for him. This
Speaker 2: seems like where the country is moving now, paying attention
Speaker 2: more to these type of situations.
Speaker 5: Well, and look, we see a whole series of decisions
Speaker 5: from the Supreme Court that are all about enforcing the
Speaker 5: Constitution and enhancing democracy. You take the Dobbs decision that
Speaker 5: overturned ROVERSUS weighed, what did it do. It moved questions
Speaker 5: of abortion that are hotly contested that people passionately disagree on.
Speaker 5: It moved them to the elected branches of government. It
Speaker 5: moved them to the fifty states, where the citizens of
Speaker 5: each state could decide what should the rules be in
Speaker 5: your state? And nobody would expect that Texas would have
Speaker 5: the same rules that California has because the citizens have
Speaker 5: different values and where there are contested policy issues that
Speaker 5: ought to be the voters deciding now. Interestingly enough, even
Speaker 5: though democrats on the corporate media love talking about how
Speaker 5: much they want to defend democracy, they are horrified whenever
Speaker 5: the voters actually get to decide. They want unelected judges
Speaker 5: deciding so long as they agree with what the judges
Speaker 5: are deciding, and they want unelected bureaucrats deciding, and they
Speaker 5: know they're going to agree with that because the bureaucrats
Speaker 5: are overwhelming the left wing and disconnected from the harms
Speaker 5: that their rules and regulations are causing.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
Speaker 2: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts
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.