← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Understanding the Historic Supreme Court Victories & Losses this Week
00:42:06
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
America 250 Announcer
This is an iHeart podcast guaranteed human
- [00:04]
this July 4th, come celebrate at America's Block Party hosted by America 250. America's Block Party is a can't miss 4th of July concert happening at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
- [00:14]
Experience music, performances by major artists, patriotic tributes and the kickoff to giving 4th, helping to make July 4th the largest day of giving in American history.
- [00:24]
It's more than just fireworks.
- [00:26]
Join this landmark celebration and get your America's Block Party Tickets now for $17.76cent@america250.org LA It's America's 250th, but you deserve some presents too. Simon Malls Mills and premium outlets have can't miss sales. July 3rd to 5th join Simon plus our new rewards program for free and get 2.5 times the points. In addition to extra savings, cash back and offers that also work@shopsimon.com grab the fam, head to a Simon center and make it a day for the books. It's a sale, a bration thing. Sign up today@SimonPlus.com rewards program terms apply CSUN DiamondPlus.com for details.
- [01:06]
The first ever X Games League championship is going down live and New Orleans has the call. Three days of elite action sports, a season's worth of competition coming down to one final weekend. Watch July 24th through 26th on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 or stream on the ESPN app, X Games, YouTube, Kick Roku sports channel and Amazon. The championship starts July 24th. Don't miss the moment it becomes history.
- [01:35]
Newt Gingrich
On new Tror Podcast. We're celebrating America's 250th birthday and I ask my guests how they're spending their 4th of July. Brett Baer I will be working. I'll be in Washington because it's a big, big day. Jared Isaacman I plan to be flying
- [01:51]
Senator Ted Cruz
in an F5 fighter jet painted in Freedom 250 colors, along with four other fighter jets flying over the nation's capital.
- [01:58]
Newt Gingrich
Listen to Newtsworld on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast.
- [02:05]
Senator Ted Cruz
Why should you listen to Armstrong and Getty on demand? We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and tedious and depressing and makes you angry. You don't want to live your life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong.
- [02:17]
America 250 Announcer
He's Joe Getty.
- [02:18]
Senator Ted Cruz
We're Armstrong and Getty. We try to bring you the truth and help you figure out this crazy modern world. How about something about a comedic tone? We have a winner. Yes. Listen to Armstrong And Getty on Demand on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [02:36]
Ben Ferguson
Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you as well. It's nice to have you with us. And Senator, we are going to have a really interesting show today because we have so many extremely important rulings that have come down from the Supreme Court. We're going to break them into the wins and into the losses category here and let people know exactly what many of these rulings mean going forward.
- [02:58]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, this was a landmark week in front of the U.S. supreme Court. Huge decisions came down this week. We're going to break them down for you, try to explain them, make them understandable. We had major, major victories that are enormously consequential. We also had a couple of big, big losses. We're going to break all of them down for you today.
- [03:16]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's, it's a lot of them. And we're going to talk about that in a moment. But first, I want to talk to you about Americans United for Life. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion drugs can keep being sent through the mail. No doctor visit, no in person exam, no one checking whether a woman is being pressured, whether she's too far along, whether she's safe. These are powerful drugs. And right now there is almost nothing standing between these drugs and your mailbox. And that's why I want you to know about Americans United for Life. Aul for more than 50 years, they've been the legal backbone of pro life movement. They fight in the courts, they hold the abortion industry accountable. And right now, they are leading the efforts to restore basic safety protections for these drugs. If anyone can fix this, it's aul. Now here is how you can help and why it matters. Now, a donor has put up $250,000 to match every gift to Americans United for Life, dollar for dollar, but only through June 13th. $25 becomes 50, 50 becomes 100. But that window closes in days. There are women right now who need someone in their corner and AUL is that someone and be a part of it. Go right now to aul.orgforward/verdict. That's a u l.orgforward/verdict. Give before June 13th and your gift will be doubled again. That's a U L.org forward slash verdict. All right, so Senator, let's talk about some of the victories. And, and one of them was a very interesting case. It's about the president having the ability to, to fire people. And this was one of those that maybe wasn't on a lot of people's radar screen. But it's a really important case.
- [05:24]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, let's start with two decisions and this is a big victory. Trump versus Slaughter and Trump versus Cook. And it dealt with the ability of the President to file fire people in his administration. So almost 100 years ago, the court decided a case called Humphrey's Executor. Humphreys executor. Actually, 91 years ago, the court concluded that the President cannot fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. And the Federal Trade Commission was set up as a so called independent agency. It was an agency with three commissioners appointed by the President confirmed by the Senate from the majority party, and two commissioners appointed by the President confirmed by the Senate from that minority party. And the so called independent agencies arose coming out of the Woodrow Wilson era, coming out of the Progressive era, as a way to limit presidential power. And Humphrey's executor said the President doesn't have the ability to fire an FTC commissioner without cause. Well, in my view, Humphrey's executor was wrong the day it was decided 91 years ago. And it has been wrong every day for nine decades since then. Why? Because under the Constitution. The constitution, the first three articles of the Constitution, Article 1 vest all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. Article 2 vests all executive power in the President of the United states. And Article 3 vests all judicial power in the judiciary. What Humphrey's executor did is severely limit The President's Article 2 authority over the Executive branch. Anyone in government, you are either in one of those three buckets, you're either a legislative official, I'm a legislative official. I'm elected by the people of Texas to represent them in the Senate. I'm in the legislature, I'm in Article one. You could be a judicial official that is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate. You're a judge with life tenure adjudicating cases. That's an Article 3. Everyone else is an Article 2. Article 2 is the executive. And under the Constitution, the President has authority over the Executive. Humphrey's executor said, no, no you don't. There could be someone that works for the executive. And yet somehow Congress has taken over the ability of the President to control that person. Well, when President Trump came in in the second term, he fired two FTC directors, commissioners rather, one of which was Rebecca Slaughter. Rebecca Slaughter is a Democrat. She was one of the five FTC commissioners and he fired her. He said, you know what? I just want Republican commissioners I'm not appointing Democrat commissioners. Now, he did that knowing it would prompt a legal challenge and anticipating that it would be a legal challenge he would prevail in. I will tell you, I've said publicly multiple times for a long time Trump was going to prevail. And you know, as I talked to reporters, they'd say, well, what do you think about this case? I said, Trump's going to win and he's going to win because Humphrey's executor was wrong. The President has the authority over the executive branch and I believe the Court is going to overrule Humphrey's executive. Well, this week that prediction came true. By the way, we talk on this podcast a lot about the predictions we make. And the vast majority of the predictions we make come true and we hold ourselves accountable. When they come true, we lay them out. When they don't come true, we lay them out. In this instance, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and Justice Thomas, in part. So it was a 6:3 decision and the Court overturned. Humphrey's executor said the President can fire an FTC commission. That's a big victory. That's a big victory for presidential authority. That's a big victory for the text of the Constitution. That's a big victory for the original understanding of the Constitution. Now, here's kind of a weird wrinkle. There was another case that was Cook versus Trump. So Lisa Cook was a Federal Reserve governor.
- [10:00]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah.
- [10:00]
Senator Ted Cruz
And Trump also fired Lisa Cook. Now, interestingly enough, look, you would think the same principle should apply, that if Trump can fire an FTC commissioner, he ought to be able to fire a Federal Reserve governor. Well, you'd be wrong on that. The Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, held that Trump could not fire Lisa Cook, that the Federal Reserve was different and it was a different majority. Chief Justice Roberts wrote both opinions, which did not surprise me. Trump versus Cook was joined. Roberts joined by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. So it was five, four. Now, Clarence Thomas dissented. He called the ruling incorrect. He pointed out that it was inconsistent with the Slaughter decision. I got to say, this did not surprise me at all. And indeed, I had predicted Humphreys executors would be overturned, but at the same time, the Court would be reluctant to accord the President carte blanche over the Federal Reserve. And in my view, look, Chief Justice Roberts had different distinctions about the statute of the Federal Reserve actually think those distinctions did not matter. This was I believe in significant respects, a results driven outcome. I think at the end of the day, you did not have five justices that were willing to accede the power to the President to fire a Federal Reserve governor because the role of the Federal Reserve with our currency, with our economy was significant enough that they were reluctant to do it. That doesn't surprise me. The consequence of these two decisions is Trump vs Cook, pure and true to the Constitution. Probably not, but it is a fairly narrow exception to the much broader precedent which is Trump versus Slaughter, which overrules Humphrey's executor and upholds the President's authority to fire executive branch employees at his discretion.
- [12:22]
Ben Ferguson
That's going to obviously have big impact moving forward right over the next couple of years for the President as well. Would you agree?
- [12:28]
Senator Ted Cruz
Yeah. No, no, it's, it's a big deal. And it's going to mean as a practical matter, going forward, I think there's a real possibility, in fact a likelihood that these so called independent commissions will not have bipartisan commissions. I think going forward you're going to see commissions like the ftc, the fcc, potentially the fec, the various commissions that are bipartisan. What we've seen with Trump is that he says, I'm not going to appoint Democrats to it and he leaves those seats vacant. My guess is if and when we have another Democrat president, and unfortunately we will likely have another Democrat president, I'd rather not. I think the Democrats policies are really damaging. But if history is any guide, we will see the Democrats in charge of the White House at some point. And I think it is quite likely that when the Democrats are in charge, they will appoint to the independent commissions three commissioners from the Democrat Party and zero Republican commissioners. And look, I'll say what, 25 years ago when George W. Bush was elected President, I came in, I was a young campaign staffer. I'd been down in Austin, Texas on the campaign team with, with then Governor Bush. I met Heidi on the Bush campaign. She and I came to join the Bush administration. I spent about six months in the Department of Justice and then I went over to the Federal Trade Commission and the FTC is what was the subject of this litigation. My boss at the time was the chairman, Tim Buris. Tim is a brilliant conservative lawyer, economist. And I was the head of policy at the FTC when I was 30 years old. I was a young kid. It was a fascinating job. I did that for a little over two years. Very much enjoyed the job at the Time we had three Republican commissioners, two Democrat commissioners, and to be honest, to be a minority commissioner, independent commission, it's kind of a weird job because you don't have the votes, but you can nonetheless express your views, you can dissent, you write opinions, you press back within the executive branch. I think the consequence of this decision is you're not going to see minority commissioners from the party out of power. You will see the independent agencies operate much like the rest of the executives. So just like in the Department of Labor, you don't have a Republican secretary of labor and then a Democrat secretary of labor who argues against it. Instead, you just have appointees of the president. I think you will see in the independent agencies the same sort of thing. They will just be appointees of the majority party.
- [15:06]
Ben Ferguson
It's going to be very, very interesting to see, like you said, how this moves forward. But certainly that is a victory for President Donald Trump. All right, I want to move on to another one of the victories. And this was a big case. It's one that I was actually involved with more than any other case that's ever been before the Supreme Court. My old roommate is the West Virginia Attorney General, J.B. mcCuskey, and they were a part of bringing this case. They knew that when they made their decision, West Virginia, it was probably going to reach the Supreme Court court. Sure enough, it did. I actually went into the Supreme Court for those oral arguments that were being made that day with getting men out of women's sports. This was a massive victory. It's a fight the president wanted. It's a fight center that you've been heavily involved with protecting women's sports. And it was a huge victory that is going to have real repercussions across sports at every level in this country.
- [15:59]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, this is a big, big deal. The Supreme Court has now made absolutely clear that we can protect women from men competing against them in sports. We can protect girls from boys competing against them in sports. This has been one of the things, look, you look at how the world has gone crazy 10 years ago, even five years ago, I don't think people really could have imagined this would be a thing. And we're seeing it be more and more often a thing where boys are competing against girls, men are competing against women. It is grotesquely unfair. And the good news is 27 states have now passed laws saying this is not acceptable. We are going to protect girls. We are going to protect women in our states. This case, West Virginia vs. BPJ, concerned the laws in West Virginia and Idaho, two states that had passed common sense state laws saying, we're going to protect girls and women. Plaintiffs brought lawsuits challenging that and saying the Constitution and federal law prohibits states protecting women's sports and protecting girls sports. And the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected that argument. And so the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett. So it was a 6:3 decision. And the court concluded that the laws in West Virginia and Idaho are constitutional. That the Equal protection clause of the Constitution. So the equal protection clause of the Constitution is part of the 14th amendment. If you look at in the wake of the Civil War, we fought the Civil War, bloody war, and then we adopted three amendments to the constitutions, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment. 13th amendment prohibited slavery. The 14th amendment, I'm going to come back to in a second. The 15th Amendment protected the right to vote and prohibited discrimination and the right to vote based on race. What did the 14th Amendment do? The 14th Amendment protected the rights of citizens from discrimination by government. And there are three key clauses of the 14th amendment. There's the privileges or immunities clause, which prohibits the states from violating the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. There is the Equal Protection clause, that prohibits the states and also the local governments from denying Americans the equal protections of the law. And there's the Due Process clause, that prohibits the states and the local governments from denying Americans life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Equal Protection clause is essentially a provision of the 14th Amendment that says government cannot treat similarly situated people differently, cannot unfairly discriminate against you. And so it was initially interpreted to protect against racial discrimination. By the way, the Equal Protection clause is the basis on which the Supreme Court has struck down racial discrimination in college admissions and has made clear you can't discriminate based on race in college admission. That was the right decision. Well, in this instance, the plaintiffs were arguing that stopping a biological male from competing in women's sports violated the Equal protection clause. The Supreme Court6,3 rejected that argument, said that is wrong. Secondly, there are federal civil rights laws that protect civil rights. These are passed by Congress and signed by the President. And in particular, there's a decision called Bostock that is an employment discrimination case where Justice Gorsuch had written the majority opinion. And bizarrely, I think Bostock was wrongly decided. But the court in Vostok had concluded that the prohibition on discrimination based on sex also covered people who are transgendered, which I don't think is remotely within the statutory language. I think Bostock was wrongly decided. The court here concluded nothing in Bostock requires biological males to compete in girls sports. That is a big, big victory. Now, I want to be clear what this means. There are 27 states that have protected girls sports and women's sports. Those laws are now constitutionally sound, and they are extremely unlikely to be struck down in litigation. Now, doing the math, if 27 states have protected that, that means 23 states have not. The California, the New Yorks, the Illinois, the blue states in this case. Now, look, the court was not deciding whether there is a problem with California or New York allowing boys to compete in girls sports. I think there is a massive fairness problem. There's a massive public policy problem. I would like to see Congress. I voted repeatedly in favor of Congress passing legislation prohibiting boys from competing in girls sports, prohibiting men from competing in women's sports. I think that's the right policy. The outcome of this, this case is those 23 states can continue to let boys compete in girls sports. But thankfully, that means the voters can say enough is enough and get their states to pass laws protecting girls sports, protecting women's sports.
- [21:47]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it is going to be huge. And like you said, there's still going to be battles going forward, but they're going to be fought in a very different way than what we've witnessed so far. And this is, again, this is about protecting women's sports. And now you're going to see a lot of people that have been pushed around who are going to say, hey, I don't have to be anymore. I don't have to to play in these two worlds. I can do what now the Supreme Court says I can do. And that is huge. I want to also move on.
- [22:14]
Senator Ted Cruz
And by the way, hold on a second. I want to say something also. It's worth noting that in this case, it was 6, 3. That means three justices dissented. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented. And in particular, they argue that the case should have been remanded to the lower court to figure out if the transgender athlete who wanted to compete, whether that transgender athlete had specific medical treatments that eliminated any athletic advantage. So they wanted to be able to say, okay, if you're a biological man, but you're taking so much estrogen that all of the advantages of being male in terms of physically competing in sports have been eliminated, then you have a legal claim and you can strike down the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote separately and mind you, Ketanji Brown Jackson, you'll recall, during her confirmation hearing, famously was asked, what is a woman?
- [23:17]
Ben Ferguson
And she couldn't answer the question.
- [23:19]
Senator Ted Cruz
Do you remember what she said?
- [23:21]
Ben Ferguson
Yes. She didn't know how to answer it.
- [23:25]
Senator Ted Cruz
She said, I'm not a biologist. Yeah, well, it turns out she's still not a biologist because she descended here. And she said the court did not need to define sex as biological for the purposes of Title IX. Title 9 is the law that protects girls sports. She would have left the question open for future cases and refused to deny it. Look, you've got three liberal judges who, and to be clear, if the Democrats win, if they take the Senate, they want three to become five to become more, who would strike down every law in the country protecting girls sports and protecting women's sports. So we ought to celebrate, celebrate this victory. A 6, 3 victory, that's important, but it also ought to scare us. Not a single one of the liberals, they didn't admit even a moment's hesitation. That's how extreme things have gotten.
- [24:21]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's a great point. And it's exactly why presidential elections are so important. Because whoever's elected, they get to appoint people. And when they do, they still for a very long time and has major.
- [24:33]
Senator Ted Cruz
And by the way, it's not just presidential elections, the midterms in November. If the Democrats take the Senate, my prediction is they will block every single judicial nomination for the next two years. Yeah, it used to be the case you had a president of one party, a Senate of the other, that you'd move forward with judicial nominations. There'd be some moderation, but judicial nominations would proceed. I think the Democrats have gotten so radicalized, judges shut down. If they take the Senate this July
- [25:02]
America 250 Announcer
4th, come celebrate at America's Block Party, hosted by America 250. America's Block Party is a can't miss 4th of July concert happening at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
- [25:12]
Experience music, performances by major artists, patriotic tributes and the kickoff to giving 4th, helping to make July 4th the largest day of giving in American history.
- [25:21]
It's more than just fireworks.
- [25:23]
Join this landmark celebration and get your America's Block Party Tickets now for $17.76 at america250.org LA It's America's 250th, but you deserve some presents too. Simon. Malls mills and premium outlets have can't miss sales July 3rd to 5th. Join Simon plus our new rewards program for free and get 2.5 times the points. In addition to extra savings, cash back and offers that also work@shopsimon.com grab the fam, head to a Simon center and make it a day for the books. It's a sale, a bration thing. Sign up today@SimonPlus.com rewards program terms apply. See SimonPlus.com for details.
- [26:03]
The first ever X Games League championship is going down live, and New Orleans has the call. Three days of elite action sports. A season's worth of competition coming down to one final weekend. Watch July 24th through 12th 26th on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2, or stream on the ESPN app, X Games, YouTube, Kick Roku sports channel and Amazon. The championship starts July 24th. Don't miss the moment it becomes history.
- [26:33]
Ben Ferguson
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.
- [26:34]
Senator Ted Cruz
Now. I was looking for fun ways to
- [26:36]
America 250 Announcer
tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited
- [26:39]
Senator Ted Cruz
Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it
- [26:46]
America 250 Announcer
turns out that's very illegal.
- [26:49]
Senator Ted Cruz
So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch upfront payment
- [26:55]
America 250 Announcer
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy.
- [27:02]
Newt Gingrich
See terms this is Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and a proud American citizen. I'm celebrating America's 250th birthday on my podcast New World with 15 special episodes. And I've got some great guests. Walter Isaacson, Jonathan Turley, Brett Bear. I will be working because it's a big, big day. I'll be in Washington and have all kinds of coverage through the day of America. 250 Rachel Compostuffi there's nothing like American music.
- [27:33]
Senator Ted Cruz
We're the home of rock and roll. We're the home of rap.
- [27:35]
America 250 Announcer
We're the home of pop music.
- [27:36]
Newt Gingrich
Eric Metaxas, Jared Isaacman.
- [27:39]
Senator Ted Cruz
I plan to be flying in an F5 fighter jet painted in Freedom 250 colors, along with four other fighter jets flying over the nation's capital, the story
- [27:48]
Newt Gingrich
of the national anthem and the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Join me and let's celebrate America's 250. Listen to Newts World on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you are. Take your podcast.
- [28:03]
Ben Ferguson
I want to move to another big case. It was a victory. It's a little inside baseball, but it's a very important one. It deals the FCC and coordination expenditures explain this ruling as well.
- [28:13]
Senator Ted Cruz
This is a case called NRC versus FEC, and it's about free speech. And it's a 6, 3 decision that. That there were strict rules on how much a political party can spend in coordination with its own candidates. And the court struck down those limits and said the RNC can spend as much money as it wants to support Republicans in elections. The DNC can spend as much money as it wants to support Democrats in elections, and they can coordinate. They can talk with the candidate. The existing rules were really stupid where the parties could spend money, but they couldn't actually talk to the candidate they were spending money to support. And that, I believe, is contrary to the First Amendment, to the Constitution. You know, one of the strange things about how Democrats think about free speech? The First Amendment says, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. For many Democrats, they are robust. They are aggressive on the free speech. When it concerns pornography, obscenity, kiddie porn, they're like, oh, yeah, First Amendment covers all of that. You should be able to have any sort of grotesque obscenity in any context whatsoever. You should have explicit pornography in the library or kindergartens. That's what the First Amendment is all about. I understand the argument that the First Amendment is so robust, it even includes things that we would find distasteful. But the bizarre thing about Democrats is they say it somehow skips over political speech. Look, if the First Amendment is designed to protect anything, it is political speech. It is speech about our democratic process. It is speech saying, vote for my candidate. Throw this bum out of office. Here's the rules we should adopt. Here's the laws we should adopt. I'm for gay marriage. I'm against gay marriage. I'm for abortion. I'm against abortion. I'm for protecting gun rights. I'm against protecting gun rights. I mean, that's the essence of our democracy. And for many on the left, they believe government can regulate the living daylights out of political speech. Make it incredibly difficult to urge your fellow citizens, here's who you should elect. Here's who you should not elect. And yet, at the same time, they want it to protect speech at the outer edges of the First Amendment. I don't get that. The Supreme Court here, this decision is really important in terms of ensuring robust democracy and robust free speech. And by the way, you know what one of the key precedents was that this decision built on? What was that the case decided in 2022 that was entitled FEC versus Ted Cruz for Senate. So it's kind of cool. I have, over the course of my life, I had been a law clerk at the Supreme Court, so I have briefed and advised the Chief justice on how to decide cases. I had prepared the first drafts of Supreme Court opinions as a law clerk, I had been an advocate and argued nine cases in front of the court, so stood in front of the court, answered their questions, written briefs, and won multiple big landmark cases. But I've also been a litigant. I've been a party. And so I filed a lawsuit that culminated in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate that was challenging a portion of McCain Feingold. McCain Feingold was the big campaign finance law that John McCain and Russ Feingold championed that put major constraints on political spending and political speech. I think McCain Feingold was an absolute abomination. One element of McCain Feingold is it limited the ability of a candidate to loan money to his or her own campaign and then pay yourself back. And so when I first ran for Senate in 2012, Heidi and I, in fact, right before the primary, I went to Heidi and I had a pretty surreal conversation. I went, went to my wife and I said, okay, we need to liquidate 100% of our liquid net worth and put it in the campaign, because if we don't, we can't win. And listen, neither Heidi nor I come from money. My parents, when I was in high school, went bankrupt. My dad was an immigrant. He came from Cuba with nothing. It's a curious thing, Ben. People assume if you're in the Senate, you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Yes, some people in the Senate, that's true. For it wasn't for me. I mean, I'd been financially on my own since I was 17. My parents went bankrupt. We lost our home, we lost our business. When I went to college, I got two jobs, I took student loans. I've been supporting myself ever since then. But I will say over the years, I mean, I got a good education, I get a good job, and Heidi and I made some money. And so we had done well by working. And so by the time I ran for Senate, our liquid net worth, what we had that we could liquidate was $1.2 million, which is a lot of money. Look, I've had spent a whole life trying to earn that. I was really grateful to have that. I got to tell you, Ben, you've been married a long time. Not as long as I have, but a long time.
- [33:42]
Ben Ferguson
I'm getting stressed at the idea of having that conversation. Much else actually doing it.
- [33:47]
Senator Ted Cruz
It's an interesting conversation. And I will say, when I went to Heidi, I felt very confident she would say yes, but I sort of thought we would have a long, extended conversation. We might talk an hour or two about, well, how does the campaign look? Can you win? What are the prospects? And it was one of the moments I was most incredibly proud to be married to my best friend in the world, because 20 seconds into the conversation, Heidi said, yes, do it. And we put 1.2 million in. And by the way, the last week of the campaign, that was all the ads we ran. Like, if I hadn't written that check, we would have been dark on TV that last week because we were broke. We'd spent everything we'd raised, and so that was the only money we had, and we ended up winning the race. But McCain Feingold limited the ability to pay yourself back. So when the whole campaign was over, I could pay myself back some of it, but 550,000 of that I couldn't pay myself back. So for more than a decade, I had written a $550,000 check as a loan to my campaign. And McCain Feingold said I had to give that as a gift, I guess, to the voters and just sacrifice that money. And it wasn't fair. It wasn't right. And so this lawsuit challenged that and said, listen, you ought to be able to invest in and invest your resources in political speech. And six, three, I won in FEC versus Ted Cruz for said it big victory. And it meant now. And by the way, those rules, they didn't hurt candidates who were really poor. If you had no money, then it didn't matter if you could loan money to your campaign and pay it back. And they didn't really hurt candidates who were super rich. The gazillionaires of the world. If you're so rich, it doesn't matter. You can write a check and you don't miss it. What it really hurt was kind of folks in the middle, folks who say were professionals, like me. I was a practicing lawyer who had some reason, resources. But, you know, most people aren't willing to put 100% of their net worth in a campaign. I mean, that, that. That's a big investment.
- [35:56]
Ben Ferguson
Putting your money where your mouth is. When you go sit down with a donor and you're like, hey, I'm all in. They're like, well, really? How much are you? Like, no, like literally everything. That's a testimony to how much you believe in your campaign and what you're doing.
- [36:08]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, it is, and it's a question of being all in. And. And that decision protected basic First Amendment rights. Look, McCain Feingold was passed by a bunch of incumbent politicians. If you're an incumbent, you've got massive advantages. You can drive media like crazy. You have a fundraising apparatus. There are huge benefits to being an incumbent. Part of why Congress passed McCain Feingold is that incumbents didn't want to be challenged. They didn't want some upstart candidate to be able to run against them and beat them. And so by cutting off the money for an upstart candidate, if a candidate has no name ID and a candidate can't raise money and a candidate can't invest their own money, you know what it means? You can't beat an incumbent politician. And so the decision in FEC versus Ted Cruz for Senate, we won that 6, 3. That was a major precedent that in turn underlay NRSC versus FEC. And what that means now is that the parties will be able to spend and use. Look, there are some people who say money isn't speech. That view is objectively wrong. Virtually all speech requires the expenditure of money. You go back to the founding era. Look, the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers were op EDS printed in the newspaper in New York, and they were advocating for ratification of the Constitution. That took money. Printing newspapers. Take money. You look at Thomas Paine's Common Sense. That was printed. That took money. You look at Benjamin Franklin, who spent a lot of money putting out political pamphlets. You go forward to today if a little old lady goes to Home Depot and buys a stake of wood and a poster board to marker and writes, throw the bums out. That takes money and virtually all communication. By the way, the New York Times every week spends millions of dollars running printing presses, printing newspapers, distributing newspapers. NBC spends millions of dollars communicating about politics. CNN spends millions of dollars communicating about politics. Money is how you communicate to a nation of 330 million people. And so this victory says, look, all of us have a right to participate in the political process and express our views. That's a big victory for free speech.
- [38:47]
Ben Ferguson
All right, Senator, let's get to the. The bad cases. There's two of them that I think we need to highlight one of them, and it's one that there's been a lot of discussion over, and that's birthright citizenship case. My take on this was, look, the President wanted there to be a grand debate nationwide on birthright citizenship. I think a lot of people around him knew that if this went to the Supreme Court, and this was a fight they were willing to have, that there was a good chance it was not going to be a victory. But it did open up a big conversation nationwide on immigration, immigration status and birthright citizenship. People coming in. Birther tourism is a simple way of putting it, and it certainly did, I think, educate people on what's happening in this country. That, for me, is a victory. But the reality is, the Supreme Court, this was a loss.
- [39:38]
Senator Ted Cruz
So it was. The question is, what does birthright citizenship protect? And in particular, our children of illegal aliens entitled to become US Citizens because they were born on US Soil. Now, as a policy matter, birthright citizenship, I think, is a very foolish policy. It is a policy that encourages illegal immigration. It rewards people for breaking our laws. Most other countries on earth don't have that policy. If you break in illegally to another country, most other countries, if you have a kid there, that kid is not a citizen of that country. It also encourages things, as you noted, like birth tourism, where. Where pregnant women will get on a plane and fly to America on tourist visa simply to have a baby in America so that baby can become a U.S. citizen. That. That's a foolish policy. Now, there's a legal question of how can you change birthright citizenship? And I talked a minute ago about the 14th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. This case turned on the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What happened there have long been understood as really two potential ways to change current law and birthright citizenship. The one way that is unquestionably permissible and valid would be a constitutional amendment that changes the Constitution and makes clear that the child of an illegal immigrant born in America is not a US Citizen. I strongly support that. I would vote for that. That's good policy. The second way, and there's dispute among legal scholars, is could Congress pass a law saying the children of illegal immigrants born in America are not US Citizens? That is still a somewhat murky question. Donald Trump explored a third avenue, which is he signed an executive order that said, I am ordering the children of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens if they're born in the United States. Now, to be honest, prior to Trump coming into office, I'd never heard anyone articulate a legal theory that that could be done by executive order. The Trump administration knew it was pushing the bounds of what's permissible. You are right that we've now had a robust debate on Birthright citizenship and what a bad policy it is. Now, the court unfortunately ruled 5, 4 that the executive order is invalid and that the children of US of illegal immigrants born in the US Are US Citizens. That is unfortunate. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. I will say that that did not surprise me. It was clear from the oral argument this was the likely outcome. This was where the votes were headed. I wrote an amicus brief, actually two different amicus briefs in the Court, joined by multiple members of Congress, in which I asked the Supreme Court to restore the original meaning of the birthright citizenship clause. And I would encourage anyone interested in this issue go read the brief that I wrote that laid out the original understanding of what the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant and that someone who was unlawfully present in the country, it did not fall within those parameters. I think that's the right conclusion. I wish the Court. I think the dissenters have the better argument. I wish the dissenters, instead of having four votes that had five, I wish we had one more. That being said, I was not surprised just now. I will say this. Justice Thomas wrote a spectacular dissent, 91 pages. It is incredibly effective. And I will say Justice Thomas dissent cited my brief twice in that dissent. I'm glad that the dissent commanded four votes. I wish it had commanded five. Where does that leave us? Well, there's still some ambiguity on whether Congress could pass legislation defining subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to exclude the children born by parents here illegally. The Court did not resolve that question because it wasn't presented with that question. But let me be clear. From my perspective, this is a terrible policy outcome, and it's also the wrong legal outcome. And I would support, number one, a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. I would support, number two, legislation to end birthright citizenship. I hope we go down the road of both of those.
- [44:46]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you there. And finally, we got to deal with a case that deals with mail in ballots.
- [44:52]
Senator Ted Cruz
That's right. This is another case that is Watson versus rnc. And Watson versus RNC deals with the laws in Mississippi concerning governing absentee ballots. So the laws in Mississippi say that absentee ballots have to be postmarked by election day, and they can be received up to five days after election day. And in this case, the RNC filed a lawsuit challenging that and saying that under the terms of federal election law, election day is understood to be the actual day of the election. And so the argument the RNC made is that you could not count ballots received up to five days after the election. Unfortunately, By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court rejected that argument. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberals, concluded that Election Day is understood to mean the day when, quote, voting is complete, not when ballots are received. In other words, they upheld Mississippi's law allowing ballots to receive be received up to five days after election Day. There were vigorous dissents. It was 5, 4. But at the end of the day, what it means is that the Court has concluded federal law does not limit late received mail in ballots. The consequence of this is it's going to remain state by state. Red states can put real and meaningful limits, can limit balloting, can limit late received ballots. Mississippi can change their law. But it also means that blue states, states like California, can have the atrocity they had in their most recent election, their, their mayor's election in la, where they have votes coming in days, weeks, as much as a month later. Look, this, this decision is unfortunate, but I'll tell you what it really underscores. It underscores the need to pass the Save America Act. The Save America act would, would protect against illegal voting. I'm an original sponsor of the Save America Act. I'm fighting for it in the Senate. This decision, unfortunately was, was, was a real loss at the Supreme Court.
- [47:17]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it really was. Well, it certainly is a lot. As you mentioned, coming down from the Supreme Court. I'm glad we got to cover a lot of it. You know, the wins, you know, the losses and what it means moving forward. This is why we do the show. So don't forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscriber auto download button wherever you get your podcast so you don't miss a single episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz. And we'll see you back here on Friday morning.
- [47:42]
America 250 Announcer
This July 4th, come celebrate at America's Block Party hosted by America 250. America's Block Party is a can't miss 4th of July concert happening at the Los Angeles Park Memorial Coliseum.
- [47:52]
Experience music, performances by major artists, patriotic tributes and the kickoff to giving 4th helping to make July 4th the largest day of giving in American history.
- [48:02]
It's more than just fireworks.
- [48:04]
Join this landmark celebration and get your America's Block Party Tickets now for $17.76 at america250.org LA It's America's 250th, but you deserve some presents too, Simon. Malls, mills and premium outlets have can't miss sales. July 3 to 5. Join Simon plus our new rewards program for free and get 2.5 times the points. In addition to extra savings, cash back and offers that also work@shopsimon.com grab the fam, head to a Simon center and make it a day for the books. It's a sale, a bration thing. Sign up today@SimonPlus.com rewards program terms apply. See SimonPlus.com for details.
- [48:44]
The first ever X Games League championship is going down live, and New Orleans has the call. Three days of elite action sports, a season's worth of competition coming down to one final weekend. Watch July 24 through 26 on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2, or stream on the ESPN app, X Games, YouTube, Kick Roku sports channel and Amazon. The championship starts July 24. Don't miss the moment it becomes history.
- [49:13]
Newt Gingrich
On New Troll Podcast we're celebrating America's 250th birthday, and I ask my guests how they're spending their 4th of July. Brett Baer I will be working. I'll be in Washington because it's a big, big day. Jared Isaacman I plan to be flying
- [49:29]
Senator Ted Cruz
in an F5 fighter jet painted in Freedom 250 colors, along with four other fighter jets flying over the nation's capital.
- [49:36]
Newt Gingrich
Listen to Newts world on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast.
- [49:44]
Senator Ted Cruz
Why should you listen to Armstrong and Getty on demand? We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and tedious and depressing and makes you angry. You don't want to live your life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong.
- [49:55]
America 250 Announcer
He's Joe Getty.
- [49:56]
Senator Ted Cruz
We're Armstrong and Getty. We try to bring you the truth and help you figure out this crazy modern world.
- [50:00]
America 250 Announcer
How about something about a comedic tone?
- [50:05]
Senator Ted Cruz
We have a winner.
- [50:06]
Newt Gingrich
Yes, listen to Armstrong, you Getty on
- [50:09]
Senator Ted Cruz
Demand on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.