Hard Look at Swing State Polling, SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity & How The Filibuster Effects the Supreme Court Week In Review

Summary

The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson – Detailed Summary

Episode: Hard Look at Swing State Polling, SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity & How The Filibuster Effects the Supreme Court Week In Review
Release Date: September 28, 2024

---

Introduction

In this episode of The 47 Morning Update, host Ben Ferguson engages in a comprehensive discussion with Senator Ted Cruz, covering critical topics pivotal to the upcoming presidential election. The conversation delves into the current state of swing state polling, the Supreme Court's stance on presidential immunity, and the ramifications of altering the filibuster on the Supreme Court's composition.

---

1. Hard Look at Swing State Polling

Senator Ted Cruz provides an in-depth analysis of polling data across key swing states, emphasizing the importance of these states in determining the presidential election outcome. Utilizing Real Clear Politics averages, Cruz breaks down the competitive landscape in each battleground state.

• Arizona

  • Candidates: Democrat Gallego vs. Republican Kerry Lake
  • Polls: Gallego leads by an average of 4.3% across the last four polls.
  • Implication: While Trump is outperforming Lake, the 4.3-point lead is considered winnable for Republicans.

• Michigan

  • Candidates: Democrat Slotkin vs. Republican Mike Rogers
  • Polls: Slotkin holds a 5.1% advantage based on eight recent polls.
  • Implication: A tight race with a slight edge for Democrats, but still within reach for Republicans.

• Montana

  • Candidates: Democrat John Tester (incumbent) vs. Republican Tim Sheehy
  • Polls: Sheehy leads by an average of 5.2%.
  • Implication: Consistent Republican lead, yet within the margin of error for a potential Democratic comeback.

• Nevada

  • Candidates: Democrat Jackie Rosen (incumbent) vs. Republican Sam Brown
  • Polls: Rosen leads by 8.8%.
  • Implication: A significant Democratic advantage, but Trump remains competitive.

• Ohio

  • Candidates: Democrat Sherrod Brown (incumbent) vs. Republican Bernie Moreno
  • Polls: Brown leads by 3.6% across recent polls.
  • Implication: Despite Brown’s lead, Cruz notes Trump’s likelihood to secure Ohio with a substantial margin.

• Pennsylvania

  • Candidates: Democrat Bob Casey (incumbent) vs. Republican Dave McCormick
  • Polls: Average lead of 4.9% for Casey, fluctuating between a tie and a solid lead in recent polls.
  • Implication: Highly variable polling makes Pennsylvania a critical battleground state.

• Maryland

  • Candidates: Democrat Brooks vs. Republican Larry Hogan
  • Polls: Democrat leads by 6.8%, with significant variability.
  • Implication: Hogan’s popularity offers a slender chance for Republicans, though Maryland remains predominantly Democratic.

• Wisconsin

  • Candidates: Democrat Tammy Baldwin (incumbent) vs. Republican Eric Hovdi
  • Polls: Baldwin leads by 4.6%, with tightening margins in recent surveys.
  • Implication: A winnable race for Republicans if they can shift the polling numbers slightly.

Notable Quote:

“Every one of these states that I mentioned is winnable by the Republicans. But for us to win, the numbers need to shift four or five points.”
— Ted Cruz [00:00:09:44]

---

2. SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity

The discussion transitions to the Supreme Court's involvement in presidential immunity, highlighting a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing aimed at challenging the Court's decision on the matter.

• Hearing Overview:

  • Purpose: Democratic-led hearing to critique the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, labeling it as a means to render the president unaccountable.
  • Key Witness: Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General and federal judge.

• Senator Cruz’s Examination:

  • Cruz questions Mukasey to debunk the Democrats' narrative, emphasizing historical precedents where presidents have not been indicted for official acts.
  • He draws parallels between presidential actions and hypothetical criminal acts by private citizens to illustrate the immunity granted to presidents.

Notable Quote:

“…the Democratic argument today is that the concept of presidential immunity is somehow unprecedented… That claim is utterly ahistorical and disconnected from the entire constitutional history of the Republic.”
— Michael Mukasey [11:14]

---

3. The Filibuster’s Impact on the Supreme Court

Senator Cruz addresses the potential elimination of the filibuster and its profound implications for the Supreme Court and broader democratic structures.

• Current Senate Dynamics:

  • Democratic Majority: 51-49 in the Senate.
  • Key Holdouts: Democrats Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema vetoing the end of the filibuster.

• Implications of Ending the Filibuster:

  • Supreme Court Nominees: Without the filibuster, Supreme Court nominations would require only a simple majority, allowing for expedited confirmations.
  • Historical Precedent: Cruz references Harry Reid’s "nuclear option" to end filibusters for judicial nominations, leading to the confirmation of justices like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett with less bipartisan support.

• Consequences for Democracy:

  • Permanent Power Shift: Cruz warns that ending the filibuster would entrench one-party rule, undermining democratic checks and balances.
  • Comparisons to Other Nations: He draws parallels to Venezuela and other authoritarian regimes, suggesting that such measures threaten the foundational principles of American democracy.

Notable Quotes:

“If Schumer ends the filibuster, no Republican ever wins again. It is one party rule.”
— Ted Cruz [25:47]

“…today's Democrats are profoundly anti Democratic. Their number one priority is making it so the voters can never, ever, ever be able to take them out of power.”
— Ted Cruz [22:20]

---

4. Historical Context and Future Predictions

Senator Cruz underscores the irreversible nature of structural changes once certain policies pass, using Obamacare’s passage via budget reconciliation as a reference point.

• Budget Reconciliation: A tool allowing passage of budget-related bills with a simple majority, bypassing the filibuster.

  • Examples: Passage of Obamacare, Trump’s tax cuts, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
  • Limitations: Cannot be used for structural changes like Supreme Court packing or altering electoral processes.

• Future Outlook:

  • Electoral Impact: Should Democrats secure the filibuster’s end, Cruz predicts a consolidation of power akin to authoritarian regimes, with long-term detrimental effects on U.S. democracy.
  • Unchangeable Consequences: Once implemented, these changes cannot be easily reversed, leading to a permanent shift in the political landscape.

Notable Quote:

“If you have 20 million illegal immigrants voting, Democrats win. … This is why the Democrats, they're just focused on power.”
— Ted Cruz [26:46]

---

5. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Ben Ferguson and Senator Ted Cruz wrap up the discussion by emphasizing the severity of the issues at hand. Cruz expresses deep concern over the erosion of democratic principles and the potential for irreversible political shifts.

• Final Insights:
  • Cruz stresses the urgency of reelecting Donald Trump to prevent further structural changes that could undermine the nation’s democratic framework.
  • Both hosts highlight the critical nature of the upcoming election, urging listeners to stay informed and engaged.

Notable Quote:

“…the single thing that keeps me up at night is that we are that close to losing our entire country.”
— Ted Cruz [30:59]

---

Closing Remarks

Ben Ferguson encourages listeners to revisit the full podcast for an exhaustive discussion and to stay tuned for daily updates. He underscores the importance of being informed and proactive in the political landscape to safeguard democracy.

---

For the full conversation and more detailed insights, listeners are encouraged to download the complete episode available on the iHeartRadio app or preferred podcast platforms.

Transcript

[Ben Ferguson]

Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a WEEKEND Review. Ben Ferguson with you as always. And there are some major stories that you may have missed that we talked about this week. First up, what does it look like state by state right now, especially in the swing states when it comes to polling with this presidential election? We're going to break that down for you. So you know where we stand right now, just a couple less than two months away from Election Day. Also, the Supreme Court is now dealing with presidential immunity. So what does it mean for the sitting president and what does it mean for future presidents after the Supreme Court took a look at this issue? We'll explain that for you. And finally, Kamala Harris comes out. She wants to end the filibuster. So what would that look like and would it mean that they would pack the Supreme Court? We break that down for you as well. It is the week in in review and it starts right now. All right, Senator, so let's go through these states. And this is when I say to vertical listeners, grab your pen and paper because this is where on election night you're going to love watching the results come in with these different states and the knowledge that we're about to give you.

[Ted Cruz]

All right, so let's start with Arizona. The best way typically to consume polling numbers is to look to the Real Clear Politics average. And and so look, there are variations among polls. Some polls are more accurate than others, but most political professionals do is they look to the polling average. And the theory is the average is sort of averages out the the ups and the downs. So if you look to the Real Clear Politics average in Arizona right now, this is a race between Gallego the Democrat, and Kerry Lake the Republican. Right now, Gallego is leading by 4.3 points. So that's the average. That's the average of the last four polls that have been done in that race. Trump has a good chance of winning Arizona. So right now Trump is outperforming Carrie Lake in that state. But four points is very winnable. She can win that race. But according to the average, right now the Democrats are ahead. Let's move to Michigan. So if you look at Michigan, the two candidates are Slotkin the Democrat and Mike Rogers the Republican. In Michigan, the Real Clear Politics average is the Democrat at 5.1%. So again, five points is pretty close. But it does show an advantage right now for the Democrats. And that's an average of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 polls, polls in the last month. The Democrat is ahead by an average of 5.1%. All right, let's go to Montana. Montana I mentioned is the brightest spot in terms of the pickup. This is a battle between John Tester, the Democrat, the incumbent, and Tim Sheehy, the, the, the Republican. And, and Sheehy is ahead on an, on an average of 5.2 points. So that's, that's sizable. It's not decisive. Tester could still come back and win it, but that's been a consistent lead. If you look at the last four polls. Sheehy plus six, Sheehy plus seven, Sheehy plus six, and she plus two. So that's been a consistent lead. All right, let's look to Nevada. So Nevada, the numbers are bumpier. The incumbent is Jackie Rosen. She's a Democrat. Sam Brown is a Republican. The real Clear Politics average is Rosen by 8.8%. So that's, that's a pretty siz lead. Nevada is another state where Trump is very competitive and so he could win Trump. It may be that the polling numbers are understating where Brown is, but, but 8.8% is, there's some distance to be closed on the average polling there.

[Ben Ferguson]

All right, let me ask you this real quick before you move forward, because it's a question I know everybody's asking their head. All right, you just mentioned this state and then you mentioned Arizona earlier, where Trump is leading, but Car Lake is not there. How often do you see a presidential election cycle historically where the, the Republican wins in the state, but the person next down the ball in the Senate race loses? Where people walk in, they go yes for Trump and no for the Senate candidate. Is that happen very often?

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah, that happens with, with some regularity. And Trump in most states is going to get more votes than the down ballot Republicans. For one thing, there are people that come in that just vote president and leave. And then there are also there will be some voters in every one of these states who votes for Trump at the top of the ticket. And then for a Democrat Senate candidate, I wish they didn't. It is frustrating as all get out. But, but there exists. And, and to be fair, weird way.

[Ben Ferguson]

You'Re like voting against your own interests of what you're saying you want for the country with the president. Well, he needs the votes in the House and Senate to get that agenda done.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah. And there tend to be more crossover voters who do Trump in a Democrat Senate candidate than there are crossover voters who vote Kamala Harris at a Republican Senate candidate. It, it, it just at the end of the day has tended to be a one Way Ratchet. All right, let's go to Ohio. Ohio is the next closest after Montana, and the two candidates are. Sherrod Brown, the Democrat, who's the incumbent, Bernie Moreno, the Republican. The Real Clear Politics average is the Democrat, up by 3.6%. So the last three polls were plus 2, plus 5, plus 4. So Ohio is definitely winnable. Trump is extremely likely to win Ohio. He could win Ohio by double digits. But right now, Brown is polling substantially ahead of where Kamala Harris is in Ohio. And so Ohio is a state where there are a number of voters right now who say they're voting for Donald Trump, and yet a Democrat senator who will fight to undermine every. Think Trump does every single day in the Senate, which is why I wish voters wouldn't do that. I don't think that makes sense, and I think it. It ends up working against yourself, but nonetheless, there's some voters that do. All right, Pennsylvania. So Pennsylvania is probably the most important battleground in the country. It, it, it is the state most likely to decide the presidential race. Uh, the incumbent is Bob Casey. He's a Democrat. Dave McCormick, the Republican, a very good friend of mine, who I've endorsed and campaigned with multiple times. Across Pennsylvania, the Real Clear politics average is 4.9%. And so, starting from. So back in August, there was a tie. Then Casey plus 1, then Casey plus 7, then Casey plus 8, then Casey plus 4, then Casey plus 9, then Casey plus 5, then Casey plus 5, then casey plus 5, then Casey plus 9, and then the Washington Post, the most recent poll showed it as a tie. So, look, there's some, there's some variability on that. So, so the last two polls were Casey plus nine and a tie. I mean, that's a big delta between those two.

[Ben Ferguson]

Yeah, that's the head scratcher.

[Ted Cruz]

And so it's why you tend to look to the average, because the average kind of takes out the highs and lows. And so 4.9%. Um, you would say right now the Democrats have an advantage, but 4.9%. You can definitely close between now and election Day. And I think the issue set favors us. All right, Maryland. Maryland is a state that shouldn't be a battleground. It's a very blue state. It is going to go. It is going to go for Kamala Harris by double digits. Uh, and yet you've got Larry Hogan. Larry Hogan, the former governor There is a Republican, very popular governor running against a Democrat. Also, Brooks. The Real Clear politics average is 6.8%. But again, there's been a lot of variability. On this. So back in, in, in August, there was a poll that was a tie, and then Democrat plus 5, Democrat plus 7. And then there was one just recently, Democrat plus 15. So Maryland is a race that is winnable, but to do that, Hogan is gonna have to outperform Trump by, by 20 points or more. That ain't easy to do. That is a big, big delta. He was the governor there. He was very popular. And he's the only, he's the only Republican who has a prayer to win in Maryland. But Maryland is not an easy state for a Republican to win. And the final battleground is Wisconsin. Wisconsin is Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat. Who's the incumbent? Eric Hovdi is the Republican running against her. The real Clear Politics average is Democrat, 4.6%. So again, close, winnable. But right now, the Democrats have the advantage. Although it's interesting, if you look at the polls going back to August, it was Democrat plus 6, Democrat plus 5, Democrat plus 8. But then the last four polls have been Democrat plus 3, Democrat plus 3, Democrat plus 4, Democrat plus 3. So the race has tightened in the last couple of weeks, and it's about a three and a half point differential in the last four polls, which means Wisconsin is very winnable. And look, every one of these states that I mentioned is winnable by the Republicans. But for us to win, the numbers need to shift four or five points. And to do that, we've got to focus on the issues. And the issues are the same issues as the presidential the economy, inflation, illegal immigration, and crime. And if we focus on those, I think we've got a real shot at winning every one of those.

[Ben Ferguson]

Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week. Now, on to story number two. I want to move on also to something else that you mentioned earlier, and it's happened today, set the stage for everybody in Congress and explain exactly what was going on. And it dealt with presidential immunity.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, Senate Democrats for two years have been engaged in a relentless assault on the Supreme Court and trying to undermine the Supreme Court. And so today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. And the whole purpose of the hearing was to say that the Supreme Court decision is ridiculous, that it's out of bounds, that it basically said Trump is a king, that he's unaccountable, some bizarre decision, and they're trying both to attack Trump and to delegitimize the Supreme Court. And so among the Witnesses testifying was Michael Mukasey, who was the former Attorney General of the United States under George W. Bush. And he was a federal judge for nearly 20 years before that. And he was one of the witnesses. And so I took the opportunity to actually question the former Attorney General and to lay out the utterly false narrative the Democrats were putting forward. Give a listen to my questioning of Attorney General Mukasey.

[Michael Mukasey]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The nub of the Democrats argument today is that the concept of presidential immunity is somehow unprecedented, is somehow remarkable. That claim is utterly ahistorical and disconnected from the entire constitutional history of the Republic. General Mukasey, before 2023, how many times has the President of the United States been indicted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

None.

[Michael Mukasey]

Before 2023, how many times has a former President of the United States been indicted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

None.

[Michael Mukasey]

In the last two years, how many times has President Donald J. Trump been indicted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

Four times, I believe.

[Michael Mukasey]

Now, many presidents of both parties have engaged in controversial actions, and yet none of them have been indicted. Let me ask you, General, if a private citizen were to erect an internment camp and to forcibly kidnap American citizens to single them out because of race and to imprison them based on their race, would that private citizen be subject to criminal prosecution?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

Would.

[Michael Mukasey]

When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did the exact same thing and erected Japanese internment camps, was FDR prosecuted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He was not.

[Michael Mukasey]

Let me ask you similarly, if a private citizen were, say, to detonate a nuclear weapon over a city and kill over 140,000 people, and then if that private citizen, a few days later, detonated another nuclear bomb over another city and killed 75,000 people, could that private citizen be criminally prosecuted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He would.

[Michael Mukasey]

Was President Harry Truman prosecuted for detonating nuclear weapons over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He was not.

[Michael Mukasey]

All right, how about this. If a private citizen launched a weaponized drone and killed a United States citizen, could that private citizen be criminally prosecuted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He would.

[Michael Mukasey]

Was President Barack Obama criminally prosecuted when he killed United States citizens using drones without notice and without due process?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He was not. Although as far as due process is concerned, I believe the comment of my. Of my successor to that question was that Anwar Al Awlaki got, quote, all the process that was necessary.

[Michael Mukasey]

Well, although I suspect he might disagree with that assessment were he able to. To present his case.

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

Right.

[Michael Mukasey]

All right, let's contrast that with the rules that govern other federal officials. You were a judge for 19 years. As a federal judge, did you have immunity from your official acts?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

My official act, yes.

[Michael Mukasey]

Do federal prosecutors have immunity from their official acts?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

They do.

[Michael Mukasey]

Now, the distinction between Official acts and personal acts is not a terribly shocking distinction. Under the decision of Trump versus United States, if any president walks onto the. Walks onto the sidewalk and just shoots a citizen, is that president liable to be prosecuted?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He is.

[Michael Mukasey]

How about this? If a president steals funds from his campaign, does that president face criminal liability?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He does.

[Michael Mukasey]

How about this? If a president sexually assaults, let's say, an intern in the Oval Office, is the president subject criminal prosecution for that?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

He could be.

[Michael Mukasey]

So that distinction, again, is not a shocking distinction. The Founding Fathers vested the executive power in a single President of the United States. What we have seen in the last two years is we have seen Democrats deliberately weaponizing the Department of Justice and our legal system to target their political opposition. It is not an accident that every indictment against President Trump was brought by a Democrat and was brought after he announced his campaign for President of the United States. Understand, the target of those indictments was not ultimately President Trump. It was the voters. It was prosecutors who were terrified that the voters would choose to re elect President Trump. One of the great things about the United States is we're not a banana Republic. Since 2000, the nation of Pakistan has had six former prime ministers prosecuted and convicted. Brazil has had three former presidents arrested and imprisoned. Last year, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega arrested, charged and imprisoned 40 political opponents. General Mukase, you are Attorney General of the United States. It is. Is it the proper role of the Department of Justice to prosecute and target the political opponents of whoever happens to be President the United States?

[Senate Judiciary Committee Member]

It is most assuredly not.

[Ted Cruz]

Thank you.

[Ben Ferguson]

He says it most certainly is not. But the reality is Donald Trump keeps getting attacked by the left and they keep trying to lock up their political opponents.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah, no, that's exactly what they're doing. And their claim that the ruling that a president can't be criminally prosecuted for his official acts is contrary to the law. It's why I use the examples I used. It's why I use, look, the Japanese internment camps. Presidents can do a lot of things in exercising their official power that ordinary citizens cannot. And we would want our commander in chief, our commander in chief can send our troops into combat, can use lethal force, and they do regularly. And so the Supreme Court naturally said, well, we don't want a situation where each new president who comes in, the first order of business is let's criminally prosecute the last guy for the things he did as president. That I disagreed with. And so, you know, the hearing was really a dog and pony show by the Democrats to mischaracterize the Supreme Court decision. So I thought it was important to explain the actual law in the real context.

[Ben Ferguson]

Let me ask you another question about this. Will there be a correction? I mean, if Donald Trump is the president, next time, will there be a correction? Or once the cat's out of the bag, is there any way of getting it back to where we were before, as you described it, 20, 23?

[Ted Cruz]

I don't know. I certainly hope we are not in a world where we are a banana republic, where it is routine to prosecute your predecessors. I don't know. But I do think the Democrats have gone down a road that it's very hard to turn around and come back from.

[Ben Ferguson]

Yeah, it is going to be very, very tough, to put it mildly, to turn this thing around. And I think once they realize they can do this, I don't see Democrats being responsible moving forward with it. That's my biggest concern. Is there anything we can do to protect former presidents or does something need to change with the law?

[Ted Cruz]

Look, the biggest thing we can and should do is reelect Donald Trump as president. Elections have consequences. We're six weeks away from Election Day. The outcome of this election matters immensely.

[Ben Ferguson]

As before, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and download the podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing. I want to get back to the big story number three of the week. You may have missed. You look at the Democrats. They have for the last several years really been trying to undermine the Supreme Court. They have, they have leaked from the Supreme Court, the Roe v. Wade decision, for example. The Democrats have been trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices and we saw just how hostile they allowed people to get towards the Supreme Court justice in their homes. I mean, the media has been undermining the Supreme Court as well and acting like the Supreme Court is this outdated body that should be changed. So when you say that we're one vote away and this is what would happen, they're the ones that have been doing all the things you would do for this possible opportunity if it actually arises. And you can say, yeah, like we've been saying this for years, we think the Supreme Court should be packed, right?

[Michael Mukasey]

Yeah, look, that.

[Ted Cruz]

That's correct. And here's the math. Today, there's a 51, 49 Democrat majority in the Senate. However, of those 51, there are two Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, who have both voted against ending the filibuster. So Chuck Schumer tried to end the filibuster they had a vote on it. And 49 Democrats voted to end the filibuster. Had either mansion or cinema flipped, they would have had the votes. But the two of them are the only things that stopped it. Now I'm going to tell you something. We know for an absolute certainty. In January of next year, neither mansion nor cinema will be there.

[Ben Ferguson]

Very true.

[Ted Cruz]

Both of them, their terms are done. Neither of them are running for reelection. It's 100%. They will be gone. That means that Schumer is going into this election with 49 votes to end the filibuster. If he picks up one anywhere, he gets to 50. And if Tim Waltz is the Vice president, he has everything he needs to end the filibuster. And I want to make a point here also. You notice none of the things I listed were economic. I, I didn't list in, in the calamity, in, in, in, in the, the parade of horribles. I didn't list 70% marginal tax rates. I didn't list massively confiscatory death taxes. I didn't list wealth taxes that tax you on unrealized capital gains. I didn't list banning fracking and shutting it down oil and gas exploration in the United States. I didn't list nationalization of mineral rights. Look, to be honest, the economic stuff, the socialism that follows like night follows day, because the Democrats top priority, the four things I listed are all about seizing control and making it permanent, making it impossible that Democrats ever lose. And, and, and you know, there's something deeply Freudian about how Democrats behave because they talk incessantly about saving democracy. And yet today's Democrats are profoundly anti Democratic. Their number one priority is making it so the voters can never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote them out of power. And once they're in power, look, on the economic stuff, the only constraints are just how crazy are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren willing to go. But, but it, it is. Look at countries like Venezuela. Once you get one party locked in power with no ability to constrain them, the country goes downhill incredibly quickly. And I think terrible policies, look, policies I didn't mention gun confiscation, going after the second Amendment, going after religious liberty, going after the First Amendment. They packed the Supreme Court. You're not going to have the courts backstopping any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. All of that happens as a matter of course. Schumer's first focus is power. And if he can lock in power forever, that really is the end of our democracy. And ironically, it's the number one priority of today's Democrats.

[Ben Ferguson]

Let me go back to a very consequential vote and I just want to remind people perspective on, on this filibuster in the 60 plus, when we go back to Obamacare, what was the number on Obamacare? How many votes did that pass with? Do you remember?

[Ted Cruz]

Well, the way they passed Obamacare was through a special budget procedure called budget reconciliation. And budget reconciliation is the most important exception to the filibuster. Budget reconciliation comes from a law called the Budget act of 1975 and it's a special procedure for adopting a budget. And under that statute it is exempt from the filibuster. So you can pass it with a majority. That's how they did Obamacare is they did it using budget reconciliation. By the way, the Trump tax cuts were passed using budget reconciliation. Um, so they were not subject to the filibuster. No Democrat voted for the Trump tax cuts. Um, if you look at things like the, the, the Orwellian named inflation reduction act that was passed by the Democrats using budget reconciliation. So there are things that can be done that, that typically involves spending and taxing that can be done with just 50 votes. But the structural changes to our republic, things like the federal takeover of all elections in this country or adding two new states to the union, or granting immediate voting rights to every illegal alien in America, that cannot be done through budget reconciliation. Packing the Supreme Court cannot be done through budget reconciliation. The statute lays out specific categories of what can and can't be done through reconciliation. So the sort of simplest way to think about it is spending and taxes. You can get around the filibuster. Everything else as a general matter, you can't see.

[Ben Ferguson]

And that's why I want to remind people, because we were talking about that during the time and it came up that you know the 60 votes and how important it is. And it's a hard threshold. If you change it and you think about how consequential, for example, Obamacare was and during that time when there was almost a super majority and yada yada, yada, and you go, okay, there's a reason why it was set up this way. The entire United States of America's history changes if you get rid of this. Am I wrong?

[Ted Cruz]

You are absolutely right. Look, if Schumer ends the filibuster, no Republican ever wins again. It is one party rule. And so ask yourself how, how is Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro been for Venezuela? That will be. And listen. Some people listening might say, oh, come on, That's. That's too much. You shouldn't compare Kamala Harris to Nicholas Maduro. Well, if their policy is to lock themselves and their party into power forever and to disempower the voters from ever, ever, ever being able to take them out of power, that is exactly what Chavez and Maduro have done. That's what Castro have done. It is the strategy of dictators. And it is a shocking thing that today's Democrats no longer believe in order to save democracy, they're willing to destroy democracy.

[Ben Ferguson]

Senator, let me ask two questions to wrap this up. There may be people that say, look, if there is a. Let's say they get it and they get rid of the filibuster, it'll come back in a couple years. Maybe there's like a little bit of an overreaction here. I go back in history, and I'm a student of history. You are, and you love history as well. When consequential things usually happen within our government, a great example is Obamacare. Once it's done, it is extremely hard to undo it. And so if people think, well, maybe they do it and we'll get it back, maybe they throw four more people on the Supreme Court, but we could get it back to nine if we really wanted to. How impossible would it be to undo some of the things you talked about if it actually went into effect because the Democrats win in November?

[Ted Cruz]

Well, understand that the four things I listed are all structural. So once they happen, you can't undo them. If you have 20 million illegal immigrants voting, Democrats win. Texas isn't the only state that turns blue. North Carolina turns blue. Georgia turns blue. Arizona turns blue. I mean, I mean, you have suddenly swing states that are not swing states anymore. This is why the Democrats, they're just focused on power. You look at, if it's right, D.C. will elect Democrats for all eternity. If it becomes a state. Puerto Rico. I don't think it's 100% correct that Puerto Rico would only elect Democrats. We have seen Republicans elected in Puerto Rico, although partisan politics doesn't line up in Puerto Rico exactly like it does in the mainland. But if the Democrats are correct that that's four new Democrats in the Senate, it is very difficult to see a map that ever again elects a Republican majority in the Senate. So there will never be an opportunity to reverse it. And by the way, you can look to what happened with the Supreme Court. So if you look at Supreme Court nominations, Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option, the same method for ending the filibuster for legislation Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option to end the filibuster for judicial nominations. And he did so. When he did so, I remember I was on the Senate floor and he did exactly what I said. He asked for a ruling from the chair. He appealed the ruling of the chair and all the Democrats voted with him and they overturned it. And so to confirm a judge, you only need now 50 votes plus the Vice President. And I remember being on the Senate floor, I turned to Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and all the Democrats were voting like lemmings to end the filibuster. And I told her then I said, you realize the consequence of this? We are going to get more justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. And that is unequivocally correct. And in fact, if you want to know why Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch were confirmed, it is because the Democrats ended the filibuster for judicial nominations. If they hadn't, there is no chance on earth Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed because it would have taken 60 votes. And there weren't going to be 60 votes for any nominee that had a proven record of being conservative. So it changed markedly the kinds of judges that Trump could nominate. Once the change is made, procedurally, it never, ever, ever goes back.

[Ben Ferguson]

Final question for you, and that is, you look at what you just said in this show and it, it changes my perspective. And I do this with you three days a week and talk politics every day because the easy issue, right, is the economy, stupid. And that's the number one issue. Most voters say number two, they say the border. This issue to me now, after we've gone through it, is even bigger than those two issues when it comes to the future of this country. Is that a fair take in terms.

[Ted Cruz]

Of long term future? Yes, it is absolutely a fair take. It is, as I said, the single thing that keeps me up at night, that we are that close to losing our entire country. And I think almost everyone is oblivious to it. I look, you and I are both Texans. How many Texans do you know that realize that we could be three months away from Texas becoming California, becoming a bright blue plate state, by the way, if that happens, I'll make a crazy prediction that I hope and pray never comes true. If the Democrats end the filibuster, if they grant voting rights to every illegal alien in America and every illegal alien In Texas, Beto O'Rourke would be the next governor of the state of Texas. I don't think that's an exaggeration. I think that is actually quite likely.

[Ben Ferguson]

As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. Don't forget to download my podcast. And you can listen to my podcast every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards. I'd love to have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcast. And we will see you back here on Monday morning.