Naughty List of Corrupt Biden Officials, Dems Afraid of some Serious Kash & SCOTUS Gender Transition for Minors Case Week In Review

Summary

The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Episode: Naughty List of Corrupt Biden Officials, Dems Afraid of some Serious Kash & SCOTUS Gender Transition for Minors Case Week In Review
Release Date: December 7, 2024

---

Introduction

In this episode of The 47 Morning Update, host Ben Ferguson delves into three critical and timely issues: the Democrats' list of alleged corrupt Biden officials, the contentious nomination of Cash Patel as FBI Director, and a pivotal Supreme Court case concerning gender transition surgeries for minors. The discussion is enriched with insightful commentary, expert opinions, and notable quotes, providing listeners with an in-depth analysis of events shaping America's political landscape.

---

1. Naughty List of Corrupt Biden Officials

Overview: The episode opens with Senator Ted Cruz highlighting the Democrats' release of a purported list of corrupt officials within the Biden administration, purportedly an "enemy's list" targeting Donald Trump and his allies. This list includes high-profile names such as Alex Mayorkas, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein, among others. Cruz criticizes the Democrats for allegedly fabricating this list to justify mass pardons for their allies.

Key Points:

• Creation of the List: Democrats allegedly fabricated a list early in the day, expanding it to include a wide array of Biden administration officials, ostensibly to secure pardons.
• Implications of Pardons: The discussion centers on the strategic use of presidential pardon power to shield allies from legal repercussions, raising concerns about the erosion of accountability.

Notable Quotes:

• Senator Ted Cruz [00:01]:
  “The Democrats started adding names to the list and saying this is somehow Trump's list, even though they're the ones creating [the list] out of thin air.”

• Paul Rosenweig [02:17]:
  “A pardon for Hunter Biden, a pardon for Trump's critics would be completely normative, breaking, and it would be out of character, out of historical tradition.”

Analysis: Ben Ferguson and Cruz dissect the motivations behind the Democrats' actions, suggesting a strategic maneuver to protect their political allies by leveraging the pardon power. They argue that this undermines the rule of law and perpetuates a culture of impunity within the administration.

Additional Insights: An unnamed guest, identified later as Paul Rosenweig, a former Department of Homeland Security official, emphasizes the normalization of pardoning political critics, highlighting the potential long-term consequences on governance and legal integrity.

---

2. Cash Patel's Nomination as FBI Director

Overview: The conversation shifts to the nomination of Cash Patel as the new FBI Director. Cruz and the guest express strong support for Patel, portraying him as a reformer capable of cleansing the FBI of deep-seated partisanship and corruption. They argue that the media and Democrats are attempting to undermine his nomination due to his potential to implement significant changes within the bureau.

Key Points:

• Background of Cash Patel: Patel's extensive experience as a prosecutor, public defender, and intelligence staffer is highlighted as qualifications that make him an ideal candidate to lead the FBI.
• Response from Democrats and Media: The opposition is characterized as an effort to prevent genuine reform within the FBI, fearing that Patel will dismantle the current corrupt structures.
• Role of the Texas Bar Complaint: A notable incident involving Paul Rosenweig's group, the 65 Project, filing a frivolous complaint to disbar Ted Cruz, is discussed to illustrate the weaponization of legal systems against political opponents.

Notable Quotes:

• Unnamed Guest [11:14]:
  “They are freaking out not because they think Cash Patel is unqualified, but rather because they believe he will actually do what Trump promised he would do.”

• Senator Ted Cruz [10:21]:
  “There are a bunch of people in the Trump administration who ... tried to bankrupt them. They wanted to destroy anyone who was willing to work with Donald Trump.”

Analysis: The discussion underscores the perceived threat Patel poses to entrenched partisan elements within the FBI. By appointing Patel, they anticipate a restoration of the bureau's integrity and a return to non-partisan law enforcement, critiquing the current leadership for politicizing federal institutions.

Additional Insights: The guest references his book, Justice Corrupted: How the Left Has Weaponized the Legal System, to support arguments about systemic abuses within federal agencies aimed at political adversaries. The successful dismissal of the Texas Bar complaint against Cruz is presented as evidence of resilience against such tactics.

---

3. Supreme Court Case on Gender Transition for Minors

Overview: The final segment addresses a Supreme Court case from Tennessee challenging the legality of gender transition surgeries for minors. Tennessee argues that such procedures constitute child abuse by permanently altering children's bodies without their full consent, while the ACLU defends the rights to these medical treatments under the guise of gender identity.

Key Points:

• Nature of the Tennessee Law: The law prohibits puberty blockers, hormones, and sterilization procedures for minors, aiming to protect children from irreversible medical interventions.
• Supreme Court's Role: The Court is deliberating whether to uphold Tennessee's law, which involves interpreting the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
• Oral Arguments and Judicial Perspectives: Justice Sotomayor's and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's comments during oral arguments are critiqued, highlighting what the hosts perceive as the Court's bias towards allowing state legislatures more discretion in such matters.

Notable Quotes:

• Justice Sotomayor [23:27]:
  “Cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners... Every medical treatment has a risk.”

• Senator Ted Cruz [26:54]:
  “This is another example of just how extreme these … and why the elections … are so important … we get these radical activists … what they want to happen to your children.”

Analysis: Ferguson and Cruz critique the Supreme Court's handling of the case, arguing that the justices are undermining children's rights and autonomy by allowing potentially harmful medical procedures to proceed. They express confidence that the Tennessee law will be upheld, emphasizing the importance of state-level decision-making over federal overreach.

Additional Insights: The guest predicts a 6-3 decision in favor of Tennessee, drawing parallels with previous cases like Bostock v. Clayton County. They argue that the Court's inclination to defer to state legislatures in matters of contested medical evidence will lead to the upholding of restrictive laws against gender transition surgeries for minors.

---

Conclusion

In this episode, Ben Ferguson provides a comprehensive review of significant political and legal developments, critiquing Democratic strategies and policies while advocating for conservative reforms. From challenging the integrity of Biden administration officials to supporting the nomination of Cash Patel for the FBI Director position, and scrutinizing Supreme Court decisions on minors' gender transitions, the episode offers a robust analysis aimed at informing and mobilizing listeners on critical issues affecting American society.

Listeners are encouraged to subscribe for daily updates and to engage with the podcast for ongoing commentary and insights into the evolving political landscape.

Transcript

[Ted Cruz]

Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Weekend Review, Ben Ferguson with you. And these are the stories you may have missed that we talked about this past week. First up, the Democrats. Well, they've released a list of the people they believe are corrupt officials within the Democratic apparatus in the deep state. And now they're claiming this is an enemy's list of Donald Trump. Why did they do it? Because they want them to all get pardons. Yes, we're going to dive into this list and what it means for Democrats. Also, Cash Patel has been tapped for FBI director and the media turning on him. Try to make sure it never happens. We'll explain that. And finally, the Supreme Court dealt with a transition case when it comes to minors, as the left says, that you should be able to chemically castrate or cut off certain body parts of kids even as young as 2, 3, 4 and 5 years old. We'll break that down for you as well. It is the week in review and it starts right now. All right, so let's go back to this list. And, and it was a list that Democrats put out. They started adding names to the list and saying this is somehow Trump's list, even though they're the ones creating out of thin air so early in the day. Yesterday it started with, well, it needs to the president needs to pardon himself. That also means he would need to pardon his brother. And then they added Joe Biden to the list. And then the list just started expanding to like, everyone that worked for him that may have done something wrong, illegal. Alex Mayorkas, for example, was on the list. James Comey on the list, Andrew McCabe on the list. Peter Struck, you may remember that guy who said, we're going to stop back in 16, we're going to stop Donald Trump from becoming president. Bruce Orr, Nelly or Rod Rosenstein. And then it expanded from there to the point where the Atlantic has an article saying there needs to be mass pardons. And this conversation took place on msnbc.

[Ben Ferguson]

You argued we defend norms by defending norms, not preaching them. A lot has happened between now and then. And I wonder how you're thinking about the president's pardon power today and how he should wield it.

[Paul Rosenweig]

Well, back in 2017, I thought that Trump was an aberration and unusual and black swan, if you will. And my thought was that you had to defend the norms of the rule of law, good governance, and the only way to do that was to to maintain them, even in the face of his aberrational behavior. Today, I think we know that Trump is not an aberration. He's a phenomenon. He's a movement. And as such, what we have to do is recalibrate how we respond to that. And it now strikes me as essential to at least begin to play to the edge of the field.

[Unnamed Guest]

Right.

[Paul Rosenweig]

To go as far as the law permits in combating the authoritarian excesses of Trump. And the way I wrote about in the Atlantic is the pardon power. A pardon for Hunter Biden, a pardon for Trump's critics would be completely normative, breaking, and it would be out of character, out of historical tradition. But at this point, I was listening to your earlier, your earlier broadcast, you were talking about Kash Patel. He's got a list of 60 people he wants to prosecute. That's a real list. Will he do all of them? I don't know. Will there be resistance at the FBI? Probably. But, you know, one of the realities of being investigated is that investigation has a cost. Even if you're not prosecuted, in the end, you have to hire a lawyer. The mental cost, the time, the resources. And so it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to ask, what can President Biden do within the bounds of law, even if it would not be normatively traditional, to save his allies from that? And the answer is, obviously, pardon them.

[Ted Cruz]

Let's just stop there. And he said more, but let's just. Let's break that down, Senator. He's saying it's personally perfectly reasonable for Biden to pardon any Trump critic and says, well, it's a cost issue because you'll have to get a lawyer. Well, no crap. Like, everybody around Trump knows that they tried to financially break, uh, so many people around Donald Trump that worked at the White House tried to financially ruin them. I have friends, I'm not going to say their names, who worked at the White House, who were strapped with legal bills, over a half a million dollars, just having to answer questions in and around what happened on January 6, even though they weren't involved in it.

[Unnamed Guest]

Look, that's absolutely right. But I got to say, the hypocrisy is even more rich than that.

So.

So the person, the man, the man whose voice you're hearing is a guy named Paul Rosenweig. Now, who is Paul Rosenweich? Well, he was a deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. And listen, I know Paul a little bit.

I don't know him well, but I know him socially around D.C. lawyer circles. He wears a bow tie every day. And he was one of the like. He would run around Federalist Society events, and he was part of the sort of Republican lawyer cadre during the George W. Bush campaign. He is also someone who, Donald Trump has broken his brain. And Trump derangement syndrome is a very real phenomenon. And, and, and he is, he is now advocating that Biden pardon everybody, pardon every critic of Trump, pardon every member of the Cabinet, pardon his entire family, pardon anyone who may have committed any crime because he doesn't want anybody to be held account for breaking the law. Now, I'm going to tell you what the particular irony is. Paul Rosenweig is also one of the leaders of a group called the 65 Project. Now, what is the 65 Project? It is this left wing group and it's Paul Rosenweig. And it's also David Brock, who was Hillary Clinton's attack dog, who went around filing complaints trying to get Republican lawyers disbarred for supporting Donald Trump and Paul Rosenweich. His group filed a complaint with the Texas bar asking that I be disbarred. Understand this guy went before the Texas.

[Ted Cruz]

Bar so that I remember that story, but this is the guy that was actually doing it.

[Unnamed Guest]

Yes, yes, he was doing it. And so I'm going to read to you from the New York Times story when they filed this complaint. And it says, this is a quote from the complaint, quote, Mr. Cruz played a leading role in the effort to overturn the 2020 elections. And while the same can be said about several other elected officials, Mr. Cruz's involvement was manifestly different. This is what the complaint says. Um, he chose to take on the role of lawyer and agreed to represent Mr. Trump and Pennsylvania Republicans in litigation before the US Supreme Court. In doing so, Mr. Cruz moved beyond his position as United States Senator and sought to use more than his Twitter account and media appearances to support Mr. Trump's anti Democratic mission. So understand their complaint is that when I was asked, when the appeal in 2020 challenging Pennsylvania's violating the Pennsylvania Constitution and changing the law in Pennsylvania, when that was appealed to the Supreme Court, I was asked, if the court takes it, would you be willing to argue the case? And Donald Trump asked me that and I said yes, if the court takes it. If four justices decide they want to hear this case, and I believe they should have heard the Pennsylvania case, that, that I'll do the oral argument. Their argument, Paul Rosenweig's argument, is because I said yes, I would represent a client before the Supreme Court, I should be disbarred. So he's talking about the cost of frivolous complaints and attacking people. Well, he was one of the point People doing it. And by the way, thankfully the Texas Bar is not an insane woke nest of lunatics. And so what did the Texas Bar do? They threw their complaint out as, as, as frivolous and baseless. So it got thrown out. It was absurd. But this is someone who was asking that, that I be barred from practicing law. And by the way, this group has gone after over and over and over again lawyers who dared to represent Donald Trump. So, so they're willing, when we talk about weaponization, weaponization of law enforcement and weaponization of law, I gotta say Paul Rosenweig is a great example of that. He's happy to go and attack and try to bankrupt people. You mentioned the, look, at the end of the day he, if they come after me, I, I am a sitting senator. I have the ability to raise money. I, I can defend myself. I am not a, a, a, a, a particularly faint flower. I am not a vulnerable person. Who, who, who, who, if they want to come after me, let's go. And, and they're gonna regret picking that fight. But there are a bunch of people in the Trump administration who were 20 somethings or 30 somethings, they were young people and these bastards went after them, tried to bankrupt them. They had hundreds of thousands or more in legal expenses and they tried to make it. And by the way, these are the same people that publicly said, if you worked for Trump, we're going to do everything we can to make you unemployable, to pressure law firms, they shouldn't hire you, to pressure companies, they shouldn't hire you. They wanted to destroy anyone who was willing to work with Donald Trump. That's the viciousness. And at the same time, they're urging Joe Biden pardon everybody because people who actually committed felonies, we don't want them investigated and we certainly don't want them prosecuted.

[Ted Cruz]

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. All right, so we originally thought we were going to start this show tonight, Senator, talking about the FBI and Cash Patel being named the FBI director. This is a name that Democrats do not like. Cash Patel. So people understand history. This is a guy that actually the, the, the deep state went after when he was working for Donald Trump the first time with Russia, Russia, Russia. And he found out about it, that when, when apparently Google, five years after the fact, sent him a letter saying, hey, we had to disclose to you now that we gave a bunch of your information over to the FBI. That's the now the guy that will be running the FBI if he gets confirmed. Your reaction?

[Unnamed Guest]

Well, I think this is a strong nomination. I think we're seeing Democrats and we're seeing the media freaking out. And they're freaking out not because they think Cash Patel is unqualified, but rather because they believe he will actually do what Trump promised he would do. They believe he will actually clean out the corruption at the FBI, that he will take on the partisans that have burrowed into senior career positions. This is something we've been calling for on this podcast for a long time. To have leadership that is willing to really root out the partisanship and corruption and say no more. The FBI needs to restore its integrity. I think this is a nomination. The reason people are losing their minds is because they believe Cash Patel is going to do exactly what Trump said he would do.

[Ted Cruz]

And Senator, you actually talked about this on Sunday morning on Face the Nation on cbs, and it was very interesting to see the back and forth. Take a listen to that. For people that may have missed it.

[Unnamed Guest]

Cash Patel suggested by Trump as the new leader of the FBI. How enthusiastic are you about that?

Listen, I think Cash Patel is a very strong nominee. I think the entire slate of cabinet nominees President Trump has put forward is very strong. I believe every one of these cabinet nominees is going to be confirmed by the Senate. I think Cash Patel is going to be confirmed by the Senate. You look at his background. He has a serious professional background. He was a prosecutor. He was a public defender. He was a senior intelligence staffer on Capitol Hill. He was a senior intelligence staffer in the White House. He was the chief of staff of the Department of Defense. He was the deputy Director of National Intelligence. And I got to say, all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, all of the people pulling their hair out, are exactly the people who are dismayed about having a real reformer come into the FBI and clean out the corrupted partisans who sadly have burrowed into senior career positions at the FBI. The FBI and the Department of Justice are two institutions incredibly important to the rule of law in the United States. I revere both. And one of the most tragic consequences of four years of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is both DOJ and the FBI have been politicized and weaponized. And I think Cash Patel is a very strong nominee to take on the partizan corruption in the FBI.

As you know, Senator, there isn't a vacancy at the top of the FBI. What should become of Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump?

Well, I Think he'll make a choice? I think either he will resign or President Trump will fire him. But it's no secret to anybody, including Chris Wray, that he is not going to continue to serve as the head of the FBI under Donald Trump. Listen, if you look at James Comey and Chris Wray, there has never been a period in our nation's history where the FBI has suffered a greater loss of respect, where more Americans doubt the fundamental integrity of the FBI. And it's because James Comey and Chris Wray presided over allowing the FBI to become a partisan cudgel, to be used to target parents at school board meetings, to be used to target people who chose not to take the COVID vaccine, to be used to target President Trump and to target the political opponents of Joe Biden in the White House. It is tragic. That is not what the FBI is for. That is not what the DOJ is for. And I got to say, Pam Bondi and Cash Patel, I think together are a very strong slate of nominees to go and restore integrity to both institutions.

[Ted Cruz]

I don't think it can be better said than that. And that's why there's so many that are freaked out over Patel, because he's going to go in and do his job the way it's supposed to be done. And also, that means part of the. Part of this is clearinghouse. Clearinghouse of the political partisans that are in there that have weaponized the government.

[Unnamed Guest]

That's exactly right. And we've seen. You know, I wrote a book called Justice Corrupted how the Left Has Weaponized the Legal System. And in the book, I described how, starting with Barack Obama, we saw the Department of Justice and the FBI and the CIA and the Alphabet soup of the federal government turned into a weapon to target and persecute the political enemies of Barack Obama. When Trump became president, those partisans, what they did is they went into senior career positions in the agencies, and from day one, from the first day of Trump's first term, they waged war on Donald Trump from within the deep state. They wanted to destroy him. They wanted to stop his agenda. They hated him. And then when Joe Biden became president, they came out in the open. They were brazen. They were completely. They were not pretending anymore. And so listen, as I said, I think Kash Patel will be confirmed. And when he is, I think it is going to be hugely important that he follow through on those promises to get rid of the partisans. And listen, a point I made, Major Garrett was pressing back, saying, wasn't this terrible that Chris Wray would be fired. Listen, in the entire history of the FBI, we have never seen the respect for the FBI diminished as greatly as it has been under Chris Wray and under James Comey before him. The American people no longer trust the integrity of the FBI. That is, listen, with James Comey, I think he's a hard partisan. I think he was the point of the spear. With Chris Wray, I think it's different. I actually think Chris Wray, he's not a Democrat, he's a Republican, he's not a leftist, but he views his job as protecting the institution. And I think he made a fundamental mistake that he believes that protecting the career senior officials who themselves are vicious partisans. I think he thinks that's somehow protecting the FBI, where the result is that the public respect of the FBI has been profoundly damaged. I think the new director of the FBI has a very important job to root out those partisans and to bring it back to a fidelity to law. By the way, I think the other political prosecutions that have been brought are natural candidates for the pardon power. If you look at Donald Trump, I think Donald Trump should pardon those people who've been prosecuted for January 6th who did not engage in crimes of violence. If you engage in a crime of violence, if you physically and violently assaulted a police officer, you shouldn't be pardoned. You should face criminal prosecution.

If you committed a crime of violence.

Against a police officer. But if you were engaged in peaceful protest, I think those are natural candidates for pardons. I also think Lauren Handy, who is the pro life protester who's right now serving six years in federal prison for nonviolent protest against abortion, I think Lauren Handy is a natural candidate for a pardon from President Trump. I think there's a very substantial likelihood she will receive a pardon. I think the nonviolent January 6th protesters are likely to receive pardons. And that is going to cause Democrats in the media to lose their mind. Because not only are they happy to look the other way at the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI, they are vested in defending that weaponization. And that is a mandate. Understand, Donald Trump campaigned to the American.

People saying, I will root out this corruption.

And I think this nomination and his following through on that promise is fundamentally about respecting democracy. The American people said, yes, we don't want the federal government weaponized against the political opposition of the White House as before.

[Ted Cruz]

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. Senator, I want to move to this other case, and it is a case that has really been interesting to follow the Supreme Court hearing this case on gender transitions for minors. Now, this has all come out of a case in Tennessee where Tennessee was arguing that you. That you must protect children from harm and body mutilation, especially at very young ages. And the left and the, the federal government saying, well, hold on a second, we're in favor of this transgender care, arguing that even those that are two and three and four years old, they know that they're trans, so let them be sterilized and castrate themselves. That is what the ACLU lawyer said in his own words while he was arguing this on TV on cnn. I want you to listen and get your reaction to that.

[Ben Ferguson]

I would say is nobody has to provide this, this medication to adolescents. These are not doctors being forced to provide this medication. These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how based on the best available evidence to us. And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for six, seven years before they had any relief. And what's happening here, it's not the kids who are consenting to this treatment. It's the parents who are consenting to the treatment. And as a parent, I would say we, when our children are suffering, we are suffering. And these are parents who love their children, who are listening to the advice of their doctors of the mainstream medical community and doing what's right for, for their kids in the state of Tennessee has displaced their judgment.

[Ted Cruz]

Now, you hear that argument. And that, to me is just, I'm sorry, child abuse. If you're mutilating a child at 2 and 3 and 4 years old. And that's what Tennessee was saying.

[Unnamed Guest]

Well, Tennessee passed, I think, a very reasonable law that, that prohibited puberty blockers and hormones and sterilizing children, sterilizing minors.

And, and we're seeing multiple state legislatures.

That are acting to protect children. I think that is a reasonable and common sense step. And, and what happened is, is unsurprisingly, that, that the state got sued and the ACLU argued that.

That, that making it illegal for a.

Small child to be sterilized and made permanently unable to have children or even to be mutilated, that prohibiting that violated the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That was the argument. And the court of appeals upheld the Tennessee law and The Supreme Court took the case. And so that was the argument you heard right there. The ACLU lawyers arguing for being able to sterilize 8 year old. Just using the math the lawyer laid out. The lawyer talked about a child at the age of two might know that he or she is transgender and they might have had to wait six years. Last I checked, two plus six is eight. And so the legal argument is that eight year old, the parent should be able to sterilize that child. And you know what, if that child decides that at 18, he or she wants to be a dad or wants to be a mom, well, too late now, because when you were eight, we went ahead and sterilized you. So there's no going back. And this argument went back and forth. All right, I'm gonna make a prediction. My prediction. I think the Supreme Court is going to uphold Tennessee's law. And I think we may see a breakdown that plays out along pretty familiar ideological lines. Now, it was pretty striking. The three liberal justices all were asking questions that, I gotta say, we're really extreme and showing the modern left they are all in on mutilating and sterilizing children. This is not a fringe view on the left. Today's elected Democrats and sadly, the left wing activists they put on the courts are absolutely committed to this extreme agenda. So I want you to listen Justice Sotomayor.

[Ted Cruz]

Justice Sotomayor, downplaying the risk of mutilation of minors in this back and forth in these oral arguments, this is what.

[Unnamed Guest]

She said, cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a pure exercise of, of weighing benefits versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left.

[Paul Rosenweig]

I'm sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk. Even taking aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So the question in my mind is not, do policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from, from this treatment? The question is, can you stop one sex from the other one?

[Ted Cruz]

I mean, she's saying, this is not a big deal at all if you're mute, mutilating a child, because even aspirin has risks and effects. So therefore, just put it under the category of everything goes.

[Unnamed Guest]

Well, that that sums up today's radical left. In their view, severing a child's genitals is comparable to taking aspirin she also claimed, quote, millions of people are getting relief from this. Now, thankfully, we do not currently have millions of children being sterilized. But let's be clear, that's the left's worldview, is that sterilizing little boys and little girls, mutilating them, making them permanently unable to have children, that should be happening on the scale of millions and millions of little boys and little girls. That is Justice Sotomayor here. Take a listen to Justice Ketanji Brown.

[Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Jackson, drawn by the statute. That was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But, you know, as I read the statute here, excuse me, the case here, you know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is Now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of inconsistent. You can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing. So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case.

[Unnamed Guest]

Yes, I think that's exactly right, that.

[Ketanji Brown Jackson]

There is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic.

[Ted Cruz]

And in all other contexts, you hear it there. This is another example of just how extreme these. And this is why the elections, by the way, are so important, Senator. I mean, this is why Donald Trump being elected was so important, because when he's not, when you don't have a conservative in the White House, you get these radical activists who are Supreme Court justices. And if they have the majority, this is what they want you to be able to. This is what they want to happen to your children.

[Unnamed Guest]

Well, and let me break down what that exchange back and forth was. So Ketanji Brown Jackson, who Joe Biden put on the Supreme Court, is comparing this Tennessee law to the law in Loving vs. Virginia. Now, Loving vs. Virginia is a Supreme Court case. It's a landmark case that struck down Virginia's ban decades ago, many, many years ago on interracial marriage, on African Americans and Anglos choosing to get married. And she says it's sort of the same thing. Now, Virginia's law was an abomination. It was restricting adults making the decision to get married. It was deliberately doing so on the basis of race, which, mind you, we fought A civil war in significant part to end slavery and to vindicate equal rights. And we passed and adopted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to end slavery, to protect equal protection and to give African Americans the right to vote to ensure that there's nothing racial discrimination. But in the less view, not sterilizing an eight year old is the same thing. Like that is bizarre. And by the way, the person who responds to Justice Jackson is Joe Biden's Solicitor General, the top lawyer for the Biden administration before the United States Supreme Court. She's saying, oh yeah, they're exactly the same thing. In our worldview, you ought to be able to mutilate children. It doesn't matter how young. The Constitution protects your right to mutilate your child. That is a bizarre view. That is an extreme view. And that, sadly, is where today's modern left is.

[Ted Cruz]

Final question on this issue with this case coming out of the Supreme Court is. And if you look at the way that this was being argued, and I think one of the other things that's just so unhinged about this, the argument for medically mutilating minors, is the fact that the issue really does seem to come down to money. The amount of money that people are now making off these surgeries. That saying it is, it is an increase year over year of over 14.4% on average. So the transgender surgery world and then the lifetime of care is expanding at a 14.4% rate year over year. That's why so many medical areas, doctors and hospitals are advocating for this, because they make money. Vanderbilt said very clearly to their doctors, either you get on board with this or you get out. We're not going to let you say no to this because there's too much money to be made in, quote, gender care.

[Unnamed Guest]

Yeah, there are vast amounts of money at stake. And it has become, it really is a strange obsession of the radical left. It is a virtue signal. Remember we had on Verdict a couple of months ago, Sean Theory. Sean Theory was an African American Democratic state rep in Texas. She was an elected Democrat. She had been elected for four terms. And on this issue, there was a bill in Texas to prohibit mutilating minors and she ended up voting for it. And the Democrat Party she described on the podcast. If you didn't listen to that podcast, you ought to go back and listen to it because it's incredibly revealing. She described how her fellow Democrats, African Americans in the Texas state legislature would come to her and she say, have you studied the damage this does to children? That if you give puberty blockers, and you sterilize a child, it does lifelong medical damage to them. It's horrible. And she said, many other Democrats she described said, oh, we know, we agree, it's terrible, but you cannot oppose this in our party. They will end you. Our party will end you. Well, she ended up doing the courageous thing and voting for common sense and voting for kids. And the Democrats recruited a primary challenger to her and beat her in the primary. And they spent over $1 million in a Democrat primary for a state House seat. That is how radical this issue is. So there is money, there is big money on the other side, and it is enforced in the U.S. senate. Every single Democrat has voted in favor of mutilating minors. There is no dissension that is allowed on this. And I gotta say, and Joe Biden is enthusiastically in favor of it. You know, I gotta say also, look, this Supreme Court case, part of the reason that there is such focus on it is there was a previous Supreme Court decision called Bostock. And Bostock is a decision that interpreted federal anti discrimination law, unemployment discrimination, and it is currently illegal under federal law to discriminate in employment based on race and other characteristics, including sex. And in Bostock, the Supreme Court took a prohibition on discrimination based on sex and construed sex to mean also being transgender. And that decision, that was a 6, 3 decision. That decision was authored by Justice Gorsuch, and it was a fairly shocking decision. A lot of people were shocked that Justice Gorsuch wrote that opinion. It was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, in addition to what were then four liberals who were on the Court at the time Justice Ginsburg was still on the Court. It was before Amy Coney Barrett had been nominated and before Justice Ginsburg obviously had passed away. So that was six, three. On the other side, I don't think we will see the same outcome. I will say at the oral argument, Justice Gorsuch did not say a word, not a word. So we do not have any indication from him as to how he will vote. But Justice Roberts was quite vocal. And what he laid out is actually the reason why I'm confident the Tennessee law will be upheld, which is he laid out the proposition that the Court should be deferring to state legislatures, and particularly when you're dealing with contested medical evidence, that state legislatures are far better suited to assess contested medical evidence and make a determination and make a policy decision that that's. That's how our democratic system works. And I think Chief Justice Roberts reasoning that he articulated at the oral argument is going to lead him to vote to uphold the law. I think we will see. I think we will certainly see. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh also, their arguments at oral arguments suggested that they would defer to the Tennessee state legislature as well. I hope Justice Gorsuch will as well. I think there's a very good chance that this will be a 6:3 decision upholding the Tennessee law. But, but the, the fact that the court decided Bostock the other way. Now, Bostock was a question of federal statute and interpreting the words Congress had adopted. It was not a constitutional case. It was not interpreting the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And I'll note, by the way, there is a third outcome. So what could the Supreme Court do here? They could do three things. They could do more than three things, but three key things. One, they could affirm the Tennessee law. That's what I think they are likely to do. Two, they could strike down the Tennessee law. They could rule that this law violates the Constitution and therefore is null and void. I do not think they're likely to do that, but I think the three liberals will vote to do exactly that. The third option they could do is they could reverse the decision and conclude that this law is sex discrimination. And under the Constitution, sex discrimination is subject to what's called intermediate scrutiny. Now, the toughest standard constitutionally for legal, for legal analysis is what's called strict scrutiny. And racial discrimination under the Constitution by government is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny. So the middle ground they could do is, is they could vacate the decision below and send it back to the lower court to apply intermediate scrutiny. I hope they don't do that, and I don't think they will. But there is a non zero chance they might do that, which is what makes this case. Concerning all of that being said, my prediction is they're going to conclude correctly that the Tennessee law is constitutional and that is a judgment for the state legislatures to make.

[Ted Cruz]

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.