Only Black Women Need Apply

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Only Black Women Need Apply"
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Release Date: January 30, 2022

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Only Black Women Need Apply," hosted by renowned national radio personality Ben Ferguson on The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson, the conversation delves into critical political and social issues shaping America. The discussion primarily revolves around Supreme Court nominations, the implications of affirmative action, and a recent terror attack in Texas. The episode offers unfiltered insights, candid commentary, and in-depth analysis, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the current political landscape.

---

Supreme Court Nomination Under President Biden

Discussion Overview

Ben Ferguson engages in a nuanced discussion about the retirement of Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and the uncertainty surrounding his replacement. The conversation highlights President Biden's strategic positioning regarding Supreme Court nominations and the potential political ramifications leading into the midterm elections.

Key Points:

1. Justice Breyer’s Retirement ([00:00-04:14])

   • Ben Ferguson: Highlights the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, emphasizing the unknowns surrounding his replacement and the long-term impact on the Supreme Court.
   • Quote ([00:00]): "Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has officially retired. We do not know who will replace Justice Breyer... President Biden is going to play to the furthest extremes of leftist identity politics."

2. Nomination Process and Political Strategy ([04:14-16:35])

   • Michael Knowles: Discusses the likelihood of President Biden nominating an exceptionally liberal justice to shift the court further left. He expresses skepticism about the Republican chances to oppose the nomination effectively.
   • Quote ([05:08]): "Biden has been completely captured by the far left. So I think this Supreme Court nomination is going to very much follow that pattern."

3. Affirmative Action and Its Implications ([07:58-12:23])

   • Michael Knowles: Critiques President Biden's promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, arguing that it exemplifies systemic discrimination based on race and gender.
   • Quote ([08:09]): "He’s saying if you’re a white guy, tough luck. If you’re a white woman, tough luck... everything is race."

4. Potential Nominees and Confirmation Challenges ([16:35-24:06])

   • Candidate Analysis: Discusses potential nominees like Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and Judge Michelle Childs, evaluating their backgrounds, qualifications, and the political dynamics influencing their confirmation.
   • Quote ([17:10]): "I think if Michael Knowles starts identifying as a black woman and Joe Biden nominates Michael Knowles... Kamala could cast the deciding vote in favor."

Insights and Implications:

• Strategic Nominations: The nomination is viewed as a strategic move by President Biden to consolidate a more liberal majority within the Supreme Court, potentially impacting future judicial decisions.
• Political Maneuvering: The discussion underscores the interplay between judicial appointments and impending elections, suggesting that the administration's choices are influenced by broader political strategies.

---

Affirmative Action and Meritocracy

Discussion Overview

The conversation shifts to the topic of affirmative action, with Michael Knowles providing personal anecdotes from his time at Harvard Law School to illustrate the contentious nature of racial and gender-based quotas in academic and professional settings.

Key Points:

1. Personal Experience with Affirmative Action ([08:08-12:23])

   • Michael Knowles: Recounts his experience challenging affirmative action policies at the Harvard Law Review, highlighting the perceived injustices and the undermining of meritocracy.
   • Quote ([12:23]): "This is doing the same thing where whoever gets this nomination... we need to keep houses of worship safe and protected."

2. Critique of Diversity Quotas ([09:30-12:23])

   • Michael Knowles: Argues that affirmative action discriminates against individuals based on race and gender, undermining the achievements of those who benefit from such policies.
   • Quote ([09:15]): "It is offensive... you're being told at the outset you are a diversity hire."

Insights and Implications:

• Merit vs. Identity: The discussion emphasizes the tension between merit-based selection and identity-based quotas, asserting that the latter can lead to reverse discrimination.
• Policy Impact: Insights suggest that affirmative action policies may have unintended consequences on organizational dynamics and individual opportunities.

---

Recent Terror Attack in Texas

Discussion Overview

The episode transitions to a somber discussion about a recent terror attack at a synagogue in Texas, exploring the incident's details, the response from law enforcement, and the media's role in covering the event.

Key Points:

1. Incident Details ([28:51-35:54])

   • Michael Knowles: Provides a comprehensive account of the attack, including the perpetrator's background, motives rooted in antisemitism, and the heroism displayed by the hostages and law enforcement.
   • Quote ([28:51]): "It was a terror attack. It was an anti-Semitic attack... and all four emerged unharmed."

2. Law Enforcement Response ([35:54-37:54])

   • Michael Knowles: Discusses the effective coordination between federal and local authorities, leading to the safe rescue of all hostages and the neutralization of the terrorist.
   • Quote ([34:10]): "He flew to a nearby synagogue... he believed if he just captured some Jews, they could order the Al Qaeda terrorist released."

3. Media Coverage and Oversight ([37:54-38:21])

   • Michael Knowles: Criticizes the media's swift dismissal of the incident as non-antisemitic, advocating for greater transparency and accountability in investigating how the perpetrator entered the country.
   • Quote ([36:20]): "They've ignored it... they support open borders, and they refuse to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism exists."

Insights and Implications:

• Security Failures: Raises critical questions about immigration policies and the vetting processes that allowed a known terrorist to enter the United States.
• Media Responsibility: Highlights concerns over media narratives that potentially downplay or misrepresent acts of terrorism, particularly those targeting religious communities.
• Community Resilience: Commends the preparedness and bravery of the synagogue members and law enforcement, emphasizing the importance of training and community vigilance.

---

Conclusion and Forward Look

In wrapping up the episode, Ben Ferguson and Michael Knowles reiterate their commitment to addressing pressing issues and responding to listener inquiries in future episodes. They emphasize the need for continued vigilance in political processes and community security, positioning themselves as advocates for conservative principles and national safety.

Final Remarks:

• Ben Ferguson: Encourages listeners to stay informed and engaged, promising to tackle more questions and topics in upcoming episodes.
• Michael Knowles: Affirms dedication to leading the fight against left-wing influences in critical institutions like the Supreme Court.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Stephen Breyer’s Retirement:
  "Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has officially retired. We do not know who will replace Justice Breyer..." ([00:00])

• Affirmative Action Critique:
  "He’s saying if you’re a white guy, tough luck. If you’re a white woman, tough luck..." ([08:09])

• Texas Terror Attack Details:
  "It was a terror attack. It was an anti-Semitic attack... and all four emerged unharmed." ([28:51])

• Media Responsibility:
  "They've ignored it... they support open borders, and they refuse to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism exists." ([36:20])

---

Conclusion

"Only Black Women Need Apply" offers a thorough exploration of pivotal issues within the American socio-political arena, blending personal anecdotes, expert analysis, and critical commentary. Ben Ferguson and Michael Knowles provide listeners with a discerning perspective on Supreme Court dynamics, the implications of affirmative action, and national security concerns, all while challenging mainstream narratives and advocating for conservative values.

For those seeking an in-depth understanding of these topics from a conservative viewpoint, this episode serves as a valuable resource, combining timely discussions with insightful analysis.

Transcript

[Ted Cruz]

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has officially retired. We do not know who will replace Justice Breyer. We do not know what this means for the court in the long term. We know only two things. One, President Biden is going to play to the furthest extremes of leftist identity politics. And two, this decision has a whole lot to do with November and Democrats believing that they are going to get clobbered in the midterms. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

[Michael Knowles]

This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by Thompson Cigar. I don't have to tell you that the gentlemen on this show are fans of cigars. In fact, that's oftentimes what we do after a show. We get together, they smoke cigars and we tell each other what a good episode we just filmed, what a good job we did on this show. That's why I want to talk to you today about Thompson Cigars. They have insane cigar deals. They are the number one supplier for premium cigars. And just for viewers of this podcast, we have a special deal. If you go to thompsonscigar.com and use our promo code Cactus, then you can get 15% off any order over $75 or 20% off any order over $99. Michael's been a fan of Thompson Cigars since before they became a partner on this show. In fact, I believe they sponsor the Michael Moles show as well. My husband likewise is a fan of these cigars. So whether you're relaxing at home on the weekend, whether you work from home, or whether you are just a cigar aficionado, check out thompsoncigar.com and use our promo code Cactus to get an amazing deal. Again, that's 15% off any order over $75 or 20% off any order over $99. Thompson cigar promo code cactus. That's thompsoncigar.com, promo code cactus. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is also brought to you by American Hartford Gold. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed, but everything is getting expensive. We are in the biggest economic crisis since 2008 with a government that continues to print trillions and trillions of dollars. And if the government continues its out of control printing and spending, the dollar could continue its free fall and lose its coveted role as the world reserve currency. So how do you hedge your hard earned savings against inflation? Well, enter American Hartford Gold. American Hartford Gold can help you hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by helping you diversify a portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. They'll even help you address your existing 401k and your existing IRA. And if you call this phone number right now, you could qualify for $1,500 of free silver on your first qualifying order. So don't wait. Call right now. Call 855-768-1883. That's 855-768-1883 or text Cactus to 65532. Again, that's 855-768-1893 or text Cactus to 65532. Thank you American heart for gold. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is also brought to you by stamps.com, your alternative to the post office. And who doesn't want an alternative to the post office? Whether you're running a small business, whether you're a side hustle on Etsy, whether you're a full blown warehouse sending out orders and invoices, stamps.com can save you time and money. In fact, you can do this all from the comfort of your own home. All you need is a computer and a standard printer. You don't need any special supplies, nothing outrageous. All you need is your computer. Go to Stamps.com use our promo code verdict stick stamps.com use our promo code verdict and start saving time and money. In fact, my husband, when he was sending out our Christmas cards just last month, he went to the post office with our one year old and the line was so long that he might have uttered an expletive out in the public that caused all the old ladies in the post office to gasp in horror. He should have used stamps.com and used our promo code verdict Savetime and money with stamps.com they've been helping small businesses across the country since 1998. It's a fantastic alternative to the post office. Stamps.com, promo code verdict stamps.com, promo code verdict.

[Ted Cruz]

Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. Senator, I have to ask, I know I bring this up every time there is a Supreme Court opening. You were on the short list under President Trump. And despite Joe Biden saying he will pick a black woman to fill this seat because these days we can identify however we like. Will you consider being the nominee for President Biden?

[Michael Knowles]

Well, I don't know that I'm gonna hold my breath on that because I think the most fundamental problem with Biden is that I identify as a conservative and a constitutionalist and that he most definitely does not want on the court. Right. Although I am told that spies have observed Merrick Garland getting on a plane and Heading to Sweden for an operation. So, you know, whatever it takes to get the nomination, I imagine former Judge Garland may do.

[Ted Cruz]

He was so close. It's gotta be killing current Attorney General Garland right now. We don't know who the nominee is going to be. You obviously have spent a lot of time with the court up close, and you were up for the court just during the last administration. So what are we looking at here? Is this just a liberal replacing a liberal? And the court is gonna go on as it always has? What is it gonna mean for the future of jurisprudence?

[Michael Knowles]

Well, I think it's gonna be bad. If you look at the Biden judicial appointments, they have been almost systematically hard left. He has been appointing radicals more radical than Obama's nominees, much more radical than Bill Clinton's nominees. It's been a consistent pattern. Look, that's been true with the administration across the board on just about every policy, whether spending or taxes or debt or the board border or foreign policy. Biden has been completely captured by the far left. So I think this Supreme Court nomination is going to very much follow that pattern. I expect an activist and an activist to the left of where Steve Breyer was. Steve Breyer was always a liberal. He was appointed by Bill Clinton. But Breyer you could occasionally get on a case. So, for example, one of the big cases I litigated when I was Solicitor General is the Texas Ten Commandments case where we were defending the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds in Texas went all the way to the Supreme Court. And all of the arguments in our brief I crafted trying to get Sandra Day O'Connor's vote failed miserably. O'Connor voted against us. I channeled just about every word she'd said about the establishment clause, about religious liberty, and all of the arguments she'd put forth in the past missed her. But bizarrely enough, hit Steve Breyer. And so we won five to four. But Breyer was our necessary fifth vote. If Breyer had voted no, Texas would have lost. The court would have ordered us to bulldoze, to tear down a monument that has been on the State capitol ground since 1961. And it would have meant that Ten Commandments displays across the country would have to be taken down. Breyer didn't often deviate from the left. He was a very reliable. He was a 90 plus percent liberal vote. But every once in a while he would, and I have high confidence that Biden is gonna nominate someone who not only is a hundred percent liberal vote, but I think what his real objective is is to get someone who is further to the left, even of the liberals on the court, and will drive the court even further left.

[Ted Cruz]

And presumably he'll try to get someone young, which is probably why Merrick Garland is out of the running. Because he wants someone to be on the court for decades, if possible.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, yes, although I think more broadly than that. Listen, Biden, the fact that he's willing to make a promise at the outset that it must be a black woman, I gotta say, that's offensive.

[Ted Cruz]

Right?

[Michael Knowles]

You know, black women are, what, 6% of the U.S. population. He's saying to 94% of Americans, I don't give a damn about you, you, you are ineligible. And he's also saying it's actually an insult to black women. If he came and said, I'm gonna put the best jurist on the court. And he looked at a number of people and he ended up nominating a black woman, he could credibly say, okay, I'm nominating the person who's most qualified. He's not even pretending to say that. He's saying, if you're a white guy, tough luck. If you're a white woman, tough luck. You don't qualify if you're Merrick Garland. All right, how much does it suck to be Merrick Garland? He's literally got to sit here and be told at the outset, he is ineligible. You're out, because, sorry, wrong skin pigment and wrong Y chromosome. And it's just. It is an example how Democrats, and particularly the far left, everything is race. Everything is that they will discriminate based on race. They will pigeonhole you. They don't care about the independent, the individual.

[Ted Cruz]

It is offensive if you're this woman who probably hasn't been selected yet, but this future black woman who's gonna be the nominee. You are being told at the outset you are a diversity hire. I'm not picking you for your merits. I'm picking you for your skin and for your sex.

[Michael Knowles]

So when I was at law school, at Harvard, the Harvard Law Review has affirmative action, and there are 40 editors selected each year. At the time I was there, I don't know if they still have the policy. But when I was There, of the 40 slots, eight of the slots were reserved for affirmative action. So 32 were based on grades in a writing contest, and eight of the slots were explicitly affirmative action policies. And the year I was there as a second year law student, there were actually several conservatives who were editors on the Law Review, and they decided to mount a Fight to try to end affirmative action at the Law Review. I have to admit, I wasn't all that enthusiastic about the fight because I could count votes and we were going to lose. There were a lot more lefties than there were us. And I was like, okay, I'm not sure why we're tilting windmills, but okay, sure. All right, let's do it. So we had a big meeting of all the editors, so 80 editors, 42nd year law students, 43rd year law students, and we're arguing back and forth about whether the Law Review should end racial affirmative action. And I remember at one point, one particularly supercilious liberal law student stood up and said, if we end affirmative action, the Law Review will be nothing but white men. And I was actually Michael, I was sitting in the back of the room. I was quite quiet, and that pissed me off. And I ended up raising my hand and speaking, and I said, you know what? That comment right there shows just how pernicious affirmative action is. Because what you're saying is you believe in a meritocracy that only white men would succeed. You're also saying to every one of us in the room who is not a white man, to every one of us who's Hispanic or African American, that you think on a fair, objective measure, you're better than we are. And I gotta admit, I got a little spicy. I said, listen, buddy, you wanna pull your transcript out and my transcript. We can go head to head right now. Right on. Who's earned their place on the Law Review. But I said, there's something even more invidious that you have stated with your implicit assumption. The Law Review at the time at least, did not have affirmative action for women. So it had racial affirmative action, but did not have gender affirmative action. And I said, but what you're stating, which is a total load of crap, is you believe every woman on this Law Review doesn't deserve to be there. That you think men are inherently smarter. It's utter garbage. But you've shown why affirmative action is so pernicious. This is doing the same thing where whoever gets this nomination, and by the way, Kamala Harris is vp. I mean, Biden did the same thing for her, and it really does. If you're explicitly setting up a discriminatory quota, it's unfair to everybody else and it undermines whoever ends up getting named.

[Ted Cruz]

This raises a real question about the process, because, as you say, Joe Biden said before he picked Kamala to be the vp, he. He said, I'm gonna pick a black Woman, I don't know which one, I don't really care, but I'm gonna pick a black woman. And then there were only a few options. Susan Rice. There were only a few options who were prominent at the national level in the Democrats. Susan Rice was the fall man for Benghazi. Karen Bass is an actual communist. That was probably not gonna work. And so you had Kamala Harris, who was one of the first people out of the primary. She becomes VP now she's being talked about for this Supreme Court vacancy. But the last time I checked, Senator, this is a 50, 50 Senate. Last time I checked, it's the sitting vice president who casts the tie breaking vote. What happens if it's the sitting vice president who's being nominated for the court?

[Michael Knowles]

So look, it's a great question and let's unpack it a little bit. Let's go back. So when Biden was naming a VP nominee, it was actually slightly different than that. He did not promise his VP nominee would be a black woman. He promised his VP nominee would be a woman. So he specified gender, but he didn't specify race. And then what happened is after that, George Floyd happened and we had riots across the country. And I think he felt the political imperative meant he had to name a black woman. I actually think Biden would have named Amy Klobuchar under his initial promise to name a woman. I think that's actually who Biden wanted to name. When George Floyd happened, he felt it had to be a black woman. And then his choices. So Biden doesn't like, comma, they don't like each other personally.

[Ted Cruz]

It seems pretty clear.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah, you know, if you remember those, those Democratic debates, I mean, she basically called him a bigot and almost a Klansman. I mean, she went after him hard. And to say there's no love loss between them is an understatement. But his problem was that once he narrowed the field to not only must it be a woman, but as a matter of politics, it needed to be a black woman. His choices were there were a couple of members of the House, there was a mayor in Atlanta, and there was Kamala. And Joe is a creature of the senate. He spent 40 years in the Senate. I actually think Joe is like incapable of naming a House member or a mayor. It just. He has a certain worldview where it had to be a senator. So he was stuck naming someone he can't stand. And we've all seen she's done a really poor job as vp and she's managed to be even less popular than Joe Biden, which is a really hard thing to do given the abysmal job he's done. So fast forward, I think there is a chance they nominate Kamala to the court in part because they can't stand her. And one of the virtues of naming her to the court is they get to get her out of the White House and out of. Look, the Democratic party is very worried that she's the presumed successor to Joe Biden because her political negatives are so strong. She's just not very good at this stuff. I mean it's, you know, you've seen the video of the sort of weird video of her with kids that's almost like a Stepford Wives robotic. It's bizarre. But you raise probably the biggest negative to naming Kamala. So there are two related questions. One, there is a dispute. Let's just say Kamala's not the nominee, it's somebody else. There is a dispute about whether a vice president can cast a vote on a 5050 Supreme Court nominee. Larry Tribe, one of the most well known left wing constitutional law professors, was actually my con law professor in law school. Larry Tribe, publicly and vocally when Trump was president, said that he believed the vice president can't cast the tie breaking vote on a Supreme Court nominee. And in history it's never happened. We've never had a Supreme Court nominee confirmed. With the vice president casting the tie breaking vote, it's clear the vice president can cast the tie breaking vote on legislation. That happens a lot. It has not happened with the Supreme Court nominee.

[Ted Cruz]

Is the argument that it's a problem of the separation of powers if the.

[Michael Knowles]

Vice president essentially that it's a role for the Senate. I gotta admit, I don't find Tribe's argument very persuasive. I haven't studied the question closely, but just sort of reading it on the face of it, I think it's likely the better constitutional argument is yes, the VP has the authority to cast the tie breaking vote. So if Michael Knowles starts identifying as a black woman and Joe Biden nominates Michael Knowles, I think it is probably the case that Kamala could cast the deciding vote in favor of, of Michelle Knowles.

[Ted Cruz]

I can't wait. You know, I've said some mean things about her, so I don't know if she'll vote for me, but I'll start trying.

[Michael Knowles]

The more interesting question is if Kamala herself is the nominee. Right. So it is not 100% resolved whether Kamala could vote for herself. The usual precedent when a senator is nominated, something this happens. Look, there are senators that are nominated to different positions that require confirmation. Jeff Sessions was a senator. He was nominated for Attorney General. The usual practice is the senator abstains from the vote. John Kerry was nominated to be Secretary of State. He was a sitting senator. He abstained. The usual practice is you don't vote on yourself because that's kind of tacky. I'm sure if she was nominated, she would love to abstain. My guess is if Kamala was nominated, it probably would be a 50, 50 vote. I don't know that for sure. Maybe she'd pick up a Republican vote. I would not be on the fence. I would be a hell no on Kamala if she were nominated as a matter of Senate precedent. There are some Senate precedents from previous nominations, not Supreme Court nominations, that suggest that a senator at least can vote for himself or herself to be confirmed. That the argument would go at the instant she votes. She's still vice president and so she has the authority to cast that vote. It would be a fight. It'd be a fight with the parliamentarian. It'd be a fight back and forth. The bigger challenge would be whether or not technically she'd have the power to do it. It's certainly unseemly and raises some ethical questions. Now that being said, on the flip side, we've seen multiple times governors of states, when there's a Senate vacancy, appoint themselves, say I'm governor, I get to appoint the senator. I looked around and the most qualified candidate is moi. So that is much you could do. My guess is though, the kind of unseemliness, the ethical problems of a vice president casting the tie breaking vote on her own confirmation makes Kamala less likely to get the nomination right now. The early horse race prediction. There are two judges that are sort of the leading candidates. One is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who is on the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. The other is Judge Michelle Childs, who is a South Carolina district judge, although she's been nominated also to be on the D.C. circuit, nominated by Biden, but she hadn't had her hearing yet. There are other potential contenders, but those are the two kind of early frontrunners. It's interesting. Ketanji Brown Jackson, I know her. We were classmates in law school together. She was a year behind me at law school. I was class of 95, she was class of 96. We were both in the Law Review together. Look, she was very nice personally. We didn't know each other well. We were not particularly pals, but she was certainly pleasant, cordial, civil. And I gotta say, if she's the nominee, the sort of early horse race betting, she's probably the front runner. She's on the D.C. circuit. Ironically, she has Merrick Garland's old seat. So when Garland was named, AG Katanji got nominated to fill his seat. I'm sure that particularly sticks in Garland's craw that his successor, because he has the wrong skin color and wrong gender, he's not eligible. But his successor is insult to injury. Yep. You know, I have to say, on her confirmation hearing, Ketanji has been very, very careful. At least in her confirmation hearing for the D.C. circuit, she had said very little. That reveals her political orientation, that reveals what kind of judge she would be. She did not have, as so many of the Biden nominees have had, she didn't have these outrageously partisan statements. She didn't have these wildly left wing statements. Now, I think more than a few people suspect those may be her sentiments. But she hasn't left much of a paper trail. And that I'm sure will be attractive to the White House is if you nominate her. She got confirmed. Three Republicans voted to confirm her for the D.C. circuit. Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski. So that will be attractive to the White House as there was not much of a paper trail. So it's hard to find something tangible in a record to object to. And she got three Republicans last time. The other potential front runner is Michelle Childs. Michelle is. I don't know her. She's on the district court in South Carolina, nominated the D.C. circuit. The biggest asset she has is Jim Clyburn is fighting like hell to get her the nomination. Jim Clyburn, House member from South Carolina, African American, huge proponent of her. I mean, he's openly, aggressively, vigorously lobbying for her. Clyburn was pivotal to Joe Biden winning the nomination. In fact, I don't think it's too much to say without Jim Clyburn. Joe Biden is not president. If you remember, Bernie Sanders was winning, winning Iowa, winning New Hampshire. It was the wheels were coming off and Clyburn assembled, helped bring together the African American vote both in South Carolina and in the south, and gave Biden the nomination. And I think Clyburn is doing everything he can to call in a chit and say, nominate Childs. And I don't know how effective that argument will be in the White House or not. Two other interesting points about Childs versus Ketanji Brown, Jackson. Yeah. Number one, Clyburn is pitching one of the reasons that Child should get the nomination is that both Republican senators from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, according to Clyburn, are, quote, very high on Childs. And in fact, Clyburn has been stronger. He said both of them would vote to confirm her. Lindsey would vote to confirm her and Tim Scott would vote to confirm her. I don't know if that's true, but Clyburn has not been hedging his language. He said categorically they would vote yes, that is a plus. A second argument being made for Childs is that she went to state schools. She went to the University of South Florida. She went to University of South Carolina. Ketanji is a double barreled Harvard graduate, Harvard College, Harvard Law School. All of the Supreme Court justices are Ivy League graduates. You and I know how singularly unqualified Ivy League graduates are to do anything.

[Ted Cruz]

Of course.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah. And so that is a plus being argued for Childs. A final plus that's being argued is that she's a Southerner and Clyburn is arguing, look, Southerners are a big part of the country. She understands the experience of life as a Southerner. I don't know who will win that. And I expect an epic battle. The Democrats, whoever's nominated, we're gonna get a nomination quickly, I think. I think we will get a nomination by the end of February. We'll have a nomination. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a nomination in two weeks rather than a month. I think they're gonna move fast. And then I expect the Democrats to try to ram this through really, really fast, to try to hold fast hearings and jam it through. They're scared about the election coming in November. And you already see the left wing advocates saying, look, we don't know what happens. Like somebody could die. And with a 50, 50 Senate, I mean, it's, you know, there, there's some, some senators on both sides of the aisle that, that are not spring chickens. And, and you know, if somebody resigns, somebody dies, something happens, they could lose their majority in a moment. So I expect this to be an epic battle, but a fantasy fast battle because I think the Democrats are gonna try to ram it through quickly. I'm gonna do everything I can to lead the fight against any left wing activists being put on the court. But we gotta see who Biden nominates.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, on that point, before we move on, what do you think the odds are that Republicans try to Kavanaugh, whoever this nominee is, meaning, dredge up all these either real or completely imagined scandals from their past and really try to drag this person through the mud like the Democrats always do to the Republicans.

[Michael Knowles]

So I don't think that will happen. In fact, I'm confident it will not happen. You remember you and I did one of my favorite verdicts we did with Eric Weinstein. Yeah. And it was a great. You know, he's a man of the left, but brilliant. And we were talking about judicial confirmations and he did what is sort of talking point on the left of, well, both sides do it. And if you remember, you and I pushed back and said, well, no, that's actually not right. Both sides don't do it. Borking is 100% a Democratic problem. Robert Bork was borked by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. Biden, you wanna talk about having the blood on your hands, so to speak, That's Biden. Who was directly involved in Borking? Robert Bork. Clarence Thomas, which, as Thomas put it, it was a high tech lynching. That kind of slandering and dragging him through the mud was 100% done by Democrats, obviously. Brett Kavanaugh was done by Democrats. Republicans have never done this to a judicial nominee, and I don't believe we would. I think it's wrong. I think it's unethical and ineffectual.

[Ted Cruz]

I mean, I suppose, you know, it worked for Bork. It worked the first time. But Clarence Thomas got through. Brett Kavanaugh got through. So I suppose there might be some argument if Borking actually did destroy the nomination.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, but remember, Borking worked because Republicans were so feckless, bailed on Bork. Right. Part of the problem is Democrats, they ain't bailing on a nominee. I mean, you could literally have video of the nominee strangling a live kitten on television and be like, okay, great, that's a justice. They don't bail on their people ever. But I also believe, look, I wouldn't be willing to engage in the kind of garbage that they engage on their nominees. Now, if a nominee has a problematic record, if they've been overly partisan, if they've been an activist, I'll press them hard on substance, on matters relevant for the job. But going into the gutter, if history is a guide, that has been exclusively a Democratic practice. We've never seen a Republican do it, and I hope we don't. I don't want to see our side behave like that.

[Ted Cruz]

Right. Right. Now, moving from D.C. to a little insider view down in Texas in the remaining moments we have, it occurs to me that not so long ago, just some weeks Ago, there was an actual terror attack in our country. A religiously motivated Muslim terrorist held up a synagogue, took Jews and a rabbi hostage, civilians, for a political purpose. This is about as plain a definition of terrorism as there can be. And within, what, six or seven hours, the story completely disappeared from the headlines. You have met with the people involved, the hostages, the people who were on the scene there. What do we know what happened to this story?

[Michael Knowles]

So as we're recording this pod right now, I'm in Fort Worth today, and actually this morning I did a roundtable in Colleyville, which is the community where the terror attack occurred. And I met with the mayor, members of the city council, and leaders of the Jewish community. And the actual hostages were not at the in person meeting, but I've spoken on the phone with the rabbi who was a hostage, and with each of the individuals, each of the four people who were hostages. And I got to say, what happened was horrific. You had a British national, a Muslim, who it appears had significant mental health issues and criminal history, who came to the United States, acquired a gun from a criminal who had that gun illegally and came in with a gun and held these four people hostage. And it was a terror attack. It was an anti Semitic attack. They were targeted because they were Jewish. And it riveted the eyes of people across Texas, across the country, across the world, because for much of it, it was livestreamed, thank God, there were only four people in that synagogue with Shabbat services. Because of COVID many of the people from that synagogue were attending remotely, so they weren't physically there. And during the terror attack, I spoke with a special agent in charge of the FBI who was handling the investigation. I wanted to make sure they had all the resources needed, they had all the federal assets needed. And actually, encouragingly, he said, we've got. We got everything we need. The hostage rescue team was at the time in the air flying from Quantico to come to Fort Worth. And he said, between federal and local and state resources, we've got a ton of law enforcement focused on it. And I gotta say, at the outset, what is remarkable is that all four emerged unharmed. When this was happening, all of us, Heidi and I were lifting them up in prayer and we were working to make sure law enforcement resources were mobilized. But we were all prepared for the worst because we've seen too many of these terror attacks, many of them targeting Jews because of anti Semitism. And tragically, many of them end horrifically, many of them end with serious casualties. And in this case, with God's blessings. It didn't end up that way. The terrorist released one of the congregants, who was elderly, released him early because of his advanced age. The others remained there, and it ended up that all of the hostages escaped and escaped unharmed. And then the FBI went in and law enforcement went in and they killed the terrorists. I gotta say, speaking to the rabbis, speaking to the hostages, one of the things that was remarkable was the heroism those men showed. They've got someone who was a radical extremists and was also mentally unbalanced with a firearm threatening to kill them. And they ended up. Fortunately, this synagogue had had training on what to do in the event of a terror attack. And so they'd had extensive training. So when they were sitting, they sat very, very near the exit door. And they did it because of their training. They knew that proximity to the exit door would, if there was a moment to escape, they wanted to minimize the distance between where they were and the way out. And so they deliberately sat near that. Ultimately, the terrorist, as he was ranting and raving and as the FBI hostage negotiators were talking to him, at one point he put down his gun. And when he put down his gun, the rabbi threw a chair at him, and that delayed him. And in the moment when the rabbi threw the chair at him, the three of them ran out. They ran to the door and made it out, and the terrorist picked up the gun and chased them out and was seen outside brandishing the weapon. But, praise God, no one was shot. And then the FBI went in and shot and killed the terrorist. It was incredible heroism. It's a testament to the value of training. And, you know, there are far too many of these attacks on synagogues, but also on churches, on mosques, on houses of worship. You know, it is messed up, Michael. You ought to be able to go and worship God and whatever your faith without being afraid some lunatic is going to try to kill people. But there's evil in the world, and so we need to be prepared. We need to keep houses of worship safe and protected. I will say, in the aftermath, the FBI, when they were publicly talking about it, described this and said, well, we don't know the motivation, but it doesn't appear it was linked to anti Semitism, which was complete garbage.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah, it seemed a little less. And I'm no expert, I'm no forensic genius here, but it would seem that if you fly to a country, you stick up a bunch of Jews because you're trying to get an Al Qaeda terrorist released from prison by the way that was the backstory of part of his motivation.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

You think that might have something to.

[Michael Knowles]

Do with like a little bit of.

[Ted Cruz]

Anti Semitism, don't you?

[Michael Knowles]

Well. And you know what really drove it? It was fascinating as I talked with everyone involved, the antisemitism that was driven. It wasn't directed at this particular synagogue. He didn't know anything about this synagogue. What happened was he flew. He flew to New York, then he flew to Dallas, Fort Worth. And this synagogue is pretty near the airport. He just went to a nearby synagogue. And what this guy believes. So he wanted an al Qaeda terrorist who is in US Prison released, and she's known as Lady Al Qaeda. She has a really bad record as a terrorist being involved in terrorist activity. And what he believed is that you just have to find some Jews that you look at the anti Semitic trope of Jews run the world. And he believed in America because Jews have so much power and they control everything. That he believed if he just captured some Jews, that they could pick up the phone and call whoever they believe are the Jews in charge and just order the Al Qaeda terrorist released. I mean, it really was this guy believed that, like, you know, I don't know, that all the rabbis know each other and they could order it done. And it shows the danger of this propaganda and hateful rhetoric that these tropes, these lies that are told led him to believe that this would get the action he wanted. And obviously it didn't. And the terrorist wasn't released. But thankfully, the hostages escaped and escaped unharmed.

[Ted Cruz]

You know, whenever it's raining, I always ask Shapiro, I say, ben, make a phone call. Please change the weather. He says it's not possible, but apparently some people really believe, believe this sort of thing can happen. There is a. Obviously, it's a wonderful resolution to this whole issue in Texas at the synagogue. There is still the scandal, of course, of the media just completely ditching the story because it doesn't serve their political agenda.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, they've ignored it. And I'll tell you, a very important follow up is how the hell did this guy get into the country? So I've joined with several other senators in writing letters to the Attorney General, to the head of the FBI, to the head of Homeland Security, saying, how did he get in? What information did we have about him? What information did he had? He had a criminal history in the United Kingdom. What did we know about his criminal history? What did we know about his terrorist ties? What did we know about his radicalizations? What did we know about his mental illness. I mean, what happened to let him in? At least so far, the Biden administration hasn't answered. And they are incredibly slow. They drag their feet. They view it as Congress doesn't have a right to engage in oversight. Now, to be fair, Republican administrations are pretty bad at this, too. I mean, some of it is an institutional perspective, but Biden has been really bad. They need to answer those questions because I think the American people deserve to know, did we have sufficient information to prevent this terrorist from coming in? And if the answer is yes, why didn't the system work? And how can we fix it to stop the next terrorist from getting in? Of course, the media has zero interest in those questions because it's sort of a twofer. Number one, they support open borders, and number two, that they refuse to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism exists. And so there's zero interest in the media covering it. But I think these are questions that are very important to ask in terms of keeping Americans safe.

[Ted Cruz]

There are lots of questions that remain. There are a lot of questions from our listeners in the mailbag, but unfortunately, we are out of time. We're well over time. So on the next episode, we will, I promise we will get to some of these excellent questions in the mailbag. So thank you to all of our listeners. For now, though, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

[Michael Knowles]

This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security pac, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In 2022, jobs, freedom and Security PAC plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.