Michael Knowles (3:37)

Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles and I am totally cheating this time because it is Thursday evening right now when we are filming this and it is a lovely 9:30pm where I am here in California. Senator, for you, it is after midnight. You've just come off the Senate floor and we're about to start a show.

Ted Cruz (3:59)

You know, it really feels like we're reliving our past, our origin story. I think all verdicts ought to be filmed after midnight. And the show would get much better if we did a tequila shot after every topic. Mm.

Michael Knowles (4:14)

Well, I did wanna take some tequila shots after I saw the machinations in the Senate today and the Democrats and the squishes pushing gun control. You saw it a lot closer than I did. What happened?

Ted Cruz (4:27)

You know, today was a really frustrating day. Today the United States Senate passed the most significant gun control bill since 1994 and it's even more frustrating. So in the last podcast we talked about the broader issues, but. But I told you then that I would have more to say in the hours and days coming forward. Well, earlier this week, in fact, right after the last podcast, I introduced my own legislation and my own legislation, I teamed up with John Barrasso, who is the number three Republican in the conference leadership. He Is the senator from Wyoming. Great guy, great friend. Actually, we've had John Barrasso on the show.

Michael Knowles (5:12)

That's right. A former guest on Verdict.

Ted Cruz (5:14)

Yes. So we teamed up and introduced legislation that was called Cruz Barrasso. By any measure, the legislation I introduced and I fought for would do much, much more, would be much more effective, was much more serious in stopping mass murders and stopping mass shootings and keeping our kids safe. And yet every single Democrat lined up against it and they said, we don't wanna double the number of cops in schools. We don't wanna prosecute gun criminals. Instead, our objective is to meet our political priorities of restricting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. It's really frustrating and it's maddening.

Michael Knowles (5:58)

So you come up with this legislation with John Barrasso and you bring it in, you introduce it into the Senate and then while you're waiting for Chuck Schumer to come sign on as a co sponsor. Because this is basic stuff, if Democrats really wanted to solve this, then they would do it. Meanwhile, the Democrats are picking off 14 Republicans to support their legislation, which, whatever you think about gun control is just far less relevant to these actual shootings than legislation like yours would be. And then the legislation that the Democrats proposed passes the Senate. So it's done, right? It's over. It's gonna go to Biden's desk and.

Ted Cruz (6:37)

Then it's gonna be, it has to go to the House next. But the House is expected to take it up and the House will pass it. So it will go to Biden's desk, but the House has to pass it first and the Democrats there are gonna support it. And look, the Democrats understand this is the camel's nose under the tent. The provision in this bill that is the most problematic is, is the red flag provision. So this bill provides significant federal funding for states to pass so called red flag laws. And the problem is red flag laws really can invite abuse because they're a mechanism to take away the guns from law abiding citizens. And it varies state by state. But we've seen some blue states enact red flag laws where they can take away your guns with little to no due process, with little to no judicial protection.

Michael Knowles (7:27)

Now the Second Amendment is not just some sort of privilege that various political communities have decided to pass. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. The right to keep and bear arms, no matter what you think of it, is a basic civil right. So my question is, how can the Democrats and these 14 Republicans lower the threshold so much to deprive someone of their basic civil rights and will this, if it's challenged in court, would this kind of legislation be overruled?

Ted Cruz (7:59)

So it depends. The Democrats, by and large, don't care. And more and more Congressional Democrats are becoming quite candid that their objective is gun confiscation, that they want to take guns away from the American people. They used to hide that. More and more Democrats are being very open. Beto O'Rourke famously said, Hell yes, we're gonna take your AR15. I mean, they're, hell, yes, embracing it. Justice John Paul Stevens, a lion of the left, wrote an op ed saying we should repeal the Second Amendment. That is more and more becoming. The position of the hard left is, screw the Second Amendment. We want your guns. With Republicans, it's more complicated. A number of Republicans. So we had at lunch today with the Senate Republicans, we had a hot lunch. It's as hot as any I can remember in years. People were angry and yelling at each other. This, this is. Look, it's an emotional issue. It's a divisive issue. On the question of red flag laws, what the defenders of this bill were saying is, well, gosh, no courts have struck down the state laws as being unconstitutional. No courts have concluded that they don't adequately protect due process. Well, look, there are lots of things that are unconstitutional that have yet to be adjudicated. And if your standard is whatever New York or Connecticut does is just okie dokie by me, unless and until a court strikes it down, you're on pretty dangerous territory. So I found that argument particularly unpersuasive. We have heard in the Judiciary Committee significant testimony about how these laws have been abused. And one of the things I said on the Senate floor is, as a consequence of this bill tonight, we will see people assaulted and lose their life. So we had a big argument today at lunch over my amendment. So we started the day with me being told by multiple senators, oh, Chuck Schumer is going to schedule a vote on your amendment. He's agreed. We're gonna have one amendment. It's your amendment. It's the Cruz Barrasso amendment. We're gonna vote on that, and then we'll be done. And at lunch, several of my colleagues asked, okay, is your amendment, Is it simply an addition to this bill, adding new provisions, or is it a substitute? A substitute is delete what you got and replace it with this. And I said, guys, it's a substitute. I don't like what you're doing. What you're doing is bad. It's a Bad bill, it undermines the second amendment. So I don't wanna add my bill to yours and undermine the second amendment and do something good. I'd just like to do something good. I'd like us actually to pass a straight up bill going after criminals and keeping people safe. I will tell you, my Republican colleagues who are in support of this bill were furious. That was the cause of much of the fireworks at lunch as they're like, we don't wanna substitute, we want you just to just add our bill. Add your bill to ours and we'll be fine with it.

Michael Knowles (11:01)

In your estimation, Senator, I don't want to make you play psychobabble or anything like that, but is your read from your squishier colleagues who backed the Dems gun control bill, is your read that they did it for political reasons, to appease their purple or blue constituencies? Or did they do it because of conviction, because they think it's actually good to take away guns from more Americans?

Ted Cruz (11:25)

Now look, there were a number of them from pretty red states that weren't from blue or purple states. I don't know, I'm not an armchair shrink. I think it is consistently the case that when a Republican compromises with the Democrats and does what the Democrats want that the press will praise them. It's an easy path. If you want the press to call you a statesman, just do what the Democrats want. And as a Republican, it's simple. 100% of the time you give in to the Democrats, the press says, oh you're so wise, you're so enlightened. And it's a pattern we see over and over again. You know, you think about this bill. This is a bill that united all the Democrats. Every Democrat voted for this bill. The most left wing Democrats happily voted for this bill. And less than a third of the Republicans voted for this bill. More than a few of us were asking of our leadership. Why are we teeing up a bill that unites all the Democrats and divides the Republicans and makes us fight with each other? I get why this makes sense for Chuck Schumer. Why does this make sense for us? But when I said my amendment is going to be a substitute, I'm not willing to just rubber stamp what you're doing. It made the proponents of the bill pretty angry. And Shuber ended up saying no amendments at all. And so he blocked amendments. Now, the way you block amendments. And let's get into a little bit of arcane Senate procedure, when you have a bill pending on the floor, there is what's called the amendment tree, which is there are open slots for amendments. And what Schumer did is what's called filling the tree, which is he brings up the bill, then he files an amendment and he files another amendment. He fills the legs on the tree. And typically the blocking amendment is something really minor and inconsequential. It's something like changing a date from September 1st to September 2nd. I mean, it doesn't matter what it is, it's just an amendment to block that slot so no one else can file an amendment. So because Schumer refused to allow any amendments, what I did tonight is I exercised the prerogatives of a senator to move to table a pending amendment. And in particular, I moved a table Schumer's amendment that was filling the tree, that was blocking the tree. And under Senate rules, a motion to table an amendment is a privileged motion with no debate that forces a vote. So it was a way for me to force a vote. And I stood up and said, look, I'm moving to table this in order to force a vote on Cruz Barrassa. And this is a chance for everyone here to decide which one you want. Do you wanna pass a bill that is serious about going after violent criminals, about locking up gun criminals, and that provides much, much more funds and resources to make schools safe, to double the number of cops in schools to protect our kids, or do you want to pass a political bill that satisfies the partisan urges of the Democrats? That's your choice. That's what we voted on tonight. And unfortunately that vote failed. We got a total of 39 votes to table the amendment, which meant all the Democrats and eight Republicans voted to block any more amendments to prevent consideration of the serious legislation that actually would put real resources on the table to stop violent crime.

Michael Knowles (14:59)

So that means that six Republicans backed the Democrats gun control bill, but also didn't, didn't try to shoot down your amendment.

Ted Cruz (15:08)

Correct.

Michael Knowles (15:10)

So a way to sort of split the baby there. But I guess we'll take what we can get.

Ted Cruz (15:13)

Yeah, we picked off about half the Republicans who were supporting this. And so that was an incremental benefit. And by the way, look, I'll also say we were working with gun rights groups. So the NRA actively supported my amendment and publicly urge senators to vote for it. Why? Because it targets the bad guys, it targets criminals. It actually focuses on how you stop gun crimes rather than disarming law abiding citizens. But unfortunately, a majority of the Senate wanted to go down a political road instead.

Michael Knowles (15:54)

So the Democrats run the Senate. So the Democrats get their way on their gun bill. The Democrats generally do not run the Supreme Court. We have a vaguely conservative, vague majority on the court. And the court handed down a major victory for the Second Amendment today. That was the New York Rifle and Pistol association versus Bruen. And it was a case that decided whether and how New Yorkers are allowed to keep an and bear arms. Could you describe a little bit about the case?

Ted Cruz (16:29)

Sure. It's a big case, it is a big victory, and it is cause for celebration. So New York has in place a law that severely restricts the ability of New Yorkers to carry a firearm outside the home. So if you want to conceal, carry a handgun, New York had a handful of very narrow circumstances in which you were allowed to do it. But as a practical matter, you couldn't. It was illegal to carry a firearm outside your home. So if you're on the subway, if you want to protect yourself, New York made it illegal to do that. This was a lawsuit saying, look, making it illegal to protect yourself is contrary to the Second Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court agreed. The decision is 6, 3. So it was a big majority decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority. It's a fantastic majority opinion. And it vigorously gave life to the Second Amendment. And it said, look, you've got a right to protect your own life. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about skeet shooting, it's not about recreational use of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the fundamental right you have. You, Michael Knowles, to defend your life, to protect your life and to defend your family. And that right of life and self defense, the ability to both keep and to bear arms, to carry them with you, to protect yourself is fundamental. And the Supreme Court said restrictions that are not in the tradition of what has been allowed with the right to keep and bear arms are beyond what is allowed under the Constitution. It was a big, big victory.

Michael Knowles (18:16)

I remember when I was living in New York, I did a little research to see what it would take to allow me to carry a weapon. Even just to have a weapon in my apartment was difficult enough, but to carry a weapon outside of my apartment, and it was virtually impossible. And in the law at issue here, New York decided that you had to prove that you had a cause to have to keep and bear this weapon. And it would seem to me that the cause would be the government's trying to take away my Second Amendment rights. That would seem to be a sufficient cause to exercise my Second Amendment rights. Will this have ripple effects around the rest of the country?

Ted Cruz (18:55)

So it will. I think you will see litigation against other significant constraints on the right to keep and bear arms. And I think you will see gun grabbing restrictions struck down. The left wants to make it hard, if not impossible, for you to protect yourself. And I think this decision, this decision is the biggest Second Amendment decision since Heller vs. District of Columbia, which, as you know, I led a coalition of states in Heller defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That was a landmark 5, 4 decision. Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion. It's probably the finest majority opinion Justice Scalia ever wrote in this case. I led an amicus brief for 24 senators defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So we filed a brief with the court and the court agreed with us. The court agreed with us down the line that the right to keep and bear arms is real, it's significant, it's meaningful, it needs to be protected. And you know, the Bill of Rights is not optional. It's not a recommendation. If you don't agree with it, who cares? It is in the Constitution. If you don't agree with it, try to amend the Constitution, but you don't get to ignore it just because you'd like to ignore it. And so I think this was a big decision and a really important long term victory for the Second Amendment. I will tell you something amazing. So imagine for a second, Michael, that you're the lawyer who argues the New York case wins a 6, 3, landmark case defending a constitutional right. Imagine you are also a partner at a law firm who's just won a landmark victory at the Supreme Court. What do you think the reward and the response from your law firm would be and should be?

Michael Knowles (20:46)

I would imagine I should get a big, fat, gigantic bonus. I think I should get an upgrade to my office. If I'm in some little kind of. I'd like that corner office now. Maybe a nice leather chair and a cocobolo desk. That's what I would expect.

Ted Cruz (21:02)

Look, all of that makes sense, and you got it almost exactly right. What happened in this case is the lawyer who argued the case was Paul Clement. He was the former Solicitor General of the United States. Paul someone I know very well. He's an incredibly talented Advocate. He won 6, 3. He was a partner at Kirkland and Ellis. And immediately after the decision came down, Kirkland fired him. Oh, my God, he was fired. They fired him and they fired Aaron Murphy, who was also his partner. What the law firm Said is we have decided we are no longer willing to defend the Second Amendment. So you, Paul, and you, Aaron, have a choice. Fire your client, who is a long standing client, tell them you will no longer represent them or get the hell out of the firm. And Paul and Aaron, God bless them, said, nice knowing you guys. See you later. We won't let the door hit us on the ass on the way out. And they left the firm today, literally within hours of winning this landmark decision. Do you want to know something even more amazing?

Michael Knowles (22:10)

I can't imagine what would be more amazing than that, but sure.

Ted Cruz (22:13)

This is not the first time this has happened to Paul Clement. So more than a decade ago, I.

Michael Knowles (22:19)

Thought you were gonna say this is not the first time that this has happened in the history of the court. This poor man. This has happened to multiple times.

Ted Cruz (22:26)

So over a decade ago, Paul was a partner at King and Spaulding, one of the top Supreme Court litigators on the planet. And the US House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans at the time, hired Paul to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress that Barack Obama refused to defend. And so the Republican House wanted somebody to defend it in the Supreme Court. They hired Paul. King and Spalding said either refuse to represent the United States House of Representatives or leave the firm. And Paul left the firm. He formed his own firm. That particular case he lost five, four. So he didn't win it, but he got four votes at the court. It was a very important case. He went to a little litigation boutique, practiced there for years. And then 2016, Kirkland and Ellis, which is a big white shoe firm based in Chicago, one of the most profitable firms in America, brought him in and brought his team in. He was representing the New York State Rifle Association. He had these clients. He was doing the Second Amendment representation at the time. And Kirkland agreed at the time. You can keep these clients. We know who your clients are. You can keep your clients. It's all good with us. And the thing to understand about this, Michael, this is woke corporate America. Law firms are the handmaidens for the giant companies. And this is woke general counsels saying, our politics matters more to us than anything else. And this is law firms being cowards and saying, okay, then we've decided certain parts of the Bill of Rights we don't care about. If they're clients that are unpopular, we don't care about. And they literally are chasing away their marquee. Like, Paul is their top Supreme Court litigator. So by the way, they're also telling all their corporate clients. If you have a Supreme Court case, oh, well, we can't do it anymore. We don't have the big dog anymore because our politics is more important than actually representing your interest. It really is shameful what's happened to law firms and what has happened to corporate America.

Michael Knowles (24:46)

That is, you know, I guess it's a mark of honor for Paul in the sense that the guy is obviously very, very effective, very, very successful. And the soft power that has a lot of power in this country, corporate power, really doesn't like him and is punishing him. Good on him. He should fire the pink slip that he received. All in all, especially as we're looking at these big wins and big potential wins from the Supreme Court, you're seeing that rise in the vitriol from the left and danger as well. We will have to leave it there on that sort of ominous cliffhanger with lots of big decisions awaiting their final conclusion. But that's it for right now. It's 1:00. I know that's an early night for you, Senator, but we will let you get to sleep. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz (25:45)

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.