← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Pardon-palooza: Biden Plans to Pardon EVERYBODY, plus Supreme Court hears Challenge to law Prohibiting Sex Transition Surgeries for Kids
00:39:33
Loading summary
Transcript46 lines
- [00:01]
Ted Cruz
Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. And Senator, I hate it when, I mean, we have to admit so often that we were just absolutely right in predicting something. And sure enough, now the White House is hunkered down, going through long lists of pardons and letting the American people know you should expect more pardons before we leave office.
- [00:24]
Ben Ferguson
Well, this week we were struck with the stunning news that the White House has announced Verdict with Ted Cruz Wednesday podcast was exactly entirely 100% accurate that every word we said. And by the way, if you didn't listen to Wednesday's pod, you should listen to Wednesday's pod because we predicted, we said, that the left wing media and Democrats were pressing Joe Biden to issue a ton more pardons, to pardon the rest of his family, to pardon members of his administration. And now. And we said, look, that's the direction they're going. And seemingly in response to our podcast, the White House immediately came out and said, expect more pardons. And we're seeing a list of people now that they are contemplating pardoning. In addition, we had a major Supreme Court case argued this week, a challenge to Tennessee's law that prohibits sex transition treatments for children. And the ACLU has challenged this, arguing that it violates the Constitution, that the Constitution requires that you be able to to mutilate and sterilize children. That argument played out in the Supreme Court this week. We're going to lay out how it went.
- [01:39]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, it's truly shocking what they were saying, including some of the Supreme Court justices. And we have the audio from those oral arguments that will, I think, shock most parents out there. Want to tell you real quick about a cool opportunity for you. A Chance to win 1700 hours to buy any self defense gear that you need before it's too late. Now how do you win? Right now you can text the word America to 87222. Right now. That's text the word America to 87222. Now who's giving it away? Well, the USCCA. And the USCCA is doing incredible work to help protect people just like you when it comes to you exercising your second amendment rights. Look, I've had to use a firearm to protect and save my own life. I had to pull the trigger. And I wish I would have been a member and even known back then about the USCCA because with activist DAs around the country right now, you never know what's gonna happen even if you're in the right. Many DAs don't like law abiding citizens carrying firearms and Protecting yourself and your family is so important now, not only when you become a member of the USCCA and they have over 800,000Americans right now that are already members. Why? Because they understand how important it is to get access to their protector academy where you learn vital skills like precision shooting and how to fortify your home against criminals. You also get access when you're a member to the 247 critical response team. That is the most important thing and it includes the benefits of self defense liability insurance to make sure that you and your family are prepared for anything. Now for a limited time, you text the word America to 8, 7, 222 and you're going to get the USCCA's free life saving Concealed Carrying Defense Family Defense Guide and that chance to win seventeen hundred dollars to buy any self defense care that you need before it's too late. So text the word America to 87222 right now. So we talked about this two days ago and as you said, I'll say it again, go back if you missed that podcast and listen to it, because we talked about this idea that was really coming out of the White House that they wanted to expand the list of people that would be given pardons that could also include the president, in theory, pardoning himself. What we are now seeing is the White House is saying, yeah, it's coming and you should prepare for a lot of people to quite possibly be pardoned. So just get used to it. Your instant reaction, the White House now confirming this story?
- [04:13]
Ben Ferguson
Well, we put out the podcast Wednesday morning as the sun was coming up, and several hours later, Politico issued a report entitled Biden White House is Discussing Preemptive pardons for those in Trump's crosshairs. It was written by Jonathan Martin, who's a longtime Washington reporter. And what he reports is that White House officials are debating issuing blanket pardons to multiple people, which is exactly what we predicted. And here's what Politico reports. Quote, those who could face exposure include such members of Congress's January 6th committee as Adam Schiff. Liz Cheney also mentioned Anthony Fauci and others as well. And so that's the initial list. Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, that's who they are discussing. And what is striking is there are now multiple elected Democrats explicitly urging this. So, for example, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey said in a press interview, quote, if it's clear by January 19th that revenge is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to People, because that's really what our country is going to need next year. Another Democrat, Congressman Brendan Boyle from Pennsylvania, likewise called for blanket pardons. He said, quote, this is no hypothetical threat. The time for cautious restraint is over. We must act with urgency to push back against these threats and prevent Trump from abusing his power. I will say, to I guess, some modicum of his credit, one person pushing on the other side is Adam Schiff. Now, to be clear, they're talking about giving him a pardon. And Schiff was quoted as saying, quote, I would urge the President not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary. Well, I gotta say, it is stunning. And you're right. The White House is now publicly saying, expect more pardons, here we come. And it's a question of just how much they're going to abuse power, because it really is, at this point, stunning. And apparently, everyone who may have committed wrongdoing is panicking that there may be some accountability. And so they want to pardon everybody for whatever crimes they might have committed.
- [06:47]
Ted Cruz
And you talk about Adam Schiff. Let's remind people back in 2018 what Adam Schiff did. Adam Schiff introduced a bill to keep Trump from, quote, abusing pardon powers for his family. This was on CNN on Don Lemon show back in 2018.
- [07:07]
Adam Schiff
So the president's pardon of Scooter Libby, Congressman, has inspired you to propose new legislation. What exactly would it do? What it would do is say that in the event the President pardons anyone in an investigation in which the President is a witness, a subject, or the target, those investigative files will all be turned over to the Congress. The Congress ought to know whether the President is using the pardon power to obstruct justice. The American people have a right to know. I think it is clearly constitutional. It doesn't prohibit him from granting a pardon, even a pardon he shouldn't grant. But it does say that we will be able to at least find out whether the President is using this power to shield himself from liability. It offers transparency at the very least.
- [07:53]
Ted Cruz
Wow. I mean, what a great idea. Now, Adam Schiff, why aren't you introducing this legislation all over again so we can know all of the people that are going to be pardoned why they're being pardoned and all the files that, that, that show what the information is behind it. I, I'm waiting for this, Adam. Shift of 18 to appear again, Senator.
- [08:10]
Ben Ferguson
Well, and, and I got to say, under that reasoning, that would have the Department of Justice forwarding the investigatory files of Hunter Biden to Congress to the Republican majorities in both Congresses under his reasoning. He just argued for that. I'll be curious to see if he thinks it should apply in those circumstances. You know, you know, spoiler alert. I would not bet on it.
- [08:34]
Ted Cruz
No, I wouldn't either. Let's also talk about POLITICO's Jonathan Martin and what he said on TV about this pardon list. This was after the writing in Politico. Take a listen to how he described.
- [08:45]
Adam Schiff
It earlier, titled Biden White House is discussing preemptive pardons for those in Trump's Crosshairs. In it, you write this quote, president Joe Biden's senior aides are conducting a vigorous internal debate over whether to issue preemptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could be targeted with President Elect Donald Trump's return to the White House. That's according to senior Democrats familiar with the discussions Deliberations touch on pardoning those currently in office, elected and appointed, as well as former officials who've angered Trump and his loyalists. Those who could face exposure include such members of Congress's January six committee as Senator Elect Adam Schiff and former GOP Representative Liz Cheney. Also mentioned by Biden's aides for a pardon, Anthony Foushee, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the COVID 19 pandemic. The President himself, Jonathan continues, who was intensely focused on his son's pardon, has not been brought into the broader pardon discussions yet, according to people familiar with deliberations. So, Jonathan, what does this look like? What are you pardoning Anthony Fauci for? What are you pardoning Liz Cheney for who've not been charged or convicted of crimes?
- [10:01]
Bill Clinton
That goes to the heart of this deliberation, Willie. And why this is so delicate, because the White House counsel and a handful of senior White House aides, including Jeff Zients, the chief of staff, are having this debate right now in the West Wing, which is, do we leave these folks out in the cold and potentially expose them to cash Patel's FBI and Donald Trump's White House for any number of charges or some kind of, you know, show trial to get a measure of revenge and at the very least make them pay six figures in legal bills to avoid such a case, or do we, do we offer preemptively pardons to people who there's no proof they've done anything wrong whatsoever and really may not want a pardon in the first place? That's a real tough call because if you don't do it. And Patel and company come after some of these people and you had the chance to give them inoculation legally. That's a hell of a thing to regret. At the same time, do you want to pardon somebody like Liz Cheney or Anthony Fauci and suggest any kind of impropriety that could only add fuel to the Trump aggressors in the first place? It's a real tough nut.
- [11:18]
Ted Cruz
I love the way he describes at the end. He's like, it's a real tough nut. Like, this is a hard one. You know, should we just admit that we broke a hell of a bunch of laws and just hand out the pardons? Or, or do we act like we didn't break laws and hope they don't come after all of us?
- [11:32]
Ben Ferguson
Well, and I will say, even the way he's reporting it, the Trump aggressors, look, the idea that anyone in and around Joe Biden would be held responsible for laws they have been broken is treated as a pearl clutching horror for the media and for the Democrats. And listen, my view, and we've talked about this at length, I don't want to see a Republican Department of Justice. I don't want to see a Republican FBI. I don't want to see a Democrat Department of Justice. I don't want to see a Democrat FBI. I want a Department of justice and an FBI that enforces the law regardless of party. And that apparently is a terrifying thing to individuals who previously consider themselves unaccountable and not bound by the ordinary constraints of law.
- [12:30]
Ted Cruz
Well, and even look at Bill Clinton, for example. Bill Clinton is now coming out saying he wants to stop the cycle of criminalizing politics. That's pretty rich from the Democrats after that's all they've done the last four years. Here is Bill Clinton at the Dealbook Summit. It's a New York Times event. Listen, you think Biden should be.
- [12:52]
Adam Schiff
Pardoning Trump.
- [12:53]
Ted Cruz
And by the way, there's some people.
- [12:54]
Adam Schiff
Who think that Trump should be pardoning Biden.
- [12:58]
Bill Clinton
Well, I do think we should stop trying to criminalize politics. But on the other, I think we should, both of us, because obviously, and the people don't like it and they're not going along with it from right to left. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself, if you do this blanket thing, is there anything a president could do that he would or she someday would get in trouble for?
- [13:32]
Ted Cruz
I mean, Senator, they weaponize the FBI, the doj, the entire apparatus of the White House, the executive branch, to go after their political Enemies for four years. And now all of a sudden they're like, hey, we should not have Republicans doing that. Republicans, never. That the Democrats are the ones that have done it.
- [13:50]
Ben Ferguson
I'm curious. Did Bill Clinton say that the first time Trump was indicted? No. Did he say that the second time Trump was indicted?
- [14:00]
Ted Cruz
Hell, no.
- [14:01]
Ben Ferguson
Did he say that the third time Trump was indicted?
- [14:04]
Ted Cruz
Nope.
- [14:05]
Ben Ferguson
Did he say that the fourth time Trump was indicted?
- [14:08]
Ted Cruz
No. And he didn't say it when they were rating Mar A Lago either.
- [14:12]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. I mean, it is amazing. And by the way, Bill Clinton also didn't say that when the Trump DOJ was prosecuting people for peaceful protest on January 6, when they were using. Using the violent acts of a limited number of people as an excuse to engage in political persecution. Bill Clinton didn't speak out when. When the Biden Department of Justice was targeting parents for going to school board meetings and speaking out, sending the FBI to intimidate moms and dads who are exercising their constitutional rights. And at school board meetings. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was firing people for declining to take the COVID vaccine. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was coercing private businesses to fire people for declining to take the COVID vaccine. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration sent over a dozen FBI agents with drawn machine guns to arrest a pro life protester at dawn in front of his children. By the way, that case, the jury threw it out when they tried to put him in jail. And the jury said, this is ridiculous, and threw it out incredibly quickly. The absolute and brazen hypocrisy of the Democrats that they've suddenly discovered, oh, don't use the legal process against us. And I want to be clear. I do not believe the Trump administration should persecute Democrats. I do believe they should follow the law. And if individuals have violated the law, they should enforce the law. That is very different from targeting and weaponizing doj. You know, I sat down this week with Pam Bondi, the nominee to be Attorney General, and the entire discussion I had with her was about restoring integrity to the Department of Justice, not about turning it into a tool just to be used to target the other side, but bringing it back to what it is supposed to be, which is having fidelity to the rule of law.
- [16:13]
Ted Cruz
You talk about the fidelity and the rule of law here. So the question now becomes, if the president decides to walk out there and say, I'm going to preemptively pardon everyone, Fauci Schiff Liz Cheney, people all around my family, all of maybe the business associates, for example, around Hunter Biden. Is there anything that Congress will be able to do to stop this or to rein it in? I go back to Adam Schiff when he was like, well, what we should be doing is you should send over all the documents. Or is this pretty much like he's in charge, he's leaving, he can do whatever the hell he wants. It's the power of the presidency. And even if he wants to abuse the pardon power, he has the right to do it. What mindset should everyone listening have on reality?
- [17:00]
Ben Ferguson
Now, look, under the Constitution, the pardon power is essentially an absolute power. And so there is not any limitation in the Constitution that Congress can enforce on the pardon power that is given to the president. The only limitation is public pressure, public scrutiny. The only thing that constrains presidents is they don't want the world to know that they're utterly corrupt hacks. Now, I will say Biden's got a problem in that because he's already done the Hunter Biden pardon. And I'll read from an article in Axios which often reports on sort of inside gossip in the White House and Capitol Hill. And the story is entitled behind the Curtain Biden's Haunting Twin Sins. Here's what Axios reports. President Biden's post presidency now looks bleak as his brutal final months. Some top Democrats tell us they're so furious about Biden's abrupt, clumsy pardon of his son Hunter that they're threatening to withhold donations from his future presidential library. And his, his, his quote, twin selfishness. What it says is why it matters. Biden, 82, will limp away from the limelight. Widely disliked by the public and now loathed by many Democrats who blame him for twin sins of selfishness. Running again then pardoning Hunter after repeatedly saying he wouldn't. That's the real constraint is just public shame and disgrace. And the question is, are Democrats capable of public shame anymore or is Trump Derangement syndrome so bad that their answer to everything is Orange man bad?
- [18:53]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, it's a great point. I want to take a moment and say thank you to so many of you that have been involved with the international fellowship of Christians and Jews. They are wishing you a blessed beginning of the holiday season. And as you gather with your families, grateful for the blessing that God has given us all. Let's also remember those who are facing unbelievable hardship, those in Israel that are in the need of food, fellowship and just hope. That includes the people of Israel who are threatened daily by the attacks from enemies on all sides. And during these hard times, Israelis are thankful for the fellowship, for the food and the basic assistance that they are providing truly life saving aid when the rest of the world seems to have turned their back on them. Your gift of $25 will help provide a food box to an elderly Jew or a Jewish family who are suffering and in desperate need. A gift of $100 will help provide four of these life saving food boxes this holiday season. Please consider standing with Israel and the Jewish people. You can go to supportifcj.org to make a gift. Now that's supportifcj.org or you can call them 888-488ifcj. That's 888-488-4325. And you can give Right now, 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.
- [21:10]
ACLU Lawyer
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. And the state of Tennessee has displaced their judgment.
- [21:52]
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.
- [22:03]
Ben Ferguson
Well, Tennessee passed, I think, a very reasonable law that prohibited puberty blockers and hormones and sterilizing children, sterilizing minors. And we're seeing multiple state legislatures that are acting to protect children. I think that is a reasonable and common sense step. And what happened is, unsurprisingly, that the state got sued and the ACLU argued 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, uh, 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, to, 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.
- [24:25]
Ted Cruz
Justice Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor. Downplaying the risk of mutilation of minors in this back and forth in these oral arguments. This is what she said.
- [24:34]
Adam Schiff
Cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a pure exercise of.
- [24:40]
Ben Ferguson
Of weighing benefits versus risk.
- [24:43]
Adam Schiff
And the question of how many minors.
- [24:45]
Ben Ferguson
Have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left.
- [24:51]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
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?
- [25:29]
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.
- [25:43]
Ben Ferguson
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.
- [26:33]
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. Yes, I think that's exactly right, that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic. And in all other.
- [27:30]
Ted Cruz
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 a 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.
- [27:53]
Ben Ferguson
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 not 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, 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.
- [29:46]
Ted Cruz
You may be shopping for Christmas. And one gift you can give that is incredible is the gift of helping someone be able to protect and defend themselves. And with increased crime and violence around our country, we need to remember that personal safety and security for you and your family is the most important thing in life. And that is exactly why I want you to know about the Burner less lethal pistol launcher. A burner can save two lives. It is a great complement to owning firearms. And if you or your family members in a situation where you feel threatened, then you can start with less lethal. Now burner. And this less lethal launcher is legal in all 50 states. No permits or background checks are needed. I own one myself and I've given them to a lot of my family members because I have some family members that just don't feel comfortable carrying a firearm. Well, Burna is the answer there as well. It's also designed for easy use by all age groups 18 or older. So if you have a child that's living in an apartment or off campus. Maybe they're not 21. The burner launcher is what you need to give them. It has powerful deterrents like tear gas and kinetic rounds with a 60 foot range, meaning you put serious distance between you and the attacker. Plus One Shot can incapacitate attackers for up to 40 minutes. It's used by government agencies and law enforcement around the country. Now I want you to see the videos of this in action and you can see it by going to their website, burnaby RNA.com verdict and when you go there, you're also going to get 10% off your purchase. So it's going to save you money. That's Burna by r n a.com verdict for 10% off. That's by r n a dot com and give the the gift of protection this Christmas. Final question on this issue with this case coming out of the Supreme Court 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 is saying it is, it is an increase year over year of over point four percent 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.
- [32:37]
Ben Ferguson
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 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'd 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 him. It's horrible. And she said, many other Democrats she described said, 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 to discriminate employment based on race and other characteristics, including sex. And in Bostock, the Supreme Court took a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual 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 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 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 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.
- [38:55]
Ted Cruz
As I said before, this is why elections are so important. It's why it's so important that conservatives get elected because these are the people that make unbelievable decisions and it deals with kids futures and this is a perfect example of it. Don't forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download button and the senator I will make sure. If you see this by the way, please share it on social media because that's how we reach new people. Write us a star review if you would take a moment to do that as well. On those in between days grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcast, and I'll keep you updated on the latest breaking news there, and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.