Michael Knowles (4:26)

And apparently they're not as cheap as I thought they were cuz they're shelling out for the extra service so they can watch the subscriber only show.

Liz Wheeler (4:34)

And I do need to say to every communist, every leftist, every Marxist, every person trying to destroy the country, obviously you need to subscribe to Verdict plus because you can't know what these nefarious conservative constitutionalists are doing unless you subscribe. And so I will take great pleasure at the Marxist helping fund our podcast and keep this operation going. Spreading truth through their absolute sea of lies.

Michael Knowles (5:06)

That's right, you'll really show us libs by subscribing and watching all of the content that we put out here. Not only did your comment drive the news cycle, Senator, it also led to a vote in the House of Representatives to codify the Obergefell decision. Actually, go a little further.

Liz Wheeler (5:25)

Has a podcast ever driven a vote the next week in the US House of Representatives? I'm not aware of that threshold ever being crossed.

Michael Knowles (5:35)

So the House Dems bring this up and it was obviously a ridiculous vote. There is absolutely no risk of the Supreme Court overruling Obergefell. The Court majority in Dobbs said as much. Clarence Thomas in his concurrence suggested perhaps we should revisit that and some other cases. He couldn't get a single other justice, including any of the Conservatives to sign on to that. So there's really, as a political matter, there's no risk of this whatsoever. And then the Democrats bring this bill out of their sheer shock and anger that you haven't changed your view on marriage from the view that's been held for all of human history and your view of the Constitution, even more importantly, the way the Constitution should be interpreted and understood. And the vote comes up in The House and 47 House Republicans vote to enshrine a new definition of marriage.

Liz Wheeler (6:31)

Yeah. So let's take those one at a time. Let's start with what actually I said on cloakroom. So the 18 second snippet that they seized upon is where I said that Obergefell was clearly wrong. It was wrongly decided, which is exactly what I said the day it came down. It's what I believed then and every day since then. And. And it's what virtually every conservative in the planet believed then and still believes now, even if there's some Republicans scared to say it now. In Obergefell, the Supreme Court struck down the marriage laws of states across the country, invented a brand new right. The proper way, I believe, under the Constitution to decide the question of marriage and whether marriage should extend to same sex couples is through the democratic process. And actually the democratic process was moving in that direction. The advocates of gay marriage were winning in multiple states. They were persuading the voters and the democratic process was operating. Those who disagreed were making their case, and there was a full fledged democratic debate until the Supreme Court said, nope, sorry, silly people, there's only one right answer. You must adopt what we decree. What they left out is you. And I had. Actually, it was Liz Wheeler and I had an extended discussion where she asked me. The entire cloak room focused on Clarence Thomas concurrence and the Dobbs decision, where he called into question the substantive due process jurisprudence. And he mentioned a number of other cases dealing with contraception, dealing with sodomy, and dealing with gay marriage. And he suggested that those opinions should be revisited. And what I articulated at great length in the full Cloakroom podcast is that the Supreme Court said repeatedly, explicitly, unambiguously, no, we are not revisiting these precedents. Nothing in this decision calls them into question. We're not going to do it. At one point, the majority opinion says, we don't know how we can say this any clearer. No, no, no. As you noted, Justice Thomas, yes, he raised the issue. He was not joined by a single Justice. So eight justices declined to join that opinion. I said that at great length. All of the lefty Twitter activists, all of the corrupt corporate media ignored that entire discussion. We actually put out the entire six minute segment, we put it out on social media to say, look, if you wanna know what the discussion was, here's a radical and crazy idea. Maybe you could actually listen to what it was. I said almost no one in the media could be bothered to do that. And there's a reason they seized upon this. This is. There's a broader political point and we've talked about this some on the podcast, but it's worth underscoring. Democrats know that abortion is a political loser for them. So there are a handful of left wing activists in D.C. who are thinking, okay, maybe the decision on Roe is gonna be the Hail Mary that saves the midterms from the disaster. It's gonna be for Democrats otherwise. But real and serious Democrats don't actually think that. Elected Democrats don't think that. And how do we know that? Because their immediate reaction is not to focus on the fact that their policy preference of unlimited abortion on demand in all circumstances with no limits is now no longer mandated by the federal courts. Because that's a really unpopular position in America. But it's rather to suggest, you know what this means. They're going to take away birth control, they're going to take away the right to consensual sodomy, they're going to take away gay marriage laws. Now those are all issues that poll much better than the Democrats radical view on abortion. And when they immediately shift to those issues, they're giving you a tell. They're telling it just like in poker when someone is bluffing and they, whether they twist their ring or they sweat or they fidget, they, you know, people have tells that let you know what they really think and believe. That's what the Democrats are doing. And the reason they hyperventilated in every media outlet. I gotta say cnn, I sort of feel like you and I deserve a credit on CNN shows because they filled their shows this week just with us. That was all of their content. Apparently there was nothing else happening in the world because it let them tell the story that Obergefell is going to be reversed even though the Supreme Court said emphatically it's not going to be reversed.

Michael Knowles (11:04)

Right.

Liz Wheeler (11:05)

And then as you noted, it predicated the vote in the House of Representatives to say if Obergefell is reversed, we're voting to enshrine gay marriage in federal law and to repeal the Defense of Marriage act, which had passed overwhelmingly in Congress and which that crazed right wing Radical Bill Clinton signed into law.

Michael Knowles (11:27)

So you get this vote in the House. I'm no expert here, Senator. You know, I don't work at the Capitol, but I think that means it's going to your place. I think that means it's going to the Senate for a vote. If you had asked me three days ago, I would have said this doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere. The Senate Republicans are going to stand firm. This is an obvious. This is an obvious issue. And yet after that vote in the House, I have to wonder, is this thing actually going to make it out of the Senate?

Liz Wheeler (11:56)

Well, it's not clear if it's going to get floor time. And we've got just a couple of weeks left before the August recess when Democrats want to get home and campaign. They've got a bunch of Democrats on the ballot and there's a lot of other bad things Democrats are trying to do. So they've got a lot of legislation they're trying to ram through, including their last gasp at build back broke. And so there's a limited number of days of floor time. That being said, Schumer said this week he intends to take this up for a vote which will burn several days of floor time. That was the speech where he also described me as unhinged for cloakroom. And if it comes up to move to proceed to the bill, we'll take 60 votes. That's the standard rule in the Senate. It presumably will get all 50 Democrats. So the question is, does it get 10 Republicans? It got, what was it, 45 Republicans in the House?

Michael Knowles (12:55)

47, I think.

Liz Wheeler (12:57)

47. At least one of my colleagues has told reporters publicly intends to vote yes. That's Thom Tillis from North Carolina who's told reporters he's going to be a yes. I could tell you we had a discussion today in the Senate Republican conference at lunch where there were multiple Republicans who, if they didn't say yes, they sure were showing a lot of leg, to use a euphemism. I don't know. This ought to be a really easy vote. Number one, because it's pure empty political messaging. Supreme Court said they're not going to overturn Obergefell. So the entire reason Democrats are having this vote is for political messaging and really to distract from every other aspect of their agenda. That's a train wreck, which, which is inflation and crime and immigration and everything else. But secondly, look, my views on the substance. I believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And that's what I have always believed it's what I believe. Now, there are people who disagree with me, and the people who disagree with me are entitled to their views and they're entitled to participate in the democratic process and they're entitled to prevail in the democratic process if their arguments carry a majority vote. It is interesting. I hope it's not the case that a bunch of Republicans who used to say that quite emphatically no longer believe that. But to be honest, I don't know.

Michael Knowles (14:29)

Michael, of course, I mean, this is. I'm with you. I hold the view of marriage that has existed forever. I sometimes say I hold the view of marriage that Obama and Hillary and Biden and all the prominent Democrats of today held until very, very recently.

Liz Wheeler (14:46)

And by the way, that the voters of California in 2008, bright blue left wing California, voted for in 2008. So I don't know that there has been a public policy issue on which views have changed more dramatically than the issue of gay marriage. And it's on the question of life. Views of the American voters have been moving in the direction of life, but on the question of marriage, they clearly are moving in the other direction. And that's indisputable. And it's really quite a remarkable journey from where even a decade the debate was, of course.

Michael Knowles (15:26)

But I just think even for people who disagree, even for Republicans who for whatever reason have changed their views over the last five or seven years, this is such a nakedly obvious political trap being pointlessly in terms of the substance of the policy being pointlessly laid out by the Democrats. The only reason is to trap Republicans. Why on earth would any of these Republican senators take it? Those 47 in the house took it hook, line and sinker. I hope, Senator. I hope your colleagues are wiser than that. You know who I know is wiser? The subscribers to this podcast. So I do want to get to some of their questions. Enough of cnn. Enough of Nancy Pelosi. First question up from Jeff. This actually does have to do with another piece of legislation that's making its way around the Capitol. Jeff says, I've been reading about a proposed reform to the Electoral Count Act. All I really know about it is that it's being pushed by Democrats and RINOs. So I instinctively don't like it. But I want to keep an open mind. What is the act and should we support it?

Liz Wheeler (16:37)

So, Jeff, a great question, and that's frankly a good instinct, is if the people pushing it are not reliable conservatives, that ought to give you a really big hint. The direction it's going, what is the act? To be honest, I'm not sure. Look, Democrats and a lot of wobbly Republicans who are really unhappy about January 6th and the fact that I stood up and objected. I objected under the Electoral Count act, an act that has been on the laws for 150 years. And I objected on the grounds that the electoral votes were not made consistent with law. That's what the statute sets out that you can make an objection on. And you'll recall I based my objection on calling for the appointment of an election commission to consider the evidence of voter fraud on the merits on the substance, do an emergency 10 day audit and determine the extent to which fraud occurred and the extent to which it impacted the outcome of the election. That was modeled after what Congress did in 1876, the election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. In that election, as in 2020, there were serious allegations of voter fraud. In 1876, Congress didn't throw up its hands and say we're powerless, we can't do anything about it. No, they appointed an election commission. It consisted of five senators, five House members, five Supreme Court justices, and they did exactly what I recommended. All the Democrats and some of the Republicans don't like that idea. And so this is a proposal to change that. I don't know the details of how they're going to change it because they literally have just announced it today. And so I haven't seen what they've announced. I will say as I was walking in to film this podcast, some left wing nut on Twitter and I really do spend too much time reading what left wing nuts say on Twitter.

Michael Knowles (18:28)

We all do, but.

Liz Wheeler (18:29)

Oh, actually it was a lefty reporter for the Washington Post. He tweeted out. So the only question in this bill is do you want the decision about presidential electors made by the federal courts or made by speaker of the House Jim Jordan and Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz? And I promptly retweeted him and I said, sounds good to me.

Michael Knowles (18:52)

Yeah, sign up.

Liz Wheeler (18:53)

So I'm sure that's their nightmare scenario. I was okay with it.

Michael Knowles (18:59)

That sounds just fine to me. Next question from wanda. Why are January 6th speaking of January 6th? Why are January 6th defendants being held in terrible conditions on ridiculous charges when Stephen Colbert's staffers get off the hook for doing basically the same thing? This referring to Stephen Colbert staffers who broke into parts of the Capitol that they weren't supposed to be in in order to embarrass Republican politicians because the.

Liz Wheeler (19:27)

Biden Department of Justice is fundamentally corrupt and political. It is politicized. It is weaponized. As you know, I've got a book coming out in September, the title of which is justice how the Left has Weaponized Our Legal System. It goes into this in great detail, Sadly, Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was someone who spent over two decades on the federal Court of Appeals. He built a reputation as a fairly apolitical, reasonable judge. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone trash their reputation faster than Merrick Garland has done in the year and a half he's had as Attorney General. It's reminiscent of what the NFL did when they declared war on their fans and, like, just lit themselves on fire. Like, the degree to which Garland is willing to allow DOJ to be the frontline soldiers for the partisans in the White House is unprecedented and it's dangerous. And I'll tell you, when it comes to people who are wrongfully imprisoned for January 6, I have been pressing on it repeatedly. I've been pressing DOJ for answers. Who is in prison? What are their charges? How many of them are violent? If they committed acts of violence, they should be prosecuted. And that's my view, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their politics. If you commit an act of violence, if you assault a police officer, you ought to go to jail. But if they didn't commit acts of violence, then peaceful protest is fully protected by the Constitution. And this Department of Justice is being used as a political weapon to persecute those who exercise their First Amendment rights in peaceful protests without committing acts of violence because the Biden White House disagrees with him. And it is shameful. It is disgraceful. And I'll tell you, every time I press the Department of Justice for answers on the January 6th protesters, comparing them say, to how DOJ handled the violent rioters in the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots, this Department of Justice essentially says, go jump in a lake. We won't tell you. It's none of your business. We're not gonna answer it. And it is. And our Corrupt Corporate Media has 0, 0, 0 interest in reporting on any of this.

Michael Knowles (21:41)

Of course, now, assuming Republicans do retake the House, maybe the Senate in the midterms, will that give conservatives enough leverage to make some progress on this issue of the two tracks of justice? Whether we're talking about the January 6th people in Colbert, or even more broadly than that.

Liz Wheeler (21:59)

So I hope so, and I have some, some modest level of optimism. I think the chances of Republicans taking the House are overwhelming. They're well north of 90%. And I think a Republican House. The odds are very high that we will have oversight hearings on many of these topics. I expect House Republicans, particularly conservatives, to be aggressive in oversight of the Biden administration. The Senate is less certain. I put the odds about 65, 35 that we take the Senate. If we take the Senate, I hope the Senate engages in oversight as well. You know, there's a difference in style and temperament between House oversight and Senate oversight. House oversight is typically more partisan. It's typically more aggressive. They have bigger flamethrowers in the House. They torch each other. Many House members, D's and R's, hate each other, insult each other. The Senate is a much more genteel place. When I arrived, it scared the hell out of them. You know, it reminded me of one of my favorite comedy riffs. Michael, have you ever seen Robin Williams do his riff on golf?

Michael Knowles (23:13)

I think I have.

Liz Wheeler (23:14)

Okay. It is one of the funniest comedy riffs ever done. I love it. Language warning. It is profane, but it's Robert Williams. He's funny as all hell. And he's talking about golf and how golf is made up. And I, I listen to it regularly because it just doubled me over laughing. But at one point, he's talking about Tiger woods and the reaction of sort of uptight country clubbers when Tiger woods started showing up and, and dominating golf and, and, and he does a, A, you know, voice of, you know, oh, my, now we're gonna let him into our clubs. And it was just, you know, you, you can picture, you know, almost invariably rich liberals sort of horrified when Tiger woods showed up. I have to admit, that was a little bit the reaction when I showed up at the Senate. Some of the same folks were like, you know, oh, goodness, what is this rabble rouser doing here, this wacko bird, this maniac. So for those of y'all who may remember, wacko bird was the term John McCain used for me. He. And I was particularly gratified when some grassroots activists made a baseball cap with a picture of Daffy Duck on it and the word wacko bird. I keep it in my office. And it was sort of. I happily embraced the title. Right. Look, the Senate with a Republican majority will engage in oversight. It will almost surely be more restrained and genteel than the House. But the Senate also carries with it typically a greater gravitas. A greater. A Senate hearing can have a real impact. And so I hope we see vigorous oversight in both the House and Senate, and that could help. I also expect the Biden administration to do what the Obama administration did when we had Republican majorities, which is stiff arm, ignore, defy. It is one of the interesting things, watching the Dems setting all sorts of precedents, including trying to prosecute Steve Bannon for defying congressional subpoenas. You know, in a few months, the other party's gonna have the power to issue subpoenas. And these are some interesting precedents they're setting. And I'm almost certain the Biden DOJ will refuse to prosecute anyone for contempt of Congress for defying a Republican subpoena because this Department of Justice is not actually focused on enforcing the law. They're willing to become essentially the enforcement arm of the dnc. But real oversight, I believe is coming.

Michael Knowles (25:49)

But these prosecutions, the orange jumpsuit that is good for the goose is good for the gander. They make those sorts of things in multiple sizes. So I agree. I think the Democrats should be cautious. A question from Aaron. Is Cookie Monster racist?

Liz Wheeler (26:08)

Give me the reasoning on that. So I picked fights with lots of Muppets. I've picked fights with Big Bird, I picked fights with Elmo. I picked fights with Mickey and Pluto. Or not Muppets, but in the sort of vague genre. But, but the Cookie Monster thing, he's blue and he likes cookies. I'm. I'm not sure. Michael, can you help me out on this?

Michael Knowles (26:25)

I. I can. I know. So you have been the news for, I don't know, 95% of CNN airtime this week. But the other news story is that Cookie Monster is apparently racist at some theme park or parade or whatever. A Cookie Monster figure, a person like.

Liz Wheeler (26:45)

Ignored some African American children. Was that Cookie Monster did or did not.

Michael Knowles (26:50)

It's not even really clear. He's wearing this big suit and he's high fiving people as he walks. And then there were these two little black girls and they wanted a high five and he didn't high five them. And then he kept walking. And the interpretation of this when it was posted on Instagra was that it's basically David Duke wearing a furry blue suit and dressed up like a puppet. Now, maybe Cookie Monster is racist, but to jump to that conclusion to me seems a little premature.

Liz Wheeler (27:18)

So I haven't seen the video, so I can provide no direct knowledge on it. I'm sorry, I'm behind in my Cookie Monster theme park video, watching the important stories. But I will say this. I believe all children deserve a high five. I'm pro child. And, you know, if these young children didn't get high fives, I think that Was terrible. And they deserve high fives.

Michael Knowles (27:45)

I'm against it. I'm against those people not getting the high five that they deserve. If you elect me, high fives for everybody. Yep.

Liz Wheeler (27:54)

And by the way, since Big Bird and Elmo have come out as Democrats and The Democrats for 200 years have been racist, you can answer your own question. If A, then B. If B, then C, you can connect the dots using the transitive property.

Michael Knowles (28:12)

That's true. That's true. We're getting a little math, and it really does feel like Sesame Street. Next question from Caligula. I hope not the real one. If Biden is not the Democrat nominee in 2024, who will be?

Liz Wheeler (28:28)

Good question. So I believe Biden will not be the nominee. He's not gonna run. He is too old. He is beyond capacity. He is severely diminished. Everyone knows this. All the Republicans know this. All the Democrats know this. Look, Biden is pretending he's gonna run because of course he didn't wanna be a lame duck. I get that. That's actually the right thing for Biden to do. Any president in his position would pretend he's gonna run. I don't think any. When Biden doesn't run and he's going to delay announcing that as long as possible because he doesn't want to be a lame duck, I think we're going to see a free for all bloody war in the Democratic Party. I think right now, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg are firing bazookas at each other every day. I think they are stabbing knives in each other's back. I think they are planning stories. I think it is open war. I think Elizabeth Warren is only a hair behind them. I think Elizabeth will run as well. She's clearly ambitious as all get out. She thinks she'll ride the Roe decision all the way to the Democratic primary nomination. And then Gavin Newsom is making a play from California. He no longer has Michael Knowles to torment. He no longer has the Daily Wire to torment. So now he wants to torment all of America. I do think it's funny that Gavin has gone all the way to Florida to run ads just so Ben Shapiro can see them because he wants to chase him from the Pacific to the Atlantic. That's obviously a presidential play by Gavin. And look, I. I'm not remotely an expert on Democratic presidential primaries, but right now I see those four as likely the top tier. I don't think. Look, you will get other people. Amy Klobucharo. Ron. I like Amy. She's actually sometimes less crazy than Some of the other members of her party. These are slight gradations, which means to me, the Democratic primary base won't want her. I think they haven't learned their lesson yet. They're still in crazy town. They're doubling down on crazy town. I think if Bernie were five years younger, he would run again and he could easily win the nomination. Bernie is probably just old enough that, that he suggested he's going to run. I think that's probably a head fake that, that, that at this age he decides, okay, my time has passed. So my guess is those four are the top tier.

Michael Knowles (31:07)

If only we could get another, another Bernie run. If only for the memes. But I think you're probably right. He's probably past his prime. From Anna. Cultural question. Brad Pitt has set a new male fashion trend by wearing a skirt to the red carpet of his new movie premiere. That happened months after Harry Styles posed in a dress for a magazine. Senator Cruz, Senator Cruz, do you plan to embrace this new open minded style or are you a patriarchal heteronormative oppressor?

Liz Wheeler (31:43)

Option B.

Michael Knowles (31:44)

Option B, obviously that was clear a mile away.

Liz Wheeler (31:48)

I got no interest in wearing a skirt. The only possible exception might be if I'm in Glasgow at a party and they convinced me to wear a kilt. Although real Scotsmen wear nothing under their kilts, I'm not a real Scotsman, so that does not seem at all tempting to me. It actually sounds kind of cold because Scotland is really kind of cold a lot of the time of the year. And like, I'm not interested in a breeze like that. Sounds thoroughly unpleasant. All right, I will tell a story from college debating days.

Michael Knowles (32:23)

So I'm terrified to know how this is going to connect. Senator.

Liz Wheeler (32:27)

Okay, so it involves my alma mater and your alma mater.

Michael Knowles (32:33)

Now. I'm really terrified to know how this connects.

Liz Wheeler (32:35)

When I was a freshman at Princeton, at the Yale debate tournament, in the final round, there was a team from Princeton who were sophomores. I was a freshman. So I was watching it in the final round. Team from Princeton, really talented debaters, and a team from Scotland, Glasgow A. And the lead speaker there was a fellow named Austin Lally. I don't know what he's. He may be in politics or something. He was an incredibly talented speaker. He was the lead speaker for Glasgow A. And the tradition in college debate was that final rounds were typically humorous because the two teams that broke to the final round qualified for nationals. And so everyone watching the debate had lost. So they were all pissed off. And so you kind of you tried to do a funny round to entertain the people who had lost. And so the Princeton team of sophomores, they got up in the case they proposed is America is better than England. They got up and they had all of these funny reasons why America's better than England. And the lead speaker for the opposition, this fellow Austin Lally from Glasgow, he got up and he's in a full kilt. So this is how it connects, because he's dressed in a full kilt. And he goes, Mr. Speaker, sir, there are few things you can do. And a Scotsman, when he's in his kilt, has a sock that goes all the two socks that go all the way up. But he has a ceremonial dagger in his sock. So he pulls out the dagger and goes, there are few things you can do to piss off a Scotch more than to confuse him with an Englishman. And he sticks the dagger into the podium, and it's just like it's stuck into the podium at Yale. The entire room erupts in laughter. I mean, it just brings the House down. He spends the remainder of his speech just mercilessly battering my teammates. I mean, it was back and forth. The round was over at that point. Yeah, fast forward to the very end of the round. He's clearly won the round. The very end. His last speech as rebuttal. He's up there and he's about to close. He goes, all right, I know you've been waiting for it, so I'll give it to you. I can't give her any more, Captain. I'm giving her all she's got. And with that, again, the entire room lost it. And he returned to his seat in triumphant victory. In that circumstance, wearing a skirt, which was a kilt, was a strong and manly thing to do. Yes, Hollywood actors or singers doing it. Let me just be mild and say, not my thing.

Michael Knowles (35:33)

Not so much. I agree. I also, by the way, Senator, do know what became of Mr. Lally? He actually became the groundskeeper on the Simpsons, which is unfortunate. I. I know everyone thought maybe he could become a big political figure, but.

Liz Wheeler (35:49)

That is what happened. That's funny. That is funny.

Michael Knowles (35:52)

All right, I think we have time for at least one or two more.

Liz Wheeler (35:55)

All right. And I promise you, when the libel suit gets filed against you, I will recommend a lawyer who's really expensive to represent you.

Michael Knowles (36:01)

Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I know you're very busy, but if you could get me a pricey lawyer, that'd be great. From cautiously optimistic. This actually relates to school. Dear Senator, I'm a T14 law student who will be. I don't even know what that means. A T14 law student who will be working at a big law firm after I graduate. I'm very passionate about litigation. How valuable is it to clerk for a federal judge?

Liz Wheeler (36:26)

Great question. Massively valuable. If you want to be a litigator, it's the single most important thing you can do. I clerked for two judges. I clerked for Mike Ludig, who was a judge in the federal Court of Appeals, and then I clerked for. For Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. I learned more each year of my clerkship than I did all of law school. It is the single biggest thing you can do to learn to be a litigator. One of the problems in law school is you understand legal cases as these sort of abstract, academic things. You don't understand that judges are people. You don't understand how judges actually make decisions. The interaction, particularly in an appellate court, between multiple judges, the back and forth and close clerking, gives you an inside view to it that is just. You know, I remember Chief Justice Rehnquist. It was amazing. So I clerked for him 1996-97. That was his 25th anniversary as a justice. It was his 10th anniversary as chief justice. And for him, when we'd have a case coming up and it was a case that you'd studied in law school, and you thought of it as Smith versus Jones, you know, it was sort of an abstract that stands for this proposition of law. What was amazing about the Chief is, for him, it was a memory. And it was a memory of sitting at conference with the other eight justices, discussing and debating the case. And the Chief would be like, oh, yes, that was the case when Thurgood wanted to do such and such. But we didn't agree with that. And it just. It gives you an insight into how courts actually reach decisions. If you want to do trial work, clerking at the district court is incredibly helpful. If you want to do appellate work, clerking at an appellate court is incredibly helpful. But I enthusiastically recommend judicial clerkships.

Michael Knowles (38:28)

Well, next question from Godzilla rules. Do you think the Antichrist in the Bible is alive today?

Liz Wheeler (38:39)

I don't know. You know, the Bible says Jesus is coming, but no man knows the hour. And look, I grew up in the evangelical world, Southern Baptist world, where there are all sorts of things saying the Antichrist is this or that or the other. This is, you know, whether the Antichrist is Barack Obama, the Antichrist is Donald Trump, whoever it is I've heard a thousand people of the Antichrist. I guess I have a degree of humility in that. If I see someone stand up and mandate that we must all get 666 tattooed on our forehead in the back of our hand, I'll be like, okay, now you're telling me I will be somewhere. But short of that, I'm going to express, look, the world could end tomorrow. It could end a thousand years from now, it could end 10,000 years from now. And if you look at biblical prophecy, there are all sorts of ways to interpret it that I'll just say, I ain't smart enough to say I know the answer. And so I think we should live as if we've got a whole lifetime ahead of us. And we're going to have the biggest impact on our community and our neighbors in our world. And if the Savior chooses to come earlier, we will welcome and celebrate that happy moment. But in the meantime, we have work to do, right.

Michael Knowles (40:06)

Ready to die tomorrow, but planning to live for a very long time and get a lot of things done. And to your point, Senator, I think anyone who tells you that they understand with crystal clarity the book of the Apocalypse, Revelation, that is how you know with certainty that person is completely insane. They certainly don't know what they're talking about. But I do love the point. Sometimes people will ask, do you think we're living in the end times? And I always think, well, somebody's going to be living in the end times. I don't think we are. I wouldn't bet on it exactly, but I guess somebody's going to.

Liz Wheeler (40:40)

So I will say so. Growing up in Houston, when I was a little kid, for a period of time we went to First Baptist Church and the pastor there, John Bassano, did a year long sermon series on the Book of Revelation. And I think I was like, I don't know, nine or ten years old at the time. And I thought it was fascinating. I mean, it really was interesting. And today Heidi and I were members at First Baptist, the same church. And our pastor today is the successor to John Bassanio, a guy named Greg Mott is a wonderful pastor, incredible man of God, very scholarly, but very humble, very down to earth, which is unusual for a pastor at a big church. But he did an extended sermon series on the Book of Revelation that was just fascinating. And having as a kid listened to one, I didn't remember what the pastor said 40 years ago, but it was. The Book of Revelation is challenging. It's fascinating and there's so much imagery that things could have all kinds of meanings. And I certainly don't purport to know which interpretation is right as to what all is going to happen in the end times and when it's gonna start.

Michael Knowles (41:57)

Before we go, one last question. This is from our very own Cactus Masks are coming back to our school. We've been told it's because Covid is getting bad again, but to me it seems like just a way to gin up anxiety for the midterms and distract from Biden's bad policy. What are Yalls thoughts? Is manipulating Covid fear the only way for the Dems to stave off the red wave?

Liz Wheeler (42:22)

Oh look, I think it's 100% they're gonna try something. Whether it is Covid, whether it is Monkeypox, I don't know what it is. But the issue set they don't want the election to be about is inflation, gas prices, crime and illegal immigration. If that's what the election is about. Republicans are winning 50 to 70 seats in the House, we're taking the Senate with a big majority and it is a absolute Democrat bloodbath. And so they're desperate to change the topic to anything. Covid has been a good reliable one. So we'll see if they have any hook to do it. They'll try but. And I think masks are part of that. I also think most Americans are just done with masks. I I'm like I'm certainly there but although I will say it was thoroughly amusing. So so let Last week several Democrats, including Chuck Schumer were out because they tested positive for Covid. I don't know if they were symptomatic or not, but I do think that that Democrats are testing much more frequently when they're asymptomatic than than Republicans are. And I've joked I want to introduce a resolution mandating that Democratic senators must take Covid tests every day because I for one don't feel safe. And even if they have no symptoms whatsoever, if they test positive, they're out and they can't vote on the Senate floor and they can't pass socialism the green New Deal and build back broke and destroy and bankrupt the country and strip our constitutional rights and destroy the Republic.

Michael Knowles (43:57)

That seems only responsible.

Liz Wheeler (43:59)

I think in fact twice a day it'd be even better. And an ancillary to that is I think Democrats should be required to wear masks forever. The only problem is their masks aren't tight enough cuz we can still hear them talking.

Michael Knowles (44:12)

Yeah, that's right. You make a Great point. Maybe double mask, triple mask, 20 or 30 masks. We will find out what the next crazy issue that the Democrats want to distract with probably momentarily because you will be sticking around for a cloakroom conversation with our friend Liz Wheeler. I'm sure CNN has tuned in. They want to set their programming for the coming week. Liz, what will you be making their heads explode with this time?

Ted Cruz (44:41)

Hi, Michael. Hi, Senator. Good to see you both. Thanks for having me back. And Senator, aren't you the same guy that I've seen splashed all over CNN headlines and international headlines all over the world for saying something so, well, constitutional and conservative? This is what we do on the Cloakroom. This is it's a really fun series that we do on your Verdict plus community. Today we're talking about the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on the 2020 election on the infamous drop boxes and said that those drop boxes were illegal not just for elections moving forward, but for past elections, too. So we're gonna talk about the legal implications of this. And you know, cnn, we're looking forward to seeing you over there, all of the new subscribers, both conservatives and the commie lives. We will see you over there. You can actually even use my promo code, which is Cloakroom, to get your first month's free on your annual subscription. Go to verdict with TedCruise.com+ and use my promo code, cloakroom.

Michael Knowles (45:42)

It sounds completely uncontroversial. I'm sure that the libs will have no problem with it whatsoever. I'm going to duck out before my face is smeared on cnn.

Liz Wheeler (45:50)

Michael.

Michael Knowles (45:51)

I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

Liz Wheeler (46:02)

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 across the nation.