Verdict with Ted Cruz - December 06, 2024


Pardon-palooza： Biden Plans to Pardon EVERYBODY, plus Supreme Court hears Challenge to law Prohibiting Sex Transition Surgeries for Kids


Episode Stats

Length

40 minutes

Words per Minute

160.80135

Word Count

6,464

Sentence Count

385

Misogynist Sentences

5

Hate Speech Sentences

11


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:00:02.580 Guaranteed human.
00:00:05.480 Welcome. It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
00:00:08.880 And Senator, I hate it when we have to admit so often that we were just absolutely right in predicting something.
00:00:14.860 And sure enough, now the White House is hunkered down going through long lists of pardons
00:00:20.720 and letting the American people know you should expect more pardons before we leave office.
00:00:28.100 Well, this week we were struck with the stunning news that the White House has announced.
00:00:32.840 Verdict with Ted Cruz Wednesday pod was exactly entirely 100 percent accurate that every word we said.
00:00:40.900 And by the way, if you didn't listen to Wednesday's pod, you should listen to Wednesday's pod because we predicted.
00:00:45.840 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,
00:00:53.900 to pardon members of his administration. And now and we said, look, that's the direction they're going.
00:01:00.540 And and seemingly in response to our podcast, the White House immediately came out and said,
00:01:07.120 expect more pardons. And we're seeing a list of people now that that they are contemplating pardoning.
00:01:13.840 In addition, we had a major Supreme Court case argued this week, a challenge to Tennessee's law that prohibits
00:01:21.880 sex transition treatments for children. And the ACLU has has challenged this, arguing that it violates
00:01:31.140 the Constitution, that the Constitution requires that you be able to to mutilate and sterilize children.
00:01:38.260 That argument played out in the Supreme Court this week. We're going to lay out how it went.
00:01:42.260 Yeah, it's truly shocking what they were saying, including some of the Supreme Court justices.
00:01:47.520 And we have the audio from those oral arguments that will, I think, shock most parents out there.
00:01:52.400 Want to tell you real quick about a cool opportunity for you, a chance to win seventeen hundred hours to buy any
00:02:00.400 self-defense gear that you need before it's too late. Now, how do you win right now?
00:02:05.000 You can text the word America to 87222 right now. That's text the word America to 87222.
00:02:13.600 Now, who's giving it away? Well, the USCCA. And the USCCA is doing incredible work to help protect
00:02:20.060 people just like you when it comes to you exercising your Second Amendment rights.
00:02:25.540 Look, I've had to use a firearm to protect and save my own life. I had to pull the trigger.
00:02:30.260 And I wish I would have been a member and even known back then about the USCCA, because with
00:02:35.420 activist DAs around the country right now, you never know what's going to happen, even if
00:02:40.080 you're in the right. Many DAs don't like law abiding citizens carrying firearms and protecting
00:02:45.840 yourself and your family is so important. Now, not only when you become a member of the USCCA
00:02:51.620 and they have over 800,000 Americans right now that are already members. Why? Because
00:02:57.520 they understand how important it is to get access to their protector academy, where you learn vital
00:03:02.560 skills like precision shooting and how to fortify your home against criminals. You also get access
00:03:08.000 when you're a member to the 24-7 critical response team. That is the most important thing. And it
00:03:14.780 includes the benefits of self-defense liability insurance to make sure that you and your family
00:03:19.980 are prepared for anything. Now, for a limited time, you text the word America to 87222 and you're
00:03:27.820 going to get the USCCA's free life-saving concealed carrying defense family defense guide and that chance
00:03:34.620 to win $1,700 to buy any self-defense care that you need before it's too late. So text the word America
00:03:40.700 to 87222 right now. So we talked about this two days ago. And as you said, I'll say it again, go back
00:03:47.780 if you missed that podcast and listen to it because we talked about this idea that was really coming
00:03:53.180 out of the White House that they wanted to expand the list of people that would be given pardons.
00:03:58.980 That could also include the president, in theory, pardoning himself. What we are now seeing is the
00:04:05.720 White House is saying, yeah, it's coming and you should prepare for a lot of people to quite possibly
00:04:10.700 be pardoned. So just get used to it. Your instant reaction to the White House now confirming this story.
00:04:17.420 Well, we put out the podcast Wednesday morning as the sun was coming up and several hours later,
00:04:23.300 Politico issued a report entitled Biden White House is discussing preemptive pardons for those in Trump's
00:04:30.480 crosshairs. It was written by Jonathan Martin, who's a longtime Washington reporter.
00:04:34.200 And what he reports is that White House officials are debating issuing blanket pardons to multiple
00:04:44.720 people, which is exactly what we predicted. And here's what Politico reports. Quote,
00:04:49.080 those who could face exposure include such members of Congress's January 6th committee as Adam Schiff,
00:04:56.360 Liz Cheney, also mentioned Anthony Fauci, and others as well. And so that's the initial list. Adam Schiff,
00:05:10.260 Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, that's who they are discussing. And what is striking is there are now
00:05:17.080 multiple elected Democrats explicitly urging this. So for example, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey,
00:05:26.360 said in a press interview, quote, if it's clear by January 19th that revenge is his intention,
00:05:34.160 then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people,
00:05:39.180 because that's really what our country is going to need next year. Another Democrat congressman,
00:05:44.760 Brendan Boyle from Pennsylvania, likewise called for blanket pardons. He said, quote,
00:05:51.540 this is no hypothetical threat. The time for cautious restraint is over. We must act with urgency to
00:05:59.700 push back against these threats and prevent Trump from abusing his power. I will say to, I guess,
00:06:07.180 some modicum of his credit, one person pushing on the other side is Adam Schiff. Now, to be clear,
00:06:13.180 they're talking about giving him a pardon. And Schiff was quoted as saying, quote,
00:06:17.440 I would urge the president not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary.
00:06:23.320 Well, I got to say, it is stunning. And you're right. The White House is now publicly saying,
00:06:29.200 expect more pardons. Here we come. And it's a question of just how much they're going to abuse
00:06:34.800 power, because it really is, at this point, stunning. And apparently that everyone who may have
00:06:42.380 committed wrongdoing is panicking that there may be some accountability. And so they want to pardon
00:06:47.660 everybody for whatever crimes they might have committed. And you talk about Adam Schiff. Let's
00:06:53.120 remind people of back in 2018, what Adam Schiff did. Adam Schiff introduced a bill to keep Trump
00:07:00.820 from, quote, abusing pardon powers for his family. This was on CNN on Don Lemon's show back in 2018.
00:07:10.780 So the president's pardon of Scooter Libby, Congressman, has inspired you to propose
00:07:15.440 new legislation. What exactly would it do? What it would do is say that in the event the
00:07:20.480 president pardons anyone in an investigation in which the president is a witness, a subject,
00:07:26.780 or the target, those investigative files will all be turned over to the Congress. The Congress ought to
00:07:32.440 know whether the president is using the pardon power to obstruct justice. The American people have
00:07:38.560 a right to know. I think it is clearly constitutional. It doesn't prohibit him from granting a pardon,
00:07:44.600 even a pardon he shouldn't grant. But it does say that we will be able to at least find out
00:07:49.880 whether the president is using this power to shield himself from liability.
00:07:54.940 It offers transparency at the very least.
00:07:57.560 Wow. I mean, what a great idea now, Adam Schiff. Why aren't you introducing this legislation all over
00:08:02.680 again so we can know all of the people that are going to be pardoned, why they're being pardoned,
00:08:06.440 and all the files that show what the information is behind it? I'm waiting for this Adam Schiff to
00:08:12.280 18 to appear again, Senator.
00:08:14.500 Well, and I got to say, under that reasoning, that would have the Department of Justice
00:08:19.200 forwarding the investigatory files of Hunter Biden to Congress, to the Republican majorities in both
00:08:26.120 Congresses. Under his reasoning, he just argued for that. I'll be curious to see if he thinks it
00:08:32.120 should apply in those circumstances. You know, you know, spoiler alert, I would not bet on it.
00:08:38.320 No, I wouldn't either. Let's also talk about Politico's Jonathan Martin and what he said on TV
00:08:43.880 about this pardon list. This was after the writing in Politico. Take a listen to how he described it
00:08:49.980 earlier.
00:08:50.380 The title, Biden White House is discussing preemptive pardons for those in Trump's crosshairs. In it,
00:08:56.900 you write this, quote, President Joe Biden's senior aides are conducting a vigorous internal debate
00:09:02.080 of whether to issue preemptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could
00:09:07.640 be targeted with President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House. It's according to senior
00:09:11.740 Democrats familiar with the discussions. The deliberations touch on pardoning those currently
00:09:16.980 in office, elected and appointed, as well as former officials who've angered Trump and his
00:09:22.040 loyalists. Those who could face exposure include such members of Congress's January 6th committee
00:09:27.720 as Senator-elect Adam Schiff and former GOP representative Liz Cheney. Also mentioned by
00:09:33.760 Biden's aides for a pardon, Anthony Fauci, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and
00:09:39.440 Infectious Diseases, who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the COVID-19
00:09:44.960 pandemic. The president himself, Jonathan, continues, who was intensely focused on his
00:09:49.800 son's pardon has not been brought into the broader pardon discussions yet, according to people
00:09:54.420 familiar with deliberations. So, Jonathan, what does this look like? What are you pardoning Anthony
00:09:59.060 Fauci for? What are you pardoning Liz Cheney for who've not been charged or convicted of crimes?
00:10:05.400 That goes to the heart of this deliberation, William, why this is so delicate, because
00:10:11.300 the White House counsel and a handful of senior White House aides, including Jeff Zients, the chief
00:10:17.580 of staff, are having this debate right now in the West Wing, which is, do we leave these folks out
00:10:24.000 in the cold and potentially expose them to Kash Patel's FBI and Donald Trump's White House for
00:10:30.140 any number of charges or some kind of, you know, show trial to get a measure of revenge and at the
00:10:40.440 very least make them pay six figures in legal bills to avoid such a case? Or do we do we offer
00:10:47.360 preemptively pardons to people who there's no proof they've done anything wrong whatsoever and
00:10:52.540 Willie may not want a pardon in the first place? That's a real tough call, because if you don't do it
00:10:58.220 and Patel and company come after some of these people and you had the chance to give them
00:11:03.720 inoculation legally, that's a hell of a thing to regret. At the same time, do you want to pardon
00:11:09.440 somebody like Liz Cheney or Anthony Fauci and suggest any kind of impropriety that could only add fuel to
00:11:17.080 the Trump aggressors in the first place? It's a real tough nut. I love the way he describes it at the end.
00:11:23.680 He's like, it's a real tough nut. Like, this is a hard one. You know, should we just admit that we
00:11:27.780 broke a hell of a bunch of laws and just hand out the pardons? Or do we act like we didn't break laws
00:11:33.500 and hope they don't come after all of us? Well, and I will say, even the way he's reporting it,
00:11:39.480 the Trump aggressors. Look, the idea that anyone in and around Joe Biden would be held responsible
00:11:49.340 for laws they have been broken is treated as a pearl-clutching horror for the media and for the
00:11:58.100 Democrats. And listen, my view, and we've talked about this at length, I don't want to see a
00:12:05.560 Republican Department of Justice. I don't want to see a Republican FBI. I don't want to see a Democrat
00:12:09.460 Department of Justice. I don't want to see a Democrat FBI. I want a Department of Justice
00:12:13.500 and an FBI that enforces the law regardless of party. And that apparently is a terrifying thing
00:12:22.320 to individuals who previously consider themselves unaccountable and not bound by the ordinary
00:12:32.620 constraints of law. Well, and even look at Bill Clinton, for example. Bill Clinton is now coming
00:12:38.340 out saying he wants to stop the cycle of criminalizing politics. That's pretty rich
00:12:44.400 from the Democrats after that's all they've done the last four years. Here is Bill Clinton at the
00:12:50.460 Dealbook Summit. It's a New York Times event. Listen. You think Biden should be pardoning Trump? And by
00:12:57.420 the way, some people think that Trump should be pardoning Biden. Well, I do think we should stop
00:13:03.680 trying to criminalize politics. But on the other hand, I think we should, both of us, because,
00:13:12.660 well, because, obviously, and the people don't like it and they're not going along with it from
00:13:19.840 right to left. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself, if you do this blanket thing,
00:13:28.060 is there anything a president could do that he would or she someday would get in trouble for?
00:13:35.920 I mean, Senator, they weaponized the FBI, the DOJ, the entire apparatus of the White House,
00:13:42.460 the executive branch, to go after their political enemies for four years. And now all of a sudden,
00:13:47.100 they're like, hey, we should not have Republicans doing that. Republicans never did that. The Democrats
00:13:51.980 are the ones that have done it. I'm curious. Did Bill Clinton say that the first time Trump was
00:13:59.540 indicted? No. Did he say that the second time Trump was indicted? Hell no. Did he say that the third
00:14:06.400 time Trump was indicted? Nope. Did he say that the fourth time Trump was indicted? No. And he didn't
00:14:13.200 say it when they were raiding Mar-a-Lago either. Yeah. I mean, it is amazing. And by the way, Bill Clinton
00:14:19.800 also didn't say that when the Trump DOJ was prosecuting people for peaceful protest on January
00:14:26.280 6th, when they were using the violent acts of a limited number of people as an excuse to engage
00:14:34.040 in political persecution. Bill Clinton didn't speak out when the Biden Department of Justice was
00:14:39.720 targeting parents for going to school board meetings and speaking out, sending the FBI to
00:14:45.020 intimidate moms and dads who are exercising their constitutional rights at school board meetings.
00:14:50.140 He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was firing people for declining to take the COVID
00:14:56.800 vaccine. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was coercing private businesses
00:15:01.520 to fire people for declining to take the COVID vaccine. He didn't speak out when the Biden
00:15:05.800 administration sent over a dozen FBI agents withdrawn machine guns to arrest a pro-life protester
00:15:13.640 at dawn in front of his children. By the way, that case, the jury threw it out when they tried to put
00:15:19.380 him in jail and the jury said, this is ridiculous and threw it out incredibly quickly. The absolute and
00:15:26.900 brazen hypocrisy of the Democrats that they've suddenly discovered, uh-oh, don't use the legal process
00:15:35.020 against us. And I want to be clear. I do not believe the Trump administration should persecute
00:15:44.260 Democrats. I do believe they should follow the law. And if individuals have violated the law,
00:15:51.280 they should enforce the law. That is very different from targeting and weaponizing DOJ. You know, I sat down
00:15:57.360 this week with Pam Bondi, the nominee to be attorney general, and the entire discussion I had with her
00:16:02.820 was about restoring integrity to the Department of Justice, not about turning it into a tool just
00:16:09.460 to be used to target the other side, but bringing it back to what it is supposed to be, which is having
00:16:15.260 fidelity to the rule of law. Canadian women are looking for more, more out of themselves, their
00:16:20.940 businesses, their elected leaders, and the world around them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce
00:16:25.540 the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast,
00:16:31.020 we interview Canada's most inspiring women, entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians,
00:16:36.240 and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect,
00:16:41.380 then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on iHeartRadio or wherever you listen
00:16:46.160 to your podcasts. You're talking about the fidelity and the rule of law here. So the question now becomes,
00:16:53.000 if the president decides to walk out there and say, I'm going to preemptively pardon everyone,
00:17:01.900 Fauci, Schiff, Liz Cheney, and people all around my family, all of the all of maybe the business
00:17:08.460 associates, for example, around Hunter Biden, is there anything that Congress will be able to do to
00:17:14.720 stop this or to rein it in? I go back to Adam Schiff when he was like, well, what we should be doing is
00:17:20.000 you should have to send over all the documents. Or is this pretty much like he's in charge,
00:17:24.380 he's leaving, he can do whatever the hell he wants. It's the power of the presidency.
00:17:28.420 And even if he wants to abuse the pardon power, he has a right to do it.
00:17:31.980 What mindset should everyone listening have on reality now?
00:17:36.040 Look, under the Constitution, the pardon power is essentially an absolute power.
00:17:41.100 And so there is not any limitation in the Constitution that Congress can enforce on the
00:17:49.660 pardon power. That is given to the president. The only limitation is public pressure, public
00:17:55.680 scrutiny. The only thing that constrains presidents is they don't want the world to know that they're
00:18:01.060 utterly corrupt hacks. Now, I will say Biden's got a problem in that because he's already done the
00:18:07.880 Hunter Biden. Pardon. And I'll read from an article in Axios, which often reports on sort of inside
00:18:16.600 gossip in the White House and Capitol Hill. And the story is entitled Behind the Curtain,
00:18:25.600 Biden's Haunting Twin Sins. And here's what Axios reports. President Biden's post-presidency now looks
00:18:33.860 bleak as his brutal final months. Some top Democrats tell us they're so furious about
00:18:40.580 Biden's abrupt, clumsy pardon of his son Hunter that they're threatening to withhold donations
00:18:46.240 from his future presidential library. And his, quote, twin selfishness, what it says is why it
00:18:56.360 matters. Biden 82 will limp away from the limelight, widely disliked by the public, and now loathed by
00:19:02.840 many Democrats who blame him for twin sins of selfishness, running again, then pardoning Hunter
00:19:10.480 after repeatedly saying he wouldn't. That's the real constraint is just public shame and disgrace.
00:19:18.100 And the question is, are Democrats capable of public shame anymore? Or is Trump derangement
00:19:24.800 syndrome so bad that their answer to everything is orange man bad? Yeah, it's a great point. I want to
00:19:30.220 take a moment and say thank you to so many of you that have been involved with the International
00:19:33.980 Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They are wishing you a blessed beginning of the holiday season. And
00:19:39.680 as you gather with your families, grateful for the blessing that God has given us all. Let's also
00:19:45.500 remember those who are facing unbelievable hardship, those in Israel that are in the need of food,
00:19:51.560 fellowship, and just hope. That includes the people of Israel who are threatened daily by the attacks
00:19:57.860 from enemies on all sides. And during these hard times, Israelis are thankful for the fellowship,
00:20:03.800 for the food, and the basic assistance that they are providing. Truly life-saving aid when the rest of
00:20:09.160 the world seems to have turned their back on them. Your gift of $25 will help provide a food box to an
00:20:16.140 elderly Jew or a Jewish family who are suffering and in desperate need. A gift of $100 will help provide
00:20:22.120 four of these life-saving food boxes. This holiday season, please consider standing with Israel and
00:20:28.280 the Jewish people. You can go to supportifcj.org to make a gift now. That's supportifcj.org. Or you
00:20:38.140 can call them. 888-488-IFCJ. That's 888-488-4325. And you can give right now. Senator, I want to move to
00:20:52.260 this other case. And it is a case that has really been interesting to follow. The Supreme Court hearing
00:20:59.380 this case on gender transitions for minors. Now, this has all come out of a case in Tennessee
00:21:05.120 where Tennessee was arguing that you must protect children from harm and body mutilation,
00:21:13.200 especially at very young ages. And the left and the federal government saying, well, hold on a
00:21:20.320 second. We're in favor of this transgender care, arguing that even those that are two and three
00:21:28.180 and four years old, they know that they're trans. So let them be sterilized and castrate themselves.
00:21:33.760 That is what the ACLU lawyer said in his own words while he was arguing this on TV, on CNN. I want
00:21:43.200 you to listen and get your reaction to that. I would say nobody has to provide this medication to
00:21:49.120 adolescents. These are not doctors being forced to provide this medication. These are doctors who
00:21:53.820 are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how based on the best available
00:21:58.760 evidence to us. And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly
00:22:03.320 who they are, who suffered for six, seven years before they had any relief. And what's happening here,
00:22:08.340 it's not the kids who are consenting to this treatment, it's the parents who are consenting to
00:22:12.160 the treatment. And as a parent, I would say we, when our children are suffering, we are suffering. And these
00:22:17.740 are parents who love their children, who are listening to the advice of their doctors of the mainstream
00:22:21.720 medical community and doing what's right for their kids. And the state of Tennessee has displaced their
00:22:26.260 judgment. Now you hear that argument and that to me is just, I'm sorry, child abuse. If you're
00:22:32.200 mutilating a child at two and three and four years old, and that's what Tennessee was saying.
00:22:38.100 Well, Tennessee passed, I think, a very reasonable law that prohibited puberty blockers and hormones and
00:22:45.980 sterilizing children, sterilizing minors. And we're seeing multiple state legislatures that are
00:22:51.940 acting to protect children. I think that is a reasonable and common sense step. And what happened
00:22:57.600 is, unsurprisingly, that the state got sued and the ACLU argued that making it illegal for a small
00:23:05.740 child to be sterilized and made permanently unable to have children or even to be mutilated, that
00:23:12.540 prohibiting that violated the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
00:23:20.460 That was the argument. And the Court of Appeals upheld the Tennessee law and the Supreme Court took
00:23:25.980 the case. And so that was the argument. You heard right there the ACLU lawyers arguing for being able
00:23:33.760 to sterilize eight-year-olds. Just using the math the lawyer laid out, the lawyer talked about
00:23:38.220 a child at the age of two might know that he or she is transgender, and they might have had to wait
00:23:45.440 six years. Last I checked, two plus six is eight. And so the legal argument is that eight-year-old,
00:23:53.120 the parent should be able to sterilize that child. And you know what? If that child decides that at 18,
00:23:59.920 he or she wants to be a dad or wants to be a mom, well, too late now, because when you were eight,
00:24:05.720 we went ahead and sterilized you, so there's no going back. And this argument went back and forth.
00:24:11.220 All right, I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction, I think the Supreme Court is going to
00:24:15.520 uphold Tennessee's law. And I think we may see a breakdown that plays out along pretty familiar
00:24:22.960 ideological lines now. It was pretty striking. The three liberal justices all were asking questions
00:24:31.560 that I got to say were really extreme and showing the modern left, they are all in
00:24:40.260 on mutilating and sterilizing children. This is not a fringe view on the left. Today's elected
00:24:48.860 Democrats and sadly, the left-wing activists they put on the courts are absolutely committed
00:24:56.120 to this extreme agenda. So I want you to listen. Justice Sotomayor downplaying the risk of mutilation
00:25:03.820 of minors in this back and forth in these oral arguments. This is what she said.
00:25:09.720 Cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits
00:25:16.960 versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed
00:25:22.740 for unproven benefits is one that is best left. I'm sorry, Councillor. Every medical treatment
00:25:29.460 has a risk, even taking aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under
00:25:39.180 any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So the question in my mind is not,
00:25:46.480 do policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who
00:25:56.260 get relief from this treatment? The question is, can you stop one sex from the other?
00:26:03.600 I mean, she's saying this is not a big deal at all if you're mutilating a child because even
00:26:11.660 aspirin has risks and effects. So therefore, just put it under the category of everything goes.
00:26:18.360 Well, that sums up today's radical left. In their view, severing a child's genitals
00:26:26.960 is comparable to taking aspirin. She also claimed, quote, millions of people are getting relief
00:26:36.580 from this. Now, thankfully, we do not currently have millions of children being sterilized. But let's
00:26:43.400 be clear, that's the left's worldview, is that sterilizing little boys and little girls, mutilating
00:26:50.060 them, making them permanently unable to have children, that should be happening on the scale of
00:26:57.080 millions and millions of little boys and little girls. That is Justice Sotomayor here. Take a listen
00:27:03.480 to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
00:27:09.300 Drawn by the statute. That was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was
00:27:14.020 discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But
00:27:20.360 you know, as I read the statute here, the excuse me, the case here, you know, the court starts off by
00:27:26.400 saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial
00:27:31.720 classifications. And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of, you know, you can't do
00:27:37.800 something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing. So
00:27:42.600 it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument and I wonder whether Virginia could have
00:27:46.820 gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is
00:27:54.680 in this case. Yes, I think that's exactly right that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that
00:28:00.600 says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic and in all other contexts.
00:28:05.560 You hear it there. This is another example of just how extreme these and this is why the elections,
00:28:11.160 by the way, are so important, Senator. I mean, this is why Donald Trump being elected was so important
00:28:15.720 because when he's not when you don't have a conservative in the White House, you get these
00:28:19.960 radical activists who are Supreme Court justices and if they have the majority, this is what they
00:28:24.920 want you to be able to. This is what they want to happen to your children. Well, and let me break
00:28:29.720 down what that exchange back and forth was. So Ketanji Brown Jackson, who Joe Biden put on the
00:28:35.720 Supreme Court, is comparing this Tennessee law to the law in Loving v. Virginia. Now, Loving v.
00:28:42.680 Virginia is a Supreme Court case. It's a landmark case that struck down Virginia's ban decades ago,
00:28:49.880 many, many years ago, on interracial marriage, on African-Americans and Anglos choosing to get
00:28:56.600 married. And she says, quote, it's sort of the same thing. Now, Virginia's law was an abomination.
00:29:04.760 It was restricting adults making the decision to get married. It was deliberately doing so on the
00:29:12.600 basis of race, which, mind you, we fought a civil war in significant part to end slavery and to vindicate
00:29:21.880 equal rights. And we passed and adopted the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to end slavery, to protect
00:29:28.120 equal protection and to give African-Americans the right to vote to ensure that there's not
00:29:33.240 racial discrimination. But in the less few, not sterilizing an eight year old is the same thing.
00:29:42.200 Like that is bizarre. And by the way, the person who responds to Justice Jackson is Joe Biden's
00:29:49.480 solicitor general, the top lawyer for the Biden administration before the United States Supreme
00:29:55.400 Court. She's saying, oh, yeah, they're exactly the same thing. In our worldview, you ought to be able
00:30:00.440 to mutilate children. It doesn't matter how how young the Constitution protects your right
00:30:07.000 to mutilate your child. That is a bizarre view. That is an extreme view. And and that sadly is is is is
00:30:16.520 where where today's modern left is. You may be shopping for Christmas and one one gift you can
00:30:24.760 give that is incredible as the gift of helping someone be able to protect and defend themselves.
00:30:28.760 And with increased crime and violence around our country, we need to remember that personal safety
00:30:33.560 and security for you and your family is the most important thing in life. And that is exactly why I
00:30:39.480 want you to know about the Berna less lethal pistol launcher. A Berna can save two lives. It is a great
00:30:46.680 compliment to owning firearms. And if you or your family members in a situation where you feel threatened,
00:30:52.520 then you can start with less lethal. Now Berna and this less lethal launcher is legal in all 50 states.
00:31:01.000 No permits or background checks are needed. I own one myself and I've given them to a lot of my family
00:31:07.080 members because I have some family members that just don't feel comfortable carrying a firearm.
00:31:11.560 Well, Berna is the answer there as well. It's also designed for easy use by all age groups 18 or older.
00:31:17.160 So if you have a child that's living in an apartment or off campus, maybe they're not 21.
00:31:21.880 The Berna launcher is what you need to give them. It has powerful deterrents like tear gas
00:31:27.480 and kinetic rounds with a 60 foot range, meaning you put serious distance between you and the attacker.
00:31:34.840 Plus one shot can incapacitate attackers for up to 40 minutes. It's used by government agencies and
00:31:40.920 law enforcement around the country. Now, I want you to see the videos of this in action,
00:31:45.160 and you can see it by going to their website. Berna B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash verdict. And when you
00:31:52.120 go there, you're also going to get 10% off your purchase. So it's going to save you money.
00:31:56.280 That's Berna B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash verdict for 10% off. That's B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash verdict.
00:32:06.600 And give the gift of protection this Christmas. Final question on this issue with this case coming
00:32:13.480 out of the Supreme Court. And if you look at the way that this was being argued, and I think one of
00:32:19.800 the other things that's just so unhinged about this, the argument for medically mutilating minors,
00:32:25.160 is the fact that the issue really does seem to come down to money. The amount of money that people
00:32:31.400 are now making off these surgeries is saying it is an increase year over year of over 14.4% on average.
00:32:38.920 So the transgender surgery world, and then the lifetime of care is expanding at a 14.4%
00:32:48.840 rate year over year. That's why so many medical areas, doctors and hospitals are advocating for
00:32:57.400 this because they make money. Vanderbilt said very clearly to their doctors, either you get on board
00:33:03.960 with this or you get out. We're not going to let you say no to this because there's too much
00:33:08.840 money to be made in, quote, gender care. Yeah, there are vast amounts of money at stake.
00:33:15.400 And it has become, it really is a strange obsession of the radical left. It is a virtue signal.
00:33:26.920 Remember, we had on verdict a couple of months ago, Sean Theory. Sean Theory was an African-American
00:33:36.440 Democratic state rep in Texas. She was an elected Democrat. She had been elected for four terms.
00:33:44.120 And on this issue, there was a bill in Texas to prohibit mutilating minors.
00:33:49.800 And she ended up voting for it. And the Democrat Party, she described on the podcast, if you didn't
00:33:55.800 listen to that podcast, you ought to go back and listen to it because it's incredibly revealing.
00:33:59.960 She described how how her fellow Democrats, African-Americans in the Texas state legislature
00:34:05.160 would come to her and she say, did you have you study the damage this does to children,
00:34:10.040 that if you give puberty blockers and you sterilize a child, it does lifelong medical damage to them.
00:34:16.040 It's horrible. And she said that many other Democrats she described said, oh, we know we agree.
00:34:21.400 It's terrible. But you cannot oppose this in our party. They will end you. Our party will end you.
00:34:28.200 Well, she ended up doing the courageous thing and voting for common sense and voting for kids.
00:34:32.440 And the Democrats recruited a primary challenger to her and beat her in the primary. And they spent
00:34:40.120 over one million dollars in a Democrat primary for a state house seat. That is how radical this issue
00:34:50.200 is. So there is money. There is big money on the other side. And it is enforced in in the US Senate.
00:34:58.200 Every single Democrat has voted in favor of mutilating minors. There is no dissension
00:35:03.240 that is allowed on this sick. And I got to say, and Joe Biden is enthusiastically in favor of it.
00:35:10.360 You know, I got to say also, look, this Supreme Court case,
00:35:14.920 part of the reason that there is is such focus on it is there was a previous Supreme Court decision
00:35:21.840 called Bostock. And Bostock is a decision that interpreted federal anti-discrimination law on
00:35:29.980 employment discrimination. And it is currently illegal under federal law to to discriminate
00:35:35.400 employment based on race and other characteristics, including sex. And in Bostock, the Supreme Court
00:35:41.640 took a prohibition on discrimination based on sex and construed sex to mean also being transgender.
00:35:49.160 And and that decision, that was a six three decision. That decision was authored by Justice
00:35:55.240 Gorsuch. And it was a fairly shocking decision. A lot of people were shocked that Justice Gorsuch
00:36:00.840 wrote that opinion. It was joined by Chief Justice Roberts. In addition to what were then four
00:36:06.800 liberals who were on the court at the time, Justice Ginsburg was still on the court. It was before Amy
00:36:11.040 Coney Barrett had had been nominated and before Justice Ginsburg obviously had passed away.
00:36:15.480 Um, so that was six three on the other side. I don't think we will see the same outcome.
00:36:22.680 I will say at the oral argument, Justice Gorsuch did not say a word, not a word. So we do not have
00:36:29.040 any indication from him as to how he will vote. But but Justice Roberts was quite vocal. And and what he
00:36:37.360 laid out is actually the reason why I'm confident the Tennessee law will be upheld, which is he laid out
00:36:42.980 the proposition that that the court should be deferring to state legislatures and and particularly
00:36:49.060 when you're dealing with contested medical evidence, that state legislatures are far better suited to
00:36:54.920 assess contested medical evidence and make a determination and make a policy decision that
00:36:59.960 that's that's how our democratic system works. And and I think Chief Justice Roberts reasoning that he
00:37:07.620 articulated at the oral argument is going to lead him to vote to uphold the law. I think we will see
00:37:14.140 I think we will certainly see Justice Alito and Justice Thomas and and Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh
00:37:20.120 also their arguments at oral arguments suggested that they would that they would defer to the Tennessee
00:37:27.400 state legislature as well. I hope Justice Gorsuch will as well. I think there's a very good chance
00:37:33.980 that this will be a six three decision upholding the Tennessee law. But but the the fact that the court
00:37:42.620 decided Bostock the other way now Bostock was a question of federal statute and interpreting the words
00:37:49.860 Congress had adopted. It was not a constitutional case. It was not interpreting the equal protection
00:37:56.460 clause of the 14th Amendment. And I'll note, by the way, there is a third outcome. So what could the
00:38:02.620 Supreme Court do here? They could do three things. They could do more than three things, but three key
00:38:06.380 things. One, they could affirm the Tennessee law. That's what I think they are likely to do.
00:38:12.100 Two, they could strike down the Tennessee law. They could rule that this law violates the Constitution
00:38:17.820 and therefore is null and void. I do not think they're likely to do that. But I think the three
00:38:22.480 liberals will vote to do exactly that. The third option they could do is they could reverse the decision
00:38:30.000 and conclude that this law is sex discrimination. And under the Constitution, sex discrimination
00:38:36.800 is subject to what's called intermediate scrutiny. Now, the toughest standard constitutionally for
00:38:44.280 legal for legal analysis is what's called strict scrutiny and racial discrimination under the
00:38:50.540 Constitution by government is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex discrimination is subject to intermediate
00:38:57.060 scrutiny. So the middle ground they could do is they could vacate the decision below and send it
00:39:02.560 back to the lower court to apply intermediate scrutiny. I hope they don't do that, and I don't think
00:39:09.320 they will. But there is a non-zero chance they might do that, which is what makes this case
00:39:15.700 concerning. All of that being said, my prediction is they're going to conclude correctly that the
00:39:23.360 Tennessee law is constitutional, and that is a judgment for the state legislatures to make.
00:39:30.160 As I said before, this is why elections are so important. It's why it's so important that
00:39:34.200 conservatives get elected, because these are the people that make unbelievable decisions,
00:39:39.200 and it deals with kids' futures, and this is a perfect example of it. Don't forget, we do this show
00:39:44.720 Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download button, and the Senate and I will
00:39:51.220 make sure if you see this, by the way, please share it on social media, because that's how we reach new
00:39:55.700 people. Write us a five-star review if you would take a moment to do that as well. On those in-between
00:39:59.900 days, grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson podcast, and I'll keep you updated on the latest breaking news
00:40:05.120 there, and we'll see you back here in a couple of days. This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.