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

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. 0.90

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 0.88

00:12:09.460 Department of Justice. I don't want to see a Democrat FBI. I want a Department of Justice 0.89

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 0.97

00:15:35.020 against us. And I want to be clear. I do not believe the Trump administration should persecute 0.69

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 0.98

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 1.00

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. 1.00

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 0.94

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. 0.76

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 1.00

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? 1.00

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 0.98

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 1.00

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. 0.96

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 1.00

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 1.00

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.

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

Summary

Transcript