Verdict with Ted Cruz - July 05, 2022


The Cloakroom Preview： A response to Chief Justice Roberts


Episode Stats


Length

13 minutes

Words per minute

162.7788

Word count

2,226

Sentence count

157

Harmful content

Misogyny

4

sentences flagged

Toxicity

5

sentences flagged

Hate speech

5

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Ted Cruz and Liz Wheeler discuss the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling and the impact it has had on their lives and on the culture at large. They also discuss the implications for the future of abortion in America, and whether or not states should continue to allow abortion after 15 weeks.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:00:02.540 Guaranteed human.
00:00:04.160 You're listening to a special interview of The Cloak Room,
00:00:07.220 a series with Liz Wheeler and Senator Ted Cruz
00:00:09.900 exclusively for Verdict Plus subscribers.
00:00:12.760 Each week, Liz is joined by Senator Ted Cruz
00:00:15.080 to pull back the curtain on the philosophy
00:00:17.000 that informs our political debates,
00:00:19.320 the stories that are reshaping our culture,
00:00:21.500 and the legal principles at play on America's stage and beyond.
00:00:25.780 To hear more of The Cloak Room,
00:00:27.040 become a Verdict Plus subscriber at verdictwithtedcruz.com slash plus.
00:00:32.340 All right, welcome back, everyone.
00:00:33.900 I'm Liz Wheeler.
00:00:34.560 This is The Cloak Room on Verdict Plus.
00:00:36.440 I'm sitting here with Senator Ted Cruz,
00:00:38.180 and this is such an amazing, insane time
00:00:41.280 to be alive in our country.
00:00:42.880 Roe v. Wade has just been overturned by the Supreme Court,
00:00:45.400 and I don't know about you, Senator,
00:00:47.220 but when I saw this news,
00:00:48.900 I was obviously following the Supreme Court
00:00:50.540 issuing their opinions,
00:00:51.500 and I'm on the West Coast right now.
00:00:53.720 I'm out in Santa Barbara, California,
00:00:54.820 so it was early in the morning.
00:00:55.820 It was just after 7 a.m.,
00:00:57.280 and I start frantically texting our producers,
00:00:59.680 are you awake?
00:01:00.300 Are you asleep?
00:01:00.980 Do you see what's happening?
00:01:01.920 This is absolutely bananas.
00:01:03.540 I don't think I'm ever going to forget that moment.
00:01:05.520 Yeah, no, it was extraordinary.
00:01:07.680 I was in D.C. at the time.
00:01:09.420 I had, the night before,
00:01:10.500 we had been late on the Senate floor
00:01:12.680 battling over gun control,
00:01:14.800 and then after that,
00:01:17.800 I had gone and filmed a verdict.
00:01:19.620 So we had Thursday night,
00:01:21.440 we did a verdict at 12.30 at night,
00:01:23.880 so we finished at,
00:01:26.060 I think I got home about 2 in the morning,
00:01:29.120 and so Friday morning,
00:01:30.780 I was still in D.C.
00:01:31.920 I was in my apartment
00:01:32.880 and saw the opinion came down,
00:01:35.400 and shortly thereafter,
00:01:36.540 I had a flight to Milwaukee.
00:01:38.520 I'm in Milwaukee right now
00:01:40.040 at a political conference
00:01:41.900 to energize and mobilize
00:01:44.540 grassroots activists here in Wisconsin,
00:01:46.560 but my flight wasn't until late afternoon,
00:01:50.680 so I actually played basketball for two hours
00:01:53.660 Friday morning with several guys on my staff,
00:01:57.760 and we played three-on-three
00:02:00.240 and four-on-four for a couple hours,
00:02:01.860 and then I jumped in the shower
00:02:05.120 and went and did a Fox hit
00:02:06.500 talking about the Dobbs ruling,
00:02:07.800 and then jumped on a plane
00:02:08.760 and flew to Milwaukee.
00:02:09.940 It's your first basketball game
00:02:11.180 in a post-Roe America. 0.82
00:02:12.820 Bet you never thought
00:02:13.460 that that would happen.
00:02:14.240 There you go,
00:02:14.900 and in fact,
00:02:16.060 on the plane,
00:02:17.060 I had with me this binder
00:02:18.840 with the full text of all of Dobbs,
00:02:21.160 and so I spent the entire flight
00:02:22.620 just reading carefully,
00:02:24.700 word for word,
00:02:25.680 the opinion in Dobbs,
00:02:26.600 which was pretty cool, too,
00:02:28.100 to go through it
00:02:30.040 and to try to,
00:02:31.120 although I will say,
00:02:32.420 a three-ring binder
00:02:33.780 on Southwest Airlines
00:02:36.260 with a guy in the middle seat next to you
00:02:37.720 is a little hard
00:02:38.520 to not jab him in the leg with,
00:02:40.300 so you try to somehow manage
00:02:42.600 to hold it
00:02:43.220 and your Diet Coke
00:02:44.060 all at the same time.
00:02:44.980 It wasn't easy.
00:02:45.960 That's when your Senate
00:02:46.580 negotiation skills come in.
00:02:48.020 You say,
00:02:48.340 I'll give you the armrest
00:02:49.840 if you don't mind
00:02:50.480 that my binder's going to be 0.87
00:02:51.820 whacking you the whole time.
00:02:53.620 I want to talk about 0.87
00:02:54.740 what the most unpopular
00:02:56.120 part of this opinion.
00:02:58.100 I read all 213 pages,
00:02:59.640 I think it was,
00:03:00.340 of the ruling as well.
00:03:01.500 It's beautifully written,
00:03:02.840 not the dissent.
00:03:03.800 The majority opinion
00:03:04.820 is beautifully written,
00:03:05.640 but I want to talk about
00:03:06.500 Robert's ruling for a second.
00:03:09.280 He voted to uphold
00:03:11.300 the Mississippi law,
00:03:12.600 which bans abortion at 15 weeks.
00:03:14.220 He voted not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
00:03:17.460 His reasoning is absurd. 0.98
00:03:19.340 It's ridiculous. 0.85
00:03:19.800 You and Michael talked about that
00:03:20.900 in depth on Verdict.
00:03:22.780 I highly recommend
00:03:23.440 if anybody hasn't watched that.
00:03:24.600 It's a really good episode
00:03:25.400 that you guys just filmed.
00:03:26.980 It hasn't aired yet,
00:03:28.140 but I sat here
00:03:28.700 and watched the whole thing
00:03:29.440 behind the scenes.
00:03:30.580 But Alan Dershowitz,
00:03:31.460 Harvard Law professor,
00:03:32.760 went on Fox News
00:03:33.780 and on Newsmax last night
00:03:35.080 and said that
00:03:35.980 Robert's was correct. 0.99
00:03:37.300 Now, Dershowitz is the only person
00:03:38.640 that I've heard
00:03:39.220 in the entire country
00:03:40.380 who says that Robert's is correct,
00:03:42.220 but his reasoning
00:03:43.540 is kind of legalistic
00:03:45.240 and something that I want us
00:03:46.160 to dig into.
00:03:48.300 I do,
00:03:49.060 and I think it should never be done
00:03:50.420 under any circumstances,
00:03:51.680 but I do think
00:03:52.320 the Supreme Court
00:03:53.140 should never have had
00:03:54.640 to reach beyond the 15 weeks.
00:03:57.020 That's what was before
00:03:58.040 the Supreme Court
00:03:58.900 and everybody on this show
00:04:00.500 seems to think
00:04:01.460 that 15 weeks is reasonable.
00:04:03.780 Senator Rubio thinks 15 weeks.
00:04:05.460 The Europeans think 15 weeks. 0.96
00:04:07.240 Why did the Supreme Court 0.85
00:04:08.540 have to jump into this
00:04:10.020 and say we're not going to decide
00:04:11.680 the case before us?
00:04:12.960 We're going to ban
00:04:13.660 Roe v. Wade,
00:04:16.000 overrule it,
00:04:16.720 and allow states,
00:04:18.540 allow states to be sure,
00:04:20.160 allow states
00:04:21.060 to abolish abortion completely.
00:04:23.140 That was judicial activism
00:04:25.140 overreaching.
00:04:26.880 And Sean,
00:04:27.260 you oppose judicial activism.
00:04:29.680 You should join me
00:04:31.140 and agree with Justice Roberts
00:04:33.220 that judicial activism
00:04:35.000 was at play here
00:04:36.920 and it was unnecessary
00:04:38.200 to go beyond
00:04:39.220 the 15-week Mississippi case.
00:04:41.140 So, Liz,
00:04:42.480 it may surprise you.
00:04:43.820 I actually don't think
00:04:45.320 either Roberts
00:04:46.980 or Dershowitz 1.00
00:04:48.100 are crazy
00:04:48.940 in what they're saying.
00:04:49.800 I think they have
00:04:50.420 a reasonable basis
00:04:51.340 for what they're saying.
00:04:52.180 I don't agree with it.
00:04:54.060 But it's not,
00:04:55.460 it's not a shocking thing
00:04:59.920 for them to be advocating for.
00:05:01.980 And the reason I say that,
00:05:03.180 I mean,
00:05:03.320 let's look at Roberts' reasoning.
00:05:04.700 Roberts approaches cases
00:05:06.280 and he's an incrementalist.
00:05:08.460 And there is a principle
00:05:10.220 of judicial restraint,
00:05:11.600 which is that the court
00:05:13.460 should not decide
00:05:14.760 any more than is necessary
00:05:16.680 to resolve the issue before it
00:05:18.580 in the case
00:05:20.280 that is being litigated.
00:05:22.000 That is a sound principle
00:05:24.140 of judicial restraint.
00:05:25.640 And it is the right way
00:05:28.040 to approach most issues.
00:05:32.360 That's what Dershowitz
00:05:33.720 is focusing on there as well.
00:05:35.500 Now,
00:05:36.340 what I especially don't agree with
00:05:38.000 is Dershowitz saying
00:05:39.060 this is judicial activism.
00:05:40.400 I think that is,
00:05:42.160 that's being provocative.
00:05:44.500 And as you know,
00:05:45.400 I know,
00:05:46.060 I know Dershowitz very well.
00:05:48.220 He was my criminal law professor
00:05:49.360 and he's a friend.
00:05:50.880 I think he's being
00:05:51.980 deliberately provocative with that.
00:05:53.480 I don't think he's right.
00:05:56.020 But the instinct of
00:05:58.000 don't do more than is necessary
00:05:59.840 is a sound judicial instinct.
00:06:03.360 So why do I think
00:06:05.060 it wasn't right here?
00:06:06.060 Well,
00:06:07.260 I would commend people
00:06:08.620 to read the majority opinion
00:06:10.460 where on pages 72
00:06:12.600 and the next several pages
00:06:13.940 of the opinion,
00:06:15.360 the majority opinion
00:06:16.400 squarely addresses
00:06:17.800 what Chief Justice Roberts
00:06:19.960 advocated for,
00:06:21.180 which was
00:06:22.020 uphold the Mississippi statute,
00:06:24.380 but don't overturn Roe.
00:06:25.460 And I think the majority opinion
00:06:28.400 dismantles the argument
00:06:29.800 as a legal matter.
00:06:31.800 What does the majority point out?
00:06:32.980 It points out,
00:06:33.740 number one,
00:06:34.260 Roberts doesn't attempt
00:06:35.140 to defend Roe's reasoning.
00:06:36.380 Nobody does.
00:06:38.520 Number two,
00:06:39.340 Roberts doesn't even
00:06:40.340 pretend to defend
00:06:41.520 Casey's reason.
00:06:43.660 Instead,
00:06:44.520 he grounds his argument
00:06:45.640 on stare decisis,
00:06:46.840 which Casey did as well.
00:06:47.900 But stare decisis
00:06:50.780 means not overturning decisions.
00:06:54.180 And what Roberts advocates
00:06:56.120 would overrule much of Roe.
00:06:59.860 So what he says is,
00:07:03.540 well,
00:07:04.360 okay,
00:07:04.760 Roe
00:07:05.280 prohibited restrictions
00:07:07.440 on abortion
00:07:08.100 before viability.
00:07:09.700 He said,
00:07:10.540 we should get rid
00:07:11.240 of the viability
00:07:12.000 requirement,
00:07:14.700 but we should,
00:07:16.740 here's what the majority,
00:07:18.260 how the majority puts it.
00:07:19.360 The concurrence
00:07:20.100 would leave for another day
00:07:21.540 whether to reject
00:07:23.220 any right
00:07:23.940 to an abortion at all 0.59
00:07:25.080 and would hold
00:07:26.000 only
00:07:26.600 that if the Constitution
00:07:28.180 protects any such right,
00:07:30.520 the right ends
00:07:31.640 once women have had 1.00
00:07:33.420 a, quote,
00:07:34.120 reasonable opportunity
00:07:35.500 to obtain an abortion.
00:07:37.660 The concurrence
00:07:38.260 does not specify
00:07:39.120 what period of time
00:07:40.200 is sufficient
00:07:40.840 to provide such an opportunity.
00:07:43.380 But it would hold
00:07:44.860 that 15 weeks,
00:07:46.480 the period allowed
00:07:47.220 under Mississippi's law, 0.78
00:07:48.300 is enough,
00:07:49.700 at least, quote,
00:07:51.060 absent rare circumstances.
00:07:54.340 So,
00:07:56.300 Roberts is proposing
00:07:57.500 overrule a big chunk of Roe
00:07:59.620 but create this new
00:08:02.040 reasonable opportunity rule
00:08:03.700 which,
00:08:05.800 notably,
00:08:06.720 he doesn't
00:08:08.580 find anywhere
00:08:10.220 in the Constitution.
00:08:11.440 He doesn't find anywhere
00:08:12.460 in the Supreme Court's precedence.
00:08:13.800 He doesn't find anywhere
00:08:15.020 in anything
00:08:15.680 resembling law.
00:08:17.340 He just makes it up.
00:08:19.180 Says,
00:08:19.480 well, gosh,
00:08:19.840 if we make up this rule,
00:08:21.700 then we don't have to
00:08:23.460 overrule Roe.
00:08:24.340 that...
00:08:29.020 Isn't that being
00:08:30.000 a legislator, though?
00:08:31.000 Yes.
00:08:31.820 That's exactly what,
00:08:32.800 and it's what Roe did.
00:08:34.400 He's got a new standard.
00:08:35.960 He thinks he's smarter
00:08:36.860 than Harry Blackmun.
00:08:37.760 He is unquestionably
00:08:39.120 smarter than Harry Blackmun.
00:08:42.560 Aren't we all?
00:08:43.300 And so he likes,
00:08:44.180 he likes his standard
00:08:45.300 and his standard,
00:08:46.640 this reasonable opportunity standard,
00:08:48.520 but it is not,
00:08:50.420 you know,
00:08:50.800 the majority opinion
00:08:51.800 points out
00:08:54.340 the rule
00:08:55.680 that Roberts is advocating,
00:08:57.920 the concurrence
00:08:58.740 would do exactly
00:09:00.020 what it criticizes
00:09:01.080 Roe for doing,
00:09:02.580 pulling, quote,
00:09:03.580 out of thin air
00:09:04.640 a test that, quote,
00:09:06.860 no party
00:09:07.500 or amicus
00:09:08.620 asked the court to adopt.
00:09:10.360 So neither of the parties
00:09:11.620 in this case
00:09:12.520 asked for that.
00:09:13.840 None of the amici, 1.00
00:09:14.960 I think there were 130 amici,
00:09:16.340 none of them
00:09:17.000 put forward this theory,
00:09:18.700 but look,
00:09:19.200 John Roberts
00:09:19.680 is a very smart man.
00:09:21.300 He came up
00:09:21.800 with his own theory.
00:09:22.540 He's like,
00:09:22.800 well, let's go
00:09:23.260 with this one instead.
00:09:25.340 And
00:09:25.900 it's based on
00:09:31.000 the idea
00:09:34.860 that
00:09:35.540 they don't have
00:09:39.500 to do anything
00:09:40.280 that will be seen
00:09:41.500 as politically
00:09:42.240 as traumatic
00:09:43.080 as overturning Roe,
00:09:44.680 but Roberts
00:09:45.720 is advocating
00:09:47.000 overturning
00:09:47.880 what the court
00:09:49.660 and Casey
00:09:50.200 called
00:09:50.680 the central holding
00:09:52.100 of Roe,
00:09:52.640 which is the
00:09:54.140 viability standard.
00:09:56.560 And Roberts
00:09:57.000 wants to get rid
00:09:57.820 of the central holding.
00:09:59.360 Well,
00:10:00.060 if you're getting rid
00:10:01.240 of the central holding
00:10:02.480 of a case,
00:10:03.660 you're overturning
00:10:04.960 the case.
00:10:05.400 like his proposed
00:10:08.000 minimalism
00:10:08.800 isn't very minimal.
00:10:12.940 And it would create
00:10:14.340 a whole new host
00:10:15.760 of problems
00:10:16.500 that are likewise
00:10:17.540 not found
00:10:18.740 in the law
00:10:19.480 or the Constitution.
00:10:20.340 And this is why,
00:10:21.140 Liz,
00:10:21.960 what Dershowitz
00:10:22.680 says is wrong.
00:10:23.480 He calls it activism.
00:10:24.340 Activism is a court
00:10:26.080 imposing its own
00:10:27.200 policy preferences
00:10:28.280 and not following
00:10:30.880 the law.
00:10:31.780 Let me ask you
00:10:32.300 about the leaker,
00:10:33.080 though.
00:10:33.280 This has gone out
00:10:33.980 of the news
00:10:34.280 very quickly.
00:10:35.080 The left was not
00:10:35.840 interested in discussing
00:10:36.800 the identity
00:10:37.460 of who this person
00:10:38.900 that publicized
00:10:40.160 gave to the media
00:10:41.040 the draft majority opinion,
00:10:42.720 which, by the way,
00:10:43.320 is very, very similar
00:10:44.420 to Alito's final draft
00:10:46.720 of his majority opinion,
00:10:48.020 which I was glad
00:10:49.100 to see that they
00:10:49.640 weren't bullied
00:10:50.140 into changing
00:10:52.200 any of their verbiage,
00:10:53.040 any of their language,
00:10:53.680 any of their arguments
00:10:54.280 based on this.
00:10:55.540 What do you think
00:10:56.160 the proper course
00:10:56.880 of action is now
00:10:57.740 regarding this leaker?
00:10:58.680 Should we continue
00:10:59.240 to investigate?
00:11:00.020 Should the name
00:11:00.500 be revealed publicly?
00:11:01.580 Should this person
00:11:02.620 be prosecuted?
00:11:03.580 And will they?
00:11:04.340 Yes, yes, yes,
00:11:05.740 and I don't know.
00:11:08.320 Look, the investigation
00:11:09.760 should continue.
00:11:10.900 Roberts has announced
00:11:11.760 that the court
00:11:12.380 has launched
00:11:12.860 an investigation.
00:11:13.960 The marshal's office
00:11:14.760 is leading the investigation.
00:11:17.480 I think it's critical
00:11:18.580 that we find out
00:11:19.320 who the leaker is.
00:11:20.120 I think their name
00:11:20.740 needs to be made public.
00:11:21.900 I think they need
00:11:22.500 to be criminally prosecuted
00:11:25.180 to the maximum extent possible.
00:11:29.220 Will it happen?
00:11:30.520 I don't know.
00:11:32.000 The marshal's office,
00:11:33.500 generally speaking,
00:11:34.260 doesn't have a whole lot
00:11:35.280 of experience
00:11:36.120 investigating crime.
00:11:38.020 That's not their...
00:11:39.340 Their principal focus
00:11:40.540 is protecting the court,
00:11:41.700 which is a different...
00:11:42.600 It is a law enforcement function,
00:11:44.100 but it is not...
00:11:45.260 It is not typically investigatory.
00:11:47.760 So I don't know
00:11:51.680 how effective
00:11:52.320 the marshal's office
00:11:53.200 will be at the investigation.
00:11:56.640 I also don't know.
00:11:57.940 There's been no public reports
00:11:59.140 about how much
00:11:59.760 the law clerks
00:12:00.360 are cooperating.
00:12:01.180 So, for example,
00:12:01.860 it's been reported
00:12:02.700 that the clerks
00:12:03.860 were asked to sign
00:12:05.360 a statement,
00:12:06.540 presumably saying
00:12:07.400 they did not hand
00:12:08.160 the opinion over to anyone.
00:12:09.860 I don't know
00:12:10.580 if there are clerks
00:12:11.200 who refuse to sign it.
00:12:12.300 I don't know the...
00:12:13.860 And nobody knows
00:12:15.120 outside the court
00:12:15.940 what has happened.
00:12:17.500 But I think it is critical
00:12:19.460 both for the long-term
00:12:21.220 integrity of the court
00:12:22.060 and for the rule of law
00:12:22.940 that we find
00:12:23.680 and prosecute the leaker.
00:12:24.800 I hope that happens.
00:12:26.460 On the question
00:12:27.420 of prosecution,
00:12:28.640 it will depend
00:12:29.900 on Merrick Garland's
00:12:30.940 Justice Department.
00:12:32.080 And unfortunately,
00:12:33.600 this Justice Department
00:12:34.660 has been so political
00:12:36.060 that I could easily see
00:12:38.760 the Department of Justice
00:12:39.720 refusing to prosecute it.
00:12:41.440 I hope they don't.
00:12:43.440 But I think that's a risk.
00:12:45.340 Step number one
00:12:46.080 is find the leaker.
00:12:47.820 And then step number two
00:12:49.940 should be ensuring
00:12:51.660 that there are real
00:12:52.940 and meaningful consequences
00:12:54.180 for the gross violation
00:12:57.100 of duty to the court
00:12:59.060 and to the rule of law.
00:13:00.720 All right.
00:13:00.940 Verdict clause members,
00:13:01.780 weigh in.
00:13:02.240 Post below.
00:13:03.020 Do you think
00:13:03.520 that we're going to find out
00:13:04.100 who the leaker is,
00:13:04.920 the identity of this person?
00:13:06.080 And if so,
00:13:07.000 do you think
00:13:07.560 that they will be prosecuted?
00:13:08.720 Do you think Merrick Garland
00:13:09.740 will do anything or not?
00:13:11.620 And if so,
00:13:12.620 what do you think
00:13:13.040 the charges will be
00:13:14.060 or should be?
00:13:15.120 Comment below, weigh in.
00:13:16.140 I'm really interested
00:13:16.660 in everybody's opinion.
00:13:17.720 Also, a little behind
00:13:19.120 the scenes going on here.
00:13:20.180 The senator is at
00:13:21.160 an activism conference
00:13:22.160 in Wisconsin right now,
00:13:24.040 and his staff is about
00:13:24.860 to pull him up
00:13:25.440 out of the chair
00:13:25.900 because we've run so late
00:13:27.080 talking about this topic.
00:13:28.460 So, Senator,
00:13:28.920 I'm going to let you go.
00:13:30.320 Thank you, everyone,
00:13:31.180 for watching.
00:13:31.560 This was a really
00:13:32.040 great discussion.
00:13:33.080 I'm Liz Wheeler.
00:13:34.040 This is The Cloak Room
00:13:34.980 on Verdict Plus.
00:13:36.940 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:13:39.780 Guaranteed human.