Verdict with Ted Cruz - The Cloakroom Preview： Supreme Court Showdown Over Big Tech

00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.

00:00:02.520 Guaranteed human.

00:00:04.120 Hi guys, Liz Wheeler here.

00:00:06.380 I have today for you a preview of The Cloak Room.

00:00:09.940 The Cloak Room is the series I host

00:00:11.360 with Senator Cruz on Verdict Plus.

00:00:13.700 We break down the nitty gritty legal aspect

00:00:16.660 of some of the political issues that surround us today.

00:00:20.040 You can join us at any time

00:00:21.000 at verdictwithtedcruz.com slash plus.

00:00:24.400 That's verdictwithtedcruz.com slash plus.

00:00:27.460 This episode today is one of my favorite ones.

00:00:30.580 So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

00:00:32.200 recently ruled against big tech.

00:00:35.760 They said, the court said that big tech

00:00:37.440 is not allowed to censor conservatives

00:00:39.240 based on conservatives' viewpoint.

00:00:41.780 This legal opinion is absolutely something.

00:00:44.760 This is very possibly could get in front of the Supreme Court

00:00:47.280 and have what might be the showdown of the century

00:00:50.180 between the courts, the Constitution, and big tech.

00:00:53.400 Senator Cruz breaks this all down

00:00:55.460 and answers the question,

00:00:56.900 is this going to be the end

00:00:59.680 of big tech censorship of conservatives?

00:01:01.980 I hope you enjoy this episode.

00:01:04.300 This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz

00:01:06.520 is brought to you by Field of Greens.

00:01:09.080 Back in the day, people grew what they ate.

00:01:12.080 Fresh vegetables and fruits were the core of their diet.

00:01:14.420 It's what they ate.

00:01:15.520 But as Americans became busier and busier,

00:01:18.040 now we eat pre-made, processed, fast food.

00:01:20.880 You know, the easy stuff, but not very healthy.

00:01:23.560 Definitely not the six cups of veggies and fruits a day.

00:01:26.320 But let me tell you about Field of Greens.

00:01:29.000 Field of Greens is packed with a full spectrum

00:01:31.120 of essential vegetables and fruits,

00:01:33.160 plus science-backed herbs and prebiotics.

00:01:36.140 This is what we need to stay healthy.

00:01:38.360 Field of Greens works fast.

00:01:40.200 You'll have more energy.

00:01:41.600 You'll look and feel healthier.

00:01:43.300 And it can even help you lose weight.

00:01:45.560 Next time you're at the doctor

00:01:46.460 and they compare your old lab work to your new lab work,

00:01:49.080 I bet the doctor will tell you,

00:01:50.500 you crushed it.

00:01:51.700 Join me and take Field of Greens.

00:01:54.020 And to help you get started,

00:01:55.000 I got you 15% off your first order.

00:01:57.740 And another 10% off when you subscribe

00:01:59.720 for recurring orders.

00:02:01.520 Visit fieldofgreens.com

00:02:03.820 and use promo code CACTUS

00:02:05.700 to collect this deal.

00:02:07.260 That's fieldofgreens.com, promo code CACTUS.

00:02:11.740 Fieldofgreens.com, promo code CACTUS.

00:02:15.220 Senator, we have a great topic to talk about today.

00:02:17.740 This made me very excited to see

00:02:19.380 out of your home state of Texas,

00:02:21.700 it's a potential Supreme Court showdown

00:02:24.380 on big tech banning conservatives

00:02:26.460 over our viewpoints.

00:02:27.460 We've all experienced this.

00:02:28.840 Anybody who is conservative and outspoken,

00:02:31.660 this is the ruling that came out

00:02:33.960 of the Fifth Circuit Court.

00:02:35.300 I wanna jump right into the legal aspect of this.

00:02:38.660 This is the ruling from Judge Andrew Oldham.

00:02:41.360 He says,

00:02:42.220 a Texas statute named House Bill 20

00:02:45.000 generally prohibits large social media platforms

00:02:47.780 from censoring speech

00:02:49.100 based on the viewpoint of its speaker.

00:02:51.200 The platforms urge us to hold

00:02:52.820 that the statute is facially unconstitutional

00:02:55.100 and hence cannot be applied to anyone

00:02:57.240 at any time and under any circumstance.

00:02:59.920 In urging such sweeping relief

00:03:01.600 the platforms offer a rather odd inversion

00:03:03.740 of the First Amendment.

00:03:05.080 That amendment, of course,

00:03:06.020 protects every person's right

00:03:07.700 to the freedom of speech.

00:03:09.860 But the platforms argue

00:03:11.280 that buried somewhere

00:03:12.440 in the person's enumerated right

00:03:14.640 to free speech

00:03:15.520 lies a corporation's unenumerated right

00:03:19.280 to muzzle speech.

00:03:21.020 The implications of the platform's arguments

00:03:23.240 are staggering.

00:03:24.460 On the platform's view,

00:03:25.500 email providers,

00:03:26.580 mobile phone companies,

00:03:27.660 and banks

00:03:28.240 could cancel the accounts

00:03:29.600 of anyone who sends an email,

00:03:31.120 makes a phone call,

00:03:31.820 or spends money

00:03:32.440 in support of a disfavored political party,

00:03:34.780 candidate, or business.

00:03:36.300 What's worse,

00:03:36.820 the platforms argue

00:03:37.560 that a business

00:03:38.120 can acquire a dominant market position

00:03:40.560 by holding itself out

00:03:42.340 as open to everyone,

00:03:43.680 as Twitter did

00:03:44.540 in championing itself

00:03:45.640 as the free speech wing

00:03:46.960 of the free speech party.

00:03:48.960 Then,

00:03:49.600 having cemented itself

00:03:50.640 as the monopolist

00:03:51.760 of the modern public square,

00:03:53.640 Twitter unapologetically argues

00:03:55.120 that it could turn around

00:03:56.400 and ban all pro-LGBT speech

00:03:58.980 for no other reason

00:04:00.180 than its employees

00:04:01.280 want to pick on members

00:04:02.320 of that community.

00:04:03.640 Today,

00:04:04.120 we reject the idea

00:04:05.220 that corporations

00:04:05.980 have a freewheeling

00:04:07.380 First Amendment right

00:04:08.780 to censor what people say.

00:04:10.720 Because the district court

00:04:11.740 held otherwise,

00:04:12.620 we reverse its injunction

00:04:14.040 and remand

00:04:15.100 for further proceedings.

00:04:16.500 So,

00:04:17.180 this is an incredibly

00:04:18.480 important decision.

00:04:20.720 So,

00:04:21.360 let's take it

00:04:21.840 in several pieces.

00:04:22.720 Number one,

00:04:23.380 let me commend

00:04:24.160 the Texas State Legislature

00:04:25.880 and Governor Abbott.

00:04:27.100 The state of Texas

00:04:27.840 passed serious legislation

00:04:30.440 designed

00:04:31.280 to tackle

00:04:32.460 and stop

00:04:33.160 big tech censorship.

00:04:34.560 And,

00:04:34.580 and Texas is leading

00:04:36.520 unfortunately

00:04:37.300 in a way

00:04:38.160 that the federal government,

00:04:39.360 Joe Biden,

00:04:39.880 won't do.

00:04:40.660 And unfortunately

00:04:41.560 in a way

00:04:42.200 that Congress won't do.

00:04:43.340 I've been pushing

00:04:43.980 for Congress

00:04:44.480 to do something like this,

00:04:45.640 but Democrats

00:04:46.180 are blocking it in D.C.

00:04:48.460 with Schumer and Pelosi

00:04:49.540 running Congress.

00:04:50.500 They won't allow this

00:04:51.260 to move forward.

00:04:52.080 And so,

00:04:52.700 the Texas State,

00:04:53.380 the state legislature

00:04:54.180 said, 0.96

00:04:54.700 to heck with you, 0.98

00:04:55.400 we're going to do it. 0.96

00:04:56.200 We're going to protect

00:04:56.800 30 million Texans.

00:04:58.000 We're going to protect

00:04:58.840 free speech rights.

00:04:59.760 And so,

00:05:00.160 it made it

00:05:00.680 illegal

00:05:01.620 for the big tech companies

00:05:03.340 to censor

00:05:04.460 based on viewpoint,

00:05:05.660 based on politics.

00:05:07.280 And it created

00:05:08.160 an enforcement mechanism,

00:05:09.640 including the ability

00:05:10.520 for the Attorney General

00:05:11.780 to file

00:05:13.740 an injunctive lawsuit

00:05:15.020 against big tech

00:05:16.080 to force them

00:05:17.080 to stop censoring.

00:05:18.800 Now,

00:05:19.340 what happened

00:05:19.960 is big tech,

00:05:20.960 which,

00:05:21.240 which has

00:05:21.820 more money

00:05:22.860 than Midas.

00:05:24.080 It has

00:05:24.620 unlimited cash.

00:05:25.960 They print gold.

00:05:27.840 What did they do?

00:05:29.000 They hired

00:05:29.920 an army of lawyers

00:05:30.820 and filed a lawsuit

00:05:31.740 seeking to stop

00:05:32.680 the bill.

00:05:34.040 And they succeeded.

00:05:34.980 They got a district court

00:05:35.920 to agree with them.

00:05:36.700 this is the appeal

00:05:39.640 from that injunction.

00:05:42.000 And this opinion

00:05:43.620 is masterful.

00:05:47.220 This is a very,

00:05:49.100 very serious

00:05:50.020 judicial opinion.

00:05:51.740 Let me stop

00:05:52.580 for a second

00:05:53.100 and give

00:05:53.600 a little bit of color.

00:05:55.040 And let me give you

00:05:55.460 a little bit of color

00:05:56.040 on a couple of sides.

00:05:57.380 Number one,

00:05:58.900 the judge who wrote it

00:05:59.980 is a judge

00:06:00.520 named Judge Andy Oldham.

00:06:02.000 I've known Andy

00:06:02.800 for some time.

00:06:03.560 Andy was a law clerk

00:06:06.180 to Judge David Centel

00:06:07.520 on the D.C. Circuit,

00:06:08.640 who was one of the top

00:06:09.600 conservative appellate

00:06:10.540 judges in the country.

00:06:11.900 He was then a law clerk

00:06:13.140 to Justice Sam Alito

00:06:14.280 on the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:06:17.040 Andy is a veteran litigator.

00:06:20.560 And in fact,

00:06:21.280 he was in my old office.

00:06:22.780 As you know,

00:06:23.480 I was for five and a half years

00:06:24.940 was the solicitor general

00:06:26.060 of Texas.

00:06:26.740 Well, Andy

00:06:27.220 was in that office

00:06:29.140 after I left.

00:06:30.240 He didn't work for me,

00:06:31.720 but he was deputy

00:06:32.600 solicitor general of Texas

00:06:34.020 and did an excellent job.

00:06:37.180 And in fact,

00:06:37.640 after being deputy SG,

00:06:39.260 he went on to be

00:06:40.220 general counsel

00:06:41.620 in the governor's office

00:06:42.820 for Greg Abbott.

00:06:44.660 And so when Donald Trump

00:06:46.200 was president,

00:06:46.920 there were multiple vacancies

00:06:48.480 on the Fifth Circuit.

00:06:50.600 And the way it works

00:06:52.060 with judicial appointments

00:06:53.140 is that every federal

00:06:54.800 judicial appointment

00:06:55.680 in the state of Texas

00:06:57.460 has to get my sign off

00:06:59.320 and has to get the sign off

00:07:00.360 of John Cornyn.

00:07:01.140 And the two of us

00:07:01.840 have a very serious

00:07:02.900 and thorough vetting process.

00:07:05.520 In fact,

00:07:05.940 we have a bipartisan

00:07:07.060 judicial evaluation committee

00:07:08.700 that plays an important role

00:07:10.000 in it.

00:07:10.640 But Andy is someone

00:07:12.280 who I enthusiastically

00:07:14.860 supported President Trump

00:07:16.400 nominating.

00:07:18.140 Cornyn and I both recommended

00:07:19.900 to President Trump

00:07:21.960 that he nominate him.

00:07:23.020 And for that matter,

00:07:23.740 Greg Abbott,

00:07:24.380 my old boss

00:07:25.080 and good friend,

00:07:25.820 was effusive.

00:07:27.620 Abbott called me

00:07:28.540 and said,

00:07:28.960 this guy is a rock star.

00:07:30.460 You want him

00:07:30.960 on the Court of Appeals.

00:07:32.560 President Trump

00:07:33.300 nominated him.

00:07:34.120 We confirmed him.

00:07:36.080 And I got to say,

00:07:37.360 look no further

00:07:38.100 than this opinion

00:07:38.960 to have confirmation

00:07:39.960 as to why

00:07:40.980 that was an incredibly

00:07:42.740 important decision.

00:07:44.420 This opinion

00:07:45.400 is over 100 pages long.

00:07:48.180 It is careful.

00:07:49.880 It is thorough.

00:07:51.720 It is scholarly.

00:07:53.120 Another odd bit

00:07:54.320 of commentary

00:07:54.920 when this opinion

00:07:55.600 came down,

00:07:56.340 I really wanted

00:07:58.460 to read it.

00:07:58.960 It was Sunday,

00:07:59.460 Sunday afternoon.

00:08:01.260 And I was home

00:08:02.460 in Houston

00:08:03.060 and had taken,

00:08:07.940 no, I'm sorry,

00:08:08.320 it was Saturday afternoon.

00:08:09.260 It was Saturday afternoon.

00:08:10.440 I was home in Houston

00:08:11.220 and I had taken

00:08:12.780 my daughter,

00:08:13.820 Catherine,

00:08:14.260 who's 11,

00:08:15.520 and one of her friends

00:08:16.820 to the nail salon

00:08:17.880 to get a mani-pedi.

00:08:20.740 So they're both

00:08:21.520 sitting there

00:08:22.120 getting their toes done.

00:08:23.940 And, you know,

00:08:25.320 dad's a little kind of,

00:08:27.320 I'm not terribly at ease

00:08:29.120 in a nail salon 0.88

00:08:29.920 with the whole

00:08:30.540 mani-pedi thing.

00:08:32.980 And I got to say,

00:08:34.800 there are lots of like,

00:08:36.560 like women walking in 1.00

00:08:37.680 who are doing double takes.

00:08:39.120 You know,

00:08:39.320 what on earth

00:08:40.040 is Cruz doing

00:08:41.680 sitting in the nail salon?

00:08:43.800 And then,

00:08:44.940 like they said,

00:08:46.980 hey,

00:08:47.140 if you want to sit

00:08:47.840 with the girls

00:08:48.400 while they're doing this,

00:08:49.300 you can.

00:08:49.780 I'm like,

00:08:50.080 yeah, sure,

00:08:50.500 I'll go sit with them.

00:08:51.300 And so they had me seated

00:08:53.440 in the chair

00:08:54.820 for the mani-pedi thing,

00:08:56.920 which had a whole like

00:08:58.680 massage thing

00:08:59.840 in the chair.

00:09:00.340 So I did enjoy

00:09:01.120 the like back massage thing

00:09:02.560 to turn on the auto massager.

00:09:04.740 But I'm sitting there,

00:09:06.340 I was not getting

00:09:07.300 the mani-pedi,

00:09:08.000 so I had my shoes on,

00:09:09.440 needless to say.

00:09:10.000 I'm next to the girls,

00:09:10.900 but I kept thinking,

00:09:12.220 you know,

00:09:12.600 someone is going

00:09:13.980 to video me

00:09:15.000 in this mani-pedi thing

00:09:16.660 and it is going

00:09:18.380 to drive

00:09:19.160 lefty Twitter insane.

00:09:22.140 But while I'm sitting

00:09:23.540 there in the chair

00:09:24.300 with my daughter

00:09:25.180 while she's having a blast, 0.87

00:09:27.200 I'm reading this opinion

00:09:28.800 on my iPhone,

00:09:30.240 just sitting there

00:09:31.220 like for a half hour,

00:09:32.360 just reading the opinion

00:09:33.380 in the mani-pedi chair

00:09:34.540 while Catherine

00:09:35.920 got her toes done.

00:09:36.980 I was going to ask you

00:09:38.040 if you got a mani-pedi,

00:09:39.140 but then I thought,

00:09:40.060 you know what,

00:09:40.460 I would already know

00:09:41.420 if he did,

00:09:42.080 because if someone

00:09:43.120 was painting his fingernails,

00:09:44.580 there would have been

00:09:45.360 a photo of that

00:09:46.020 on Twitter already,

00:09:46.820 so the question was moot.

00:09:48.760 No, that is true.

00:09:50.380 Nope, I use clippers

00:09:52.200 and do it myself.

00:09:53.560 That's sufficient.

00:09:55.100 So, let's talk

00:09:56.040 about the opinion.

00:09:58.220 The opinion is

00:09:59.620 really impressive.

00:10:01.520 It goes,

00:10:02.060 so one of the things

00:10:02.720 to understand,

00:10:04.320 this law has not

00:10:05.320 gone into effect

00:10:06.100 in Texas yet.

00:10:07.540 So, there are two ways

00:10:09.400 generally to challenge

00:10:11.800 a law as unconstitutional.

00:10:13.620 One way

00:10:15.760 and the way

00:10:16.260 typically a law

00:10:17.280 is challenged

00:10:17.780 as unconstitutional

00:10:18.660 is what's known

00:10:19.340 as as applied,

00:10:20.560 which is

00:10:21.340 a law is in effect

00:10:23.280 and the government

00:10:24.460 comes and tries

00:10:25.340 to enforce it

00:10:26.060 against you

00:10:26.840 in some specific context

00:10:28.340 and you go file

00:10:29.520 a lawsuit and say,

00:10:30.780 enforcing this law

00:10:32.300 against me

00:10:33.100 as applied

00:10:34.120 under these facts

00:10:35.080 right here and now

00:10:36.020 is unconstitutional.

00:10:37.480 That's the way

00:10:38.100 the vast majority

00:10:39.220 of lawsuits

00:10:39.880 about constitutionality

00:10:41.000 are adjudicated.

00:10:43.620 And we talked

00:10:45.520 about that distinction

00:10:46.560 in our last episode.

00:10:48.860 But the other way

00:10:50.100 to challenge it

00:10:50.840 is what was happening

00:10:51.600 here and it's

00:10:53.160 what's called

00:10:53.780 a facial challenge.

00:10:55.760 And it's a challenge

00:10:57.500 that is often

00:10:59.480 and in this case

00:11:00.500 it was brought

00:11:02.360 before the law

00:11:03.120 even goes into effect.

00:11:04.580 And a facial challenge

00:11:05.980 is a much harder

00:11:07.140 thing to prevail on.

00:11:08.060 A facial challenge

00:11:08.900 is saying

00:11:09.500 there is no circumstance

00:11:11.540 in which this law

00:11:13.100 can be applied

00:11:13.840 unconstitutionally.

00:11:14.820 It is on its face

00:11:16.240 unconstitutional.

00:11:18.280 Doesn't matter

00:11:18.700 how it's applied.

00:11:19.960 This law cannot stand.

00:11:22.460 The most frequent area

00:11:24.720 where a facial challenge

00:11:26.500 is allowed

00:11:27.180 is in the First Amendment

00:11:28.360 context

00:11:28.920 and there's a doctrine

00:11:29.900 called First Amendment

00:11:31.080 overbreath

00:11:31.780 which is that

00:11:32.440 it will chill speech.

00:11:35.740 It will have such a

00:11:37.680 chilling and deterrent effect

00:11:39.400 that people will

00:11:41.040 refrain from speaking.

00:11:42.340 So this was

00:11:43.300 a facial challenge

00:11:45.400 an overbreath challenge

00:11:46.500 under the First Amendment.

00:11:49.280 And by the way

00:11:50.420 big tech had

00:11:51.200 lots of high-priced lawyers

00:11:53.020 who made lots of

00:11:54.380 vigorous arguments

00:11:55.260 about this.

00:11:56.760 What the Fifth Circuit

00:11:58.000 opinion that Judge Oldham

00:11:59.300 wrote does

00:12:00.660 is goes systematically

00:12:01.800 through and says

00:12:02.720 number one

00:12:03.460 look this doesn't

00:12:05.460 chill

00:12:06.040 this law going into effect

00:12:08.360 doesn't chill

00:12:09.040 any speech

00:12:09.840 and in fact

00:12:10.600 big tech

00:12:12.180 is not asking

00:12:12.940 for a right to speak

00:12:14.180 they're asking

00:12:14.740 for a right to censor.

00:12:15.960 Nobody is stopping

00:12:17.200 big tech

00:12:18.660 from saying

00:12:19.240 whatever it wants.

00:12:20.880 What this law

00:12:21.720 is saying

00:12:22.280 is that big tech

00:12:23.920 cannot silence

00:12:25.220 other speakers

00:12:26.140 and so it goes

00:12:27.000 through systematically

00:12:28.020 and says

00:12:28.600 well

00:12:28.880 is there a right

00:12:31.060 to censor

00:12:31.980 that is separate

00:12:32.720 from the right to speak?

00:12:34.020 And one of the arguments

00:12:35.020 big tech says

00:12:35.900 is they said

00:12:36.460 well

00:12:36.760 we're a publisher

00:12:38.340 and we're engaged

00:12:39.720 in editorial decisions

00:12:41.000 about what to allow

00:12:42.080 other speakers

00:12:42.980 to say

00:12:43.660 and not say

00:12:45.160 and there is

00:12:45.900 a whole line of cases

00:12:46.920 where for example

00:12:47.960 newspapers

00:12:48.760 can choose

00:12:50.580 what op-eds to run

00:12:51.680 and what op-eds

00:12:52.340 not to run

00:12:53.000 but what the opinion

00:12:54.400 does is go

00:12:55.140 through systematically

00:12:56.300 and distinguishes

00:12:57.120 and says

00:12:57.520 well that's not

00:12:58.260 what big tech

00:12:58.840 is doing

00:12:59.280 they're not

00:12:59.800 holding themselves

00:13:00.460 out as a publisher

00:13:01.440 and saying

00:13:01.980 we're choosing

00:13:02.720 we're only running

00:13:03.900 the speech

00:13:04.380 we say

00:13:04.880 and in fact

00:13:05.520 big tech

00:13:06.720 routinely represents

00:13:07.860 to congress

00:13:08.400 to its consumers

00:13:10.000 to everybody else

00:13:11.000 that they're an open

00:13:12.240 marketplace of ideas

00:13:13.520 and they're not

00:13:14.180 responsible for the content

00:13:15.500 of what they say

00:13:16.440 and in fact

00:13:17.180 congress

00:13:18.400 in section 230

00:13:19.400 of the communications

00:13:20.060 decency act

00:13:20.920 explicitly said

00:13:21.780 big tech

00:13:22.220 is not a publisher

00:13:23.140 and they're not

00:13:23.600 responsible for the content

00:13:24.760 of what people say

00:13:25.940 which

00:13:26.260 um

00:13:27.540 the fifth circuit

00:13:29.200 reasonably interpreted

00:13:30.480 say well

00:13:31.040 they can't claim

00:13:31.720 to be a publisher

00:13:32.320 and claim not to be

00:13:33.220 simultaneously pick

00:13:34.240 one or the other

00:13:34.840 you don't you don't

00:13:35.440 get to have your cake

00:13:36.200 and eat it too

00:13:36.840 there's something else

00:13:39.180 the texas legislature

00:13:40.020 did which is

00:13:40.800 it regulated them

00:13:42.200 as as what's called

00:13:44.900 a common carrier

00:13:46.380 now what is a common

00:13:48.160 carrier

00:13:48.540 and the opinion

00:13:49.000 does a very good job

00:13:49.900 of going through

00:13:50.300 the history of this

00:13:51.100 common carriers

00:13:51.800 initially they came up

00:13:53.000 with in the

00:13:53.440 transportation context

00:13:54.620 um

00:13:55.900 people who ran

00:13:57.000 say a ferry boat

00:13:57.960 uh

00:13:59.260 across a

00:14:00.740 let's say

00:14:01.620 a river

00:14:02.160 or a lake

00:14:02.840 um

00:14:04.180 and early

00:14:05.120 early on

00:14:05.840 there was legislation

00:14:06.800 common carrier

00:14:07.500 legislation

00:14:08.160 that was

00:14:08.660 understood as being

00:14:10.240 permissible

00:14:10.820 that said

00:14:11.340 if you're running

00:14:11.920 a ferry boat

00:14:12.700 you can't just

00:14:14.140 arbitrarily decide

00:14:15.580 Liz I don't like you

00:14:17.400 so you can't cross

00:14:18.340 the river

00:14:18.740 that if you hold

00:14:20.140 yourself out to

00:14:20.920 the public

00:14:21.420 as a

00:14:22.520 common carrier

00:14:23.940 meaning I carry

00:14:24.960 the public

00:14:25.660 then you can't

00:14:27.120 discriminate against

00:14:28.420 and say I'll only

00:14:29.300 carry you

00:14:30.000 but not you

00:14:30.720 um

00:14:32.020 that doctrine

00:14:33.060 has been around

00:14:33.900 for hundreds

00:14:34.820 of years

00:14:35.460 it's also been

00:14:36.540 applied very

00:14:37.200 specifically

00:14:37.820 in terms of

00:14:39.700 communication

00:14:40.320 and again the

00:14:41.180 opinion goes

00:14:41.740 through the history

00:14:42.320 of it

00:14:42.560 it was first

00:14:43.040 applied

00:14:43.540 with the telegram

00:14:44.920 where you had

00:14:45.400 telegram lines

00:14:46.240 and it used to be

00:14:46.900 the telegrams

00:14:47.940 did discriminate

00:14:49.220 against speech

00:14:50.160 and so for example

00:14:51.060 the telegraph

00:14:51.720 companies

00:14:52.180 uh

00:14:53.080 were owned

00:14:53.940 by bipartisans

00:14:55.380 and so they

00:14:56.020 would suppress

00:14:56.880 for example

00:14:57.560 election information

00:14:58.760 that was contrary

00:15:00.640 to their partisan

00:15:01.280 leanings

00:15:01.700 they wouldn't

00:15:02.200 transmit a telegram

00:15:03.400 that said

00:15:04.460 hey uh

00:15:05.380 hypothetically

00:15:05.980 the democrat

00:15:06.480 won here

00:15:07.120 or the democrats

00:15:07.760 winning here

00:15:08.240 or the republicans

00:15:08.940 won here

00:15:09.600 is winning there

00:15:10.240 they would suppress

00:15:11.240 that speech

00:15:11.800 because they

00:15:12.120 disagreed with

00:15:12.660 the politics of

00:15:13.420 it and congress

00:15:13.880 came in and

00:15:14.380 regulated it

00:15:15.060 and said look

00:15:16.060 if someone

00:15:16.460 sends a telegram

00:15:17.200 you gotta send 1.00

00:15:17.720 the damn thing 0.99

00:15:18.360 whether you agree 1.00

00:15:19.200 with it or not

00:15:19.940 you're a common

00:15:20.660 carrier

00:15:21.100 carry the message

00:15:22.140 all of this

00:15:23.740 the fifth circuit

00:15:25.180 walked painstakingly

00:15:26.580 through and said

00:15:27.400 listen

00:15:27.800 big tech today

00:15:29.880 they are monopolists

00:15:30.900 they are much

00:15:31.480 they are common

00:15:32.140 carriers

00:15:32.600 that's how the state

00:15:33.360 regulated them

00:15:34.320 and and you can

00:15:35.860 provide

00:15:36.560 an equal access

00:15:38.480 rule

00:15:39.580 this opinion

00:15:41.340 it will be challenged

00:15:43.480 it could easily

00:15:44.120 go to the supreme court

00:15:45.320 but i gotta say

00:15:46.100 reading this opinion

00:15:47.280 i i would encourage

00:15:49.580 you know

00:15:49.940 we did this before

00:15:50.980 on dobbs

00:15:51.580 dobbs was another

00:15:52.400 very very serious

00:15:53.740 opinion

00:15:54.300 by justice alito

00:15:55.720 i would encourage

00:15:56.420 people to read

00:15:56.980 this opinion

00:15:57.420 it is fascinating

00:15:58.500 and exceptionally

00:15:59.620 well done

00:16:00.180 some of the

00:16:01.960 industries that

00:16:03.000 have been regulated

00:16:03.740 as common carriers

00:16:04.760 that's happened

00:16:05.660 via congress

00:16:06.600 meaning our

00:16:07.120 federal congress

00:16:07.940 this happened

00:16:09.360 via the state

00:16:10.460 of texas

00:16:11.300 will that become

00:16:12.380 an issue in any

00:16:13.180 way that it was

00:16:13.700 done by the state

00:16:14.320 and not the

00:16:14.700 federal congress

00:16:15.440 so i don't

00:16:17.560 think so

00:16:18.420 um

00:16:19.320 it is true

00:16:20.860 that that the

00:16:21.720 common carrier

00:16:22.340 legislation

00:16:23.100 by and large

00:16:24.020 a lot of it

00:16:24.560 certainly

00:16:24.920 dealing with

00:16:25.720 for example

00:16:26.200 telecom

00:16:26.920 or railroads

00:16:27.680 is at the

00:16:28.080 federal level

00:16:28.680 um

00:16:29.980 but the question

00:16:31.560 is whether

00:16:32.280 it's permissible

00:16:33.180 under the first

00:16:34.060 amendment

00:16:34.460 and the first

00:16:35.080 amendment

00:16:35.380 analysis

00:16:35.940 is not

00:16:36.480 different

00:16:37.040 whether it's

00:16:38.300 congress

00:16:38.680 regulating

00:16:39.300 or the state

00:16:39.860 regulating

00:16:40.480 so

00:16:40.840 we've talked

00:16:41.880 before on cloak

00:16:42.860 room

00:16:43.120 about how

00:16:43.680 the supreme

00:16:44.200 court

00:16:44.620 has incorporated

00:16:46.100 the first

00:16:47.140 amendment

00:16:47.460 against the

00:16:47.980 state

00:16:48.260 so the first

00:16:48.860 amendment

00:16:49.120 by its

00:16:49.500 own

00:16:49.660 explicit

00:16:50.040 text

00:16:50.480 only applies

00:16:51.500 to congress

00:16:51.980 congress

00:16:52.420 shall make

00:16:52.820 no law

00:16:53.280 is how

00:16:53.540 it begins

00:16:54.120 but the

00:16:55.500 supreme

00:16:55.820 court

00:16:56.180 has interpreted

00:16:57.020 the free

00:16:57.480 speech

00:16:57.760 protections

00:16:58.480 exactly the

00:17:00.100 same

00:17:00.440 against state

00:17:00.980 and local

00:17:01.340 governments

00:17:01.780 so if

00:17:02.360 it is

00:17:03.220 unconstitutional

00:17:04.620 under the first

00:17:05.280 amendment

00:17:05.620 for congress

00:17:06.300 to pass a law

00:17:07.220 restricting speech

00:17:08.680 it's equally

00:17:09.280 unconstitutional

00:17:10.020 for the state

00:17:10.600 to do that

00:17:11.180 um

00:17:12.060 in this

00:17:12.900 instance

00:17:13.580 if it would

00:17:16.420 be constitutional

00:17:17.600 for congress

00:17:18.820 to regulate

00:17:19.660 big tech

00:17:20.220 as a common

00:17:20.720 carrier

00:17:21.160 and put

00:17:21.500 the same

00:17:21.940 obligations

00:17:22.500 of non-discrimination

00:17:23.440 that they put

00:17:24.740 on telephone

00:17:25.840 companies

00:17:26.380 or telegraph

00:17:27.000 companies

00:17:27.480 then it's

00:17:28.820 equally

00:17:29.140 constitutional

00:17:29.700 for the

00:17:30.080 states

00:17:30.340 to do it

00:17:30.740 that the

00:17:31.000 first amendment

00:17:31.520 doesn't apply

00:17:32.160 differently

00:17:32.740 um

00:17:33.880 and so

00:17:34.280 the principle

00:17:34.980 is the same

00:17:35.900 uh

00:17:36.880 and so

00:17:37.180 I don't

00:17:37.640 think

00:17:37.880 that look

00:17:38.340 could big

00:17:40.320 tech try

00:17:40.920 to come up

00:17:41.400 with some

00:17:41.740 argument on

00:17:42.360 that

00:17:42.640 I suppose

00:17:43.480 but I

00:17:44.020 I can't

00:17:44.540 think of

00:17:44.820 a good

00:17:45.040 one sitting

00:17:45.480 here

00:17:45.740 what

00:17:46.760 what is

00:17:47.300 big tech's

00:17:48.160 appeal

00:17:48.680 going to be

00:17:49.260 based on

00:17:49.760 what's their

00:17:50.060 argument

00:17:50.360 against this

00:17:50.920 ruling

00:17:51.260 um

00:17:53.500 that it

00:17:55.000 violates

00:17:55.520 the first

00:17:55.980 amendment

00:17:56.440 that they

00:17:57.180 are publishers

00:17:57.780 and they

00:17:58.520 are choosing

00:17:59.260 what speech

00:18:00.360 to transmit

00:18:01.000 and what

00:18:01.500 speech not

00:18:02.160 and so

00:18:02.500 for example

00:18:03.260 um

00:18:04.460 there was

00:18:05.440 a case

00:18:06.020 that the

00:18:06.360 supreme court

00:18:06.880 considered a

00:18:07.560 law out of

00:18:08.280 florida

00:18:08.720 that said

00:18:09.260 if a

00:18:09.580 newspaper

00:18:10.180 wrote

00:18:11.460 uh

00:18:11.860 published

00:18:12.340 uh

00:18:12.740 an

00:18:13.160 editorial

00:18:13.640 that was

00:18:14.120 critical

00:18:14.640 uh

00:18:15.840 of

00:18:16.320 of a

00:18:16.900 political

00:18:17.320 candidate

00:18:17.860 that that

00:18:18.340 candidate

00:18:18.660 had a

00:18:19.000 right to

00:18:19.360 respond

00:18:19.860 in equal

00:18:20.340 space

00:18:20.900 and the

00:18:22.740 supreme court

00:18:23.220 said you

00:18:23.560 can't do

00:18:23.940 that that's

00:18:24.540 unconstitutional

00:18:25.320 the supreme

00:18:25.880 that the

00:18:26.280 paper is

00:18:26.880 exercising

00:18:27.520 its first

00:18:28.140 amendment

00:18:28.460 rights

00:18:28.900 deciding

00:18:29.880 what

00:18:30.540 editorials

00:18:31.840 to publish

00:18:32.520 and it

00:18:33.700 also talked

00:18:34.520 about in

00:18:35.040 the world

00:18:35.440 of of

00:18:35.960 overbreath

00:18:36.500 that there

00:18:36.840 was a

00:18:37.140 chilling

00:18:37.380 effect on

00:18:38.040 that

00:18:38.240 that what

00:18:39.640 it could

00:18:40.000 do is

00:18:40.680 discourage

00:18:41.260 papers from

00:18:41.800 talking about

00:18:42.300 politics

00:18:42.760 all together

00:18:43.380 because look

00:18:44.420 space in a

00:18:46.200 newspaper

00:18:46.740 costs money

00:18:47.660 and there's

00:18:48.840 a there's a

00:18:49.500 finite amount

00:18:50.220 of space

00:18:50.840 and so

00:18:51.480 if a newspaper

00:18:52.620 knows if we

00:18:53.520 write about

00:18:53.960 politics we

00:18:54.660 got to give

00:18:55.020 equal space

00:18:55.820 to the other

00:18:56.240 side that's

00:18:56.920 giving away

00:18:57.400 free newspaper

00:18:58.360 that costs

00:18:59.000 us revenue

00:18:59.580 and a rational

00:19:01.220 thing for a

00:19:01.900 newspaper to do

00:19:02.640 is let's just

00:19:03.060 not talk about

00:19:03.720 it all together

00:19:04.380 and the supreme

00:19:04.840 court said well

00:19:05.420 that's

00:19:06.360 chilling speech

00:19:07.460 that's

00:19:07.820 discouraging

00:19:08.440 speech

00:19:08.980 one of the

00:19:10.220 things the

00:19:10.660 fifth circuits

00:19:11.160 decision says

00:19:12.020 here is

00:19:12.680 is look

00:19:13.260 big tech

00:19:15.180 is very

00:19:15.680 different from

00:19:16.280 a newspaper

00:19:16.880 there's not

00:19:17.780 a finite

00:19:18.360 number of

00:19:19.080 tweets

00:19:19.500 it's not

00:19:21.240 like allowing

00:19:22.860 someone to

00:19:23.620 tweet something

00:19:24.180 they disagree

00:19:24.820 takes away

00:19:25.800 with some

00:19:26.340 other tweet

00:19:26.840 they want

00:19:27.440 that that

00:19:28.480 it is

00:19:28.800 essentially

00:19:30.040 infinite

00:19:31.600 and big

00:19:33.720 tech is not

00:19:34.560 purporting

00:19:35.260 they don't

00:19:35.880 claim

00:19:36.740 to be

00:19:38.200 endorsing

00:19:38.920 what's said

00:19:39.380 on their

00:19:39.640 platform

00:19:40.120 they don't

00:19:40.520 claim to

00:19:41.260 be

00:19:41.640 doing what

00:19:43.000 an editorial

00:19:43.540 page does

00:19:44.700 they claim

00:19:45.720 to be

00:19:46.240 the public

00:19:46.780 square

00:19:47.120 the whole

00:19:47.520 predicate

00:19:47.960 of section

00:19:48.440 230 is

00:19:49.320 it's not

00:19:50.040 our fault

00:19:50.480 it's not

00:19:50.840 us speaking

00:19:51.620 it's somebody

00:19:52.080 else speaking

00:19:52.740 and I thought

00:19:53.360 that was

00:19:54.460 one of the

00:19:54.980 more

00:19:55.480 insightful

00:19:57.240 and clever

00:19:58.040 aspects

00:19:58.540 of the

00:19:58.960 opinion

00:19:59.400 was taking

00:20:01.880 the premises

00:20:02.760 behind section

00:20:03.940 230

00:20:04.520 and

00:20:06.460 essentially

00:20:08.220 flipping them

00:20:09.280 against big

00:20:10.140 tech and

00:20:10.700 saying

00:20:11.140 look you guys

00:20:12.560 have argued

00:20:12.980 very persuasively

00:20:13.900 you're not

00:20:14.300 publishers

00:20:14.720 okay you're

00:20:15.260 not publishers

00:20:15.920 well then don't

00:20:16.500 pretend to be

00:20:17.020 publishers

00:20:17.440 you are a

00:20:19.360 common carrier

00:20:20.040 you're just

00:20:20.720 a vehicle

00:20:21.360 AT&T is not

00:20:23.020 a publisher

00:20:23.580 if I call

00:20:24.500 and tell you

00:20:25.120 something

00:20:25.600 AT&T is not

00:20:26.880 responsible for

00:20:27.640 what I said

00:20:28.160 to you

00:20:28.440 the same thing

00:20:29.060 if I tweet

00:20:29.620 something at

00:20:30.340 you

00:20:30.520 a common

00:20:31.580 carrier

00:20:32.000 likewise

00:20:32.560 it's not

00:20:33.280 their fault

00:20:33.780 and one

00:20:34.380 of the

00:20:34.520 things they

00:20:34.780 can point

00:20:35.140 out

00:20:35.320 they said

00:20:35.660 you know

00:20:35.900 what

00:20:36.180 if big

00:20:38.480 tech

00:20:38.720 disagrees

00:20:39.440 they can

00:20:41.000 say so

00:20:41.460 so

00:20:42.860 if I

00:20:44.740 tweet

00:20:45.200 something

00:20:45.720 that they

00:20:46.500 don't

00:20:46.760 like

00:20:47.140 if I

00:20:48.460 tweet

00:20:49.020 there is a

00:20:50.500 difference

00:20:51.000 between

00:20:51.720 boys

00:20:52.340 and girls

00:20:53.260 big tech

00:20:55.480 disagrees

00:20:55.940 with that

00:20:56.420 the circuit

00:20:57.780 said you

00:20:58.120 know what

00:20:58.420 nothing's

00:20:58.880 stopping

00:20:59.140 twitter

00:20:59.560 from

00:20:59.840 attaching

00:21:00.360 appending

00:21:01.020 to my

00:21:01.500 tweet

00:21:01.880 this is

00:21:03.660 a horrible

00:21:04.180 hateful 1.00

00:21:04.880 transphobic

00:21:06.080 statement

00:21:06.900 that we

00:21:07.400 cannot stand

00:21:08.100 and we

00:21:08.380 disagree

00:21:08.840 and we

00:21:09.340 think

00:21:09.600 boys and

00:21:10.220 girls are 0.93

00:21:10.580 exactly the

00:21:11.180 same and

00:21:11.560 no one

00:21:11.800 could possibly

00:21:12.260 think to

00:21:12.560 the contrary

00:21:12.980 they can

00:21:13.500 say that

00:21:13.860 nobody's

00:21:14.600 stopping

00:21:14.920 them from

00:21:15.460 speaking

00:21:15.840 and by

00:21:18.600 the way

00:21:19.040 they do

00:21:20.240 that

00:21:20.580 they're

00:21:20.840 now like

00:21:21.940 flagging

00:21:23.140 things they

00:21:23.640 disagree with

00:21:24.360 usually anything

00:21:25.000 right of center

00:21:25.700 as you know

00:21:26.560 you know

00:21:26.960 this is

00:21:28.120 dubious

00:21:28.660 this is

00:21:29.100 false

00:21:29.320 so they're

00:21:29.600 doing it

00:21:30.020 right now

00:21:30.940 fifth circuit

00:21:32.660 says well

00:21:33.000 gosh if you

00:21:33.540 want to

00:21:33.800 speak you

00:21:34.220 can but

00:21:35.580 you're not

00:21:36.020 claiming a

00:21:36.600 right to

00:21:36.940 speak you're

00:21:37.540 claiming a

00:21:38.000 right to

00:21:38.380 censor you're

00:21:39.080 claiming a

00:21:39.620 right to

00:21:40.060 silence another

00:21:41.140 voice that

00:21:41.820 you don't

00:21:42.220 like that's

00:21:42.880 altogether

00:21:43.320 different

00:21:43.920 that's a

00:21:45.300 really important

00:21:45.860 distinction I

00:21:46.500 think big

00:21:47.600 tech is

00:21:48.180 definitely

00:21:48.680 trying to

00:21:49.300 have their

00:21:49.600 cake and

00:21:49.980 eat it

00:21:50.240 too so

00:21:50.760 they argue

00:21:51.640 we are not

00:21:54.260 a publisher

00:21:54.820 for purposes

00:21:55.640 of liability

00:21:57.000 law for

00:21:57.780 purposes of

00:21:58.340 defamation for

00:21:59.200 purposes of

00:21:59.780 section 230

00:22:00.540 but we are

00:22:01.900 a publisher

00:22:02.400 for purposes

00:22:03.040 of the

00:22:03.360 first amendment

00:22:03.920 so they're

00:22:05.200 arguing it's

00:22:05.780 different sources

00:22:06.780 of law

00:22:07.920 it's still 0.97

00:22:09.680 pretty damn

00:22:10.220 inconsistent and

00:22:11.000 I think this

00:22:11.540 opinion quite

00:22:13.480 rightly points

00:22:14.380 out the

00:22:14.900 incoherence

00:22:16.060 of you either

00:22:17.320 are or you

00:22:17.800 aren't and

00:22:18.660 I think it

00:22:20.500 does so very

00:22:20.980 effectively

00:22:21.380 the question

00:22:22.500 then is is

00:22:23.220 this going to

00:22:23.780 reach the

00:22:24.180 supreme court

00:22:24.760 and how is

00:22:25.700 this court

00:22:26.080 going to

00:22:26.420 rule on

00:22:26.800 it if

00:22:27.060 so

00:22:27.380 I think

00:22:29.540 it's quite

00:22:29.880 likely to

00:22:30.360 reach the

00:22:30.720 supreme court

00:22:31.320 this is a

00:22:32.280 major

00:22:33.300 major

00:22:36.020 constitutional

00:22:36.600 issue

00:22:37.080 there's an

00:22:37.580 enormous amount

00:22:38.120 of money

00:22:38.400 behind these

00:22:38.900 lawsuits

00:22:39.420 it is a

00:22:40.720 law that

00:22:41.340 affects

00:22:41.880 directly

00:22:43.680 30 million

00:22:45.120 Americans

00:22:46.400 30 million

00:22:47.200 residents of

00:22:47.760 Texas

00:22:48.140 you know

00:22:49.720 just under

00:22:50.560 10% of

00:22:51.260 the US

00:22:51.580 population

00:22:52.260 it is a

00:22:53.580 law that

00:22:53.920 will have

00:22:54.260 dramatic

00:22:55.080 impact on

00:22:55.960 big tech

00:22:56.480 nationally

00:22:57.240 if they're

00:22:58.420 not allowed

00:22:58.800 to discriminate

00:22:59.280 in Texas

00:22:59.900 it could

00:23:02.000 well force

00:23:02.560 them to

00:23:02.880 change how

00:23:03.340 they behave

00:23:03.860 to people

00:23:04.340 all over

00:23:04.740 the country

00:23:05.220 so I

00:23:08.360 think it's

00:23:08.700 quite likely

00:23:09.200 the court

00:23:09.580 takes this

00:23:10.020 case

00:23:10.320 it's not

00:23:12.080 a certainty

00:23:13.640 but but if

00:23:14.540 I were a

00:23:14.960 betting man

00:23:15.480 and I'm a

00:23:15.840 betting man

00:23:16.340 I would

00:23:17.300 bet yes

00:23:18.000 that they

00:23:18.420 would take

00:23:18.700 the case

00:23:19.100 and I'm

00:23:20.960 you know

00:23:23.120 the court

00:23:26.160 had stepped

00:23:26.800 in before

00:23:27.500 and disagreed

00:23:29.200 with the

00:23:29.500 fifth circuit

00:23:30.100 on staying

00:23:32.100 the application

00:23:33.020 of the district

00:23:33.620 court's

00:23:34.120 injunction

00:23:34.640 that was at

00:23:36.080 a preliminary

00:23:36.620 stage and

00:23:37.880 we've talked

00:23:38.380 before about

00:23:39.260 how a

00:23:40.540 number of

00:23:40.980 the justices

00:23:41.580 in the

00:23:41.920 court are

00:23:42.420 minimalists

00:23:43.140 and incremental

00:23:43.660 lists

00:23:44.220 that prior

00:23:46.300 decision

00:23:46.940 I don't

00:23:48.020 think it

00:23:48.480 at all

00:23:48.820 foreshadows

00:23:49.580 where this

00:23:50.280 decision on

00:23:50.940 the merits

00:23:51.360 goes

00:23:51.800 this is

00:23:52.940 now a

00:23:53.600 major

00:23:54.280 serious

00:23:55.040 decision

00:23:55.580 on the

00:23:55.940 merits

00:23:56.280 of the

00:23:56.560 overbreath

00:23:56.980 challenge

00:23:57.640 I like

00:24:02.280 the chances

00:24:02.920 of five

00:24:05.300 or even

00:24:05.720 six justices

00:24:06.560 of the

00:24:06.860 court

00:24:07.200 agreeing

00:24:08.860 with the

00:24:11.340 fifth circuit

00:24:11.740 on this

00:24:12.120 case

00:24:12.420 oh

00:24:13.420 I can't

00:24:14.780 wait

00:24:14.920 I can't

00:24:15.520 wait to

00:24:15.860 see how

00:24:16.300 this unfolds

00:24:16.920 I hope

00:24:17.260 that is

00:24:17.820 correct

00:24:18.120 five or

00:24:18.600 six

00:24:18.780 justices

00:24:19.300 that's

00:24:19.640 a

00:24:19.780 pretty

00:24:20.600 hefty

00:24:21.920 majority

00:24:22.280 right there

00:24:22.780 okay

00:24:23.420 I do

00:24:23.960 want to

00:24:24.180 go over

00:24:24.460 to

00:24:24.620 mailbag

00:24:25.080 for a

00:24:25.500 second

00:24:25.700 and I

00:24:25.960 want to

00:24:26.140 ask

00:24:26.320 this is

00:24:26.740 a

00:24:27.200 very

00:24:27.540 culturally

00:24:28.140 hot

00:24:28.580 topic

00:24:29.120 Chrissy

00:24:29.900 Teigen

00:24:30.300 who is

00:24:31.080 a mega

00:24:31.860 celebrity

00:24:32.260 the wife

00:24:32.700 of John

00:24:33.080 Legend

00:24:33.380 I'm sure

00:24:33.740 you're

00:24:33.900 familiar

00:24:34.140 with her

00:24:34.540 she tragically

00:24:35.480 lost her

00:24:36.000 son

00:24:36.440 halfway

00:24:37.100 through

00:24:37.300 her

00:24:37.460 pregnancy

00:24:37.820 two

00:24:38.100 years

00:24:38.360 ago

00:24:38.540 she had

00:24:38.800 a placental

00:24:39.260 abruption

00:24:39.740 essentially

00:24:40.540 she was

00:24:41.000 bleeding

00:24:41.280 out

00:24:41.620 they had

00:24:42.040 to induce

00:24:42.720 her labor 0.88

00:24:43.200 he wasn't

00:24:44.020 yet

00:24:44.200 viable

00:24:44.660 she

00:24:45.260 miscarried

00:24:45.780 she publicly

00:24:46.280 posted the

00:24:46.780 pictures

00:24:47.080 they were

00:24:47.520 heartbreaking

00:24:48.340 pictures

00:24:48.900 fast forward

00:24:50.140 two years

00:24:50.800 to right now

00:24:51.620 Chrissy Teigen

00:24:52.620 announces

00:24:53.780 that she

00:24:54.640 recently

00:24:55.500 realized

00:24:56.380 that her

00:24:56.980 miscarriage

00:24:57.720 of two years

00:24:58.500 ago

00:24:58.760 was actually

00:24:59.920 an abortion

00:25:01.040 she said

00:25:01.560 she realized

00:25:02.120 this in the

00:25:02.680 wake of

00:25:03.340 Dobbs vs.

00:25:04.200 Jackson

00:25:04.460 Women's Health

00:25:05.120 which overturned

00:25:06.240 Roe v.

00:25:06.740 Wade

00:25:06.920 do you have

00:25:07.860 a response

00:25:08.440 to Chrissy Teigen

00:25:09.140 if there's a

00:25:11.100 medical procedure

00:25:11.940 in that context

00:25:13.020 it's not an

00:25:13.840 abortion

00:25:14.220 and it is

00:25:15.860 the law

00:25:16.360 in all 50

00:25:16.980 states

00:25:17.340 and it should

00:25:17.800 be the law

00:25:18.300 in all 50

00:25:18.860 states

00:25:19.300 that doctors

00:25:20.860 can intervene

00:25:21.740 to save

00:25:22.240 the life

00:25:22.620 of the mother

00:25:23.040 even if it

00:25:23.880 means tragically

00:25:25.140 losing the

00:25:25.900 child

00:25:26.280 that there

00:25:27.220 is nobody

00:25:28.900 even the

00:25:29.880 most robust

00:25:31.600 pro-life

00:25:32.200 advocates

00:25:32.800 nobody argues

00:25:33.880 that when

00:25:34.920 the woman's 0.98

00:25:35.580 life is in

00:25:36.200 danger

00:25:36.560 that you

00:25:37.120 can't

00:25:38.120 take

00:25:38.800 extraordinary

00:25:39.400 medical steps

00:25:40.160 to preserve

00:25:40.700 the mother's

00:25:41.480 life

00:25:41.740 and so

00:25:42.560 in those

00:25:43.340 circumstances

00:25:44.180 she may 0.94

00:25:47.980 want to

00:25:48.500 characterize

00:25:49.120 it as

00:25:50.240 abortion

00:25:51.340 in this

00:25:52.700 political

00:25:53.160 context

00:25:53.960 but she

00:25:55.920 described it

00:25:56.600 at the time

00:25:57.180 as a

00:25:57.560 miscarriage

00:25:59.140 and it

00:26:00.580 certainly sounds

00:26:01.240 like that was

00:26:01.720 an accurate

00:26:02.160 description

00:26:02.720 seems to me

00:26:04.060 she described

00:26:04.680 it in quite

00:26:05.160 some detail

00:26:05.760 very tragic

00:26:06.760 every parent's

00:26:07.560 worst nightmare

00:26:08.240 but to

00:26:10.400 now characterize

00:26:11.080 it as an

00:26:11.460 abortion for

00:26:12.060 politics

00:26:12.620 also seems

00:26:14.060 to add to

00:26:14.640 that tragedy

00:26:15.320 senator thank

00:26:16.320 you for this

00:26:16.760 legal analysis

00:26:17.600 on the

00:26:18.740 fifth circuit

00:26:19.400 court ruling

00:26:20.100 on texas's

00:26:21.180 hr or

00:26:22.680 house bill

00:26:23.180 20 this is

00:26:24.320 the kind

00:26:24.740 of legal

00:26:25.520 stuff that

00:26:26.440 i like the

00:26:27.600 best when we

00:26:28.180 do on the

00:26:28.720 cloakroom it's

00:26:29.420 what it's

00:26:30.280 diving into

00:26:30.740 these issues

00:26:31.140 not just on

00:26:31.640 a tweet

00:26:31.980 form not

00:26:32.480 just in an

00:26:32.880 op-ed but

00:26:33.340 really getting

00:26:33.920 into the

00:26:34.520 background of

00:26:35.600 what underpins

00:26:36.420 this big fight

00:26:37.620 big tech is

00:26:38.280 one of the

00:26:38.660 big fights of

00:26:39.220 our time and

00:26:39.820 it's gonna be

00:26:40.140 really fun to

00:26:40.640 see how this

00:26:40.960 plays out so

00:26:41.740 it was good

00:26:42.700 it was good

00:26:43.460 sitting here with

00:26:43.940 you tonight

00:26:44.300 i'm liz wheeler

00:26:45.260 this is the

00:26:46.020 cloakroom on

00:26:46.580 verdict plus

00:26:47.180 this is an

00:26:48.440 iheart podcast

00:26:49.380 guaranteed human

Verdict with Ted Cruz - October 03, 2022

The Cloakroom Preview： Supreme Court Showdown Over Big Tech

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript