June 28, 2022 • 26 mins
Chuck Schumer—and some Senate Republicans—deliver a major blow to law-abiding citizens in the most sweeping gun control legislation this country has seen since the 90s. Senator Ted Cruz, straight from the Senate floor and primed for a late-night Verdict, comes to the podcast studio to reveal what happened, and how the crisis was nearly averted. But all hope is not lost! In the very same week, the Supreme Court That Keeps On Giving delivers a huge win for gun rights in America. So, what kind of effects will we see across America from these two developments? Plus, wait until you hear how the attorney who advocated in front of the Supreme Court in this gun control case (and won) fared at the hands of his woke law firm.
--
Diversify your savings and get up to $1,500 of free silver today with American Hartford Gold: text CACTUS to 6-5-5-3-2.
--
Bags and puffiness under the eyes are a problem for millions of men and women. With Genucel's instant effects, you’ll see results in the first 12 hours. Use promo code CACTUS to save an extra 50% off he brand new ultra retinol serum: https://genucel.com/cactus.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Last Thursday night, in this incredible term for the Supreme Court,
we had just gotten a major ruling on the Second Amendment.
So Senator Cruz and I sat down middle of the night.
He had just come from the Senate, from the Capitol,
and we were discussing this issue from the Court, what's
going on with the legislators trying to pass gun control.
(00:21):
And the very next morning we got the ruling in Dabbs,
the most important Supreme Court decision, certainly of my lifetime,
one of the most important ever in the history of
the United States. And so we came out emergency episode,
breaking news, Verdict episode. But we still want to bring
this to you. This is still incredible news. While Dabbs
is the big headline, there are so many other great
things that have come out of this Court term. So
(00:42):
without further ado, here is our discussion of the Second Amendment.
A major loss for Second Amendment rights and a major
win for Second Amendment rights, all in the same day,
and in true Verdict style. It is the middle of
the night. Senator Cruz is coming straight off the Senate floor.
This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. This episode, a Verdict
(01:11):
with Ted Cruise is brought to you by American Hartford Gold. Now,
the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
given the way that our current administration prints money and
spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
(01:31):
going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your
hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
(01:53):
to get started. All it takes is a short phone
call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
right to your door, or if you prefer inside your
four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy.
If you call them right now, then they will give
you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three,
(02:13):
or if you prefer texting. You can text the word
cactus to six five five three two. Again. The phone
number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
eight three, or text the word cactus to six five
five three two. This episode a verdict that Ted Cruise
is brought to you by Jenna Cell. How old does
your mirror say you are? You can delay this question
by five, ten, even fifteen years with Jennie Cell's new
(02:36):
ultra retinal serum. You can see it sitting right here
on the desk. Here's a testimonial from Marina. Marina lives
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product, My skin
loves it. I have spent more money, she says, on
creams over the years, enough to pay off my house.
Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has
changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying
high with Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid.
(03:00):
This works to hydrate your skin at the cellular level.
It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects.
And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use
your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking likewise,
we know that you use our face products, our skincare products,
and it's fun. All's fair in love and war. Now,
if you go to my uurl that is genu cell
(03:21):
dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty
percent off Genia Cell's new ultra retinal serum. That is
fifty percent off if you go to genu cell dot
com slash cactus. It's spelled g n u cel dot
com slash cactus, genua cell dot com slash cactus. Welcome
back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, and
(03:41):
I am totally cheating this time because it is Thursday
evening right now when we are filming this, and it
is a lovely nine thirty pm where I am here
in California, Senator. For you, it is after midnight, you've
just come off the Senate floor and we're about to
start a show. You know, it really feels like we're
(04:01):
reliving our past, our origin story. I think all verdicts
ought to be filmed after midnight, and the show would
get much better if we did a tequila shot after
every topic. Well, I did want to take some tequila
shots after I saw the machinations, and the Senate today
and the Democrats and the squishes pushing gun control. You
(04:23):
saw it a lot closer than I did. What happened,
you know, today was a really frustrating day. Today the
United States Senate passed the most significant gun control bill
since nineteen ninety four. And it's even more frustrating. So
in the last podcast, we talked about the broader issues.
But I told you then that I would have more
(04:45):
to say in the hours and days coming forward. Well
earlier this week, in fact, right after the last podcast,
I introduced my own legislation, and my own legislation. I
teamed up with John Barrasso, who is the number three
Republican in the in the conference leadership. He is the
(05:06):
senator from Wyoming. Great guy, great friend, great conservative. Actually
we've had John Barrasso on the show, That's right, a
former guest on Verdict. Yes, So we teamed up and
introduced legislation that was called Cruz Barrasso. By any measure,
the legislation I introduced and I fought for, would do
(05:26):
much much more, would be much more effective, was much
more serious in stopping mass murders and stopping mass shootings
and keeping our kids safe, and yet every single Democrat
lined up against it, and they said, we don't want
to double the number of cops in schools, We don't
want to prosecute gun criminals. Instead, our objective is to
(05:48):
meet our political priorities of restricting the Second Amendment rights
of law abiding citizens. It's really frustrating and it's maddening.
So you come up with the legislation with John Barosso,
and you you bring it in, you introduce it into
the Senate, and then while you're waiting for Chuck Schumer
to come sign on as a co sponsor, because this
(06:11):
basic stuff. If Democrats really wanted to solve this, then
they would they would do it. Meanwhile, the Democrats are
picking off fourteen Republicans to support their legislation, which, whatever
you think about gun control, is just far less relevant
to these actual shootings than legislation like yours would be.
And then the legislation that the Democrats proposed passes the Senate.
(06:34):
So it's done, right, it's it's over. It's going to
go to Biden's desk, and then it's going to go
It has to go to the House next, but the
House is expected to take it up in the House,
I will pass it, so it will go to Biden's desk,
but the House has to pass it first, and the
Democrats there are going to support it. And look, the
Democrats understand, this is the camel's nose under the tent.
The provision in this bill that is the most problematic
(06:57):
is the red flag provision. So this this bill provides
significant federal funding for states to pass so called red
flag laws. And the problem is red flag laws really
can invite abuse because they're a mechanism to take away
the guns from law abiding citizens. And it varies state
by states, but we've seen some blue states enact red
(07:19):
flag laws where they can take away your guns with
little to no due process, with to know judicial protection. Now,
the Second Amendment is not just some sort of privilege
that various political communities have decided to pass. The Second
Amendment is a constitutional right. The right to keep in
(07:40):
bear arms. No matter what you think of it is
a basic civil right. So my question is, how can
the Democrats and these fourteen Republicans lower the threshold so
much to deprive someone of their basic civil rights? And
will this if it's challenged in court, would would this
kind of legislation be overruled. So it depends the Democrats
(08:02):
by and large don't care. And more and more Congressional
Democrats are becoming quite candid that their objective is gun confiscation,
that they want to take guns away from the American people.
They used to hide that. More and more Democrats are
being very open. Beto O'Rourke famously said, hell, yes, we're
going to take your R. Fifteen. I mean, they're yes,
embracing it. Justice John Paul Stevens, a lion of the left,
(08:26):
wrote an op ed saying we should repeal the Second Amendment.
That is more and more becoming The position of the
hard left is, screw the Second Amendment, we want your guns.
With Republicans, it's more complicated a number of Republicans. So
we had at lunch today with the Senate Republicans. We
had a hot lunch. It's it's as hot as an
(08:47):
AI can remember in years. People were angry and yelling
at each other. This this this look. It's an emotional issue.
It's a divisive issue on the question of red flag laws.
What the defenders of this bill we're saying as well, gosh,
no courts have struck down the state laws as being unconstitutional.
No courts have concluded that they don't adequately protect due process. Well, look,
(09:13):
there are lots of things that are unconstitutional that have
yet to be adjudicated. And if your standard is whatever
New York or Connecticut does is just oki doki by me,
unlessen until a court structs it strikes it down, you're
on pretty dangerous territory. So I found that argument particularly unpersuasive.
We heard, we have heard in the Judiciary Committee significant
(09:36):
testimony about how these laws have been abused. And one
of the things I said on the Senate floor is,
as a consequence of this bill tonight, we will see
people assaulted and lose their life. So we had a
big argument today at lunch over my amendment. So we
started the day with me being told by multiple senators, Oh,
(09:56):
Chuck Schumer is going to schedule a vote on your amendment.
He's agreed. We're gonna have one amendment. It's your amendment.
It's the cruise barosso amend. We're gonna vote on that
and then we'll be done. And at lunch several of
my colleagues asked, Okay, is your amendment? Is it simply
an addition to this bill adding new provisions, or is
(10:19):
it a substitute. A substitute is delete what you got
and replace it with this right, And I said, guys,
it's a substitute. I don't like what you're doing. What
you're doing is bad. It's a bad bill. It undermines
the Second Amendment. So I don't want to add my
bill to yours and undermine the Second Amendment and do
something good. I'd just like to do something good. I'd
(10:40):
like us actually to pass a straight up bill going
after criminals and keeping people safe. I will tell you
my Republican colleagues who are in support of this bill
were furious. That was the cause of much of the
fireworks at lunch, as they're like, we don't want to substitute.
We want you just to just add our bill, add
your bill ours, and we'll be fine with it. In
(11:02):
your estimation, Senator, I don't want to make you play
psychobabble or anything like that. But is your read from
your squishier colleagues who backed the DEM's gun control bill.
Is your read that they did it for political reasons
to appease their purple or blue constituencies, or did they
do it because of conviction, because they think it's actually
(11:23):
good to take away guns from more Americans. Oh look,
there were a number of them from pretty red states
that weren't from blue or purple states. I don't know.
I'm not an armchair shrink. I think it is consistently
the case that when a Republican compromises with the Democrats
and does what the Democrats want, that the press will
(11:44):
praise them. It's an easy path. If you want the
press to call you a statesman, just do what the
Democrats want, and as a Republican, it's simple. One hundred
percent of the time you give into the Democrats, the
press says, oh, you're so wise, you're so enlightened. And
it's a pattern we see over and over again. You know,
you think about this bill. This is a bill that
(12:04):
united all the Democrats. Every Democrat voter for this bill,
the most left wing Democrats happily voted for this bill,
and less than a third of the Republicans voted for
this bill. More than a few of us were asking
of our leadership, why are we teeing up a bill
that unites all the Democrats and divides the Republicans and
(12:25):
makes us fight with each other. I get by this
makes sense for Chuck Schumer, Why does this make sense
for us? But when I said my amendment is going
to be a substitute, I'm not willing to just rubber
stamp what you're doing. It made the proponents of the
bill pretty angry, and Schuber ended up saying no amendments
at all, and so he blocked amendments. Now, the way
(12:47):
you block amendments, and let's get into a little bit
of our kne Senate procedure. When you have a bill
pending on the floor, there is what's called the amendment tree,
which is there are open slots for amendments. And what
Schumer did is what's called filling the tree, which is
he brings up the bill, then he files an amendment,
he files another amend and he fills the legs on
(13:08):
the tree. And typically the blocking amendment is something really
minor and inconsequential. It's something like changing a date from
September first to September second. I mean, it doesn't matter
what it is. It's just an amendment to block that
slot so no one else can file an amendment. So
because Schumer refused to allow any amendments, what I did
(13:32):
tonight is I exercised the prerogatives of a senator to
move to table a pending amendment, and in particular, I
moved to table Schumer's amendment that was filling the tree,
that was blocking the tribe. And under Senate rules, a
motion to table an amendment is a privileged motion with
(13:54):
no debate, that forces a vote. So it was a
way for me to force a vote. And I stood
up and said, look, I moved to table this in
order to force a vote on Cruiz Barosso. And this
is a chance for everyone here to decide which one
you want. Do you want to pass a bill that
is serious about going after violent criminals, about locking up
(14:14):
gun criminals, and that provides much much more funds and
resources to make schools safe, to double the number of
cops in schools to protect our kids. Or do you
want to pass a political bill that satisfies the partisan
urges of the Democrats. That's your choice. That's what we
voted on tonight, and unfortunately that vote failed. We got
(14:36):
a total of thirty nine votes to table the amendment,
which meant all the Democrats and eight Republicans voted to
block any more amendments to prevent consideration of the serious
legislation that actually would put real resources on the table
(14:57):
to stop violent crime. So that means that six Republicans
backed the Democrats gun control bill but also didn't didn't
try to shoot down your amendment. Correct a way to
sort of split the baby there, But I guess we'll
take what we can get. Yeah, we picked off about
half the Republicans who were supporting this, and so that
was that was an incremental benefit. And by the way, look,
(15:22):
I'll also say we were working with gun rights groups
so that the NRA actively supported my amendment and publicly
urged Senators to vote for it. Why because it targets
the bad guys, it targets criminals. It actually focuses on
how you stop gun crimes rather than disarming law abiding citizens.
(15:45):
But unfortunately, a majority of the Senate wanted to go
down a political road instead. So the Democrats run the Senate,
so the Democrats get their way on their gun bill.
The Democrats do generally do not run the Supreme Court.
We have a vaguely conservative, vague majority on the Court,
(16:08):
and the Court handed down a major victory for the
Second Amendment today. That was the New York Rifle and
Pistol Association versus Bruin, And it was a case that
decided whether and how New Yorkers are allowed to keep
and bear arms. Could you describe a little bit about
(16:29):
the case. Sure, it's a big case. It is a
big victory, and it is caused for celebration. So New
York has in place a law that severely restricts the
ability of New Yorkers to carry a firearm outside the home. So,
if you want to conceal carry a handgun, New York
had a handful of very narrow circumstances in which you
were allowed to do it, but as a practical matter,
(16:51):
you couldn't. It was illegal to carry a firearm outside
your home. So if you're on the subway, if you
want to protect yourself, New York made it illegal to
do that. This was a lawsuit saying, look, making it
illegal to protect yourself, it's contrary to the Second Amendment,
which says the right to keeping bear arms shall not
be infringed. The Supreme Court agreed. The decision is six three,
(17:16):
so it was a big majority decision. Justice Clarence Thomas
wrote the majority, it's a fantastic majority opinion, and it
vigorously gave life to the Second Amendment, and it said, look,
you've got a right to protect your own life. The
Second Amendment. It's not about hunting, it's not about skeet shooting,
it's not about recreational use of firearms. The Second Amendment
(17:38):
is about the fundamental right you have, you, Michael Knowles,
to defend your life, to protect your life, and to
defend your family. And that right of life and self defense,
the ability to both keep and to bear arms, to
carry them with you to protect yourself is fundamental. And
(18:00):
the Supreme Court said restrictions that are not in the
tradition of what has been allowed with the right to
keep in bear arms are beyond what is allowed under
the Constitution. It was a big, big victory. I remember
when I was living in New York, I did a
little research to see what it would take to allow
(18:20):
me to carry a weapon. Even just to have a
weapon in my apartment. It was difficult enough, but to
carry a weapon outside of my apartment, and it was
it was virtually impossible. And in the law at issue here,
New York decided that you had to prove that you
had a cause to have to keep in bear this weapon,
(18:41):
and it would it would seem to me that the
cause would be the government's trying to take away my
Second Amendment rights. That would seem to be a sufficient
cause to exercise my Second Amendment rights. Will this have
ripple effects around the rest of the country, So it will.
I think you will see litigation against other significant constraints
the right to keep in bare arms. And I think
you will see gun grabbing restriction struck down. The left
(19:07):
wants to make it hard, if not impossible, for you
to protect yourself. And I think this decision, this decision
is the biggest Second Amendment decision since Heller versus District Columbia, which,
as you know, I led a coalition of states in
Heller defending the Second Amendment right to keep in bear arms.
That was a landmark five four decision. Antonin Scalia wrote
(19:29):
the opinion. It's probably the finest majority opinion. Justice Scalia
ever wrote. In this case, I led an amicus brief
for twenty four senators defending the Second Amendment right to
keep in bare arms. So we filed a brief of
the court, and the court agreed with us. The Court
agreed with us down the line that the right to
(19:50):
keeping bare arms is real, it's significant, it's meaningful, it
needs to be protected. And you know, the Bill of
Rights is not optional. It's not a recommendation. If you
don't agree with it, who cares? It is in the Constitution.
If you don't agree with it, try to amend the Constitution.
But you don't get to ignore it just because you'd
like to ignore it. And so I think this was
a big decision and a really important long term victory
(20:15):
for the Second Amendment. I will tell you something amazing.
So imagine for a second, Michael, that you're the lawyer
who argues the New York case wins a six three
landmark case defending a constitutional right. Imagine you are also
a partner at a law firm who's just one a
(20:36):
landmark victory at the Supreme Court. What do you think
the reward and the response from your law firm would
be and should be. I would imagine I should get
a big, fat, gigantic bonus. I think I should get
an upgrade to my office if I'm in some little
kind of I'd like that corner office now, maybe a
(20:58):
nice leather chair into coco bolo desk, that's what I
would expect. Look, all of that makes sense, and you
got it almost exactly right. What happened in this case
is the lawyer who argued the case was Paul Clement.
He was the former Solicitor General of the United States. Paul,
someone I know very well, is an incredibly talented advocate.
He won six to three. He was a partner at
(21:20):
Kirkland and Ellis, and immediately after the decision came down,
Kirkland fired he was fired. They fired him, and they
fired Aaron Murphy, who was also his partner. What the
law firm said is, we have decided we are no
longer willing to defend the Second Amendment. So you, Paul
(21:40):
and you Aaron, have a choice. Fire your client, who
is a long standing client, tell him you will no
longer represent them, or get the hell out of the firm.
And Paul and Aaron, God bless them, said nice knowing
you guys, see you later. We won't let the door
hit us on the ass on the way out. And
they left the firm today, literally within hours of winning
(22:05):
this landmark decision. Do you want to know something even
more amazing? I can't imagine what would be more amazing
than that. But sure, this is not the first time
this has happened to Paul Clement, So more than a decade,
you're going to say, this is not the first time
that this has happened in the history of the court.
This poor man, this has happened to multiple times. So
(22:26):
over a decade ago. Paul was a partner at King
and Spaulding, one of the top Supreme Court litigators on
the planet, and the US House of Representatives, controlled by
Republicans at the time, hired Paul to defend the Defensive
Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress that Barack Obama
refused to defend and so the Republican House wanted somebody
(22:49):
to defend it in the Supreme Court. They hired Paul.
King and Spalding said either refused to represent the United
States House of Representatives or leave the firm, and Paul
left the firm. He formed his own firm. That particular
case he lost five four, so he didn't he didn't
win it, but he got four votes at the court.
(23:10):
It was it was a very important case. He went
to a little litigation boutique, practiced there for years and
then twenty sixteen Kirkland and Ellis, which is a big
whiteshoe firm based in Chicago, one of the most profitable
firms in America, brought him in and brought his team in.
(23:31):
He was representing the New York State Rifle Association. He
had these clients. He was doing the Second Amendment representation
at the time, and Kirkland agreed at the time, you
can keep these clients. We know who your clients are.
You can keep your clients. It's all good with us.
And the thing to understand about this, Michael, this is
woke corporate America. Law firms are the handmaidens for the
(23:56):
giant companies, and this is woke general counsels saying our
politics matters more to us than anything else. And this
is law firms being cowards and saying, okay, then we've
decided certain parts of the Bill of Rights we don't
care about. If their clients that are unpopular, we don't
(24:18):
care about. And they literally are chasing away. They're marquee
like like Paul is their top Supreme Court litigator. So
by the way, they're also telling all the corporate clients,
if you have a Supreme Court case, oh well, we
can't do it anymore. We don't have the big dog
anymore because our politics is more important than actually representing
(24:39):
your interests. It really is shameful what's happened to law
firms and what has happened to corporate America that is,
you know, I guess it's a mark of honor for
Paul in the sense that the guy is obviously very
very effective, very very successful, and the soft power that
(25:00):
has a lot of power in this country. Corporate power
really doesn't like him and is punishing him. Good on him.
He should he should fire the pink slip that he received.
All in all, especially as as we're looking at these
big wins and big potential wins from the Supreme Court,
you're seeing that rise in the vitriol from the left
and danger as well. We will have to leave it
(25:20):
there on that sort of ominous cliffhanger with lots of
big decisions awaiting their final conclusion. But that's it for
right now. It's it's one o'clock. I know that's an
early night for you, senator, but we will let you
get the sleep. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with
Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is
(25:48):
being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack,
a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations,
and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs
Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates
running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.
Last Thursday night, in this incredible term for the Supreme Court,
we had just gotten a major ruling on the Second Amendment.
So Senator Cruz and I sat down middle of the night.
He had just come from the Senate, from the Capitol,
and we were discussing this issue from the Court, what's
going on with the legislators trying to pass gun control.
(00:21):
And the very next morning we got the ruling in Dabbs,
the most important Supreme Court decision, certainly of my lifetime,
one of the most important ever in the history of
the United States. And so we came out emergency episode,
breaking news, Verdict episode. But we still want to bring
this to you. This is still incredible news. While Dabbs
is the big headline, there are so many other great
things that have come out of this Court term. So
(00:42):
without further ado, here is our discussion of the Second Amendment.
A major loss for Second Amendment rights and a major
win for Second Amendment rights, all in the same day,
and in true Verdict style. It is the middle of
the night. Senator Cruz is coming straight off the Senate floor.
This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. This episode, a Verdict
(01:11):
with Ted Cruise is brought to you by American Hartford Gold. Now,
the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
given the way that our current administration prints money and
spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
(01:31):
going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your
hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
(01:53):
to get started. All it takes is a short phone
call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
right to your door, or if you prefer inside your
four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy.
If you call them right now, then they will give
you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three,
(02:13):
or if you prefer texting. You can text the word
cactus to six five five three two. Again. The phone
number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
eight three, or text the word cactus to six five
five three two. This episode a verdict that Ted Cruise
is brought to you by Jenna Cell. How old does
your mirror say you are? You can delay this question
by five, ten, even fifteen years with Jennie Cell's new
(02:36):
ultra retinal serum. You can see it sitting right here
on the desk. Here's a testimonial from Marina. Marina lives
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product, My skin
loves it. I have spent more money, she says, on
creams over the years, enough to pay off my house.
Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has
changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying
high with Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid.
(03:00):
This works to hydrate your skin at the cellular level.
It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects.
And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use
your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking likewise,
we know that you use our face products, our skincare products,
and it's fun. All's fair in love and war. Now,
if you go to my uurl that is genu cell
(03:21):
dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty
percent off Genia Cell's new ultra retinal serum. That is
fifty percent off if you go to genu cell dot
com slash cactus. It's spelled g n u cel dot
com slash cactus, genua cell dot com slash cactus. Welcome
back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, and
(03:41):
I am totally cheating this time because it is Thursday
evening right now when we are filming this, and it
is a lovely nine thirty pm where I am here
in California, Senator. For you, it is after midnight, you've
just come off the Senate floor and we're about to
start a show. You know, it really feels like we're
(04:01):
reliving our past, our origin story. I think all verdicts
ought to be filmed after midnight, and the show would
get much better if we did a tequila shot after
every topic. Well, I did want to take some tequila
shots after I saw the machinations, and the Senate today
and the Democrats and the squishes pushing gun control. You
(04:23):
saw it a lot closer than I did. What happened,
you know, today was a really frustrating day. Today the
United States Senate passed the most significant gun control bill
since nineteen ninety four. And it's even more frustrating. So
in the last podcast, we talked about the broader issues.
But I told you then that I would have more
(04:45):
to say in the hours and days coming forward. Well
earlier this week, in fact, right after the last podcast,
I introduced my own legislation, and my own legislation. I
teamed up with John Barrasso, who is the number three
Republican in the in the conference leadership. He is the
(05:06):
senator from Wyoming. Great guy, great friend, great conservative. Actually
we've had John Barrasso on the show, That's right, a
former guest on Verdict. Yes, So we teamed up and
introduced legislation that was called Cruz Barrasso. By any measure,
the legislation I introduced and I fought for, would do
(05:26):
much much more, would be much more effective, was much
more serious in stopping mass murders and stopping mass shootings
and keeping our kids safe, and yet every single Democrat
lined up against it, and they said, we don't want
to double the number of cops in schools, We don't
want to prosecute gun criminals. Instead, our objective is to
(05:48):
meet our political priorities of restricting the Second Amendment rights
of law abiding citizens. It's really frustrating and it's maddening.
So you come up with the legislation with John Barosso,
and you you bring it in, you introduce it into
the Senate, and then while you're waiting for Chuck Schumer
to come sign on as a co sponsor, because this
(06:11):
basic stuff. If Democrats really wanted to solve this, then
they would they would do it. Meanwhile, the Democrats are
picking off fourteen Republicans to support their legislation, which, whatever
you think about gun control, is just far less relevant
to these actual shootings than legislation like yours would be.
And then the legislation that the Democrats proposed passes the Senate.
(06:34):
So it's done, right, it's it's over. It's going to
go to Biden's desk, and then it's going to go
It has to go to the House next, but the
House is expected to take it up in the House,
I will pass it, so it will go to Biden's desk,
but the House has to pass it first, and the
Democrats there are going to support it. And look, the
Democrats understand, this is the camel's nose under the tent.
The provision in this bill that is the most problematic
(06:57):
is the red flag provision. So this this bill provides
significant federal funding for states to pass so called red
flag laws. And the problem is red flag laws really
can invite abuse because they're a mechanism to take away
the guns from law abiding citizens. And it varies state
by states, but we've seen some blue states enact red
(07:19):
flag laws where they can take away your guns with
little to no due process, with to know judicial protection. Now,
the Second Amendment is not just some sort of privilege
that various political communities have decided to pass. The Second
Amendment is a constitutional right. The right to keep in
(07:40):
bear arms. No matter what you think of it is
a basic civil right. So my question is, how can
the Democrats and these fourteen Republicans lower the threshold so
much to deprive someone of their basic civil rights? And
will this if it's challenged in court, would would this
kind of legislation be overruled. So it depends the Democrats
(08:02):
by and large don't care. And more and more Congressional
Democrats are becoming quite candid that their objective is gun confiscation,
that they want to take guns away from the American people.
They used to hide that. More and more Democrats are
being very open. Beto O'Rourke famously said, hell, yes, we're
going to take your R. Fifteen. I mean, they're yes,
embracing it. Justice John Paul Stevens, a lion of the left,
(08:26):
wrote an op ed saying we should repeal the Second Amendment.
That is more and more becoming The position of the
hard left is, screw the Second Amendment, we want your guns.
With Republicans, it's more complicated a number of Republicans. So
we had at lunch today with the Senate Republicans. We
had a hot lunch. It's it's as hot as an
(08:47):
AI can remember in years. People were angry and yelling
at each other. This this this look. It's an emotional issue.
It's a divisive issue on the question of red flag laws.
What the defenders of this bill we're saying as well, gosh,
no courts have struck down the state laws as being unconstitutional.
No courts have concluded that they don't adequately protect due process. Well, look,
(09:13):
there are lots of things that are unconstitutional that have
yet to be adjudicated. And if your standard is whatever
New York or Connecticut does is just oki doki by me,
unlessen until a court structs it strikes it down, you're
on pretty dangerous territory. So I found that argument particularly unpersuasive.
We heard, we have heard in the Judiciary Committee significant
(09:36):
testimony about how these laws have been abused. And one
of the things I said on the Senate floor is,
as a consequence of this bill tonight, we will see
people assaulted and lose their life. So we had a
big argument today at lunch over my amendment. So we
started the day with me being told by multiple senators, Oh,
(09:56):
Chuck Schumer is going to schedule a vote on your amendment.
He's agreed. We're gonna have one amendment. It's your amendment.
It's the cruise barosso amend. We're gonna vote on that
and then we'll be done. And at lunch several of
my colleagues asked, Okay, is your amendment? Is it simply
an addition to this bill adding new provisions, or is
(10:19):
it a substitute. A substitute is delete what you got
and replace it with this right, And I said, guys,
it's a substitute. I don't like what you're doing. What
you're doing is bad. It's a bad bill. It undermines
the Second Amendment. So I don't want to add my
bill to yours and undermine the Second Amendment and do
something good. I'd just like to do something good. I'd
(10:40):
like us actually to pass a straight up bill going
after criminals and keeping people safe. I will tell you
my Republican colleagues who are in support of this bill
were furious. That was the cause of much of the
fireworks at lunch, as they're like, we don't want to substitute.
We want you just to just add our bill, add
your bill ours, and we'll be fine with it. In
(11:02):
your estimation, Senator, I don't want to make you play
psychobabble or anything like that. But is your read from
your squishier colleagues who backed the DEM's gun control bill.
Is your read that they did it for political reasons
to appease their purple or blue constituencies, or did they
do it because of conviction, because they think it's actually
(11:23):
good to take away guns from more Americans. Oh look,
there were a number of them from pretty red states
that weren't from blue or purple states. I don't know.
I'm not an armchair shrink. I think it is consistently
the case that when a Republican compromises with the Democrats
and does what the Democrats want, that the press will
(11:44):
praise them. It's an easy path. If you want the
press to call you a statesman, just do what the
Democrats want, and as a Republican, it's simple. One hundred
percent of the time you give into the Democrats, the
press says, oh, you're so wise, you're so enlightened. And
it's a pattern we see over and over again. You know,
you think about this bill. This is a bill that
(12:04):
united all the Democrats. Every Democrat voter for this bill,
the most left wing Democrats happily voted for this bill,
and less than a third of the Republicans voted for
this bill. More than a few of us were asking
of our leadership, why are we teeing up a bill
that unites all the Democrats and divides the Republicans and
(12:25):
makes us fight with each other. I get by this
makes sense for Chuck Schumer, Why does this make sense
for us? But when I said my amendment is going
to be a substitute, I'm not willing to just rubber
stamp what you're doing. It made the proponents of the
bill pretty angry, and Schuber ended up saying no amendments
at all, and so he blocked amendments. Now, the way
(12:47):
you block amendments, and let's get into a little bit
of our kne Senate procedure. When you have a bill
pending on the floor, there is what's called the amendment tree,
which is there are open slots for amendments. And what
Schumer did is what's called filling the tree, which is
he brings up the bill, then he files an amendment,
he files another amend and he fills the legs on
(13:08):
the tree. And typically the blocking amendment is something really
minor and inconsequential. It's something like changing a date from
September first to September second. I mean, it doesn't matter
what it is. It's just an amendment to block that
slot so no one else can file an amendment. So
because Schumer refused to allow any amendments, what I did
(13:32):
tonight is I exercised the prerogatives of a senator to
move to table a pending amendment, and in particular, I
moved to table Schumer's amendment that was filling the tree,
that was blocking the tribe. And under Senate rules, a
motion to table an amendment is a privileged motion with
(13:54):
no debate, that forces a vote. So it was a
way for me to force a vote. And I stood
up and said, look, I moved to table this in
order to force a vote on Cruiz Barosso. And this
is a chance for everyone here to decide which one
you want. Do you want to pass a bill that
is serious about going after violent criminals, about locking up
(14:14):
gun criminals, and that provides much much more funds and
resources to make schools safe, to double the number of
cops in schools to protect our kids. Or do you
want to pass a political bill that satisfies the partisan
urges of the Democrats. That's your choice. That's what we
voted on tonight, and unfortunately that vote failed. We got
(14:36):
a total of thirty nine votes to table the amendment,
which meant all the Democrats and eight Republicans voted to
block any more amendments to prevent consideration of the serious
legislation that actually would put real resources on the table
(14:57):
to stop violent crime. So that means that six Republicans
backed the Democrats gun control bill but also didn't didn't
try to shoot down your amendment. Correct a way to
sort of split the baby there, But I guess we'll
take what we can get. Yeah, we picked off about
half the Republicans who were supporting this, and so that
was that was an incremental benefit. And by the way, look,
(15:22):
I'll also say we were working with gun rights groups
so that the NRA actively supported my amendment and publicly
urged Senators to vote for it. Why because it targets
the bad guys, it targets criminals. It actually focuses on
how you stop gun crimes rather than disarming law abiding citizens.
(15:45):
But unfortunately, a majority of the Senate wanted to go
down a political road instead. So the Democrats run the Senate,
so the Democrats get their way on their gun bill.
The Democrats do generally do not run the Supreme Court.
We have a vaguely conservative, vague majority on the Court,
(16:08):
and the Court handed down a major victory for the
Second Amendment today. That was the New York Rifle and
Pistol Association versus Bruin, And it was a case that
decided whether and how New Yorkers are allowed to keep
and bear arms. Could you describe a little bit about
(16:29):
the case. Sure, it's a big case. It is a
big victory, and it is caused for celebration. So New
York has in place a law that severely restricts the
ability of New Yorkers to carry a firearm outside the home. So,
if you want to conceal carry a handgun, New York
had a handful of very narrow circumstances in which you
were allowed to do it, but as a practical matter,
(16:51):
you couldn't. It was illegal to carry a firearm outside
your home. So if you're on the subway, if you
want to protect yourself, New York made it illegal to
do that. This was a lawsuit saying, look, making it
illegal to protect yourself, it's contrary to the Second Amendment,
which says the right to keeping bear arms shall not
be infringed. The Supreme Court agreed. The decision is six three,
(17:16):
so it was a big majority decision. Justice Clarence Thomas
wrote the majority, it's a fantastic majority opinion, and it
vigorously gave life to the Second Amendment, and it said, look,
you've got a right to protect your own life. The
Second Amendment. It's not about hunting, it's not about skeet shooting,
it's not about recreational use of firearms. The Second Amendment
(17:38):
is about the fundamental right you have, you, Michael Knowles,
to defend your life, to protect your life, and to
defend your family. And that right of life and self defense,
the ability to both keep and to bear arms, to
carry them with you to protect yourself is fundamental. And
(18:00):
the Supreme Court said restrictions that are not in the
tradition of what has been allowed with the right to
keep in bear arms are beyond what is allowed under
the Constitution. It was a big, big victory. I remember
when I was living in New York, I did a
little research to see what it would take to allow
(18:20):
me to carry a weapon. Even just to have a
weapon in my apartment. It was difficult enough, but to
carry a weapon outside of my apartment, and it was
it was virtually impossible. And in the law at issue here,
New York decided that you had to prove that you
had a cause to have to keep in bear this weapon,
(18:41):
and it would it would seem to me that the
cause would be the government's trying to take away my
Second Amendment rights. That would seem to be a sufficient
cause to exercise my Second Amendment rights. Will this have
ripple effects around the rest of the country, So it will.
I think you will see litigation against other significant constraints
the right to keep in bare arms. And I think
you will see gun grabbing restriction struck down. The left
(19:07):
wants to make it hard, if not impossible, for you
to protect yourself. And I think this decision, this decision
is the biggest Second Amendment decision since Heller versus District Columbia, which,
as you know, I led a coalition of states in
Heller defending the Second Amendment right to keep in bear arms.
That was a landmark five four decision. Antonin Scalia wrote
(19:29):
the opinion. It's probably the finest majority opinion. Justice Scalia
ever wrote. In this case, I led an amicus brief
for twenty four senators defending the Second Amendment right to
keep in bare arms. So we filed a brief of
the court, and the court agreed with us. The Court
agreed with us down the line that the right to
(19:50):
keeping bare arms is real, it's significant, it's meaningful, it
needs to be protected. And you know, the Bill of
Rights is not optional. It's not a recommendation. If you
don't agree with it, who cares? It is in the Constitution.
If you don't agree with it, try to amend the Constitution.
But you don't get to ignore it just because you'd
like to ignore it. And so I think this was
a big decision and a really important long term victory
(20:15):
for the Second Amendment. I will tell you something amazing.
So imagine for a second, Michael, that you're the lawyer
who argues the New York case wins a six three
landmark case defending a constitutional right. Imagine you are also
a partner at a law firm who's just one a
(20:36):
landmark victory at the Supreme Court. What do you think
the reward and the response from your law firm would
be and should be. I would imagine I should get
a big, fat, gigantic bonus. I think I should get
an upgrade to my office if I'm in some little
kind of I'd like that corner office now, maybe a
(20:58):
nice leather chair into coco bolo desk, that's what I
would expect. Look, all of that makes sense, and you
got it almost exactly right. What happened in this case
is the lawyer who argued the case was Paul Clement.
He was the former Solicitor General of the United States. Paul,
someone I know very well, is an incredibly talented advocate.
He won six to three. He was a partner at
(21:20):
Kirkland and Ellis, and immediately after the decision came down,
Kirkland fired he was fired. They fired him, and they
fired Aaron Murphy, who was also his partner. What the
law firm said is, we have decided we are no
longer willing to defend the Second Amendment. So you, Paul
(21:40):
and you Aaron, have a choice. Fire your client, who
is a long standing client, tell him you will no
longer represent them, or get the hell out of the firm.
And Paul and Aaron, God bless them, said nice knowing
you guys, see you later. We won't let the door
hit us on the ass on the way out. And
they left the firm today, literally within hours of winning
(22:05):
this landmark decision. Do you want to know something even
more amazing? I can't imagine what would be more amazing
than that. But sure, this is not the first time
this has happened to Paul Clement, So more than a decade,
you're going to say, this is not the first time
that this has happened in the history of the court.
This poor man, this has happened to multiple times. So
(22:26):
over a decade ago. Paul was a partner at King
and Spaulding, one of the top Supreme Court litigators on
the planet, and the US House of Representatives, controlled by
Republicans at the time, hired Paul to defend the Defensive
Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress that Barack Obama
refused to defend and so the Republican House wanted somebody
(22:49):
to defend it in the Supreme Court. They hired Paul.
King and Spalding said either refused to represent the United
States House of Representatives or leave the firm, and Paul
left the firm. He formed his own firm. That particular
case he lost five four, so he didn't he didn't
win it, but he got four votes at the court.
(23:10):
It was it was a very important case. He went
to a little litigation boutique, practiced there for years and
then twenty sixteen Kirkland and Ellis, which is a big
whiteshoe firm based in Chicago, one of the most profitable
firms in America, brought him in and brought his team in.
(23:31):
He was representing the New York State Rifle Association. He
had these clients. He was doing the Second Amendment representation
at the time, and Kirkland agreed at the time, you
can keep these clients. We know who your clients are.
You can keep your clients. It's all good with us.
And the thing to understand about this, Michael, this is
woke corporate America. Law firms are the handmaidens for the
(23:56):
giant companies, and this is woke general counsels saying our
politics matters more to us than anything else. And this
is law firms being cowards and saying, okay, then we've
decided certain parts of the Bill of Rights we don't
care about. If their clients that are unpopular, we don't
(24:18):
care about. And they literally are chasing away. They're marquee
like like Paul is their top Supreme Court litigator. So
by the way, they're also telling all the corporate clients,
if you have a Supreme Court case, oh well, we
can't do it anymore. We don't have the big dog
anymore because our politics is more important than actually representing
(24:39):
your interests. It really is shameful what's happened to law
firms and what has happened to corporate America that is,
you know, I guess it's a mark of honor for
Paul in the sense that the guy is obviously very
very effective, very very successful, and the soft power that
(25:00):
has a lot of power in this country. Corporate power
really doesn't like him and is punishing him. Good on him.
He should he should fire the pink slip that he received.
All in all, especially as as we're looking at these
big wins and big potential wins from the Supreme Court,
you're seeing that rise in the vitriol from the left
and danger as well. We will have to leave it
(25:20):
there on that sort of ominous cliffhanger with lots of
big decisions awaiting their final conclusion. But that's it for
right now. It's it's one o'clock. I know that's an
early night for you, senator, but we will let you
get the sleep. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with
Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is
(25:48):
being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack,
a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations,
and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs
Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates
running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.