0:00

Government is using big tech

0:02

to shut down dissent. They're

0:05

doing it on the biggest podcast

0:07

platform in the world. They're doing

0:10

it up in America's hat with

0:12

Canadian truckers. We are

0:14

all we are all at risk

0:16

here and what happens now will

0:19

have a lot to say about the future

0:21

of free speech in our

0:24

society. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

0:33

Today's episode of Verdict with Ted

0:35

Cruz is brought to you by ip vanish.

0:38

Did you know that browsing online using

0:40

incognito mode doesn't actually protect

0:42

your privacy? Without added security, you

0:44

might as well give all your private data way to hackers,

0:46

advertisers, your Internet service provider,

0:48

and who knows who else. Ip Vanish helps

0:50

you securely and privately browse the Internet

0:53

by encrypting one hundred percent of your data.

0:55

This means that your private messages, passwords,

0:57

emails, browsing history, and other information

0:59

will be completely protected from falling into

1:01

the wrong hands. Ip Vanish makes you virtually

1:04

invisible online. It's that simple. Just

1:06

for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering

1:08

an insane seventy percent off their annual

1:10

plan. That's like getting nine months for free.

1:12

You have to go directly to ip vanished dot

1:14

com slash cactus to get this seventy percent

1:17

off discount. Ip Vanish is super easy

1:19

to use. Just tap one button and you're instantly

1:21

protected. You won't even know it's on. You can use

1:23

ip vanish on your computers, tablets,

1:25

and phones, whether you're at home or in public.

1:27

Don't go online without using ip vanish.

1:30

Don't forget Verdict listeners get seventy

1:32

percent off the ip vanish annual plan.

1:35

Just go to ip vanished dot com slash cactus

1:37

to claim your discount and secure your online

1:40

life. That's ip va nish

1:42

dot com slash Cactus. This

1:45

episode, A Verdict with's Head Cruise is brought

1:47

to you by Thompson's Cigar. Now, I don't have

1:49

to tell you that the gentleman on this show like cigars.

1:52

So does my husband most times. Actually

1:54

that's what we do after the show. They smoke cigars

1:56

and we tell ourselves what a great show it was. But

1:58

that's why you've got to check out Thompson. Whether

2:00

you're working from home or just kicking back

2:02

after a week of being essential, there's no

2:05

better way to relax than with a premium cigar.

2:07

They've got the best prices on the biggest

2:09

brands in the business, from Macanudo to Monte

2:12

Cristo. Or maybe are you looking

2:14

to try new, rare, top rated blends

2:16

but you don't want to splurge on boxes. Well check

2:18

out Thompson's Cigar Tour, a

2:20

smattering of five different blends delivered

2:23

to your doorstep each month. Now, Michael

2:25

and my husband have been fans of Thompson even before

2:27

they became a partner. No one

2:30

has more selection than Thompson. Their

2:32

customer service is the best. So sit back and

2:34

take a break from all the craziness with a cigar from

2:36

Thompson Cigar Company. These guys rarely

2:38

do offers, but right now Thompson is offering

2:40

our listeners fifteen percent off

2:42

orders over seventy five dollars or twenty

2:44

percent off orders over ninety nine

2:47

dollars. To take advantage of these incredible savings,

2:49

simply go to Thompson Cigar dot com

2:51

and use promo code cactus when you are

2:53

ready to check out. That website is Thompson

2:55

thomps o n cigar

2:58

dot com and use promo code

3:00

cactus. This episode

3:02

of Verdict is also brought to you by stamps dot

3:05

Com. Now, I know a lot of you are small business owners,

3:07

and if you are, you know that there's nothing more valuable

3:09

than your time, so stop wasting it

3:11

on trips to the post office. Stamps dot

3:13

Com makes it easy to mail and ship right from your own

3:15

computer. You can save time and money with stamps

3:17

dot Com. You can send letters and packages for

3:20

less with discounted rates from USPS,

3:22

UPS and more. Stamps dot Com

3:24

brings the services of the post Office and

3:26

UPS shipping right to your computer. So

3:28

whether you're an office sending invoices, a side

3:31

hustle, etc. Shop or a full blown

3:33

warehouse shipping out order, stamps dot com will

3:35

make your life easier. All you need is a

3:37

computer and a standard printer, no special

3:39

supplies or equipment. Within minutes, you're

3:42

up and running printing official postage for any

3:44

letter, any package anywhere you

3:46

want to send, and you'll get exclusive discounts

3:48

on postage and shipping from USPS and UPS.

3:51

Once your mail is ready, you just schedule a

3:53

pickup or drop it off. No traffic, no lines,

3:55

there is no risk and with our promo

3:58

code Verdict, you get a special offer

4:00

that includes a four week trial plus free

4:02

postage and a digital scale. No long term

4:04

commitments or contracts. Just go to stamps

4:06

dot com, click on the microphone at the top

4:08

of the homepage and type in Verdict.

4:11

That's stamps dot Com promo

4:13

code Verdict. Never go to the post office

4:15

again. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz.

4:17

I'm Michael Knowles, Senator.

4:19

They seem like very different

4:22

issues. Canadian truckers and

4:24

the most popular podcast are on the planet except

4:26

for the week that Verdict launched, But will

4:28

digress. We leave that for a couple of

4:31

years ago. They are

4:33

deeply connected stories. And actually

4:35

you seem to have played a role in all of this. You

4:37

caused a little bit of an international incident,

4:40

Senator, when you got into a Twitter

4:42

spat with the mayor of Vancouver over

4:44

this trucker protest going

4:47

on up in Canada. Well that's

4:49

true enough. The Mayor of Vancouver said, you know,

4:51

we Canadians don't want you truckers.

4:53

You guys go home, And I had to point out, I

4:55

said, gosh, you know, the Canucks

4:58

might have a different view if the truckers actually did

5:00

go home and suddenly your shelves were empty.

5:02

I mean, it seems to me two years ago, people

5:05

were waxing eloquent about the great

5:07

heroes that truckers were, and I agree that

5:10

they make our entire

5:12

system, our economy move forward.

5:14

But now these leftist politicians

5:17

are saying, to hell with you, truckers.

5:19

We don't like what you have to say. So it's

5:22

not just the little guy. It's not just the working

5:24

class that is being put upon here. It's even

5:26

one of the most elite,

5:30

influential popular voices

5:32

in the world. That would be Joe Rogan,

5:34

this podcaster who's got a massive, massive

5:36

audience, he's politically independent,

5:39

and a big tech is shutting him down.

5:41

We touched on it a little bit. Some aging

5:43

hippies were trying to boot him off of Spotify,

5:46

but it appears to be sort

5:48

of working well. These

5:51

two stories are deeply interconnected

5:53

and they represent together the

5:55

most dire

5:57

threat to free speech. We have Joe

6:00

Rogan, you have petty

6:02

government authoritarians enlisting

6:05

their buddies in big tech to silence

6:08

the voice of descent Canadian

6:10

truckers. You have petty government authoritarians

6:13

enlisting the voice of big tech and the power

6:16

of big tech to silence the voice

6:18

of descent and both look

6:21

that this would never have happened even

6:23

a year or two or three ago. This is a new

6:25

phenomenon. Let's take Joe Rogan, so

6:29

Jen SAKEI publicly

6:31

called from the White House podium for Spotify

6:34

to take down his episodes for Spotify to

6:36

silence him. I will say,

6:38

let me start off by saying, I'm pissed off. Look our

6:40

last podcast, we talked about how this

6:43

pod was the first podcast to be mentioned

6:45

from the White House podium, and incomes

6:47

Joe Rogan and bigfoots us

6:49

M that's true, Senator, we were the first

6:52

two. We can at least hang our hat on that. But

6:54

yes, Joe Rogan has come in. He is now

6:56

the third podcast to be referenced at a White

6:58

House briefing. Will say in

7:00

between the two, Jen Saki was asked

7:03

asked about this podcast and her comment

7:06

was she said she is blissfully blissfully

7:09

not a spokesperson for Ted Cruise,

7:12

which I have to admit. Michael I retweeted

7:14

and just said the bliss is mutual, the

7:17

feeling is reciprocated, right. But I will say

7:19

what we did talk about actually setting up

7:21

Margarita's and kickboxing and see if we could

7:23

recruit her over because she thankfully,

7:27

we're not going to do that. Look stop

7:29

for a second and think about the White House, the

7:34

executive office of the leader

7:36

of the free World, the most powerful man

7:38

on planet Earth, calling

7:42

for a voice of descent to

7:44

be silenced and calling very specifically

7:47

calling out big Tech, calling

7:49

out the oligarchs and Silicon Valley.

7:53

Jensaki was very specific, Spotify

7:55

take down this post. Now. Normally,

7:58

when you have suppression of free beach is a big power

8:00

in balance, and it's powerful people trying to silence

8:03

weak people. Well, here the person

8:05

they're trying to silence is Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan

8:08

as many things, but not weak. He's

8:10

got one hundred million listeners and viewers.

8:12

That is a crap ton of

8:15

listeners and viewers. And you

8:17

know he gets more viewers.

8:19

He's for

8:22

many episodes. He's

8:25

ten x or a hundred x what CNN

8:28

is and and the

8:30

White House is terrified of him. CNN

8:33

is terrified of him, the Blue check Marks

8:35

and Twitter are terrified of him.

8:37

And it's worth worth pausing. Look, you

8:40

and I are unlikely advocates

8:43

for Joe Rogan. I don't know Joe Rogan met

8:45

the guy.

8:47

As far as I know, he's not a conservative. He

8:49

endorsed Bernie Friggin Sanders. Generally

8:52

conservatives don't endorse wild eyed socialists.

8:56

But Rogan. Look, I've really

8:58

grown to admire Rogan because

9:02

he's demonstrated backbone. He's willing

9:04

to speak out and on COVID he's called

9:07

bullshit to the

9:09

continued propaganda and

9:11

the contradictions and the lies coming

9:14

out of Fauci, coming out of the Biden

9:16

White House, coming out of the press, and

9:19

for those in power, having

9:22

someone willing to dissent with a really

9:24

big megaphone scares them

9:27

and so they want to destroy them. In the important

9:29

thing to know about Joe Rogan, this is not spontaneous,

9:32

This is not organic. This

9:34

is an organized assassination

9:37

of speech. It started off kind of

9:39

comical, but then

9:41

the White House chimed in, and then you noticed

9:44

it started off with COVID misinformation

9:46

because he brought in scientists and doctors

9:48

who had views that differed from

9:51

the enlightened view of doctor Fauci,

9:53

which changes every week. But whatever it is

9:55

that week is holy scripture and

9:58

cannot be challenged. Yea, But

10:00

then you know this kind

10:02

of hack writer Don Winslow,

10:05

but I've never heard of other than he's loud,

10:07

obnoxious. On Twitter puts

10:09

out this video, an old video of

10:12

Rogan using the N word, and

10:14

look, using the N word is wrong. Neither you

10:16

nor I support it. And

10:19

suddenly all of the blue check marks

10:21

gathered up together and Rogan

10:24

is a racist for having used it. Look, that's

10:27

not a word that should be used in polite society.

10:30

But I will tell you who else is used the N

10:32

word repeatedly. Joe Biden,

10:36

rappers like crazy Howard Stern.

10:38

They're not castling Howard Stern. Why Because Howard

10:40

Stern is serviling,

10:46

kissing the behinds of those in power.

10:48

It's truly a shame. Howard Stern started out a rebel,

10:50

and now he echoes the

10:53

words of the petty tyrants. If you shut

10:55

up and echo what they say, you're okay.

10:57

If you're Jimmy Kimmel, you can dress in black

11:00

face, you can do whatever you want because

11:02

you're a mouthpiece for the regime. This

11:05

has followed a familiar script,

11:07

and I guess this also ties it

11:09

to the Canadian trucker protest, which is the

11:11

actual substantive issue that this is about.

11:14

Is COVID, and so Joe Rogan

11:16

questioned the COVID narrative. He brought on very

11:19

respected, very well known scientists. They

11:21

question the government's COVID narrative, the

11:23

narrative dujure because as you say, it changes

11:26

all the time, and so what

11:28

happens. Then they try to attack him. It doesn't

11:30

work. Then the left calls him a racist.

11:32

That is always the next card that they play. They

11:35

pull it out of nowhere, they take clips

11:37

out of context, they do whatever they can. They apply a standard

11:39

unevenly, and they're trying to do that.

11:41

That seems to have weakened him a little

11:43

bit. He's made some concessions. We'll see where

11:45

it goes. But I guess my question on it is

11:48

what is it about this COVID issue? Because

11:50

I guess what the left would say is, Michael

11:54

Senator, this is about health. People

11:56

are going to die if this information gets out

11:58

there, and that's why we've got to suppress the truckers.

12:01

It's why why we've got to shut up Rogan. Is

12:03

this a unique issue where people

12:05

are not allowed to dissent? It

12:08

is unique in the following way. It has revealed

12:10

the authoritarianism of

12:13

these government leaders. They believe they have the

12:15

power to force you to comply, to force

12:17

you to take a vaccine. My body,

12:19

my choice doesn't matter to them anymore. Nope, not your

12:21

body, not your choice. We're going to force you

12:24

to take a vaccine, to force you to wear a mask,

12:26

to force you to obey, and if you don't,

12:29

they will use the course of force of government

12:31

to shut your business down. You know, there's a restaurant

12:34

here in DC that was shut down because they

12:36

refused to enforce the vaccine

12:39

mandate. So local restaurant said, look, I don't want

12:41

to like have my customers come in demand

12:43

their papers, you know, intrude on their

12:45

medical business. And so what did DC do. District

12:48

of Columbia came in and shut them down.

12:50

I mean, it is arbitrary power. They will shut your

12:52

business down. They will shut your restaurant

12:54

down. They'll shut your bar down, they'll shut your store down.

12:57

They will fire you if your active duty

12:59

militarius, soldier, sailor airman, marine,

13:01

a Navy seal, they will fire you.

13:04

If you're a doctor, a nurse, they will fire

13:06

you. If you're a government employee, if you're an

13:08

FBI agent, if you're a border patrol agent. They

13:10

will fire you. It is

13:13

force. And these are the same guys that during

13:16

the height of COVID, when it started, we're

13:19

shutting down playgrounds, we're shutting

13:21

down churches. We're suing

13:23

to say, if you sing amazing

13:25

grace, everyone's going to die. And what

13:29

COVID is done has revealed

13:32

the arbitrariness, the

13:34

power. And by the way, you

13:37

know, some might say, all right, you're exaggerating.

13:40

Listen, all these Democratic politicians

13:42

know it's crap. We all saw this week Stacy

13:44

Abrams sitting in a classroom full of little

13:46

kids. The kids are all masked and

13:49

she's sitting there grinning ear to ear with

13:51

no mask right in front. Why because

13:53

she's a Democratic overlord and the rules

13:55

don't apply to her. They just apply

13:58

to the little people. In this case, it really was little

14:00

people. It was children. And

14:03

it's all the Democratic politicians, every one

14:05

of them. Gavin Newsom, you

14:08

know, palling around with Magic

14:10

Johnson. It's pretty cool he gets to hang out with Magic Johnson.

14:12

I'm jealous about that, you

14:14

know. Eric Garcetti saying saying,

14:17

oh, I held my breath. I had my mask off,

14:19

but I held my breath balogony.

14:22

But it's the

14:24

lie is so absurd. The

14:26

person saying it doesn't believe it, the person hearing

14:28

it doesn't believe it. But what it's

14:30

really about. And by the way, Barack Obama

14:33

this week, he's having this massive house built

14:35

in Hawaii, never mind global warming,

14:38

never mind the environment, and he's standing

14:40

there with the workers, little

14:42

working people. The workers are all masks,

14:44

and there's Obama, no masks, supervising

14:47

the servants. That's the same as Nancy Pelosi

14:50

when she does her fundraisers where the

14:52

serving people must be masked. It's

14:55

garbage. It is contempt

14:57

of elitists. But the fact that

15:00

they take their mask of I've talked in this pot all the

15:02

time. Democratic senators remove

15:04

their masks all the

15:06

time behind closed doors when

15:08

the TV cameras aren't there, boom,

15:10

the mask comes off. But as soon as they come

15:12

out, they put the mask on. This

15:15

is about power, and

15:19

Rogan and the truckers are threats to it. And I

15:21

gotta say, look, Rogan

15:23

in the world of speech

15:26

has a damn powerful megaphone.

15:30

Spotify is paying him one hundred million

15:32

dollars. One hundred million dollars a lot of money Michael,

15:34

if Spotify offered it to you tomorrow one hundred

15:37

million dollars, shave your head and become

15:39

an m a wrestler. I gotta

15:41

say, I think we'd see Michael Knowles. Yet,

15:44

you know, dressed in a red

15:46

tights, you going to wrestle. I

15:48

don't want to undercut my negotiation. I

15:51

would do it for ninety five I would, I

15:54

believe you, and I'd buy tickets to it. Well,

15:58

I guess this is what's so scary.

16:00

Here is Joe Rogan. He's got this huge

16:02

megaphone, and yet they can, at

16:05

least to some degree, make him concede.

16:07

We were always told that, yes, the government

16:10

is bad and they do lots of bad things, but we've

16:12

got private enterprise, We've got our own private

16:14

organizations. We can do our own work

16:16

in the culture, fight back, build your own

16:18

Google, all that kind of stuff. And yet what we've

16:20

seen here in the States and with the Canadian

16:23

truckers is you're seeing the government using

16:25

these these private entities.

16:28

So you've got Spotify as being pressured by

16:30

the White House to boot Rogan or at least

16:32

to censor him. You've got go fund me. There

16:34

was a go fund me set up for these Canadian truckers.

16:36

A lot of people were donating to them, and then go

16:39

fund me under a lot of political pressure,

16:41

says, whoops, never mind, we're going to take

16:43

that money away from the truckers. Well,

16:46

so, now we don't have the government, we don't have the private

16:48

enterprise. What are we supposed to do? So

16:50

you look at Spotify. They haven't kicked Rogan

16:52

off yet, but the goal is to kick him off entirely.

16:54

That's what the White House called for. They

16:57

have taken down about one hundred episodes

16:59

of his show. So they've decided that

17:01

you and I we don't get to see what he said those episodes.

17:03

We're too dumb, we're too ignorant,

17:05

we can't listen. That speech is

17:07

dangerous, and so they're going to ban it. I

17:10

gotta say. Rogan responded by apologizing

17:13

and listen. If if there's one lesson Donald Trump

17:15

has taught us is don't apologize

17:18

to the woke left wing mob, because

17:20

they're not interested in apology. They're not interested

17:23

in truth, they're not interested in facts. Nobody

17:26

cares in the mob about

17:28

the substance of what was on those hundred episodes.

17:30

They don't care at all. They want to

17:32

destroy him. You look at the truckers. Listen

17:35

in Canada, the Canadian politicians,

17:38

you know, the mayor of Ottawa was was was

17:43

reveling in calling for go

17:47

fund me to pull down the site and

17:50

was bragging about it. And go

17:53

fund me people had given ten million

17:55

dollars to support this. I mean, it was, you know,

17:57

a spontaneous movement. And

18:01

when the government officials called on and

18:03

go fund me, just like the White House did, the government

18:05

officials in Canada call on Go fund me stop

18:07

this. You know,

18:10

go fund me didn't have one hundred billion dollars

18:12

tied up with the truckers. If they did, they might have behaved

18:14

differently. Spotify has been a little bit trying

18:16

to have their cake and eat it too. Yeah.

18:19

So go fund Me just said, nope, we're taking the

18:22

money. And first they said we're

18:24

going to give it to a bunch of left wing causes that we

18:26

support. Then there was

18:28

so much outrage they backed off and said, oh it, or

18:30

we'll just refund the money. Look. This weekend,

18:33

I sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission

18:36

asking the FTC to investigate

18:38

go fund me for deceptive trade practices

18:41

because if you take ten million dollars,

18:43

if you steal it from people

18:45

and divert it to a place that the consumers

18:48

who gave it didn't intend it to go, that

18:51

is deception, That is consumer fraud,

18:54

and it is indicative

18:57

of the arrogance of big tech and the

18:59

willingness for them to act as enforcers

19:02

for government officials. Now, there

19:04

was a second part of this go fund me story.

19:07

So I'm very glad that you

19:09

are bringing legitimate government

19:11

power against go fund me. Here. I will

19:13

never use go fund me again. Obviously,

19:16

we can't trust it if they're going to take the money away

19:18

from the causes we think we're giving to. Now, Michael,

19:21

that's not fair. If you want to support Black Lives

19:23

Matter and TIEF, if you want to support rioters

19:25

and people that are fire bombing police cars, if you want

19:27

to support people that are taking over police stations

19:30

and declaring Chad's autonomous zones, go

19:32

fund me is the site for you. So

19:34

if you want to support Marxists, that's

19:36

the place to go. And you don't even need

19:39

to donate directly to. You can donate to whoever

19:41

you want. Don't worry, go fund me will

19:43

redirect your money. You don't even need to think

19:45

about it. So I'm really glad that

19:47

you are leading on this issue and getting the government

19:49

to look into this, this obvious fraud.

19:52

But there was a second part to the story here, which

19:54

is that after gofund me took all the money,

19:57

a bunch of people then got together and

19:59

started to fund the truckers.

20:02

Not through the government obviously,

20:04

not even through some private enterprise

20:06

an organization might go fund me. They

20:09

did it through bitcoin. Bitcoin is

20:11

a powerfully revolutionary technology

20:14

cryptocurrency. I am very

20:16

bullish on bitcoin

20:18

and on crypto generally. And i gotta tell

20:21

you, the same petty authoritarians

20:24

who hate Joe Rogan, who

20:27

hate the Canadian truckers, they hate

20:29

bitcoin and they hate crypto

20:31

and their sem irony. So I've

20:33

become a very vocal defender of crypto,

20:36

probably the leading defender, certainly one of

20:38

the leading defenders in the US Senate. And

20:40

it's interesting a lot of the bitcoin

20:43

and crypto folks were Bernie bros, just like

20:45

Rogan, you know, the kind

20:47

of cool socialists that

20:50

seem hip. And yet these

20:52

authoritarians hate

20:54

bitcoin and they hate crypto, and it's for the

20:57

same reason. Why did they hate Joe

20:59

Rogan because they can't control him.

21:01

He's not subject to their

21:03

authoritarian power. Why do they

21:06

hit bitcoin because they can't control

21:08

it. It is a system of currency

21:11

outside of the monopoly control of the US

21:13

government. And I got to say, as I've addressed

21:16

you know, I spoke at a big cryptoconference

21:18

in Austin several months ago, and I said,

21:21

listen, you need to understand this

21:23

administration, I believe is going to go after

21:25

you and is going to try to destroy

21:27

you. And by the way, that's

21:30

a pattern of authoritarians.

21:33

China communist China outlawed

21:36

bitcoin for the exact

21:38

same reason. Why does Elizabeth Warren hate

21:40

bitcoin for the same reason that she

21:42

and China hates bitcoin because neither

21:44

one of them can control it. And the

21:48

theme through all of this is the

21:50

power of freedom to

21:52

be not subject to

21:55

the arbitrary whims of those

21:57

in government power. Now you have convinced

21:59

me on this. I don't know anything about

22:01

a crypto. I'm a terrible investor.

22:03

My investment strategy generally is by high

22:05

sell low, that's whenever I'm involved.

22:08

But what a lot of listeners probably don't know

22:10

is that you are much hipper

22:13

than I am, you have been on this crypto

22:15

thing for a while. It's true, and

22:17

you did make headlines because

22:19

well, while crypto was collapsing

22:21

and I was panicked and selling all my crypto,

22:24

you were apparently buying the dip that

22:27

that is true. So I bought bitcoin.

22:29

I own bitcoin. I think according to the public

22:32

reports, they're three senators

22:34

that own bitcoin, Me, Cynthia love Us,

22:36

and Pat Toomey. Um. You

22:38

know, I'll say, I don't know. Six eight months ago,

22:41

I didn't know a whole lot about bitcoin

22:43

and crypto, and I

22:45

saw that it was growing and developing, and I

22:47

said, look, I need to educate myself. And so

22:50

I started setting up dinners

22:53

with people involved in the crypto world

22:55

and just sitting down and listening to them. And I

22:57

started off with, you know, all sorts of dumb

23:00

questions, you know, what is it? How does it work? In learning?

23:02

And it's complicated stuff. And I certainly

23:04

I would not hold myself out as an expert today,

23:07

but I started learning and listening to

23:09

it and being fascinated by by the development

23:12

of it, by the ability that there's a book

23:14

actually that Cynthia Loves recommended to me called

23:17

Layered Money which I read that talks

23:19

about some of the history of the

23:21

development of money from the beginning. But but crypto

23:23

is the next evolution of it. And

23:26

I've gotten very bullish

23:28

on crypto, especially bitcoin,

23:30

and really

23:35

horrified at the efforts of

23:38

Elizabeth Warren and big government

23:40

Democrats to crush this growing

23:42

industry. You know, Texas is

23:44

becoming an oasis for bitcoin.

23:47

We're seeing more and more crypto moving

23:49

to Texas, particularly Austin. And

23:51

so I started several months ago. I actually

23:54

have a weekly by order in

23:56

for bitcoin that every week I just have an automatic

23:58

buy. You know, look, given that there's votility,

24:01

UM, I'm a fan of dollar cost averaging,

24:03

which is just having a buy that occurs

24:05

weekly automatically, so that high

24:07

or low it averages out. UH.

24:10

And then what I ended up

24:12

doing, UM,

24:14

I guess a couple of weeks ago is when

24:16

bitcoin dropped about in half, I

24:19

said, all right, I don't believe

24:21

this drop and and so I made a

24:23

bigger purchase. I bought twenty five thousand worth

24:25

of bitcoin. UM. Under

24:27

the Senate you have to file a financial disclosure

24:30

for a purchase over a thousand dollars. So I

24:32

filed that financial disclosure. And

24:34

you know, usually those financial disclosures

24:37

don't you know, maybe they get a little bip,

24:40

but they don't, they don't get a whole lot of attention. It actually

24:42

fascinating, Michael. When I filed the financial disclosure,

24:45

it generated a ton of press. And

24:48

listen, I am bullish on bitcoin. So

24:50

I'm proud to say I got skin in the game. I

24:52

believe in it, and that's that's that's why I invested

24:55

in it. But but I think we ought to be

24:57

encouraging. I want cryptocurrency.

25:00

I want America to be the hub

25:02

of cryptocurrency globally, and

25:04

frankly, I want Texas to be

25:06

the hub of cryptocurrency in America.

25:09

So I have been convinced

25:11

by you and by other I mean Ronald Reagan's

25:13

favorite economist, George Gilder was really

25:16

bullish on blockchain technology years

25:18

ago even and said this is kind of the future of

25:20

the Internet. Yeah, And so what I'm convinced

25:23

on here now is that this would be a way

25:25

to avoid government control.

25:28

This would be a way to avoid even the control of private

25:30

businesses that are often working at the behest

25:32

of the government. Anyway. But then my

25:34

final question to you is this if

25:38

the government was able to clamp

25:40

down on all these private businesses and build your

25:42

own Google and all of that, and that hasn't worked.

25:44

We saw it with the truckers, we're seeing with Rogan two.

25:47

What is to stop them from clamping

25:50

down on bitcoin. You've already heard rumblings out

25:52

of the government. What is the likelihood that Biden does

25:54

that? So look,

25:56

they may well, and I am quite concerned

25:59

about it. This ad illustration could kill crypto.

26:01

When I talked to the conference in Austin,

26:04

you know, there are a lot of folks in the crypto world. We're

26:06

a little bit utopian that they have a view

26:09

that that that that we are inevitable,

26:12

that that that bitcoin is

26:14

inherently superior to all other forms of

26:16

money. I will say one of the things I like about it

26:18

is it's a potential hedge against inflation.

26:20

And given this administration spending

26:23

trillions and driving up trillions in debt, I'm

26:25

interested in the hedge in inflation as they're devaluing

26:27

the dollar, and so I like bitcoin

26:30

as a hedge against inflation. But the point I made

26:32

at this conference is you only need to understand

26:35

government can destroy You

26:37

asked how many of you all have heard of napster

26:40

Um, you

26:42

know, and they all did, and I said, listen, it's

26:45

easy to think we're happily in

26:47

our sort of Austin, peaceful

26:49

place. And I think Bitcoin is actually where

26:53

Silicon Valley was maybe

26:55

fifteen or twenty years ago, which

26:58

is at a fork in the road where Silicon

27:01

Valley could have chosen to go towards

27:03

a libertarian utopia. Leave

27:05

us alone, let's be entrepreneurs, let's

27:07

have freedom. Or they

27:09

could have done what they did, which is to go down the

27:11

socialist woke path of we exercise

27:14

power, we are totalitarian,

27:16

and we're hard leftist woke, and unfortunately

27:19

Silicon Valley took the wrong choice. I

27:22

think Bitcoin and crypto more generally

27:24

is at that same fork in the road. I hope

27:27

that they go the libertarian way. I hope

27:29

they go the small business

27:31

leave us alone, let us be

27:33

entrepreneurs. You know, that

27:36

is really potent, So I'm trying to encourage

27:38

it. But absolutely there is

27:40

a very real and potent threat from

27:42

the Biden administration that they

27:44

will go after it, that they will try to destroy

27:47

it. And I'm going to fight against

27:49

that because I think it is a huge,

27:51

huge industry going forward,

27:54

and I don't want to see the idiot politicians in

27:56

Washington drive it out of America

27:59

and send it overseas. It won't disappear,

28:01

But Washington is perfectly capable

28:04

of sending the jobs overseas and sending

28:06

sending that business overseas. I think that would

28:08

be catastrophic, right, And it's especially

28:11

at a moment where we're dissent

28:13

against the ruling class, the liberal establishment,

28:16

the regime, whatever you want to call it, where that is so

28:18

difficult and where people are genuinely

28:20

persecuted for it. Yes, we have

28:23

to wield what political power we can. Yes, we need to wield

28:25

what market power we can. But if if there were an

28:27

instrument of technology really to

28:29

be able to exercise our rights in our way of life,

28:32

that's something very hopeful, and so I hope

28:34

that we can maintain it. We

28:37

unfortunately so far, are not accepting

28:39

bitcoin in the Verdict store, but

28:41

I think we really should. I think that would be a great

28:43

way to do it. So, Michael, I've actually introduced

28:46

legislation in Congress to

28:48

have the Congressional store accept bitcoin.

28:50

Rile. That's one of the pieces of legislation I've

28:53

introduced as a way of

28:56

spreading its acceptance.

28:58

By the way, in El Salvador, I spoke with the

29:00

President of Al Salvador last week El

29:02

Salvador. It's it's legal currency, it's legal

29:04

tender in Al Salvador, and it

29:07

is Bitcoin has all sorts of potential,

29:09

particularly in developing economy, for

29:11

people to have secure savings. You may not have

29:13

access to a bank account, but if you have a cell

29:15

phone, if you have any technology, you can have secure

29:18

savings that can't be stolen from

29:20

you. It can also is secure

29:22

instantaneous transactions. You can

29:24

transfer it, buy and sell. You

29:26

know, they're massive inefficiencies right

29:29

now, and the transfers of cash that crypto and bitcoin

29:31

go all around, and so it

29:33

is a generation skipping

29:35

technology which is potent, and

29:38

that's one of the reasons. So I've introduced

29:40

legislation to repeal what

29:42

the Democrats did putting additional burdens

29:45

on crypto. And I've also, as I said, I

29:47

think the Congressional store how to accept it

29:50

because it helps it

29:54

helps expand the ability

29:56

of this industry to grow. And I think there's enormous

29:58

benefit to Texas and the country as

30:01

this industry grows. Well,

30:03

it's great to know that bitcoin

30:06

is good for developing economies, because if

30:08

Joe Biden's policies continue to destroy

30:10

our dollar and our jobs, we

30:12

may soon be a developing economy ourselves.

30:15

Now we have more. Just

30:17

when you think it's over, there is still more. Some

30:20

of you who have gone over and gone to Verdict

30:22

with Ted Cruise dot com slash shop and headed

30:24

over and subscribe to the Verdict Plus community.

30:26

Some of you know about this, but some of you might not know

30:30

this quite yet. But our friend Liz Wheeler

30:32

is hosting a new series with Senator

30:35

Cruz, the hardest working man in show

30:37

business and in politics, and that

30:39

is called Cloak Room. Liz, what

30:41

are you talking about? Hi? Michael Hi? Senator

30:43

Yes, and Michael, you and I joke. One series

30:46

is simply not enough for Senator Cruz, so there must

30:48

be two. I'm so excited.

30:50

This will be our second, our second episode in the series.

30:53

I'm excited to introduce it. It's called the Cloak Room.

30:55

It's on Verdict Plus. It is only for

30:57

Verdict Plus subscribers. You can of course join

30:59

us ad Verdict with Ted Cruz dot com

31:02

slash Plus. It's a it's a brand new

31:04

series with Senator Ted Cruz. It's co hosted by

31:06

me Liz Wheeler. Basically, how it's going

31:08

to work is I'm going to pick his brain like I would

31:10

in a strategy session. It's a behind

31:12

the scenes peek into the details of what goes

31:14

on in DC, just like the real cloak Room

31:16

of the Senate. Today, we're going to talk about

31:18

Stacy Abrams and that infamous massless

31:21

photo of her with kids who were

31:23

wearing masks next to her. Plus the

31:25

proper role, this is the nerdy part, the proper role of

31:27

public health and the administrative state

31:29

and the separation of powers. Doctor

31:31

and now leg I said, you can join us at Verdict with Ted Cruise

31:33

dot com slash plus. I also have a promo

31:36

code Cloakroom for you. If

31:38

you use this promo code Cloakroom, you'll get one month

31:40

free a one month free trial on your annual

31:42

subscriptions. It's going to be a good time.

31:45

Then, as I have mentioned before, soon

31:47

after that, we're going to have a series where

31:50

it is just me and Liz and no

31:52

senator, then a series of Liz and the Cactus,

31:54

and we're just building out a whole universe

31:56

here because as

31:59

the Left tries to clamped down on us, it's more important

32:01

than ever to speak out and Liz in our beneficence,

32:04

in our charity, which is a theological

32:06

virtue. We are not going to

32:08

keep this episode behind the paywall. In the future

32:11

of the episodes are going to behind the paywall, but right now

32:13

we have a sneak peek. So I'm going to get out of here.

32:15

Liz. You take it away with the Cloakroom. Thank

32:17

you, Michael. I'm Liz Wheeler. This is Cloakroom

32:20

on Verdict plus. Senator. We have a

32:22

great episode plans today,

32:24

So let's start with this photograph. This is the photograph

32:27

curd round the country, if you will. It is,

32:29

of course, Stacy Abrams, gubernatorial candidate

32:31

for the state of Georgia. She is not wearing

32:33

a mask in this photograph, which is surrounded

32:35

by school children, very small children with

32:38

wearing masks on their face. And not only

32:40

is this a terrible look, she actually is defending

32:42

this in the wake of all the outrage. So my question

32:45

to you, leg I said, is purely political. Is this

32:47

photograph going to be the reason that she loses

32:49

her election? Is this going to disqualify her

32:51

in the eyes of her voters. Look, I think this photograph

32:54

has the potential to be something like Terry

32:56

mcculloff's comment at the end of the Virginia

32:58

governor's race. He said in

33:00

the debate, he said, parents have no right to

33:02

say what's taught to their kids in school. And

33:05

and I think if there was one sentence

33:07

that defeated McAuliffe and elected

33:09

Glen Yonken, it was that sentence. It was the

33:11

arrogance that was revealed. It

33:14

was you know, there's an old line that a gaff

33:16

as when a politician tells the truth, tells

33:18

you what they really think. This

33:20

picture shows you what Stacy Abrams really thinks.

33:22

And it is I

33:25

think this picture will play a central role in the election.

33:29

You know, several things are striking. Number one,

33:33

they put the picture out. They were proud of

33:35

this picture. They saw nothing wrong with it. And

33:37

then suddenly the reaction was

33:40

so intense they deleted it, and they

33:42

got the school to delete it too. They like

33:44

tried to ban it, tried to erase

33:47

it, just delete the In fact, the school person

33:49

deleted her entire account. But

33:52

but then when

33:54

everyone naturally criticized the

33:57

self evident hypocrisy. The

34:00

Abraham's campaign put out this statement,

34:03

just snarling with

34:05

attacks that of course people are attacking

34:07

me because they're racists and it's

34:10

all about, you know, undermining Black

34:12

History Month because they're all just horrible

34:15

racist who hate me, completely

34:18

ignoring the substance. Also, a campaign put

34:20

out a statement that well, Stacy requested

34:23

that everyone wear a mask and she just took

34:25

hers off briefly. Well,

34:27

okay, so that doesn't make it better.

34:30

Maybe she held her breath like Garcetti

34:32

did. Indeed, And by

34:35

the way, I think it's much better.

34:37

The world would be better if democratic politicians

34:39

held their breath, because it would mean they couldn't talk, so

34:41

that would be an improvement. Look

34:45

this picture. I was reading something today that

34:47

was comparing this, saying, this

34:49

is the most consequential image of a

34:51

politician in a room full

34:53

of kids since George W. Bush

34:56

was reading a children's story to a room

34:58

full of kids when they came in

35:00

and told him the news about nine to eleven about

35:02

the plane flying into the twin towers. And

35:05

you know, we all remember that that image

35:08

and know that image, and I think this

35:10

one likewise, people will

35:12

remember years from now this is an image that

35:14

will define the

35:17

double standards, the arrogance, the hypocrisy,

35:23

and it speaks volumes. I also

35:26

thought it is notable, like the Washington

35:28

Post wrote a story about,

35:33

you know, Republican

35:35

outrage over Abrams

35:37

in the picture, and

35:39

what's interesting is they didn't show the picture. They had

35:41

a picture of Stacy Abrams like out on the campaign

35:44

trail smiling. The Washington Post

35:46

very deliberately wouldn't show the picture because you actually

35:48

don't need any commentary. You just need to

35:50

see the image, and it

35:53

tells you everything you need to

35:55

know, including the fact that if everyone

35:57

in the picture, the person at greatest

36:00

from a serious illness of

36:02

COVID was clearly Stacey Abrams. Yeah, she's

36:04

the one not wearing a mask. The little children.

36:08

The odds are overwhelming. If one of those kids

36:10

got COVID that there

36:12

would be few, if any, symptoms, and it would

36:15

not be life threatening. But

36:19

what it reveals is that neither

36:21

she nor the other Democratic

36:24

politicians that are insisting the kids

36:26

be masks. They don't believe

36:28

in this stuff. No, they don't. It's worse

36:30

than hypocrisy, isn't it. It's it's elitism.

36:33

They actually aren't just violating rules that they

36:35

think apply to themselves. They actually don't

36:37

believe that their own rules apply to themselves. And

36:39

this has been This is the reason the Washington

36:41

Post isn't picturing or showing

36:43

this photograph is because they know it's not a Republican

36:46

or a Democrat issue anymore among voters, especially

36:48

parents, that parents across the aisle are

36:50

outraged at how the public health establishment

36:52

has treated their children and continue to treat

36:54

their children in school. And that's where I want to dive

36:57

into this a little more nerdy,

36:59

a little more phyllisical aspect of as we've

37:01

seen up close and personal

37:03

the last two years, how the public health establishment

37:07

holds so much power over

37:09

the American public, how much they influence

37:12

politicians who issue dictates

37:14

and mandates and lockdowns and masks

37:16

and vaccines and all of

37:18

these, all of these fairly invasive

37:21

measures in the name of health, in the

37:23

name of public health. And so I want to talk to you tonight.

37:25

I want to ask you, from a philosophical

37:28

perspective, what is the role

37:31

or what should be the role of the public

37:33

health establishment in our country.

37:36

Well, it depends what qualifies

37:38

for public health establishment and in many

37:40

ways that is functionally

37:42

doctor Anthony Fauci, and and he

37:44

has become the face of it so much so that

37:47

that on TV he has said, I

37:49

represent science. You

37:52

know, it reminds me of Scripture. In the beginning was

37:54

the word I mean? It is

37:56

this hubers

38:00

to embody science with which

38:02

Faucci. Look. Two years

38:04

ago, Faucci had a pretty good reputation, he

38:06

was well respected. The

38:10

arbitrariness, the error against

38:13

the attitude of infallibility,

38:15

and the obvious contradictions that

38:18

have come from Fauci. I

38:21

think you've done massive and long

38:24

term damage to the credibility

38:26

of the CDC, of the NIH,

38:28

of the public health establishment.

38:31

Listen, you want to minimize the spread of disease,

38:33

lock every person on planet Earth in a

38:36

dungeon and never let them out. You will

38:38

reduce the spread of disease. They're just or other

38:40

negative consequences,

38:43

right. Well, that kind of get that kind of gets

38:45

to my questions. That's why I think that

38:47

we as a nation, especially the Republican Party and the

38:49

Conservative movement, need to analyze,

38:52

We need to be thoughtful about what the proper

38:54

role of public health is. When public health is defined

38:57

as you I mean as the promise that you laid

38:59

out, as as Fauci, as these

39:02

government bureaucrats who weren't elected,

39:04

they were appointed, who have the highest salary of

39:06

all federal employees, including the President of

39:08

the United States, And to me, it

39:10

speaks to the administrative state because

39:12

we could, we could get rid of Fauci, meaning President

39:14

Biden could fire him, he could resign. I mean, he's

39:17

old, He's not going to be in this position forever. You can

39:19

replace one bureaucrat with another bureaucrat.

39:21

But as long as you have this system, as we do

39:24

of these executive agencies

39:26

that Congress defers rulemaking

39:28

too, I don't see this problem,

39:30

particularly now that they have cemented

39:32

how they want to handle pandemics or public health.

39:34

They know that they can wage this power the

39:36

way that they have. I don't see this going away unless

39:39

we address the administrative state specifically.

39:42

Yeah, look, I think it's a very good point. I

39:44

think the Trump administration made serious

39:46

mistakes as COVID broke out, and one

39:49

of the mistakes was elevating

39:51

Fauci and deferring to him for far

39:53

too long. The Trump administration

39:55

should have fired Fauci the way Fauci

39:58

and the declared lord's

40:00

a public health treated is

40:02

is that they were infallible. Yeah,

40:05

and they did it while being cynically

40:07

political at the same time. That

40:10

combination is a really toxic

40:13

brew. It is, and especially because if there's

40:15

a doctor in the private sector who has a

40:17

terrible opinion or gives you terrible medical advice,

40:20

you just you go somewhere else, you go to a different

40:22

practice, you go to a different provider, and that

40:24

doctor. I mean, it's a meritocracy, or it's supposed to

40:26

be, and that's not the case when it's a government

40:28

bureaucrat. Again, That's why, that's why I

40:30

think that when we're looking

40:33

at the power of these bureaucrats and federal

40:35

agencies, we have to understand the history a little

40:37

bit. That this idea of the administrative

40:39

state was introduced, you know, at least

40:41

theoretically by Woodrow Wilson. He

40:44

thought that there should be this this class of

40:46

neutral bureaucrats that ran our federal government.

40:48

I personally don't believe that there can be someone who

40:50

is politically neutral. I think everyone has an opinion.

40:52

Then LBJ and FDR expanded

40:55

this administrative state. So now we have this bloated,

40:57

this bloated apparatus, which a

40:59

lot of people called the deep state because

41:01

of all these politicos that work there

41:04

that aren't accountable to the voter. In my

41:06

opinion, and I want your take as a constitutional

41:08

lawyer on this. In my opinion, the

41:11

advent of this, or what really

41:13

caused this to grow out of control, was

41:15

when the Supreme Court stopped applying the separation

41:17

of powers doctrine. That, of course,

41:20

was when Congress would delegate their

41:23

legislative authority to the

41:26

executive agency. The judicial

41:28

brands used to not allow that, but then they

41:30

stopped and they did allow Congress, and now look

41:32

what we have. So i'd love to hear your

41:34

take on that and how we reverse that. So

41:37

you're exactly right. It got exacerbated

41:39

by a decision from the Supreme Court that was called

41:41

the Chevron decision, where they created something that's

41:44

called Chevron deference, which the

41:46

courts now will defer

41:49

to the judgment of an agency even

41:52

if the statute, even if the law doesn't

41:54

require that outcome. If the expert agency

41:57

has an outcome, they will defer to it. If there's

41:59

any ambiguity in the statue. I

42:01

think there are a lot of folks and I would count myself

42:03

among them who think Chevron was a mistake, that

42:05

it contributed to the growth of the regulatory

42:08

state. And you've got a couple of things at play

42:10

here. Number One, elected

42:13

politicians like

42:15

to shift power to the executive branch

42:18

because they can avoid responsibility. They can

42:20

pass a vague in general law, and

42:22

then when the agency does something bad, they can say

42:24

to their voters, Hey, it's not me that did it. It's it's

42:27

it's it's the EPA that did it. It's it's

42:29

it's the agency. It's OSHA that did it. But

42:32

secondly, there's a problem that we've

42:34

seen that's called regulatory capture.

42:36

And this is a notion from economics, where

42:38

you have regulators that are regulating

42:41

in particular industry who become captured

42:43

by it. They have a revolving door

42:45

where people come from the agency to

42:47

the to the private sector that they're regulating,

42:50

and back again, and they end up

42:52

following the interests

42:54

of the giant companies in

42:56

that industry. So you see it in

42:59

the aviation world with the FAA

43:01

and a company like Boeing, and you look at the seven

43:03

thirty seven macs where there was an instance the

43:05

FAA was not remotely

43:08

effective enough and ensuring the safety of the seven

43:10

thirty seven macs. With respect

43:12

to COVID. You look at the FDA

43:15

and just how in bad the FDA is

43:17

With Big Pharma. I've seen some

43:19

data with ivermectin and hydroxy chloroquine

43:22

that have suggested good results, particularly in

43:24

the developing world. But both

43:27

of those drugs are incredibly cheap. Both of

43:29

those drugs are you can get

43:31

for pennies, whereas Big

43:33

Pharma if you look at the

43:35

treatments they're pushing their thousands

43:37

of dollars. And I do think there

43:40

is a real question of agency capture.

43:42

Why is it that

43:44

the agency favors treatments that cost

43:46

thousands of dollars versus treatments that cost

43:49

pennies, And

43:51

particularly in the weird

43:54

politicized world where

43:56

the fact that Trump said hydroxychloric

44:00

and good caused half the country

44:02

to say it must be bad if Trump likes

44:04

it, which is a really weird way to make

44:06

medical or scientific decisions. Yeah,

44:08

so that's well, that's science if you're defining

44:10

science as doctor fauci here, So get

44:13

a little bit, get a little bit nerdier if you can

44:15

on the Chevron deference

44:18

here, I don't understand, Senator,

44:21

why so many in the judiciary, and this

44:23

is not just the Supreme Court, this is this is all levels.

44:25

Why there's such deference to precedent

44:28

for the sake of precedent when precedent is

44:30

so clearly unconstitutional. Now,

44:32

you know, you and I have talked about Dobbs versus Jackson

44:35

Women's Health, we talked about Roe v. Wade,

44:37

We've talked about decisions that are obviously unconstitutional

44:39

that the left, there are judicial activists

44:41

who actually don't want to overturn a

44:44

demonstrably wrong and unconstitutional

44:46

decision just because it's been quote unquote

44:48

settled for decades. So I

44:51

don't understand that jurisprudence,

44:53

if you want to call it a jurisprudence. But how

44:55

do we undo the Chevron deference

44:58

because it is incorrect and right

45:00

Congress is never gonna do anything

45:02

about it because it makes their jobs easier, not to

45:04

be responsible for what they legislate.

45:07

So there's a doctrine courts follow that's called

45:09

starry decisis that is respect

45:12

for precedent. It's following precedent and

45:14

look stary decisis makes sense and that you

45:17

want predictability

45:19

in a legal system. You

45:21

know, if you look at how laws are structured,

45:24

there's a tension between rules and

45:26

standards. Rules

45:29

are clear bright lines where you know

45:31

which side you fall on them. Now, they have the advantage

45:34

of predictability. They have the advantage that

45:36

xante beforehand, you can know

45:39

where you will be afterwards.

45:43

The downside of clear bright line rules

45:45

is sometimes that are unfair. Sometimes a line

45:47

where result in a particular case where you say,

45:49

well, gosh, that rule resulted

45:51

in an unfairness for this particular person because

45:53

of some weird circumstances. On the other

45:56

hand, standards where things are flexible. They

45:59

can spawn to, oh, if it's unfair

46:01

to do this here, let's not do it here. If it's fair to do

46:03

it there, let's do it there, so you can respond

46:05

to the exigencies of the circumstance.

46:09

But the problem with standards is they're unpredictable.

46:11

It's hard to predict on the front end what

46:14

the answer will be stared

46:16

is scisis is a structural

46:19

rule that you want players

46:21

in our society, whether individuals,

46:23

whether people looking at the civil law, where

46:25

the people looking at the criminal law where their companies

46:28

to be able to predict the outcome. And

46:30

so if you know, all right, there is this precedent,

46:33

so the courts will follow this precedent, then

46:35

you could order your behavior accordingly and say,

46:37

okay, here's what the law is. You can

46:39

go to your lawyers ask what the law is, and you can

46:42

know what it is that that has an advantage.

46:44

You want stability. You don't want the law

46:47

changing willy nilly. But

46:52

the scisis is not absolute. There

46:54

are times when precedents are wrong and precedents

46:57

are overturned, and the

46:59

courts have laid out rules for

47:01

when precedents sho should be

47:04

overturned, and the rules look to things

47:06

like have there

47:08

been has

47:10

the law been settled, have people had reliance

47:13

interest on it? Has

47:15

the law proven administrable?

47:17

As it proven Sometimes there's a bad decision

47:19

that just produces chaos and the courts

47:21

say, okay, this didn't work. The

47:23

courts also are

47:26

more willing to follow starry descisis

47:29

for a statutory question than

47:32

they are for a constitutional question. Now why

47:34

is that? Because a statutory question, which

47:36

is the interpretation of a federal law passed

47:38

by Congress, sign a law by the president. If

47:41

the courts get it wrong, Congress

47:43

can change the statute, and it does that sometimes.

47:45

So if there's a statutory question, the courts get

47:47

it wrong, Congress

47:49

has the ability to fix it. So there's a higher

47:52

protection for starry descisis in that instance

47:55

because you want the predictability even

47:57

if the court got it wrong. With respect

47:59

to the Constitution, there's

48:03

more of a view that a constitutional

48:06

decision, if it is wrong, can

48:09

be revisited. So, for example, the most

48:11

famous overturning

48:14

of a precedent was Plessy versus

48:16

Ferguson, which upheld separate

48:19

but equal and upheld the discrimination

48:21

in schools, and Brown versus

48:23

Board of Education overturned Plessy. That

48:26

was the right thing to do. That

48:30

Brown was the right decision. Plessy was wrong.

48:33

During the argument in Dobbs, you had the Supreme

48:36

Court justices asking the Council,

48:38

well, okay, look here are all the decisions we've overruled,

48:41

and they listed some big ones. Why

48:44

doesn't Row meet that standard? But how

48:48

willing a justice is to overrule precedent?

48:50

That varies justice by justice? I will say,

48:52

By the way, as a final point on this, the

48:55

liberals it's not that they're

48:57

devoted to start descisists. They don't believe in started

48:59

to at all. They're

49:01

devoted to left wing outcomes yep. So

49:04

they want star decisis to be followed for left

49:06

wing decisions. So Row versus

49:08

Way for them, star decisis is critically

49:10

important because they support Row. They

49:13

don't want star decisis. When it comes to Heller,

49:15

which is the court's decision upholding

49:17

the Second Amendment right to keep in bear arms, the Liberals

49:19

would immediately over rule Heller. They

49:21

don't want stary decisis. When it comes

49:24

to Citizens United, which protects our political

49:26

speech and the right to engage and and and

49:29

criticize politicians. They disagree with Citizens

49:31

United, they would overturn it. So, particularly

49:35

for the left, when it comes

49:37

to stary decisis, that is

49:40

usually an excuse for

49:42

whatever policy outcome they want, because

49:45

the left views the courts as really

49:47

very little different from a super legislature

49:51

enacting the policy they agree with. Right

49:54

and so we have to get to it. We don't

49:56

have to. We want to get to a really funny question

49:59

from the verdict usum subscribe

50:01

or pool here in just a second. But let me ask you a very

50:03

quick yes or no question. Is there a possibility

50:06

that Chevron deference, that Chevron could be overturned

50:09

at the Supreme Court level? So yes,

50:11

I think there's a good possibility, especially

50:13

deal Gorse, which has been quite critical of chevron

50:15

a deference, and it's it's a doctrine that has come

50:17

under more and more criticism. I think I think there's

50:19

a real possibility Chevron's overturn because

50:22

the Left, as they have the past decade,

50:24

has overshots. They've overshot on their

50:27

abuse, and the American people want to reject it. Okay,

50:29

this is a really funny question. I saw this one.

50:31

It's not a it's not a policy question at all. This

50:33

is from Paul on the Verdict plus

50:36

Community. Paul says, is Ted short

50:38

for Theodore, is Liz short for Elizabeth?

50:40

And is Michael short from Michael Angelo. Ooh,

50:44

I like that, So

50:46

I'll address my piece of it at least. So Ted

50:49

is actually not short for theater Theodore.

50:52

My full name is Raphael Edward

50:54

Cruz. Raphael is after my father, RAPHAELBM

50:56

and Evil Cruz, who's Cuban. My

50:59

mental name Edward. It is after my grandfather,

51:01

my mother's father, who was Edward Dara. So

51:05

sometimes people refer to me as Eduardo.

51:07

No, he was Irish and Italian. He was

51:09

not. Actually he was Irish.

51:11

My grandmother's Irish and Italian. Um it

51:14

was Edward and Ted is a nickname for Edward,

51:16

and so that's that's where Ted comes from. And Liz

51:18

is short for Elizabeth. I will answer on behalf

51:20

of Michael and say that it's not short for my clangel. It's

51:22

short for Saint Michael. Kidding,

51:25

obviously kidding. This actually will

51:27

be a test to see if Michael does watch this series,

51:29

because if he does, you know whole comment on it. If

51:32

you are not already a subscriber over on Verdict

51:34

Plus, please join us at Verdict with Ted

51:36

Cruise dot com Slash Plus. I have a promo code

51:38

for you. The promo code is, of course, Cloakroom.

51:41

If you use this promo code, you will get one month free

51:43

on your annual subscription. So go to Verdict with Ted

51:46

Cruise dot com Slash Plus

51:48

and use promo code Cloakroom.

51:50

I'm Liz Wheeler. This is the Cloakroom

51:53

on Verdict Plus. This

52:02

episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is

52:04

being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security

52:07

Pack, a political action committee

52:09

dedicated to supporting conservative causes,

52:11

organizations, and candidates across

52:13

the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs,

52:16

Freedom, and Security Pack plans to donate

52:18

to conservative candidates running for Congress

52:21

and help the Republican Party across

52:23

the nation.