Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Virginia is for Loving Liberal Policy, Tariffs on Trial at SCOTUS & Save America Act heads to the Senate Week In Review

Transcript

Virginia is for Loving Liberal Policy, Tariffs on Trial at SCOTUS & Save America Act heads to the Senate Week In Review · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: First up, Virginia Governor Abigail Spamberger ran as being a moderate. Well,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: guess what's happened. She's now putting in a radical left
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: agenda and we're going to expose it for you. Also,
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: we break down the tariffs argument that was at the
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court and what it means moving forward. This is
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: very important for the president to be able to use
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: tariffs to well get better deals for the American people.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: So how would all end. We've got that for you.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: And finally, the Save America Act. It has passed the
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: House and headed for the Senate, So do we have
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: the votes to get it to become a law. It's
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: the weekend review and it starts right now. I want
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: Tom to Virginia real quick as well. And this is
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: another big story that is happening very quickly post election day,
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: and it's an important story because I do think this
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: could be a real moment of clarity of Hey, the
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: midterms are coming out. Pay attention. Democrats are ready and inspired,
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: but they are working at light speed to enact their
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: radical agenda. You could also argue that they've earned this
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: from Donald Trump. Donald Trump came in rocking and rolling
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: day one into this second term, he learned a lot
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: from his first term. He learned about how fashion get
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: things done if you're prepared. And now Democrats seem to
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: be doing that with their radical agenda in Virginia. What
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: they're already doing there, it is a warning for the midterms.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: What can happen if Democrats get power?
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: Well, and look, understand that there is no such thing
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: as a moderate Democrat anymore. No, they're dead. Abigail Spanberger
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: like Ran, claiming to be a moderate, and only the
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: most gullible believed her. All of the Democrats, they've been radicalized.
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: This is a party that is driven by the open border,
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: abolish police, transgenders zealos. So what has she done in
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: her first few days. Well, one of the very first
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: things she did is she cut ties with ICE in
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: federal Immigration enforcement, which means if Virginia has a criminal
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: illegal alien, if Virginia has an illegal alien who's a
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: murderer or a rapist or or child molester, they will
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: let them go and even though they're illegal alien. Virginia
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: is now going to refuse to to cooperate with ICE,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: refuse to handle handle hand murderers over to ICE, and
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: instead what Abigail Spanberger is saying is the people of
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: Virginia would rather that the murderers be released into their
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: communities and prey on their children. She's also quite dramatically
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: this week signed a redistricting bill that that that is
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: nothing short of of of radical and unfortunately, So let's
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: do the math. Uh, Virginia has eleven congressional seats right now,
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: the current delegation is six Democrats, five Republicans. Virginia just
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: had a takeover of Democrats of the state legislature and
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: the governor's mansion. They re drew the map and they
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: went from six Democrats and five Republicans to a map
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: that is designed to produce ten Democrats and one Republican. Now, now,
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: what does the math mean? So Virginia is is a
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: pretty it's a blue to purple state. In twenty twenty four,
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: forty seven percent of the state voted for Donald Trump,
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: So Kamala won Virginia. But but fifty three forty seven
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: it was a very close, close tight the forty seven
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: percent of Virginians who voted for Trump, they are now
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: going to get nine percent of the congressional representation in
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: the state. Wow, how about the fifty two percent of
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: Virginia who voted for Harris. You know how much they
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: get how much? Ninety one percent? There you go, fifty
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: two percent of the state. The Democrats get ninety one
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: percent of the congressional representation. Now on Twitter, you could
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: hear the left he saying, ah ah, but Texas did it.
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: This is all about Texas. Okay, let's look at the math. Texas,
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: fifty six percent of Texans voted for Donald Trump. In
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: the new map that Texas drew, that fifty six will
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: get seventy nine percent of the seat. So look, it
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: is drawn to favor the party in power, but it
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: is not remotely as brazen by the way California, their
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: new map also is designed to give the Democrats more
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: than ninety percent of the congressional delegation. And you know what,
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: the Northeast is even worse. You look at states like Maine,
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: states like New Hampshire, states like Vermont, states like Rhode Island,
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: states like Connecticut, where states like Massachusetts, Massachusetts. Do you
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: know how many Republican members of Congress ere elected Massachusetts.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: I want to say it's one or zero zero?
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: All of New England, all of New England, they're just
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: like republicans don't exist. We will erase you. Yeah.
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: And by the way, by what happens with this, is
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: this going to be a back and forth tit for
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: tat when you see this type of egregious so then
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: other states are going to have to counter it. Is
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: that just how we're going to go?
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: So there was a left wing democrat. I responded to this,
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: and I tweeted out a brazen abuse of power and
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: an insult to democracy. And I went through the numbers
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: you just talked about. And this left winging democrat state
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: senator came back, who I'd never heard of and actually
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: didn't even know about this until someone of my staff
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: told me told me about it. But she responded by saying,
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: you all started it and we efing finished it. And
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: by the way, she did not abbreviate efing. No. So
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: she's a charming and lovely person, clearly, yes. And you
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: know that there's something richly ironic about it, because every
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: Democrat loves to preen about how much they love democracy,
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: and yet it's quite evident that they don't care at
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: all about democracy. What they care about is keeping democrats
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: in power. That's that is practically the only thing they
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: care about. I want you to listen to Abigail Spanberger
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: talking about jerry mandering, what she thinks about it.
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: Give a listen, because Republicans have to depend on redistricting
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: and stealing votes and taking seats like they did in
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: North Carolina in order to actually be able to win elections.
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: So well, we're just going to steal them right back,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: by golly right, there's your liberal logic one on one.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: But it is also the degree. It is far more brazen.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: As I mentioned Texas, fifty six percent of the state
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: voted for Donald Trump. The new map, if Republicans win
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: in the seats that were drawn, the new map will
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: produce seventy nine percent of the congressional delegation to be Republican.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: That is a difference of twenty three percent. So that's
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: an additional twenty three percent. What did Virginia do. They
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: went from fifty two percent voting for Kamala Harris to
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: getting ninety one percent. That is thirty nine points higher.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: That is a massive and it's a grotesque gary matter.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: And by the way, I'm quite confident if they could
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: have drawn at eleven zero, they would have you know,
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: that there are five districts that slice through northern Virginia
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: to get all the liberals that work in the federal government.
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: And they basically like take a slice of liberals from
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: northern Virginia and then stick it with rural Virginia's to
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: rob the votes of the rest of the state. That
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: is ritter.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. There's
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: also an added benefit that we've seen, and there was
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: a lot of people that were skeptical, that were nervous,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: and that is how much money we've collected through these tariffs.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: That has been also I think one of those like
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: X factors of this as well, because as the president
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: was playing this high stakes game of chicken in essence
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: and we keep winning, we were also electing an awful
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: lot of money. Yeah, that was one of the upsides
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: of this as well.
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: Unquestionably one hundred and thirty three billion dollars has come
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: in already. And let's do a little bit of a
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: breakdown of the oral argument. So at the oral argument,
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: John Sower, who is the US Solicitor General. He argued
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: for the United States. Neil Catchall argued for the plaintiffs,
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: the small businesses. Now I know Neil very well. Neil
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: was Solicitor General under Obama. Neil clerked at the Supreme
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: Court at the same time I did so when I
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: was clerky for Chief Justice Renquist. Neil was clerky for
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: Stephen Bryer. So we're friends. We've known each other a
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: long time. In fact, in two thousand, during the two
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: thousand election between George W. Bush and and Al Gore,
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: I was part of the litigation team representing Bush and
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: Bush versus Gore. Neil was part of the litigation team
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: representing al Gore. And we're buddies. We're friends. So we
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: would call each other late at night and we were like,
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: what kind of ridiculous argument you're making? This is stupid,
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: I can't believe you're saying this. And it's a little
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: bit just friends giving each other a hard time. And
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: we actually had a wager Neil Neil and I did
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: on the outcome. I said, look, Bush is gonna prevail.
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: We're gonna win. He said, no, Gore's gonna prevail. Well,
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: obviously I won that wager, and the wager was dinner,
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: and so Neil had to take me out to dinner.
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: But you're gonna like this, Ben, do you know what
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: Neil did to sort of exact his revenge as he
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: was paying off the wager.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: I cannot wait to hear this.
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: He took me to a vegetarian restaurant.
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, if you've ever had dinner with you, that's like
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: taking me to a vegetarian restaurant. That's like the worst
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: decision ever. So did you what did you even order?
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: I don't remember. I have vegetables because they didn't have
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: any meat. I'm a carnivore. But I kinda laughed. I
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: was like, all right, Neil well played Okay. So Neil
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: is a very experienced, very capable Supring Court lawyer. So
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: is John Sower. So you had two excellent advocates going
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: at it. Let's take Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: repeatedly tried to reframe the case away from foreign affairs
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: and towards taxation of Americans. So, for example, Chief Justice
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: Roberts asked, he said, tariffs and dealings with foreign powers. Yes,
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: but the vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: and that has always been the core power of Congress.
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: And John Sower tried to press back on behalf of
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: the Trump administration, and Roberts responded, well, who pays the tariff?
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them?
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: And the answers I said before is consumers pay some
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: of them and the foreign producer pays some of them.
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: Roberts went on and he highlighted the structural collision between
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: the executive foreign affairs power and Congress's taxing authority. Roberts said, quote,
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: I have the president's foreign affairs power Trump that basic
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: power of Congress seems to me at least to neutralize
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: And then he said, yes, of course tariffs and dealings
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: with foreign powers, but the vehicle is the imposition of
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: taxes on Americans. Justice Kagan, so, Justice Kagan is the
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: smartest of the liberal justices on the Court by far.
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: I know Justice Kagan well, she was the dean of
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: the Harvard Law School. She was the US Solicitor General also,
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: and she's a very very smart liberal lawyer and judge.
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: What Justice Kagan tried to do is frame this all
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: within the non delegation doctrine. So Justice Kagan said about
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: the taxing power, she said, quote but not with respect
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: to tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers, which
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: are given by the Constitution to Congress. And she framed
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: the case through the delegation doctrine, saying, quote in consumers'
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: research just last year, which is a case the Supreme
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: Court just decided, we had a tax before us. If
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: there's no ceiling on this tax, we sort of assumed
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: if there was no ceiling, it would raise a delegation
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: power problem. And then she applied that logic to AEPA.
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: She said, how does your argument fit with the idea
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: that a tax with no sealing, a tax that can
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: be anything the president wants, would raise a pretty deep
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: delegation problem. And she rejected the government's argument to relabel tariffs.
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: She said, no, not with respect to tariff's, not with
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: respect to quintessential taxing powers. Now understand what Justice Kagan
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: is doing. The non delegation doctrine is a very important
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: constitutional limitation on Congress giving too much power to the executive.
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: It is also something conservad what care a great deal
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: about I think Justice Kagan, Justice Kagan, the three Liberals
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: are going to vote against Trump no matter what, in
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: any circumstance. So Kagan is a no. But she's trying
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: in a very savvy way to argue it in a
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: way that will appeal to Justice Gorsich, Chief Justice Roberts,
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: or Justice Barrett. She's trying to frame it in terms
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: of Conservative principles. Now, Justice Gorsic, if you look at
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: his questions, his question showed a significant degree of skepticism
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: to the administration's position, and in particular focusing on the
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: Major Questions doctrine. Again, the Major's Questions doctrine is a
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: big conservative principle that limits the power of the executive branch.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: It's really important. So Gorsuch asked, what is the limiting
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: principle here? And he asked further, if regulate importation includes tariffs,
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: what stops the president from imposing them for any asserted
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: foreign threat? He asked some hypotheticals. He said, could the
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: president impose massive tariffs to address something like climate change
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: if that's deemed a foreign threat? It's actually a good question,
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: And he pressed further. He said, once you accept that premise,
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: it's hard to see what's left of the limitation, Justice Barrett.
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: She went on to say, Congress knows how to grant
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: tariff authority explicitly, Why isn't clearer language required if Congress
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: meant to confer that power? And she pressed the US
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: Solicitor General. She said, if regulate imports includes tariffs of
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: any size, what work is left for the rest of
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: the statute to do? Where do we find the limiting
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: principle in the statute itself? So look, in terms of
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: the questioning, Roberts appeared skeptical, Gorstch appeared skeptical, and Barrett
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: appeared skeptical. So on the conservative side, the justice that
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: seemed most receptive was Brett Kavanaugh. And Brett Kavanaugh said
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: the Court has historically been very comfortable with very broad
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: delegations in the foreign affairs context. So he framed it
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: in terms of look, the president has enormous flexibility when
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: it comes to foreign affairs. Justice Kavanaugh said in one
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: of his opinions that the non delegation concerns have less
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: force where Congress is empowering the president and foreign affairs,
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: and Justice Kavanaugh focused on the historical practice, said there's
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: a long tradition of broad delegations over foreign commerce going
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: back to the founding, and he engaged the Solicitor General seriously.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: He said, that's consistent with cases like Chicago and Southern
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: Airlines and heard us right, I think Kavanaugh is going
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: to be a likely vote to uphold the tariff authority,
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: and so that argument was significant. Now, Justice Thomas. Justice
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: Thomas historically asked very few questions that was true here,
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: but his questions were focused on history and the original
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: understanding of the Constitution. So Justice Thomas asked, historically, weren't
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: tariffs one of the primary ways Congress regulated foreign commerce?
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: And he went back to that. He said, at the
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: founding there was a sharp distinction. Was there a sharp
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: distinction between regulating imports and imposing duties on them? So
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: he was very much focused on what the practice of
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: the country has been from the founding. He also asked,
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: if tariffs were understood as tools of trade regulation, why
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: wouldn't the power to regulate foreign commerce them? Very good question,
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: And when it came to non delegate, the non delegation doctrine,
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: he said the following quote, non delegation is a modern doctrine.
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: What evidence do we have that Congress historically could not
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: confer this kind of authority in matters of foreign commerce.
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: Justice Thomas's question suggests he is very likely to vote
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: in favor of the president's tariff authority. And then let's
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: focus on Justice Alito. Justice Alito was really focused on workability, remedies,
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: and consequences, so he said he was asking about practicality.
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: He said, if we accept your position, what happens to
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: all the tariffs that have already been collected? He also highlighted,
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: and I think this is critical. This may be the
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: most important question asked. There are enormous reliance interest here,
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: both for the government and for private actors who have
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: ordered their affairs around these teriffs. And he questions the plaintiffs.
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: He said, is your position that coomass always use the
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: word tariff expressly even in statutes dealing with foreign emergencies?
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: That doesn't sound very plausible, and he pressed whether the
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: case could be resolved narrowly. He said, why isn't this
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: something that can be handled through a limiting construction rather
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: than a broad holding that calls into question a lot
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: of past practice. I actually think Justice Alitos questioning is
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: going to frame what the Court does. Now we have,
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: in a lot of big cases of six' three. Divide
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: you have the three liberals who vote Against trump on,
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: everything and you have six justices that are on the
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: conservative side of the, aisle although they. Vary i'm going
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: to predict we're going to lose. ONE i don't know,
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: which BUT i think we will lose in all likelihood
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: Either gorsic or bear, it even Though Chief Justice roberts
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: was skeptical at oral. Argument i'm going to predict The
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: Chief Justice roberts votes to uphold the, tariffs And i'm
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: going to predict that he writes the majority.
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: Opinion and, wow the reasons bold, predictions by the, Way
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: this makes it.
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: Fun and, LOOK i have no insight. INFORMATION i could
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: be totally, wrong BUT i do know the court quite.
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: WELL i did spend my entire career BEFORE i was
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: in The senate was arguing before The. Court and, Look
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: roberts in particular is an, institutionalist AND i actually think
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: this case is quite similar to The obamacare. Case The
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: obamacare case during The obama presidency was a challenge To,
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: obamacare and Ultimately Chief Justice roberts Upheld, obamacare AND i
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: think he did so because he thought to strike it
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: down would be a massive, change would wreak, chaos and
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: it would question the legitimacy of the. Court it would
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: question the authority of the. Court SO i think he
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: made an institutionalist, decision let's not disrupt the status. QUO
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: i think that same instinct here is going to lead
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: him to, say these tariffs have been, Imposed they've been
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: the heart of the president's foreign policy and economic, policy
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: and so we're not going to set them. Aside that
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: is my. Prediction and you will end up with a
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: majority that consists Of Chief Justice roberts writing the majority,
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: Opinion thomas And, alito And, cavanaugh and Either barrett or
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: gorsicch and the dissenters will be the three liberals and
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: either Bear it Or. Gorsich that's my. Prediction we'll see what.
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: Happens as.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Before if you want to hear the rest of this
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: conversation on this, topic you can go back and down
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: the podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: THING i want to get back to the big story
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: number three of the. Week you may have. Missed. Senator
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: let's talk about a big piece of legislation that a
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: lot of people are very focused on this. COUNTRY a
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: lot of voters voted on this issue, specifically and it
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: deals with The Save America. Act and what has happened this,
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: week let's give an update to.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: That, well The house Of representatives passed The Save America.
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: Act passed it with only One democrat. Vote Every democrat
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: but one voted against. It The Save America act requires
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: proof OF us citizenship to register to, vote and it
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: requires a PHOTO id to. Vote it's a very, simple,
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: straightforward common sense. Bill it's now gone over to The.
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: SENATE i am leading the, charge pressing hard to get
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: The senate to take it. Up to use every procedural
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: tool we have to force The senate to vote on
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: it and pass. It this WEEK i put out a
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: video explaining the issues, concisely and the video went. Viral
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: it has over a million. Views give a listen and
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: give a. Watch The house just passed The Save America.
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: Act The senate needs to take it up and pass.
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: It i'm an original sponsor of The Save America. Act
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: this is common sense. Legislation this is legislation that requires
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: proof that you're An american citizen in order to register to,
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: vote and it requires a PHOTO id to go in and.
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: Vote texas already requires a PHOTO. Id it's an, easy
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: common sense step to avoid voter. Fraud the vast majority
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: Of americans support PHOTO, id and Yet Senate democrats are
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: doing everything they can to block it because they want
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: more voter. Fraud how do we take it up and
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: pass it in The? Senate WHAT i am urging my
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: colleagues is that we should use every procedural tool we
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: have to defeat A democrat, filibuster and in, particular we
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: should mook what's called the zombie. Filibuster under The senate,
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: rules everyone has a right to fillibus or to talk
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: as long as they. Want we should require them to
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: talk as long as they can go back to an
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: old style talking filibuster Like Jimmy stewart, did and Mister
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: smith goes To washington LIKE i did in twenty thirteen
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: for twenty one hours on the floor of The. Senate
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: we should use the procedural rules to force The democrats
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: to do a talking filibuster and force them to keep
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: talking and talking and, talking and when they can't talk,
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: anymore then we should pass The Save America. Act that's
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: What i'm urging my colleagues to. Do it's What President
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: trump wants us to, do and it's WHAT i hope
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: and pray we.
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: Accomplish senator you said, IT i think perfectly, there and
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: explain a little bit more about what it would mean
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: to nuke the zombie filibuster so that we get more
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: context for, that so people to understand in essence what
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: they would be advocating.
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: For, well for most of the history of The, senate
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: the filibuster involved, talking involves standing up and talking and
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: talking and, talk, Talking and in recent, decades The senate
• 24:04
  Speaker 2: is allowed simply whoever is filibustering to say we're going to,
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: filibuster you cast a procedural vote and then you're done
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: and it's treated as. Blocked but we don't have to do.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: That we can force them. That there is what's called
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: a two speech rule in The senate that limits every
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: member of The senate to two speeches on any legislative.
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: Topic and What i've been, advocating And Mike lee has been,
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: advocating And Rick scott has been, advocating And Ron johnson
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: has been, advocating is that we force them to give the,
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: speeches force them to, talk and when they're done, talking
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: then you can vote on. It but the thing is
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: there's a price to that because they can fight, back
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: and in, particular they can do what's called suggest the
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: absence of a. Quorum that means we have to be
• 24:49
  Speaker 2: able to produce fifty senators on the. Floor they're fifty
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: three of. Us that means we need fifty. Bodies it
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: would entail very long. Hours it would entail all, nighters
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: it would entail fish of us being willing to stand.
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: Together it's not clear right now that we have Fifty
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: republicans willing to do. That i'm trying to make the
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: case this is a fight worth, fighting but it would
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: be a massive and Extended this could extend days or even.
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: Weeks BUT i think we should be fighting with everything we.
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: GOT i think this issue is important enough at merits,
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: fighting and So i'm trying to make that case to my.
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: Colleagues all, right let me ask you a.
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: Question if you nuke it the way that you described,
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: it is it just for this one issue and then
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: things go back to the regular order of? Business how
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: it works normal now or would that change it moving?
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: Forward explain, that.
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: So this is different from nuking the, Filibuster so nuking
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: the filibuster that phrase involves breaking The senate rules to
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: change The senate. Rules so what happens and we, saw for,
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: example The democrats nuked the filibuster for cabinet appointees and judicial.
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: Appointees and the way they did, it The senate rules
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: made it clear in the terms of The senate rules
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: that a nomination required sixty votes to go forward to
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: proceed to. It, however what happened Was Harry reid when
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: he Was majority. Leader any ruling of The chair can
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: be challenged on the floor of The, senate and fifty
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: one senators can overrule the ruling of The. Chair and
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: So Harry reid inquired of the chair what is the
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: rule and was told the rule is sixty. Senators and
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: then he, SAID i appeal the ruling of The, chair
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: and The democrats all voted party, line and when they did,
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: that that becomes a binding. Precedent so they broke the
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: rules of The senate to change the rules of The.
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: Senate it is still in The senate rules that a
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: filibuster can be used to stop. Legislation AND i will
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: say we have used. That republicans have used that to
• 26:56
  Speaker 2: stop terrible legislation from The. DEMOCRATS i think that's.
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: An important says valuable is the point that we like,
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: yes you, woman need to also understand it's very.
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: Valuable if The democrats had succeeded in nuking the filibuster
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: When Joe biden was, president when they had The house And,
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: senate they would have passed legislation number, one striking down
• 27:16
  Speaker 2: every PHOTO id law in the, country and striking down
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: every election integrity law in the. Country number, two MAKING
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: dc And Puerto rico both states and electing four New democrat.
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: Senators number three making every illegal alien In america A
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: us citizen and giving them immediate voting, rights which would,
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: have among other, things Turned texas bright blue. Instantaneously and number,
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: four they would have packed THE. U. S Supreme court
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: and added four left wing justices immediately to. IT i
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: think that would have BEEN i don't want to be,
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: hyperbolic BUT i think that would have been essentially the
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: end of the. Republic there's no way to turn that
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: around if they do.
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: That and so how do you put that back In Pandora's,
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: like once that box, opened it's came.
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: Over it's that agenda noticed The democrats top policy agenda
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: is all to rig the game and make it impossible
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: to ever Defeat. Democrats, again there's nothing they value more
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: than staying in. Power that's what they wanted to. Do
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: this is not nuking the filibuster in terms of changing
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: The senate. Rules this is using the Existing senate rules
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: and just enforcing, them making them stand up and. Speak
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: and one of the advantages of it is if they're
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: standing up and speaking for hours and hours on, end
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: trying to stop requiring proof OF us citizenship to register to,
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: vote trying to stop PHOTO. Id, look both of those
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: popular policies are incredibly. Popular seventy eighty percent Of americans
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: agree with PHOTO I d for, voting more than seventy
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: percent Of African americans agree with, it more than seventy
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: percent Of hispanics agree with, it more than seventy percent
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: Of democrat voters agree with. It and so this is
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: a fight we should be, having And i'm urging my.
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: Colleagues let's stand and fight for voter.
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: Integrity as, always thank you for listening to verdicts with
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: Centered Te, Cruise Ben ferguson with, you don't forget to
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: deal with my podcast and you can listen to my
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: podcasts every other day you're not listening To verdict or
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: each day when you listen To. Verdict, Afterwards i'd love
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: to have you as a listener to again The Ben ferguson,
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: podcasts and we will see you back here On monday.
• 29:14
  Speaker 2: Morning