This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. First up, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger ran as being a moderate. Well, guess what's happened? She's now putting in a radical left agenda, and we're going to expose it for you. Also, we break down the tariffs argument that was at the Supreme Court and what it means moving forward. This is very important for the president to be able to use tariffs to, well, get better deals for the American people. So how will it all end? We've got that for you. And finally, the Save America Act. It has passed the House and headed for the Senate. So do we have the votes to get it to become law? It's the Weekend Review and it starts right now. I want to move to Virginia real quick as well. And this is another big story that is happening very quickly post-election day. And it's an important story because I do think this could be a real moment of clarity of, hey, the midterms are coming up. Pay attention. Democrats are ready and inspired. But they are working at light speed to enact their radical agenda. You could also argue that they learned this from Donald Trump. Donald Trump came in rocking and rolling day one into this second term. He learned a lot from his first term. He learned about how fast you can get things done if you're prepared. and now Democrats seem to be doing that with their radical agenda. And Virginia, what they're already doing there, it is a warning for the midterms. What can happen if Democrats get power? Well, and look, understand that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat anymore. No, they're dead. Abigail Spanberger ran claiming to be a moderate and only the most gullible believed her. All of the Democrats, they've been radicalized. This is a party that is driven by the open border, abolish police, transgender zealots. So what has she done in her first few days? Well, one of the very first things she did is she cut ties with ICE in federal immigration enforcement, which means if Virginia has a criminal illegal alien, if Virginia has an illegal alien who's a murderer. Or a rapist. Or a child molester. Or a child molester. They will let them go, and even though they're an illegal alien, Virginia is now going to refuse to cooperate with ICE, refuse to hand murderers over to ICE, and instead, what Abigail Spanberger is saying is the people of Virginia would rather that the murderers be released into their communities and prey on their children. She's also, quite dramatically, this week signed a redistricting bill that is nothing short of radical. And unfortunately, so let's do the math. Virginia has 11 congressional seats. Right now, the current delegation is six Democrats, five Republicans. Virginia just had a takeover of Democrats of the state legislature in the governor's mansion. They redrew the map, and they went from six Democrats and five Republicans to a map that is designed to produce 10 Democrats and one Republican. Now, what does the math mean? So Virginia is a pretty, it's a blue to purple state. In 2024, 47% of the state voted for Donald Trump. So Kamala won Virginia, but 53-47. It was a very close race. Very tight. The 47% of Virginians who voted for Trump, they are now going to get nine percent of the congressional representation in the state. Wow. How about the 52 percent of Virginia who voted for Harris? You know how much they get? How much? Ninety one percent. There you go. Fifty two percent of the state, the Democrats get 91 percent of the congressional representation. Now. On Twitter, you could hear the lefties saying, ah, but Texas did it. This is all about Texas. Okay, let's look at the math. Texas, 56% of Texans voted for Donald Trump. In the new map that Texas drew, that 56% will get 79% of the seats. So look, it is drawn to favor the party in power, but it is not remotely as brazen. By the way, California, their new map also is designed to give the Democrats more than 90 percent of the congressional delegation. And you know what? The Northeast is even worse. You look at states like Maine, states like New Hampshire, states like Vermont, states like Rhode Island, states like Connecticut, states like Massachusetts. Massachusetts. Do you know how many Republican members of Congress are elected in Massachusetts? I want to say it's one or zero. Zero. All of New England. All of New England. They're just like Republicans don't exist. We will erase you. Yeah. And... By the way, what happens with this? Is this going to be a back and forth tit for tat when you see this type of egregious? So then other states are going to have to counter it. Is that just how we're going to go? So there was a left wing Democrat. I responded to this and I tweeted out a brazen abuse of power and an insult to democracy. And I went through the numbers you just talked about. And this this left wing Democrat state senator came back who I'd never heard of and actually didn't even know about this until someone on my staff told me told me about it. but she responded by saying, you all started it and we effing finished it. And by the way, she did not abbreviate effing. So she's a charming and lovely person, clearly. Yes. And, you know, there's something richly ironic about it because every Democrat loves to preen about how much they love democracy. And yet it's quite evident that they don't care at all about democracy. What they care about is keeping Democrats in power. That is practically the only thing they care about. I want you to listen to Abigail Spanberger talking about gerrymandering what she thinks about it. Give a listen. Because Republicans have to depend on redistricting and stealing votes and taking seats like they did in North Carolina in order to actually be able to win elections. So we're just going to steal them right back, by golly, right? There's your liberal logic 101. But it is also the degree it is far more brazen. As I mentioned, Texas, 56 percent of the state voted for Donald Trump. The new map, if Republicans win in the seats that were drawn, the new map will produce 79 percent of the congressional delegation to be Republican. That is a difference of 23 percent. So that's an additional 23 percent. What did Virginia do? They went from 52% voting for Kamala Harris to getting 91%. That is 39 points higher. That is a massive, and it's a grotesque gerrymander. And by the way, I'm quite confident if they could have drawn it 11 they would have You know there are five districts that slice through Northern Virginia to get all the liberals that work in the federal government And they basically like take a slice of liberals from Northern Virginia and then stick it with rural Virginias to rob the votes of the rest of the state that is redder Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week. Now on to story number two. There's also an added benefit that we've seen, and there was a lot of people that were skeptical, that were nervous, and that is how much money we've collected through these tariffs. That has been also, I think, one of those X factors of this as well, because as the president was playing this high-stakes game of chicken, in essence, and we keep winning, we were also collecting an awful lot of money. That was one of the upsides of this as well. Unquestionably, $133 billion has come in already. And let's do a little bit of a breakdown of the oral argument. So at the oral argument, John Sauer, who is the U.S. Solicitor General, he argued for the United States. Neil Kachal argued for the plaintiffs, the small businesses. Now, I know Neil very well. Neil was Solicitor General under Obama. Neil clerked at the Supreme Court at the same time I did. So when I was clerking for Chief Justice Rehnquist, Neil was clerking for Stephen Breyer. So we're friends. We've known each other a long time. In fact, in 2000, during the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, I was part of the litigation team representing Bush and Bush versus Gore. Neil was part of the litigation team representing Al Gore. And we're buddies, we're friends, so we would call each other late at night and be like, what kind of ridiculous argument are you making? This is stupid. I can't believe you're saying this. And it's a little bit just friends giving each other a hard time. I mean, we actually had a wager, Neil and I did, on the outcome. I said, look, Bush is going to prevail. We're going to win. He said, no, Gore is going to prevail. Well, obviously, I won that wager. And the wager was dinner. And so Neil had to take me out to dinner. But you're going to like this, Ben. Do you know what Neil did to sort of exact his revenge as he was paying off the wager? I cannot wait to hear this. He took me to a vegetarian restaurant. yeah if you've ever had dinner with you that's like taking me to a vegetarian restaurant that's like the worst decision ever so did you what did you even order i don't remember i have my vegetables because they didn't have any meat and i i'm a carnivore but i kind of laughed i was like all right neil well played okay so neil is a very experienced very capable spring court lawyer so is john sower so you had two excellent advocates going at it let's take chief justice roberts Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly tried to reframe the case away from foreign affairs and towards taxation of Americans. So for example, Chief Justice Roberts asked, he said, tariffs and dealings with foreign powers, yes, but the vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress. And John Sauer tried to press back on behalf of the Trump administration. And Roberts responded, well, who pays the tariff? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them? And the answer, as I said before, is consumers pay some of them and the foreign producer pays some of them. Roberts went on and he highlighted the structural collision between the executive foreign affairs power and Congress's taxing authority. Roberts said, quote, To have the president's foreign affairs power, Trump, that basic power of Congress, seems to me at least to neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power. And then he said, yes, of course, tariffs and dealings with foreign powers. But the vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans. Justice Kagan. So Justice Kagan is the smartest of the liberal justices on the court by far. I know Justice Kagan well. She was the dean of the Harvard Law School. She was the U.S. Solicitor General also. And she's a very, very smart liberal lawyer and judge. What Justice Kagan tried to do is frame this all within the non-delegation doctrine. So Justice Kagan said about the taxing power, she said, quote, but not with respect to tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers, which are given by the Constitution to Congress. And she framed the case through the delegation doctrine, saying, quote, in consumers research just last year, which is a case the Supreme Court just decided, we had a tax before us. If there's no ceiling on this tax, we sort of assumed if there was no ceiling, it would raise a delegation power problem. And then she applied that logic to AIPA. She said, how does your argument fit with the idea that a tax with no ceiling, a tax that can be anything the president wants, would raise a pretty deep delegation problem? And she rejected the government's argument to relabel tariffs. She said, no, not with respect to tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers. Now, understand what Justice Kagan is doing. The non-delegation doctrine is a very important constitutional limitation on Congress giving too much power to the executive. It is also something conservatives care a great deal about. I think Justice Kagan, Justice Kagan, the three liberals are going to vote against Trump, no matter what, in any circumstance. So Kagan is a no. But she's trying in a very savvy way to argue it in a way that will appeal to Justice Gorsuch, Chief Justice Roberts, or Justice Barrett. She's trying to frame it in terms of conservative principles. Now, Justice Gorsuch, if you look at his questions, his questions showed a significant degree of skepticism to the administration's position, and in particular focusing on the major questions doctrine. Again, the major questions doctrine is a big conservative principle that limits the power of the executive branch. It's really important. So Gorsuch asked, what is the limiting principle here? And he asked further, if regulate importation includes tariffs, what stops the president from imposing them for any asserted foreign threat? He asked some hypotheticals. He said, could the president impose massive tariffs to address something like climate change if that's deemed a foreign threat? It's actually a good question. And he pressed further. He said, once you accept that premise, it's hard to see what's left of the limitation. Justice Barrett, she went on to say, Congress knows how to grant tariff authority explicitly Why isn clearer language required if Congress meant to confer that power And she pressed the U Solicitor General She said if regulate imports includes tariffs of any size what work is left for the rest of the statute to do? Where do we find the limiting principle in the statute itself? So, look, in terms of the questioning, Roberts appeared skeptical. Gorsuch appeared skeptical, and Barrett appeared skeptical. So on the conservative side, the justice that seemed most receptive was Brett Kavanaugh. And Brett Kavanaugh said, the court has historically been very comfortable with very broad delegations in the foreign affairs context. So he framed it in terms of, look, the president has enormous flexibility when it comes to foreign affairs. Justice Kavanaugh said in one of his opinions that the non-delegation concerns have less force where Congress is empowering the president in foreign affairs. And Justice Kavanaugh focused on the historical practice, said there's a long tradition of broad delegations over foreign commerce going back to the founding. And he engaged the solicitor general seriously. He said that's consistent with cases like Chicago and Southern Airlines and Curtis Wright. I think Kavanaugh is going to be a likely vote to uphold the tariff authority. And so that argument was significant. Now, Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas historically asked very few questions. That was true here. But his questions were focused on history and the original understanding of the Constitution. So Justice Thomas asked, historically, weren't tariffs one of the primary ways Congress regulated foreign commerce? And he went back to that. He said at the founding, there was a sharp distinction. Was there a sharp distinction between regulating imports and imposing duties on them? So he was very much focused on what the practice of the country has been from the founding. He also asked, if tariffs were understood as tools of trade regulation, why wouldn't the power to regulate foreign commerce include them? Very good question. And when it came to the non-delegation doctrine, he said the following, quote, non-delegation is a modern doctrine. What evidence do we have that Congress historically could not confer this kind of authority in matters of foreign commerce? Justice Thomas's question suggests he is very likely to vote in favor of the president's tariff authority. And then let's focus on Justice Alito. Justice Alito was really focused on workability, remedies, and consequences. So he said, he was asking about practicality. He said, if we accept your position, what happens to all the tariffs that have already been collected? He also highlighted, and I think this is critical, this may be the most important question asked. There are enormous reliance interests here, both for the government and for private actors who have ordered their affairs around these tariffs. And he questions the plaintiffs. He said, is your position that Congress must always use the word tariff expressly, even in statutes dealing with foreign emergencies? That doesn't sound very plausible. And he pressed whether the case could be resolved narrowly. He said, why isn't this something that can be handled through a limiting construction? rather than a broad holding that calls into question a lot of past practice. I actually think Justice Alito's questioning is going to frame what the court does. Now, we have in a lot of big cases a 6-3 divide. You have the three liberals who vote against Trump on everything. And you have six justices that are on the conservative side of the aisle, although they vary. I'm going to predict we're going to lose one. I don't know which, but I think we will lose in all likelihood either Gorsuch or Barrett. Even though Chief Justice Roberts was skeptical at oral argument, I'm going to predict that Chief Justice Roberts votes to uphold the tariffs, and I'm going to predict that he writes the majority opinion. And the reason— I like these bold predictions, by the way. This makes it fun. And look, I have no inside information. I could be totally wrong, but I do know the court quite well. I did spend my entire career before I was in the Senate was arguing before the court. And look, Roberts in particular is an institutionalist. And I actually think this case is quite similar to the Obamacare case. The Obamacare case during the Obama presidency was a challenge to Obamacare, and ultimately Chief Justice Roberts upheld Obamacare. And I think he did so because he thought to strike it down would be a massive change, would wreak chaos, and it would question the legitimacy of the court. It would question the authority of the court. So I think he made an institutionalist decision. Let's not disrupt the status quo. I think that same instinct here is going to lead him to say these tariffs have been imposed. They've been the heart of the president's foreign policy and economic policy. And so we're not going to set them aside. That is my prediction. And you will end up with a majority that consists of Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion. thomas and alito and kavanaugh and either barrett or gorsuch and the dissenters will be the three liberals and either barrett or gorsuch that's my prediction we'll see what happens as before if you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic you can go back and download the podcast from early this week to hear the entire thing i want to get back to the big story number three of the week you may have missed. Senator, let's talk about a big piece of legislation that a lot of people are very focused on this country. A lot of voters voted on this issue specifically, and it deals with the Save America Act. And what has happened this week? Let's give an update to that. Well, the House of Representatives passed the Save America Act, passed it with only one Democrat vote. Every Democrat but one voted against it. The Save America Act requires proof for U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and it requires a photo ID to vote. It's a very simple, straightforward, common-sense bill. It's now gone over to the Senate. I am leading the charge, pressing hard to get the Senate to take it up, to use every procedural tool we have to force the Senate to vote on it and pass it This week I put out a video explaining the issues concisely and the video went viral It has over a million views Give a listen give a watch The House just passed the Save America Act The Senate needs to take it up and pass it. I'm an original sponsor of the Save America Act. This is common sense legislation. This is legislation that requires proof that you're an American citizen in order to register to vote, and it requires a photo ID to go in and vote. Texas already requires a photo ID. It's an easy, common-sense step to avoid voter fraud. The vast majority of Americans support photo ID, and yet Senate Democrats are doing everything they can to block it because they want more voter fraud. How do we take it up and pass it in the Senate? What I am urging my colleagues is that we should use every procedural tool we have to defeat a Democrat filibuster. And in particular, we should nuke what's called the zombie filibuster. Under the Senate rules, everyone has a right to filibuster, to talk as long as they want. We should require them to talk as long as they can. Go back to an old style talking filibuster, like Jimmy Stewart did in Mr. Smith goes to Washington, like I did in 2013 for 21 hours on the floor of the Senate, we should use the procedural rules to force the Democrats to do a talking filibuster and force them to keep talking and talking and talking. And when they can't talk anymore, then we should pass the Save America Act. That's what I'm urging my colleagues to do. It's what President Trump wants us to do. And it's what I hope and pray we accomplish. Senator, you said it, I think, perfectly there. And explain a little bit more about what it would mean to nuke the zombie filibuster so that we get more context for that, so people understand, in essence, what they would be advocating for. Well, for most of the history of the Senate, the filibuster involved talking, involved standing up and talking and talking and talking. And in recent decades, the Senate has allowed simply whoever is filibustering to say, we're going to filibuster, you cast a procedural vote, and then you're done, and it's treated as blocked. But we don't have to do that. We can force them that there is what's called a two-speech rule in the Senate that limits every member of the Senate to two speeches on any legislative topic. And what I've been advocating, and Mike Lee has been advocating, and Rick Scott has been advocating, and Ron Johnson has been advocating, is that we force them to give the speeches, force them to talk. And when they're done talking, then you can vote on it. But the thing is, there's a price to that because they can fight back. And in particular, they can do what's called suggest the absence of a quorum. That means we have to be able to produce 50 senators on the floor. There are 53 of us. That means we need 50 bodies. It would entail very long hours. It would entail all-nighters. It would entail 50 of us being willing to stand together. It's not clear right now that we have 50 Republicans willing to do that. I'm trying to make the case this is a fight worth fighting, but it would be a massive and extended, this could extend days or even weeks, but I think we should be fighting with everything we got. I think this issue is important enough. It merits fighting, and so I'm trying to make that case to my colleagues. All right, let me ask you a question. If you nuke it the way that you described it, is it just for this one issue and then things go back to the regular order of business, how it works normal now? Or would that change it moving forward? Explain that. So this is different from nuking the filibuster. So nuking the filibuster, that phrase involves breaking the Senate rules to change the Senate rules. So what happens, and we saw, for example, the Democrats nuked the filibuster for cabinet appointees and judicial appointees. And the way they did it, the Senate rules made it clear in the terms of the Senate rules that a nomination required 60 votes to go forward to proceed to it. However, what happened was Harry Reid, when he was majority leader, any ruling of the chair can be challenged on the floor of the Senate and 51 senators can overrule the ruling of the chair. And so Harry Reid inquired of the chair, what is the rule and was told the rule is 60 senators. And then he said, I appeal the ruling of the chair and the Democrats all voted party line. And when they did that, that becomes a binding precedent. So they broke the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate. It is still in the Senate rules that a filibuster can be used to stop legislation. And I will say we have used that. Republicans have used that to stop terrible legislation from the Democrats. I think that's an important safeguard. So it is valuable is the point that people need to also understand. It's very valuable. If the Democrats had succeeded in nuking the filibuster when Joe Biden was president and when they had the House and Senate, they would have passed legislation, number one, striking down every photo ID law in the country and striking down every election integrity law in the country. Number two, making D.C. and Puerto Rico both states and electing four new Democrat senators. Number three, making every illegal alien in America a U.S. citizen and giving them immediate voting rights, which would have, among other things, turned Texas bright blue instantaneously. And number four, they would have packed the U.S. Supreme Court and added four left-wing justices immediately to it. I think that would have been, I don't want to be hyperbolic, but I think that would have been essentially the end of the republic. There's no way to turn that around if they do that. And so how do you how do you put that back in Pandora's bike? Once that box is open, it's game over. It's that agenda. Notice the Democrats top policy agenda is all to rig the game and make it impossible to ever defeat Democrats again. There's nothing they value more than staying in power. That's what they wanted to do. This is not nuking the filibuster in terms of changing the Senate rules. This is using the existing Senate rules and just enforcing them, making them stand up and speak. And one of the advantages of it is if they're standing up and speaking for hours and hours on end, trying to stop requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, trying to stop photo ID. Look, both of those popular policies are incredibly popular. 70, 80 percent of Americans agree with photo ID for voting. More than 70 percent of African-Americans agree with it. More than 70 percent of Hispanics agree with it. More than 70 percent of Democrat voters agree with it. And so this is a fight we should be having. And I'm urging my colleagues, let's stand and fight for voter integrity. As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. Don't forget to download my podcast and you can listen to my podcast every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards. I'd love to have you as a listener to, again, the Ben Ferguson podcast. And we will see you back here on Monday morning. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.
