-
Lawfare Against President Trump:
- Discussion on the legal challenges faced by President Trump and his administration.
- Four recent lawsuits against Trump were highlighted, focusing on election integrity, sanctuary cities, and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies.
- The hosts argue that these lawsuits are part of a coordinated effort by Democrats to obstruct Trump's agenda.
-
Transgender Issues in Sports:
- Martina Navratilova's criticism of Nike for funding transgender athlete research.
- The hosts discuss the broader implications of allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports, emphasizing the physical advantages of male athletes.
-
Democratic Party's Internal Struggles:
- CNN's report on declining confidence in Democratic leaders, particularly Chuck Schumer.
- The discussion includes the potential rise of more radical figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
- Mention of Dick Durbin's decision not to seek re-election and its implications.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in is Verdica Center. Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you.
It's nice to have you with us on this Friday morning.
And Senator, we've got some big stories to talk about today.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Today we're going to talk about several issues. We're going
to talk about the ongoing lawfare that is being waged
against President Trump and the Trump administration. This is the
strategy of the Democrats to use the courts to sue, sue, sue,
and sadly, they're finding radical district judges willing to enjoin
the president over and over and over again. Four lawsuits,
(00:32):
four district court losses in the past twenty four hours.
We're going to break them down so you understand what happened. Next,
we're going to talk about the radical transgender ideology that
the left continues to embrace and sadly, a great many
in corporate America do as well. Tennis legend Martina Navertilova
has called out Nike for funding transgender research for undermining women.
(00:57):
We're going to talk about that and how it reflects
just how radical the left continues to be. And finally,
we're going to talk about how the Democrat Party in
Washington is breaking down how the media is losing their
mind CNN, MSNBC. They are ringing the alarm bells that
the Democrats extreme policies are so out of touch with
(01:17):
the American people that they're losing support every single day.
And yet the Democrats hatred of Donald Trump is so
great they can't pull back from the radical policy positions,
all of them.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
We're going to break down in today's show.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, and you mentioned that last story, which in a
very interesting way, is going to connect with this first story.
It is being celebrated by the left of the media
that these judges I describe them as activist judges are saying,
watch this. We're going to get involved and we're going
to stop Donald Trump and what he's doing. The man
that he has from the voters. He was elected president
(01:53):
the United States of America an agenda that is overwhelmingly
popular with the majority of Americans, and we're going to
just what he's doing. And this is another example of lawfare.
The fact that there are though four that have come
down in a twenty four hour period. I got to
ask the question, and there's so many listening that are
going to want to know this center, which is is
(02:14):
this not orchestrated. I mean, when you have four in
a row, is that a coincidence? Is that how the
court systems work? Or is this a orchestrated, clear effort
they wanted a major SmackDown on the president's agenda.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Well, it's orchestrated by the plaintiffs, but not the courts themselves.
But this is going to be the pattern we're going
to see. The last four years, we saw the left
wage law fair against Donald Trump by indicting him, not once,
not twice, not three times, four different times. We saw
Democrats going to court to try to throw Donald Trump
off the ballot because they were terrified the voters were
(02:49):
going to elect him, which of course they did. That's
the same reason they indicted him, because they were terrified
voters were going to elect him, which of course they did.
Now now that President Trump is back in this is
the next phase of their lawfare, and every single day
of the Trump administration, we are going to see blue
state attorneys general and left wing activist groups filing lawsuits.
(03:12):
And they are filing them. They are seeking out extreme
left wing judges. They're going to blue jurisdictions, particularly blue
to jurisdictions where they are confident they will get radicals
and robes, and so far the pattern is having considerable success.
Now I am hopeful that on appeal the Courts of
Appeals or the Supreme Court are going to reverse this.
But this is their strategy to try to stop the
(03:35):
agenda that the American people elected President Trump to implement.
So let's start with the first one. The first one
is a case called League of Women Voters Election Fund
versus Trump, and it deals with election integrity. Now, election
integrity is an issue that has widespread support among the voters.
Voters want our elections to be secure, and if you
(03:58):
look at the United States, the United States law concerning
election integrity are far behind many other nations. So for example,
India and Brazil are tying voter identification to a biometric database.
The United States, in contrast, largely relies on self attestation
(04:18):
for citizenship. Germany and Canada both require the use of
paper ballots counted in public by local officials. America, on
the other hand, we have a patchwork of voting methods
that lead to serious chain of custody problems. Other countries,
like Denmark and Sweden, they limit mail in voting to
(04:40):
those unable to vote in person, and they don't count
late arriving votes regardless of the day of the postmark. Nonetheless,
many American elections, particularly those in blue states, feature mass
voting by mail, with many Democrat officials accepting ballots without
postmarks or those received after election day. Now, what does
(05:02):
federal law say about this? Multiple federal laws make it
clear that only American citizens are prohibited to vote in
federal elections, and yet we see, particularly in Blue states,
that requirement, that legal federal requirement being violated.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Well.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
On March twenty fifth of this year, President Trump issued
an executive order that was called Preserving and Protecting the
Integrity of American Elections, and it is focused on requiring
proof of citizenship to register to vote. Almost instantaneously, a
group of left wing organizations sued President Trump, and they
sued him in the District to Columbia Court and in
(05:40):
a liberal judge, Judge Colleen Kollarcotelli, who was appointed by
Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction and block the Trump
administration from implementing the executive order from requiring proof of citizenship.
Her reasoning, I've got to say, makes very little sense.
Her reasoning. She says, well, the power to regulate elections
(06:03):
is given to Congress and given to the states, not
the president. Well, she ignores the fact that Congress has legislated.
Congress has passed legislation making clear that only American citizens
can vote in federal elections. And so once Congress has
acted the constitution, Article two of the Constitution gives the
(06:26):
president a duty to quote take care that the laws
be faithfully executed. That's what the President is doing. And
yet to left wing activists, they don't want the president
to enforce federal law. And so this appeal will go
to the d C Circuit. It's going to matter immensely
what the panel of judges are that are on the
(06:47):
d C Circuit. But this is one example, and we're
going to go through several more of how left wing
groups are going to wage war against the president implementing
what the American people elected him to implement.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
They're all filed in very liberal courts and for a
liberal judges that had no problem saying, yep, I want
to be a part of this law.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Fair.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
The first one was filed in DC. The second one
was filed in San Francisco, and it deals with Trump's
executive orders to cut off funding to sanctuary cities, to
cities that defy federal immigration law. Again, this is the
president seeking to enforce federal law. And yet the plaintiffs
went and sought out a judge, Judge William Morrick, he's
(07:27):
an Obama appointee in San Francisco, who granted an injunction
against enforcing those executive orders. Now, I got to say,
the Planetfts were not surprised with this because this is
the same district judge who granted the order against the
exact same thing in the first Trump administration. So they
went back to the same judge. They said, hey, would
you do it again? And by the way, in the
(07:48):
first Trump administration that went up on appeal to the
Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is consistently the most left
wing court of appeals in the country. In the Ninth
Circuit upheld that order stopping the first Trump administration's order
against funding sanctuary cities, and sadly the Supreme Court did
not take that appeal. You've got to assume this case
will get appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth
(08:10):
Circuit presumably will do the same thing it did last time,
and what we've got to hope for here is this
time the Supreme Court will take the case in reverse
it the third case.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
The third case deals.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
With DEI, and in fact, the third and fourth cases
both deal with DEI. The Department of Education published a
Dear Colleague letter reminding Title six funding recipients that they
have to comply with anti discrimination law. And it made
clear that Title six and the Equal Protection Clause of
(08:42):
the Constitution bind the recipients. And if you're getting federal law,
you got to comply. If you're getting federal money, you
got to comply with federal law. Well, there were two
lawsuits that were filed. One that was filed in Maryland,
and in Maryland they were in front of Judge Stephanie Gallagher,
who was a Trump appointee. Although I would know Maryland
is a state with two Democrat senators, and the way
(09:03):
it works with district judges is the senators have an
enormous say, so even though this judge was appointed by Trump,
she almost certainly was put forward by the Democrat senators
in Maryland. Judge Gallagher issued an injunction saying that the
letter that was giving guidance to the recipients of federal
funds that constituted a federal rule, a final federal action,
(09:25):
and that it was arbitrary and capricious and violated federal law. Likewise,
in New Hampshire, in both lawsuits, the Maryland and New
Hampshire lawsuit, it was the Teachers Union, the National Education
Association UH, and the American Federation Teachers that filed a lawsuit,
and and in New Hampshire UH, the judge there likewise
(09:49):
issued an order UH in joining. In this case, it
was Judge Landia McCaffrey and Obama appointee who granted the
order and and and said that that it was vague,
the Department of Education's instructions were vague because you couldn't
figure out what a DEI program is, and so issued
(10:11):
at in junction. You know, it's amazing everybody knows what
a DEI program is. And then what the Department Education
is saying is if you discriminate based on race, that
is illegal, and we're not going to send you money
if you are violating federal law. By the way, that's
the same thing the Sanctuary Cities executive order said. And
yet four district judges for injunctions all the latest development
(10:37):
in the battle of law fair. And I will say
what we've got a hope for is number one, the
courts of Appeals stepping in and reversing these decisions. But
number two, ultimately the Supreme Court stepping in and saying
enough is enough. The President has the authority and in
fact the responsibility to enforce federal law.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
So let's go through a couple different scenarios here. Number one,
I'm assuming that some of these judges know that a
SmackDown is going to come from this, right like, they're
not dumb, so it's law fair, but they know this
is going to be a fight. They seem to be
okay with that, and they don't care that that may
(11:17):
be coming. Is that because this is the new plan
of Hey, as long as you can delay and then
delay a little bit more, and then delay a little
bit more and hold him up and the Trump agenda up,
then that's still success and a weird way to them.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, let me say, sadly, they don't know they're going
to get a SmackDown. Number one, there are a lot
of liberal Court of Appeals judges. You looked at the
San Francisco judge that enjoined the President's sanctuary cities executive order.
That judge knows the appeal goes to the Ninth Circuit,
which is an extreme left wing court, and so that judge,
(11:54):
I'm sure, is expecting the Ninth Circuit will agree with him,
and you do have a final backstop of the Supreme
But the Supreme Court takes a tiny fraction of the
cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. And so listen,
I think what the left wing litigants are gambling is
they sue on everything. They're going to win a number
of these cases. Some may get overturned on appeal, but
(12:16):
some will not. And their approach, I think is flood
the zone. It's the exact same thing they did when
they indicted Trump over and over and over again. Not
just once, they kept doing it over and over again, saying, Okay,
if the New York case doesn't stick, we'll bring the
DC one. All right, If the DC one doesn't stick,
we'll bring the Georgia one. They're doing the same thing here.
(12:37):
They know many, if not most, will be overturned, but
they're gambling, and it's probably a right gamble that not
all of them will be overturned. And so every single
one of the policy matters that the president is implementing.
And to be clear, the President campaigned on these issues.
He promised the American people this is what he'd do.
And the Democrats they don't want democracy, the will of
(13:02):
the voters to be honored, and so they're using the
courts to attack ultimately the will of the voters.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
So final question on this, and there's precedent right in
the courts in theory.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
We hear a lot about that.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Is there any way that the Supreme Court can say
stop it and you can't keep doing this over and
over again for the next four years, or do they
only able to say that basically on one issue or
subject or lawsuit at a time.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Well, I'll give you some good news about these four
district court decisions, which these decisions were not nationwide injunctions.
We've talked about on this show before, the phenomenon of
nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
We've seen.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
A nationwide injunction is even more egregious, where you prevent
the president from enforcing the law, or prevent the cabinet
agency from enforcing the law against anybody anywhere in the country.
They didn't do that here. What they did here is
they issued an injunction only with respect to the parties
who were suing the same suary cities case. That case
(14:02):
was brought by sixteen left wing cities, and so that
injunction applies to protect those sixteen cities, but nobody else.
That's at least a good sign. That being said, this
battle will keep going over and over again. And I'll
tell you one of the things this underscores is why
good principal judges matter so much, and why the President
and the Senate need to keep putting strong Court of
(14:24):
Appeals judges on the bench to overturn this kind of nonsense.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
All right, Senator, I want to move to this other
big issue, and that deals with some really shocking news
from a woman. And if you don't know her background,
I think it's important to take a moment so people
understand who Martine and Avatolova is. She is the most
decorated woman in women's tennis history. The number of Grand
(14:49):
Slams that she has won is just incredible. She was
one of the very first athletes to ever come out
as being gay. She has been a huge advocate in
her care for LGBTQ community. But then she stood up
to them on men and women's sports and they started
to attack her, and she said, I'm not backing down.
(15:10):
There is a difference between men and women. It is
wrong to allow men to compete with women. She even lost,
like she was kicked off of boards and different things
that happened in the in the community that she was in.
And she I think she was shocked by the intolerance
of of of all of these different radical extremist groups
that went after her because she said there is a difference.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
Well, now she's not backing down again.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
She is blasting a major company, Nike, over a shocking
report that they were actually doing research and in transathlete
research at Nike, and she's like, what are you doing.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Well, let me say, first of all, you just said
a minute ago Martine and Nabertelovra, she said, you said
she won a lot of major Nobody knows how many.
I will say, Ben, there's this thing called the Google
that you know, you have a phone, you can type
it in. You actually just have to do Martina in
and it comes right up the stats and right from
(16:15):
the Google. It told me one of the most successful
tennis players of all time. She was ranked as the
world number one in women's singles for how many weeks?
How many weeks do you think you're the tennis player
you played tennis at all?
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Miss?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Oh, it's going to be hundreds.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
I know that, three hundred and thirty two weeks.
Speaker 5 (16:29):
Bam, there you go.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
And she won one hundred and sixty seven top level
single titles, one hundred and seventy seven doubles titles and
including an Open era record of fifty nine major titles,
eighteen and singles, thirteen in women's doubles, ten and mixed doubles.
And how many Wimbledon singles titles do you think she won?
Speaker 5 (16:51):
In Wimbledon singles titles? I know this. Hold on, it's
a trivia question for me.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
You can't use the nine.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
It's nine. No, No, it's nine. I'm pretty sure it's nine.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Look at that, Sam Benjamin, Okay, you're a tennis guy.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
It is nine. And I didn't know that, but that
if Wikipedia is right, then it is nine.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
So so, and here's here's another tidbit for you. The
French opens coming up. And and do you know me?
Speaker 5 (17:16):
She won?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
There no idea, she won two. I didn't read it
that far in Wikipedia.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
No, no, no, So she won two there, but that was
like her hardest service to win on clay.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
She does not like clay, and it was Cio clay.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
You should be impressed that I knew the French Open
was clay.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Exactly, and so she was the one that completed the
Grand Slam because she won the Australian Open, I want
to say three or four times, French Open twice, Wimbledon nine,
and I think she won the US Open.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
I want to say it was four or five times.
It was incredible.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
But here's a tidbit about her, and this is the
this should impress everybody because when she was in the
middle of all this winning, she was stripped of her
citizenship when she was seventeen or eighteen and asked the
United States for political asylum. And so not only was
she winning, but she was in the middle of Jessicovakia
(18:06):
when it happened.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
She was a chess citizen and all of this was
going on.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
So you talk about a woman that was incredible and
focused and was able to pull all this off. It
tells you about how big of a leader she was,
and I think that is saying we should just remind
people of when you talk about her leading on this
issue and coming out and then yet saying it's wrong
for men to play in women's sports, like she's always
(18:33):
been a leader on these types of issues.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
Well and end. Listen, I will say Martina and avertslower.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
She's not a conservative, she's not a person of the right,
but she is one of the greatest women athletes to
have ever lived, and she's shown real courage saying, look,
if men compete in women's sports, men have significant physiological advantages,
and it's not fair, it's not right. I mean, she recognized,
even as one of the greatest women to have ever played,
(18:58):
that if she was playing again against Pete Sampras, if
she was playing against you know, any of the top
male players, that that it would not be fair and
she would not stand a chance. And that that's the
simple reality. How much faster so you played Division one tennis,
How much faster does does a male college player hit
(19:21):
a serve as compared to a top level female college player.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
When I was when I was playing college, if you
were a women at one of the top women in
college hitting.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
A big serve, you were probably.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
One hundred to one hundred and three four five miles
an hour, and that would be like less than one
percent of women in college at that time doing that men.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
So that's on the.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Top level, top level, the fastest serves women are hitting.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Now, how about how about I.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Mean a lot of them were probably eighty to eighty five.
Eighty six miles an hour would probably been the average then,
and men the average was probably one hundred and five
to one hundred and ten was the average.
Speaker 5 (19:59):
I means, significant kid difference.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
And how about the top level, the very best.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Top top So the fast serve I ever hit in
my life I think was one. I want to say
it was one twenty five, one twenty six.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
That's not a tennis ball, that's a bullet.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Yeah, I mean it did. I mean there's a huge difference.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
You had that extra thirty miles on top of what
like where the women were the men?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
It's night and day, Okay, And I'm going to say this,
I don't mean to be disrespectful. I mean, you were
a good college tennis player, but you weren't one of
the very top men in the country.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Correct, Yeah, no, yeah, one hundred percent. I mean the
guys that were hitting the big serves. I remember one
time practicing with Andy Roddick and and Andy was hitting
one thirty seven, one forties.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
John Isner, buddy of mine. He's he I think he
has the fastest serve on record, he was. I want
to say it was one forty seven. Uh, if I
remember correctly, I mean it's it's it's there's there's no woman, it's.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Given percent more.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
One forty seven is fifty percent more than you said,
like the top women college athletes would be serving about
one hundred or one hundred and two, correct. I mean
that's that's why Martina Naberzelov has been so clear saying
this is wildly Unfairwell, what she did this week is
she called out Nike, and this is a bizarre story.
It is a story published in The New York Times
(21:11):
that laid out evidence that Nike is financing a study
of trans athletes and a study of trans athletes that
was called out online on x by women's sportswear company
executive Jennifer Say, who went on social media and said,
I'm still stunned by this. Nike is funding a study
(21:33):
that disfigured young boys to understand if they can be
physically impaired enough to compete with girls without significant quote
retained male advantage. Why is a sneaker brand doing medical
experiments on children? And Martina and Abergelova retweeted that she said,
(21:55):
Joanna Harper is going too far as is Nike, needless
to say, and she calls out Nike, same company that
doctor Allison Felix for being pregnant. So she left and
formed her own company. Sayese, so thanks for nothing, Nike,
And I got to say, look, there are a lot
of issues where the left has completely.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Left the American people behind.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Sanctuary cities, embracing voter fraud, open borders, supporting illegal immigrants
and gang members, and wanting more gang members brought to
this country. All of those are extreme. But I don't
know that there is an issue that is more out
of the mainstream and yet more required by elected Democrats
(22:38):
then demanding that men compete against and in women's sports
and boys compete in girls sports.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
And it is.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
It was a major issue in twenty twenty four in
the election. President Trump used the issue. I used the
issue in my reelection campaign, and I got to say,
Senate races across the country use the issue, and the
American people said, enough is enough, and what's interesting?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
All right?
Speaker 2 (23:03):
So in my reelection, when I was running ads against
my opponent because he had voted repeatedly in favor of
men competing women's sports, the reporters thought, oh, well, Cruise
is competing to the crazy right wing kooks, and they
wrote articles like that, and I actually laughed at them
because we had done focus groups and in fact, we
(23:25):
had done focus groups of undecided moderate women in Houston
and Dallas and we tested like thirty different messages on them.
You know, the number one message with undecided moderate women
in Houston and Dallas, what was that? Boys and girls sports?
Speaker 5 (23:43):
There you go.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
And the reporters didn't get it. They're like, oh, these
are crazy right wingers. I'm like, no, No, these are
soccer moms. These are soccer moms that are really pissed off.
And they don't want their daughter playing soccer with some
dude who's going to kick them and get a concussion.
They don't want their daughter playing volley ball with some
dude that's going to spike the ball on her. They
don't want you know, they watched the Olympics and saw
(24:06):
two guys beating the hell out of women boxers, and
they said enough is enough. And what is amazing is,
even though the left is so far out of step,
Nike's continuing to double down and fund this extreme research.
And we had to vote a month and a half
ago in the Senate on stopping boys from competing in girls' sports.
(24:30):
Do you know how many Democrats voted in favor of
protecting girls in women's sports.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
I'm going to guess they voted as a party, and
none of them said, we're going to be saying.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Today absolutely correct. Zero. And this was after the November election.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
If you live in a blue state and you happen
to have a Democrat senator who pretends to be moderate,
which a lot of them do, know that your senator
likewise voted for boys to compete against your daughters, for
men to compete against women. And that's fundamentally unfair. And
if you don't believe me, listen to the eight Martina
and Averchlova Center.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
By the way, we were talking a moment ago about
fastest serves ever in history.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
I just want to give people the fastest.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
So Sam Groth had the fastest serve at a challenger
event one hundred and sixty three point seven miles an
hour and the fastest recorded serve at an ATP tour,
So that's its senior. The highest level can get event
in tennis was by my good friend John Isner. We
went to one of his last matches to watch actually
in Houston. One hundred and fifty seven miles an hour.
(25:29):
So if you think there's a difference but not a
difference between men and women in sports, yeah, just look
at those numbers. You will never find a woman that
has ever hit anywhere close to that.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
There is in difference.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
And Ben, let me say, I'm proud of you that
even in the course of the show you figured out
how to use the Google.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
That was well done.
Speaker 5 (25:45):
I try, you know, I'm a quick learner here.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
All right, let's turn to the Democratic Party in disarray
and it's a real thing right now and CNN is
saying it, so don't trust us. CNN have a freak
out moment on TV with new polling data and here
is what they said.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
Yeah, this I think is a revolt, a revolt that
is going on within the Democratic Party right now. Democrats
and their leaders, I mean, take a look nationally, Hello
Democrats on dem leaders in Congress the belief that they
will do the right thing when it comes to the economy.
Last year, at this time, eighty percent believe that the
Democratic leaders in Congress would do the right thing when
it comes to the economy.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
And keep in mind this as Democrats.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
Look at where we are now, that number has been
slashed in half to just thirty nine percent. Holy Toledo.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
That is the lowest number.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
By far in Gallup polling. The lowest previous was just
sixty percent, which is twenty one points higher than this.
Democrats hate, hate, hate, hate what they're congressional leaders in
Washington are doing right now on the key issue of
the day, the economy, and their confidence has fallen through
the floor. Mister Berman, all right, Chuck Schumer is the
Senate Democratic leader right now.
Speaker 7 (26:57):
How we're feelings about him, particularly in New York.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
Yeah, let's go to the state of New York.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
It's what's always on my mind. Right We're in the
state of New York right now. New York Democrats on
Chuck Schumer view him favorably.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
In December of twenty.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
Twenty four, that was just a few months ago, it
was seventy three percent. Look at where that number has
fallen to in just a few months. It is now
down to just fifty two percent. That is the lowest
I could ever find and see on a college on
how democrats in Chuck Schumer's home state knew him. And
keep in mind, if you're thinking about a primary challenge,
it would be a few years away. But Alexandio Costio
Cortes's favorable rating among Democrats is considerably higher in the sixties,
(27:34):
so he is doing quite poorly.
Speaker 5 (27:36):
In his own home state of New York.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
I never thought i'd see the day in which just
fifty two percent of New York Democrats with view Chuck
Schumer favorably.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
It's almost unfathomable.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
It's almost unfathomable. Now here's the takeaway for me Center.
The fact that AOC has a higher approval rating than
Chuck Schumer means a Democratic party is dead. The socialist
Marxists and Communists have taken get it over and now
they're out with these old guys. We also saw one
of your colleagues, Dick Durbin, hanging it up, saying I'm
(28:07):
out of here, I'm not running for reelection.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Well, what is stunning about that is a couple of things.
Number One, as they're relaying poll numbers that show Democrats
unhappy with the Democrat leadership in Congress. The reason they're
unhappy is they think Chuck Schumer is not crazy enough.
They think Akeem Jeffries is not crazy enough. The problem
(28:31):
and end. Listen, We're in a very polarized society. Both
both sides are pulling further and further apart. But people
that identify as partisan Democrats, they hate Donald Trump. And
I'm not quite sure what they want Chuck Schumer to
be doing. Maybe lighting himself on fire on the Senate floor,
running around naked, screaming at the top of his lungs.
(28:51):
I don't know, you know, maybe they just want him
to join AOC and Bernie Sanders on their Fight the
Oligarchy tour. Oh to be clear, they're flying around in
private jets to fight the oligarchy, which actually may symbolize
today's Democrat Party more than anything else. They could do
to get off their private jet and stand up and
say fight the oligarchy. And by the way, George Soros,
(29:14):
thanks for the money. But the Democrats want their elected
leaders to be even more crazy that. And this is
after four years of absolute shambles of the Obama administration.
And what's striking also about that clip you played is CNN,
which is a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party, is
(29:34):
panicking that they can't believe it. They are terrified. The
media is in desiray. You mentioned Dick Durbin, Democrat Cenater
from Illinois, announced he was not running for reelection. Look,
Dick Durbin is the number two Democrat in the entire Senate.
He is number two only to Schumer, and he's calling
(29:54):
it quits. He is also the top the ranking member,
the top Democrat on the Senate jud Year Committee. Used
to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And
so they've got senior Democrats that are saying, get me
out of this place.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Well, and by the way, he said something that was
really interesting, how low the bar has fallen. So Dick
Durbin's excuse for why is not running for reelection was
in essence, well, I don't want to become Joe Biden.
Speaker 5 (30:20):
And he put it this way in the interview.
Speaker 7 (30:22):
Listen, a senator yesterday, after you made your announcement that
you would not be seeking reelection, there were a number
of Democrats who privately really applauded your choice, saying that
it was that it was something the right thing to do,
to step aside and perhaps let a younger generation of
politicians step to the forefront. We know the idea of
democratic elected officials and age has been a hot topic
(30:43):
in recent years.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Do you hope do you agree.
Speaker 4 (30:46):
With that thinking?
Speaker 7 (30:46):
Do you think it is time now for younger politicians,
the next generation to come forward?
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Well?
Speaker 6 (30:53):
I think this it's more complex. It is not just
a question of a number what your age is. Look
at Bernie Sanders, for god sake, still drawing thousands and
thousands of people out for rallies, and he's a few
years older than I am. The bottom line is are
you competent? Can you still do the job? That's the
question the voter should ask. But should a new generation
(31:13):
be interested in public service? You bet. I've spent my
time in office trying to encourage younger people to get involved.
Speaker 8 (31:21):
Senator Durbin, it's Ali vitally. I wonder if I can
pick up on something you just said, this idea of
are you competent? Are you able to do this job?
In the Senate? As you see this push from the
grassroots that lamiir is talking about here. Do you think
enough of your colleagues are asking themselves those fundamental questions
about if they can continue to serve.
Speaker 6 (31:40):
I think so. I think if you're honest about yourself
and your reputation, you want to leave when you can
still walk out the front door and not be carried
out the back door.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
I mean, you hear that, and it's basically saying, well,
I'm not going to pull at Joe Biden, and other
people need to look at this as well. I think
clearly knocking Joe Biden in that and what he just
said as well.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Well, And nobody in that discussion acknowledged that Dick Durbin
spent four years lying to the American people saying that
Joe Biden was not senile, that he was mentally capable
to do the job. By the way, CNN spent four
years lying to the American people screaming that it was
a conspiracy theory to point out what is obviously true
and was obviously true then that Biden's mental capacity was
(32:25):
severely diminished. I will say this, and actually it might
surprise you. I'm going to say something nice about Durbin
So I've served with Durbin for thirteen years on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and I'll tell you what I tell
any nominees that are coming before Judiciary, I tell them
Durbin is the single most dangerous Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
(32:45):
because I think he's the smartest Democrat, and he is
radical and extreme, but he's very good at sounding reasonable.
There are other Democrats that are radical and extreme, a
Sheldon white House and Adam Schiff, but they sound like
lunatic when they're ranting. Everyone knows their lunatics. Part of
what makes Durbin such a dangerous questioner for Republican nominees
(33:08):
or Republican witnesses is he's very good at masking his
extreme policies in ways that sound much more reasonable than
his colleagues. And so I will say for Democrats, seeing
Durbin hang it up is a real loss to them.
Speaker 5 (33:23):
Yeah, no doubt. Don't forget.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
We do this show as a podcast, so make sure
you download Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 5 (33:30):
We do it three days a week. Don't miss an episode.
Grab it.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
We'll see you back here next week and on our
podcasts on Monday morning,
Welcome in is Verdica Center. Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you.
It's nice to have you with us on this Friday morning.
And Senator, we've got some big stories to talk about today.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Today we're going to talk about several issues. We're going
to talk about the ongoing lawfare that is being waged
against President Trump and the Trump administration. This is the
strategy of the Democrats to use the courts to sue, sue, sue,
and sadly, they're finding radical district judges willing to enjoin
the president over and over and over again. Four lawsuits,
(00:32):
four district court losses in the past twenty four hours.
We're going to break them down so you understand what happened. Next,
we're going to talk about the radical transgender ideology that
the left continues to embrace and sadly, a great many
in corporate America do as well. Tennis legend Martina Navertilova
has called out Nike for funding transgender research for undermining women.
(00:57):
We're going to talk about that and how it reflects
just how radical the left continues to be. And finally,
we're going to talk about how the Democrat Party in
Washington is breaking down how the media is losing their
mind CNN, MSNBC. They are ringing the alarm bells that
the Democrats extreme policies are so out of touch with
(01:17):
the American people that they're losing support every single day.
And yet the Democrats hatred of Donald Trump is so
great they can't pull back from the radical policy positions,
all of them.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
We're going to break down in today's show.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, and you mentioned that last story, which in a
very interesting way, is going to connect with this first story.
It is being celebrated by the left of the media
that these judges I describe them as activist judges are saying,
watch this. We're going to get involved and we're going
to stop Donald Trump and what he's doing. The man
that he has from the voters. He was elected president
(01:53):
the United States of America an agenda that is overwhelmingly
popular with the majority of Americans, and we're going to
just what he's doing. And this is another example of lawfare.
The fact that there are though four that have come
down in a twenty four hour period. I got to
ask the question, and there's so many listening that are
going to want to know this center, which is is
(02:14):
this not orchestrated. I mean, when you have four in
a row, is that a coincidence? Is that how the
court systems work? Or is this a orchestrated, clear effort
they wanted a major SmackDown on the president's agenda.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Well, it's orchestrated by the plaintiffs, but not the courts themselves.
But this is going to be the pattern we're going
to see. The last four years, we saw the left
wage law fair against Donald Trump by indicting him, not once,
not twice, not three times, four different times. We saw
Democrats going to court to try to throw Donald Trump
off the ballot because they were terrified the voters were
(02:49):
going to elect him, which of course they did. That's
the same reason they indicted him, because they were terrified
voters were going to elect him, which of course they did.
Now now that President Trump is back in this is
the next phase of their lawfare, and every single day
of the Trump administration, we are going to see blue
state attorneys general and left wing activist groups filing lawsuits.
(03:12):
And they are filing them. They are seeking out extreme
left wing judges. They're going to blue jurisdictions, particularly blue
to jurisdictions where they are confident they will get radicals
and robes, and so far the pattern is having considerable success.
Now I am hopeful that on appeal the Courts of
Appeals or the Supreme Court are going to reverse this.
But this is their strategy to try to stop the
(03:35):
agenda that the American people elected President Trump to implement.
So let's start with the first one. The first one
is a case called League of Women Voters Election Fund
versus Trump, and it deals with election integrity. Now, election
integrity is an issue that has widespread support among the voters.
Voters want our elections to be secure, and if you
(03:58):
look at the United States, the United States law concerning
election integrity are far behind many other nations. So for example,
India and Brazil are tying voter identification to a biometric database.
The United States, in contrast, largely relies on self attestation
(04:18):
for citizenship. Germany and Canada both require the use of
paper ballots counted in public by local officials. America, on
the other hand, we have a patchwork of voting methods
that lead to serious chain of custody problems. Other countries,
like Denmark and Sweden, they limit mail in voting to
(04:40):
those unable to vote in person, and they don't count
late arriving votes regardless of the day of the postmark. Nonetheless,
many American elections, particularly those in blue states, feature mass
voting by mail, with many Democrat officials accepting ballots without
postmarks or those received after election day. Now, what does
(05:02):
federal law say about this? Multiple federal laws make it
clear that only American citizens are prohibited to vote in
federal elections, and yet we see, particularly in Blue states,
that requirement, that legal federal requirement being violated.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Well.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
On March twenty fifth of this year, President Trump issued
an executive order that was called Preserving and Protecting the
Integrity of American Elections, and it is focused on requiring
proof of citizenship to register to vote. Almost instantaneously, a
group of left wing organizations sued President Trump, and they
sued him in the District to Columbia Court and in
(05:40):
a liberal judge, Judge Colleen Kollarcotelli, who was appointed by
Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction and block the Trump
administration from implementing the executive order from requiring proof of citizenship.
Her reasoning, I've got to say, makes very little sense.
Her reasoning. She says, well, the power to regulate elections
(06:03):
is given to Congress and given to the states, not
the president. Well, she ignores the fact that Congress has legislated.
Congress has passed legislation making clear that only American citizens
can vote in federal elections. And so once Congress has
acted the constitution, Article two of the Constitution gives the
(06:26):
president a duty to quote take care that the laws
be faithfully executed. That's what the President is doing. And
yet to left wing activists, they don't want the president
to enforce federal law. And so this appeal will go
to the d C Circuit. It's going to matter immensely
what the panel of judges are that are on the
(06:47):
d C Circuit. But this is one example, and we're
going to go through several more of how left wing
groups are going to wage war against the president implementing
what the American people elected him to implement.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
They're all filed in very liberal courts and for a
liberal judges that had no problem saying, yep, I want
to be a part of this law.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Fair.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
The first one was filed in DC. The second one
was filed in San Francisco, and it deals with Trump's
executive orders to cut off funding to sanctuary cities, to
cities that defy federal immigration law. Again, this is the
president seeking to enforce federal law. And yet the plaintiffs
went and sought out a judge, Judge William Morrick, he's
(07:27):
an Obama appointee in San Francisco, who granted an injunction
against enforcing those executive orders. Now, I got to say,
the Planetfts were not surprised with this because this is
the same district judge who granted the order against the
exact same thing in the first Trump administration. So they
went back to the same judge. They said, hey, would
you do it again? And by the way, in the
(07:48):
first Trump administration that went up on appeal to the
Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is consistently the most left
wing court of appeals in the country. In the Ninth
Circuit upheld that order stopping the first Trump administration's order
against funding sanctuary cities, and sadly the Supreme Court did
not take that appeal. You've got to assume this case
will get appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth
(08:10):
Circuit presumably will do the same thing it did last time,
and what we've got to hope for here is this
time the Supreme Court will take the case in reverse
it the third case.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
The third case deals.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
With DEI, and in fact, the third and fourth cases
both deal with DEI. The Department of Education published a
Dear Colleague letter reminding Title six funding recipients that they
have to comply with anti discrimination law. And it made
clear that Title six and the Equal Protection Clause of
(08:42):
the Constitution bind the recipients. And if you're getting federal law,
you got to comply. If you're getting federal money, you
got to comply with federal law. Well, there were two
lawsuits that were filed. One that was filed in Maryland,
and in Maryland they were in front of Judge Stephanie Gallagher,
who was a Trump appointee. Although I would know Maryland
is a state with two Democrat senators, and the way
(09:03):
it works with district judges is the senators have an
enormous say, so even though this judge was appointed by Trump,
she almost certainly was put forward by the Democrat senators
in Maryland. Judge Gallagher issued an injunction saying that the
letter that was giving guidance to the recipients of federal
funds that constituted a federal rule, a final federal action,
(09:25):
and that it was arbitrary and capricious and violated federal law. Likewise,
in New Hampshire, in both lawsuits, the Maryland and New
Hampshire lawsuit, it was the Teachers Union, the National Education
Association UH, and the American Federation Teachers that filed a lawsuit,
and and in New Hampshire UH, the judge there likewise
(09:49):
issued an order UH in joining. In this case, it
was Judge Landia McCaffrey and Obama appointee who granted the
order and and and said that that it was vague,
the Department of Education's instructions were vague because you couldn't
figure out what a DEI program is, and so issued
(10:11):
at in junction. You know, it's amazing everybody knows what
a DEI program is. And then what the Department Education
is saying is if you discriminate based on race, that
is illegal, and we're not going to send you money
if you are violating federal law. By the way, that's
the same thing the Sanctuary Cities executive order said. And
yet four district judges for injunctions all the latest development
(10:37):
in the battle of law fair. And I will say
what we've got a hope for is number one, the
courts of Appeals stepping in and reversing these decisions. But
number two, ultimately the Supreme Court stepping in and saying
enough is enough. The President has the authority and in
fact the responsibility to enforce federal law.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
So let's go through a couple different scenarios here. Number one,
I'm assuming that some of these judges know that a
SmackDown is going to come from this, right like, they're
not dumb, so it's law fair, but they know this
is going to be a fight. They seem to be
okay with that, and they don't care that that may
(11:17):
be coming. Is that because this is the new plan
of Hey, as long as you can delay and then
delay a little bit more, and then delay a little
bit more and hold him up and the Trump agenda up,
then that's still success and a weird way to them.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, let me say, sadly, they don't know they're going
to get a SmackDown. Number one, there are a lot
of liberal Court of Appeals judges. You looked at the
San Francisco judge that enjoined the President's sanctuary cities executive order.
That judge knows the appeal goes to the Ninth Circuit,
which is an extreme left wing court, and so that judge,
(11:54):
I'm sure, is expecting the Ninth Circuit will agree with him,
and you do have a final backstop of the Supreme
But the Supreme Court takes a tiny fraction of the
cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. And so listen,
I think what the left wing litigants are gambling is
they sue on everything. They're going to win a number
of these cases. Some may get overturned on appeal, but
(12:16):
some will not. And their approach, I think is flood
the zone. It's the exact same thing they did when
they indicted Trump over and over and over again. Not
just once, they kept doing it over and over again, saying, Okay,
if the New York case doesn't stick, we'll bring the
DC one. All right, If the DC one doesn't stick,
we'll bring the Georgia one. They're doing the same thing here.
(12:37):
They know many, if not most, will be overturned, but
they're gambling, and it's probably a right gamble that not
all of them will be overturned. And so every single
one of the policy matters that the president is implementing.
And to be clear, the President campaigned on these issues.
He promised the American people this is what he'd do.
And the Democrats they don't want democracy, the will of
(13:02):
the voters to be honored, and so they're using the
courts to attack ultimately the will of the voters.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
So final question on this, and there's precedent right in
the courts in theory.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
We hear a lot about that.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Is there any way that the Supreme Court can say
stop it and you can't keep doing this over and
over again for the next four years, or do they
only able to say that basically on one issue or
subject or lawsuit at a time.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Well, I'll give you some good news about these four
district court decisions, which these decisions were not nationwide injunctions.
We've talked about on this show before, the phenomenon of
nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
We've seen.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
A nationwide injunction is even more egregious, where you prevent
the president from enforcing the law, or prevent the cabinet
agency from enforcing the law against anybody anywhere in the country.
They didn't do that here. What they did here is
they issued an injunction only with respect to the parties
who were suing the same suary cities case. That case
(14:02):
was brought by sixteen left wing cities, and so that
injunction applies to protect those sixteen cities, but nobody else.
That's at least a good sign. That being said, this
battle will keep going over and over again. And I'll
tell you one of the things this underscores is why
good principal judges matter so much, and why the President
and the Senate need to keep putting strong Court of
(14:24):
Appeals judges on the bench to overturn this kind of nonsense.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
All right, Senator, I want to move to this other
big issue, and that deals with some really shocking news
from a woman. And if you don't know her background,
I think it's important to take a moment so people
understand who Martine and Avatolova is. She is the most
decorated woman in women's tennis history. The number of Grand
(14:49):
Slams that she has won is just incredible. She was
one of the very first athletes to ever come out
as being gay. She has been a huge advocate in
her care for LGBTQ community. But then she stood up
to them on men and women's sports and they started
to attack her, and she said, I'm not backing down.
(15:10):
There is a difference between men and women. It is
wrong to allow men to compete with women. She even lost,
like she was kicked off of boards and different things
that happened in the in the community that she was in.
And she I think she was shocked by the intolerance
of of of all of these different radical extremist groups
that went after her because she said there is a difference.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
Well, now she's not backing down again.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
She is blasting a major company, Nike, over a shocking
report that they were actually doing research and in transathlete
research at Nike, and she's like, what are you doing.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Well, let me say, first of all, you just said
a minute ago Martine and Nabertelovra, she said, you said
she won a lot of major Nobody knows how many.
I will say, Ben, there's this thing called the Google
that you know, you have a phone, you can type
it in. You actually just have to do Martina in
and it comes right up the stats and right from
(16:15):
the Google. It told me one of the most successful
tennis players of all time. She was ranked as the
world number one in women's singles for how many weeks?
How many weeks do you think you're the tennis player
you played tennis at all?
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Miss?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Oh, it's going to be hundreds.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
I know that, three hundred and thirty two weeks.
Speaker 5 (16:29):
Bam, there you go.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
And she won one hundred and sixty seven top level
single titles, one hundred and seventy seven doubles titles and
including an Open era record of fifty nine major titles,
eighteen and singles, thirteen in women's doubles, ten and mixed doubles.
And how many Wimbledon singles titles do you think she won?
Speaker 5 (16:51):
In Wimbledon singles titles? I know this. Hold on, it's
a trivia question for me.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
You can't use the nine.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
It's nine. No, No, it's nine. I'm pretty sure it's nine.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Look at that, Sam Benjamin, Okay, you're a tennis guy.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
It is nine. And I didn't know that, but that
if Wikipedia is right, then it is nine.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
So so, and here's here's another tidbit for you. The
French opens coming up. And and do you know me?
Speaker 5 (17:16):
She won?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
There no idea, she won two. I didn't read it
that far in Wikipedia.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
No, no, no, So she won two there, but that was
like her hardest service to win on clay.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
She does not like clay, and it was Cio clay.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
You should be impressed that I knew the French Open
was clay.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Exactly, and so she was the one that completed the
Grand Slam because she won the Australian Open, I want
to say three or four times, French Open twice, Wimbledon nine,
and I think she won the US Open.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
I want to say it was four or five times.
It was incredible.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
But here's a tidbit about her, and this is the
this should impress everybody because when she was in the
middle of all this winning, she was stripped of her
citizenship when she was seventeen or eighteen and asked the
United States for political asylum. And so not only was
she winning, but she was in the middle of Jessicovakia
(18:06):
when it happened.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
She was a chess citizen and all of this was
going on.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
So you talk about a woman that was incredible and
focused and was able to pull all this off. It
tells you about how big of a leader she was,
and I think that is saying we should just remind
people of when you talk about her leading on this
issue and coming out and then yet saying it's wrong
for men to play in women's sports, like she's always
(18:33):
been a leader on these types of issues.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
Well and end. Listen, I will say Martina and avertslower.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
She's not a conservative, she's not a person of the right,
but she is one of the greatest women athletes to
have ever lived, and she's shown real courage saying, look,
if men compete in women's sports, men have significant physiological advantages,
and it's not fair, it's not right. I mean, she recognized,
even as one of the greatest women to have ever played,
(18:58):
that if she was playing again against Pete Sampras, if
she was playing against you know, any of the top
male players, that that it would not be fair and
she would not stand a chance. And that that's the
simple reality. How much faster so you played Division one tennis,
How much faster does does a male college player hit
(19:21):
a serve as compared to a top level female college player.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
When I was when I was playing college, if you
were a women at one of the top women in
college hitting.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
A big serve, you were probably.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
One hundred to one hundred and three four five miles
an hour, and that would be like less than one
percent of women in college at that time doing that men.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
So that's on the.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Top level, top level, the fastest serves women are hitting.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Now, how about how about I.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Mean a lot of them were probably eighty to eighty five.
Eighty six miles an hour would probably been the average then,
and men the average was probably one hundred and five
to one hundred and ten was the average.
Speaker 5 (19:59):
I means, significant kid difference.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
And how about the top level, the very best.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Top top So the fast serve I ever hit in
my life I think was one. I want to say
it was one twenty five, one twenty six.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
That's not a tennis ball, that's a bullet.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Yeah, I mean it did. I mean there's a huge difference.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
You had that extra thirty miles on top of what
like where the women were the men?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
It's night and day, Okay, And I'm going to say this,
I don't mean to be disrespectful. I mean, you were
a good college tennis player, but you weren't one of
the very top men in the country.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Correct, Yeah, no, yeah, one hundred percent. I mean the
guys that were hitting the big serves. I remember one
time practicing with Andy Roddick and and Andy was hitting
one thirty seven, one forties.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
John Isner, buddy of mine. He's he I think he
has the fastest serve on record, he was. I want
to say it was one forty seven. Uh, if I
remember correctly, I mean it's it's it's there's there's no woman, it's.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Given percent more.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
One forty seven is fifty percent more than you said,
like the top women college athletes would be serving about
one hundred or one hundred and two, correct. I mean
that's that's why Martina Naberzelov has been so clear saying
this is wildly Unfairwell, what she did this week is
she called out Nike, and this is a bizarre story.
It is a story published in The New York Times
(21:11):
that laid out evidence that Nike is financing a study
of trans athletes and a study of trans athletes that
was called out online on x by women's sportswear company
executive Jennifer Say, who went on social media and said,
I'm still stunned by this. Nike is funding a study
(21:33):
that disfigured young boys to understand if they can be
physically impaired enough to compete with girls without significant quote
retained male advantage. Why is a sneaker brand doing medical
experiments on children? And Martina and Abergelova retweeted that she said,
(21:55):
Joanna Harper is going too far as is Nike, needless
to say, and she calls out Nike, same company that
doctor Allison Felix for being pregnant. So she left and
formed her own company. Sayese, so thanks for nothing, Nike,
And I got to say, look, there are a lot
of issues where the left has completely.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Left the American people behind.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Sanctuary cities, embracing voter fraud, open borders, supporting illegal immigrants
and gang members, and wanting more gang members brought to
this country. All of those are extreme. But I don't
know that there is an issue that is more out
of the mainstream and yet more required by elected Democrats
(22:38):
then demanding that men compete against and in women's sports
and boys compete in girls sports.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
And it is.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
It was a major issue in twenty twenty four in
the election. President Trump used the issue. I used the
issue in my reelection campaign, and I got to say,
Senate races across the country use the issue, and the
American people said, enough is enough, and what's interesting?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
All right?
Speaker 2 (23:03):
So in my reelection, when I was running ads against
my opponent because he had voted repeatedly in favor of
men competing women's sports, the reporters thought, oh, well, Cruise
is competing to the crazy right wing kooks, and they
wrote articles like that, and I actually laughed at them
because we had done focus groups and in fact, we
(23:25):
had done focus groups of undecided moderate women in Houston
and Dallas and we tested like thirty different messages on them.
You know, the number one message with undecided moderate women
in Houston and Dallas, what was that? Boys and girls sports?
Speaker 5 (23:43):
There you go.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
And the reporters didn't get it. They're like, oh, these
are crazy right wingers. I'm like, no, No, these are
soccer moms. These are soccer moms that are really pissed off.
And they don't want their daughter playing soccer with some
dude who's going to kick them and get a concussion.
They don't want their daughter playing volley ball with some
dude that's going to spike the ball on her. They
don't want you know, they watched the Olympics and saw
(24:06):
two guys beating the hell out of women boxers, and
they said enough is enough. And what is amazing is,
even though the left is so far out of step,
Nike's continuing to double down and fund this extreme research.
And we had to vote a month and a half
ago in the Senate on stopping boys from competing in girls' sports.
(24:30):
Do you know how many Democrats voted in favor of
protecting girls in women's sports.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
I'm going to guess they voted as a party, and
none of them said, we're going to be saying.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Today absolutely correct. Zero. And this was after the November election.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
If you live in a blue state and you happen
to have a Democrat senator who pretends to be moderate,
which a lot of them do, know that your senator
likewise voted for boys to compete against your daughters, for
men to compete against women. And that's fundamentally unfair. And
if you don't believe me, listen to the eight Martina
and Averchlova Center.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
By the way, we were talking a moment ago about
fastest serves ever in history.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
I just want to give people the fastest.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
So Sam Groth had the fastest serve at a challenger
event one hundred and sixty three point seven miles an
hour and the fastest recorded serve at an ATP tour,
So that's its senior. The highest level can get event
in tennis was by my good friend John Isner. We
went to one of his last matches to watch actually
in Houston. One hundred and fifty seven miles an hour.
(25:29):
So if you think there's a difference but not a
difference between men and women in sports, yeah, just look
at those numbers. You will never find a woman that
has ever hit anywhere close to that.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
There is in difference.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
And Ben, let me say, I'm proud of you that
even in the course of the show you figured out
how to use the Google.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
That was well done.
Speaker 5 (25:45):
I try, you know, I'm a quick learner here.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
All right, let's turn to the Democratic Party in disarray
and it's a real thing right now and CNN is
saying it, so don't trust us. CNN have a freak
out moment on TV with new polling data and here
is what they said.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
Yeah, this I think is a revolt, a revolt that
is going on within the Democratic Party right now. Democrats
and their leaders, I mean, take a look nationally, Hello
Democrats on dem leaders in Congress the belief that they
will do the right thing when it comes to the economy.
Last year, at this time, eighty percent believe that the
Democratic leaders in Congress would do the right thing when
it comes to the economy.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
And keep in mind this as Democrats.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
Look at where we are now, that number has been
slashed in half to just thirty nine percent. Holy Toledo.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
That is the lowest number.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
By far in Gallup polling. The lowest previous was just
sixty percent, which is twenty one points higher than this.
Democrats hate, hate, hate, hate what they're congressional leaders in
Washington are doing right now on the key issue of
the day, the economy, and their confidence has fallen through
the floor. Mister Berman, all right, Chuck Schumer is the
Senate Democratic leader right now.
Speaker 7 (26:57):
How we're feelings about him, particularly in New York.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
Yeah, let's go to the state of New York.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
It's what's always on my mind. Right We're in the
state of New York right now. New York Democrats on
Chuck Schumer view him favorably.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
In December of twenty.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
Twenty four, that was just a few months ago, it
was seventy three percent. Look at where that number has
fallen to in just a few months. It is now
down to just fifty two percent. That is the lowest
I could ever find and see on a college on
how democrats in Chuck Schumer's home state knew him. And
keep in mind, if you're thinking about a primary challenge,
it would be a few years away. But Alexandio Costio
Cortes's favorable rating among Democrats is considerably higher in the sixties,
(27:34):
so he is doing quite poorly.
Speaker 5 (27:36):
In his own home state of New York.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
I never thought i'd see the day in which just
fifty two percent of New York Democrats with view Chuck
Schumer favorably.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
It's almost unfathomable.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
It's almost unfathomable. Now here's the takeaway for me Center.
The fact that AOC has a higher approval rating than
Chuck Schumer means a Democratic party is dead. The socialist
Marxists and Communists have taken get it over and now
they're out with these old guys. We also saw one
of your colleagues, Dick Durbin, hanging it up, saying I'm
(28:07):
out of here, I'm not running for reelection.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Well, what is stunning about that is a couple of things.
Number One, as they're relaying poll numbers that show Democrats
unhappy with the Democrat leadership in Congress. The reason they're
unhappy is they think Chuck Schumer is not crazy enough.
They think Akeem Jeffries is not crazy enough. The problem
(28:31):
and end. Listen, We're in a very polarized society. Both
both sides are pulling further and further apart. But people
that identify as partisan Democrats, they hate Donald Trump. And
I'm not quite sure what they want Chuck Schumer to
be doing. Maybe lighting himself on fire on the Senate floor,
running around naked, screaming at the top of his lungs.
(28:51):
I don't know, you know, maybe they just want him
to join AOC and Bernie Sanders on their Fight the
Oligarchy tour. Oh to be clear, they're flying around in
private jets to fight the oligarchy, which actually may symbolize
today's Democrat Party more than anything else. They could do
to get off their private jet and stand up and
say fight the oligarchy. And by the way, George Soros,
(29:14):
thanks for the money. But the Democrats want their elected
leaders to be even more crazy that. And this is
after four years of absolute shambles of the Obama administration.
And what's striking also about that clip you played is CNN,
which is a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party, is
(29:34):
panicking that they can't believe it. They are terrified. The
media is in desiray. You mentioned Dick Durbin, Democrat Cenater
from Illinois, announced he was not running for reelection. Look,
Dick Durbin is the number two Democrat in the entire Senate.
He is number two only to Schumer, and he's calling
(29:54):
it quits. He is also the top the ranking member,
the top Democrat on the Senate jud Year Committee. Used
to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And
so they've got senior Democrats that are saying, get me
out of this place.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Well, and by the way, he said something that was
really interesting, how low the bar has fallen. So Dick
Durbin's excuse for why is not running for reelection was
in essence, well, I don't want to become Joe Biden.
Speaker 5 (30:20):
And he put it this way in the interview.
Speaker 7 (30:22):
Listen, a senator yesterday, after you made your announcement that
you would not be seeking reelection, there were a number
of Democrats who privately really applauded your choice, saying that
it was that it was something the right thing to do,
to step aside and perhaps let a younger generation of
politicians step to the forefront. We know the idea of
democratic elected officials and age has been a hot topic
(30:43):
in recent years.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Do you hope do you agree.
Speaker 4 (30:46):
With that thinking?
Speaker 7 (30:46):
Do you think it is time now for younger politicians,
the next generation to come forward?
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Well?
Speaker 6 (30:53):
I think this it's more complex. It is not just
a question of a number what your age is. Look
at Bernie Sanders, for god sake, still drawing thousands and
thousands of people out for rallies, and he's a few
years older than I am. The bottom line is are
you competent? Can you still do the job? That's the
question the voter should ask. But should a new generation
(31:13):
be interested in public service? You bet. I've spent my
time in office trying to encourage younger people to get involved.
Speaker 8 (31:21):
Senator Durbin, it's Ali vitally. I wonder if I can
pick up on something you just said, this idea of
are you competent? Are you able to do this job?
In the Senate? As you see this push from the
grassroots that lamiir is talking about here. Do you think
enough of your colleagues are asking themselves those fundamental questions
about if they can continue to serve.
Speaker 6 (31:40):
I think so. I think if you're honest about yourself
and your reputation, you want to leave when you can
still walk out the front door and not be carried
out the back door.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
I mean, you hear that, and it's basically saying, well,
I'm not going to pull at Joe Biden, and other
people need to look at this as well. I think
clearly knocking Joe Biden in that and what he just
said as well.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Well, And nobody in that discussion acknowledged that Dick Durbin
spent four years lying to the American people saying that
Joe Biden was not senile, that he was mentally capable
to do the job. By the way, CNN spent four
years lying to the American people screaming that it was
a conspiracy theory to point out what is obviously true
and was obviously true then that Biden's mental capacity was
(32:25):
severely diminished. I will say this, and actually it might
surprise you. I'm going to say something nice about Durbin
So I've served with Durbin for thirteen years on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and I'll tell you what I tell
any nominees that are coming before Judiciary, I tell them
Durbin is the single most dangerous Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
(32:45):
because I think he's the smartest Democrat, and he is
radical and extreme, but he's very good at sounding reasonable.
There are other Democrats that are radical and extreme, a
Sheldon white House and Adam Schiff, but they sound like
lunatic when they're ranting. Everyone knows their lunatics. Part of
what makes Durbin such a dangerous questioner for Republican nominees
(33:08):
or Republican witnesses is he's very good at masking his
extreme policies in ways that sound much more reasonable than
his colleagues. And so I will say for Democrats, seeing
Durbin hang it up is a real loss to them.
Speaker 5 (33:23):
Yeah, no doubt. Don't forget.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
We do this show as a podcast, so make sure
you download Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 5 (33:30):
We do it three days a week. Don't miss an episode.
Grab it.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
We'll see you back here next week and on our
podcasts on Monday morning,
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!