April 26, 2025 • 27 mins
-
Supreme Court Ruling:
- The Supreme Court issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an 18th-century law.
- Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented, criticizing the decision as hasty and legally questionable.
- The ruling was made without giving lower courts a chance to rule or hearing from the opposing party.
-
Implications for the Trump Administration:
- The ruling poses a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants.
- The decision was seen as a significant roadblock, with concerns about its impact on future immigration policies.
-
Procedural Concerns:
- The dissent highlighted procedural issues, including the quick turnaround time for the ruling and the lack of jurisdiction.
- The process was compared to emergency appeals in death penalty cases, where last-minute filings can lead to rushed decisions.
-
Political Strategy:
- The discussion suggests that the Democrats might be aiming to frustrate the Supreme Court justices to influence future rulings against the Trump administration.
- The strategy involves creating legal and procedural hurdles to delay or block deportation efforts.
-
Vandalism Incident:
- We also mention a separate incident involving a Minnesota state employee who vandalized multiple Tesla vehicles.
- The district attorney decided not to press charges, leading to frustration among law enforcement and the public.
- The discussion touches on broader issues of lawlessness and political bias in prosecuting crimes.
-
Democratic Party Disarray:
- A discussion on the internal challenges within the Democratic Party.
- Polling data shows declining confidence in Democratic leaders, with significant dissatisfaction among party members.
- The potential for younger politicians to step forward and the impact of senior Democrats retiring are also discussed.
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
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 (00:01):
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Weekend Review, Ben
Ferguson with you, and here are the big stories that
you may have missed that we talked about this week.
First up, Scotus getting involved in the deportation of Venezuela
and illegals. It's interesting to see what Alito and Thomas
had to say about it.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
We're going to break that down.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Also, you know that Teslaitaris, well, some radical judges are saying, yeah,
let's just let him go. Where's it happening and how
are they getting away with it? That as well? And finally, yes,
it's real CNN sounding the alarm that the Democratic Party
is in total disarray. So is the Democratic Party over with?
(00:39):
And are they just going to admit their socialists and
communists and Marxists. Will break that down as well. It's
the Weekend Review and it starts right now. I want
to move also to this second big story. And there's
some people that are confused. I also think very frustrated
by this Supreme Court halting the deportations of illegal immigrants
(00:59):
and cases. Can you break down what this ruling is.
Alito was in the descent here and the headlines over
Easter weekend, people are like, wait, what, how, why is
this happening. I don't understand how we're protecting people that
are legal immigrants. Yet again, at the level of the
Supreme Court break this down, so it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Well, the Supreme Court early Saturday morning issued in order
blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an eighteenth
century law. And what it said is that they had
to halt the deportations until quote further order of this Court.
(01:40):
And I got to say, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas,
wrote a very fiery descent, really disagreeing with it. I'm
going I'm gonna read you part of the descent. Here's
what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted
unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the all Ritz Act. The
Court ordered the quote government not to remove a quote
putative class of detainees until this Court issues a superseding order.
Although the order does not define the quote putative class,
(02:18):
it appears that the Court means all members of the
class that the Habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely
quote all non citizens in custody in the Northern District
of Texas who were, are and will be subject to
the March twenty twenty five Presidential proclamation entitled Invocation of
the Alien Enemies Act regarding the Invasion of the United
(02:40):
States by Trender Aragua and or its implementation. It also
appears that applicants have recently moved to amend their class
petition for Habeas corpus and their motion for class certification,
so it is not clear if the applicants will continue
to defend this specific definition or will argue for a
new one. And although the Court does not specify what
(03:00):
it means by the government, it appears that term is
intended to embrace all the name defendants, including the President.
The Court did all of this even though it is
not clear that the court had jurisdiction. The Allrits Act
does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the
(03:20):
court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had
jurisdictions of the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals
had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants
appealed amounted to a denial of a preliminary injunction. But
here the order that applicants appealed was what they viewed
as the District Court's constructive denial of their request for
(03:42):
a temporary restraining order. That is, the District Court did
not actually deny their most recent request for a TRO,
but they inferred that it was constructively denied because the
District Court failed a rule on that request before the
expiration of a truncated counts imposed deadline. The denial of
(04:03):
a true TRO is not appealable, and here it is
not clear that the applicant's TRO request was actually denied. Indeed,
an order issued last night the Fifth Circuit held that
it lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, it is questionable whether
the applicant complied with a general obligation to seek emergency
and junctive relief in the district Court before asking for
(04:24):
such relief from an appellate court. When applicants requested such
relief in the District Court, they insisted on a ruling
within forty five minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when
the District Court did not act within one hundred and
thirty three minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which
the District Court held deprived it of its jurisdiction. Now
(04:48):
a lot of that that jurisdictional language seems confusing, but
understand what happened. They went to the District Court and
they said we want an answer within forty five minutes,
and the court did not respond one where another forty
five minutes. They immediately appealed and said, up, they haven't answered.
That means you've denied it. And the Court of Appeals
(05:10):
ruled that, well, we're not going to act on this,
and unfortunately, seven to two, the Supreme Court jumped in.
And in fact, here's how Justice Leado and Justice Thomas
end their dissent quote in some literally in the middle
of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief,
(05:32):
without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without
hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving
the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and
without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to
join the Court's order because we had no good reason
to think that under the circumstances, issuing the order at
(05:53):
midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the
judiciary have an obligation of of the law. The executive
must proceed under the terms of our order, and this
court should follow established procedures.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
So you look at this and what is this going
to mean moving forward? And how big of a roadblock
is this going to be for the Trump administration to
do what they've said and promised the American people. And
by the way, the American people voted for, which was
we want to secure the border and we want to
get rid of all the illegal immigrants that came into
this country, especially those that are violent.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Well, look, it's not clear how big a challenge it's
going to be. The most distressing thing about this order
was that it was seven to two.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Seven to two is not good.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
It means everybody by Alito and Thomas voted to stay
to halt the deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
It's not clear.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Presumably they're going to write a more extended opinion at
some point, and so we'll find out more their reasoning.
But I got to say, look, look, these two stories,
this story in the first one are connected because I
will say the Democrats strategy in doing the full Ginsburg
in some ways, I think their audience is not the
American people. They've got to know somebody on the Democrat
(07:10):
side of the aisle has got to know, Hey, this
is not earning US votes. When we say we're the
party of illegal aliens and criminals and gang members and
wife beaters, that's us that.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
You don't have to be.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
A rocket scientist when it comes to reading public opinion
to know that's not the most popular of issues to
stake your entire party platform on. But in many ways,
they're aiming at a much smaller audience. They're they're they're
aiming at five They're hoping to get five justices pissed off,
(07:47):
and to get them pissed off enough that we see
a series of Supreme Court orders against the Trump administration
trying to halt these deportations. Now, I don't think that's
going to happen, but this ruling is troubling that it
was seven to two.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Alito's descent.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Look, Alito was was very concerned about this, uh and
and the procedural minutia that he that he recounts as
is very unusual. Uh And so that dynamic it is
a dangerous process.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Uh it is.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Right now, there's a little bit of a game of chicken,
and I think what the Democrats are trying to do
is piss off a couple of Supreme Court justices and
get them to rule decisively against the president.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
That would be very unfortunate if that starts to happen.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Simply another question, real quick before we move on, is
part of this. Could it just be the quickness that
they were asking for the ruling from the court. Is
that something that you could change moving forward? Could that
be part of that issue?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yeah, Look, it was done as an emergency appeal, and
and they're there's another context to where this happens a lot,
which is dealing with death penalty appeals. And when you
have death penalty appeals, you have someone who's been convicted
of a capital offense and they're set to be executed,
and very frequently you have last minute appeals that are filed.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
And I'll tell you when I was a law clerk.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
I was a law clerk for Chief Justice Renquist in
nineteen ninety six and nineteen ninety seven, and at the time,
so this gives you a sense, you can now make
a crack about how old I am at the time.
The way we would get these emergency appeals is they
would be faxed in, so they weren't emailed at the time.
They'd be faxed in and you'd get it off the
facts and you would get say, if the midnight was
(09:41):
if the execution was scheduled to happen at midnight, and
by the way, if it was midnight on the West coast,
that meant it was three am in d C. But
if the execution was scheduled at midnight, you would get
sometimes one hundred page appeal faxed in at ten thirty pm.
(10:02):
And what would happen. So what plays out when that
gets faxed in is is the justice who is the
lead justice for that circuit. So each circuit, each region
of the country has a lead justice who is the
justice to whom emergency appeals go. Initially, Chief Justice Renquest
was the lead justice for the fourth circuit was concerned
(10:23):
death penalty appeals, and so that was Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia in particularly there
were fair number capital cases. So you would get it
facts to you, you as the law clerk, would read
through it. You'd have to read through it very quickly.
You'd have to prepare a memo, write a memo, you
(10:45):
then send it to your justice, and a lot of times,
if this was at midnight or one or two or
three in the morning, you'd have to call home and
wake your justice up. Your Justice would be asleep. You'd
call home, you'd say, Chief, we had an emergency appeal.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Now.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Now the Justice would know there was a execution set
that night, and so would know that there is likely
to be a call. But you'd call, wake your justice
up and ask, Okay, here's the arguments, here's what I
think about it. And you would write a memo from
your justice saying summarizing the arguments in the appeal and
(11:19):
making the recommendation. So for Chief Justice Renquist, in virtually
every circumstance, if someone was seeking to halt an execution
at the last minute, he would recommend that that be denied.
You would then forward it to the other eight chambers.
To the other eight chambers, and there was a law clerk,
So in the night of execution, at least nine of
us were there till midnight or one or two or
(11:41):
three in the morning. And so when you would forward
your memo, in a memo in a case like this,
would be anywhere from two to maybe eight pages, depending
on how complicated the issues were. They would then get
your memo, and they've gotten the appeal as well, so
they're reading the appeal at the same time. They would
then call their justice, wake him or her up at home,
(12:03):
and they would cast votes at midnight or one or
two or three in the morning. And a strategy that
is still quite frequent when it comes to death penalty
appeals is just throw so much crap at the wall
that they're hoping that justices say, I don't know, I
can't figure this out this quickly, all right, just stay
the execution, halt the execution so we can figure this
(12:25):
all out. And unfortunately that strategy, that that strategy can work.
That there may have been some of that that this
was being done over Easter weekend very quickly, and it
may be that the justices wanted to say, hold on
a second, we want to understand what's going on here.
That's possible, but I do think the democrats entire strategy
(12:49):
is try to see if they can get a majority
of the Supreme Court ticked off. And I don't think
that's happened, but I do think that would be very
dangerous and harmful if it did happen.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
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.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Which, by the way, also brings us to another issue
real quick, and that is, I still can't believe this.
There's a guy that went viral, a Minnesota state employee
who apparently caused about twenty thousand, or over twenty thousand
damages to Tesla's I'm going to say that, make it clear, plural,
(13:31):
not one, but multiple. It has now led to a
woke liberal district attorney saying, Nah, we don't really want
to hold this guy accountable. Let's keep the lawlessness up.
As long as it's against conservatives and Elon Musk and
Tesla owners. We're fine with that. No big deal, you're
good man. We're gonna let you basically go on home.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Well, there is a suspected vandal. He's thirty three years old.
He is a government employee. His name is Dylan Brian Atta,
and he was allegedly spotted keen multiple Tesla vehicles stripping
their paint off while walking his dog around the city,
and he caused over twenty thousand dollars in damage, vandalizing
(14:14):
half a dozen teslas. So he was doing this over
and over and over again. And by the way, if
this guy did this, he's dumb as a stump. Because
tesla's all have cameras on them that video the person,
any person who walks up to them, so he's doing
it on camera. Because leftists number one, they're utter hypocrites.
(14:34):
So they're claimed to care about the Green New Deal
or complete lies because they've decided now to attack electric cars.
Why because they hate Elon Musk. And understand, they hate
Elon Musk not just because he's now supporting Trump, not
just because he's now cutting the government. They hate Elon
Musk because he's a heretic. This is religion, and the
(14:58):
woke leftist cultural Marxist religion five years ago lionized Elon
Musk and they view him as someone who has betrayed
the faith. And so this angry government employee, who as
far as I know, has not lost his job despite
being a brazen criminal, uh was caught keing and and
(15:24):
vandalizing six different teslas. And unfortunately, the the Hennemouth County
District Attorney is a woman named Mary Moriarty, who is
a left wing George Soros DA and she decided that
that that that they're not going to go go after her. Uh,
(15:44):
that that that that they're they're not going to charge him.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Uh and.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
It is unfortunate. So the chief of police, Minneapolis Police
Chief Brianohra said that the damage in each case was
the equivalent of a felony. And the chief said in
escathing statement on Monday, this is from The New York Post,
that Moriarty's decision not to bring charges is frustrating for
his officers in the public. And here's what the police
(16:15):
chief said quote. The Minneapolis Police Department did its job.
It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified and arrested
a suspect, and presented the case file to the Henneman
County District the Keneman County Attorney's Office for consideration of charges.
The case impacted at least six different victims and totaled
(16:39):
over twenty thousand dollars in damage. Any frustration related to
the charging decision of the Henneman County Attorneys should be
directed solely at her office. Our investigators are always frustrated
when the cases they poured their hearts into are declined.
In my experience, the victims in this these cases often
(17:01):
feel the same. That's the chief of police and the
sad reality it is that for leftists today, for elected Democrats,
they are now openly embracing domestic terrorism. They are now
openly we played on this podcast before Chuck Schumer refused
(17:23):
to condemn people fire bombing Tesla dealerships, people throwing molotov
cocktails at Testa dealerships, people firing guns into tested dealerships.
Somebody's gonna be killed. I don't want that to happen.
I pray it does not happen. But this escalating violence
is going to lead to a loss of life. And
(17:43):
the Democrats are celebrating it. And now the left wing
DA's are saying, hey, you've vandalized cars and we decide
we don't like the person who owns the company that
built the car. Well, tough luck, sorry, Ben, We're gonna
scratch up your car, we're gonna keep it. We're gonna
do thousand dollars of damage and nothing you can do
about it because we the Democrats, support domestic terrorism.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. And there's also that just scary
psychological aspect of it. If you know your DA won't
go after the people that are going after your car,
is it going to make you more or less likely
to buy a tesla? That's part of the financial warfare
against Elon Musk.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
And by the way, what's the DA going to do
if they commit violence against you?
Speaker 1 (18:23):
What's the DA going to do if they commit violence
against you? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Like, if this radical leftist is able to vandalize a tesla,
how about if he walks up and punches the owner
of the tesla in the face. Yeah, do you have
any confidence that this left wing nutcase DA is going
to charge the radical with punching someone in the face.
Their view is, Hey, if you're punching a tesla owner
in the face, that's an admirable act of resistance. It
(18:51):
is lawless. And let me be clear, I disagree with
the political views of Marxists and communists and leftists, but
I passionately oppose violence against them. And if anyone engaged
in violence against a leftist, I would support prosecuting them
and sending them to jail. Violence is never acceptable. And
(19:13):
you know what, the Democrats can't say that because they
support they refuse to condemn the violence against their political
opponents because it is part of their ideology. And we
saw that tragically during the Black Lives Matter and Antifa
riots across the country, where Kamala Harris most strikingly raised
money to bail out of jail radical Antifa terrorists who
(19:39):
committed crimes of violence in Minneapolis, same city. Because the
Democrat Party is a party that supports violence in pursuit
of their remaining in power.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
As before, if you want to hear the rest of
this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
dow the podcasts from earlier 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.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
All right, let's.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
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 having a freak out moment on
TV with new polling data and here is what they said.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
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. Keep in mind this as Democrats,
(20:42):
look at where we are now.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
That number has been.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Slashed in half to just thirty nine percent.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Holy Toledo.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
That is the lowest number 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.
Speaker 5 (21:07):
Right, Chuck Schumer is the Senate Democratic leader right now.
How we're feelings about him, particularly in New York.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Yeah, let's go to the state of New York. 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. In December of twenty 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
(21:34):
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 Alexandiocstio Cortes's favorable writing among
Democrats is considerably higher in the sixties, so he is
doing quite poorly in his own home state.
Speaker 6 (21:51):
Of New York.
Speaker 4 (21:52):
I never thought i'd see the day in which just
fifty two percent of New York Democrats with you Chuck
Schumer favorably. It's almost unfathomable.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, it's almost un fathomable. Now here's the takeaway for me, Senator.
The fact that AOC has a higher approval rating than
Chuck Schumer means the Democratic Party is dead. The Socialist,
Marxist and Communists have taken it over, and now they're
out with these old guys.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
We also saw.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
One of your colleagues, Dick Durbin, hanging it up, saying
I'm out of here, I'm not running for reelection.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
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 of Keem Jeffries is not crazy enough. The
(22:44):
problem 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
(23:05):
his lungs. 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
(23:25):
up and say fight the oligarchy. And by the way,
George Soros, 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
(23:47):
Democrat Party, is panicking that they can't believe it. They
are terrified. The media is in desarray. You mentioned Dick Durbin,
the Democrat Center 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,
(24:08):
and he's calling it quits. He is also the top,
the ranking member, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Used to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
And so they gut senior Democrats that are saying, get
me out of this place.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
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 he is not running for reelection was,
in essence, well, I don't want to become Joe Biden.
And he put it this way in the interview.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
Listen, a senator yesterday, after you made your announcement that
you would not be seeking reelection, there are 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
(24:57):
in recent years. Do you hope do you are we
without thinking? Do you think it is time now for
younger politicians, the next generation to come forward?
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Well?
Speaker 7 (25:07):
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's 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
(25:27):
be interested in public service? You bet. I've spent my
time in office trying to encourage younger people to get involved.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Senator Durban 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 Lamir 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 7 (25:54):
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 2 (26:04):
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. He was
a I think, clearly knocking Joe Biden and what he
just said as.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
Well well, And nobody in that discussion acknowledge 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
(26:35):
true and was obviously true then that Biden's mental capacity
was 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
(26:55):
durban is the single most dangerous Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
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, as
Sheldon white House and Adam Schiff, but they sound like
lunatics when they're ranting. Everyone knows their lunatics. Part of
(27:17):
what makes Durbin such a dangerous questioner for Republican nominees
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 2 (27:37):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dial
with 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. Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Weekend Review, Ben
Ferguson with you, and here are the big stories that
you may have missed that we talked about this week.
First up, Scotus getting involved in the deportation of Venezuela
and illegals. It's interesting to see what Alito and Thomas
had to say about it.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
We're going to break that down.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Also, you know that Teslaitaris, well, some radical judges are saying, yeah,
let's just let him go. Where's it happening and how
are they getting away with it? That as well? And finally, yes,
it's real CNN sounding the alarm that the Democratic Party
is in total disarray. So is the Democratic Party over with?
(00:39):
And are they just going to admit their socialists and
communists and Marxists. Will break that down as well. It's
the Weekend Review and it starts right now. I want
to move also to this second big story. And there's
some people that are confused. I also think very frustrated
by this Supreme Court halting the deportations of illegal immigrants
(00:59):
and cases. Can you break down what this ruling is.
Alito was in the descent here and the headlines over
Easter weekend, people are like, wait, what, how, why is
this happening. I don't understand how we're protecting people that
are legal immigrants. Yet again, at the level of the
Supreme Court break this down, so it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Well, the Supreme Court early Saturday morning issued in order
blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an eighteenth
century law. And what it said is that they had
to halt the deportations until quote further order of this Court.
(01:40):
And I got to say, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas,
wrote a very fiery descent, really disagreeing with it. I'm
going I'm gonna read you part of the descent. Here's
what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted
unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the all Ritz Act. The
Court ordered the quote government not to remove a quote
putative class of detainees until this Court issues a superseding order.
Although the order does not define the quote putative class,
(02:18):
it appears that the Court means all members of the
class that the Habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely
quote all non citizens in custody in the Northern District
of Texas who were, are and will be subject to
the March twenty twenty five Presidential proclamation entitled Invocation of
the Alien Enemies Act regarding the Invasion of the United
(02:40):
States by Trender Aragua and or its implementation. It also
appears that applicants have recently moved to amend their class
petition for Habeas corpus and their motion for class certification,
so it is not clear if the applicants will continue
to defend this specific definition or will argue for a
new one. And although the Court does not specify what
(03:00):
it means by the government, it appears that term is
intended to embrace all the name defendants, including the President.
The Court did all of this even though it is
not clear that the court had jurisdiction. The Allrits Act
does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the
(03:20):
court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had
jurisdictions of the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals
had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants
appealed amounted to a denial of a preliminary injunction. But
here the order that applicants appealed was what they viewed
as the District Court's constructive denial of their request for
(03:42):
a temporary restraining order. That is, the District Court did
not actually deny their most recent request for a TRO,
but they inferred that it was constructively denied because the
District Court failed a rule on that request before the
expiration of a truncated counts imposed deadline. The denial of
(04:03):
a true TRO is not appealable, and here it is
not clear that the applicant's TRO request was actually denied. Indeed,
an order issued last night the Fifth Circuit held that
it lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, it is questionable whether
the applicant complied with a general obligation to seek emergency
and junctive relief in the district Court before asking for
(04:24):
such relief from an appellate court. When applicants requested such
relief in the District Court, they insisted on a ruling
within forty five minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when
the District Court did not act within one hundred and
thirty three minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which
the District Court held deprived it of its jurisdiction. Now
(04:48):
a lot of that that jurisdictional language seems confusing, but
understand what happened. They went to the District Court and
they said we want an answer within forty five minutes,
and the court did not respond one where another forty
five minutes. They immediately appealed and said, up, they haven't answered.
That means you've denied it. And the Court of Appeals
(05:10):
ruled that, well, we're not going to act on this,
and unfortunately, seven to two, the Supreme Court jumped in.
And in fact, here's how Justice Leado and Justice Thomas
end their dissent quote in some literally in the middle
of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief,
(05:32):
without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without
hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving
the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and
without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to
join the Court's order because we had no good reason
to think that under the circumstances, issuing the order at
(05:53):
midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the
judiciary have an obligation of of the law. The executive
must proceed under the terms of our order, and this
court should follow established procedures.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
So you look at this and what is this going
to mean moving forward? And how big of a roadblock
is this going to be for the Trump administration to
do what they've said and promised the American people. And
by the way, the American people voted for, which was
we want to secure the border and we want to
get rid of all the illegal immigrants that came into
this country, especially those that are violent.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Well, look, it's not clear how big a challenge it's
going to be. The most distressing thing about this order
was that it was seven to two.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Seven to two is not good.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
It means everybody by Alito and Thomas voted to stay
to halt the deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
It's not clear.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Presumably they're going to write a more extended opinion at
some point, and so we'll find out more their reasoning.
But I got to say, look, look, these two stories,
this story in the first one are connected because I
will say the Democrats strategy in doing the full Ginsburg
in some ways, I think their audience is not the
American people. They've got to know somebody on the Democrat
(07:10):
side of the aisle has got to know, Hey, this
is not earning US votes. When we say we're the
party of illegal aliens and criminals and gang members and
wife beaters, that's us that.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
You don't have to be.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
A rocket scientist when it comes to reading public opinion
to know that's not the most popular of issues to
stake your entire party platform on. But in many ways,
they're aiming at a much smaller audience. They're they're they're
aiming at five They're hoping to get five justices pissed off,
(07:47):
and to get them pissed off enough that we see
a series of Supreme Court orders against the Trump administration
trying to halt these deportations. Now, I don't think that's
going to happen, but this ruling is troubling that it
was seven to two.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Alito's descent.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Look, Alito was was very concerned about this, uh and
and the procedural minutia that he that he recounts as
is very unusual. Uh And so that dynamic it is
a dangerous process.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Uh it is.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Right now, there's a little bit of a game of chicken,
and I think what the Democrats are trying to do
is piss off a couple of Supreme Court justices and
get them to rule decisively against the president.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
That would be very unfortunate if that starts to happen.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Simply another question, real quick before we move on, is
part of this. Could it just be the quickness that
they were asking for the ruling from the court. Is
that something that you could change moving forward? Could that
be part of that issue?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yeah, Look, it was done as an emergency appeal, and
and they're there's another context to where this happens a lot,
which is dealing with death penalty appeals. And when you
have death penalty appeals, you have someone who's been convicted
of a capital offense and they're set to be executed,
and very frequently you have last minute appeals that are filed.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
And I'll tell you when I was a law clerk.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
I was a law clerk for Chief Justice Renquist in
nineteen ninety six and nineteen ninety seven, and at the time,
so this gives you a sense, you can now make
a crack about how old I am at the time.
The way we would get these emergency appeals is they
would be faxed in, so they weren't emailed at the time.
They'd be faxed in and you'd get it off the
facts and you would get say, if the midnight was
(09:41):
if the execution was scheduled to happen at midnight, and
by the way, if it was midnight on the West coast,
that meant it was three am in d C. But
if the execution was scheduled at midnight, you would get
sometimes one hundred page appeal faxed in at ten thirty pm.
(10:02):
And what would happen. So what plays out when that
gets faxed in is is the justice who is the
lead justice for that circuit. So each circuit, each region
of the country has a lead justice who is the
justice to whom emergency appeals go. Initially, Chief Justice Renquest
was the lead justice for the fourth circuit was concerned
(10:23):
death penalty appeals, and so that was Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia in particularly there
were fair number capital cases. So you would get it
facts to you, you as the law clerk, would read
through it. You'd have to read through it very quickly.
You'd have to prepare a memo, write a memo, you
(10:45):
then send it to your justice, and a lot of times,
if this was at midnight or one or two or
three in the morning, you'd have to call home and
wake your justice up. Your Justice would be asleep. You'd
call home, you'd say, Chief, we had an emergency appeal.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Now.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Now the Justice would know there was a execution set
that night, and so would know that there is likely
to be a call. But you'd call, wake your justice
up and ask, Okay, here's the arguments, here's what I
think about it. And you would write a memo from
your justice saying summarizing the arguments in the appeal and
(11:19):
making the recommendation. So for Chief Justice Renquist, in virtually
every circumstance, if someone was seeking to halt an execution
at the last minute, he would recommend that that be denied.
You would then forward it to the other eight chambers.
To the other eight chambers, and there was a law clerk,
So in the night of execution, at least nine of
us were there till midnight or one or two or
(11:41):
three in the morning. And so when you would forward
your memo, in a memo in a case like this,
would be anywhere from two to maybe eight pages, depending
on how complicated the issues were. They would then get
your memo, and they've gotten the appeal as well, so
they're reading the appeal at the same time. They would
then call their justice, wake him or her up at home,
(12:03):
and they would cast votes at midnight or one or
two or three in the morning. And a strategy that
is still quite frequent when it comes to death penalty
appeals is just throw so much crap at the wall
that they're hoping that justices say, I don't know, I
can't figure this out this quickly, all right, just stay
the execution, halt the execution so we can figure this
(12:25):
all out. And unfortunately that strategy, that that strategy can work.
That there may have been some of that that this
was being done over Easter weekend very quickly, and it
may be that the justices wanted to say, hold on
a second, we want to understand what's going on here.
That's possible, but I do think the democrats entire strategy
(12:49):
is try to see if they can get a majority
of the Supreme Court ticked off. And I don't think
that's happened, but I do think that would be very
dangerous and harmful if it did happen.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
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.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Which, by the way, also brings us to another issue
real quick, and that is, I still can't believe this.
There's a guy that went viral, a Minnesota state employee
who apparently caused about twenty thousand, or over twenty thousand
damages to Tesla's I'm going to say that, make it clear, plural,
(13:31):
not one, but multiple. It has now led to a
woke liberal district attorney saying, Nah, we don't really want
to hold this guy accountable. Let's keep the lawlessness up.
As long as it's against conservatives and Elon Musk and
Tesla owners. We're fine with that. No big deal, you're
good man. We're gonna let you basically go on home.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Well, there is a suspected vandal. He's thirty three years old.
He is a government employee. His name is Dylan Brian Atta,
and he was allegedly spotted keen multiple Tesla vehicles stripping
their paint off while walking his dog around the city,
and he caused over twenty thousand dollars in damage, vandalizing
(14:14):
half a dozen teslas. So he was doing this over
and over and over again. And by the way, if
this guy did this, he's dumb as a stump. Because
tesla's all have cameras on them that video the person,
any person who walks up to them, so he's doing
it on camera. Because leftists number one, they're utter hypocrites.
(14:34):
So they're claimed to care about the Green New Deal
or complete lies because they've decided now to attack electric cars.
Why because they hate Elon Musk. And understand, they hate
Elon Musk not just because he's now supporting Trump, not
just because he's now cutting the government. They hate Elon
Musk because he's a heretic. This is religion, and the
(14:58):
woke leftist cultural Marxist religion five years ago lionized Elon
Musk and they view him as someone who has betrayed
the faith. And so this angry government employee, who as
far as I know, has not lost his job despite
being a brazen criminal, uh was caught keing and and
(15:24):
vandalizing six different teslas. And unfortunately, the the Hennemouth County
District Attorney is a woman named Mary Moriarty, who is
a left wing George Soros DA and she decided that
that that that they're not going to go go after her. Uh,
(15:44):
that that that that they're they're not going to charge him.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Uh and.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
It is unfortunate. So the chief of police, Minneapolis Police
Chief Brianohra said that the damage in each case was
the equivalent of a felony. And the chief said in
escathing statement on Monday, this is from The New York Post,
that Moriarty's decision not to bring charges is frustrating for
his officers in the public. And here's what the police
(16:15):
chief said quote. The Minneapolis Police Department did its job.
It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified and arrested
a suspect, and presented the case file to the Henneman
County District the Keneman County Attorney's Office for consideration of charges.
The case impacted at least six different victims and totaled
(16:39):
over twenty thousand dollars in damage. Any frustration related to
the charging decision of the Henneman County Attorneys should be
directed solely at her office. Our investigators are always frustrated
when the cases they poured their hearts into are declined.
In my experience, the victims in this these cases often
(17:01):
feel the same. That's the chief of police and the
sad reality it is that for leftists today, for elected Democrats,
they are now openly embracing domestic terrorism. They are now
openly we played on this podcast before Chuck Schumer refused
(17:23):
to condemn people fire bombing Tesla dealerships, people throwing molotov
cocktails at Testa dealerships, people firing guns into tested dealerships.
Somebody's gonna be killed. I don't want that to happen.
I pray it does not happen. But this escalating violence
is going to lead to a loss of life. And
(17:43):
the Democrats are celebrating it. And now the left wing
DA's are saying, hey, you've vandalized cars and we decide
we don't like the person who owns the company that
built the car. Well, tough luck, sorry, Ben, We're gonna
scratch up your car, we're gonna keep it. We're gonna
do thousand dollars of damage and nothing you can do
about it because we the Democrats, support domestic terrorism.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. And there's also that just scary
psychological aspect of it. If you know your DA won't
go after the people that are going after your car,
is it going to make you more or less likely
to buy a tesla? That's part of the financial warfare
against Elon Musk.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
And by the way, what's the DA going to do
if they commit violence against you?
Speaker 1 (18:23):
What's the DA going to do if they commit violence
against you? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Like, if this radical leftist is able to vandalize a tesla,
how about if he walks up and punches the owner
of the tesla in the face. Yeah, do you have
any confidence that this left wing nutcase DA is going
to charge the radical with punching someone in the face.
Their view is, Hey, if you're punching a tesla owner
in the face, that's an admirable act of resistance. It
(18:51):
is lawless. And let me be clear, I disagree with
the political views of Marxists and communists and leftists, but
I passionately oppose violence against them. And if anyone engaged
in violence against a leftist, I would support prosecuting them
and sending them to jail. Violence is never acceptable. And
(19:13):
you know what, the Democrats can't say that because they
support they refuse to condemn the violence against their political
opponents because it is part of their ideology. And we
saw that tragically during the Black Lives Matter and Antifa
riots across the country, where Kamala Harris most strikingly raised
money to bail out of jail radical Antifa terrorists who
(19:39):
committed crimes of violence in Minneapolis, same city. Because the
Democrat Party is a party that supports violence in pursuit
of their remaining in power.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
As before, if you want to hear the rest of
this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
dow the podcasts from earlier 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.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
All right, let's.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
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 having a freak out moment on
TV with new polling data and here is what they said.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
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. Keep in mind this as Democrats,
(20:42):
look at where we are now.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
That number has been.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Slashed in half to just thirty nine percent.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Holy Toledo.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
That is the lowest number 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.
Speaker 5 (21:07):
Right, Chuck Schumer is the Senate Democratic leader right now.
How we're feelings about him, particularly in New York.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Yeah, let's go to the state of New York. 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. In December of twenty 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
(21:34):
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 Alexandiocstio Cortes's favorable writing among
Democrats is considerably higher in the sixties, so he is
doing quite poorly in his own home state.
Speaker 6 (21:51):
Of New York.
Speaker 4 (21:52):
I never thought i'd see the day in which just
fifty two percent of New York Democrats with you Chuck
Schumer favorably. It's almost unfathomable.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, it's almost un fathomable. Now here's the takeaway for me, Senator.
The fact that AOC has a higher approval rating than
Chuck Schumer means the Democratic Party is dead. The Socialist,
Marxist and Communists have taken it over, and now they're
out with these old guys.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
We also saw.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
One of your colleagues, Dick Durbin, hanging it up, saying
I'm out of here, I'm not running for reelection.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
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 of Keem Jeffries is not crazy enough. The
(22:44):
problem 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
(23:05):
his lungs. 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
(23:25):
up and say fight the oligarchy. And by the way,
George Soros, 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
(23:47):
Democrat Party, is panicking that they can't believe it. They
are terrified. The media is in desarray. You mentioned Dick Durbin,
the Democrat Center 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,
(24:08):
and he's calling it quits. He is also the top,
the ranking member, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Used to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
And so they gut senior Democrats that are saying, get
me out of this place.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
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 he is not running for reelection was,
in essence, well, I don't want to become Joe Biden.
And he put it this way in the interview.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
Listen, a senator yesterday, after you made your announcement that
you would not be seeking reelection, there are 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
(24:57):
in recent years. Do you hope do you are we
without thinking? Do you think it is time now for
younger politicians, the next generation to come forward?
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Well?
Speaker 7 (25:07):
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's 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
(25:27):
be interested in public service? You bet. I've spent my
time in office trying to encourage younger people to get involved.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Senator Durban 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 Lamir 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 7 (25:54):
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 2 (26:04):
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. He was
a I think, clearly knocking Joe Biden and what he
just said as.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
Well well, And nobody in that discussion acknowledge 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
(26:35):
true and was obviously true then that Biden's mental capacity
was 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
(26:55):
durban is the single most dangerous Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
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, as
Sheldon white House and Adam Schiff, but they sound like
lunatics when they're ranting. Everyone knows their lunatics. Part of
(27:17):
what makes Durbin such a dangerous questioner for Republican nominees
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 2 (27:37):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dial
with 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. Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here 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!