Welcome.
It is vertical Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you and center. I hate it when I mean, we have to admit so often that we were just absolutely right in predicting something. And sure enough, now the White House is hunkered down going through long lists of pardons and letting the American people know you should expect more pardons before we leave office.
Well, this week we were struck with the stunning news that the White House has announced verdict with Ted Cruz. Wednesday pod was exactly entirely, one hundred percent accurate that every word we said. And by the way, if you didn't listen to Wednesday's pod, you should listen to Wednesday's
pod because we predicted. We said that the left wing media and Democrats were pressing Joe Biden to issue a ton more pardons, to pardon the rest of his family, to pardon members of his administration and now, and we said, look, that's the direction they're going. And seemingly in response to our podcast, the White House immediately came out and said expect more pardons, and we're seeing a list of people
now that they are contemplating pardoning. In addition, we had a major Supreme Court case argued this week a challenge to Tennessee's law that prohibits sex transition treatments for children, and the ACLU has challenged this, arguing that it violates the Constitution, that the Constitution requires that you be able to mutilate and sterilize children. That argument played out in the Supreme Court this week. We're going to lay out how it went.
Yeah, it's truly shocking what they were saying in quitting some of the Supreme Court justices, and we have the audio from those arguments that will, I think shock most parents out there. I want to tell you real quick about a cool opportunity for you, a chance to win seventeen hundred hours to buy any self defense gear that you need before it's two eight.
Now, how do you win? Right now?
You can text the word America to eight seven two two two. Right now, that's sexy word America to eight seven two two two. Now, who's giving it away? Well, the USCCA, and the USCCA is doing incredible work to help protect people just like you when it comes to you, uh exercising your Second Amendment rights. Look, I've had to use a firearm to protect and save my own life.
I had to pull the trigger, and I wish I would have been a member and even known back then about the USCCA, because with activist das around the country right now, you never know what's going to happen, even if you're in the right. Many das don't like law abiding citizens carrying firearms and protecting yourself and your family is so important now, not only when you become a member of the USCCA, and they have over eight hundred
thousand Americans right now that are already members. Why because they understand how important it is to get access to their Protector Academy where you learn vital skills like precision shooting and how to fortify your home against criminals. You also get access when you remember to the twenty four to seven Critical Response Team. That is the most important thing, and it includes the benefits of self defense liability insurance to make sure that you and your family are prepared
for anything. Now, for a limited time, you text the word America to eight seven two two two, and you're going to get the usc CAA's free Life Saving Conceiled Carying Defense Family Defense Guide and that chance to win seventeen hundred dollars to buy any self defense care that you need before it's too late. So text the word America to eight seven to to two right now. So we talked about this two days ago, and as you said,
I'll say it again. Go back if you missed that podcast and listen to it, because we talked about this idea that was really coming out of the White House that they wanted to expand the list to people that would be given pardons that could also include the President in theory, pardoning himself. What we are now is the White House has saying, yeah, it's coming, and you should prepare for a lot of people to quite possibly be pardoned.
So just get used to it.
Your instant reaction in the White House now confirming this story.
Well, we put out the podcast Wednesday morning as the sun was coming up, and several hours later, Politico issued a report entitled Biden White House is discussing preemptive pardons for those in Trump's crosshairs. It was written by Jonathan Martin, who's a longtime Washington reporter, and what he reports is that White House officials are debating issuing blanket pardons to
multiple people, which is exactly what we predicted. And here's what Politico reports, quote Those who could face exposure include such members of Congress's January sixth committee as Adams Schiff. Liz Cheney also mentioned Anthony Fauci and other as well. And so that's the initial list, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci. That's who they are discussing. And what is
striking is there are now multiple elected Democrats explicitly urging this. So, for example, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey said in a press interview quote, if it's clear by January nineteenth it revenges his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that's really what our country is going to need next year. Another Democrat, Congressman Brendan Boyle from Pennsylvania, likewise called for blanket pardons.
He said, quote, this is no hypothetical threat. The time for cautious restraint is over. We must act with urgency to push back against these threats and prevent Trump from abusing his power. I will say to I guess some modicum of his credit. One person pushing on the other side is Adam shift. Now, to be clear, they're talking about giving him a pardon, and Shift was quoted as saying, quote, I would urge the president not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary. Well, I got
to say, it is stunning, and you're right. The White House is now publicly saying expect more pardons here we come. And it's a question of just how much they're going to abuse power, because it really is at this point stunning and apparently that everyone who may have committed wrongdoing is panicking that there may be some accountability, and so they want to pardon everybody for whatever crimes they might have committed.
And you talk about Adam Shift, Let's remind people back in twenty eighteen what Adam Schiff did. Adam Shift introduced a bill to keep Trump from quote abusing pardon powers for his family. This was on CNN on Don Lemon's show back in twenty eighteen.
So the president's pardon a Scooter Libby congressman has inspired you to propose new legislation, what exactly would it do.
What it would do is say that in the event the president pardons anyone in an investigation in which the president is a witness, a subject, or the target, those investigative files will all be turned over to the Congress. The Congress ought to know whether the president is using the pardon power to obstruct justice. The American people have a right to know. I think it is clearly constitutional.
It doesn't prohibit him from granting a pardon, even a pardon he shouldn't grant, But it does say that we will be able to at least find out whether the president is using this power to shield himself from liability.
It offers transparency at the very least.
Wow, I mean, what a great idea.
Now, Adam shiff why aren't you introducing this legislation all over again so we can know all of the peace that are going to be pardon, why they're being pardon, in all the files that show what the information is behind it. I'm waiting for this Adam shift of eighteen to appear again.
Senator Well, and I got to say, under that reasoning, that would have the Department of Justice forwarding the investigatory files of Hunter Biden to Congress to the Republican majorities in both Congresses. Under his reasoning, he just argued for that, I'll be curious to see if he thinks it should apply in those circumstances, you know. Spoiler alert, I would not bet on it. No, I wouldn't either.
Let's also talk about Politico's Jonathan mart and what he said on TV about this pardon list. This was after the writing in Politico. Take a listen to how he described it earlier.
Go titled Biden Whitehouse is discussing preemptive pardons for those in Trump's crosshairs. In it, you write this quote, President Joe Biden's senior aides are conducting a vigorous internal debate of whether he is shoot preemptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could be targeted with President elect Donald Trump's return to the White House.
It's according to senior Democrats familiar with the discussions, the deliberations touch on pardoning those currently in office, elected and appointed, as well as former officials who've angered Trump and his loyalists.
Those who could face exposure.
Include such members of Congress's January sixth Committee as Senator elect Adam Schiff and former GOP Representative Liz Cheney. Also mentioned by Biden's aids for a pardon, Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of allergy and infectious diseases, who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right
during the COVID nineteen pandemic. The President himself, Jonathan continues, who was intensely focused on his son's pardon, has not been brought into the broader pardon discussions yet, according to people familiar with deliberations. So, Jonathan, what does this look like. What are you pardoning Anthony Fauci for? What are you pardoning Liz Cheney for who've not been charged or victive crimes?
That goes to the heart of this deliberation.
William, why this is so delicate because the White House Counsel and a handful of senior White House aides, including Jeff Zionce, the Chief of Staff, are having this debate right now in the West Wing, which is, do we leave these folks out in the cold and potentially expose them to Cash Patel's FBI and Donald Trump's White House for any number of charges or of some kind of you know, the show trial to get a measure of revenge and at the very least make them pay six figures in.
Legal bills to avoid such a case.
Or do we offer preemptively pardons to people there's no proof they've done anything wrong whatsoever, and really may not want to pardon in the first place. That's a real tough call, because if you don't do it, and Patel and company come after some of these people and you had the chance to give them an oculation.
Legally, that's a hell of a thing to regret.
At the same time, do you want to pardon somebody like Liz Cheney or Anthony Faalsciet and suggest any kind of impropriety that could only add fuel to the Trump aggressors in the first place.
It's a real tough nut.
I love the way he describes it the ed. He's like, it's a real tough nut, Like this is a hard one, you know. Should we just admit we broke a hell of a bunch of laws and just hand out the pardons or do we act like we didn't break laws and hope they don't come after all of us.
Well, and I will say, even the way he's reporting it, the Trump aggressors look the idea that anyone in and around Joe Biden would be held responsible for laws they have been broken is treated as a pearl clutching horror for the media and for the Democrats, and listen my view, and we've talked about this at length.
I don't want to.
See a Republican Department of Justice. I don't want to see a republican FBI. I don't want to see a Democrat Department of Justice. I don't want to see a Democrat FBI. I want a Department of Justice and an FBI that enforces the law regardless of party. And that apparently is a terrifying thing to individuals who who previously consider themselves unaccountable and not bound by the ordinary constraints of law.
Well, and even look at Bill Clinton, for example. Bill Clinton is now coming out saying he wants to stop the cycle of criminalizing politics. That's pretty rich from the Democrats, after that's all they've done the last four years. Here is Bill Clinton at the Deal Book summit. It's a New York Times event.
Listen, you think Biden should be.
Pardoning pardoning Trump, And by the way, some people think that Trump should be pardoning Biden.
Well, I do think we should stop trying to them in law's politics.
But on the other I think we should both.
Of them because because obviously and the people don't like it, and they're not going along with it from right to left. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself, if you do this blanket thing, is there anything a president could do that he would or she someday would get in trouble for.
I mean, Senator.
They weaponized the FBI, the DOJ, the entire apparatus of the White House Executive branch to go after their political enemies for four years, and now all of a sudden they're like, hey, we should not have Republicans doing that.
Republicans never did that. The Democrats are the ones that have done it.
I'm curious. Did did Bill Clinton say that the first time Trump was indicted? Did he say that the second time Trump was indicted?
No?
Did he say that the third time Trump was indicted Nope? Did he say that the fourth time Trump was indicted?
No?
And he didn't say it when they were rating mar Lago either.
Yeah.
I mean, it is amazing. And by the way, Bill Clinton also didn't say that when the Trump DOJ was prosecuting people for peaceful protest on January sixth, when they were using the violent acts of a limited number of
people as an excuse to engage in political persecution. Bill Clinton didn't speak out when the Biden Department of Justice was targeting parents for going to school board meetings and speaking out, sending the FBI to intimidate moms and dads who are exercising their constitutional rights at school board meetings. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was firing
people for declining to take the COVID vaccine. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration was coercing private businesses to fire people for declining to take the COVID vaccine. He didn't speak out when the Biden administration sent over a dozen FBI agents with drawn machine guns to arrest a pro life protester at dawn in front of his children.
By the way, that case, the jury threw it out when they tried to put him in jail, and the jury said this is ridiculous and threw it out incredibly quickly. The absolute and brazen hypocrisy of the Democrats that they've suddenly discovered, uh oh, don't use the legal process against us. And I want to be clear, I do not believe the Trump administration should persecute democrats. I do believe they should follow the law and if individuals have violated the law,
they should enforce the law. That is very different from targeting and weaponizing DJ You know, I sat down this week with Pam Bondi, the nominee to be Attorney General, and the entire discussion I had with her was about restoring boring integrity to the Department of Justice, not about turning it into a tool just to be used to target the other side, but bringing it back to what it is supposed to be, which is having fidelity to the rule of law.
You talk about the fidelity and the rule of law here.
So the question now becomes if the President decides to walk out there and say, I'm going to preemptively pardon everyone Fauci Schiff, Liz Cheney, and people all around my family, all of maybe the business associates, for example, around Hunter Biden. Is there anything that Congress will be able to do
to stop this or to rein it in. I go back to Adam Shiff when he was like, well, what we should be doing, is ushe have centered all the documents or is this pretty much like he's in charge, he's leaving, he can do whatever the hell he wants.
It's the power of the presidency.
And even if he wants to abuse a pardon power, he has a right to do it. What mindset should everyone listening have on reality?
Now, look under the Constitution, the pardon power is essentially an absolute power. And and so there there is not any limitation in the Constitution that Congress can enforce on the pardon power that is given to the president. The only limitation is is public pressure, public scrutiny.
The only thing that constrains.
Presidents is they don't want the world to know that they're utterly corrupt hacks. Now, I will say Biden's got a problem in that because he's already done the Hunter Biden.
Pardon.
And I'll read from from an article in Axios, which which often reports on sort of inside gossip in the White House and Capitol Hill, and and and the story is entitled behind the Curtain Biden's Haunting Twin Sins. Here's what Axios reports. President Biden's post presidency now looks bleak
as is brutal final months. Some top Democrats tell us they're so furious about Biden's abrupt, clumsy pardon of his son Hunter that they're threatening to withhold donations from his future Presidential library.
And his.
Quote twin selfishness. What it says is why it matters. Biden eighty two will limp away from the limelight, widely disliked by the public and now loathed by many Democrats who blame him for twin sins of selfishness running again then pardoning Hunter after repeatedly saying he wouldn't. That's the real constraint, is just public shame and disgrace. And the question is are Democrats capable of of public shame anymore?
Or is trump derangement syndrome so bad that their answer to everything is range Man bad.
Yeah, it's a great point.
I want to take a moment and say thank you to so many of you that have been involved with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They are wishing you a blessed beginning of the holiday season, and as you gather with your families, grateful for the blessing that God has given us all, let's also remember those who are facing unbelievable hardship, those in Israel that are in
the need of food, fellowship, and just hope. That includes the people of Israel who are threatened daily by the attacks from enemies on all sides, and during these hard times, Israelis are thankful for the fellowship, for the food and the basic assistance that they are providing, truly life saving aid when the rest of the world seems to have turned their back on them.
Your gift of twenty five dollars.
Will help provide a food box to an elderly Jew or a Jewish family who are suffering and in desperate need. A gift of one hundred dollars will help provide four of these life saving food boxes this holiday season. Please consider standing with Israel and the Jewish people.
You can go to.
Support IFCJ dot org to make a gift now port IFCJ dot org, or you can call them eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four eight eight four three two five and you can give right now. Senata, I want to move to this other case, and it is a case that has really been interesting to follow the Supreme Court hearing this case on gender transitions for minors.
Now.
This has all come out of a case in Tennessee where Tennessee was arguing that that you must protect children from harm and body mutilation, especially at very young ages, and the left and the federal government saying, well, hold on a second, we are in favor of this transgender care, arguing that even those that are two, in three and four years old, they know that they're trands, so let them be sterilized and castrate themselves. That is what the eight THELU lawyer said in his own words while he
was arguing this on TV on CNN. I want you to listen and get your reaction to that.
I would say is nobody has to provide this medication to adolescents. These are not doctors being forced to provide this medication. These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how, based on the best available evidence to us. And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for six seven years before they had any relief. And what's happening here, it's not the kids who are consenting to
this treatment. It's the parents who are consenting to the treatment. And as a parent, I would say we when our children are suffering, we are suffering. And these are parents who love their children, who are listening to the advice of their doctors of the mainstream medical community and doing what's right for their kids in the state of Tennessee has displaced their judgment.
Now you hear that argument, and that to me is just I'm sorry, child abuse if you're mutilating a child at two and three and four years old.
And that's what Tennessee was saying.
Well, Tennessee passed I think a very reasonable law that that prohibited puberty blockers and hormones and sterilizing children, sterilizing minors, and and we're seeing multiple state legislatures that are acting to protect children. I think that is a reasonable and
common sense step. And and what happened is is, unsurprisingly that that the state got sued and the ACLU argued that that that making it illegal for a small child to be sterilized and made permanently unable to have children, or even to be mutilated, that that prohibiting that violated the fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That that was the argument. And and this the Court of Appeals upheld the Tennessee law, and the Supreme Court
took the case. And and so that that was the argument you heard right there. The ASLU lawyers arguing UH for for being able to sterilize eight year olds using the math the lawyer laid out. The lawyer talked about a child at the age of two might know that he or she is transgender, and they might have had to wait six years. Last I checked, two plus six is eight. And so the legal argument is that eight year old the parent should be able to sterilize that child.
And you know what if that child decides that at eighteen he or she wants to be a dad or wants to be a mom, well, too late now, because when you were eight, we went ahead and sterilized you. So there's no going back. And this argument went back and forth. Right, I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction, I think the Supreme Court is going to uphold Tennessee's law, and I think we may see a breakdown that plays out along pretty familiar ideological lines.
Now, it was pretty striking.
The three liberal justices all were asking questions that I got to say, we're really extreme and showing the modern left. They are all in on mutilating and sterilizing children. This is not a fringe view on the left. Today's elected Democrats and sadly the left wing activists they put on the courts are absolutely committed to this extreme agenda. So I want you to listen to.
This side of my org.
Justice out of my org downplaying the risk of mutilation of miners in this back and forth, in these oral arguments.
This is what she said, cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk, and the question of how many miners have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left.
I'm sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking astron There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So the question in my mind is not do policy makers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment. The question is can you stop one sex from the other one?
I mean, she's saying, this is not a big deal at all if you're mutilating a child, because even aspirin has risks and effects, So therefore, just put it under the category of everything goes.
Well.
That sums up today's radical left. In their view, severing a child's genitals is comparable to taking aspirin. She also claimed, quote millions of people are getting relief from this. Now, thankfully we do not currently have millions of children being sterilized.
But let's be clear, that's the left's worldview. Is that sterilizing little boys and little girls, mutilating them, making them permanently unable to have children, that should be happening on the scale of millions and millions of little boys and little girls. That is Justice Soda bay Or here to take a listen to Justice Justice k Katanji Brown Jackson.
Drawn by the statute that was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But you know, as I read the statute here, excuse me the case here. You know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of sixteen states which prohibit and punished marriages on the basis of
racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of incontinuing you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics.
It's sort of the same thing.
So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case.
Yes, I think that's exactly right.
That there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act and consistent with a protected characteristic and all other contents.
You hear it there.
This is another example of just how extreme these and that's one of the elections, by the way, are so important center. I mean, this is why Donald Trump being elected was so important, because when he's not, when you don't have a conservative in the White House, you get these radical activists who are Supreme Court justices, and if they have the majority, this is what they want you to be able to do. This is what they want to happen to your children.
Well, and let me break down what that exchange back and forth was. So Katanji Brown Jackson, who Joe Biden put on the Supreme Court, is comparing this Tennessee law to the law in Loving versus Virginia. Now, Loving versus Virginia's a Supreme Court case. It's a landmark case that struck down Virginia's ban decades ago, many many years ago on interracial marriage, on African Americans and Anglos choosing to get married. And she says, quote, it's sort of the
same thing. Now, Virginia's law was an abomination. It was restricting adults making the decision to get married. It was deliberately doing so on the basis of race. Which, mind you, we fought a civil war in significant part to end slavery and to vindicate equal rights. And we passed and adopted the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendments to end slavery, to protect equal protection, and to give African Americans the right to vote, to ensure that there's not racial discrimination.
But in the less, not sterilizing an eight year old is the same thing. Like that is bizarre. And by the way, the person who responds to Justice Jackson is Joe Biden's Solicitor General, the top lawyer for the Biden administration before the United States Supreme Court. She say, oh, yeah, they're exactly the same thing. In our worldview, you ought to be able to mutilate children. It doesn't matter how young,
the Constitution protects your right to mutilate your child. That is a bizarre view, That is an extreme view, and that, sadly is where where today's modern left is.
You may be shopping for Christmas and one gift you can give that as incredible as the gift of helping someone be able to protect and defend themselves. And with increase crime and violence around our country, we need to remember that personal safety and security for you and your family is the most important thing in life. And that is exactly why I want you to know about the Berna less lethal pistol launcher. A Berna can save two lives.
It is a great compliment to owning firearms, and if you or your family members in a situation where you feel threatened, then you can start with less lethal now Berna and this less launcher is legal in all fifty states. No permits or background checks are needed. I own one myself and I've given them to a lot of my family members because I have some family members that just don't feel comfortable carrying a firearm.
Well burna is the answer there as well.
It's also designed for easy use by all age groups eighteen or older. So if you have a child that's living an apartment or off campus, maybe they're not twenty one. The Burno launcher is what you need to give them. It has powerful deterrence like tear gas and kinetic rounds with a sixty foot range, meaning you can put serious distance between you and the attacker. One shot can incapacitate attackers for up to forty minutes. It's used by government
agencies and law enforcement around the country. Now, I want you to see the videos of this in action, and you can see it by going to their website burna by RNA dot com slash verdict. And when you go there, you're also going to get ten percent off your purchase.
So it's going to save you money.
That's Burner by r in a dot com slash verdict for ten percent off. That's b Why r in a dot com slash verdict and give the gift of protection? This Christmas final question on this issue with this case coming out of the Supreme Court, and if you look at the way that this was being argued, and I think one of the other things that's just so unhinged about this the argument for medically mutilating minors. Is the fact that the issue really does seem to come down
to money. The amount of money that people are now making off these surgeries that's saying it is it is an increase year over year of over fourteen point four percent on average, So the transgender surgery world and then the lifetime of care is expanding at a fourteen point four percent rate year over year. That's why so many medical areas, doctors and hospitals are advocating for this because
they make money. Vanderbilt said very clearly to their doctors, either you get on board with this or you get out. We're not going to let you say no to this because there's too much money to be made in quote gender care.
Yeah, there are vast amounts of money at stake, and it has become it really is a strange obsession of the radical left. It is it is a virtue signal. Remember we had on on verdict a couple of months ago. Seawan Theory. Shawn Theory was an African American Democratic state rep in Texas. She was an elected Democrat. She had been elected for four terms and on this issue, there was a bill in Texas to prohibit mutilating minors, and she ended up voting for it and the Democrat Party.
She described on the podcast, if you didn't listen to that podcast, she ought to go back and listen to it because it's incredibly revealing. She described how her fellow Democrats, African Americans, and the Texas State Legislature would come to her and she said, did you have you study the damage this does to children? That if you give puberty blockers and you sterilize a child, that it does lifelong
medical damage to him. It's horrible, And she said the many other Democrats she described said, oh, we know, we agree, it's terrible, but you cannot oppose this in our party. They will end you. Our party will end you.
Well.
She ended up doing the courageous thing and voting for common sense and voting for kids, and the Democrats recruited a primary challenger to her and beat her in the primary, and they spent over one million dollars in a Democrat primary for a state house seat. That is how radical this issue is. So there is money, There is big money on the other side, and it is enforced.
In the US Senate.
Every single Democrat has voted in favor of mutilating minors. There is no dissension that is allowed on this. And I got to say, and Joe Biden is enthusiastically in favor of it, you know. I got to say, also, look this Supreme Court case. Part of the reason that there is is such focus on it is there was a previous Supreme Court decision called Bostock and Bostock is a decision that interpreted federal anti discrimination law on employment discrimination.
And it is currently illegal under federal law to discribe and employment based on race and other characteristics, including sex. And in Bostock, the Supreme Court took a prohibition on discrimination based on sex and construed sex to mean also being transgender.
And that decision that was a six to three decision.
That decision was authored by Justice Gorsuch, and it was a fairly shocking decision. A lot of people were shocked that Justice Gorsuch wrote that opinion.
It was joined by Chief Justice Roberts.
In addition to what were then for liberals who were on the Court at the time, Justice Ginsburg was still on the court. It was before amy Cony Barrett had been nominated and before Justice Ginsburg obviously had passed away.
So that was six ' to three.
On the other side, I don't think we will see the same outcome. I will say at the oral argument, Justice Gorsuch did not say a word, not a word, so we do not have any indication from him as
to how he will vote. But Justice Roberts was quite vocal, and what he laid out is actually the reason why I'm confident the Tennessee law will be upheld, which, as he laid out, the proposition that that the Court should be deferring to state legislatures and and particularly when you're dealing with contested medical evidence, that state legislatures are far better suited to assess contested medical evidence and make it a termination and make a policy decision. That that's that's
how our democratic system works. And and and I think Chief Justice Roberts, reasoning that he articulated that the oral argument is going to lead him to vote to uphold the law, I think we will see.
I think we will.
Certainly see Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, and and Amy Cony, Barrett and Kavanaugh also their arguments at oral arguments suggested that they that they would defer to the Tennessee state legislature as well. I hope Justice Gorsach will as well. I think there's a very good chance that this will be a six three decision upholding the Tennessee law. But the fact that the Court decided Bostock the other way. Now, Bostock was a question of federal statute and interpreting the
words Congress had adopted. It was not a constitutional case. It was not interpreting the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And I'll note, by the way, there is a third outcome. So what could the Supreme Court do here? They could do three things. They could do more than three things, but three key things. One they could affirm the Tennessee law. That's what I think they are likely to do. Two, they could strike down the Tennessee law.
They could rule that this law violates the Constitution and therefore is null and void. I do not think they're likely to do that, but I think the three Liberals will vote to do exactly that. The third option they could do it is they could reverse the decision and conclude that this law is sex discrimination, and under the Constitution,
sex discrimination is subject to what's called intermediate scrutiny. Now the toughest standard constitutionally for legal analysis is what's called strict scrutiny, and racial discrimination under the Constitution by government is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny. So the middle ground they could do is they could vacate the decision below and send it back
to the lower court to apply intermediate scrutiny. I hope they don't do that, and I don't think they will, but there is a non zero chance they might do that, which is what makes this case. Concerning all of that being said, my prediction is they're going to conclude correctly that the Tennessee law is constitutional, and that is a judgment for the state legislators to make.
As I said before, this is why elections are so important. It's why it's so important that conservatives get elected, because these are the people that make unbelievable decisions, and it deals with kids' futures, and this is a perfect example of it. Don't forget We do this show Monday, Wednesday
and Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download button and the Senator and I will make sure if you see this, by the way, please share it on social media because that's how we reach new people write us a five story review if you would take a moment to do that as well. On those in between days, grab my podcast so Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and I'll keep you update on the latest breaking news there and we'll see you back here in a couple of days