Time like this. It was a bit serendipity. I wrote the book the spring and summer during coded lockdown sitting on my living room and on my laptop. I knew the election was coming up but i had no idea we would have a Supreme Court you can see in the month of october. The book just came out this week so the to coincide really a perfect storm. I will say this mark, im glad i didnt write a book on thermonuclear war. That wouldve been a much worse outcome. Mark lets jump right into this. This is the hot campaign issue. Its a hot issue in the United States senate. Its a hot issue froms sea to shining sea. Amy Comey Barrett has been nominated on the seventh circuit briefly, she tart as a professor at notre dame, shes got seven children, two adopted from haiti, one specialneeds, her husband is an attorney so shes a mother, shes an accomplished professor, shes an accomplished federal judge and shes under brutal and vicious attack by the democrats. Theyre attacking her catholicism, we even have some attacking the fact that she adopted two haitian children. Why the hate, why the attacks and why do the democrats conduct themselves this way when theres a Supreme Court vacancy . Its twisted and arranged. They are coming after her hard, theyre coming after her family and i think it will get worse. Sadly this is a pattern weve seen. It really started with the confirmation hearing of robert bork. When he was nominated in 87, were you at d. O. J. In 87. Yes, we were there. It was the democrats, joe biden, ted kennedy, they decided to declare war and they went after gemma bork was one of the most accomplished lawyers and judges. He was solicitor general, a leading professor, by all measures one of the most qualified nominees to the court ever, and that hearing featured ted kennedy blooming in robert borks america and then he laid out this parade that ended up destroying, destroying him so much so that his name be became a verb. It continues to this day and its this personal dishonest, deceitful attack. We saw them replicated, even uglier with Clarence Thomas and what the democrats did to Clarence Thomas. At the time Justice Thomas referred to it as hightech lynching and it was. Justice thomas defended himself and made it through. We saw them do it again with sam alito, the same brutal, ugly attack. I just still remember Justice Alitos wife reduced to tears as the democrats went into the gutter and we just saw with Bret Kavanaugh recently. There is a ke pattern. We dont do that to democratic nominees. Theres never been a democratic nominee. Will engage with them on substance and issues, but the kind of slime and personal attack, for Bret Kavanaugh, hes got two young daughters. The agony and the pressure that was put on this family was really disgusting and now with judge barrett, i sat down with her this week in the capital and visited with her and one of the things i talked with her quite a bit about was how her kids were doing. Seven kids, were already seeing democratic operatives attacking her Young Children which is despicable and should be totally off bounds, but the left views the court and central to their agenda for america. It really goes back to the 1960s when leftists discovered and seized upon the court as a way to implement their agenda that the American People wouldnt vote for. They found it was hard to actually win elections on their ideas because their ideas are bad. I was much easier to get five unelected lawyers, philosopher kings and black robes to decree leftist policy outcomes and starting from the 60s, accelerating into the 70s it got worse and worse and worse. One of the reasons the left is losing their minds right now with this vacancy is that they feel their hammerlock on the court is in danger of slipping away and its about power. Its about power to control america without actually having to convince voters. The hard left views most American Voters as ignorant rubes. They think were to dumb to govern ourselves and we should , our leaders should set the rules for us. Thats what drives the rage in this context. You know ted cruz, this goes back to the progressive ideology that Woodrow Wilson wrote a lot before he was governor, before he was president about progressivism. He said the courts are where the action should be. You can get around the population and the checks and balances, use the courts for revolution. Thats what they been doing. I want to mention a few things to you and get your response. Number one if the president of the United States had not nominated somebody, he would be the first president in the United States to not nominate somebody in the last year of a firstterm or a second term. As you well know 22 president s before him had done exactly the same thing. 29 nominees in virtually the exact same position as amy Comey Barrett and so the democrats are saying with Chuck Schumer leading, if the president of the United States doesnt do something that no president have ever done they will destroy the Supreme Court, though try to pack the Supreme Court and packed the senate for one party rule for a generation. Though destroy the filibuster to get Bernie Sanders, joe biden manifesto past without any opposition. Theyre talking about eliminating electoral college. Theyre going to burn down our constitutional system. Isnt that what theyre saying . Thats exactly right. The left, they believe in government. They believe in totalitarian control. The left are willing to use force. You want one of the simplest differences between left and right. The left is much more comfortable using force to enforce compliance. When it comes to, for example speech, the left wants to censor everyone who disagrees with us. A lot of people say both sides do it. Thats not right, you and i arent calling for Bernie Sanders or aoc to be censored. Im perfectly fine for them to yap her on incessantly. Their ideas are foolish and dangerous and i think the best way to respond is sunlight and more attention, but the left is willing to use force. Theyre willing on the court. I think the threat of packing the court is very real. I think if they take the majority in the senate and win the white house they will pack the court. I dont think its a bluff. Joe biden is trying to hide from it. At the debate he ran away screaming when asked i think thats where the Democratic Party is and its about power and enforcing compliance. I think we need to take that threat very seriously. Mark you talked about the bork hearings and the thomas hearings. There were others for Circuit Court nominees, the second level of courts and the man who was in the middle of all this, who basically destroyed the confirmation process that used to be based on tradition, a discussion of ideas and typically unless there was some horrific issue in their background or criminality the nominee would go, the man who led it was joe biden, wasnt. It was joe biden. He was chairman of that committee often. He was the one who would leaks to the media all the time, joe biden is the guy who graduated near the bottom of law school and plagiarized and so forth and so on. Early on in this process over the decades that hes been senator, he helped lead this effort to undermine confirmation process, hasnt he . Thats exactly right. Mark thats one of the things i traced in my book one vote away. The last chapter is on judicial nomination and i trace the history of Supreme Court nominations going back to dwight d eisenhower. On the democratic side they get it right virtually every time. What i mean by that is virtually one 100 of their nominees vote exactly as democrats would want them to vote in almost every single case. On the republican side, republican president s have been terrible about Supreme Court nominees. We do not even back 500. Many of the worst judicial activists were republican appointees. Earl warren, william brennan, john paul stevens, david souter, Harry Blackmun of the author of roe versus wade was a republican nominee and theres a reason for that. A lot of people are frustrated and want to know why we keep getting it wrong. I try come in the book, to analyze when we get it right and when we get it wrong. If you look at the justices who stayed faithful to their oath and the constitution, giants like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and sam alito and chief William Rinker west, every one of them had a similar pattern. Every one of them had served in the executive. Every one of them had long championed conservative principles uncritically, every one of them had been excoriated in the press. Pounded in the press and they hadnt wavered. Thats what i look for the most. Do you have a proven record and have you been through the fire. On the other hand where republicans get it wrong is when main nominate a stealth candidate who doesnt have a proven record, whose avoided controversy and hasnt been criticized but someone says trust me, theyll be great and over and over again it turns out to be a disaster when we follow that pattern. I think theres a great virtue to nominating people with proven records. Ill give an example. Mark levin Supreme Court justice, i have no doubt you would follow the constitution no doubt and why do i think that because you have endured the fire and you dont give a damn if the New York Times is praising you or not. I also said in my book i want to Supreme Court justice that doesnt want to go to d. C. Cocktail parties, that all the social pressure is moved to the left. You go to cocktail parties, your praise, as you know, the former New York TimesSupreme Court reporter was a woman named Linda Greenhouse and there was something referred to as the greenhouse effect which is justices like Anthony Kennedy would move left because when they did Linda Greenhouse would praise them in the pages of the New York Times and they wanted to be popular at the cocktail party. They wanted the press to say nice things about them and its destructive of the rule of law. We need justices whose allegiances to the constitution and not to whatever the New York Times or the Washington Post had to say about them. Mark its a great book. Once you weigh how a single Supreme Court seat can change history. This is one of the main reasons this election is so crucial. Well be right back. My way to. And i have sofi to thank for that. Welcome back. Senator cruz, lets get into specifics now. President of the United States nominates and originalist. Someone wants to follow the constitution to try to discern what the framers of the constitution intended. Chuck schumer wants to pack the court, stack it with activists. Their position is let us impose our personal policy preferences men tried. Ten the constitution supports our poodle visions. That has a real effect on the Second Amendment, on the first, give us some examples. Lets start with free speech. Fundamental protection in the bill of rights. All of us care about free speech. I have an entire chapter in the book on free speech. It talks about the Citizens United case. Most of us have heard of Citizens United but a lot of folks dont know what the case was about. We know the democrats hate it but we dont actually necessarily know the details of the case. That case was about whether we as americans have the right to criticize politicians and Citizens United is a small Nonprofit Group that made a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton in the Obama JusticeDepartment Took the position they could punish them and find the group for daring to make a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. The case went all the way to the u. S. Supreme court. At the Supreme Court the most chilling moment of the oral argument was Justice Alito asking the Obama Justice department, set under your theory of the case could the federal government ban books, could you ban books and the Obama Department of justice said yes, yes we the government could be on books. We can ban and punis punish booksellers if they dare criticize a politician. Now, if you look at the text of the First Amendment, if you look at two centuries of our nations history protecting free speech, the answer to the question kim government ban books or movies that criticize politicians should be really easy which is of course not. Now thankfully that ended up being what the court concluded but it concluded it 5 4. There were four justices ready to conclude the government have the power to ban books, beyond movies, and its a chilling position and whats even more chilling about it was Hillary Clinton and joe biden have both explicitly pledged to nominate justices who would vote to overturn Citizens United and one of the things i recount in the book is in the wake of Citizens United, Senate Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment, to repeal them and replace them with the first version of it would have given the government plenary power to regulate political speech. Thats a fancy legal word for blanket power to regulate political speech under their proposed new First Amendment. If a little old lady spent five dollars to buy a posterboard and put a yard sign in her yard that said vote for trump or vote for biden, the federal government could make that a crime and put her in jail for it. I was the Ranking Member on the constitution subcommittee at the time, the democrats have majority. I led the debate against this proposal to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment. We went back and forth, back and forth. Ultimately it was voted on in the senate. Every single Senate Democrat voted to repeal the freespeech protection of the First Amendment. Thats how radical they are. They want the power to silence you and punish you if you dare criticize them and theyve got four votes for that position. They had four votes in citizen united. If they get one more hour free speech rights are in real danger. And of course if they pack them and stack the court, thats exactly whatll do. Lets pick another area. The Second Amendment. What was this heller case all about and how could that be overturned . All of this is in ted cruz vote one vote away how a single Supreme Court seat can change history. Were barely touching the tip of the iceberg. Tell us about heller. Dick Anthony Heller is a federal Police Officer living in d. C. Who actually carried a gun at work but under the d. C. Gun law it was illegal for him to have a gun at home. He cannot have an operative firearm. He can have a pistol, they were banned on a long gun either a shotgun or rifle under the d. C. Law had to be disassembled or an operative at all times no matter what with zero exception so literally if he had a disassembled shotgun in his closet and someone broke into his house and was about to assault his family, if he assembled the shotgun he would have committed a criminal offense in d. C. Trying to defend his family. So, its crazy laws, but those are the laws the leftists want. Heller filed a lawsuit challenging matt and raising the obvious claim that this violated the Second Amendment. The case went up to the u. S. Supreme court. I was the solicitor general of texas at the time. I led the states, we brought together 31 states in defense of the right to keep and bear arms. I argued the companion case to heller in the d. C. Circuit, the court of appeals. The central issue on heller is important to understand. Heller ultimately was 5 4. The possession of the defense ors dash position of the defense, the four dissenters didnt argue that some gun control would be okay. Reasonable mind could differ on that and have a discussion about whats the right policy outcome on gun control measures. The position of the diss