Complete Transcript: Senator Ted Cruz Interview With NPR News

NPR ^ | 6/29/15 | NPR Staff

[VinL]

I cannot provide the complete transcript- it’s 17 pages long. I have provided two (2) excerpts and the link. In the 2nd excerpt, Cruz dumbfounds the interviewer by saying- ‘ the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage need not be obeyed, except for the parties to the litigation!” What we all feel in our hearts and souls about the Founders America, Ted Cruz articulates in reasoned argument supported by the law and the Constitution. Like WF Buckley, Ted Cruz cannot be dismissed by the Left as some “rube conservative”; this because he defeats than in intellectual argument. If we’re looking to make a case for the Framers’ America, Ted Cruz is our best advocate. I recommend one reads the entire transcript, but here are two (2) excerpts:

INSKEEP: What does it say to you that both of these rulings that you so strongly disagree with came from a Supreme Court where most of the appointees were from Republican administrations?

CRUZ: Well, it underscores one of the points really at the heart of my book, which is that the problem we have is not Democrats versus Republicans. It is a Washington cartel. I've said many times the biggest divide we have politically is not between Republicans and Democrats. It's between career politicians in both parties and the American people.

And what we have seen in recent years in Washington is all three branches of government violating the law and violating the Constitution. Barack Obama is the most lawless president we've ever seen. The Supreme Court, egregiously this past week, is rewriting federal laws and rewriting the Constitution. And sadly, Congress acquiesces. And the entire point of the book, "A Time For Truth," is to tell the inside perspective of what's going on in the United States Senate; the fights.

And as you know, the opening chapter is entitled "Mendacity." And I'm not talking about Democrats when I say that. It is the mendacity of Republicans who join with Democrats. You know, Steve, you don't get an $18 trillion debt without a whole lot of bipartisan cooperation.

INSKEEP: You begin the book by accusing your fellow Republicans in the Senate of going along with a debt ceiling increase when you felt they should have fought it. You felt that they were going against their principles, and not just differing with you over tactics.

Just the other day, you predicted that in response to the Supreme Court rulings that your fellow Republicans, Republican Party leaders, would pretend to be incensed, but then do, quote, "absolutely nothing." What makes you think that your fellow Republican leaders are so cynical?

CRUZ: Because they agree with the rulings from last week, both the Obamacare ruling and the marriage ruling. This is why men and women across this country are so frustrated. I'll tell you, I just flew in from Iowa this morning. In Iowa, each town hall I ask people: How many people are frustrated with Republican leaders? Every hand goes up.

And it's because on election day, Republicans campaign saying they're opposed to Obamacare. They support marriage. They'll defend the rule of law. They'll defend the Constitution. And they get to Washington and they're part of the Washington cartel.

With respect to the Obamacare decision, a whole lot of Republicans in Washington are thrilled that they don't have to deal with the issue in Congress. And even better, they can blame the court for it. And with respect to marriage, you know, it's been stunning. Republican presidential candidate after Republican presidential candidate have put out statements that have said this is the law of the land; we must accept it and move on. Those are word for word the talking points of Barack Obama. And this is why so many men and women are frustrated.

What I've tried to do in politics is two very simple things: tell the truth and do what I said I would do. It says something about Washington, D.C. that those are considered radical acts.

(SNIP)

But did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the court ruling if they feel it's illegitimate?

CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution.

This ruling...

INSKEEP: But does that mean they can ignore?

CRUZ: They cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order.

And that's what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent, which is that the court depends upon the remainder of government trusting that it is faithfully applying the law and — and these judges and justices are disregarding their oaths.

This is — the entire premise of the decision on marriage was that in 1868, when the people of the United States ratified the 14th Amendment, that we were somehow silently and unawares striking down every marriage law across the country.

That's a preposterous notion. That is not law. That is not even dressed up as law.

Now listen, reasonable minds can disagree as a policy matter. Should gay marriage be allowed. I suspect you and I would disagree on that policy matter.

Part of the genius of our framers is they set up a system to resolve the policy matters, and that system is we can engage in the democratic process, you can make arguments in support of whatever forms of marriage you embrace and others can make other arguments and our elected officials decide.

What this decision is, and both of these decisions are, are decisions from the Washington elites that they know better than the American people, that it doesn't matter whether the American people agree with them or not, they're going to force their radical views on them, and that's — that's really unfortunate.

INSKEEP: I really want to get to other views in the — other issues in the book, but I feel it's important to clarify this one thing.

Did I understand you to say just now that as you read the law, as you read our system, this decision is not binding on the entire country, only to the specific states that were named in the — in the suit.

CRUZ: Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they're resolved, when you're facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound it. Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.

Now, in subsequent litigation, other courts will follow the precedence of the court, but a judicial order only binds those to whom it is directed, those who are parties to the suit. That's the way our litigation system works.

Now, this is what Justice Scalia was talking about in his dissent, which is that it has been the case that on a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case.

But there's no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgment. And I would note that the next major battlefield that is going to occur following this marriage decision is religious liberty.

And there are a number of pastors who are publicly saying that if the courts attempt to order them to violate their faith, that they will defy the orders of the court and go to prison for it. That shows just how far we've gotten from the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

[SoConPubbie]

    Ted Cruz Ping!

    If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
    Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

    CRUZ or LOSE!

[linedrive]

I have heard him in interviews a few times. I have read many transcripts. The problem the Left and eGOP will have with him is his reasonable responses to the push button issues. Specifically, his reasonable response without compromising principle. To the media and politicos, reasonableness from a conservative can only come from compromising their values.

[Carl Vehse]

"The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order. And that's what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent"

Does anyone have a page reference where Scalia said that in the 8 and 1/2 pages of his dissenting comments?

[21twelve]

Thanks - I read through it again and didn’t see it either, in any of the dissents. What came through in all of the dissents however was that Liberty has been diminished in America due to this ruling. Quite the opposite of what the headlines claim.

[VinL]

Last paragraph. What Scalia said was that the SC has no means by which to enforce its judgments, it depends on the Executive and State governments to do that. And, if the SC were to continue to act extra- constitutionally, states might simply refuse to obey its judgment.

[trebb]

Those who actively oppose Cruz need to get b*** slapped.

[DoodleDawg]

bfl