October 15, 2025 • 9 mins
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel, discussed a pivotal ruling affecting Florida's public schools and the books kids access in libraries.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Good to have you back with us this morning on
the morning show. It's Monday, October thirteenth, and thrilled back
on the program. Friend of the show for many years now,
Senior pastor, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel LC dot org.
He is Matt Staver. Matt, how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Very good, good to be with you today.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Yeah, some good news. I want to talk specifically for
just a few moments about the federal judge ruling in
Florida's Scambia County school Board that it can in fact
deal with questionable books in its libraries.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Explain the case, Dad, This is a good decision by
a federal judge regarding the a Scambia County school Board.
They removed a book called End Tango, Make Three, which
follows two male penguins who adopt Patch and then raised Tango,
which is a penguin chick at New York City Central
Park Zoo. And this was actually promoting same sex marriage.
(01:00):
School board decided that this was inappropriate for the young readers,
and they removed it. They were then sued in twenty
twenty three by the co authors and a female student
wanting to borrow the book from her school library. The
judge Alan Windsor rejected their First Amendment argument. Actually, he
(01:20):
cited our case that I argued in one nine to
zero at the US Supreme Court, the Shirtlift versus City
of Boston case, and he goes through the criteria for
what requires what requirements there would be to get a
public form. In other words, did the library open up
its facility as a public form for people to bring
(01:44):
library books and therefore excluding a book or removing a book?
Is that viewpoint discrimination in the First Amendment? And the
judge said, no, it doesn't meet that criteria. The libraries
must have discretion to be able to purchase books, and
they have discretion and control over what books they retain
and what books that they remove. This is not a
public form where any author or individual can force a
(02:06):
library to either accept a book or retain a book
that they don't want to have on the shelf. So
this is a good decision in one certainly that makes
common sense. It protects children.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
However, we also recognize that we are we are fighting
an adversary in Satan that is just not going to
fold up and go away. This is an ongoing battle. Matt,
talk to me, about the challenge. Okay, we've got this
court ruling, it's a win, but we know that this
is going to be fought in other ways, in other
(02:39):
venues and with other judges ruling differently.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Well, and here's this thing. There are cases previous to
the shirt lifd case that I argued in twenty twenty
two and one nine to zero that go the opposite way.
So another word, when a library chooses to remove an
objectionable bulk book like this because it's inappropriate for young
people have been sued and the judges have gone the
other way. I think the tide will turn as a
(03:05):
result of the shirt Lived case. However, on the other hand,
what you have is the vast majority of libraries, particularly
public libraries, whether they're school K twelve or outside, are
different than a Scambia. Scambia is making good decisions to
remove books that should not be on the shelves. But
what we find in most libraries it's the opposite. So
(03:28):
they are excluding religious or Christian books or books from
a conservative standpoint, or they put them in places where
they're hard to find, and they're purchasing with tax dollars.
Pro LGBTQ books and abortion books, and they're prominently displaying
them so that they're very easy to find. That's primarily
(03:50):
what's happening in a lot of these school situations as
well as public library cases. So we really see the opposite.
What do you do with that? Well, if a court
can't force them to accept a particular book, then what
happens is you need to be involved in the political process.
So you need to go visit your libraries, whether they're
(04:12):
K through twelve or public libraries for the general public,
and find out what kind of books they have on
the shelves, and then bring this up for political pressure.
And what we're seeing is this is happening all over
the country where the political pressure is taking place. Parents,
people in the community are going to these different deliberative bodies, county, city,
(04:35):
deliberative elected officials, and they are protesting and bringing up
these issues in some way, even taking it, believe it
or not, to extreme levels. To illustrate the point, even
reading verbat in some of the trash that's in these
libraries that's quite offensive and is shocking to the people
that are sitting on the board making these decisions.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Forty two minutes past the hour, a few more minutes
here with under of Liberty Council Matt Staver. Matt, when
you look at some of the rulings coming out of
the High Court and you look at some of the
cases it's accepting or not accepting, kind of give me
your overview, your sense of where we are at the
High Court right now.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Well, at the High Court, I think we're in a
good trajectory. They're not making all the right decisions that
I would agree with, but by and large, the trajectory
is correct and they're correcting some of the problems that
we're seeing in the lower courts. What we're seeing in
the lower courts is absolute rebellion, ideological decisions that are
being put in place that are not following law, particularly
(05:36):
as it relates to President Donald Trump's actions, and we
see those overreaching time after time at the time. But
then you have more activity of the president at the
United States Supreme Court than any other president in American history,
and the success rate and when ratio at the Supreme
Court is phenomenal. So some of that is being corrected.
(05:58):
I think that'll have long term consequence. Is in a
good way. We do have a number of cases that
are at the Supreme Court that I think are very positive.
One was just arguing last week. That's the Change Council case.
We've been litigating that since twenty twelve, and I think
we're going to have a six to three or seven
to two victory on that particular case, striking down these
(06:18):
laws that ban counsel to people who want to overcome
unwanted same sex attractions, behaviors or gender confusion. So I
think that's a good decision. We've got a case that
i'll be we'll be hearing from at the end of
the month or early November, and that's the Kim Davis case.
In that case could be one that would that's challenging
the twenty fifteen of bergerfel same sex marriage opinion. Plus
(06:41):
it's also a big, huge religious free exercise case, So
keep an eye on that one. That'll be a huge
one if they accept the case. But I think generally
at the High Court it's going in the direction that
it should. It's correcting some of the errors of the
past decades of the activist judges. But on the other hand,
and you had a lot of judges that were put
in place by Biden and Obama and those by the way.
(07:08):
They're not rule of law type of generally people. They're
ideologically driven, the results oriented, and we see that a
lot in some of them recent litigation. It's frustrating to see,
but I think at the end of the day, it's
being corrected when it's.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
All said and done. Though, if a district judge, you know,
for example, the Supreme Court says district judge cannot go
beyond their district, but they keep doing these nationwide injunctions
and they're not following the directives of the Supreme Court.
What's the remedy.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, the remedy is appeachment. But you know, we've never
had an impeachment that's been successful recently. You know, the
last one was alse Hastens down in Miami and he
was impeached for accepting it bride, but then he became
a US member of Congress and the Democratic Party. He's
deceased now, so it's not been a real effective means.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
The other possibility is just continually, you know, the Supreme
Court recurrerecting the record and forcing them to obey. And
the other is other kinds of discipline that might be.
You know, judges are also should be abiding by their
judicial codes or canons of ethics, and if they don't,
they could be you know, challenged that way as well.
(08:16):
I know in the litigation regarding church lockdowns, we had
a case where it went to the Supreme Court. We
won five to four. In December of twenty twenty, we
went back down to the District Court and Obama appointee
ruled against us again. We had to go back to
the Supreme Court a second time, this time one six
to three. But that's the kind of thing that we're
dealing with. And the problem that we have is even
(08:37):
though the Supreme Court is correcting a lot of these
cases with regards to President Trump, most cases are not
taken up by the Supreme Court. So that means a
lot of damage can be done by these lower court
justices or judges. I should say that the justices will
never see and never be able to correct.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Matt. As always, we appreciate all the work you and
your team are doing. Thanks so very much.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Thank you, Preston. Always good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Thank you, Sir, Matt Staver with us from Liberty Council. Boy,
if you want a place to direct a few dollars
for a good cause, they take on cases that go
before the United States Supreme Court. Matt will never brag
about it, but his record before the United States Supreme
Court is incredible, absolutely incredible, because he's got God on
his side and oh, by the way, he's smart and
(09:23):
he's right
Good to have you back with us this morning on
the morning show. It's Monday, October thirteenth, and thrilled back
on the program. Friend of the show for many years now,
Senior pastor, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel LC dot org.
He is Matt Staver. Matt, how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Very good, good to be with you today.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Yeah, some good news. I want to talk specifically for
just a few moments about the federal judge ruling in
Florida's Scambia County school Board that it can in fact
deal with questionable books in its libraries.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Explain the case, Dad, This is a good decision by
a federal judge regarding the a Scambia County school Board.
They removed a book called End Tango, Make Three, which
follows two male penguins who adopt Patch and then raised Tango,
which is a penguin chick at New York City Central
Park Zoo. And this was actually promoting same sex marriage.
(01:00):
School board decided that this was inappropriate for the young readers,
and they removed it. They were then sued in twenty
twenty three by the co authors and a female student
wanting to borrow the book from her school library. The
judge Alan Windsor rejected their First Amendment argument. Actually, he
(01:20):
cited our case that I argued in one nine to
zero at the US Supreme Court, the Shirtlift versus City
of Boston case, and he goes through the criteria for
what requires what requirements there would be to get a
public form. In other words, did the library open up
its facility as a public form for people to bring
(01:44):
library books and therefore excluding a book or removing a book?
Is that viewpoint discrimination in the First Amendment? And the
judge said, no, it doesn't meet that criteria. The libraries
must have discretion to be able to purchase books, and
they have discretion and control over what books they retain
and what books that they remove. This is not a
public form where any author or individual can force a
(02:06):
library to either accept a book or retain a book
that they don't want to have on the shelf. So
this is a good decision in one certainly that makes
common sense. It protects children.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
However, we also recognize that we are we are fighting
an adversary in Satan that is just not going to
fold up and go away. This is an ongoing battle. Matt,
talk to me, about the challenge. Okay, we've got this
court ruling, it's a win, but we know that this
is going to be fought in other ways, in other
(02:39):
venues and with other judges ruling differently.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Well, and here's this thing. There are cases previous to
the shirt lifd case that I argued in twenty twenty
two and one nine to zero that go the opposite way.
So another word, when a library chooses to remove an
objectionable bulk book like this because it's inappropriate for young
people have been sued and the judges have gone the
other way. I think the tide will turn as a
(03:05):
result of the shirt Lived case. However, on the other hand,
what you have is the vast majority of libraries, particularly
public libraries, whether they're school K twelve or outside, are
different than a Scambia. Scambia is making good decisions to
remove books that should not be on the shelves. But
what we find in most libraries it's the opposite. So
(03:28):
they are excluding religious or Christian books or books from
a conservative standpoint, or they put them in places where
they're hard to find, and they're purchasing with tax dollars.
Pro LGBTQ books and abortion books, and they're prominently displaying
them so that they're very easy to find. That's primarily
(03:50):
what's happening in a lot of these school situations as
well as public library cases. So we really see the opposite.
What do you do with that? Well, if a court
can't force them to accept a particular book, then what
happens is you need to be involved in the political process.
So you need to go visit your libraries, whether they're
(04:12):
K through twelve or public libraries for the general public,
and find out what kind of books they have on
the shelves, and then bring this up for political pressure.
And what we're seeing is this is happening all over
the country where the political pressure is taking place. Parents,
people in the community are going to these different deliberative bodies, county, city,
(04:35):
deliberative elected officials, and they are protesting and bringing up
these issues in some way, even taking it, believe it
or not, to extreme levels. To illustrate the point, even
reading verbat in some of the trash that's in these
libraries that's quite offensive and is shocking to the people
that are sitting on the board making these decisions.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Forty two minutes past the hour, a few more minutes
here with under of Liberty Council Matt Staver. Matt, when
you look at some of the rulings coming out of
the High Court and you look at some of the
cases it's accepting or not accepting, kind of give me
your overview, your sense of where we are at the
High Court right now.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Well, at the High Court, I think we're in a
good trajectory. They're not making all the right decisions that
I would agree with, but by and large, the trajectory
is correct and they're correcting some of the problems that
we're seeing in the lower courts. What we're seeing in
the lower courts is absolute rebellion, ideological decisions that are
being put in place that are not following law, particularly
(05:36):
as it relates to President Donald Trump's actions, and we
see those overreaching time after time at the time. But
then you have more activity of the president at the
United States Supreme Court than any other president in American history,
and the success rate and when ratio at the Supreme
Court is phenomenal. So some of that is being corrected.
(05:58):
I think that'll have long term consequence. Is in a
good way. We do have a number of cases that
are at the Supreme Court that I think are very positive.
One was just arguing last week. That's the Change Council case.
We've been litigating that since twenty twelve, and I think
we're going to have a six to three or seven
to two victory on that particular case, striking down these
(06:18):
laws that ban counsel to people who want to overcome
unwanted same sex attractions, behaviors or gender confusion. So I
think that's a good decision. We've got a case that
i'll be we'll be hearing from at the end of
the month or early November, and that's the Kim Davis case.
In that case could be one that would that's challenging
the twenty fifteen of bergerfel same sex marriage opinion. Plus
(06:41):
it's also a big, huge religious free exercise case, So
keep an eye on that one. That'll be a huge
one if they accept the case. But I think generally
at the High Court it's going in the direction that
it should. It's correcting some of the errors of the
past decades of the activist judges. But on the other hand,
and you had a lot of judges that were put
in place by Biden and Obama and those by the way.
(07:08):
They're not rule of law type of generally people. They're
ideologically driven, the results oriented, and we see that a
lot in some of them recent litigation. It's frustrating to see,
but I think at the end of the day, it's
being corrected when it's.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
All said and done. Though, if a district judge, you know,
for example, the Supreme Court says district judge cannot go
beyond their district, but they keep doing these nationwide injunctions
and they're not following the directives of the Supreme Court.
What's the remedy.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, the remedy is appeachment. But you know, we've never
had an impeachment that's been successful recently. You know, the
last one was alse Hastens down in Miami and he
was impeached for accepting it bride, but then he became
a US member of Congress and the Democratic Party. He's
deceased now, so it's not been a real effective means.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
The other possibility is just continually, you know, the Supreme
Court recurrerecting the record and forcing them to obey. And
the other is other kinds of discipline that might be.
You know, judges are also should be abiding by their
judicial codes or canons of ethics, and if they don't,
they could be you know, challenged that way as well.
(08:16):
I know in the litigation regarding church lockdowns, we had
a case where it went to the Supreme Court. We
won five to four. In December of twenty twenty, we
went back down to the District Court and Obama appointee
ruled against us again. We had to go back to
the Supreme Court a second time, this time one six
to three. But that's the kind of thing that we're
dealing with. And the problem that we have is even
(08:37):
though the Supreme Court is correcting a lot of these
cases with regards to President Trump, most cases are not
taken up by the Supreme Court. So that means a
lot of damage can be done by these lower court
justices or judges. I should say that the justices will
never see and never be able to correct.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Matt. As always, we appreciate all the work you and
your team are doing. Thanks so very much.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Thank you, Preston. Always good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Thank you, Sir, Matt Staver with us from Liberty Council. Boy,
if you want a place to direct a few dollars
for a good cause, they take on cases that go
before the United States Supreme Court. Matt will never brag
about it, but his record before the United States Supreme
Court is incredible, absolutely incredible, because he's got God on
his side and oh, by the way, he's smart and
(09:23):
he's right
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.