June 9, 2025 • 26 mins
The Supreme Court just issued a unanimous decision on "reverse discrimination" that spells doom for woke grifters. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, Greta Thunberg's attention-seeking stunt gets shut down by the Israeli military, and an ABC News journalist gets himself suspended after drawing the Trump administration's ire.
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 (00:00):
What grifters and Charlatan's are out of luck after a
unanimous Supreme Court ruling just shut their grift down. All
this and so much more as coming up on today's
episode of The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, our daily show
where we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
(00:23):
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective
of First, like I mentioned, we're gonna touch on the
Supreme Court because a huge ruling just got handed down,
which I think is being somewhat lost in just the
noise of everything else that's going down, including the riots
in Los Angeles, which I will touch on. I'm still
gathering facts and I might actually discuss it with a
(00:44):
couple of guests this Wednesday. But in the meantime, the
Supreme Court ruling is absolutely huge in its ramifications and
in the fact that it's unanimous. Even the liberal, the
most liberal judges on the Court appointed by Joe Biden,
Barack Obama and so Juan came out and ruled against
a very prominent left wing idea that lots of the
(01:06):
anti racism and woke grifters, the Robin DiAngelo's and Ibramex
Kendy's of the world rely on for their activism. Well
it's illegal now, Well it actually always was, but now
it's clarified and unambiguous. Here's some reporting from the Hill
about this case that the Supreme Court just ruled on.
Then we'll get into some details.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Supreme Court decision season is in full swing, with the
justices just this week handing down six opinions that range
from religion to guns to discrimination. You might call it
unanimous day at the Supreme Court. Both the liberal and
conservative justices all agreed on three major cases. First up
was a straight woman's claims that her former employer discriminated
(01:48):
against her for being heterosexual. Marlene Ames said that her
gay supervisor at the Ohio Department of Youth Services passed
over her for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman.
Then Ames was demoted, a gay man was hired to
take her place, so Aimes sued under Title seven of
the Civil Rights Act, the landmark nineteen sixty four federal
law that protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
(02:13):
and national origin. Lower courts said that Ames, however, had
to show something more than the normal requirements because she
was straight, the lower court said that Ames had to
show background circumstances that proves that hers is the rare
case where an employer was discriminating against the majority. But
in that nine to zero decision, authored by Justice Katanji
Brown Jackson, former President Biden's appointee to the Court, the
(02:37):
Supreme Court rejected that theory, sending Ames's case back for
another look. Quote, Congress left no room for courts to
impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs alone, Jackson wrote
for the majority.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So this is a huge deal, it really is. And
our government is so divided and so partisan and so ideological,
but sometimes, especially in the judicial branch, you still have
consensus and unanimity. And this is one of those times.
Because they just ruled nine zero, all the judges, all
the justices on board, liberal and conservative, that reverse discrimination
(03:13):
isn't really a thing. It's just discrimination. So the cases
about an Ohio woman, Marlene Ames, who claimed she was
discriminated against an employment for being heterosexual, the kind of
practice that sometimes gets called reverse discrimination. She had worked
for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, a government agency
that's responsible for overseeing the juvenile criminal justice system, since
(03:34):
two thousand and four. In twenty nineteen, she applied for
a management job and was passed over for it, with
the job ultimately going to a lesbian woman. But it
didn't stop there. Ames was then removed from her job
and given a demotion, while a gay man was put
into the job she previously occupied, which, if you ask me,
is quite the coincidence. So she sued under the Civil
(03:57):
Rights Act. She sued her employer this government agency because
the Civil Rights Act includes protections has been expanded to
include protections for sexual orientation, and that doesn't just protect
gay people on the face of the law, it also
protects you from being discriminated against for being heterosexual, which
is what this woman alleges happened to her. But federal
appeals courts ruled that because she was a member of
(04:20):
a majority group claiming discrimination, she had to prove a
higher evidentiary burden than a minority group member would in
order to proceed with her case. That's what she challenged
to the Supreme Court and they just rule that Nope,
that's not how this works. Writing for the Supreme Court,
Biden appointee Katanji Brown Jackson wrote that the Civil Rights
(04:44):
Act in federal antidiscrimination laws make no distinction between the
protections for majority group members or minority group members, and
don't allow for these kind of two tier systems. Simply put,
reverse discrimination is just discrimination, and it's just as legal
as traditional discrimination.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I first thought when I saw this was like, how
sad it is that we even needed a Supreme Court
ruling to establish this something that seems like just such
common sense and seems like so uncontroversial. But we actually
do because we have seen this rise in openly discriminatory
policies targeted against white people, Asian people, and I guess
(05:24):
in this case potentially heterosexual people. Although what they ruled
on was not exactly her claim is true and proven,
but just on the principles of the legal standards, we
don't actually know if she was discriminated against or not.
But it certainly has happened that there have been instances
of anti heterosexual discrimination. Not that I think it's wildly
rampant or anything of the sort, but it's still wrong. Yet.
(05:45):
The real significance here is that a huge strain of
progressive activism and thought that really rose to prominence in
the post twenty twenty COVID era was now just basically,
unambiguously umously affirmed to be blatantly illegal. Remember the anti
racist author Ebram X. Kendy and his best selling book
(06:08):
How to Be an Anti Racist that every liberal wine
mom had on their coffee table after George Floyd was
killed to show what a good ally they were. Well,
that book openly said that, and this is a quote,
the only remedy to pass discrimination is present discrimination. This
approach was embodied in many progressive policies from like race
(06:30):
conscious COVID programs that only extended certain small business and
farmer benefits to minority owned businesses and literally excluded or
otherwise deprioritized certain majority group members even if they'd been
affected by the same emergency. These programs were supposed to
be addressing to the traditional affirmative action policies that openly
(06:51):
discriminated against Asian Americans in particular, but also white Americans
to promote lower standards for African American and other underrepresented applicants.
Then there's things like slavery reparations, which explicitly call to
take money from some people and give it to other
people on the basis of their race. Some of these
(07:11):
plans may be well intentioned. I mean, they may be
put forward by people who genuinely think they're promoting like
racial harmony or progress or something. I'm open to that,
but they're still not and they're still blatantly illegal. And
if you're not convinced that this is even a thing
that we need to think about or worry about, let
me read you this jaw dropping statistic from Bloomberg. This
(07:34):
was published in September of twenty twenty three. Corporate America
promised to hire a lot more people of color. It
actually did. The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the
SNP one hundred added more than three hundred thousand jobs.
Ninety four percent went to people of color. So I'm
not a believer in the idea that like disproportionate statistics
(07:56):
inherently mean discrimination must be happening. But in this case,
it seems pretty obvious to me that there is no
way in America, especially at high levels of corporate America,
that you're just taking the most qualified people in ninety
four percent of them across hundreds of thousands of jobs
are not any white people. That's us. That's incredibly sus.
(08:19):
And even if in many of those cases it was
a merit based hiring decision. In a fair number it
had to have been some form of refers to discrimination,
which again is just discrimination and is illegal. So this
Supreme Court ruling sends a message that this kind of
thing isn't allowed and establishes the same legal pathways that
exist for remedying traditional instances of discrimination for this kind
(08:44):
of discrimination as well. And I think as this pathway
unfolds and as more people bring lawsuits, we will come
to see that, especially post twenty twenty, this kind of thing,
while blatantly illegal, was fairly widespread, especially in liberal dominated
institutions like higher education and some parts of corporate America
and media. Even the journalist Jesse Signal, who I appreciate
(09:07):
and I like his work a lot, basically admitted that
he doesn't have empirical data on it. But in liberal
circles in journalism and academia, in these other places, basically
everyone knew that they were explicitly just not hiring white
people and promoting not promoting white people for certain roles.
And he says that this stuff will come out in
the wash as this is further litigated, and I tend
(09:28):
to agree now, this Supreme Court decision is very very
very bad news for like the Charlatans and the hucksters
who enriched themselves and this identity politics grift, because a
lot of what they're selling was just unanimously affirmed by
the Supreme Court to be blatantly illegal. So it's a
tough day to be Robin DiAngelo or ibramec SCNDI, or
(09:50):
one of these other grifters. But whether you're left center
or right of center, just for Americans in general who
want to live in America where everybody from different backgrounds
lives in harmony and is treated the same under the
law and in society, it's actually a great day and
a great ruling that reminds us that even in these
divided political times, sometimes sanity can still achieve consensus. At
(10:15):
least that's how I'm looking at it. That's why I
was really happy to see this decision, and why I
particularly thought it was great that even the liberal justices
signed on and authored this opinion. But what do you think?
Do let me know in the comments. Do make sure
you're subscribed if you aren't yet, and do hit that
like button while you're at Now we got to talk
about Greta, because Greta Tunberg is playing the victim again.
(10:36):
This time she found a way to make the Israel
Hamas war and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza about herself
and her friends, and to hog the spotlight and sort
of engage in this kind of narcissistic exercise where she
and a bunch of other activists boarded a boat with
a relatively small amount of aid on it and then
(10:59):
absurdly set sail to pierce the blockade. Israel has the
Gaza strip blockaded as part of their war and deliver aid,
and somehow they thought they were gonna get through or something.
I mean, in reality, they knew they wouldn't, but they
just wanted to draw attention to themselves rather than the
very real humanitarian suffering. They could have used their platform
(11:19):
to fundraise for charities that actually help these people or
something like that, but instead they decided to make themselves
the start of the show. And now, when the inevitable
happened and Israel intercepted them and prohibited from them from
entering the war zone, they're playing the victim. Here's Greta's
latest social media upload.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
My name is Githatimbe and I am from Sweden. If
you see this video, we have been intercepted and kidnapped
in international waters by the Israeli occupational forces or forces
that support Israel. I. Urged all my friends, family and
comrades to put pressure on the Swedish government to release
(11:58):
me and the others as soon as possible.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
So listen, I've been a Gretaitunberg hater. If Greta has
no haters, I must be dead. An accident must have happened,
a tragedy must have occurred. I must no longer be
in this world. But even I, as a hater, did
not expect her video to be this diabolical. Using the
word kidnapped to describe yourself in this situation when there
(12:23):
are still hostages in Gaza who were taken on October
seven is insanely ridiculous, absurd, insensitive and offensive. It is
making a mockery of that term. The Israeli military intercepted
their little activist flotilla, turned them around, and I think
Frickin gave them sandwiches and is just sending them home
(12:45):
and not letting them into this active war zone, the
exact thing they always knew that was going to happen,
And here they are playing the victim and claiming to
have been kidnapped. What a profound insult, What a mockery
they are making of the very real humanitarian suffering in Gaza.
And they're just so many layers to this, you know,
que that Shrek clip about the onion. The layers here
(13:06):
are infinite of hypocrisy and absurdity. For example, watch Greta
and her environmental buddies, right, remember she's the big environmental activist,
throw all their devices into the water as soon as
they see the Israeli forces coming.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Ditch that broms, ditch bomb, ditch the brown.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Did we really just watch the buddies of the most
famous environmental activists in the world engage in massive plastic
pollution in the ocean? I think we did. And also like,
I'm a little confused as to what they're so worried
about that's on their devices. There's just there's a tweet
for everything. The problem of plastic pollution in the ocean
(13:58):
is even worse than anyone. There's actually more microplastic one
thousand feet down there than there is in the Great
Pacific garbage patch. We can't continue like this. Yeah, hmm,
funny how that one went straight out the window when
it came to ditching potential evidence I guess against you,
which again I'm not even sure what would have been
(14:19):
on these devices that would have gotten you in so
much trouble. But like when it comes to an attention
seeking stunt to try to paint yourself as a victim
of Israel, all that goes out the window. Funny how
that works. Now. Say what you will about the Israeli government,
and I am not a supporter of them or many
of their actions these days, but their social media game
(14:40):
on this particular incident was admirable. The israel Foreign Ministry
tweeted all the passengers of the quote selfie yacht are
safe and unharmed. They were provided with sandwiches and water.
The show is over, and they included video of this
(15:14):
selfie yacht is actually hilarious. Give whatever in turn came
up with that a raise. Sorry, I'm sorry. I know
this is like a very serious situation, but that shit
is funny. At the end of the day. What we
have here is just peak celebrity cringe virtue signaling a
(15:35):
totally pointless stunt that no, despite what some defenders are claiming,
has not raised awareness of the humanitarian suffering in Gaza,
it's distracted from it and made Greta the center of attention,
which is really what she is all about. Like, if
there's one defining ethos of the Greta Tunberg philosophy, it's
that everything imaginable needs to be about Greta Tunberg. That's
(15:56):
really it. And it's made a mockery of the very
real suffering that's occurred on both sides of this conflict,
especially when they're saying they were kidnapped and other absurdities
that again are just so wildly inaccurate and insensitive in
this context, and when this was always doomed to fail,
and they could have actually used their celebrity and their
influence to try to help these people, to try to
(16:17):
fundraise for actual, you know, humanitarian groups or aid organizations
that are able to work inside Gaza. Right now, I'm
sure there's something that can be done to help the
countless innocent people, the women and children and babies caught
up in this war. And that's an admirable thing to
want to do, but not if your real goal is
to draw attention to yourself to have your self go
(16:39):
viral on social media all well knowing you will never
be allowed in the aid you brought, which isn't even
very much, It wouldn't make a difference, really won't actually
get to anyone. So it's an entirely pointless and fruitless
endeavor that they always knew was going to end exactly
how it ended, and it only served to self aggrandize,
(16:59):
to promote their own egos and get them unfortunately lots
of loving and glowing coverage from left wing influencers and media.
But really, those people, of all people, should be the
harshest critics of people like Greta Dunberg, because this kind
of activism does not help advance the Palestinian people or
(17:19):
their cause whatsoever. It makes a mockery out of it
and reminds everyone what we find so insufferable about the
liberal elite. Other than that, though great work, Greta, you're
doing amazing. Nags. We're going to talk about some journalism
drama because an ABC News correspondent finds himself in some
serious hot water after going after Trump and Trump appointe
(17:42):
Stephen Miller in very personal terms on x AKA Twitter.
Terry Moran is the senior national correspondent for ABC News.
He actually interviewed President Trump a couple months ago, and
he is ostensibly a neutral, unbiased reporter, but he tweeted
something over the weekend that was nuts. So unbiased or neutral.
He wrote. The thing about Stephen Miller is not that
(18:05):
he has the brains behind trump Ism. Yes, he is
one of the people who conceptualizes the impulse of the
Trumpest movement and translates them into policy. But that's not
what's interesting about Miller. It's not brains, it's bile. Miller
is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity
for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can see
this just by looking at him, because you can see
(18:27):
that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.
Trump is a world class hater, but his hatred only
is a means to an end, and that end is
his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment. Wild thing to tweet,
and notable that this dude tweeted it at twelve six
(18:49):
am when he probably should have been in bed and
may or may not. There were several typos in this tweet.
Have been under the influence of some sort of thing,
but regardless, and I say this as someone who in
particular really really dislikes Stephen Miller. I disagree with him
on all sorts of things, and I think he's a
particularly harmful influence on President Trump, and I think he
(19:11):
kind of represents the most extreme vein of trump Ism
that has a lot of disregard for the classically liberal
values that I hold. So I'm a big critic of
Stephen Miller. I've criticized him on this show. None of
that changes the fact, though, that this is wildly inappropriate
and unprofessional. For a professional journalist who holds a role
that sensibly is impartial and unbiased to tweet such incredibly
(19:36):
incredibly personal things and insults about the president and one
of his top advisors. That's obviously not okay and very
clearly violates ABC's policies. The Trump administration was pretty quick
to condemn Moran and also call for consequences for him.
White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt wrote in a tweet
last night in a sense deleted post, so called journalist
(19:59):
Terry Moran when I on a rampage against Stephen Miller
and called President Trump a world class hater. This is
unhinged and unacceptable. We have reached out to ABC to
inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable. Now,
Like I said, I do agree this tweet is wildly
unprofessional and unacceptable for a journalists to put out, But
it is kind of funny to see the Trump administration
(20:21):
like upset about personal insults. Bro Trump says worst things
about people all the time, and they don't say that
it is unhinged and unacceptable. It's kind of bar for
the course, but I do agree it's horrifically impartial and unprofessional.
Darely Lovett went even further though, in a television interview
with Maria Bartouromo on Fox Business, Take a listen to this.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
ABC is going to have to answer for what they're
again so called journalist put out on Twitter in the
wee hours of the night, calling Stephen Miller vile. They
said that President Trump is a world class hater. And
this is again coming from someone who is supposed to
be an unbiased and professional journal This is unacceptable and
(21:02):
unhinged rhetoric coming from someone who works at a major
television network. We have reached out to ABC they have
said they will be taking action, so we will see
what they do. And you said ABC is going to
take action. What do you expect that action to be. Well,
we'll have to see. I mean, hopefully this journalist will
either be suspended or terminated. You cannot go on these
(21:23):
unhinged rants against administrative administration officials and the presidents of
the United States. And then clearly he knew he was
wrong because he deleted the post as soon as he
allegedly woke up this morning, So.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
The language here gets murky. You actually can go on
unhinged grants about the president of the United States and
his officials, and that is free speech. So she should
be clearer with her words. It is, of course unprofessional
for a journalist to do so, but it's also notable.
And we'll come back to this that she basically called
(21:56):
for his firing or suspension. And we can't know whether
ABC News would have done this regardless, I'd like to
think that they would have, but they did suspend Terry Moran,
and they said this in a statement. ABC News announced
Sunday that it was suspending Terry Moran over concerns about
him violating the outlets standards. On impartiality and objectivity. ABC
News stands for objectivity and impartiality and its news coverage
(22:18):
and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others. The
post does not reflect the views of ABC News and
violated our standards. As a result, Terry Moran has been
suspended pending for their evaluation. Now, as far as I'm concerned,
this is the correct course of action for ABC News,
and it's just kind of obvious to me. This is
(22:39):
not an opinion commentator, This is not a pundit. This
is not a presenter or like a late night host.
This is supposedly a neutral journalist at a very prestigious
or at least it used to be, mainstream media institution
that still claims objectivity and neutrality. Right. That makes it
different than kind of new media or some outlets that
(22:59):
are open about their bias. They still claim to be neutral,
and they have a top correspondent going on very extreme
personal insults and rants against the current administration officials. That's
obviously unacceptable behavior for a journalist. I can say this
as someone in the background in journalism. You would never
typically and shouldn't get away with doing that. But the
fact that the White House called for him to be
(23:22):
fired or suspended does make me uncomfortable, and I wish
they hadn't gone that far. I wish they had just
criticized what he said and then maybe ABC News just
decides to suspend him anyway. But I don't think it's
proper for the government to be telling media outlets what
journalists should be fired. That said, I am not as
concerned about this as some of my friends who are
(23:44):
very hardline free speech advocates do seem to be. Like
some of my friends over at FIRE, the non partisan
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, where disclaimer, I do
a little bit of freelance work. Fire president Greg Lukianov
wrote in a tweet a lot of his First Amendment
defenders from journalism backgrounds, and I thought Moran's tweet was
very unprofessional. The public backlash alone might have gotten him fired,
(24:07):
but the administration contacting ABC in demanding ABC hold him
quote accountable, that's classic jaw boning. It was wrong when
Biden did it to suppress alleged COVID or other alleged misinformation,
and it's wrong here. Ironically, just blasting Moran's tweet wouldn't
have raised any First Amendment concerns, and he probably still
(24:28):
would have been suspended or fired. Aaron Turr of Fire
as Well tweeted, the White House just admitted to pressuring
a private company to punish an employee for criticizing the
president and another White House official. This is the type
of jaw boning the President Trump vowed to end with
his January twenty Executive Order on Restoring Freedom of Speech.
So I have mixed feelings on this. I did criticize
(24:50):
the Biden administration for pressuring tech companies to take down
COVID misinformation and posts, and I do tend to agree
that there should be not much government pressure to take down, censor,
or punish people over First Amendment protected speech, which, while
he can still face professional consequences for it in a
private company like ABC News, what Terry Moran did post
(25:12):
is First Amendment protected expression. That said, I mean, the
request does go too far. I do wish they had
just stuck to criticizing, but like he does, obviously deserve
to be fired, and I'd like to think ABC News
would have done it anyway. So this is at the
very least not really an example of cancer culture or
censorship run amuck. When just basic standards of professionalism in
(25:36):
journalism are being upheld. I do agree it would have
been better if the White House had stopped short of
calling directly for consequences to happen to him, And it
would also, I think make a lot of Republicans uncomfortable
if the Biden administration had specifically demanded that a particular
Fox News reporter, Peterducy, for example, be fired or suspended,
(25:57):
and then Fox News did in fact suspend him, I
think I would make a lot of people on the
right very uncomfortable and kind of blur the line between
government and free press in a way that we wouldn't like.
There's sort of the same dynamic at play here, but again,
it's just such an egregious violation to me that hopefully
he would have been suspended anyway. What do you guys think?
Where do you fall on this? Very curious to hear
(26:18):
from you, guys. Remember I do think the time to
read the comment, so definitely let me know what you
think down below. Okay, guys, that'll be it for today's
episode of the Barad Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you so
much for tuning in. Please do make sure you're subscribed
if you aren't yet, Do hit that like button before
you go. Remember to subscribe to my second channel, and
with that we'll talk again real soon.
What grifters and Charlatan's are out of luck after a
unanimous Supreme Court ruling just shut their grift down. All
this and so much more as coming up on today's
episode of The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, our daily show
where we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
(00:23):
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective
of First, like I mentioned, we're gonna touch on the
Supreme Court because a huge ruling just got handed down,
which I think is being somewhat lost in just the
noise of everything else that's going down, including the riots
in Los Angeles, which I will touch on. I'm still
gathering facts and I might actually discuss it with a
(00:44):
couple of guests this Wednesday. But in the meantime, the
Supreme Court ruling is absolutely huge in its ramifications and
in the fact that it's unanimous. Even the liberal, the
most liberal judges on the Court appointed by Joe Biden,
Barack Obama and so Juan came out and ruled against
a very prominent left wing idea that lots of the
(01:06):
anti racism and woke grifters, the Robin DiAngelo's and Ibramex
Kendy's of the world rely on for their activism. Well
it's illegal now, Well it actually always was, but now
it's clarified and unambiguous. Here's some reporting from the Hill
about this case that the Supreme Court just ruled on.
Then we'll get into some details.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Supreme Court decision season is in full swing, with the
justices just this week handing down six opinions that range
from religion to guns to discrimination. You might call it
unanimous day at the Supreme Court. Both the liberal and
conservative justices all agreed on three major cases. First up
was a straight woman's claims that her former employer discriminated
(01:48):
against her for being heterosexual. Marlene Ames said that her
gay supervisor at the Ohio Department of Youth Services passed
over her for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman.
Then Ames was demoted, a gay man was hired to
take her place, so Aimes sued under Title seven of
the Civil Rights Act, the landmark nineteen sixty four federal
law that protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
(02:13):
and national origin. Lower courts said that Ames, however, had
to show something more than the normal requirements because she
was straight, the lower court said that Ames had to
show background circumstances that proves that hers is the rare
case where an employer was discriminating against the majority. But
in that nine to zero decision, authored by Justice Katanji
Brown Jackson, former President Biden's appointee to the Court, the
(02:37):
Supreme Court rejected that theory, sending Ames's case back for
another look. Quote, Congress left no room for courts to
impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs alone, Jackson wrote
for the majority.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So this is a huge deal, it really is. And
our government is so divided and so partisan and so ideological,
but sometimes, especially in the judicial branch, you still have
consensus and unanimity. And this is one of those times.
Because they just ruled nine zero, all the judges, all
the justices on board, liberal and conservative, that reverse discrimination
(03:13):
isn't really a thing. It's just discrimination. So the cases
about an Ohio woman, Marlene Ames, who claimed she was
discriminated against an employment for being heterosexual, the kind of
practice that sometimes gets called reverse discrimination. She had worked
for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, a government agency
that's responsible for overseeing the juvenile criminal justice system, since
(03:34):
two thousand and four. In twenty nineteen, she applied for
a management job and was passed over for it, with
the job ultimately going to a lesbian woman. But it
didn't stop there. Ames was then removed from her job
and given a demotion, while a gay man was put
into the job she previously occupied, which, if you ask me,
is quite the coincidence. So she sued under the Civil
(03:57):
Rights Act. She sued her employer this government agency because
the Civil Rights Act includes protections has been expanded to
include protections for sexual orientation, and that doesn't just protect
gay people on the face of the law, it also
protects you from being discriminated against for being heterosexual, which
is what this woman alleges happened to her. But federal
appeals courts ruled that because she was a member of
(04:20):
a majority group claiming discrimination, she had to prove a
higher evidentiary burden than a minority group member would in
order to proceed with her case. That's what she challenged
to the Supreme Court and they just rule that Nope,
that's not how this works. Writing for the Supreme Court,
Biden appointee Katanji Brown Jackson wrote that the Civil Rights
(04:44):
Act in federal antidiscrimination laws make no distinction between the
protections for majority group members or minority group members, and
don't allow for these kind of two tier systems. Simply put,
reverse discrimination is just discrimination, and it's just as legal
as traditional discrimination.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I first thought when I saw this was like, how
sad it is that we even needed a Supreme Court
ruling to establish this something that seems like just such
common sense and seems like so uncontroversial. But we actually
do because we have seen this rise in openly discriminatory
policies targeted against white people, Asian people, and I guess
(05:24):
in this case potentially heterosexual people. Although what they ruled
on was not exactly her claim is true and proven,
but just on the principles of the legal standards, we
don't actually know if she was discriminated against or not.
But it certainly has happened that there have been instances
of anti heterosexual discrimination. Not that I think it's wildly
rampant or anything of the sort, but it's still wrong. Yet.
(05:45):
The real significance here is that a huge strain of
progressive activism and thought that really rose to prominence in
the post twenty twenty COVID era was now just basically,
unambiguously umously affirmed to be blatantly illegal. Remember the anti
racist author Ebram X. Kendy and his best selling book
(06:08):
How to Be an Anti Racist that every liberal wine
mom had on their coffee table after George Floyd was
killed to show what a good ally they were. Well,
that book openly said that, and this is a quote,
the only remedy to pass discrimination is present discrimination. This
approach was embodied in many progressive policies from like race
(06:30):
conscious COVID programs that only extended certain small business and
farmer benefits to minority owned businesses and literally excluded or
otherwise deprioritized certain majority group members even if they'd been
affected by the same emergency. These programs were supposed to
be addressing to the traditional affirmative action policies that openly
(06:51):
discriminated against Asian Americans in particular, but also white Americans
to promote lower standards for African American and other underrepresented applicants.
Then there's things like slavery reparations, which explicitly call to
take money from some people and give it to other
people on the basis of their race. Some of these
(07:11):
plans may be well intentioned. I mean, they may be
put forward by people who genuinely think they're promoting like
racial harmony or progress or something. I'm open to that,
but they're still not and they're still blatantly illegal. And
if you're not convinced that this is even a thing
that we need to think about or worry about, let
me read you this jaw dropping statistic from Bloomberg. This
(07:34):
was published in September of twenty twenty three. Corporate America
promised to hire a lot more people of color. It
actually did. The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the
SNP one hundred added more than three hundred thousand jobs.
Ninety four percent went to people of color. So I'm
not a believer in the idea that like disproportionate statistics
(07:56):
inherently mean discrimination must be happening. But in this case,
it seems pretty obvious to me that there is no
way in America, especially at high levels of corporate America,
that you're just taking the most qualified people in ninety
four percent of them across hundreds of thousands of jobs
are not any white people. That's us. That's incredibly sus.
(08:19):
And even if in many of those cases it was
a merit based hiring decision. In a fair number it
had to have been some form of refers to discrimination,
which again is just discrimination and is illegal. So this
Supreme Court ruling sends a message that this kind of
thing isn't allowed and establishes the same legal pathways that
exist for remedying traditional instances of discrimination for this kind
(08:44):
of discrimination as well. And I think as this pathway
unfolds and as more people bring lawsuits, we will come
to see that, especially post twenty twenty, this kind of thing,
while blatantly illegal, was fairly widespread, especially in liberal dominated
institutions like higher education and some parts of corporate America
and media. Even the journalist Jesse Signal, who I appreciate
(09:07):
and I like his work a lot, basically admitted that
he doesn't have empirical data on it. But in liberal
circles in journalism and academia, in these other places, basically
everyone knew that they were explicitly just not hiring white
people and promoting not promoting white people for certain roles.
And he says that this stuff will come out in
the wash as this is further litigated, and I tend
(09:28):
to agree now, this Supreme Court decision is very very
very bad news for like the Charlatans and the hucksters
who enriched themselves and this identity politics grift, because a
lot of what they're selling was just unanimously affirmed by
the Supreme Court to be blatantly illegal. So it's a
tough day to be Robin DiAngelo or ibramec SCNDI, or
(09:50):
one of these other grifters. But whether you're left center
or right of center, just for Americans in general who
want to live in America where everybody from different backgrounds
lives in harmony and is treated the same under the
law and in society, it's actually a great day and
a great ruling that reminds us that even in these
divided political times, sometimes sanity can still achieve consensus. At
(10:15):
least that's how I'm looking at it. That's why I
was really happy to see this decision, and why I
particularly thought it was great that even the liberal justices
signed on and authored this opinion. But what do you think?
Do let me know in the comments. Do make sure
you're subscribed if you aren't yet, and do hit that
like button while you're at Now we got to talk
about Greta, because Greta Tunberg is playing the victim again.
(10:36):
This time she found a way to make the Israel
Hamas war and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza about herself
and her friends, and to hog the spotlight and sort
of engage in this kind of narcissistic exercise where she
and a bunch of other activists boarded a boat with
a relatively small amount of aid on it and then
(10:59):
absurdly set sail to pierce the blockade. Israel has the
Gaza strip blockaded as part of their war and deliver aid,
and somehow they thought they were gonna get through or something.
I mean, in reality, they knew they wouldn't, but they
just wanted to draw attention to themselves rather than the
very real humanitarian suffering. They could have used their platform
(11:19):
to fundraise for charities that actually help these people or
something like that, but instead they decided to make themselves
the start of the show. And now, when the inevitable
happened and Israel intercepted them and prohibited from them from
entering the war zone, they're playing the victim. Here's Greta's
latest social media upload.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
My name is Githatimbe and I am from Sweden. If
you see this video, we have been intercepted and kidnapped
in international waters by the Israeli occupational forces or forces
that support Israel. I. Urged all my friends, family and
comrades to put pressure on the Swedish government to release
(11:58):
me and the others as soon as possible.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
So listen, I've been a Gretaitunberg hater. If Greta has
no haters, I must be dead. An accident must have happened,
a tragedy must have occurred. I must no longer be
in this world. But even I, as a hater, did
not expect her video to be this diabolical. Using the
word kidnapped to describe yourself in this situation when there
(12:23):
are still hostages in Gaza who were taken on October
seven is insanely ridiculous, absurd, insensitive and offensive. It is
making a mockery of that term. The Israeli military intercepted
their little activist flotilla, turned them around, and I think
Frickin gave them sandwiches and is just sending them home
(12:45):
and not letting them into this active war zone, the
exact thing they always knew that was going to happen,
And here they are playing the victim and claiming to
have been kidnapped. What a profound insult, What a mockery
they are making of the very real humanitarian suffering in Gaza.
And they're just so many layers to this, you know,
que that Shrek clip about the onion. The layers here
(13:06):
are infinite of hypocrisy and absurdity. For example, watch Greta
and her environmental buddies, right, remember she's the big environmental activist,
throw all their devices into the water as soon as
they see the Israeli forces coming.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Ditch that broms, ditch bomb, ditch the brown.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Did we really just watch the buddies of the most
famous environmental activists in the world engage in massive plastic
pollution in the ocean? I think we did. And also like,
I'm a little confused as to what they're so worried
about that's on their devices. There's just there's a tweet
for everything. The problem of plastic pollution in the ocean
(13:58):
is even worse than anyone. There's actually more microplastic one
thousand feet down there than there is in the Great
Pacific garbage patch. We can't continue like this. Yeah, hmm,
funny how that one went straight out the window when
it came to ditching potential evidence I guess against you,
which again I'm not even sure what would have been
(14:19):
on these devices that would have gotten you in so
much trouble. But like when it comes to an attention
seeking stunt to try to paint yourself as a victim
of Israel, all that goes out the window. Funny how
that works. Now. Say what you will about the Israeli government,
and I am not a supporter of them or many
of their actions these days, but their social media game
(14:40):
on this particular incident was admirable. The israel Foreign Ministry
tweeted all the passengers of the quote selfie yacht are
safe and unharmed. They were provided with sandwiches and water.
The show is over, and they included video of this
(15:14):
selfie yacht is actually hilarious. Give whatever in turn came
up with that a raise. Sorry, I'm sorry. I know
this is like a very serious situation, but that shit
is funny. At the end of the day. What we
have here is just peak celebrity cringe virtue signaling a
(15:35):
totally pointless stunt that no, despite what some defenders are claiming,
has not raised awareness of the humanitarian suffering in Gaza,
it's distracted from it and made Greta the center of attention,
which is really what she is all about. Like, if
there's one defining ethos of the Greta Tunberg philosophy, it's
that everything imaginable needs to be about Greta Tunberg. That's
(15:56):
really it. And it's made a mockery of the very
real suffering that's occurred on both sides of this conflict,
especially when they're saying they were kidnapped and other absurdities
that again are just so wildly inaccurate and insensitive in
this context, and when this was always doomed to fail,
and they could have actually used their celebrity and their
influence to try to help these people, to try to
(16:17):
fundraise for actual, you know, humanitarian groups or aid organizations
that are able to work inside Gaza. Right now, I'm
sure there's something that can be done to help the
countless innocent people, the women and children and babies caught
up in this war. And that's an admirable thing to
want to do, but not if your real goal is
to draw attention to yourself to have your self go
(16:39):
viral on social media all well knowing you will never
be allowed in the aid you brought, which isn't even
very much, It wouldn't make a difference, really won't actually
get to anyone. So it's an entirely pointless and fruitless
endeavor that they always knew was going to end exactly
how it ended, and it only served to self aggrandize,
(16:59):
to promote their own egos and get them unfortunately lots
of loving and glowing coverage from left wing influencers and media.
But really, those people, of all people, should be the
harshest critics of people like Greta Dunberg, because this kind
of activism does not help advance the Palestinian people or
(17:19):
their cause whatsoever. It makes a mockery out of it
and reminds everyone what we find so insufferable about the
liberal elite. Other than that, though great work, Greta, you're
doing amazing. Nags. We're going to talk about some journalism
drama because an ABC News correspondent finds himself in some
serious hot water after going after Trump and Trump appointe
(17:42):
Stephen Miller in very personal terms on x AKA Twitter.
Terry Moran is the senior national correspondent for ABC News.
He actually interviewed President Trump a couple months ago, and
he is ostensibly a neutral, unbiased reporter, but he tweeted
something over the weekend that was nuts. So unbiased or neutral.
He wrote. The thing about Stephen Miller is not that
(18:05):
he has the brains behind trump Ism. Yes, he is
one of the people who conceptualizes the impulse of the
Trumpest movement and translates them into policy. But that's not
what's interesting about Miller. It's not brains, it's bile. Miller
is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity
for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can see
this just by looking at him, because you can see
(18:27):
that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.
Trump is a world class hater, but his hatred only
is a means to an end, and that end is
his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment. Wild thing to tweet,
and notable that this dude tweeted it at twelve six
(18:49):
am when he probably should have been in bed and
may or may not. There were several typos in this tweet.
Have been under the influence of some sort of thing,
but regardless, and I say this as someone who in
particular really really dislikes Stephen Miller. I disagree with him
on all sorts of things, and I think he's a
particularly harmful influence on President Trump, and I think he
(19:11):
kind of represents the most extreme vein of trump Ism
that has a lot of disregard for the classically liberal
values that I hold. So I'm a big critic of
Stephen Miller. I've criticized him on this show. None of
that changes the fact, though, that this is wildly inappropriate
and unprofessional. For a professional journalist who holds a role
that sensibly is impartial and unbiased to tweet such incredibly
(19:36):
incredibly personal things and insults about the president and one
of his top advisors. That's obviously not okay and very
clearly violates ABC's policies. The Trump administration was pretty quick
to condemn Moran and also call for consequences for him.
White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt wrote in a tweet
last night in a sense deleted post, so called journalist
(19:59):
Terry Moran when I on a rampage against Stephen Miller
and called President Trump a world class hater. This is
unhinged and unacceptable. We have reached out to ABC to
inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable. Now,
Like I said, I do agree this tweet is wildly
unprofessional and unacceptable for a journalists to put out, But
it is kind of funny to see the Trump administration
(20:21):
like upset about personal insults. Bro Trump says worst things
about people all the time, and they don't say that
it is unhinged and unacceptable. It's kind of bar for
the course, but I do agree it's horrifically impartial and unprofessional.
Darely Lovett went even further though, in a television interview
with Maria Bartouromo on Fox Business, Take a listen to this.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
ABC is going to have to answer for what they're
again so called journalist put out on Twitter in the
wee hours of the night, calling Stephen Miller vile. They
said that President Trump is a world class hater. And
this is again coming from someone who is supposed to
be an unbiased and professional journal This is unacceptable and
(21:02):
unhinged rhetoric coming from someone who works at a major
television network. We have reached out to ABC they have
said they will be taking action, so we will see
what they do. And you said ABC is going to
take action. What do you expect that action to be. Well,
we'll have to see. I mean, hopefully this journalist will
either be suspended or terminated. You cannot go on these
(21:23):
unhinged rants against administrative administration officials and the presidents of
the United States. And then clearly he knew he was
wrong because he deleted the post as soon as he
allegedly woke up this morning, So.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
The language here gets murky. You actually can go on
unhinged grants about the president of the United States and
his officials, and that is free speech. So she should
be clearer with her words. It is, of course unprofessional
for a journalist to do so, but it's also notable.
And we'll come back to this that she basically called
(21:56):
for his firing or suspension. And we can't know whether
ABC News would have done this regardless, I'd like to
think that they would have, but they did suspend Terry Moran,
and they said this in a statement. ABC News announced
Sunday that it was suspending Terry Moran over concerns about
him violating the outlets standards. On impartiality and objectivity. ABC
News stands for objectivity and impartiality and its news coverage
(22:18):
and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others. The
post does not reflect the views of ABC News and
violated our standards. As a result, Terry Moran has been
suspended pending for their evaluation. Now, as far as I'm concerned,
this is the correct course of action for ABC News,
and it's just kind of obvious to me. This is
(22:39):
not an opinion commentator, This is not a pundit. This
is not a presenter or like a late night host.
This is supposedly a neutral journalist at a very prestigious
or at least it used to be, mainstream media institution
that still claims objectivity and neutrality. Right. That makes it
different than kind of new media or some outlets that
(22:59):
are open about their bias. They still claim to be neutral,
and they have a top correspondent going on very extreme
personal insults and rants against the current administration officials. That's
obviously unacceptable behavior for a journalist. I can say this
as someone in the background in journalism. You would never
typically and shouldn't get away with doing that. But the
fact that the White House called for him to be
(23:22):
fired or suspended does make me uncomfortable, and I wish
they hadn't gone that far. I wish they had just
criticized what he said and then maybe ABC News just
decides to suspend him anyway. But I don't think it's
proper for the government to be telling media outlets what
journalists should be fired. That said, I am not as
concerned about this as some of my friends who are
(23:44):
very hardline free speech advocates do seem to be. Like
some of my friends over at FIRE, the non partisan
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, where disclaimer, I do
a little bit of freelance work. Fire president Greg Lukianov
wrote in a tweet a lot of his First Amendment
defenders from journalism backgrounds, and I thought Moran's tweet was
very unprofessional. The public backlash alone might have gotten him fired,
(24:07):
but the administration contacting ABC in demanding ABC hold him
quote accountable, that's classic jaw boning. It was wrong when
Biden did it to suppress alleged COVID or other alleged misinformation,
and it's wrong here. Ironically, just blasting Moran's tweet wouldn't
have raised any First Amendment concerns, and he probably still
(24:28):
would have been suspended or fired. Aaron Turr of Fire
as Well tweeted, the White House just admitted to pressuring
a private company to punish an employee for criticizing the
president and another White House official. This is the type
of jaw boning the President Trump vowed to end with
his January twenty Executive Order on Restoring Freedom of Speech.
So I have mixed feelings on this. I did criticize
(24:50):
the Biden administration for pressuring tech companies to take down
COVID misinformation and posts, and I do tend to agree
that there should be not much government pressure to take down, censor,
or punish people over First Amendment protected speech, which, while
he can still face professional consequences for it in a
private company like ABC News, what Terry Moran did post
(25:12):
is First Amendment protected expression. That said, I mean, the
request does go too far. I do wish they had
just stuck to criticizing, but like he does, obviously deserve
to be fired, and I'd like to think ABC News
would have done it anyway. So this is at the
very least not really an example of cancer culture or
censorship run amuck. When just basic standards of professionalism in
(25:36):
journalism are being upheld. I do agree it would have
been better if the White House had stopped short of
calling directly for consequences to happen to him, And it
would also, I think make a lot of Republicans uncomfortable
if the Biden administration had specifically demanded that a particular
Fox News reporter, Peterducy, for example, be fired or suspended,
(25:57):
and then Fox News did in fact suspend him, I
think I would make a lot of people on the
right very uncomfortable and kind of blur the line between
government and free press in a way that we wouldn't like.
There's sort of the same dynamic at play here, but again,
it's just such an egregious violation to me that hopefully
he would have been suspended anyway. What do you guys think?
Where do you fall on this? Very curious to hear
(26:18):
from you, guys. Remember I do think the time to
read the comment, so definitely let me know what you
think down below. Okay, guys, that'll be it for today's
episode of the Barad Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you so
much for tuning in. Please do make sure you're subscribed
if you aren't yet, Do hit that like button before
you go. Remember to subscribe to my second channel, and
with that we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.