JBU Ep.021.25 Supreme Court Drops Hammer; Facts From The Source

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
This is this between us? This is just.
Just. Between us.

(00:23):
US. With your host, you hold them
on. This is an.
Emergency news today from KQED Science A new UCLA study shows

(00:52):
that same sex couples face greater risks from climate
change. According to a statement from
the new LGBTQIA Plus 2 + + X / Z* 3 director of the CDC is now
recommending that all same sex couples stay indoors
indefinitely. If you must venture outdoors, it

(01:13):
is imperative that you dress according to your birth assigned
gender. For men, jeans in a plain
T-shirt are advised. Absolutely no sequence tank
tops, glitter, crop tops, mesh or bold colors.
And for the ladies, long hair and skirts are the preferred
attire with absolutely no boys Arizona jeans, leather jackets,

(01:38):
flannels, basketball shorts, Justin Bieber haircuts, black
combat boots or anything available at Hot Topic.
And finally, for the discerning ZS and Zers, just avoid anything
black with unnecessary bubbles or zippers.
Don't forget to remove your rainbow flags, Coexist bumper

(01:59):
stickers in this House We believe yard signs, and maybe
consider trading in your Subarus.
We don't know why Mother Nature has chosen to be so disgustingly
homophobic, but surely the straight white male is to blame.
For now, remain indoors, preferably in the closet, and
rest assured that your fearless overlord leaders are working

(02:22):
tirelessly to wage war against Mother Nature and her army of
heterosexual, cisgendered normies to ensure the future of
mankind ends with this generation.
Stay tuned to this station for further updates and advisories
concerning the homophobic and bigoted nature of climate
change. For USNBCCS news, this is Brian

(02:43):
Steltor. All right, how's it going,
everybody? My name is Chris, and this is
just between US. And I definitely spent way more
time than was necessary just to read that headline.
I couldn't help myself. I, I mean, really, progressives

(03:06):
have entirely destroyed the field of science, at least
academic science. It's pointless.
It's meaningless these days. And so it deserves to be mocked
and ridiculed. Boy, do we have a show today.
Today was the last day before summer break for the Supreme

(03:27):
Court. And so they waited, of course,
as they always do, to release 5 of their most controversial
cases. Until today.
Now, I haven't actually dove into any of these cases.
As usual, we're going to read you directly from the court
opinions. We're not going to read other

(03:47):
news articles about the opinions.
So that way you can get the information straight.
Of course, I will provide my opinion as well, but I will make
sure to differentiate for you what is directly from the
court's opinion versus what I aminterjecting myself.
And that way you can form your own opinion instead of reading
any one of these news articles out there that tell you their

(04:10):
opinion but don't actually give you some of them, don't even
link to the decisions themselves.
Plus, who has time to go throughthese?
We have 5 different decisions here.
The first of which is 135 pages,the second is 63 pages, the
third is 86 pages, 4th 96 pages,and finally 119 pages.

(04:35):
Now of course I'm not going to be reading through every page.
If you want to dive further, you're going to have to do it
yourself. But we're going to go through at
least the highlights of each decision directly from the
court's opinion itself and maybea little bit of the dissents so
you can form your own opinion with the source information.

(04:56):
Now, I wanted to give you a brief, brief synopsis of all 5,
but as always, it never works out.
So we're going to dive into the first of the five today, and
we'll follow up with the other four in the coming episodes.
There's just too much to cover to try and just give you a tiny

(05:17):
little bit without cutting too much out.
Also, fair warning, I get a little unhinged in this one.
Now, from my perspective, my conservative point of view, I
don't know what each one of these says yet, but I do.
I did see that a couple of them sound like good opinions.
We're going to have to find out together because like I said, I

(05:37):
didn't have time to go through these before the show like I
normally would. So we're just going to go
through it live here together. Now, from the best that I can
tell, and don't put a lot of stock into what I'm about to
say, but from the best that I can tell, these are the five
categories that these decisions cover.
I might be a little bit wrong onthe details because as we know,
the Supreme Court likes to very narrowly decide their opinions.

(06:01):
So I'm going to give you kind ofthe broad ideas based on what
I've read, but they could be a little bit inaccurate based on
what the court actually decided.So just keep that in mind.
The first one we're going to cover is something to do with
opting out of LGBTQ content in public schools and whether or
not parents have the right to opt their children out of that

(06:22):
content. This is one of those cases, and
there's a couple of those in these five that beg the
question, why did this ever needto get to the Supreme Court?
Well, activist judges in the lower courts.
That's why you can opt your kid out of math if you want to
because you claim it's racist. Why wouldn't you be able to opt
them out of LGBTQ content? And you know, I said I was going

(06:45):
to do this a while ago, but I always forget LGB content.
I you want the rest of the letters, you can add them
yourself. There's no reason for me to to
stumble every time over trying to say every letter in them LGB
covers it. The end.
Nonetheless, there's no questionthat the state should not be

(07:05):
allowed to force ideology on your kids, and there's no
question that LGB content is ideology.
Strangely, it's mostly Marxist ideology with a little bit of
gay stuff applied on top, which is, you know, beg some
questions, but I digress. Anyway, the second one that

(07:29):
we're going to cover is state age restrictions on online
content, particularly relating to porn.
From what I can tell, this is about Texas putting age
restrictions and requirements ononline porn content where you
actually have to verify with a state.
Idi believe, not positive on that, but I believe that's the

(07:50):
case in order to watch online porn in Texas.
Now, I have some mixed feelings about that.
I don't like the state ID requirement.
I do like the age blocking, but we'll get into that later.
The third has something to do with the Affordable Healthcare

(08:11):
Act, Obamacare and abortion. And I believe whether or not
plan or whether or not states must provide abortions through
Planned Parenthood with Obamacare, we're going to see
what that decision says because I don't know much more about it.
I believe that's what it's aboutthough #4 can the FCC be used to

(08:35):
give handouts, particularly freecable and Internet, to low
income families? And finally, President Trump's
injunction mess. Can these lower courts continue
to provide nationwide injunctions on legal

(08:56):
presidential orders? So we're going to find out what
all these say. We're going to be as brief as
possible. I know the last one is the most
important to everybody, at leastin my opinion it is.
And it's my show. So, you know, deal with it, hey.
Look at me, see my face, go to the cops, all right, But just
remember, I've seen those two. So just real quick before we

(09:21):
jump into these, we're going to get right to it because there's
a lot to cover. I want to remind everybody of a
study, and I don't remember offhand who did it, but I
remember it was, it was at leastliberal leaning.
And it was a study on Supreme Court decisions based on the
current justices, on the SupremeCourt, on who is more biased.

(09:46):
And if you'll remember, because this is really important because
I noticed that a lot of these decisions are 6, three.
And so a lot of people are goingto claim that this is
conservative judges being activist judges.
Here's the thing. All six of the quote, UN quote,
conservative judges, which of course, Roberts, for example,
not a conservative by any means,Amy Coney Barrett, kind of still

(10:09):
on the fence, but not looking too good as far as from a
conservative point of view. But nonetheless, these six
justices side with the liberal justices almost 50% of the time.
They side with each other about 50% of the time.
It is almost a perfect 5050 for each one of those six justices.

(10:32):
Yet the three justices that are the quote UN quote liberal
justices that are always in the dissent against those six
justices, always, they will always be those 3.
So if a six, three decision is the six conservative justices,
justices being activist judges, then why is the three always in

(10:55):
dissent, not also being activistin their dissent, but I digress.
The three quote UN quote liberaljustices.
And of course, we know the Supreme Court doesn't
necessarily truly breakdown liberal versus conservative.
I'll explain that in just a second if you're unaware.
But those three, which are Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson,

(11:18):
they side with each other between 70 and 90% of the time,
depending on which one specifically we're looking at.
And so if for the one that is closer to 70%, that means they
side with the conservatives 30% or less.
If it's 90, it's 10% or less, right?
You can look just whatever the opposite of the number is.

(11:39):
So those 3 justices side with each other between 70 and 90% of
the time, whereas the six quote UN quote conservative justices
are pretty much 5050 down the middle.
You tell me which one of those is an activist judge.
The most conservative of conservative justices, which is

(12:04):
according to basically general opinion, would be Thomas.
And he's only like 65% siding with conservatives most of the
time. So he's still over 35% siding
with the liberals. Now, again, I'm going off hand
with these numbers. You can look it up.
Oh, it was a Harvard study. It was either Harvard or Yale

(12:24):
study. I believe it was Harvard though,
on how often the justices side with each other versus the other
side. So you're welcome to look it up
if you want. I'm probably off just a little
bit on the numbers, but not much, I assure you, not much.
We've I've covered it many times, which is why I didn't
bother to look it back up. And I'm pretty well aware of

(12:45):
what the numbers are. Nonetheless, I said that you got
to remember the Supreme Court does not breakdown conservative
or liberal. Essentially it breaks down as
what I would call, there's different terms that exist, but
what I would call correct, an activist.

(13:05):
It's kind of hard to call it anything other than activist
because the quote UN quote conservative side are what are
known as originalists and they believe in reading the
constitution as written by the original intent at the time it
was written. And then the other quote UN
quote liberal side is literally known as progressive or living

(13:28):
constitution, where basically they make up what the
constitution says based on what they wish it said today.
And I get that that's being a little bit facetious, but what
they believe is that the Constitution should adapt to
what it should mean today, rather than what it actually was
meant at the time it was written.

(13:50):
Completely ignoring this. This whole idea completely
ignores the fact that the Constitution is supposed to be
able to be updated, but not by the judiciary, by Congress.
We do have methods for updating the Constitution.
The bar is very high because it's not something that's meant

(14:11):
to be changed easily, but it's done through Congress, IE
through our elected representatives, not through our
appointed justices. The entire the entire role of
the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not a laws
are being applied constitutionally B.

(14:31):
New laws or old laws are in factconstitutional or C that those
laws and or constitutional laws are being applied correctly.
What does correctly mean? Well, it depends on which one
you ask. If you ask an originalist or a
textualist, that would be dependent on what either the

(14:54):
founding fathers or Congress depending on who wrote what
meant when they wrote that law either in the Constitution or in
the OR just in regular laws. But if you ask a progressive, it
means what they wanted it to mean or what it should mean.
That's the definition of an activist judge.

(15:15):
It's not up to a judge to decidewhat it should mean.
It's up to a judge to recognize what was meant when it was
written. And if the law doesn't say
something that Congress or the Founding fathers or whoever else
intended it to say, then it doesn't say that.
You don't get to assume that because they meant it to say

(15:36):
that, that it should be included.
If it's not there, it's not there.
That's how our system works, which is why, in my opinion, I
define it as correct, an activist, but the terms are
actually originalist or textualist.
Some people will argue that there's differences between

(15:57):
those two, but in general they're pretty similar and
progressive or quote UN quote living constitution.
There's no basis anywhere until progressives come along for this
progressive interpretation method.
The it's just completely made-up.
But basically every liberal justice that's been appointed

(16:21):
since it was made-up operates under this mindset, which we'll
see here today. I said you're an.
Idiot. Anyway, this first decision,
which is the decision about I believe about LGB content in
schools, is one of the six, three decisions breaking down

(16:41):
exactly as described. The opinion of the court is
delivered by Justice Alito. And of course, let's see,
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Kagan and
Jackson joined. All right, so jumping into the
opinion again, written by Justice Alito is what it says.
The Board of Education on Montgomery County, Maryland, has

(17:04):
introduced a variety of LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks into
elementary school curriculum. These books and associated
educational instructions provided to teachers are
designed to disrupt children's thinking about sexuality and
gender. And he uses quotes around the
word disrupt, implying that thatis what they claim their

(17:27):
intention is with these books. The board has told parents it
will not give them notice when the books are going to be used
and that their children's attendance during those periods
is mandatory. Again, why did this even need to
go to the Supreme Court? This is such a ridiculous idea
that they can just force whatever opinions they want on

(17:48):
your child and you have no say over it.
I don't care if it's a public school, you still have the
ultimate authority over your child.
Nonetheless. I'll continue.
A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued to
enjoin those policies. They assert that the new
curriculum curriculum, combined with the board's decision to

(18:10):
deny opt outs, impermissibly burdens their religious
exercise. Now, I get that it helps to
bring the religious exercise argument because it is
specifically mentioned under the1st Amendment and that's why
they do it. I wish though, that it was just

(18:32):
brought on parental right grounds because this is a
parental rights issue. This has nothing to do with
religion. Can a school force your kid to
learn unhealthy or incorrect or from your point of view, bad
things and you have no say over it?

(18:52):
I don't care whether you're religious or not, whether you're
rich or poor, you know, fill outthe list.
No. Anyway, I'm going to continue
with the opinion today. We hold that the parents have
shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
A government burdens the religious exercise of parents

(19:14):
when it requires them to submit their children to instruction
that possesses, quote, a very real threat of undermining their
religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to
instill. That quote came from Wisconsin V
Yatter, which was in 1972. And a government cannot

(19:34):
condition the benefit of free public education on parents
acceptance of such instruction. Based on these principles, we
conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their
challenge to the Board's policies.
You know, it really annoys me that with this supposedly
radical Supreme Court that we have, that the court refuses to

(19:55):
just settle these cases when it hears them and be done with it.
Instead, what they've done is they've allowed an injunction
for these parents, allowing themto opt their kids out of this in
the meantime because they believe that they will succeed.
But they did not actually just say, this is ridiculous and I'm
throwing this case out. Yes, these parents can opt their

(20:17):
kids out now because they didn'tdo that.
These parents have to continue to fight this lawsuit at
incredible expense. In the lower courts, they'd
already sent the case up to the Supreme Court, and if they lose,
they got to bring it back to theSupreme Court for the Supreme
Court to fix what the activist judges did.

(20:38):
Again, because this conservativeSupreme Court has signed on to
again, this made-up progressive idea that Supreme Court cases
should be as narrow as possible and nothing more.
Now, of course the progressives don't actually adhere to that
when they win a case, but when they, or rather when they have a

(20:59):
majority. But when they don't have a
majority, then of course they believe firmly that everything
should be as narrow as possible.So that way when a decision is
made that actually benefits the American people, in my opinion,
then it's limited as possible. But again, when they have the
majority and they make a decision that has no basis in

(21:21):
constitutional, textual, originalist precedent, whatever
you want to call it, it's as wide reaching as possible.
A good example of that is the original Roe V.
Wade case from the 1970s, where they just decided that words

(21:44):
that weren't in the Constitutionshould have been in the
Constitution. That's why Roe V.
Wade was such a bad case. No matter how you feel about
abortion, there was no question legally that case should have
been overturned. Because while I believe that the
Constitution includes everythingnot specified in it, the way

(22:05):
that the court went about this was all wrong and they just
made-up precedent and law on thespot in order to get the outcome
they were looking for. And that's why so many
championed that being overturned, whether it no matter
how they felt about abortion, myself included.

(22:26):
It's important to remember that in order to become a judge, you
have to go to college. The colleges we all recognize
are completely over 95% ideologically captured by
radical progressives, communistsand socialists.
These are the people that are training our judges.

(22:49):
You get the problem. They essentially own the courts,
but I digress. Let's let's get back to this
decision. With just over 1,000,000
residents, Montgomery County andMaryland's most populous county
is Maryland's most populous county according to a recent
survey. It is also the most religiously

(23:09):
diverse county in the nation, inaddition to housing a diverse
mix of Christian denominations. The country.
See, and why are we going through this?
It doesn't matter. The point is the school can't do
this. I don't care how religiously
diverse the county is anyway. In addition to hosting a diverse
mix of Christian denominations, the county ranks in top five in

(23:29):
the nation in per capita population of Jews, Muslims,
Hindus, and Buddhists. The county's religious diversity
is accomplished by strong cultural diversity as well.
County is home to several notable ethnic communities.
For example, the Ethiopian community in Silver Spring is
one of the largest in the country.
And according to one survey, only 56.8% of the county

(23:50):
residents speak English at home.Most Montgomery County residents
with school age children, by choice or necessity, send them
to public school. As a general matter, Maryland
law requires that residents children 5 to 18 attend a public
school regularly during the entire year.
As an exception to this general rule, the state permits parents
to send their children to a private school or to educate

(24:13):
them at home if certain requirements can be met.
Parents who caused their children to be absent unlawfully
from school can face fines, mandatory community service, or
even imprisonment. Another progressive idea that I
think is absurd. One of the first things they did
after taking over the schools was make it illegal not to send
your kid to school. Now, of course, thanks to some

(24:35):
strong fighting by religious andconservative groups, they were
able to secure the private school or homeschooling options.
But still, the vast majority areforced to go to public school.
And even with the homeschooling or private schooling options,
they're forced to cover certain topics that they wouldn't

(24:58):
necessarily otherwise cover. Going back to the opinion,
public education in Montgomery County is provided by Montgomery
County, Montgomery County PublicSchools, or MCPS, one of the
largest school districts in the nation.
In the 2223 school year, MCPS enrolled 160,554 students in its

(25:20):
210 schools and had an operatingbudget of nearly $3 billion.
Hold on one second, let's see how much that breaks down to per
kid. That is $18,685 per kid.
Now that means that if you have 10 kids in a classroom, that's

(25:46):
100 and over $180,000 being spent on just that classroom.
Are you upset about your child'spublic education yet?
Because you should be. This is pretty average for most
of the country, FYI. Anyway, now let's see nearly $3
billion. This district is overseen and

(26:09):
managed by the Montgomery CountyBoard of Education, a policy
making body consisting of seven elected county residents and one
student. In recognition of the country's
religious diversity, the Board'sguidelines for respecting
religious diversity profess a commitment to making reasonable
accommodations for the religiousbeliefs and practices of the

(26:30):
MCPS students. These accommodations take
various forms. For example, according to one
MCPS official, the board advisesprincipals that schools should
avoid scheduling tests or other major events on dozens of days
of commemoration, during which MCPS expects that many students
may be absent or engaged in religious or cultural

(26:53):
observances. Now, as we know, that doesn't
generally apply to Christian cultural observances or American
cultural observances. It primarily only applies to any
other. But I digress again.
This case, however, arises from the Board's abject refusal to
heed widespread and impassioned pleas for accommodation.

(27:15):
In the years leading up to 2022,the Board apparently determined
that the books used in its existing curriculum were not
representative of many students and families in Montgomery
County because they did not include LGBTQ characters.
The Board therefore decided to introduce into the curriculum
what it described as LGBTQ plus inclusive text.

(27:38):
As one e-mail sent by MCPS Principles reflects, the board
selected the books according to a critical selection repertoire
that required selectors to review potential text and ask
questions such as quote Is heteronormativity reinforced or
disrupted? Is CIS normativity reinforced or

(28:00):
disrupt? What the is the difference?
What? The.
Heck, was that all about? Duh, I actually have no idea.
No shit. Yeah.
I don't know why I do that. Just reading these, these people
are mentally ill, like they havebeen completely just destroyed

(28:23):
mentally by these concepts and ideas.
It has melted their brains and it we need to hold these people
accountable. These are people that are being
paid by your tax dollars, educating your children and
shoving these ideas that are believed by less than 1% of the

(28:43):
country down their throats. It's indoctrination and enough
already. These are not concepts that
children need to know anything about until they are older.
Nothing is worse for your child's mental health as far as

(29:03):
documented research shows then trans ideology.
The suicide rate is through the roof compared to national
average. I want to point out here that
before we read or or continue where we left off there, it says
in the margins of this page thatthis lawsuit initially concerned

(29:26):
seven books, 1 was approved for pre kindergarten and Head start
students and six were approved through kindergarten through 5th
grade. However, the one book that was
approved for pre kindergarten and Head start students was
removed from the curriculum due to content concerns and one of

(29:49):
the books approved for grades K through 5 was removed for
similar reasons. So they were inappropriate, but
regardless, even before your kids start school pre
kindergarten and head start, they're trying to indoctrinate

(30:09):
your kids with this information.And I used to not take an
extremely hard stance against against this stuff.
OK, but increasingly you don't could because I've always been
in the camp of they can believe whatever they want, they just
can't force it on others. And I've always been in that

(30:29):
camp and I still believe that. By the way, you can believe
whatever you want, but you don'tget to force it on others.
But they have proven without a doubt, without question, and no
matter what they say that the ideology includes forcing it on
children. Therefore you don't have a right

(30:51):
to believe that you can force iton other people.
Believe whatever you want otherwise, but there is
something. It's what.
It's bad enough to try and forceit on people old enough and
smart enough to make a decision for themselves, but forcing on
children is an entirely different thing, and the only

(31:13):
things that should be forced on children in public school are
the things that are universally agreed upon.
I understand you'll never get 100% but it should be
overwhelmingly and you can't even get 50% for LGBTQ content.

(31:33):
I would bet you probably couldn't even get 20% if you
were to ask people and they answered honestly so you gave
them privacy to answer so that they weren't, you know they
didn't feel at risk if they answered incorrectly.
I guarantee you couldn't get 20%to say that that content should
be taught in schools. I don't argue with people

(31:55):
whether or not you can be born gay.
I wasn't born gay, so I don't know, right?
I can't tell somebody else how they were born in general,
whether they were or whether they weren't.
I certainly believe that they believe it to be true.
And frankly, as far as I'm concerned, that's the only part
that matters. But what is unquestionably true

(32:16):
is you can be taught to be gay. Now please listen to what I'm
saying. That's not me saying that people
are only taught to be gay and you're not born gay.
What I'm saying is both can be true and there's no question
about it. Because as we have seen over the

(32:37):
last 10 years, since the explosion of these things in our
schools in particular, but also in content aimed at children,
the number of trans or gay identifying children has
exploded. It was consistently the same
amount for basically all of recorded human history.

(33:00):
But once Progressive started sneaking these things into
schools, which happened way before the last few years when
most people have been aware of it, and they started forcing it
into every single TV show and book and song and everything
else, the numbers have exploded.That's not a coincidence.

(33:23):
And for whatever reason, it's also the goal, apparently.
I mean, what else can you assumewhy these people unquestionably
tend to live unhappier lives? Why would you want more people
to be subject to an unhappier life?

(33:44):
It doesn't make sense. I can understand if you feel or
were born that way and cannot change.
I get that you don't have a choice whether I believe it or
whether I don't, it doesn't matter.
I'm agreeing with that. Right, But why would you try to

(34:05):
indoctrinate a child who has never bothered or never once
questioned it, into also believing that they are that way
to face every problem that you yourself have said that you've
had to face because of it? That doesn't make sense, does

(34:30):
it? Anyway, I apologize for the
extended rant there. I'll back up just a little bit
so we remember where we were as I go back to the opinion here as
one e-mail sent by the MCPS Principles Reflex.
The board selected the books according to quote critical
selection repertoire that required selectors to review

(34:53):
potential texts and ask questions such as quote, is it
hetero heteronormativity, reinforced or disrupted?
Quote, is CIS normativity reinforced or disrupted?
And quote, are power hierarchiesthat uphold the dominant culture
reinforced or disrupted? Just so that all of you are

(35:17):
aware, yes, I'm interjecting again.
These ideas are power hierarchies that uphold dominant
culture reinforced or disrupted That language.
Those ideas come specifically from Marxist and progressive
ideology set at overturning American culture.

(35:42):
These ideas are based in trying to undermine Western culture.
That's where these ideas originally came from.
Go read their old texts where they talk about how to undermine
the West. Targeting kids and culture is

(36:04):
right at the top of the list. Anyway, I'll continue.
In accordance with this repertoire and other criteria,
the board eventually selected 13LGBTQ plus inclusive texts for
use in English and language artscurriculum from pre-K through
12th grade. At issue in this lawsuit are the

(36:27):
five LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks that are approved for
students in kindergarten through5th grade.
In other words, for children whoare generally between the ages
of five and 11 years old, a few short descriptions will serve to
illustrate the general tenor of the storybooks.
Intersection Allies tells the stories of several children from

(36:51):
different backgrounds, includingKate, who is apparently a
transgender child. One page shows Kate in a sex
neutral or sex ambiguous bathroom and Kate proclaims
quote. My friends defend my choices and
place a bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.

(37:11):
Intersection Allies includes a quote page by page book
discussion guide that asserts quote.
When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on
our sex, but at any point in ourlives, we can choose to identify
with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.

(37:32):
The discussion guide explains that quote Kate prefers the
pronouns they their them and asks quote what pronouns fit you
best. Prince and Knight tells the
story of a coming of age Prince whose parents wish to match him
with a kind and worthy bride. After meeting with quote many

(37:52):
ladies, the Prince tells his parents that he is quote,
looking for something different in a partner by his side.
Later in the book, the Prince falls into the quote embrace of
a night after the two finished battling of fearsome dragon.
After the knight takes off his helmet, the Prince and knight
gaze into each other's eyes and their hearts begin to race.

(38:14):
The whole Kingdom later applaudsquote on the two men's wedding
day. Love Violet follows a young girl
named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate Mira.
Why is Mira always one of the Anyway, Mira makes Violet's
heart skip and Thunder like 100 galloping horses.

(38:35):
Although Violet is initially tooafraid to interact with Mira,
the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day.
Afterwards, the 2 girls are seenholding hands and quote
galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find
together. Born Ready.
The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of

(38:58):
tells the story of Penelope, a child who was initially treated
as a girl. The story is told from the
perspective of Penelope, who at one point says, quote, if they'd
all stop and listen, I'd tell them about me inside.
I'm a boy. When Penelope's mother later
assures her that quote, if you feel like a boy, that's OK,

(39:19):
Penelope responds, No, Mama, I don't feel like a boy.
I am a boy, Penelope tells her mother quote.
I love you Mama, but I don't want to be you.
I want to be Papa. I don't want tomorrow to come
because tomorrow I'll look like you.
Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.

(39:40):
But what does that mean? Is that good?
No. Penelope's mother then agrees
that she is a boy, and Penelope says quote for the first time,
my insides don't feel like they're fire.
They feel like warm, golden love.
Later, after the family starts treating Penelope as a boy,
Penelope's brother complaints that, quote, you can't become a

(40:00):
boy, you have to be born one. This comment draws A rebuke from
Penelope's mother. Quote, not everything needs to
make sense. This is about love, finally.
Oh wait. Before we move on to that one,
As absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous as these clearly are,

(40:20):
it's important to remember. These are effective against
children. Children don't have concepts of
the world. Therefore you can shape the
concepts of the world. For as long as mankind has
existed, we have taught lessons to children through
storytelling. And if these stories or the

(40:44):
lessons behind them make your head spin, imagine what they do
to a child's head. Going back to the opinion.
Finally, Uncle Bobby's Wedding tells the story of a young girl
named Chloe who is informed thather favorite Uncle Bobby will be
getting married to his boyfriend, Jamie.
When Bobby and Jamie announced their engagement, everyone is

(41:06):
jubilant except Chloe. Chloe says that she does not
understand why her uncle is getting married, but her mother
responds by explaining when grown up people love each other
that much, sometimes they get married.
Apparently Chloe is the only based one in the family anyway.
The board suggested that teachers incorporate the new

(41:28):
text into the curriculum in the same way that other books are
used, namely to put them on a shelf for students to find on
their own, to recommend a book to a student who would enjoy it,
to offer the books as an option for literature circles, book
clubs, or paired reading groups,or to use them as a read aloud
and quote. As with all other curriculum

(41:50):
resources, the board voiced its quote expectation that teachers
use the LGBTQ plus inclusive books as part of instruction.
So see how they tried to soften it at the beginning, but then
make it clear that their expectation is this is used as

(42:11):
instruction. So not only are they making
these books available to your children, but now an authority
figure is telling them this is the way things are, even though
that doesn't match reality at all.
But if you're not infuriated enough now, listen to how the

(42:33):
school decided to blatantly lie to parents about their true
motives. I'm going to read these two
paragraphs. Paragraphs rather out of order
so that you can hear what they told the parents versus what the
school taught the teachers to tell the children.
It says at the same workshop, remember, I'm reading this out

(42:57):
of order, so we'll learn what that workshop was here in just a
second. At the same workshop, the board
also provided teachers with a guidance document that suggested
particular responses to inquiries by parents.
For example, if a parent were toask whether the school was
attempting to teach a child to, quote, reject the values taught

(43:18):
at home, teachers were encouraged to respond that,
quote, teaching about LGBTQ plus.
It's not about making students think a certain way.
It is to show that there is no one right way to be.
Now, I'll say right off the backreal quick, that is teaching a
child to reject what I teach at home.

(43:40):
For example, I firmly believe inright and wrong, and we all fail
to live up to the expectations of quote UN quote right.
And that's OK. But that doesn't mean that there
is not in fact a right and a wrong way.
To use this topic as an A explicit example.

(44:01):
If my son were to come to me andtell me that he feels like a
girl, I wouldn't condemn him forit.
I would tell him that it's fine to feel that way, but that he
has to learn to live with the fact that he is, in fact a boy
and that there's nothing he can do.
No amount of mutilation to his body or dangerous medicines that

(44:22):
he could take that will change that.
And so he's got to find a way tohave his feelings match reality,
because reality matters and you can't escape it, avoid it, or
get around it. It's not possible.
And if I were instead, as this curriculum is suggesting, to

(44:47):
teach my kid to just ignore reality and go with whatever he
feels, he's going to be extremely disappointed and
frustrated that he's never able to do so because it's not
possible. So you tell me what's quote
right and what's wrong? Helping your kid come to terms

(45:08):
with reality in learning to livea happy life according to it, Or
teaching them to deny it and perpetually be angered and
frustrated by the fact that no matter how much they deny it, it
keeps coming back to them. Reality, that is.
So anyway, the point is that teaching students to think that

(45:31):
there is no right or normal way to be is in fact teaching them
to reject the values taught at home, at least in my case and I
know many others. I mean, really, if there's no
quote right way to be, then it'sperfectly acceptable to be a
murderer. There's no right or wrong way to

(45:53):
be a person, right? So why not be a murderer, A
rapist? Why not live your life lying to
people or cheating people? Why not be a thief?
There's no right way to be. You can't judge me for the way I
feel, and I feel like cheating. You makes me happy.

(46:16):
See the problem? And yes, it is the same thing,
The opinion continues. The guidance also urged teachers
to assure parents that there would not be, quote, explicit
instruction about gender and sexual identity, but that their
quote may need to be. They may need to define words

(46:38):
that are new and unfamiliar to students and that, quote,
questions and conversations might organically happen if
parents were not comforted by that information.
Teachers could tell them that quote, parents always have the
choice to keep their students home while using these texts.
However, it will not be an excused absence.

(46:59):
So you could go to jail for teaching your, excuse me for
keeping your kid home, not wanting them to learn this
stuff, but you still have that choice.
So that's what they told teachers to say to parents.
Now let's look at what they toldteachers to tell children.

(47:21):
The board also contemplated thatinstruction involving the LGBTQ
inclusive storybooks would include classroom discussion.
Ha, I thought they just got donesaying to parents that it
wouldn't involve instruction. In anticipation of such
discussion, the board hosted quote, a professional
development workshop in the summer of 2022.

(47:44):
That is where all these suggested answers came from,
where it provided teachers with a guidance documents suggesting
how they might respond to students inquiries regarding the
themes presented in the books. For example, if a student
asserts that two men cannot get married, the guidance document
encourage teachers to respond bysaying quote, when people are

(48:05):
adults, they can get married Twomen who love each other can
decide they want to get married.Boy, that doesn't sound like a
defining of terms or even a suggestion of a different way to
think. That sounds like an explicit
statement of fact. Let's here the next one.

(48:28):
If a student claims that a character can't be a boy if he
was born a girl, teachers were encouraged to respond quote.
That comment is hurtful, so bully the kid into believing
something different. If a student asks quote what's
transgendered? It was recommended that the
teacher explain. When we're born, people make a

(48:50):
guess about our gender and labelus boy or girl based on our body
parts. Sometimes they're right and
sometimes they're wrong. The guidance document encourage
teachers to, quote, disrupt the either or thinking of their
students. If this doesn't cause your blood
to boil, I mean, what would? Seriously, These teachers are

(49:13):
actively conspiring to indoctrinate your children
against your will and throw you in jail potentially if you try
to prevent it by keeping your kid home from school.

(49:36):
Anyway, as much as I want to go on with this, and I highly
encourage people to read this soyou understand what is in fact
going on in your local school, Iguarantee it, we're here to talk
about these Supreme Court decisions.
So I'm going to Fast forward a little bit and tell you what the
opinion actually is. For these reasons, we conclude

(49:59):
that the board's introduction ofthe LGBTQ plus inclusive
storybooks combined with its no opt out policy burdens the
parents right to free exercise of religion.
We now turn to the question of whether that burden is
constitutionally permitted. Obviously it's not, but I'll
read you what the court said. They start with this, according

(50:22):
to Smith, US 494. Under our precedents, the
government is generally free to place incidental burdens on
religious exercise incidental onreligious exercise, so long as
it does so pursuant to a neutralpolicy that is generally
applicable according to Kennedy,597 US.

(50:45):
Thus, in most circumstances, 2 questions remain after a burden
on religious exercise is found. First, a court must ask if the
burdensome policy is neutral andgenerally applicable.
Second, if the question can be answered in the negative, a
court will proceed to ask whether the policy can survive

(51:07):
under strict scrutiny. We don't really have time to get
into it, as today we've gotten. We've gone over before what
strict scrutiny means as well asits counterparts, but it's
basically deciding, you know, what level of scrutiny should be
applied to a decision based on aset of criteria.

(51:28):
Anyway, under that standard, thegovernment must demonstrate that
quote, its course was justified by a compelling state interest
and was narrowly tailored in pursuit of that interest.
So going forward, the going to just to describe strict scrutiny
and how it applies to this case.I'm going to pick out a couple
quotes as we get here down to the bottom of the decision they

(51:51):
say we do not doubt as a generalmatter.
As a general matter, schools have a compelling interest in
having an undisrupted school session conduct conducive to the
students learning. But the Board's conduct
undermine undermines its own assertion that it's no opt out
policy is necessary to serve that interest.

(52:12):
As we have noted, the Board continues to permit opt outs in
a variety of other circumstances, including for non
curricular activities and the Family Life and Human Sexuality
unit of instruction for which opt outs are required under
Maryland law. And the Board goes to great
lengths to provide independent parallel programming for many

(52:34):
other students, such as those who qualify as emergent
multilingual learners or who qualify as an Individualized
Education Program qualify for anIndividualized Education
Program. This robust system of exceptions
undermines the Board's contention that the provision of
opt outs to religious parents would be infeasible or

(52:57):
unworkable. The Board's attempt to
distinguish the other programs for which it provides opt outs
is unconvincing. The Board asserts that the
Family Life and Human Sexuality unit of the instruction is
meaningfully different because it is discreet and predictably
timed, and therefore schools canaccommodate opt outs without
producing the same absenteeism and administratability concerns.

(53:18):
Briefer respondents 46 That's where they made that argument.
But this assertion only tends toshow that the Board's concerns
about administratability are a product of its own design.
If the Board can structure the family life and human sexuality
curriculum to more easily accommodate opt outs, it could
structure instruction concerningthe LGBTQ inclusive storybooks.

(53:41):
Similarly, the board cannot escape its obligation to honor
parents free exercise rights by deliberately designing its
curriculum to make parental opt outs more cumbersome.
The next part is truly great andand very telling as well.
The Board also suggests that permitting opt outs from the

(54:02):
LGBTQ inclusive storybooks wouldbe especially unworkable because
when it permitted such opt outs in the past, they resulted in,
quote, unsustainably high numbers of absent students.
That's exactly what they're going to do.
They're going to walk. So it's almost like this isn't
neutral or universal universallyapplicable, but I digress.

(54:27):
The opinion continues by saying,but again, the board's concern
is self-inflicted. The board is doubtlessly.
Aware of the presence. In Montgomery County of
substantial religious communities whose members hold
traditional views on marriage, sex and gender.
When it comes to instruction that would burden the religious

(54:48):
exercise of parents, the Board cannot escape its obligations
under the Free Exercise Clause by crafting A curriculum that is
so burdensome that a substantialnumber of parents elect to opt
out. There is no de maximus exception
to the Free Exercise clause. Nor can the board's policies be.

(55:14):
Justified by its asserted interest in protecting students
from, quote, social stigma and isolation in Maryland, the
Family Life and Human Sexuality Unit of instruction includes
discussion about sexuality and gender.
Yet the Board has not suggested that the legally required
provision of opt outs from that curriculum has resulted in

(55:34):
stigma or isolation. But even if it did, the Board
cannot purport to rescue one group of students from stigma
and isolation by stigmatizing and isolating another.
A classroom environment, that is, that is welcoming to all
students is something to be commended.
But such an environment cannot be achieved through hostility

(55:58):
toward the religious beliefs of students and their parents.
We acknowledge that the courts are not school.
Boards or legislators and are ill equipped to determine the

(56:20):
quote necessity of discrete aspects of the state's program
of compulsory education must be emphasized that what the parents
seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school
curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a
particular educational requirement that burdens their
well established right to directthe religious upbringing of

(56:42):
their children. You thought I was going to go
with the air horn. We expressed no view on the.
Educational. Value of the board's proposed
curriculum other than to state that it places an
unconstitutional burden on the parents religious exercise if it
is imposed with no opportunity for opt outs.

(57:13):
The board's introduction of LGBTQ Plus.
Inclusive Storybooks, along withits decision to withhold the opt
outs, places an unconstitutionalburden on the parents rights to
free exercise of their religion.The parents have therefore shown
that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims.
They have likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary

(57:33):
injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit.
Furthermore, in light of the strong showing made by the
parents here and the lack of a compelling interest supporting
the Board's policies, an injunction is both equitable and
in the public interest. As such, the petitioners should.

(57:57):
Receive Preliminary. Relief while this lawsuit
proceeds. Specifically, until all
appellate review in this case iscompleted, the Board should be
ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the
books in question or any other similar book is to be used in
any way and to allow them to have their children excused from

(58:17):
that instruction. The.
Judgement of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
And the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. It is so ordered.
I'm going to get you drunk, Jackson.
And just to borrow a quick note from.
Thomas, who wrote a second concurring opinion, he says the

(58:42):
board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability
by weaving religiously offensivematerial throughout its
curriculum and thereby significantly increase the
difficulty and complexity of remedying parents constitutional
injuries where it Otherwise the state could nullify parents
First Amendment rights simply bysaturating public schools core

(59:05):
curricula with material that undermines quote, family
decisions in the area of religious training.
Borrowing a quote from the Yaderdecision and Espinoza, he says,
quote the framers intended for free exercise of religion to
flourish in so far as schools orboards attempt to employ their
curricula to interfere with religious exercise.

(59:28):
Courts should carefully police such ingenious defiance of the
Constitution no less than they do in other contexts.
Wow, Fiona said you were a badass.
Now we turn to the descent from Justice Sotomayor, who was
joined by Kagan and Jackson. And I tell you the first

(59:48):
paragraph. Really says it all.
This is what it says public schools, this court has said our
quote at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive
means for promoting our common destiny.
They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds in
education and an opportunity to practice living in our
multicultural society that. Experience is critical to our

(01:00:14):
nation's. Civic vitality.
I'm trying very hard. To compose myself but but.
Notice how these are all conceptual ideas and not facts.
Yet it will become. A mere memory if.
Children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts

(01:00:35):
that may conflict with their parents religious beliefs.
But that all sounds very nice. Except what Sotomayor, Kagan and
Jackson are saying is you don't have a right to raise your
children. We do.
We decide what your children must learn.
You have no say. You have no control over your

(01:00:55):
children. We do.
They claim that today's ruling ushers in.
This new reality casting aside long standing precedent, the
Court invents A constitutional right to avoid exposure to
subtle themes contrary to the religious principles and that
parents wish to instill in theirchildren.

(01:01:17):
Exposing students to the quote message that the LGBTQ people
exist and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages
and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the
most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.
OK, here's some other things you'll notice.
Now you won't really notice because I'm reading it to you.

(01:01:37):
But if you go and read these opinions, one of the things I
consistently see in the Liberalsdissents is exactly this, she
says. Casting aside long standing
precedent, the court invents A constitutional right to avoid
exposure to subtle themes and contrary to religious principles
that parents wish to instill in their children.

(01:01:58):
Except they've offered zero references to where those long
standing precedents are. Whereas if you go back to the
opinion, every single statement made referring to a precedent,
or even just to a quote from a prior opinion, or dissent for

(01:02:20):
that matter, is referenced rightthere.
But those references are rarely included in most of the dissents
because it's not true. There is.
The existing precedent is very clear.
This has long been fought and won.
And then you also notice that they're severely downplaying
what this quote UN quote LGB curriculum is and claiming that

(01:02:45):
it's just. Telling kids that.
These people exist. No, it's not.
That's not what it's doing. It literally said in the
instruction to teachers to disrupt children's thinking.
They claim that this will be chaos for public schools.
Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to

(01:03:06):
opt out of every Lesson plan or story time that might implicate
a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible
administrative burdens on schools.
Somehow I doubt that because we've seemed.
To have gotten along this whole.Time pretty well agreeing that
kids should learn science, math,history, English.

(01:03:27):
It's all of these other things that progressives.
Want to interject? That we have never interjected
in our schools that people aren't that interested in and
that's their problem, they. Want to be able to.
Interject whatever they want to interject, and they want parents
to have as. Little or no?
Say as possible. And what exactly is the bad

(01:03:50):
thing about letting parents knowwhat you're teaching their kids?
That sounds to me like a good thing, but that's just me.
They. Continue by saying by the.
Majority's telling the Montgomery Montgomery County
Public School Board has undertaken an intentional
campaign to, quote, impose upon children a set of values and

(01:04:11):
beliefs that are hostile to their parents religious
principles. Now, that's not exactly what the
opinion said. We just read it ourselves, but
in my opinion, that's exactly, exactly what they were doing and

(01:04:32):
very intentionally so. But she continues by saying the
court draws on excerpts from board documents and statements
shown from context. The full record reveals A
starkly different reality. We'll see about that in the
years. Leading up to the present.
Dispute The board determined that the books in its English

(01:04:52):
language curriculum failed to represent many students and
families in the country. How exactly did the board come
to that? Determination.
Who said that there was the correct determination and why is
it relevant? Keep those questions in mind,
she continues. The board has long been
committed to promoting a fully inclusive environment for all

(01:05:16):
students. That's a quote by using
instructional materials. That quote reflect the diversity
of the global community, according to WHO.
How does quote? Reflecting the diversity of the
global community benefit and more importantly adhere to the
rights of American kids who saida fully inclusive.

(01:05:39):
Environment for all. Students is supposed to be the
aim of this school. Does that include psychopathic
students? Sociopathic students?
Rapists. School shooters?
Are they all needing to be included too?
Is quote UN quote, inclusivity, diversity, equity?

(01:06:04):
Are any of those things actuallythe number one aim of a public
school? They all sound nice.
They're nice. Words, but.
They're meaningless words. When progressives use them.
Because they're not doing any ofthose things.
Diversity is only. Diverse.

(01:06:26):
As long as it doesn't include white people.
And it doesn't include. Diversity of thought.
It has to be only one ideological line.
But diverse skin colors. Except white.
White's not an. Acceptable.
Diverse. Skin color.
Never mind the fact that white people are probably the biggest

(01:06:48):
minority on the planet overall, but this isn't about diversity.
Diversity isn't about diversity.It's about power.
Equity isn't about equity. It's about power.
Inclusivity is not about inclusion.
It's about power. Gay men in the 70s and 80s

(01:07:08):
wanted equality and then. Progressives hijacked their
movement. Once they achieved pretty much
all of their goals and now straight, white, affluent,
liberal women use the former plight of gay men, the former
plight of black Americans in order to.

(01:07:32):
Force their agenda. In order to gain power, and
nobody is more harmed by that except the very people they
claim to represent anyway, her descent continues by saying.
Yet the board concluded that certain perspectives were absent
from its English language curriculum.

(01:07:53):
The board, for instance, determined that some races and
cultures were not adequately reflected.
In response, it added books likeBelievers, which tells the story
of an Asian American immigrant family.
In the March Trilogy, which recounts the life of civil
rights leader John Lewis, the Does any.
Of this have to do with the English language curriculum.

(01:08:16):
I didn't realize the Green Eggs and King Ham were so exclusive
to white Americans. She continues, saying the board
found that LGBTQ children and families were similarly
underrepresented in its English language curriculum.
The books taught in English classes simply Quote did not
include LGBTQ characters. Why is that necessary?

(01:08:41):
Why does absolutely every possible 110th of a percent of
the Quote community need to be represented in order to learn
the English language? It all sounds so nice, but it's
just a distraction from the factthat none of it is relevant in
any way. They're just shoving propaganda

(01:09:03):
garbage anywhere they can and using the guise of quote
inclusiveness to shame you for not eating it with a smile to
fill the gap, she continues. The board worked with.
Community with a committee rather of specialist to identify
LGBTQ inclusive books that it could incorporate into the

(01:09:23):
existing curriculum after a years long process.
Who is this board? Is it made-up of community
members? How diverse are the community
members on this board? How do we know that the board is
representative of that community?
Did voters ask for this board? More importantly, did they ask
for the board to do this? Of course the answer is no.

(01:09:45):
It's always no. And this board is a propaganda
tool of the very same people whospent literally years, according
to Sotomayor's own words, shaping a method to interject
the propaganda without allowing parents the ability to object
and more ideally in their in their eyes, without the parents

(01:10:09):
even knowing, that would be the.Ultimate goal she.
Continues farther down saying the five.
Storybooks. Introduced readers to LGBTQ
characters, but they draw. Forgive the alarm there, but
they draw on many of these common on Excuse Me.
They draw on many themes common to children's books.

(01:10:31):
Indeed, Montgomery County PublicSchools libraries are replete
with children's books that tell similar stories about overcoming
differences, fairy tale romances, and celebrating big
milestones like weddings. Who cares?
It. Doesn't none of it.

(01:10:52):
Matters none. Of that is relevant, and I get
that you're trying to point out that parts of these books are
completely regular. There's nothing controversial
about them. What you're ignoring is the
fucking parts that are controversial.
You know what I really can't stand about this opinion is the
hypocrisy of it. And I'm going to illustrate that

(01:11:14):
to you here as we continue on because she makes reference.
As we get a little. Further to a previous dissent of
hers. See, this is one of the things
that the liberals on the court love to do.
Every time they dissent, they cite the Supreme Court so that
they can claim its precedent. But what they're actually citing

(01:11:36):
often is their own dissents in other opinions.
And so they're not actually citing Supreme Court decisions
or opinions. They're citing dissents which
are the opposite of the Supreme Court's actual opinion on a
matter. But what's funny here is she.
Cites her own. Dissent in Kennedy V Bremerton,

(01:12:01):
and we're going to get to that. And when?
When? We do.
I'll explain what. That what that's all about for
those that don't remember, but in Kennedy.
V Bremerton. She makes exactly the opposite
argument that she makes here, dissenting in both cases.

(01:12:22):
And keep in mind, in both cases,this one and that previous one
in 2022, Kennedy V Bremerton, she's arguing in favor of the
government. Restricting first.
Amendment rights. She's not arguing in favor of
the individual or the individualfamilies in this case, keeping
more of their. Rights it's she's always arguing

(01:12:42):
in. Favor of the government
restricting them more and claiming that somehow a win for
everybody but she uses 2 equal and opposite.
Arguments now when? She would say that she's using 2
perfectly legitimate and separate legal arguments because
in one she's focusing on one clause of the 1st Amendment, and
in the other she's focusing on adifferent clause.

(01:13:05):
And I'll explain what these are as we go through it.
And that's true, she is. But she's doing that selectively
in order to justify making the argument she's making.
In one case, she's focusing on one clause and ignoring the
other because she has to in order to make the argument for
that case. In the opposite case, she's
ignoring that clause and focusing on the opposite one in

(01:13:28):
order to make the argument in this case, which leads to two
entirely hypocritical arguments when you get down to.
The basis of it, yes. You can make these arguments in
a legal or, or or in a legal world.
In a legal realm, these arguments can be made separately
and still be, quote UN quote, consistent.

(01:13:49):
But ideologically, there's no consistency whatsoever.
She's just saying whatever she has to say to justify the
position she ideologically has to have, which is opposition to
individual freedom and rights and more importantly more power
for the government and thereforemore power for progressives to
indoctrinate the next generationinto progressive ideals.

(01:14:13):
So anyway, she goes on to describe the rest of the books
and of course highlighting all their positive and non
controversial controversial aspects.
And like I said, completely ignoring the fact or the point
that this horror, this whole ordeal is in fact the
controversial. Aspects of the.
Books and then she tries to do the same.

(01:14:35):
With the quote teacher. Guidance She tries remember the
teacher guidance that instructedteachers to essentially lie to
parents. She goes on to try and minimize
that and again dismissing the. Controversial points.
And trying to minimize it by highlighting the less
controversial stuff. But even she can't hide the
blatant agenda. Take, for instance, this next

(01:14:57):
quote. The guidance also directs
teachers to discourage the use of language that could be
hurtful to students in the class.
If a student says quote that's so gay, for instance, the
guidance suggests a teacher may respond by saying quote.
Regardless of how it's intended,using gay to describe something
negative reflects a long historyof prejudice against LGBTQ plus

(01:15:21):
people, so please don't use it in that way.
End Quote. Instead of simply suggesting
that saying that so gay is inappropriate, as you would if
they said, you know, if a student said that's fucked, they
have to instead make sure that they're indoctrinating the child
into the idea that there is, quote, a long and universal
history of prejudice against LGBTQ plus people, despite the

(01:15:43):
fact that at least three of those are entirely 21st century
words and ideas. By that I mean TQ.
And plus. What they're doing is creating
a. Narrative that is not.
Entirely accurate. And then reinforcing that
narrative through an authority figure, a teacher, and further
guilting and shaming that child for continuing this alleged

(01:16:06):
president prejudice as if they had any understanding of it at
all and weren't just trying to be funny to their friends.
And see, this is how it works. This is how we've gotten so far
down this road to here. They want you to say to
yourself, well, yeah, some, somegay people have had it rough in
the past. Therefore we must allow this.
No. Because first of all, you're

(01:16:31):
taking. 1/2 truth, which is of course gay men and women have
faced some prejudice in the past, but it was not universal,
it was not unlimited and was entirely context specific.
In fact, there was a lot of acceptance in certain eras, in
certain times, in certain places.

(01:16:52):
And so despite the fact there issome truth to it, what do we
call 1/2 truth? We call it a lie.
And if you accept them telling the lie to your child and you
accept you, will you allow your child to then accept the lie as
fact and as truth? We are no longer operating in a
world of reality and it completely ignores the

(01:17:15):
impeccable history of this country specifically, which is
what should be reinforced in this country's schools.
Which is that this is this country is entirely different
than the rest of the world. Evident by the fact gays are not
thrown off roofs in Houston, TX.In fact, it's well known that

(01:17:36):
one of the gayest cities in the country is Austin, TX, heart of
conservative. Land one of the next.
Florida, I forget which one LongBeach or or I I don't remember
which one it is, but one of the towns in Florida.
Florida has always had a thriving gay community.
Again, the pinnacle of conservativeness.

(01:18:00):
The reality is the only thing that progressives are actually
opening and inclusive to the conservatives are not are actual
degeneracy. And I'm not saying that the
LGBTQ community is degenerate. What I'm saying is gay people do
just fine in. Conservative areas.

(01:18:20):
Degenerate people do not degenerate people.
People that walk. Around naked in the streets in
front of children. People that have sex on floats
during a parade. People that do drag and strip
shows in front of children. That is only.
Allowed in progressive areas, but what consenting adults do in

(01:18:45):
private, and that doesn't mean only in the privacy of their own
home that also includes the privacy of a.
Public bar. IE not in the middle of the
street or a nightclub or. Wherever else?
Is completely fine with conservatives might disagree
with it, but that's different. From stopping it.

(01:19:07):
Not allowing it and then a wholeother step further.
It's different radically then punishing it.
Nobody in this country in the history of it, as far as I know,
has ever been punished for beinggay.

(01:19:28):
That couldn't possibly be true. Could it?
Well, I took a quick look because I wanted to make sure
that I wasn't just saying nonsense.
Here's the facts. And this is strictly talking.
About the United. States of.
Course, this is not true globally, all right, but I'm
concerned with the United. States this is the Supreme.

(01:19:49):
Court case of the United States anyway the first laws.
That did target. Particularly homosexuality were
in 16. 36. And they were started under
colonial rule long before the Constitution.

(01:20:10):
Or the declaration. Were ever even thought of long
before the founding fathers wereeven born.
Now, some of those laws did stayon the books for many.
Many, many, many, many, many. Years, but there is no cases
that I can find of any of those laws that were on the books

(01:20:31):
prior to the founding of Americathat stayed on the books long
into America existing, some of them a lot longer than you
think. But there's no evidence of
somebody being charged under them with the one caveat to that
being rapists that might have been charged with that on top of

(01:20:54):
other crimes. And I'm not sure that even that
happened. But obviously I wasn't looking
for that sort of thing, you know, whether somebody who
committed actual crimes was alsocharged with it.
What I was looking for was anybody that was simply charged
with being gay or a gay act. Now, of course, several other
states had laws too. Many states.

(01:21:17):
Actually, most of the states hadlaws that criminalized certain.
Sexual acts. But they weren't targeted at gay
people. Matter of fact, homosexuality
didn't occur in most of the law.In most of the language of the
laws, it was about specific sex acts for straight or gay people,

(01:21:39):
particularly the big A. I'm trying not to be too
straightforward because I don't know, you know, the age range of
people that listen to the show all the time.
Nonetheless, despite the claims,homosexuality was not ever
punished in America, with the exception of 1 case one case

(01:22:01):
that I could find. Again.
Many states. Had laws.
But those laws were not targetedat gay individuals.
It included gay intercourse, butit also included straight
intercourse of a particular type, but people were not
charged under them. Ever.
That I can find again one case where two men in Texas.

(01:22:26):
Were charged. With homosexual conduct under a
law that applied to. Both straight and.
Homosexual couples. So it was not targeted at gay
individuals necessarily, but it was a gay couple that it was
brought against. And the way this law was brought
against them is a little bit murky.
And I think some details about the actual arrest.

(01:22:49):
I tried to find the actual police report.
I couldn't find it. Now, of course, this was pre
computer, so that's probably why.
But the the general story is police were called to the home
about a quote, weapons disturbance, which sounds like a
gunshot. When they entered the home, they
found the two of them having sexin a particular way.

(01:23:12):
They was illegal by the statutesof Texas at the time.
We all agree that shouldn't happen and that the Constitution
protects individual consensual acts whether or not we agree
with them. Well, here's the good news.
That one case where it did happen and these two men were
held overnight, one night in jail because of it, and they

(01:23:33):
shouldn't have been held. They shouldn't have been
arrested at all. Though we still don't really
understand why the cops were supposedly falsely called to
their house in the 1st place. That's beside the point, that
one case. Was then overturned.
By the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of.
Lawrence V Texas. What Lawrence V Texas said was.

(01:23:57):
Exactly what I. Just said under the
Constitution, individuals can engage in consensual acts and
it's none of the business of thegovernment.
We all agree on that. There was only two dissents in
that case, and neither of them were dissents about

(01:24:17):
criminalizing homosexual activity or sodomy.
They were only about the, the legal matters.
As far as the way in which the court made the decision, I
believe, and I'm going offhand, but I believe it was O'Connor
dissented because she didn't believe the decision clarified
far enough that it was constitutional, even though it

(01:24:40):
did. And then Thomas also dissented,
as he often does, because he believed that while there was
no, you know, there. Was no constitutional.
Leeway to to punish the two individuals for consenting acts
and the law was entirely silly. He actually said that the law

(01:25:01):
was silly and never enforced except for in this one case.
He didn't believe that the constitution made it impossible
for Texas to actually have this law in the books.
Again, as a technical legal argument, not an anti-gay
argument. So look, despite all of the
claims and everything that especially younger individuals

(01:25:25):
like myself who didn't live through these times are told,
gays were never. Truly punished.
In America, outside of the one example of Lawrence, and I don't
remember the name of the other guy that was involved in that
case, but it's still worth pointing out that that Texas law
was not targeted at gay individuals, but all individuals

(01:25:48):
based on a specific act, as werevirtually all of the laws that
outlawed sodomy in the United States.
It outlawed it for both straightcouples and gay couples, and
everybody thought the laws were silly and they were never
enforced. And that's not to say that gay
men and lesbian. Women didn't face.

(01:26:09):
Different levels of discrimination in certain places
at certain times, but it was notuniversal in.
Fact the vast majority of. People in the United States
didn't necessarily believe that it was the best lifestyle to
live, but they didn't. Go out of their way to.

(01:26:29):
Condemn it or get involved in other people's lives anyway.
The same thing is true here, except.
Like 10 times more is was true with slavery.
Slavery was never popular at large in America.

(01:26:49):
The percentage of people that held slaves was very small.
The percentage of people that were OK with people holding
slaves was larger, but still a minority might have been a
majority. In the South specifically.
But it would have only been likea 51% majority.
It was not nearly as accepted here as progressives try to make

(01:27:13):
it seem. From the first day of this
country's founding, the goal wasto end slavery, as I've pointed
out many times. Read.
The first draft of the Declaration of Independence.
I really wish the Jefferson would have stuck to his guns on
the first draft. The only reason they removed the

(01:27:35):
language from the first draft, which radically condemned
slavery and condemned the king specifically for enslaving
people on one continent and thenputting them up for sale on
another, it very explicitly. And directly called out.
Slavery in the King's the blood on the King's hands for starting

(01:28:00):
the western slave trade and the reason that language was.
Removed and. Instead, All men are created
equal was put in its place to symbolize those ideals.
Was in order to keep the. Southern States.
On Board because Jefferson and the other founders knew that if

(01:28:22):
the southern states refused to unionize with the northern
states against the British, thenthis country never had a chance
and ending slavery would never be possible they made a tactical
decision that limiting the. Language early.
On in order to keep. More people in the fight.

(01:28:44):
Was to actually reach the goal of ending slavery, whereas just
merely virtue signaling being more important by refusing to
limit the language. We may have never gotten there
because we would have never had a chance.
Against the British. Divided.
That is the real story of the United States, but it's not the

(01:29:09):
story that progressives like to tell.
And I want you to think about this from a different.
Perspective because yes, there is a large segment of the
population that is Christian. There's a large segment of the
population that is Christian andbelieves that homosexuality is a
sin, as it says in the Bible, despite the fact that these

(01:29:29):
people would never, despite believing that it's a sin.
It would never. Stop them from hiring a gay
person if they or or employing them rather if they.
Had a small business. Never stop them from being
friends with a gay person, wouldn't they?
They wouldn't go out and protestgay pride events or anything

(01:29:51):
along those lines except for maybe blatant deviancy like
being naked in the streets. In front of children.
Despite that, that very belief is seen as discrimination.
That is literally the only discrimination that the left.
Has to point to today. Against gay individuals.

(01:30:13):
And when I say gay, I'm referring.
To men and women to be. Clear.
I don't feel the need. To say lesbian.
Every time when I say gay because gay is supposed to mean
or or cover both rather and bisexuals for that matter.
Nonetheless, there's no shortageof people that don't just
disagree with Christians and their beliefs, but outright

(01:30:37):
despise Christians, Christianityand Christian belief.
Are those Christians discriminated against?
No. They're not, and they wouldn't.
Claim they are and to claim the.Opposite is just silly and to be
fair, most gay men and lesbian women and bisexuals don't want

(01:31:01):
anything to do with this new iteration of quote UN quote gay
rights. You get a as I.
Pointed out earlier. It has nothing to do with the
original equality that they sought that came with landmark
decisions like Lawrence V Texas.Acceptance has existed much

(01:31:23):
longer in America than the LGBTQ.
Crowd wants you to believe. There was still some legal
technicalities, like the case inLawrence V Texas, like the law
involved in that case, but broadacceptance had already been
achieved by. The point that case was

(01:31:44):
overturned. But even without broad
acceptance, you don't have to beaccepted to have.
Equal rights? And again, just like the case
with black Americans, it sucks that there were points in time
in certain places where there was discrimination that took
place, and much more so for black Americans then for gay

(01:32:08):
Americans. But still, there were points in
time and places where it existedfor either.
But we have long since moved on from that.
The good side won. The open minded side, the side
that believes in equal rights inall men are created equal in.

(01:32:33):
I don't have to agree with your life.
You don't have to agree with mine.
So long as we don't interfere with each other, we can live
happily as neighbors. That's side one.
Not the bigoted side, Not the side that discriminates.
So pretending that the plight continues is a lie.
Punishing a kid, an innocent kid, for continuing the history,

(01:33:04):
long history of prejudice against gay individuals because
he said something was. Gay.
I would. Almost go as far as to say that
that is a form of psychological abuse, but it's certainly a form
of changing history actively in the moment.
People like me do not deny. The bad things that happened,

(01:33:27):
we. Celebrate the fact that the good
guys won. In those cases, we choose to
look at the story of America. As a story of.
Overcoming those bigots, those prejudices, etcetera, because
that is what the story is evident by the fact that much of

(01:33:49):
the the rest of the world still operates differently, still
operates in that older mindset. You have any idea?
How racism is. In Asia.
Koreans. Are racist against Vietnamese
who are racist against. Chinese.

(01:34:11):
Chinese and Japanese very racistagainst each other, let alone
everybody else in the world. Racism did not start or grow.
In America. But it did come here, like
everywhere else except here it died for some reason.

(01:34:33):
There are people that are. Desperately trying to.
Bring it back to life. And in my opinion, those people,
IE progressives, are the real bigots and racists and
homophobes and it's why they conveniently leave out that it

(01:34:58):
is always been the pro. American.
The Pro. Conservative.
The literal Republicans that defeated them.
The Liberals, the. Progressives.
The Democrats. In all of these.
Cases, it was the Republicans, the.

(01:35:20):
Conservatives the pro. America as in pro constitution,
pro founding era Americans that brought an end to these.
Things, whereas it was the. Progressives that fought for
slavery. That fought.

(01:35:40):
Against equal rights that tried to bring eugenics to black
communities in the United States.
And one could argue. Succeeded with Margaret Sanger
and Planned Parenthood, but. That's a different conversation
for another. Time getting back to the Supreme

(01:36:00):
Court case Sotomayor's descent continues by saying in.
March 2023. The board met with quote a small
group of principals and learned that teachers could not
accommodate the opt out requestsquote without causing
significant disruptions to the classroom environment and
undermining MCPS's education mission.

(01:36:23):
The board also worried that permitting some students to
leave the classroom whenever a teacher brought out the books
featuring LGBTQ characters couldexpose LGBTQ students and those
with the same parents to social stigma and isolation.
Therefore, MCPS announced it would no longer permit parents

(01:36:47):
to opt out of instruction using storybooks.
So now if you don't want your kid being indoctrinated with
this garbage, you're a bigot who's discriminating against
quote UN quote LGBTQ students and or their parents.
Isn't that convenient? The school entirely created.

(01:37:09):
The problem? That is itself the solution to
the problem that it created. So no one was stigmatizing or
isolating the LGB kids. So the school created a
decision, a situation where theywould be because of
controversial content, so they could justify forcing the
controversial content. If your head is spinning, don't

(01:37:32):
worry, mine is too. What the heck was that all
about? Duh, I actually have no idea.
No shit. Yeah.
I don't know why I do that. I just want one.
Person to. Explain to me what?
The. Fuck someone's preferred sex
partner has to do with who they are or how they learn.

(01:37:57):
What is it that is supposed to be different in how you teach a
gay kid versus how you teach a straight kid?
What does who you have to do with learning English, math,
science, or history? Remember, kindergarteners, the
vals are a E. I/O.

(01:38:19):
NU, and sometimes why little Johnny likes to take it up from
Scotty. And that's perfectly natural.
And you're a bigot if you don't want to take it up the S2.
So why don't you do me a favor and hold all your?
Questions till forever. I take back everything I said on

(01:38:40):
the previous episode about Iran just.
Newcomb, let's get it over with.Let's start this society over.
You know what the problem is? The problem is these people

(01:39:02):
don't have the. Slightest clue what hate,
bigotry, hardship, pain, suffering, discrimination, or
poverty really is. They think they have it so
fucking tough as literally some of the most elite people in the
world. And no, I'm not talking about
Sotomayor, who I don't believe actually believes this garbage.

(01:39:26):
I believe they're trying to workan agenda that I can understand.
I'm talking about the average idiot that reads this, that goes
along with it, that believes in it, and never takes the time to
question. Huh.
I live in the wealthiest nation on earth.

(01:39:49):
I have guaranteed protections, the ability to say whatever
dumbass thing I want to say, theright to defend myself not just
against criminals, but against. My own.
Government the best healthcare in the world.
And no, I'm not talking about how much it costs or anything
like that. It is the best healthcare that

(01:40:10):
can possibly be got in the world, even if it is the most
expensive. I have two cars in my driveway.
I live in a four bedroom. House even though I only.
Have one kid. I eat at a restaurant 4 fucking
times a week. I have an iPhone, a MacBook and
a fucking home computer, a flat screen in every room, heat, air

(01:40:33):
conditioning, and a God damn lazy boy.
Have access to literally unlimited knowledge, the
greatest resources that the world has to offer, and all of
this and so much more in exchange for working just 40
hours a week at a job that I canleave anytime if I don't like

(01:40:54):
the work or how they're treatingme.
I can start my own business. I can live off the land.
I can be a fucking homeless drugaddict spending my day shooting
up if I want to and still be fed, see a doctor, and have
clothes on my back and a cell phone in my pocket.
And still, somehow, I'm the victim.

(01:41:15):
Still. Somehow, capitalism is.
Taking advantage of. Me.
Still, somehow the world hasn't done enough for me.
I mean, after all, the barista at Starbucks this morning
misgendered me, so I don't know how the fuck I could possibly go
on with my day. If only we were more like the

(01:41:38):
fair, equitable, diverse and loving societies of Russia,
Cuba, Venezuela or South Africa.We would just be so much better
off. All right, I know that was quite
a detour. I promised you that I would
show. You the hypocrisy between
Sotomayor. In her descent now versus her

(01:42:01):
descent in Bremerton E Kennedy. And that's what we're going to
get to now. I've got a few more quotes to
read from this descent, and thenI will show you the Kennedy
descent and exactly where the hypocrisy lies.
It's just incredible to me that this is necessary because I
understand, all right? I mean, there's a reason I do

(01:42:22):
this. There's a reason I get a sense
of fulfillment in doing this, because I understand that the
average American working a nine to five, taking care of their
family, they don't. Have time?
To sit down and read through case law, or even to learn how
to read through case law, because it takes effort.

(01:42:43):
It's not simple. Everything that I'm giving you
right now, I'm cutting a lot of IT information out that is
necessary and providing you little tidbits that make it easy
to understand. But no, we're going through 5
Supreme Court cases in. What is clearly about to?
Be 5 episodes even though I saidsomething different at the
beginning. I don't know why I even bother

(01:43:05):
to say it's going to be brief because I know it's not going to
be. Nonetheless, it takes far more
then an 8 hour day to put together an episode on these
Supreme Court cases. In fact, this will probably take
me a full week's work in order to put these five episodes

(01:43:28):
together. Or whatever it ends up being
3456, whatever it is. Because everything that is cited
I have to go back and verify andsee does this actually make
sense? Because all the time,
particularly with liberal justices.
And it happens. Occasionally with conservative

(01:43:49):
ones, but not nearly on the samelevel.
I didn't become a conservative as some knee jerk reaction.
I became a conservative slowly over time.
I started as a liberal. I became a conservative slowly
over time after seeing and finding these inconsistencies
way more on one side than the other.

(01:44:10):
And these liberal justices love to cite references to things,
but completely lie about what those things actually say.
We've pointed out some already. We'll point out some more, for
example. The whole.
Hypocrisy thing between this case and the descent in Kennedy.

(01:44:30):
Kennedy V Bremerton. She cites that descent in this
descent, but ignores the fact that she was making completely
the opposite argument. In that case.
Which is what makes this so lovely.
I think I already explained that, but that's my point.
I just, I can't stand it. I understand.

(01:44:53):
Like I said. Why?
Progressive politicians. And elite like Sotomayor, who is
not a politician but is an elite, a progressive elite.
I understand why. They lie and off you skate like
this because they cannot possibly make the arguments they
make on a consistent logical basis.
It's not possible. Therefore, they have to pick and

(01:45:16):
choose. Fine, I get.
That they're trying to push an agenda.
I can't. Say 100.
Percent for certain what agenda they're trying to push, but
they're clearly trying to do something.
Otherwise why go to so much effort to lie and obfuscate?
It just drives me nuts. The people.

(01:45:37):
That just blindly accept it and when you try to point out the
hypocrisy to them. By.
Going through the facts like we are now and it's still not
enough. Now, look, I get it.
It's never going to be enough for people like that because it
is a religion, not just an ideology.

(01:45:58):
I get that, I do. But every now and then, we all
have. Bad days and sometimes I just
got to let the frustration out about it.
That's it. It is what it is.
Because here's the thing, I don't expect when I point out
hypocrisy is like this, when I point out in the consistencies
like this for a liberal or a Democrat voter or progressive or
however that person wants to identify to just go, I'm a

(01:46:21):
Republican. All I expect is for you to
acknowledge the blatant. Fact that is.
Right in front of you that this is a hypocritical stance that
everything that Sotomayor is talking about in.
This dissent is. Entirely irrelevant, it's
nonsense and forcing your child to learn gay ideology is not a

(01:46:46):
right of the government as she claims that it is.
Because all of her reasoning aside, all of her BS claims
aside, when you boil it down, what she is claiming is that the
government can indoctrinate yourchild and force them to learn
whatever information that the government wants them to learn.
No American believes that. Not one.

(01:47:11):
And I know liberals don't believe.
That because. If we were to change LGBTQ with
the word Christian and the word Bible in her descent and that
the school has the right to force your child to read the
Bible, you would be up in arms. So the only thing I expect of
you is to acknowledge, yeah, you're right.

(01:47:34):
She's full of shit on this one. I do it with conservatives all
the time, every day of the week.Most conservatives I know do the
same thing. We make fun of the MAGA people.
They pretend that every single thing that Donald Trump does is

(01:47:54):
4D chess and some master plan. We mock those people despite the
fact that I am very pro Trump atthis point because there's no
ideological. Consistency there.
Matter of fact, I pointed out. Hypocrisy in Senator Kennedy.

(01:48:15):
Earlier today on Twitter. I do it all the time.
Why is it so difficult for leftist to do the same thing I.
Just don't get it I. Really, I don't get it.
You know, I make reference or I made reference earlier and I do

(01:48:37):
just about anytime we're talkingabout the Supreme Court to the
study that we've covered before about how often the justices
side with each other and with the quote UN quote opposite
side. So how often does each justice

(01:48:57):
side with either the liberal side or the conservative side?
And by far, whether you're looking at this court or
previous courts, the Liberal side with the Liberals far more.
Often than conservative. Side with conservatives.
Keep in mind, we apparently right now have the most
radically conservative Supreme. Court that.

(01:49:18):
We've ever had, if you ask a liberal today, in reality, we
actually have one of the least or or one of the least partisan.
Supreme. Courts that we've ever had, it
is closer to you to. Equal right now as far as.

(01:49:40):
How often they vote either conservative or liberal.
And remember, it's not exactly conservative alert or liberal.
It's originalist or progressive.But it is one of the least bias
courts that we've ever had, according to the numbers, of
course, not the opinions. But as always, the Liberals by

(01:50:02):
far ideologically agree with theLiberals far more than
conservatives. Side with.
Conservatives. The claim right now is that.
We have a six, three court, but we don't actually have a six
three court. In fact, we have a 3-4.

(01:50:23):
Really. We have a 333.
We have almost, and the numbers bear that out too.
We really have a 333 court. What we really have is Robert,
excuse me, let's start with the sides.
Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson arethe liberals, of course.
Then you have Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch as the conservatives.
According to the numbers, Kavanaugh, Barrett and of

(01:50:48):
course, Roberts are actually basically right down the middle,
as close as you could possibly get.
Now look, Roberts is a joke, OK?Roberts doesn't have.
Any opinions? Roberts idea is that and he's he
says this all the time. He's more concerned about his

(01:51:08):
quote UN quote legacy than he isabout proper decisions.
He believes basically that he should just be a moderate that.
Goes back and. Forth, there's no ideological
consistency in his his opinions and his decisions.
He just is concerned about his quote UN quote.

(01:51:28):
Legacy. And he apparently is convinced
Barrett and Kavanaugh to do the same thing.
Kavanaugh, for example, sides with Roberts 91% of the time.
Barrett sides with Roberts 84% of the time.
That's almost as high as the liberal side with each other.

(01:51:50):
Roberts. Sides with the liberals he signs
with. He sides with Sotomayor 71
percent, or excuse me, 72% of the time.
He sides with Kagan 79% of the time, and he sides with Jackson
75% of the time. Barrett and Kavanaugh side with
the liberals. Roughly the same.

(01:52:13):
And keep in mind, Barrett and Kavanaugh are supposed to be two
of the most radical conservatives on the Supreme
Court, yet they side with the liberals almost 80%.
Of the. Time the lowest figure is
Barrett sides with Jackson only 69% of the time.

(01:52:34):
And by the way, the I didn't. Mean to jump into numbers?
This quick, but I kind of. Didn't have a choice this.
Comes from harvardlawreview.org.They run these numbers every
year. I'll link it in the description
of course, but you can check it out and make sure that I'm
telling the truth. But the fact is our current.
Supreme Court. Is not a six three conservative

(01:52:56):
majority. It is a three conservative 3
liberal 3. Just neutral I guess.
No ideological consistency whatsoever in my opinion.
Are the last three, which is a damn shame, but it.
Is what it is, so let's look. At the liberals, Sotomayor sides

(01:53:20):
with Kagan 93% of the time and she sides with Jackson 88% of
the time. Kagan sides with Sotomayor 93%
and Jackson 84%. Jackson sides with Sotomayor
87%, or excuse me, 88%, and Kagan 84%.

(01:53:44):
As already stated, the liberals Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson
side with Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh around 70 to 80% of
the time. And they side with the
conservatives Gorsuch, Alito andThomas, the real originalist
conservatives around 50% of the time.

(01:54:05):
Jackson. Sides with Thomas. 54% of the
time she sides with Alito. 50. 8% of the time.
That's probably the highest number.
And with Gorsuch 56% of the time, Kagan sides with Thomas
53% of the time, with Alito 51% of the time, and with Gorsuch

(01:54:28):
54% of the time, Sotomayor sideswith Thomas 54%, Alito 49%, and
Gorsuch 58%. So all of them are in the 50s,
less than 60%. Do they side with the
conservatives? Let's look at the conservatives,
these radical ideological conservatives that never vote

(01:54:50):
liberal on anything. They are completely
ideologically captured. Thomas.
Thomas sides with Alito and Gorsuch.
He sides with. Alito 74% of the time and
Gorsuch only 68% of the time. Alito sides with Thomas 74% and
Gorsuch also 74%. And Gorsuch, of course, sides

(01:55:13):
with Thomas, 68% and 74%, respectively.
Thomas and Alito, how often do they side with the liberals?
Thomas, one of the most consistent originalists on the
court, sides with Sotomayor 55% of the time.
He sides with Kagan 53% of the time and with Jackson 54% of the

(01:55:36):
time. Gorsuch sides with Sotomayor 58%
of the time, with Kagan 55% of the time, and with Jackson 56.
And finally Alito, who sides with Sotomayor 50%, Kagan 50%,
and Jackson 58%. So as you can see, the

(01:55:58):
Conservatives are about as conservative as the Liberals are
liberal, except for in siding with each other.
As far as siding with the liberals, they side with them
about as often as the liberal side with conservatives, but the
Conservatives do not side with conservatives nearly as often as
the Liberal side with each other.

(01:56:19):
All three liberals side with each other almost 90% of the
time, whereas the Conservatives only side with each other.
In the 70s, I think the highest was what, 80% of the time?
Let's see. The highest conservative siding
with the conservative is 70. Where we at?

(01:56:41):
Let's see. Yeah, 74% of the time.
Is the most a conservative sideswith the conservative?
Now, these numbers have flattened out quite a bit.
And if you ask me, it's probablybecause when these numbers came
out earlier on in this particular Supreme Court, the
6th 3 majority, the last time I looked at this was probably last

(01:57:05):
year, maybe not quite that long,but it might have been last
year's data the last time I looked at it, and it was, or at
least the previous year for whatever data I'm looking at,
and it was far worse. The Liberals sided with the
Liberals 90% of the time. They sided with the
Conservatives like 40 or 50% of the time, whereas the
Conservatives basically sided with each other and with the

(01:57:27):
Liberals all in the 50 to 60% ofthe time, with only the most
radical siding with each other, which I believe was Alito and
Thomas about 70% of the time. But these new numbers prove that
we have probably the most balanced court that we've ever
had, and yet we still are getting a lot of 6/3 decisions.

(01:57:48):
But who's in that 6 does change to some degree barely often
based on these numbers. Honestly what liberals are so
pissed about is they've had a pretty good monopoly on the
Supreme Court since the early 1900s.
What they want is a Supreme Court like the one that
legalized the NFA, or not legalized but legitimized the

(01:58:11):
NFA, Social Security, and many other of these socialist
progressive programs. They pretty much did whatever
the progressives wanted. Oliver Wendell.
Holmes. Wendell Holmes, rather, is a
great example of this. And if you ask most progressives
who complain about the current Supreme Court what court they'd
like to go back to, his court isprobably one that they're going

(01:58:35):
to mention. Let's read one thing.
I know this is off topic. But let's just just.
To make this point real quick, let's read a quote from Oliver
Wendell Holmes real quick, shallwe?
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes inBuck V Bell 19. 27.
Said the principle that sustainscompulsory vaccination is broad

(01:58:59):
enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes. 3 generations
of imbeciles are enough. And you might say wow, that's
wow. A terrible quote, but what's the
context worse than you think it is?
Buck V Bell was the case. About Carrie Buck.

(01:59:22):
Who was a young woman? Institutionalized.
In Virgin in Virginia for being quote feeble minded, a label
also applied to her mother and infant daughter under Virginia's
Eugenical Sterilization Act. What a name.
The state sought to sterilize her to prevent the birth of a
more quote, defective individual.

(01:59:44):
The ruling legitimized eugenic sterilization laws across the
United States, and more than 30 states enacted similar statutes
leading to the forced sterilization of 70,000 people.
That's right, progressives were eugenicists.

(02:00:05):
In fact, this phrase from OliverWendell Holmes this this quote
in this case. Was cited by the Nazis at
Nuremberg as justification for their sterilization.
And frankly, they had a point. Now, I'm not saying that their

(02:00:27):
point was correct as far as eugenics and sterilization, we
all agree that's up. But he had a point because the
progressives were doing exactly the same thing here in the US
because they controlled almost everything in the first half of
the 21st century. That was when they began
radically transforming the United States of America.

(02:00:51):
In fact, while this law, or, excuse me, this Supreme Court
precedent has been slightly minimized, it still stands
today. That means women.
You could be forced. Sterilized.
Today, and believe me when I sayone day again, progressives will

(02:01:15):
want to the. Only reason that.
Progressives gave up on their forced sterilization.
They didn't give up on eugenics at all, they just changed the
name and the methods. The reason they gave up on their
forced sterilization is because they realized gaining compliance
through Planned Parenthood was easier.

(02:01:36):
I'm sorry if you don't like thathistory, but that was the point
of Planned Parenthood, accordingto Margaret Sanger, the founder.
They talked about it very openlyuntil after Nuremberg and then
they realized we're going to have to change our tact and
they. Started talking.
About what what women's rights. There's a reason that the medic

(02:02:04):
that that medical practice in the United States become became
rather very hesitant to sterilize women at their request
now. I'm not saying that that.
Was correct. I think that if a woman wants to
have her tubes tied, that's her choice.
Now there's some risk in it and so there should be some

(02:02:25):
hesitancy because the risk is a lot higher than say for a
vasectomy. But I do believe it is your
choice to do to your body. Would you please?
So long as you pay for it, of course.
But that hesitancy, that extremehesitancy stemmed from this
because Americans realized that the connection between

(02:02:47):
progressives and Nazis. Hitler was a progressive.
He was in line with the Americanprogressives of that time.
And the progressives today have changed very little in their
ultimate goals and thoughts. They have just changed their
tactics. Look at ghettos.

(02:03:09):
Hitler created ghettos for the Jews.
And he forced them. To live there, that creates
pushback. Progressives created ghettos.
Also known as Section 8. Housing and offered it for free
as free housing to quote lesser desired individuals and they

(02:03:36):
willingly live there. But anyway, the point.
Is that? Hesitancy and extreme hesitancy
came from Americans disgust at the generation of eugenics and
the. Turn away from.
That in the medical community's desire after World War Two, in

(02:03:57):
the Nuremberg trials and the realization of where these
ideologies end up, medical community here in the West
recognized we need to re look atour our ethics essentially.
And so while I think that. There was an overcorrection in

(02:04:18):
not allowing women to have theirtubes tied when they wanted to
have them tied. That is where that hesitancy
came from. And finally, it's starting.
To to let up a bit, and that's agood thing.
But the the myth that it comes from the patriarchy is a lie.
That's not where it came from. I won't pretend that there's no

(02:04:42):
influence from let's say biblical inclination to
procreate, but most doctors today and many for a long time
have been atheist or non Christian or at least non
practicing in some sort of way. So do you really think that
those doctors too just wanted tomake sure you remained a baby

(02:05:07):
making factory as long as possible?
I mean really, where's the logicin that?
Just because it. Is sold.
As. Something different just because
a nice. Fancy bow has.
Been put on top of the package doesn't make the package of
progressivism any different. I know I've gone off course

(02:05:32):
here, so let's get back to the Supreme Court case, Justice
Sotomayor continues in her opinion by.
Saying the. Free Exercise Clause commands
that the government quote shall make no law dot dot dot
prohibiting the free exercise ofreligion.
The crucial word in the constitutional text is quote,

(02:05:54):
prohibit or it makes clear quote.
The free exercise clause is written in terms of what
government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what
the individual can exact from the government.
Now that is true. It's also inconsistent with her

(02:06:14):
opinions, past and present, but I'll continue.
It follows from the text that the Free Exercise clause does
not, quote, require the government itself to behave in
ways that the individual believes will further his or her
spiritual development or that ofhis or her family.
Instead, the clause prohibits the government from compelling

(02:06:36):
individuals, whether directly orindirectly, to give up or
violate their religious beliefs.Now, that's true, but it's
rather rich coming from Sotomayor.
Now here comes the fun part, shesays.
Consistent. With these long.
Standing principles, this Court has made clear that mere

(02:06:58):
exposure to objectionable ideas does not give rise to a free
exercise claim also true. That makes sense.
Simply being exposed to believescontrary to your own does not
quote prohibit the quote free exercise of your religion.
Nor does offense equate to coercion.

(02:07:21):
She cites the opinion in KennedyV Bremerton for that quote.
She cites the opinion. Now notice she took out a huge
chunk of that quote because whatit actually says is.
Nor does mere quote, offense dotdot, dot equate to coercion.
Let's see what the actual quote says.

(02:07:43):
The actual quote that that comesfrom in Kennedy.
V Bremerton. Is from the opinion.
Now remember she dissented in that case.
So now she's quoting the opinionto make her point, even though
she dissented in that case. And the quote that she's quoting
actually comes from the the plurality opinion in the court

(02:08:08):
case, Town of Greece, US. Now, in that case, it's Town of
Greece V Galloway, by the way, from 2014.
Now, in that case, the quote actually says respondents claim
that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel
excluded and disrespected. But offense does not equate to
coercion. In contrast to Lee V.

(02:08:31):
Weissman, where the court found coercive a religious invocation
at a high school graduation. The record here does not suggest
that citizens are dissuaded fromleaving the meeting room during
the prayer, arriving late or making a later protest.
That the prayer in Greece is delivered during the opening
ceremonial portion of the town'smeeting, not the policy making

(02:08:54):
portion, also suggests that its purpose and effect are to
acknowledge religious leaders and their institutions, not to
exclude or coerce non believers.So of course she's saying the
fact that the school is forcing the children to learn.
This material. Forcing them to read it even
though it's contrary to 1 majority opinion and two, the

(02:09:19):
religious beliefs of the parentsof many of the students.
It doesn't matter because just because it's offensive doesn't
mean the government can't do it.And to be clear, this case, the
opinion in this case is not saying that the school cannot

(02:09:39):
offer these materials. They are saying they cannot
force them into the curriculum without allowing parents the
opportunity to opt their children out of it.
If these schools were merely available in the school library,
this case wouldn't apply. This is whether or not the
school can force this material into the curriculum at the

(02:10:01):
objection of parents and make their children learn it and then
lie to the parents and coerce the children into taking it as
fact rather than a different opinion.
But so are they Moore saying that's completely fine because
it's not coercive just because it's offensive.

(02:10:23):
And that's true. It's not coercive just because
it's offensive. It's coercive because the
children cannot opt out of it because the the teacher, excuse
me, the the board is encouragingthe teachers to lie to the
parents and it's encouraging theteachers to literally coerce the

(02:10:43):
students into accepting the information and to abiding by
it, She continues by saying. The Constitution thus does not
quote. Guarantee citizens a right.
To entirely avoid ideas with which they disagree.
Indeed, it would betray its own principles if it did.
For quote, no robust democracy insulates its citizens from

(02:11:07):
views that they might find novelor even inflammatory.
End Quote. That is Elk Grove Unified School
District V New Dao. Now, again, that's not the only
thing that's at hand here. What's also at hand here is the
inability to opt out and the coercion involved, she

(02:11:28):
continues. And at this point?
It's noted that O'Connor concursfrom.
This point forward, There is no public school exception to these
principles. The Court's decision in West
Virginia V Barnett is instructive.
There, the Court held that compelling students who adhere
to Jehovah's Witness faith to salute the flag and

(02:11:50):
contravention of the religious beliefs violated the First
Amendment. Yet the Court distinguished the
compulsion of students to declare a belief from simply
exposing students to ideas that might conflict with their
religious tenants. Now, I'll admit here that this
is the best argument that she makes.
She finishes the argument by saying, for instance, the court

(02:12:12):
recognized that schools could quote, acquaint students with
the flag salute so that they maybe informed as to what it is or
even what it means. No problem arose either, the
court observed, from having objecting students remain
passive during a flag salute ritual while watching the rest
of the class engage in it. What the state could not do,

(02:12:32):
however, is quote, compel the flag salute and pledge when
those actions required students to, quote, declare A belief
contrary to their own religious views.
He says So, too, in Kennedy V Bremerton, the Court recognized
that seeing objectionable conduct alone is not actionable
under the 1st Amendment. Now, in reality, there's very

(02:12:54):
little comparison here with Kennedy V Bremerton because in
Kennedy V Bremerton, what the objection was, was seeing
somebody else pray. It was not part of instruction.
So that's worth noting, But I'llfinish reading this.

(02:13:14):
There, the court rejected the argument that the exposure of
children to a school coach's religious prayer violated the
Establishment Clause. Even though hearing and watching
an authority figure engage in demonstrational prayer with
classmates at a school sponsoredevent could of course, undermine
parents efforts to instill different religious beliefs in
their children. Majority of this court concluded

(02:13:34):
that no cognizable coercion had occurred and so no establishment
cause violation inhered in the coach's conduct.
Now she says demonstrative prayer, and that's what she said
in her dissent in that case. That's not the opinion of the
court, though. The court decided it was not
demonstrative prayer as the coach was praying alone himself,

(02:14:00):
and that the fact that he was praying alone in a place where
people could see him, despite the fact he was on school
grounds and even in his coach's uniform, did not mean that the
school was violating the Establishment Clause by other
kids seeing their coach pray, oranybody else for that matter.

(02:14:22):
We'll get into that a little further here in a second.
She notes that the court misconstrued the record in that
case in her opinion, and thus erred in deciding that the
coaches prayer ritual was not coercive in her opinion.
She says see her descent Taking the majorities recitation of the

(02:14:43):
facts at face value, however, the court plainly viewed
exposure to the aforementioned activities as insufficient to
raise First Amendment concerns, notwithstanding their apparent
potential to undermine a parent's religious upbringing of
their child. But here, we're not talking
about a teacher that is praying themselves.

(02:15:07):
Like themselves. Taking a minute to.
Pray in the classroom. Or to put it in the context of
this case, we're not talking about a teacher that is herself
reading an LGBTQ book here. We're talking about a school
district inserting into the curriculum LGBTQIA ideology.

(02:15:31):
And everything that. Goes with it.
And then instructing teachers tolie to parents and to reinforce
that ideology in kids during conversation and class
instruction. The difference is apparent.
And the hypocrisy is it's apparent to Sotomayor as well.

(02:15:51):
Because when we read The Descentin Kennedy, we learn that
anything a school does, according to Sotomayor, is
coercive in nature. And let's keep in mind here that
this ideology that is involved in this curriculum is directly
in contradiction to the religious beliefs of many

(02:16:12):
religions. So this is more akin to a.
School District. Trying to force a particular
religion, a particular religion's ideology rather into
the curriculum, then it is mere exposure to different ideas.

(02:16:34):
The fact is, in order to take Sotomayor's opinion on this, and
I would be willing to take her opinion on this in this dissent
if this were the case. But in order to take her opinion
in this dissent, you would have to accept that schools can teach
from the Bible. More importantly, there's a very

(02:16:56):
simple solution to all this and that.
Is get rid of compulsory? Public school laws.
Not every person can afford to send their child to private.
School and I do. Appreciate that that is an
option and therefore public schools should be allowed to
teach things that are. Contradictory to.
Religions etcetera, or you know or or to ideologies or whatever.

(02:17:20):
But the problem is the compulsory attendance
requirements because not everybody can afford to send
their kid to an alternative. So if we just make school
vouchers a thing and we allow parents to educate their kids at
a school that they see fit, thatteaches A curriculum that they
see fit, including a school thatis entirely LGBTQ focused, if

(02:17:43):
you want, then fine. There's no say here whatsoever
to stop the school from teaching.
That but. The problem is you are forcing
students into learning this material against their parents.
Will and I'm sorry. There is no collective rights to

(02:18:04):
children whether or not it takesa quote village to raise
children or not, it is still up to the parents who, what, where,
when and how is involved in their kids life.
We've long established that parents can opt their kids out
of sex education for many of thesame principles at play here.

(02:18:25):
In fact, this school district does allow kids to opt out of
sexual education, but not out ofthis sexual education.
Why? This is all about sex.
It has nothing to do with English.
It has nothing to do with math, science, history, any of it.

(02:18:46):
It's just about sex. And you might say, well, what
if? Some.
Ridiculous parent wants to opt their kids out of learning
about, I don't know, slavery or addition of OK who cares that's
fine. It would be.

(02:19:07):
Incredibly stupid to do because these.
Things are basic. Education.
Learning about who likes to who,not basic education.
But if somebody wants to opt their kid out of it, go for it.
Go nuts. I don't care because, well, I
think every student should learnthese things.

(02:19:28):
I am not trying to force any ideas into a child's head
against their parents will. The fact is, control of a
child's education belongs to theparent period.
Control of every decision involving a child belongs to the
parents, period, except in the extreme cases where the parent

(02:19:54):
has proved themselves incapable.Of making.
Those rational decisions. In some sort.
Of way that that. Is apparently harming to the
child and them not learning something is not apparently
harming to the child because that child will one day be an
adult and welcome to learn it ontheir own if they want to.

(02:20:17):
We are only talking about the extreme scenarios.
Where a parent. Is physically or emotionally
abusing a child. Short of that, it's 100% the
parents prerogative unless we forget the aspect to this of age

(02:20:38):
appropriateness because some of these books, as we all know and
has been large controversy are sexually explicit.
Another thing that is highly individual as far as.
Opinions on? When somebody's child is old

(02:20:59):
enough to view such content, there is no universal decision
that can be made. Every child is different, in
fact, as every. Parent knows.
Even two children from the same family.
Are different and one child. Might be ready to handle certain

(02:21:20):
concepts at a young age, and onechild might have to be a lot
older before they're ready to handle certain concepts.
It's just the way kids are, and the last thing I'm going to do
is give that power over to a bunch.
Of. Liberal, ideologically
motivated, generally childless teachers who have spent more

(02:21:44):
than four years in indoctrination camps we call
colleges and have absolutely nothing invested in these
children to make these decisions.
Your kids teacher. You.
Your kid is 1 of 30 to your kidsteacher.
OK, That teacher is not staying up at night and reading bedtime

(02:22:07):
stories or helping them when they're sick or taking them to
the doctor or paying their billsor feeding them.
They're not doing any of that. They get no say.
Period. You teach what the parents of
that district have agreed upon as curriculum.

(02:22:31):
And if there are individual exceptions where a small amount,
you know, a a single family or avery small amount of families of
the district don't want a certain part of that curriculum
taught to their kids, those parents can opt out of that
part. But everything else, as long as
the majority agrees in that district that this should be
part of the school curriculum, then that's what you teach.

(02:22:56):
Period. Because that.
Was the job. Sotomayor finishes that
argument. By saying in some.
Never in the context of public schools.
Or elsewhere has this court heldthat mere exposure to concepts
inconsistent with one's religious beliefs could give
rise to a First Amendment Clave claim?
And there's a footnote here, andthe bias really comes out in the

(02:23:19):
footnote, she says. The majority claims that this.
That this Court's precedents as set forth above establishes a
quote alarmingly narrow rule that would permit quote, even
instruction that denigrates or ridicules students religious
beliefs. That the majority sees exposure
to books featuring LGBTQ characters as comparable to

(02:23:43):
denigration or ridicule of religion is telling.
In any event, the majority is wrong.
Denigration and ridicule can easily amount to coercion, Such
conduct. There's no resemblance to merely
exposing children to concept or ideas that incidentally conflict
with the parents religious beliefs.
Yeah, it's not incidental. It's extremely intentional.

(02:24:06):
She goes on, though, to denigrate her fellow justices by
saying. The majority?
For its part, cannot comprehend that coercion may cover
denigration without reaching exposure and so mistakes this
point for a concession. Additionally, the courts
precedent forbids government's actions motivated by quote,
hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.

(02:24:30):
Isn't LGBTQ ideology hostile to religion or a religious
viewpoint? I digress.
Existing precedent thus addresses the majority's
hypotheticals without resort to its unbounded test.
But here is where she screws up.She says in Part B of her
opinion. These well established

(02:24:51):
principles, previously recognized and respected by this
Court, resolved this case. As recounted earlier, each of
these three sets of parent plaintiffs premise their
objections on, in essence, exposure to material that
conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Yet, for reasons just explain, the effects of mere exposure to
material with which one disagrees does not and should

(02:25:11):
not give rise to the Free Exercise claims.
Nor have petitioners shown that MCPS's policies coerce them to
give up or violate their religious beliefs.
To the contrary, MCPS explicitlyprohibits teachers from asking
students to give up or change their views regarding gender and

(02:25:31):
sexuality, whether religious or not.
But by reinforcing the idea, which is exactly what these
books do and is exactly what theparent guidance that was given
to the teachers, the parent and student guidance forms that were
given to the teachers instruct the teachers to do, is to teach

(02:25:51):
LGBTQ ideology and insist that it's normal whether you like it
or not. Teaching that two men can get
married violates the long standing over 7000 years now
principles of the Christian and many other including Islamic and
Jewish religions. And the hypocrisy is apparent

(02:26:14):
because you can opt your kid. In all of the.
Public schools today out of reading certain books out of
reading a specific book, such asI don't know, Lord of the Flies,
because I don't know, because itmentions the Bible or because
it's all about white boys, or because books without pictures
are racist. But you can't opt out of reading

(02:26:38):
an LGBTQ book. Which blatantly.
Violates somebody's religion because that would be bigotry.
The fact is, progressives alwayswant the majority to make an
exception to the rule for the minority, but they never want to
make an exception to the rule ontheir ideology for the majority,

(02:26:59):
she goes on to say. Recall too that MCPS
exclusively. Uses the challenge.
Storybooks to teach students literacy in English Language
class Like all other books in the English language curriculum,
the storybooks will just be usedin English language curricula.
Or excuse me, the storybooks will just be used to quote
assist students with mastering reading concepts like answering
questions about characters, retelling key events about

(02:27:21):
characters in a story, and drawing inferences about story
characters based on their actions.
As for integrating the books into classes, teachers may opt
to put them on a shelf or recommend a book to students who
would enjoy it. To offer the books as an option
for literature circles, book clubs, or paired reading groups,
or to read them a loud. It is possible, of course, that

(02:27:42):
such instruction may introduce students to concepts or views
objectionable to their faiths. Being merely made acquainted
with these themes, however, doesnot give cognizable free
exercise burden if this is just about giving them books to read.
Why do they need to be? Controversial ones at all?
Then why can't we just pick ones?
We all agree on. Why must we interject with these

(02:28:03):
young kids, these ideas that so many, in fact?
The majority? Oppose.
I'll tell you why. It's because they want to.
Normalize. This ideology among these kids,
they want to normalize the idea that gender is entirely a man

(02:28:25):
made construct and you can change your gender whenever you
want, however you want, that your sex doesn't matter.
They want to make normal the idea that two dads or two moms
leads to a healthy family just the same as a mom.
And a dad. And I'm sorry, the majority,

(02:28:46):
myself included, don't believe that.
Would I rather a kid have two dads than no dads?
Yes. Would I rather a kid have two
moms than no moms? Yes.
But there is no question that one mom and one dad makes for
the healthiest, most successful,the highest probability of
success child. Period.

(02:29:10):
Aside from the fact that you must have one mom and one dad to
make a kid. Even if you want to give me the
BS about two women being able tomake a kid because of IVF, you
still needed a man to do it. Look, for me this is very
simple. And remember, I'm not the
courts. OK.
But this is just my opinion. This material violates the

(02:29:34):
Christian principles that this nation was founded upon, the
same principles that have made this nation the most free and
fair and equal and successful society in all of human history,
and therefore it has no place inour schools.
Period. Sotomayor is conveniently hiding
that this isn't about the books being available in the school,

(02:29:56):
it's about the absolute totalitarian indoctrination it
comes with it. That's reinforced by the books,
reinforced by the teachers, by their principals, by the school
nurse, by the counselor, by the resource officer, by the fucking
TV when they get home, by Disneyand YouTube, by the music on the
radio, on TikTok, by social media influencers, by drag

(02:30:21):
Queens, and blatant propaganda at public libraries everywhere.
And the fact is, we do not require being inclusive of all
religions and all cultures in the same way, and for a good
reason. Do we tell kids that it's not OK
to point out that Islamic subject, Islamic subjugation of

(02:30:43):
women or tossing gays from rooftops is quote so gay in
fact, I think we. Should actively oppose those
views here in the. West and encourage our kids to
do the same. What about shaking hands?
Should we not allow kids in the West to shake hands for fear it
might, quote, stigmatize foreigners?

(02:31:05):
Because if you didn't know this,it's uncommon outside of the
West for people to shake hands because they wipe their ass with
them. They also eat with them, but
apparently they don't see the contradiction.
And yeah, I get it, a lot of those nations are poor.
But guess what? Hey, even if you're poor, you
can pull 2 sticks off a tree andmake some damn chopsticks.

(02:31:29):
And aside from that, it's 2025 everywhere else in the world
too. I'm tired of feeling guilty
because my grandfather's got their shit together instead of
spending all of their time worrying about this nonsense.
And your grandfather's spent their time bowing to a fucking
king. The fact is, the school is

(02:31:50):
directly compelling the childrennot just to read, but to learn
the LGBTQ materials that directly contradict the
children's religion. And not just passively listen,
but forced to actively participate and accept as
legitimate. Look, the question is simple, is
the LGBT content ideological or educational?

(02:32:13):
Because there are places in education where ideological
ideas are discussed, such as history class, not English.
By forcing this into the Englishcurriculum.
They are very. Intentionally trying to set the
precedent as it being normal andnot ideological.

(02:32:34):
So anyway, let's finally take a look at Kennedy V Bremerton and
once again Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.
Well, I apologize Breyer insteadof Jackson because Jackson was
not appointed yet are dissenting.
So Sotomayor and Kagan join thisdescent as well as they do in
the other one, and Briar replaces Jackson.

(02:32:57):
Anyway, the whole point of reading portions of this descent
is for you to hear the hypocrisyin Sotomayor's argument in
Kennedy versus in the current Mahmoud case.
So let me give you a quick refresher.
I know we we briefly discussed it before, but let me give you a
quick refresher on the Kennedy case.
On the Kennedy case, what happened was a high school

(02:33:20):
football coach was saying prayers on the 50 yard line.
After a. Game after the games at the high
school. Occasionally he had said prayers
before the game or in the lockerroom, but those aren't really
matters involved in this case because he was fired for saying
a prayer silently to himself after the game on the 50 yard

(02:33:44):
line. After being told he couldn't
pray at all anymore, he decided not going to do that.
But I will stop saying them out loud because here's what
happened. This coach used to pray before
or after a game himself and eventually students willingly
joined him. He did not ask students to join.

(02:34:06):
He did not require students to join, but students started
willingly joining him and listening to the prayers or
joining in them and the school put their foot down and said we
it by if we allow this, basically we're violating other
students First Amendment rights.Kennedy disagreed.

(02:34:28):
I disagree as well. But Kennedy disagreed.
And continued to pray. But he did make some changes and
he started praying only after the game on the 50 yard line
himself. He didn't ask anybody to join
him. And he didn't do it anymore
before the game or in the lockerroom.
The school for the school that wasn't good enough.

(02:34:49):
The school wanted to dictate when.
And where? And how he could do it.
They basically wanted him to go into a closet where no one could
see him and pray silently alone to himself on his own time.
Because from their position, anytime that he was either on
school grounds or in school uniform or actively coaching,

(02:35:10):
such as, you know, on a bus rideto a different district or on
different school grounds after agame or whatever, he was
representing the school and therefore himself praying was
not OK. So anyway.
This ended up. Blowing up, becoming a big
story. And So what happens?
In the three instances that are at hand, which are the three

(02:35:33):
instances that he was fired overafter the school initially came
to him and told him to stop, washe decide he's agreed that he
would stop? I mean really stop giving the
opportunity, I guess, for students to come join him
because again, he didn't force anybody to come join him, but
they would come naturally on their own.

(02:35:55):
They would choose to come join him when he decided to stop and
make a prayer, and so he would say the prayer out loud.
He decided to stop doing that and instead praying to himself
quickly on the 50 yard line after a game.
Well, people obviously didn't like the way that the school was
treating him. And so to show their support,

(02:36:16):
when he would stop to pray on the 50 yard line after the game,
students would come and support him all the way to the point
where I believe the last one, fans came out of the stands to
come and surround him while he prayed.
And remember, none of this was aproblem.
And he had done this for years before where he would pray with
the students that chose to come pray with him, where he would

(02:36:40):
talk after practice was over. And there's no allegations that
he was doing this as part of hiscoaching.
This was all separate. Sometimes he was on duty when he
would pray, but he was not actively doing anything and he
was not forcing. Anybody to come and join?
Him and there's no allegations of that by the school.

(02:37:04):
And this went on for years. Beforehand, where even students
from other teams after a game would come and pray with them or
listen to him talk for a minute,you know, about whatever.
And those are the things he agreed to stop doing after the
school came to him. But.
Before the school. Came to him, this was never a
problem. In fact, what made the school

(02:37:26):
come to him was. Another school's.
Coach that he had offered, hey, you know, I usually say a prayer
after the game. A lot of my students come and
listen. You guys are welcome to join.
That's what he offered to this other coach.
And the other coach said something to one of the
principals or assistant principals as, hey, it's pretty
cool that you guys still do this.

(02:37:49):
And so that's why the school came down on him.
There was no issue. Then or.
Before, but then once. The school started coming down
on him that of course upset people and made them want to
support him, which then made a spectacle out of at least the
last prayer. I don't know if all three were a
huge deal, but I know the last one.

(02:38:11):
Everybody came out of the stands, both teams came and
surrounded him, and everybody was basically telling the school
to F off and leave them alone. Ultimately, the way that Kennedy
was decided. Was that he won.
His case so long as he was not forcing students to participate.
And again, there was no allegation that he was either

(02:38:31):
forcing students to participate or that he was being selectively
biased to students who didn't participate.
I would agree that if there was some sort of specific.
Bias to students who. Refused to participate.
That would be a problem in his coaching duties.
But there was no allegations of any of this.
It was just him praying to himself and anybody else who

(02:38:53):
chose to come and join him and that was that.
This was not part of his curriculum.
He was not. Interjecting it.
Into teaching. Football.
This was something that he did himself.
Now imagine a school telling an Islamic teacher that they cannot
pray at 5:00 PM and that they must hide their prayer rug and

(02:39:17):
pray in a closet. It would never happen, ever.
This is equivalent to a teacher praying in his classroom after
class has been dismissed and students choosing to stick
around and pray with him. And frankly.
I'm perfectly fine with even public schools still offering or

(02:39:40):
or still holding prayer before school.
It used to be say a prayer, you say the Pledge of Allegiance.
We got rid of the prayer. Part perfectly fine with keeping
it, and I'm also perfectly fine with allowing students to opt
out or go stand in the hallway or whatever if they don't want
to hear it. I don't think students should be
forced to participate in it, butI.

(02:40:00):
Think that it should still. Happen because I think that
those Christian principles whichwe've already discussed provided
a value to our society and thosethat.
Were offended by. It didn't have to participate,
but they couldn't stop everybodyelse from doing so.
And to be completely clear, thatis 100% ideologically consistent

(02:40:22):
with everything that I've arguedearlier in this episode, because
I have not argued that the LGBTQcontent cannot be offered at all
in the schools. I have only said that students
must be allowed to opt out of it.
And that it's. Wrong to try and force this
ideological curriculum, first ofall as curriculum, and second of

(02:40:47):
all when it's serving a tiny minority and the vast majority
are opposed to it. In the case of prayer, it's
typically the majority that. Are OK with it.
And the minority that are opposed, isn't that supposed to
be how a democracy works anyway?So that's what this was about.
He ultimately got fired. This court case was about 1,

(02:41:09):
overturning his firing as unconstitutional and two,
clarifying that he is more than welcome to pray so long as he is
not busy doing other things. That his praying to himself or
with anybody that chooses to participate on the 50 yard line
after a game is not violating anybody else's rights, but it is

(02:41:34):
violating his rights to tell himthat he can't do it.
And if you're going to say, but what about the Satanist, don't
worry, that comes up. So it's important to note, too,
that in this descent, Sotomayor greatly exaggerates some of her
claims. Now, she's going to claim that
the majority minimizes some of Kennedy's actions, but they

(02:41:58):
don't. And in fact, she also complaints
that they only focus on the lastthree instances and that
everything else must be taken incontext.
But remember some of the things that he did before that never
caused a problem, like saying prayer with the whole in.
The locker room. With students or saying prayer

(02:42:22):
with the other teams or whatever.
He agreed already to stop doing those.
She suggests that you can't ignore that that stuff happened.
Previously in this decision. But you can't, because he and
the school mutually agreed. OK, I'll stop doing that now.
Whether or not it was wrong, that's another conversation.
But it it's irrelevant to this case because it's not what the

(02:42:45):
dispute is about. The dispute is about these last
three instances in which he was fired over.
But she also tries to greatly exaggerate.
His role in. All of this in ways that are
pretty irrelevant, but you can go and read about it yourself to
find out exactly who's telling the truth where.
We're not going through this whole case.

(02:43:06):
I'm just reading this case to show you the hypocrisy with the
current case at hand. So anyway, she starts off by
saying this case is about whether a public school must
permit a school official to kneel, bow his head, and say a
prayer at the center of a schoolevent.
Now already in the very first sentence, she's exaggerated his

(02:43:29):
prayer because it's not in the middle of a school event.
It's literally the end of a school event after a school
event, which she acknowledges later on that it is after the
completion of the football game.But while he is still
technically responsible for the students because they have not
all been dismissed to their parents yet.

(02:43:51):
But just to to clarify exactly when this was taking place, it's
after the game, after the players shake hands with each
other and are starting to head off to their locker rooms.
He would stop on the 50 yard line, bow his head, take a knee
and say a quick prayer and then follow his students into the
locker room. That's when this was taking

(02:44:12):
place, not in the middle of an event.
He was not holding up the event or stopping the event in any way
to do this. He was taking a quick knee at
the 50 yard line after shaking the other player's hands and
everybody's going off back to the locker room to say a prayer.
It only became a spectacle because people were upset about

(02:44:34):
the way the school is treating him.
But that was not his fault. He didn't ask these people to
come and make a spectacle for him.
They chose on their own to come and show support anyway.
She continues by saying the Constitution does not authorize,
let alone require, public schools to embrace this conduct.
This court consistently has recognized that school officials

(02:44:56):
leading prayer is constitutionally impermissible.
Now, again, she's already conflating things.
He's not leading prayer. He's not gathering all the kids
and leading them in a prayer. He's stopping and saying a
prayer at the 50 yard line on his own.
And prior to this, some kids would come and join him.

(02:45:20):
But this is not during a time where he has the captured the
the captured attention of the students.
They don't have to be near him at all at this.
Point. In fact, they don't even.
Have to be on the field with himto see him do it.
They can go off in the locker room.
This is not the same as the principal calling together an

(02:45:43):
assembly requiring all of the kids attention focused on him at
the head of the assembly and then leading them in a prayer.
And that's the picture she's trying to paint now.
Again, I still think that's OK anyway, so long as you don't.
Force anybody? To participate.
But I digress, she says. Official LED official LED prayer

(02:46:04):
strikes at the core of our constitutional protections for
the religious liberty of students and their parents as
embodied in both the Establishment Clause, the same
one we're working with in the other case, and the free
exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
Now I don't think it really does, but that's a matter of
opinion. She.
Says the court now. Charts a different path, yet

(02:46:26):
again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise
Clause. Protection for an individual
religious exercise while giving short shrift to the
establishment cause prohibition on a state's establishment of
religion. So she's now suggesting that by
him praying himself without requiring participation by
anybody, he is establishing a religion for the school or for

(02:46:49):
the state. Which is of course absurd.
Imagine for a second an Islamic kid stopping to say a prayer.
First of all, there's no accusation that the coach ever
stopped something like that trying to establish only
Christianity prayer as acceptable.

(02:47:09):
And second of all, it's hard to imagine anybody trying to stop
it. Nor should they, for that
matter. She goes on to say the court
rejects long standing concerns surrounding government
endorsement of religion and replaces the standard for
reviewing such questions with a new quote, history and tradition

(02:47:30):
test. In addition, while the Court
reaffirms the Establishment Clause prohibits the government
from coercing participation in religious exercise, it applies a
nearly toothless version of the coercion analysis, failing to
acknowledge the unique pressuresfaced by students when
participating in school sponsored activities.

(02:47:51):
Let me just read that sentence again, but instead of using.
The term. Religious exercise.
I'm going to use the term ideological exercise to
represent the LGBTQ books in theother Descent by Sotomayor.
In addition, while the court reaffirms the Establishment
Clause prohibits the government from coercing participation in

(02:48:14):
ideological exercises, it applies a nearly toothless
version of the coercion analysis, failing to acknowledge
the unique pressures faced by students when participating in
school sponsored activities. So what she's saying here is
that. The coach praying.
Is coercive because it's a quoteschool sponsored activity, even

(02:48:38):
though the school doesn't endorse it in any way shape or
form. But in the other case where the
school is actually interweaving this ideology into the
curriculum of English class, mind you, that's not coercive at
all. Just to be clear, since we're
not reading this opinion as an opinion, I'm going.
To jump around a little bit to. Different quotes of hers through

(02:48:59):
this descent to show the hypocrisy.
That's all I'm trying to highlight.
But school staff, she quotes later.
School staff shall. Neither encourage.
Or discourage a student from engaging in non disruptive oral
or silent prayer or any other form of devotional activity.
And that religious services programs or assemblies shall not
be conducted in school facilities, during school hours

(02:49:22):
or in connection with any schoolsponsored or school related
activity. That is the school district's
policies that the coach agreed to, supposedly.
It's important to note that the very beginning says the school
staff shall neither encourage nor discourage a student from

(02:49:42):
engaging in non disruptive oral or silent prayer or any other
form of devotional activity. And that religious services
programs or assemblies shall notbe conducted in school
facilities during school hours or in connection with any school
sponsored or school related activity.

(02:50:03):
But nobody would suggest that him saying a prayer, even with
other people joining that prayeris him putting on a service
program or assembly. And you might say, well, it's an
assembly, but remember, there's no required attendance and
there's no punishment for not attending.
And it's also worth noting that this was not seen or accused of

(02:50:26):
being disruption, disruptive in any way again, until the final
event where a lot of people cameout to support.
Then, of course, that was a bit disruptive because it was a
protest and it wasn't him being disruptive necessarily so much
as people angry at the school. Going through the history, she
says the district learned that. Since 2000. 8 When Kennedy was

(02:50:49):
hired, he had been kneeling on the 50 yard line to pray
immediately after shaking hands with the opposing team.
Kennedy recounted that he initially prayed alone and that
he never asked any students to join him.
Over time, however, majority of the team came to join him, with
numbers varying from game to game.
The district also had learned that students had prayed in the

(02:51:10):
past in the locker room prior tothe games before Kennedy was
hired. He began joining those prayers
after he was hired. Another time after a game, while
the athletic director watched, Kennedy LED a prayer out loud,
holding up a player's helmet as the players kneeled around him.
Now, keep in mind, this is the district's account of the facts

(02:51:31):
of the case. The district acknowledged that
Kennedy had, quote, not activelyencouraged or required
participation, but emphasized that, quote, school staff may
not indirectly encourage students to engage in religious
activity. Now that's very subjective
meaning what is indirectly encourage mean and can you stop

(02:51:54):
somebody from quote indirectly encouraging someone to engage in
religious activity? It seems rather dubious and
this. Wouldn't be a question.
If this was a private school, the private school could
absolutely tell him not to do this.
The question is whether or not agovernment facility can violate

(02:52:14):
his rights to be a religious person, which might in some way
indirectly encourage somebody else anyway, Or quote, endorse.
Religious activity rather the. School explained staff must
remain neutral while performing their job duties.
I would argue that so long as heis not requiring participation

(02:52:37):
or forcing anybody to participate or punish them for
not participating or favoriting the people who are
participating, which nobody accused any of those things,
that is about as neutral as it gets.
I get that they. Don't want him?
To be a part of the prayer. If the kids want to pray, they
want to let them do that. But he has a right to pray too,

(02:52:57):
if he wants to anyway, so as to avoid alienation of any team
member. Sorry, that was.
The end of that quote to. Avoid endorsing student
religious exercise. The district instructed that
such activity must be non demonstrative, were conducted
separately from students, away from student activities.
So there we go. There's the clarification on
what the school wanted. They wanted him to do it

(02:53:19):
separately from students or awayfrom school activities.
As such, Kennedy stopped participating in any locker room
prayers and he stopped praying with the other, with the other
teams, or. Leading prayers.
On the field, even if started bya student, instead he just went

(02:53:40):
back to praying himself and sometimes just in support or
perhaps because they saw it as an opportunity to do the same
thing themselves. Other students would come and
pray with him after he chose to pray.
He didn't like stop and and waveeverybody over and say I'm going
to pray now. He just stopped to pray and
other people would come join him.
What is he supposed to do? Push him away?

(02:54:02):
He's not supposed to discourage them either.
So I don't know what more you can ask for besides that.
So anyway, these are all the facts that were gathered by the
school district. They sent him a letter
explaining all this stuff and basically telling him go off
into a closet. Kennedy sent a letter back from
his lawyer that requested the district to simply issue a

(02:54:26):
clarification that the prayer that is Kennedy's private speech
and that the district not interfere with students joining
Kennedy of their own volition. He also announced that while he
would discontinue the. Other forms we already talked.
About he was going to continue to stop and say a prayer on the
50 yard line after the game, which the school had responded

(02:54:50):
that it had no objection. To Kennedy returning.
To the stadium when he was off duty to pray at the 50 yard
line. Nor was Kennedy praying while on
duty if it's not interfere with his job duties or suggest the
district's endorsement of religion.
Now again, this is is subjectivebecause nobody had alleged that
him stopping to pray for a minute was interfering with his

(02:55:11):
duties and nobody had alleged that it was suggesting
endorsement of religion by the school because their coach
decided to say a prayer anyhow on October 16th after playing
the game. After.
Playing of the game had concluded, Kennedy shook hands
with the opposing team and, as advertised, nailed to pray while

(02:55:34):
most VHS players were singing the school's fight song.
He was quickly joined by coachesand players from the opposing
team. Now again, at this point,
they're coming to support him because they're opposed to what
the school was trying to do. Members of the public rushed the
field to join Kennedy, jumping fences to access the field.
After the game to the district received calls from Satanist who

(02:55:54):
quote intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after
football games if others were allowed to.
Because the Satanists always have to try and ruin everything
good with something bad. But here's the thing, the
field's not open to the public. OK, so the Satanists have no
claim whatsoever to come and pray just because the coach

(02:56:15):
decided to pray. Coach was not holding a prayer
session for the stadium. The coach decided to say a
prayer, which inspired others tosay a prayer in the same spot,
entirely different. And again, this spectacle was
created solely. Out.
Of protest to what the school istrying to do.

(02:56:38):
So the Satanist, they have absolutely no standing in this
case. If one of the other coaches or
one of the students on the team was a quote UN quote Satanist
and wanted to say a prayer on the field, they would absolutely
have the ability and the right to do that just the same.
But some random Satanist from Portland who don't actually

(02:57:00):
believe in anything except opposing anything decent in the
world, but they have no claim because they to be on the field
at all because it's not open to the public.
Afterwards, the district sent him another letter claiming that
the prayer drew him away from his work.
Kennedy had until recently regular come to the until

(02:57:22):
recently regularly come to the locker room with the team and
other coaches following the game, and had specific
responsibility for the supervision of players in the
locker room following the games.Now, again, they're taking this
one incident of protest against the.
School to claim that. It's preventing him from doing
his job. Obviously, this quick prayer on

(02:57:42):
the 50 yard line absent the protest is not stopping him from
following the other kids in the locker room.
They were still in the middle ofsinging the fight song at this
time. So they weren't even walking off
the field to the locker room. And there's other coaches that
are also responsible for the supervision.
He's not lacking his supervisionfor the kids by stopping for 30
seconds to say a prayer, aside from the fact that most of the

(02:58:04):
kids from the team join him otherwise.
And so he was supervising them while he was saying the prayer.
But again, the district emphasized that it he was happy
to accommodate Kennedy's desire to prey on the job in a way that
did not interfere with his duties or risks.
Risk perception of endorsement, not actual endorsement

(02:58:25):
perception. And if you look at the
photograph of the event that supposedly everybody rushed the
field, there's actually not thatmany people in the field.
And there's only a circle of maybe 15 people surrounding him,
while there's also a bunch of other football players and stuff
that are just aimlessly walking around.

(02:58:47):
But I digress. The BHS players, after singing
the fight song, join Kennedy at midfield after he stood up from
praying as well on October 26th.That game also featured some
state representatives that came to pray to shows with him to
show their support. Anyway, let's get down to her
argument on why she dissented inthis case from saying that he

(02:59:10):
was allowed to say a prayer evenif it was visible to the public
and his players. She says the Establishment
Clause prohibits states from adopting laws quote respecting
an establishment of religion. She conveniently leaves out the
part in that it says Congress shall make no law respecting an

(02:59:30):
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. So she claims that the
Establishment Clause prohibits states from adopting laws
respecting the establishment of religion, but it doesn't.
It prohibits Congress specifically.
So even the 14th Amendment wouldn't necessarily apply to

(02:59:51):
the states in this case. The 14th Amendment of course,
made sure that the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to
the states. But since this this part of the
Constitution specifically says Congress.
IE federal Congress. It wouldn't necessarily apply to

(03:00:12):
the states because the states don't necessarily have
Congresses, first of all. And second of all, it was
already specifically narrowed. It doesn't say that the
government shall make no law, itsays that Congress shall make no
law. So as long as it's a State House
and not Congress, theoretically that still wouldn't violate the

(03:00:33):
First Amendment nor the. 14th but of course.
She changed the wording of that in order to justify her opinion.
Hypocrisy #1 or? 10 whatever we're.
On anyway, she says, the establishment.
Clause protects this. Freedom by commanding a
separation of church and state. That, of course, comes from

(03:00:54):
Cutter V Wilkinson, something that I entirely disagree with.
And it's important to note that the words separation of church
and state appear nowhere in the Constitution, and they appear
nowhere in precedent until 2005.This is a brand new concept.

(03:01:16):
What the establishment? Clause actually means.
As she goes on to explain, she says at its core this means
forbidding, quote, sponsorship, financial support, and active
involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.
That comes from Waltz V New Yorkin 1970.

(03:01:38):
And it makes far more sense. The whole point of the
Establishment Clause from the perspective of the founders was
to prevent the church from having influence over the laws
of this country. It was not to prevent the
government from doing things like putting in God we trust on
our money. It was to prevent the church

(03:01:59):
from being able to have undue influence in our government.
It was not to prevent Christianswho were voters from voting for
Christian things. That's not what it was for.
It was to prevent. The establishment of the.
Church, which was essentially the strongest government at the
time, from trying to force powerinto our nation, and therefore

(03:02:25):
it was to separate the establishment of the Church with
our government, but it was not to separate the ideals.
Of the church. From the government, if that was
what the people voted for, whichby the way, through our history,
it overwhelmingly is. What the people have voted.
For she pulls another quote and says, in the context of public

(03:02:48):
schools, it means that the statecannot, quote, use its public
school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sex in the
dissemination of their doctrinesor ideals.
That comes from Illinois V Boardof Education School District

(03:03:09):
1948. But let's pay close attention to
what that says. Public school systems cannot aid
any or all religious faiths or sex in the dissemination of
their doctrines and ideals. This man is not disseminating

(03:03:31):
doctrine or ideals as part of any sort of curriculum.
Now, she's taking this out of context to some degree, because
this particular case that she isciting had some very key
specifics that led to. The court deciding.
That it it was disseminating religious materials or ideals

(03:03:57):
with taxpayer funds on behalf ofthe church.
Let me get read you this this synopsis here from oyez.org.
oyez.org. It says in an opinion written by
Justice Black, the majority heldthat the program violated the
establishment cause. The court reasoned that the use

(03:04:18):
of tax supported property for religious instruction and the
close cooperation. Another key part of this was the
close cooperation between the school authorities and the
religious council, because pupils were required to attend
school and were. Released in.
Part from that legal duty if they attended the religious

(03:04:38):
classes by the church. The court found that the that
the champagne system was, quote,beyond question, a utilization
of tax established and tax supported public school system
to aid religious groups and to spread the faith.
In his lone descent, Justice Stanley Foreman Reed objected to

(03:04:58):
the majority board's interpretation of the
Establishment Clause. And so here's the thing, even
somebody like me who believes that certain Christian
principles or even certain Biblelessons being taught in schools
wouldn't violate the Establishment Clause, I believe
that that case was still ruled correctly because the school was

(03:05:18):
giving special exception to kidsthat attended this church,
essentially that they weren't giving to the other students
and. I still would.
Believe in the opt out ability, similar to the issue at hand in
the other case, but of. Course she can't make.
Her argument here, unless she's manipulating the facts, she

(03:05:41):
continues, saying. Indeed, the court has been
particularly vigilant in. Monitoring.
Compliance with the Establishment Clause in
elementary and secondary schools.
The reasons motivating this vigilance in here in the nature
of schools themselves and young people they serve.
The 2 are relevant here. And here is where the bulk of

(03:06:03):
the hypocrisy comes from. So listen carefully and keep in
mind everything that I have readfrom the prior decision where
she says that mere exposure to these books, nevermind that it's
inner worked in the curriculum, nevermind that it's backed up by
coercion by the teachers and lying to parents and all that
stuff. It mere exposure to it is not

(03:06:25):
itself a violation even in a public school.
That's the argument that she makes in The Descent in the last
case. Now listen to this.
First, government neutrality towards religion is particularly
important in the public school context, given the role public
schools play in our society. The public school is at once the

(03:06:46):
symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for
promoting our common destiny, meaning that in no activity of
the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in
schools. Families entrust public schools
with the education of their children on the understanding

(03:07:06):
that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance
views that may conflict with theprivate beliefs of the student
and his or her family. Accordingly, the Establishment
Clause prescribes public schoolsfrom conveying or attempting to
convey a message that is favoredor preferred.

(03:07:29):
Second, schools face a higher risk of unconstitutionally
coercing support or participation in religion or its
exercise than other government entities.
The state exerts great authorityin coercive power in schools as
a general matter through mandatory attendance
requirements. Moreover, the state exercises

(03:07:52):
that great authority over children, who are uniquely
susceptible to the subtle coercive pressure.
Children are particularly vulnerable to coercion.
Because of their quote. Emulation of teachers as role
models and susceptibility to peer pressure.
Accordingly, this Court has emphasized that the State may

(03:08:13):
not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, pays
primary and secondary school children in the dilemma of
choosing between participating with all that implies or
protesting in public school given the twin Establishment
Clause concerns of the endorsement.
And coercion. It is unsurprising that the

(03:08:33):
court has consistently held integrating prayer into public
school activities to be unconstitutional, including when
a student participation is not aformal requirement or prayer is
silent. Now it's important that she said
there has consistently held thatintegrating prayer into public
school activities to be unconstitutional.

(03:08:55):
That's not exactly what the court has ruled in the past.
She's definitely trying to strengthen a a argument that the
court precedent does not actually uphold, at least to
that level of certainty. But she's also conflating 2
things yet again because. He was not.

(03:09:16):
Integrating the prayer. And the only argument for
integrating the prayer was perhaps the praying in the
locker room beforehand that, again, the students were already
doing before he got there and hejust started participating in.
But you could maybe make the argument that that would be
integrating the prayer into the football program again, even
though that there was no mandatory involvement and there

(03:09:37):
was no accusations of, you know,favoritism or punishing people
that didn't participate. But he agreed to stop doing
that. So it's irrelevant later, she
says, permitting a school coach to lead students and others he.
Invited onto the. Field in prayer at a predictable
time after each game could only be viewed as post game tradition

(03:09:58):
occurring with the approval of school administration.
This court has recognized that students face immense social
pressure students. Look up to their.
Teachers and coaches as role models and seek their approval.
Students also depend on this approval for tangible benefits.
So what she is arguing in this case is that basically the mere

(03:10:19):
fact that the school is doing it, or in this case, really what
she's arguing is the mere fact that it's even happening on
school grounds, potentially by somebody that is school faculty,
is coercion. But in the other case, she's
arguing literally the exact. Opposite that.
The mere fact that the school has incorporated it into the

(03:10:42):
curriculum and is instructing teachers on how to incorporate
this behavior into their daily education of students is not
coercion. What?
Fuck you. Let's go.
I'm going to go. Sorry that.
One always gets me. I'm going to.
I'm going to go ahead and illustrate this very simply and

(03:11:03):
very quickly by just rereading alittle bit of what we just read.
But replacing the words religionand religious with LGBTQ
ideology. The public school is at once the
symbol of our democracy. Now keep.
In mind but. As I'm doing this, this is
Sotomayor's descent, and all I'mdoing is swapping the words from

(03:11:26):
1 descent with the other, or notthe words, but the the context,
the fact of the case, which is in this case about religion, in
that case about LGB ideology. So anyway, I continue at once
the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for
promoting our common destiny. Meaning that in no activity of

(03:11:46):
the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than it
is in our schools. Family entrust public schools
with the education of their children on the understanding
that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance
LGBT views that may conflict with the private beliefs of a
student and his or her family. Accordingly, the Establishment

(03:12:10):
Clause prescribes public schoolsfrom conveying or attempting to
convey a message of LGBTQ beliefs that is favored or
preferred. The State exerts great authority
in coercive power in schools and, as a general matter,
through mandatory attendance requirements.
Moreover, the State exercises that great authority over

(03:12:33):
children, who are uniquely susceptible to coercive
pressure. Children are particularly
vulnerable to coercion because of their emulation of teachers
as role models and susceptibility to peer pressure.
Accordingly, this Court has emphasized that the State may
not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, place
primary and secondary school children in the dilemma of

(03:12:55):
choosing between participating with all that implies or
protesting in the LGBTQ exercisein a public school.
Given the Twin Establishment Clause concerns of endorsement
and coercion, it is unsurprisingthat the Court has consistently
held that integrating LGBTQ materials into public schools

(03:13:17):
activities to be unconstitutional, including when
student participation is not a formal requirement or the
reading is silent. Permitting a school coach to
lead students and others he invited onto the field in
reading an LGBTQ book at a predictable time after each game

(03:13:38):
could only be viewed as post game tradition occurring with,
quote, the approval of the school administration.
This court has recognized that students face immense social
pressure. Students look up to their
teachers and coaches as role models and seek their approval.
Students also depend on this approval for tangible benefits.

(03:13:59):
Boy, these arguments sure sound entirely different than the
argument she's. Making in the.
Other case where the school is using curriculum to teach LGB
ideology. It's almost like she's being a
complete. Hypocrite.
Or maybe forming her opinions based on her ideology and not

(03:14:21):
based on consistent principles. It's all about the greater good,
got it. But further down, she goes on.
To make this argument and. She's saying that in this case,
we've previously argued that this is still in Bremerton, by

(03:14:41):
the way. She's saying that we've
previously argued that the government's actions cannot be
isolated from their greater context because it is the job of
the Supreme Court to protect thewill and rights of the citizens
against the government. The whole job of the Supreme
Court is to keep the government in line.

(03:15:03):
And therefore, the Supreme Courthas ruled in the past, and
there's precedent. That.
The Supreme Court cannot only focus on one little thing just
because the government wants to.It has to pay attention to the
whole context of a matter to determine its constitutionality.
Now, she's claiming in this caseof Bremerton that that applies

(03:15:26):
here. She says so in this she says the
court's presidents how precedents, however, do not
permit isolating government actions from their context in
determining whether they violatethe Establishment Clause.
And So what she's trying to do by making this argument?
Is say. That Kennedy represents the

(03:15:46):
government in this case because he's employed as a coach.
He's employed as a coach at the public school.
Therefore, Kennedy is the government and he's violating
the Establishment Clause protections of all of the
students. Because of that.
There's no consistency there because Kennedy is the

(03:16:07):
individual in this case. And the.
School is the government. The school is who Kennedy, the
individual is suing for violating his rights.
This isn't about the students didn't bring a lawsuit claiming
that Kennedy was violating theirrights.
Kennedy brought a lawsuit claiming that the school was
violating his rights, therefore that strict scrutiny of the

(03:16:28):
government should be on the school and not on Kennedy.
Because what she's trying to sayis we can't only look at these
three incidents that got him fired.
We have to look at all of his behavior, including the behavior
that he agreed with the school to stop doing and therefore is

(03:16:49):
not on topic at all for the lawsuit.
The school acknowledged that they came to an agreement about
that other stuff and that it's entirely irrelevant other than
it was past behavior. And she's saying no, we have to
include that past behavior because he is the government and
we can't just ignore previous context.
But that's not the case. This In this case, the school is

(03:17:12):
the government and Kennedy is the individual.
And she knows that Sotomayor is not dumb.
She's a very educated woman. She knows exactly that what she
is arguing is nonsensical, but she has to argue it anyway
because she has. To come to the correct.
Opinion already prescribed by her ideology, not by principal.

(03:17:38):
And that's the problem with these liberal justices, and
that's why you see such blatant hypocrisy being had in this
first case that we're going through.
And I think we're probably goingto find a lot more in the
further cases. I think I've more than beaten
this horse. So we're going to go ahead and
cut it here on this one. I know I went a little bit off

(03:18:00):
the rails, but I'm going on the next 4-2.
There's no way around it, guys. I.
These descents are just nonsensical.
Anytime the three levels are joining in a descent, you can
pretty much guarantee that it's ideologically motivated and not
principally. Consistent.
Because it can't be and while this case was decided correctly

(03:18:25):
and I agree with the. Opinion of the Court.
The school cannot force this material into the classrooms,
especially against the will of the majority of parents of that
school district, but in particular without allowing the
ability to opt out of the material period.
That is the decision of this case.
That is what they decided they did not say, and these are

(03:18:49):
important because you'll hear these arguments.
From from. The liberal media, they did not
say that schools cannot have LGBcontent.
They didn't say that they didn'tschool.
They didn't say the schools cannot have LGB content in their
curriculum. They did not say that schools
must shield kids from any possible LGBTQ content, you

(03:19:14):
know, available or, or that is presented in a classroom.
They simply said that you cannotweave this ideological
information into the curriculum,no matter what it's about,
whether it's about English or history or science, it doesn't
matter. And not give parents the ability
to opt out. That's all they said as far as

(03:19:39):
what practical effect this is. Going to have down the road I.
Think we'll find that it has very little They generally do,
but that remains to be seen. I will.
Update you. I think what we'll do here is it
pretty much always turns out I always try to be as as brief as
possible as Supreme Court cases and it never works.

(03:20:01):
But what I'm going to do is do 1episode on these 5.
Supreme Court cases each, if some of them do end up being
pretty short, then I might, you know, squeeze 2 into 1 or
whatever. But nonetheless, we'll cover
each of the five. And then maybe at the end, I'll
do a synopsis on how these things are kind of practically

(03:20:22):
shaking out or anything that we might have missed.
Let me know what you guys think.JBU at usa.com, you can send me
an e-mail, theirx.com back slash, JBU under score show.
Don't forget to check out the American Militia project, x.com,
back slash Militia under score Project, and you can find all of
the episodes on Anchor dot FM back slash JBU.

(03:20:42):
You can find us on Spotify, Apple podcast, all that good
stuff with that. My name is Chris and this has
been just between us. You understand what I'm saying?
I get killed for telling you this.
Shit kill walking the. Doggy.

(03:21:11):
Bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye.I can want to be a.
Little bit water, yeah. This is only between us.
This is just between. US.
Perfect. Perfect, perfect.
Perfect, Perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}JBU Ep.021.25 Supreme Court Drops Hammer; Facts From The Source