6-28-25 The Weekend Hour 1: Trump vs CASA – National Injunctions

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie,
You're doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with
Michael Brown broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend
with Michael Brown. Glad to have you joined the program today.
You know a couple of rules of the engagement if
you want to If you want to interact with the program,
the easiest way to do it, obviously, is to send
me a text message, which you can do anytime you

(00:23):
want to podcast live delay doesn't make any difference on
your text message. Out the numbers three three one zero
three three three one zero three, use the keyword Mike
or Michael, and then be sure and follow me on
x formerly Twitter at Michael Brown USA. That's the one
I'm most active on. You'll find all the others too.
But anyway, let's get started. What a week? One? It

(00:43):
was a fast week, Two was a busy week, and
three there was all a lot of stuff going on.
So let's work backwards if we want to, Because to me,
the most the most amazing news occurred with the Supreme
Court decisions that started getting released on Friday, and I
think the biggest one, the one that sparked the biggest

(01:07):
I think discussion on within the cabal, was the case
of Trump versus CASA. That was the case that involved
all of these national injunctions, these nationwide injunctions, however you
want to phrase it. The court ruling in that case
really did ignore a firestorm of debate, and I my

(01:32):
wife gave me the ugliest look yesterday because I know
I'm weird, but I love to read Supreme Court decisions
and I was particularly interested in this one for a
couple of reasons. One is because I've always believed that
these national, nationwide injunctions were unconstitutional, and I believe they

(01:56):
went far beyond the authority of a federal district child
trial judge, which is the lowest level in the in
the federal judicial system. Those trial judges are generally under
Article three and under the under the statute that creates them,
limited to cases and controversies, which means they're limited to

(02:18):
deciding cases that are in front of them. So if
it's you know, if it's oh, it's Brown versus Smith,
it's Michael Brown versus Joe Smith, and we're suing each
other on a contract issue or even a constitutional issue.
I think that, you know, Joe Smith has violated my

(02:38):
constitutional rights. The judge is limited to those two parties,
and he has his decision has to be about the
case or the controversy between those two parties. I really
do want you to understand this because I'm going to
get in some more detail about the case. So it's

(02:58):
it's limited. They're limited, did too cases and controversies before,
and those are cases and controversies regarding the parties dead
in front of that judge. So when his when the
ruling comes out, the ruling applies to those two parties.
If if I am, let's say that I am Donald

(03:22):
Trump and Brown versus Smith is a case going on
in Federal District Court in Denver, Colorado, Well, the judge
cannot issue a ruling that affects someone who is not
a party to the case. So if Donald Trump sitting
in you know, at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue, has not

(03:43):
intervened in the case, he's not he's not filed as
a third party defendant or even a third party plaintiff.
He's just not a party to the case. Well, then
the ruling whatever ruling that the judge makes about Brown
versus Smith applies too Brown and Smith nobody else, So
it doesn't, in fact, it doesn't affect Donald Trump. Think

(04:05):
about another example. Let me give you this. In fact,
this is a case that I that I not a case,
but a fact situation that just described in the court decision.
You have neighbors that are fighting over noise. And you
know because you know because Michael, my producer, he and
I are neighbors, and he's holding him backyard, you know,

(04:27):
Fourth of July barbecue party, and the noise is too loud.
And he does every single weekend, not just four fourth
of July, but every weekend. He owns a barbecue. And
every weekend he's got the loud music playing, He's got
the boomboxes and the stereo and everything playing. He's got
both of his friends, because that's all he's got. He's
only got He's got both of his friends. But they
invite all of their friends, and his backyard's got one

(04:49):
hundred people and it's noisy and crowdy, and I'm trying
to go to bed early, and I'm sick of it.
So I file a lawsuit about a public nuisance he's
creating a public nuisance too noisy. So it's Brown versus
Co in federal District court in Los Angeles. Well, if
the judge enters an injunction telling Michael Cosio, my producer,

(05:11):
that hey cut out the noise on the weekend, well
guess what that injunction benefits the neighbor that's next. You
know that's two houses down or a house behind me,
or three houses down. But the injunction does not apply
to them. They just benefit from it. But they weren't

(05:33):
parties to it, so they can't claim any sort of
rights or anything else. And if they wanted to on
their own go after Michael Cosio for making too much noise,
they could have beat me to the punch and suit
and filed that lawsuit earlier, but they didn't do it.
I was the one because I'm just an a hole
and I wanted to you know, I wanted to shut
down the party. Well I don't care about shutting the

(05:54):
other parties. I just want them to be quiet. But
they're not part of the other neighbors aren't part of it,
yet they still benefit from it. Now, if it involved money,
damages or anything else, nobody would think that they're entitled
to the money damages because they weren't parties of the lawsuit.
The court goes on and I'll get into more detail
in this just a minute, but the court goes on

(06:15):
to describe, for example, under federal rule of Civil Procedural
number twenty three, Rule twenty three. You may hear a
lot of this from you know, other lawyers, those are
class action lawsuits, and real twenty three has very specific
and rigorous tests to determine a class. So that if

(06:37):
I think, well, I'm sitting here looking at my bacbook
pro if I think Apple Computer has a design flaw
or they're failing to you know, their battery life isn't
what they advertised or whatever, and I want to sue
Apple Computer for a class action, then there are very

(06:59):
specific requessronments that my lawyers have to go through to
define the class. Who are all the people affected by
Apple's failure to or has been misleading about battery life
or anything else. I've got to very well defined that class,
and there's all sorts of procedures that you have to

(07:19):
go through that the court will very specifically define the class.
And then at some point, if I win the lawsuit.
You've get you've gotten these emails before. Hey, there was
a there was a class action lawsuit. And the class
action lawsuit involved everybody that bought I don't know, Folger's

(07:41):
coffee for a certain period of time, or you know,
bought a BMW or a Ford Kia or a Tesla,
and you're entitled to compensation. You don't have to do anything,
but if you had, if you owned or bought or
did something in a certain period of time, you remember
that class and you're going to get compensation. But you

(08:01):
have to file some sort of you know claim you've
got You've got to put your name in and say yes,
I did that or I bought something, and I'm part
of the claim, and then you'll get a check. I
got to check one time with literally thirty five cents
in a class action lawsuit. Well, the court said, if
you want to include everybody else in the country, then
the remedy for that is a class action lawsuit. It's

(08:23):
not a nationwide injunction. So back to the case. The firestorm,
or in this case, Trump versus CASA, is not just
for its implications on executive power, but also because the
Justice justices are starting to snipe at each other and

(08:45):
it's freaking hilarious. We'll get to that in a minute.
So we came with Michael Brown. Follow me an X.
It's at Michael Brown USA. Be sure and subscribe to
the podcast the situation with Michael Brown. Gheit that subscribe button.
Leave us a five star review so we can get
up higher in the algorithms. I'll explain why this sniping
is hilarious. Next, thanks for tuning into the Weekend with

(09:12):
Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. We're talking
about Trump versus Casa, the national injunction case that finally
reached the Supreme Court decision which was released. You know,
the way these court decisions just a little inside baseball,
The way the courts reach these opinions is after they
hear the oral arguments, at some point, the justices and
their clerks go into a conference room and they kind

(09:34):
of get a general feel of, you know, how's everybody
feel about this case, And they get a general feeling,
and then they excuse the clerks and they have a
sometimes well, I think in this case they had knocked down,
drag out. There's probably some yelling and screaming going on
because the opinion is unlike any opinion I've read in

(10:00):
my entire life. Now, I've not read every Supreme Court
decision ever handed down, but I've read a hell of
a lot more Supreme Court decisions probably than you have.
And this one was just freaking hilarious because they're really
sniping at each other. But once they kick the clerks
out of the conference room and they kind of figure out,
you know, where everybody stands on the case, then the

(10:25):
Chief Justice will assign one of the justices to write
the opinion, and will you know, the dissenters the minority
will decide, you know, who's going to write the dissenting opinion.
Then they go back to their respective offices, and whoever
is writing the majority opinion starts writing that majority opinion

(10:47):
along with their clerks. The clerks really do write it,
although the justices themselves will basically say here's what I believe,
here's what I think the reasoning is, and they start
writing the opinion. And then once the draft is kind
of in a form for everyone to start picking apart
or you know, saying, well, I would say this right,

(11:08):
the majority circulates among all of the justices. They all
get to see the majority opinion, and so that helps
the descent to start writing their opinion. Then when the
descent gets their opinion, they start circulating all of those
so everybody gets to see what everybody else is writing,
and that goes through all sorts of iterations until they
finally reach the final opinion. Even when the final opinion

(11:33):
is ready, if there's something in there that the Chief
Justice thinks is inappropriate, like attacks on other judges, on
the other justices, the group, the majority group can decide
whoever's writing the majority opinion, Hey, why don't you take
that out, or let's soften the tone down, let's change

(11:54):
the language a little bit. In this case, they left
it in there, which means that the Chief Justice, along
with the five others in the majority, saw what was
written about Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, and they left it
in there. And I think rightfully, So I went through,

(12:15):
as I said, I read the entire opinion. I honestly,
I didn't read every word of Justice so to my
Oar's Descent, but just enough to get really her reasoning
because I wanted to understand her reasoning. And then I
read all of Katanji Brown Jackson's descent because it really
is one of the most important. If I were grading it,
if I were still a law law school professor and

(12:35):
I was grading it, I would have given her a D,
maybe an F because it's it's political. It's not I mean,
she tried to throw in a few case citations, but
very few, if any. It was pretty political, and in fact,
legal scholars and court observers describe her descent as both

(12:59):
provocative and polarizing. Her descent, characterized by even others as alarmist,
drew a pointed rebuke from Justice Amy Colemy Barrett, and
I think that signals some deep tensions within the court
over the role of judicial restraint and the limits of
injunctive relief. So let's get to the case, handed down yesterday, Friday,

(13:23):
the twenty seventh. It addressed the contentious issue of these
universal injunctions court orders issued by district judges that block
executive actions nationwide. It affects, in other words, it affected
parties beyond the immediate plaintiffs, and this particular case stemmed
from challenges to President Trump's executive orders, which faced a

(13:44):
barrage of harsh injunctions from lower courts, and all the
orders sought to halt the policies ranging from everything from
immigration enforcement to government downsizing, and it sparked, I believe,
rightfully so, accusations of judicial overreach. As I said earlier,
The decision was sixty three, and the Supreme Court ruled

(14:06):
that federal judges do not have the authority to issue
nationwide injunctions that extend beyond providing the relief to the
individual plaintiffs. In front of that judge Amy Comy Barrett,
writing for the majority, Effectively, she argued that these sweeping
injunctions disrupt the disrupt the balance of power, effectively allowing

(14:28):
a single district judge to halt executive actions across the
entire country. Now, it is a procedural victory for the
Trump administration, but it's even more important than that, in
my opinion. Justice Brown Jackson, the Court's newest member and
a Biden appointee, a DEI appointee, in my opinion, wrote

(14:51):
a descending opinion that's drawn praise and criticism for its
impassioned tone, and I want to emphasize I do believe
it's an impassioned tone. She's making a political argument. She
warned the majority that their decision creates a zone of
lawlessness where the executive branch could act with impunity, unchecked
by judicial oversight, and she argues that restricting universal injunctions

(15:14):
somehow undermines their role as judges in safeguarding the constitutional protections,
allowing the executive, in her words, to continue doing something
that a court has determined violates the Constitution. That language
is amazing because it departs from the measured tone that

(15:37):
is typically associated with Supreme Court opinions. She describes the
ruling as an existential threat to the law, suggesting that
it could actually encourage executive lawlessness, that it could erode
public trust and democratic institutions. It resonated with those protesters
outside the court who carry signs decrying the decision as

(15:58):
a blow to democracy. There's some legal analysts that note
that her rhetoric actually echoes the fervor of those demonstrators,
which kind of raises the question whether her opinion was
tailored more to public sentiment than it was to legal reasoning. Now,

(16:19):
Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, did not let Jackson's
dissent go unanswered. In a sharply worded response, Barrett described
Jackson's position as extreme and at odds with more than
two centuries worth a precedent. She accused Jackson of advocating
for an imperial judiciary that overstepped its constitutional bounds while decrying, ironically,

(16:45):
an imperial executive. So she was saying, in layman's terms,
you sit and kind of bitch and moan about an
imperial executive, but what you would do is replace it
with an imperial judiciary. That critique was joined by a
majority of the justices, and that is a rare move,

(17:07):
and that underscored the depth of their disagreement with Justice
Jackson's approach. I would just simply say this to non lawyers,
Justice Jackson, Brine, Jackson Brown, I'm always trying to say,
Jackson Brine, Justice Brown. Jackson actually sounded like a member
of Congress. She sounded like a protester. She sounded like

(17:29):
a talking head on television. She didn't sound like she
had no she had very little legal reasoning. She sounded
like somebody on MSNBC. I know that shouldn't surprise you,
but I find it disappointing, much very very disappointing. So
what's her judicial philosophy? I think her judicial philosophy is

(17:53):
one of politicism. Oh, let's look at the political aspects,
not the legal aspects. I'll tell you why next tonight.
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of
talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing

(18:13):
a heck of a job the weekend with Michael Brown. Hey,
so we came with Michael Brown. Thanks for joining in.
Glad to have you with me. We're talking about the
Supreme Court case. So it really raises a question about
uh And I don't want to get to legalese here,
but people often tell you know, people have judicial philosophies,

(18:35):
And for example, I've talked about my view of what
judges should be doing, and that is to look at
the plane meaning of the language of a statute and
then taking the plane meaning of those words, you apply
that to the facts of a case. Originalism, What what
do those words mean? And how do you apply that?

(18:56):
And if you had you know, if if maybe the
meaning of words have changed a little bit, what's the
original meaning of the words when that statute or that
constitution was written, and apply it to today's facts in
front of the court. Well, since she joined the Court
in twenty two as the first black woman and a
former federal public defender, she's emerged as as kind of

(19:18):
vocal member of the court's liberal wing, and her descents
in cases have criticized the conservative majority for favoring moneyed
interests and applying legal standards inconsistently. Well. First of all,
money moneyed interests is a phrase that frankly shouldn't be

(19:39):
in a judicial philosophy. It doesn't make any difference how
rich or poor you are. It doesn't make any difference
whether you're a corporation or an individual. I mean, in
some technical sense, it might in some cases. But to
have a philosophy that says moneyed interests just screams that
you are what focused on and we shouldn't be focused

(20:02):
on class or how wealthy or poor you are in
a legal proceeding. There was a case called Diamond Alternative
Energy where she accused the court of contorting the standing
doctor in other words, do you have the right to
be in front of a court as trying to benefit
the fossil fuel companies? And then she warned that that

(20:22):
kind of decision damages the court's reputation as an impartial arbiter.
In a case called Stanley, she sparred with Justice Gorsuch
over textualism, which is, you know, what's the text mean,
accusing the majority of using that as some sort of
pretext to achieve the desired outcome. So that's kind of

(20:45):
positioned her as a justice unafraid to challenge her colleagues,
which is fine, but doing so in approach that is
more about her political philosophy and not her judicial full life.
And I just think that's wrong. And despite that criticism,
excuse me, Jackson's dissent, as you would expect, has found

(21:11):
a very receptive audience among progressive legal scholars and legal activists.
Michelle Goodwin, she's a constitutional law professor at Georgetown, and
she's quite liberal. She's just the opposite of Jonathan Turley.
For example, she praised Jackson for calling upon her colleagues
to uphold the commitment to equal justice and argue that

(21:33):
Jackson's bold statements affect, you know, reflect a deep understanding
of how judicial decisions affect ordinary Americans, particularly marginalized communities.
I thought we were all equal, whether you're in a
marginalized community or not. The law should apply to everyone
the same slate. The New Republic obviously very liberal, you know,

(21:58):
magazines come out and support her. In fact, in an
article entitled Kintajie Brown Jackson wants to save the Supreme
Court from itself, The New Republic argued that her descents
highlight a dire problem of corporate favoritism. I mean, it's
just absurd, But it also this case underscores a broader

(22:19):
tension within the Supreme Court, which is facing declining public trust.
You know, there was a twenty twenty four Pew Research
Center survey that found that fifty one percent of Americans
view the Court unfavorably historic low. And now Jackson's dissent,
with its warnings about the court's legitimate legitimacy, actually taps
into that kind of sentiment. But her approach risked actually

(22:43):
making the problem worse because the very polarization that she
critiques she's creating. So this public sparring between Barrett and
Jackson as a verte, which some has described as a
virtual slope fest, is unusual for a court that keeps
that kind of stuff behind the scenes and focuses squarely

(23:07):
on the legal issues. There's some reports out that suggests
a personal feuds among the justices have gotten even more tense.
Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, spent nine hundred words
dismantling her arguments. That's very unusual, and for Jackson, her

(23:31):
discent marks a very defining moment in her tenure. Her
willingness to speak out, even at the cost of alienating
colleagues positions her as a leading force for a voice
for the liberal wing. But her her critics argue that
her rhetoric risks undermining the Court's authority because it's going
to fuel perceptions of partisanship. So the Trump versus costs

(23:54):
are ruling and the ensuing clash between Barrett and Jackson.
This is a real pivotal moment for the Supreme Court
because at state, not only is it the scope of
judicial power, but the tone and tendor of the Court's
public discourse. While Barrett's majority opinion tries to reign in
judicial overreach, Jackson's sounds in alarm about the erosion of

(24:18):
checks and balances. So, as a country, while we're grappling
with these competing visions, one thing becomes clear. The Supreme
Court is now a battleground for the soul of American jurisprudence.
You know when you have and I think this is
brought on by the Democrats, who for decades now have

(24:43):
seen the Supreme Court as this is how we're going
to implement our political philosophy. Because we can't get it
done through Congress, and because now we're in the minority
in both the House the Senate and we don't have
the White House, we want the Court to do what
we can't get done politically, which means they're pushing all

(25:04):
these political decisions onto the Court, which is the last
place they belong. It's a very interesting situation and it's
also a very precarious and dangerous position for the country.
The Court's supposed to be a nutriil. You go back
to Marbury versus Madison, the very first decision ever decided

(25:25):
by the Supreme Court. They ruled that in that case
that President Madison did not have the authority to do
what he did, but they also recognized that they had
no authority to enforce their decision, meaning that all we
do is just rule on whether something's constitutional or not constitutional,

(25:51):
or something is within the statute or not within the statute.
They have no enforcement power whatsoever. That's left to legitimacy.
And what I think that Justice Jackson is doing here
is destroying the Court's legitimacy because she's playing the political
game that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries

(26:13):
and all the Democrat leadership want the Court to play.
I don't want the Court to play political games, even
when they rule against us, even when the like if
if the majority had been on Sonya Solda my oars side,
I would have disagreed with them. But as I said earlier,

(26:35):
I respect her descent because her descent makes a legal
argument for why why she would have ruled the other way.
She just happened to be in the majority. Justice Jackson
doesn't do that. She makes a political argument, not a
legal argument. She's politicizing the US Supreme Court. And I

(26:55):
think this is why this majority opinion, in which they
say there's no legal basis there's in two hundred plus years,
there's no legal basis for what she says. There's no
constitutional basis for what she says, and in fact, we
would argue that she wants to get rid of what
she believes to be an imperial presidency and substitute an

(27:18):
imperial presidency with an imperial judiciary. Those are scathing criticisms
meaning you don't know the law. Sister. Not only do
you not know the law, but you're trying to make
us the king. You're trying to make us the ones
that are going to say to the executive branch, an

(27:39):
equal branch of government, you can't do this thing, and
we're going to allow a trial judge in a single
district court to halt you nationwide from doing what you
want to do. You know what's interesting about that is
I can't do that. I mean, if I go sue,
I shouldn't be able to. In my lawsuit in federal

(28:02):
court in Denver, Colorado, the decision the judge makes there
should not stop the president anywhere else in the country
from doing what he's doing, only in the case that
I bring. And now the court has upheld that and
said that is precisely right. Nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional. They're

(28:26):
not even allowed under the statute that creates these Article
three courts, So stop it. And they've remanded the case back,
meaning that they did not they did not address the
underlying basis of one of those nationwide injunctions, which has
to do with birthright citizenship. The court said that's not

(28:50):
the argument in front of us. The argument in front
of us is about nationwide injunctions. We've decided that we
will wait and decide the birthright citizenship case if and
when it finally gets to us. Now, I know that
some on the conservative side are upset because they wanted

(29:10):
that decided, But that wasn't the case in front of them.
The case in front of them was whether or not
all of these judges around the country can issue nationwide injunctions.
And they answered that and said no. And if you
want to try to do something on a national basis,
there's already a rule for that, and it's Rule twenty three.

(29:33):
And in fact, in some of the concurring opinions supporting
the majority opinion, they warned, judges, don't start broadening the
rules about class action trying to enforce your thing to
stop Trump by using class action lawsuits. You have to

(29:53):
follow the law. There too, very well written opinion. I
would say kudos to justify Barrett because she followed the law.
And then Gorsuch and Alito emphasized, don't try to do
a run around with a class action. If you're going
to do a class action, you have to strictly follow

(30:14):
those rules too. Wow. What a day for the Supreme Court.
I'll be right back. Welcome back to the weekend with
Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. I appreciate
you tuning in. So the hits just kept on coming.

(30:35):
On Friday, out of the Supreme Court, there was a
second opinion just that came out that the back to
religious parents, they're opposed to LGBTQ plus school books. Also
again in a sixty three vote. The case Move versus Taylor,
challenged the Montgomery County, Maryland Public schools their refusal to

(30:59):
notify parents or to even allow exemptions when LGBTQ plus
content was included in early grey curricula. The decision will
return the lower court rulings and I think will have
a significant implication for how public schools all across the
country handle religious objections to inl to inclusive educational materials.

(31:24):
It raised the question about whether the Montgomery Public County
school system infringed upon the parents' rights under their First
Amendment to exercise their religion when it included story books
that had LGBTQ plus characters in its curriculum without allowing
the families to opt out based on religious beliefs. Justice

(31:48):
Alito wrote in the ruling that parents challenging the board's
introduction of the LGBTQ plus inclusive story books aaw along
with his decision to with whole opt out, are indeed
entitled to our plamonary injunction because without an injunction, the
parents will continue to suffer an unconstitutional burden on their

(32:12):
religious exercise, and such a burden unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.
You know how much longer we have to deal with this,
because we've already dealt with it in Colorado. Because in
Colorado we had, you know, the we had the bake

(32:35):
a cake case, and we had the website case. So
Jack Phillips in the in the cake case refuse to
bake a or design a particular cake for a gay
couple that wanted to get married. But Jack Phillips said,

(32:55):
but I can tell you these cakes, and there are
all these other places you can go too, So I'm
not refusing to sell you a cake. I'm just refusing
to design a cake for you. But I'll sell you cakes,
but I just won't do anything LGBTQ plus. So that
case ended up in front of the Colorado Human Rights
Commission and ultimately the Supreme Court, and it got slapped down.

(33:18):
And then we had another case where somebody else and
of course I think they're doing this just to test
these people. They then went to a Christian website designer,
would you make us a gay website? And she said, no,
I'll make you this website. I'll make you don't have
the kind of website. I'm just refusing to make this
kind of website. She was exercising her religious beliefs, her

(33:41):
deeply held religious beliefs. I'll make you a website, but
I won't include that stuff, isn't it. And again went
to the Colorade's Human Rights Commission, and again to the
Supreme Court, and again get slapped slapped down. And now
you have this case where the Maryland County school Board said,
oh no, we're not going to we're not going to

(34:02):
allow parents to opt out. How much more? How many
more times does the Supreme Court have to say that? Listen,
if you have a deeply held religious belief it is
not unconstitutional to say we would like to at least
opt our kids out. These are preschool kids. Who's who
has who should have more control over what those kids read?

(34:26):
A school board or the parents. Well, I argue that
it's the parents, and if the parents want to opt out,
the school should be required to provide an out opt
out provision. They would say, my kids don't have access
to lgbt Q plus books. We're not outlawing the books.

(34:46):
We're not banning the books. We're just saying, oh, those
parents don't want those their children to read gay queer
whatever it is, you know books. I think at least
among my gay friends, they're like, yeah, that's pretty reasonable.
You know we you know, whether they're members of Gaze

(35:07):
against Groomers, or they're just gays that are conservative, or
they're just gays are like, hey, you know what, we don't.
We don't want to push our our beliefs on anybody
else any more than we want their beliefs pushed on us.
Pretty much a libertarian live and let live philosophy. That's

(35:27):
what the court basically ruled. Uh, these parents have deeply
held religious beliefs, allow them to opt out, and by
not allowing them to opt out, you're violating their First
Amendment Freedom of Religion clause. It seems to be a
fairly simple decision, but I don't understand why. I mean

(35:52):
you take you take a conservative like me. I'm pretty
right wing. I'm many people consider me to be a
right wing nut job. Yet I have lots of gay
friends because I don't care. You know, I work with
a lot of gay people. I don't care. I don't
think anybody should care, even if it's against your religious belief.

(36:14):
Who am I to judge. I'm not the one making
that judgment. That's up to them. And if someone believes
that God think God believes that that is a sin,
well okay, I think you're free to believe that, and
I'm free to believe that. Okay. Whether I believe it's
a sin or not, as immaterial, that's their life. Just

(36:37):
like whatever religion you are, that's your choice. Do I
think you ought to be Catholic instead of a Methodist
or a Presbyterian or Hindu or whatever. No, you know what,
make your own choices, just don't in fringe of my choices. Wow,
why can we not just live and let live? I'll
be right back