Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
My wife shares my hatred for all things AI, and
in the last hour is talking a lot about the
California Bar Exam. They decided to use AI to write
some of the questions on the use non lawyers using
AI to write questions on the California Bar Exam. You know,
the most important test a lawyer ever takes in his
or her life that qualifies them as a lawyer. Determines
(00:21):
whether or not you're going to be representing people and
their lives and livelihoods and interests and money and blah
blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yeah, that bar exam.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We let a non lawyer using AI write a bunch
of the questions, and the California State Supreme Court didn't
know about it, and even people from the State Bar
Association who were supposed to oversee the bar exam they
didn't know. And they've had to massively lower what the
passing score is going to be. Oh gosh, that's the
whole thing. Anyway, I'm going to move away from California stuff.
And by the way, this is not Trevor to Kerry.
(00:50):
This is John Girardi filling in for Trevor today. Thanks
to all the guys at power Talk thanks to Trevor
Director at Right to Life of Central California RTLCC dot org.
I'm going to take my own lawyer in thoughts away
from California, myself being a lawyer, and i want to
turn to the Trump administration making these threats to have
(01:15):
the IRS look into and revoke the tax exempt status
of Harvard University.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And the immediate knee.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Jerk loser conservative reaction to it. There's this certain brand
of usually it's very libertarian leaning conservatives who seem to
care a lot more about the process of politics than
the actual end goals of politics. And President Trump is
out here, he's responding to basically Harvard getting all ticked
(01:53):
off at the President because President notes that they were
allowing all these anti Semitic protest us. They're not getting
rid of their various DEI initiatives, which, by the way,
let's understand what dei means. DEI means affirmatively doing stuff
(02:13):
discriminating in favor of groups that are deemed to be oppressed.
So treating people differently on the basis of race, a
concept that is always not fit in very well. It's
been kind of a square peg in a round hole
fitting in with federal civil rights law, which is basically,
don't discriminate, don't engage in discriminatory behavior on the basis
(02:37):
of sex, race, et cetera. Because often it seems as
though the discriminatory behavior Harvard had been engaged in, including
in the area of admissions where it lost a big
case of the Supreme Court about this was against not
just white kids, but Asian kids as well. And now
we've got this, these situations on all these college campuses
(02:57):
where Jewish kids are being.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Miss treat it.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
So your president Trump floats out on truth social Hey,
maybe if you guys are gonna keep doing this stuff,
maybe we should look into your tax exempt status. And
all these loser conservatives are like, oh, that's not a
good idea. Think of what will happen if the left
applies that to you. Think of what will happen if
(03:27):
the left applies that to the religious right, to conservative
religious organization. And this is the sort of instinct that
these people have. They are so tied to process they
(03:48):
refuse to accept a w when it's presented to them
to such a point, and they're not even that smart.
I don't think I don't think they're even like being
that clever or careful when it comes to the actual facts,
and without any sort of idea of like, hey, let's
think about this for more than five nanoseconds and think
(04:11):
about ways that maybe this was this is distinguishable.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Okay, So.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Here's Harvard and Yale and Columbia and this school in
that school. By the way, I just saw this video
the other day of a Jewish student at Yale being
blocked from walking around campus by this big group of
pro Palestinian student protesters blocking this kid seemingly because he's Jewish.
(04:42):
He's wearing a Yama cut. And I watched it and I thought, gosh,
does Yale not think does Yale think that Trump is
Trump's only gonna go after Harvard and gonna stop it? Well, Poppy,
I think it is all like going to go after
Harvard because of coll those those buffo.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
I don't I don't even know.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I don't even know enough about that world to like
pretend like I could imitate them. I'm just gonna I'm
just gonna, yeah, yeah, she's gonna wind up doing a
William f and Buckley and impersonation.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Whatever.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
So anyway, this idea that Yale thinks that they can
just continue to allow these pro Palestinian groups to engage
in stuff that seems to violate federal civil lights rights laws.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Beyond me, but.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
The Trump administration is looking at Harvard. Harvard gets gazillions
of dollars in federal grants every year. They get huge
amounts of money in federally backed student loans, huge benefit
they like. All these universities are huge beneficiaries of this.
(05:50):
They have the largest endowment of any university in the
United States. They are flush with cash. And one of
the requirements in order to receive federal funding is are
you following federal civil rights law. It's a way the
(06:12):
federal government can regulate stuff. Federal government gives out money.
Everyone wants money, and the federal government says, ooh, hold on,
before we give you this money, we have some strings attached.
And one of those strings attached is follow the Civil
Rights Acts. And it leads me to want to kind
of talk about the Civil Rights Acts and kind of
how important they are and what they actually did. Basically,
(06:36):
the Civil Rights Laws said in applying this to whether
it was universities receiving funding, whether it was private businesses
and how they operate, whether it was governmental bodies, you
cannot discriminate on the basis of and then it would
give a list of protected categories and characteristics, and it
(07:01):
wasn't a one size fits all. For different situations and
different kinds of groups and different circumstances, they might change it.
Religious groups have greater latitude to discriminate on certain categories
than non religious groups do. Catholic priesthood is only open
to guys. Federal government doesn't view the Catholic Church as
violating federal civil rights law by only allowing men.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
To become priests.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
They sort of respect that religious groups needs a certain
kind of latitude for certain kinds of things like that.
But for the most part, that's how the Civil Rights
ACTX work. It applied to private businesses, it applied to
public entities, it applied to private private entities receiving federal money,
(07:51):
and you can kind of see the practicalities of it. Okay,
the grave injustice of segregation in the South was that
you basically had, even for things that were very very
essential services, you had a private business saying I'm just
not going to serve black people in my grocery store. Well,
(08:14):
that's a huge hindrance to Black families. If there are
whole you know, you know, imagine you yourself. Think of
where you go grocery shopping. You save Marred or at
Walmart or here there or Vonn's or you know, all
the different grocery stores, all the different grocery stores that
(08:35):
we have in sa One King Valley. And imagine if
one of them said we're not serving you know, quarter
Italian quarter irishmen like John Girardi. Well, that would put
a huge cramp in my lifestyle. It'd be like whole
regions of the city that I couldn't really do business in.
And African Americans face that with restaurants, grocery stores, hotels,
(09:00):
hotels was a huge problem for anyone who wanted to travel.
There was actually a whole movie starring Vigo Mortensen and
herschel Ali called The Green Book, and the Green Book
was a travel guide for African Americans traveling in the
segregated South. But let them know, okay, well, if you're
driving into you know, Mobile, Alabama, you can go to
(09:20):
this hotel, in this restaurant, in this hotel, in this restaurant,
but you can't go to this hotel in this restaurant,
this hotel, that restaurant. Okay, and that was, you know
what a huge hindrance on their ability just to function
as well as a real glass ceiling, if maybe more
than a glass ceiling, maybe a brick ceiling, on their
ability to advance in society.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Ah.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
This law firm, no, we don't hire any blacks here. Oh,
this accounting firm, we don't hire any blacks here. Ah.
This you know, corporation, we don't hire blacks in management.
You can work in the warehouse, but not management. Ah,
this entity, we don't hire blacks. It was a lot
of these private decisions that we're holding people down, and
(10:04):
the Civil Rights Acts basically said no, that is, you're
not allowed to do that within the private operation of
your business. It always makes me laugh when I see
a business that has a sign up you've probably seen
them that says we reserve the right to refuse anybody
service for any reason. Those signs don't actually do anything.
They're just people think that it's some magic elixir that
(10:28):
if you put that sign up it means you can
throw people out of your business. Well, you're already allowed
to throw people out of your business. For many reasons,
not all reasons, though, many reasons. You can throw people
out of your business. Actually, you know what, no shoes,
no shirt, no service. That's a great sign. You're fully
(10:48):
allowed to discriminate on the basis of shirtlessness and shoelessness. Okay,
the Federal Civil Rights Act again, they're structured as you're
not allowed to discriminate in the operation of your business
on the basis of and then again it gives a
list race, sex, national origin, religion, blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah. Being shoeless or being shirtless is not
(11:11):
one of those protected categories. So you're allowed to discriminate.
But that's the thing I laugh at with that sign
that says you may discriminate. We reserve the right to
refuse business to anyone for any reason. I just imagine
if someone put that sign up and then added to
the end of it, especially black people in Jews, like,
obviously that doesn't work. You're not allowed to discriminate against
(11:33):
anybody for any reason. Okay, you can't just say, ah,
I don't want to serve black or Jewish people. No,
you're not allowed to do that because again in the
Civil Rights ax function state civil rights X Federal civil
rights X function to say you can't be discriminatory in
the operation of your business on the basis of this, this, this,
and this all right. The big argument, though, in the
(11:57):
context of universities, was well, what if it's beneficial discrimination
towards groups of people who've been treated badly in the past,
correcting historic wrongs, giving a leg up, not putting someone down.
And that was the basis of the whole idea of
affirmative action within colleges and universities, and it led to
(12:23):
years and years and years of wrangling at the Supreme
Court over this. Because the federal civil rights laws, the
equal protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
They're not written.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
There's no mention in them about beneficial discrimination to help
somebody out who might be from a historically underrepresented, historically
mistreated group. There's nothing in them. In the early two thousands,
there were two sort of the sister Supreme Court cases
(12:57):
issued on the same day that Sandredale O'Connor had a
huge hand and that she wrote the one and she
joined the majority opinion of the other. It was looking
at the University of Michigan basically their admissions practices for
their undergraduate program and for their law school. Their undergraduate
(13:17):
program basic was very crude, and it just said, if
you're black, you get four extra points, and if you
get you know, twenty five points, you're accepted into the
University of Michigan. And so if you were black, you
started right off the bat you had four extra points.
They said, no, you can't do that. But what O'Connor allowed, who,
(13:41):
by the way, I hate SANDREDE. O'Connor as a Supreme
Court justice, think she thinks she's stunk. What the court allowed, though,
was what University of Michigan's law school did, which was, no,
we don't have a quota system. We don't have a
crude points system, but you know, an associate benefit of
diversity for the educational experience students, ethnic backroom maybe maybe
(14:04):
considered it's.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Part of a broader, holistic.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Assessment of someone's little bit blah blah blah bla blah
blah blah.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
So basically what they said was, yeah, you can discriminate
on the basis of race. You can't.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
You just can't leave a paper trail. It was actually
worse than just having a crew.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
At least with the.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Quota system or with you know, the points system, you
could actually track what they were doing. This you couldn't
track it, and that became the law of the land.
And basically what you had was universities engaging in whole
scale of discrimination. But this is the problem. It's not
just helping somebody out. Because schools like Harvard, schools like Yale,
(14:44):
they only have a certain number of spots. One person
getting in means another person gets out. It's a zero
sum game. That's just that's just the nature of how
it works. And you had a historically not very well
(15:04):
treated group, maybe not as bad as how African Americans
were treated, maybe about as bad as how Latinos were treated.
Asian Americans. We're getting systematically discriminated against. At Harvard, where
you'd have these students who these Asian students who have
(15:25):
great credentials, they would have like alumni interviews as part
of their admissions process, and the alumni interviews, the alumni
would be this this, you know, Michael wongh he is great,
he is fantastic, seems like a really bright kid, super nice.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
But then the actual.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Admissions department would say, oh it doesn't seem to have
a very optimistic attitude. Like all this stuff all of
a sudden, his character would be a spurs all these
aspersions on his character coming from the actual admissions department.
Why because the alumna, the alumnus who's interviewing the kid,
he's not caring about racial quotas. He's just he's, yeah,
I'm an alumnus, I'm helping out my college. Oh what
(16:02):
a wonderful young man. Oh he seems great. But the
admissions department is nervous about admitting way too many Asian
kids and not enough Black and Mexican kids. So Harvard discriminated,
and I am sure they're still trying to find a way.
(16:22):
After the Supreme Court last year said you're not allowed
to discriminate on the basis of race, that's it, no
affirmative action whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I'm sure Harvard's still trying to discriminate.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
This is the Trevor Jary Show on the Valley's Power.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Talk thinking about he's thinking about it anyway, trying to
see if he can cut off the tax exempt status
for Harvard. Now, this is the interesting thing. It was
a decision that was really hailed by liberals at the time.
A long time ago, there was a controversy involving Bob
(16:57):
Jones University and Bob Jones University which is in Greenville,
South Carolina. Basically, there was this controversy about its non
admission of students of color, and in nineteen eighty two,
(17:22):
the Supreme Court ruled basically everyone except Justice Renquist ruled
that the IRS was correct in revoking the tax exempt
status of Bomb Jones University and the Goldsborough Christian School.
This is a summary of it. These institutions did not
(17:43):
meet the requirement of providing beneficial and stabilizing influences in
community life to be supported by taxpayers with a special
tax status. They could not meet this requirement due to
their discriminatory policies, and the Court declared that racial discrimination
education violated a quote fundamental national public policy. And Bob
(18:10):
Jones claimed that this was a religious liberty thing, and
the Court just kind of didn't buy it, or at
very least if they bought it, they said, well, you
can do that, but don't expect a tax exempt status.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Now. At the time, there was some conservatives.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Nervous about this decision, and they were like, well, okay,
we don't necessarily like Bob Jones's religious views, but what
if this gets weaponized, you know, blah blah blah blah blah.
See here's the thing. The way the court ruled was like,
look what Bob Jones is doing. You get tax exempt status?
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Why?
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Because you're doing something that is serving some kind of
public interest or public good, educational good, a charitable good, this,
that or the other. And that's the basis on which
the IRS determines whether to give you taxes status or not.
And if you're engaged in something that is so fundamentally
(19:06):
against public policy or against the public interest. And the
problem is, you know, conservatives originalists don't like that kind
of language. It's sort of vague, and it's like, well,
who's determining what the public interest is? And the court
basically said, well, you know what, discriminating on the basis
of race, that's the thing that's against the public interest.
(19:29):
What is Harvard doing other than discriminating on the basis
of race against Asian students, against white students, against Jewish students,
with allowing sometimes Harvard's well, I don't know if Harvard
is the most guilty of this, but certainly Columbia is
(19:50):
hugely guilty of this. It seems like Yale is guilty
of this, basically letting student groups intimidate Jewish students. It's
kind of discriminating on the basis of race. So I
would say Trump's got some pretty good Supreme Court president
(20:11):
on his side.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
This is the Trevor carry Show on the Valley's Power.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Talk to talk about something that's of concern to me,
and I think it's of concern to any of you
who homeschool, any of you who prefer charter schools. There's
a large number of people who utilize these things. My
wife sent me this thing about AB eighty four. It's
(20:42):
a bill in the state legislature, and it's going to
eviscerate if passed. Seemingly in the form it's in, I'm
not sure how much support it necessarily has. Doesn't seem
like it is actually passed through a committee yet, and
it's been referred to a committee, rereferred to a committee,
didn't get any vote, then they wanted amendments, and then
(21:04):
they still haven't. They've delayed the hearing for it. So
I don't know how serious a threat this is, but
it's part and parcel with the way that public education
folks think in California, and the way that public education
folks think that the dominant powers that be whenin state
government the teachers' unions who have tons of power, much
(21:30):
like the Grinch.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
And that's one thing I hate all the noise, noise,
noise noise.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
If there's one thing that the teachers' unions hate, it's
charter schools, charter schools, charter schools, charter schools. They hate
charter schools. They hate charter schools because they don't control them.
They hate charter schools for not having unionized workforces. They
(21:58):
hate charter schools for not being part of the age,
the standard education paradigm. They hate charter schools for siphoning
kids off who would otherwise go to the district and
bring more dollars to that district. They hate charter schools. Now,
I'm gonna speak on it because our family uses a
(22:22):
charter home school program. So my wife and I we
homeschool our kids and we use this program. What's the
name of our charter school here, Yosemite Valley Charter School.
All right, so we use it's called Yosemite Valley Charter School.
(22:42):
We use it that there are a lot of other
kind of charter schools like it, and basically we homeschool
our kids. We are able to pick our curriculum from
kind of a we have some a good amount of
latitude and picking the curriculum that we provide for our kids.
Our kids have to go through sort of state standardized testing.
(23:04):
We have to meet with a teacher on I think
it's a once a month basis. They go have coffee
with the teacher. Show the teacher, hey, this is what
Mattie's going through, this is what Sophie's going through, this
is what Jack's going through. You know, blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah. And you know, we're getting our
stuff done, we submit stuff within certain deadlines, blah blah blah.
(23:27):
And the really cool thing with program, I mean they're
public school children. They're in a public charter school. And
as a result, one of the things that you get
is each family gets sixteen hundred dollars per kid per
semester to be used on education oriented or extracurricular oriented resources.
(23:50):
So we get sixteen hundred dollars per kid per semester.
All of our kids are taking piano lessons. We're able
to sign our kids for sports leagues and after school programs.
We're able to, you know, use our school money. You know,
we go on a vacation to Monterey. We can use
(24:11):
our school money to pay for tickets for the Monterey Aquarium.
We can use our money for this, that, and the other.
We use our money to pay for books if we
get you know, we can use the money to pay
for like a tennis racket, and then you have to
return the tennis racket to the school. Though we don't
keep the tennis racket. So it's pretty great, and especially
(24:36):
when you compare it against you know, we get Okay,
So each kid is getting thirty two hundred dollars per
school year for these school supplies, books, extracurricular things. You know,
how much money is being spent expended on a kid
just in a normal public school A lot more than
(25:00):
thirty two hundred dollars a year. I'll tell you that
for nothing. I mean, California is spending like over twenty
thousand dollars per student per year in the normal public
school system, and our kids are doing great. Sophia are old, Sophia,
Sofia are eight year old is like at least a
(25:22):
year ahead where she's supposed to be. I think she's
in third grade. Wait, grad she in third grade. Maddie
are ten year old is about a year ahead where
she's supposed to be. Everyone's able to do school at
their own pace. There's no downtime in between class waiting
for whoever's the lowest common denominator in the class for
(25:42):
him or her to learn the assignment. It's really flexible.
It's allowed our kids to do harder math stuff. Jack
is in first grade and he's gone all the way
through the third grade math book, you know, blazing through
his multiplication tables. Kids are reading voraciously. It's really great.
(26:12):
We really enjoy it. And the teachers' unions freaking hate it,
like that's the thing. They hate it. Why Because it's
allowing parents more choice. It's not forcing parents into the
same paradigm of stuff that they vet, they approve, they
(26:34):
decide on. They don't get the opportunity with my kids
to force LGBT curriculum through every facet of the curriculum.
They don't get to do that stuff with my kids.
Their jobs aren't reinforced and justified by my kids. It's
(26:58):
been a wonderful program for us. Now they've introduced AB
eighty four, which would basically eviscerate this whole idea, this
whole program, and that we're not like the only ones,
like we're not special. We didn't weigh this magic but one.
There are plenty of families who take advantage of this,
and I think it is out of pure resentment that
(27:21):
these teachers' unions go after this, and it's I don't
know what it is. I think it's a combo of
sort of a professional vanity, the idea that homeschooling families
tend to do every bit as well, if not on average,
much better than kids in normal school systems. Maybe it's
(27:45):
a sign that you guys are spending all this time,
all this money, all this energy for a product that
doesn't work as well, that you're over credentialed, you're you're
you know, maybe your brains are exploding at the idea
that this whole structure to which you've dedicated your whole
lives maybe isn't the only way to skin this cat.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
There's a lot of ways to educate a kid.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
And maybe it's some professional vanity of theirs all these
people with these ed doctorates, you know, the Jill Biden's
of the world just cannot fathom the idea that a
mom with a bachelor's degree is probably gonna do just
as good a job, if not a better job, educating
(28:29):
her kids because she actually loves her kids. And I'm
not saying teachers hate their students necessarily, but you know,
you don't love your students the way you love your kids. Like,
even if you're a wonderful teacher and you really care
about your kids, even love your kids, you don't love
your kids the way you love your children, your biological children,
(28:51):
and the kind of attention and care and specificity that
you can provide to your own children if you homeschool them.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
But they don't like that.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
It's really I think it boils down to this two
competing worldviews about education and who is supposed to do it.
There's a certain kind of really orthodox, doctrinaire attitude towards
public schools that the role of educating children, educating the
(29:24):
citizenry is not the parent's job. That job is the
government's job, and the point of public schools is the
public good that they provide in forming the next generation
of citizenry to care about the values and ideals of
this political community, which are changing and shifting to basically
(29:47):
reflect standard modern day Democrat party beliefs. I mean that
kind of an argument worked better maybe in nineteen forty five,
when the shared values beliefs of the community were, you know,
a little bit closer to stuff like the Bible, the
(30:10):
Ten Commandments, God and country like that sort of attitude
of forming the next generation of citizenry in a certain
sort of vision of virtue. Sure, maybe that made a
little bit. Maybe that was less offensive in nineteen forty five.
It's pretty offensive to me now. I mean what they
(30:31):
want as normative is they want to form my kids
to fundamentally reject my religious beliefs, my ethical beliefs. They
don't want And it's basically the question of whose kids
are these? Who is the primary educator of children? I
(30:54):
would say that parents are the primary educators of children.
Parents might delegate to schools the education of their kids
in certain things, and trust their kids to the schools
for education in certain things, but fundamentally the parents are
the chief educators of their children.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
This is the Trebortary show on the Valley's Power.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
Talk Basically, you get made a federal judge, you might
have already had a pretty successful career as a lawyer
of some sorts. You've made a lot of money. You're
a federal judge, so you're making good money. You also
can't get fired basically if you're a federal judge. When
you're made a federal district court judge or circuit court judge,
(31:41):
or you're on the US Supreme Court, it's a lifetime appointment,
so you're set. I mean, the only time federal judges
ever actually get fired that they have to go through
the impeachment and removal process through Congress. You've had a
majority of the House vote to peach you, in two
thirds of the Senate vote to kick you out of
(32:02):
your job. And basically the only time that happens to
judges is if they get caught taking bribes or something
like that. That's basically the only time it happens. You've
had judges who are complete nimrods, judges who are total
whack a doodles, issued completely insane, lawless rulings, and they
don't get fired. You know, again, you basically you have
to commit a crime. Basically for Congress to actually take
(32:24):
the effort to impeach and remove you.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
So I think judges kind.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Of live in a bubble of being a very upper
middle class, comfortable person. And Justice Jackson had a great
moment of this. So she's hearing the oral arguments for
this case about whether or not parents have the right
to opt their kids out of certain segments of the
(32:51):
school curriculum in which kids are being presented with books
that are highly sexualized in nature. Under the guys, well,
it's just about promoting tolerance, and it's like, oh, the
picture of someone wearing leather, weird bondage, drag queens wearing
leather bondage, crap, whatever. And one of the arguments being
(33:12):
made is that this is infringing on the free exercise
rights of parents who they're sending their kids to public
schools and they don't have the option to off their
kids out of certain portions of the curriculum that they
find violate their religious viewpoints. And Justice Jackson says, quote,
I'm struggling to see this is her oral argument questioning.
(33:34):
And the way it works is you have the lawyers
for the two sides, lawyers for the lawyer for the
one side comes up starts to give his summary of
the case, and the justices of the Supreme Court are
sitting in a dais above him and pepper him with questions.
They're allowed to interrupt him or her pepperham with questions.
Very intimidating thing. So Justice Jackson is questioning this lawyer
and saying, I'm struggling to see how it burdens a
(33:56):
parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent
disagrees with, you have a choice. You don't have to
send your kid to that school. This recalls the mind.
I think it's an apocryphal story. I think Marie Antoinette
gets a bad rap for this. But there's the apocryphal
story of the people of Paris are starving to death,
(34:19):
Your majesty Marie Antoinette. Well, why don't they they don't
have bread? Well, why don't let them eat cake? It's
the famous phrase let them eat cake. It's subscribed to
Marie Antoinette that the people of Paris have no bread,
so let them eat cake. Well. Justice Jackson's like, oh,
they don't like this, Well, they have a choice. They
can go to a private school. Yeah, all these families
(34:41):
that go to public school. You realize it's because they're
already taxed to pay for the public school. So you're
saying your option is keep paying your taxes for the
public school and then pay an extra I don't know
ten for some place, some parts of the country, private
(35:03):
schools cost ten thousand dollars a year for elementary school tuition.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
This assistant Trevor carry Show on The Valley's Power Talk
My wife shares my hatred for all things AI, and
in the last hour is talking a lot about the
California Bar Exam. They decided to use AI to write
some of the questions on the use non lawyers using
AI to write questions on the California Bar Exam. You know,
the most important test a lawyer ever takes in his
or her life that qualifies them as a lawyer. Determines
(00:21):
whether or not you're going to be representing people and
their lives and livelihoods and interests and money and blah
blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yeah, that bar exam.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We let a non lawyer using AI write a bunch
of the questions, and the California State Supreme Court didn't
know about it, and even people from the State Bar
Association who were supposed to oversee the bar exam they
didn't know. And they've had to massively lower what the
passing score is going to be. Oh gosh, that's the
whole thing. Anyway, I'm going to move away from California stuff.
And by the way, this is not Trevor to Kerry.
(00:50):
This is John Girardi filling in for Trevor today. Thanks
to all the guys at power Talk thanks to Trevor
Director at Right to Life of Central California RTLCC dot org.
I'm going to take my own lawyer in thoughts away
from California, myself being a lawyer, and i want to
turn to the Trump administration making these threats to have
(01:15):
the IRS look into and revoke the tax exempt status
of Harvard University.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And the immediate knee.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Jerk loser conservative reaction to it. There's this certain brand
of usually it's very libertarian leaning conservatives who seem to
care a lot more about the process of politics than
the actual end goals of politics. And President Trump is
out here, he's responding to basically Harvard getting all ticked
(01:53):
off at the President because President notes that they were
allowing all these anti Semitic protest us. They're not getting
rid of their various DEI initiatives, which, by the way,
let's understand what dei means. DEI means affirmatively doing stuff
(02:13):
discriminating in favor of groups that are deemed to be oppressed.
So treating people differently on the basis of race, a
concept that is always not fit in very well. It's
been kind of a square peg in a round hole
fitting in with federal civil rights law, which is basically,
don't discriminate, don't engage in discriminatory behavior on the basis
(02:37):
of sex, race, et cetera. Because often it seems as
though the discriminatory behavior Harvard had been engaged in, including
in the area of admissions where it lost a big
case of the Supreme Court about this was against not
just white kids, but Asian kids as well. And now
we've got this, these situations on all these college campuses
(02:57):
where Jewish kids are being.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Miss treat it.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
So your president Trump floats out on truth social Hey,
maybe if you guys are gonna keep doing this stuff,
maybe we should look into your tax exempt status. And
all these loser conservatives are like, oh, that's not a
good idea. Think of what will happen if the left
applies that to you. Think of what will happen if
(03:27):
the left applies that to the religious right, to conservative
religious organization. And this is the sort of instinct that
these people have. They are so tied to process they
(03:48):
refuse to accept a w when it's presented to them
to such a point, and they're not even that smart.
I don't think I don't think they're even like being
that clever or careful when it comes to the actual facts,
and without any sort of idea of like, hey, let's
think about this for more than five nanoseconds and think
(04:11):
about ways that maybe this was this is distinguishable.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Okay, So.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Here's Harvard and Yale and Columbia and this school in
that school. By the way, I just saw this video
the other day of a Jewish student at Yale being
blocked from walking around campus by this big group of
pro Palestinian student protesters blocking this kid seemingly because he's Jewish.
(04:42):
He's wearing a Yama cut. And I watched it and I thought, gosh,
does Yale not think does Yale think that Trump is
Trump's only gonna go after Harvard and gonna stop it? Well, Poppy,
I think it is all like going to go after
Harvard because of coll those those buffo.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
I don't I don't even know.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I don't even know enough about that world to like
pretend like I could imitate them. I'm just gonna I'm
just gonna, yeah, yeah, she's gonna wind up doing a
William f and Buckley and impersonation.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Whatever.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
So anyway, this idea that Yale thinks that they can
just continue to allow these pro Palestinian groups to engage
in stuff that seems to violate federal civil lights rights laws.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Beyond me, but.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
The Trump administration is looking at Harvard. Harvard gets gazillions
of dollars in federal grants every year. They get huge
amounts of money in federally backed student loans, huge benefit
they like. All these universities are huge beneficiaries of this.
(05:50):
They have the largest endowment of any university in the
United States. They are flush with cash. And one of
the requirements in order to receive federal funding is are
you following federal civil rights law. It's a way the
(06:12):
federal government can regulate stuff. Federal government gives out money.
Everyone wants money, and the federal government says, ooh, hold on,
before we give you this money, we have some strings attached.
And one of those strings attached is follow the Civil
Rights Acts. And it leads me to want to kind
of talk about the Civil Rights Acts and kind of
how important they are and what they actually did. Basically,
(06:36):
the Civil Rights Laws said in applying this to whether
it was universities receiving funding, whether it was private businesses
and how they operate, whether it was governmental bodies, you
cannot discriminate on the basis of and then it would
give a list of protected categories and characteristics, and it
(07:01):
wasn't a one size fits all. For different situations and
different kinds of groups and different circumstances, they might change it.
Religious groups have greater latitude to discriminate on certain categories
than non religious groups do. Catholic priesthood is only open
to guys. Federal government doesn't view the Catholic Church as
violating federal civil rights law by only allowing men.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
To become priests.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
They sort of respect that religious groups needs a certain
kind of latitude for certain kinds of things like that.
But for the most part, that's how the Civil Rights
ACTX work. It applied to private businesses, it applied to
public entities, it applied to private private entities receiving federal money,
(07:51):
and you can kind of see the practicalities of it. Okay,
the grave injustice of segregation in the South was that
you basically had, even for things that were very very
essential services, you had a private business saying I'm just
not going to serve black people in my grocery store. Well,
(08:14):
that's a huge hindrance to Black families. If there are
whole you know, you know, imagine you yourself. Think of
where you go grocery shopping. You save Marred or at
Walmart or here there or Vonn's or you know, all
the different grocery stores, all the different grocery stores that
(08:35):
we have in sa One King Valley. And imagine if
one of them said we're not serving you know, quarter
Italian quarter irishmen like John Girardi. Well, that would put
a huge cramp in my lifestyle. It'd be like whole
regions of the city that I couldn't really do business in.
And African Americans face that with restaurants, grocery stores, hotels,
(09:00):
hotels was a huge problem for anyone who wanted to travel.
There was actually a whole movie starring Vigo Mortensen and
herschel Ali called The Green Book, and the Green Book
was a travel guide for African Americans traveling in the
segregated South. But let them know, okay, well, if you're
driving into you know, Mobile, Alabama, you can go to
(09:20):
this hotel, in this restaurant, in this hotel, in this restaurant,
but you can't go to this hotel in this restaurant,
this hotel, that restaurant. Okay, and that was, you know
what a huge hindrance on their ability just to function
as well as a real glass ceiling, if maybe more
than a glass ceiling, maybe a brick ceiling, on their
ability to advance in society.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Ah.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
This law firm, no, we don't hire any blacks here. Oh,
this accounting firm, we don't hire any blacks here. Ah.
This you know, corporation, we don't hire blacks in management.
You can work in the warehouse, but not management. Ah,
this entity, we don't hire blacks. It was a lot
of these private decisions that we're holding people down, and
(10:04):
the Civil Rights Acts basically said no, that is, you're
not allowed to do that within the private operation of
your business. It always makes me laugh when I see
a business that has a sign up you've probably seen
them that says we reserve the right to refuse anybody
service for any reason. Those signs don't actually do anything.
They're just people think that it's some magic elixir that
(10:28):
if you put that sign up it means you can
throw people out of your business. Well, you're already allowed
to throw people out of your business. For many reasons,
not all reasons, though, many reasons. You can throw people
out of your business. Actually, you know what, no shoes,
no shirt, no service. That's a great sign. You're fully
(10:48):
allowed to discriminate on the basis of shirtlessness and shoelessness. Okay,
the Federal Civil Rights Act again, they're structured as you're
not allowed to discriminate in the operation of your business
on the basis of and then again it gives a
list race, sex, national origin, religion, blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah. Being shoeless or being shirtless is not
(11:11):
one of those protected categories. So you're allowed to discriminate.
But that's the thing I laugh at with that sign
that says you may discriminate. We reserve the right to
refuse business to anyone for any reason. I just imagine
if someone put that sign up and then added to
the end of it, especially black people in Jews, like,
obviously that doesn't work. You're not allowed to discriminate against
(11:33):
anybody for any reason. Okay, you can't just say, ah,
I don't want to serve black or Jewish people. No,
you're not allowed to do that because again in the
Civil Rights ax function state civil rights X Federal civil
rights X function to say you can't be discriminatory in
the operation of your business on the basis of this, this, this,
and this all right. The big argument, though, in the
(11:57):
context of universities, was well, what if it's beneficial discrimination
towards groups of people who've been treated badly in the past,
correcting historic wrongs, giving a leg up, not putting someone down.
And that was the basis of the whole idea of
affirmative action within colleges and universities, and it led to
(12:23):
years and years and years of wrangling at the Supreme
Court over this. Because the federal civil rights laws, the
equal protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
They're not written.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
There's no mention in them about beneficial discrimination to help
somebody out who might be from a historically underrepresented, historically
mistreated group. There's nothing in them. In the early two thousands,
there were two sort of the sister Supreme Court cases
(12:57):
issued on the same day that Sandredale O'Connor had a
huge hand and that she wrote the one and she
joined the majority opinion of the other. It was looking
at the University of Michigan basically their admissions practices for
their undergraduate program and for their law school. Their undergraduate
(13:17):
program basic was very crude, and it just said, if
you're black, you get four extra points, and if you
get you know, twenty five points, you're accepted into the
University of Michigan. And so if you were black, you
started right off the bat you had four extra points.
They said, no, you can't do that. But what O'Connor allowed, who,
(13:41):
by the way, I hate SANDREDE. O'Connor as a Supreme
Court justice, think she thinks she's stunk. What the court allowed, though,
was what University of Michigan's law school did, which was, no,
we don't have a quota system. We don't have a
crude points system, but you know, an associate benefit of
diversity for the educational experience students, ethnic backroom maybe maybe
(14:04):
considered it's.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Part of a broader, holistic.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Assessment of someone's little bit blah blah blah bla blah
blah blah.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
So basically what they said was, yeah, you can discriminate
on the basis of race. You can't.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
You just can't leave a paper trail. It was actually
worse than just having a crew.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
At least with the.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Quota system or with you know, the points system, you
could actually track what they were doing. This you couldn't
track it, and that became the law of the land.
And basically what you had was universities engaging in whole
scale of discrimination. But this is the problem. It's not
just helping somebody out. Because schools like Harvard, schools like Yale,
(14:44):
they only have a certain number of spots. One person
getting in means another person gets out. It's a zero
sum game. That's just that's just the nature of how
it works. And you had a historically not very well
(15:04):
treated group, maybe not as bad as how African Americans
were treated, maybe about as bad as how Latinos were treated.
Asian Americans. We're getting systematically discriminated against. At Harvard, where
you'd have these students who these Asian students who have
(15:25):
great credentials, they would have like alumni interviews as part
of their admissions process, and the alumni interviews, the alumni
would be this this, you know, Michael wongh he is great,
he is fantastic, seems like a really bright kid, super nice.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
But then the actual.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Admissions department would say, oh it doesn't seem to have
a very optimistic attitude. Like all this stuff all of
a sudden, his character would be a spurs all these
aspersions on his character coming from the actual admissions department.
Why because the alumna, the alumnus who's interviewing the kid,
he's not caring about racial quotas. He's just he's, yeah,
I'm an alumnus, I'm helping out my college. Oh what
(16:02):
a wonderful young man. Oh he seems great. But the
admissions department is nervous about admitting way too many Asian
kids and not enough Black and Mexican kids. So Harvard discriminated,
and I am sure they're still trying to find a way.
(16:22):
After the Supreme Court last year said you're not allowed
to discriminate on the basis of race, that's it, no
affirmative action whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I'm sure Harvard's still trying to discriminate.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
This is the Trevor Jary Show on the Valley's Power.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Talk thinking about he's thinking about it anyway, trying to
see if he can cut off the tax exempt status
for Harvard. Now, this is the interesting thing. It was
a decision that was really hailed by liberals at the time.
A long time ago, there was a controversy involving Bob
(16:57):
Jones University and Bob Jones University which is in Greenville,
South Carolina. Basically, there was this controversy about its non
admission of students of color, and in nineteen eighty two,
(17:22):
the Supreme Court ruled basically everyone except Justice Renquist ruled
that the IRS was correct in revoking the tax exempt
status of Bomb Jones University and the Goldsborough Christian School.
This is a summary of it. These institutions did not
(17:43):
meet the requirement of providing beneficial and stabilizing influences in
community life to be supported by taxpayers with a special
tax status. They could not meet this requirement due to
their discriminatory policies, and the Court declared that racial discrimination
education violated a quote fundamental national public policy. And Bob
(18:10):
Jones claimed that this was a religious liberty thing, and
the Court just kind of didn't buy it, or at
very least if they bought it, they said, well, you
can do that, but don't expect a tax exempt status.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Now. At the time, there was some conservatives.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Nervous about this decision, and they were like, well, okay,
we don't necessarily like Bob Jones's religious views, but what
if this gets weaponized, you know, blah blah blah blah blah.
See here's the thing. The way the court ruled was like,
look what Bob Jones is doing. You get tax exempt status?
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Why?
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Because you're doing something that is serving some kind of
public interest or public good, educational good, a charitable good, this,
that or the other. And that's the basis on which
the IRS determines whether to give you taxes status or not.
And if you're engaged in something that is so fundamentally
(19:06):
against public policy or against the public interest. And the
problem is, you know, conservatives originalists don't like that kind
of language. It's sort of vague, and it's like, well,
who's determining what the public interest is? And the court
basically said, well, you know what, discriminating on the basis
of race, that's the thing that's against the public interest.
(19:29):
What is Harvard doing other than discriminating on the basis
of race against Asian students, against white students, against Jewish students,
with allowing sometimes Harvard's well, I don't know if Harvard
is the most guilty of this, but certainly Columbia is
(19:50):
hugely guilty of this. It seems like Yale is guilty
of this, basically letting student groups intimidate Jewish students. It's
kind of discriminating on the basis of race. So I
would say Trump's got some pretty good Supreme Court president
(20:11):
on his side.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
This is the Trevor carry Show on the Valley's Power.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Talk to talk about something that's of concern to me,
and I think it's of concern to any of you
who homeschool, any of you who prefer charter schools. There's
a large number of people who utilize these things. My
wife sent me this thing about AB eighty four. It's
(20:42):
a bill in the state legislature, and it's going to
eviscerate if passed. Seemingly in the form it's in, I'm
not sure how much support it necessarily has. Doesn't seem
like it is actually passed through a committee yet, and
it's been referred to a committee, rereferred to a committee,
didn't get any vote, then they wanted amendments, and then
(21:04):
they still haven't. They've delayed the hearing for it. So
I don't know how serious a threat this is, but
it's part and parcel with the way that public education
folks think in California, and the way that public education
folks think that the dominant powers that be whenin state
government the teachers' unions who have tons of power, much
(21:30):
like the Grinch.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
And that's one thing I hate all the noise, noise,
noise noise.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
If there's one thing that the teachers' unions hate, it's
charter schools, charter schools, charter schools, charter schools. They hate
charter schools. They hate charter schools because they don't control them.
They hate charter schools for not having unionized workforces. They
(21:58):
hate charter schools for not being part of the age,
the standard education paradigm. They hate charter schools for siphoning
kids off who would otherwise go to the district and
bring more dollars to that district. They hate charter schools. Now,
I'm gonna speak on it because our family uses a
(22:22):
charter home school program. So my wife and I we
homeschool our kids and we use this program. What's the
name of our charter school here, Yosemite Valley Charter School.
All right, so we use it's called Yosemite Valley Charter School.
(22:42):
We use it that there are a lot of other
kind of charter schools like it, and basically we homeschool
our kids. We are able to pick our curriculum from
kind of a we have some a good amount of
latitude and picking the curriculum that we provide for our kids.
Our kids have to go through sort of state standardized testing.
(23:04):
We have to meet with a teacher on I think
it's a once a month basis. They go have coffee
with the teacher. Show the teacher, hey, this is what
Mattie's going through, this is what Sophie's going through, this
is what Jack's going through. You know, blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah. And you know, we're getting our
stuff done, we submit stuff within certain deadlines, blah blah blah.
(23:27):
And the really cool thing with program, I mean they're
public school children. They're in a public charter school. And
as a result, one of the things that you get
is each family gets sixteen hundred dollars per kid per
semester to be used on education oriented or extracurricular oriented resources.
(23:50):
So we get sixteen hundred dollars per kid per semester.
All of our kids are taking piano lessons. We're able
to sign our kids for sports leagues and after school programs.
We're able to, you know, use our school money. You know,
we go on a vacation to Monterey. We can use
(24:11):
our school money to pay for tickets for the Monterey Aquarium.
We can use our money for this, that, and the other.
We use our money to pay for books if we
get you know, we can use the money to pay
for like a tennis racket, and then you have to
return the tennis racket to the school. Though we don't
keep the tennis racket. So it's pretty great, and especially
(24:36):
when you compare it against you know, we get Okay,
So each kid is getting thirty two hundred dollars per
school year for these school supplies, books, extracurricular things. You know,
how much money is being spent expended on a kid
just in a normal public school A lot more than
(25:00):
thirty two hundred dollars a year. I'll tell you that
for nothing. I mean, California is spending like over twenty
thousand dollars per student per year in the normal public
school system, and our kids are doing great. Sophia are old, Sophia,
Sofia are eight year old is like at least a
(25:22):
year ahead where she's supposed to be. I think she's
in third grade. Wait, grad she in third grade. Maddie
are ten year old is about a year ahead where
she's supposed to be. Everyone's able to do school at
their own pace. There's no downtime in between class waiting
for whoever's the lowest common denominator in the class for
(25:42):
him or her to learn the assignment. It's really flexible.
It's allowed our kids to do harder math stuff. Jack
is in first grade and he's gone all the way
through the third grade math book, you know, blazing through
his multiplication tables. Kids are reading voraciously. It's really great.
(26:12):
We really enjoy it. And the teachers' unions freaking hate it,
like that's the thing. They hate it. Why Because it's
allowing parents more choice. It's not forcing parents into the
same paradigm of stuff that they vet, they approve, they
(26:34):
decide on. They don't get the opportunity with my kids
to force LGBT curriculum through every facet of the curriculum.
They don't get to do that stuff with my kids.
Their jobs aren't reinforced and justified by my kids. It's
(26:58):
been a wonderful program for us. Now they've introduced AB
eighty four, which would basically eviscerate this whole idea, this
whole program, and that we're not like the only ones,
like we're not special. We didn't weigh this magic but one.
There are plenty of families who take advantage of this,
and I think it is out of pure resentment that
(27:21):
these teachers' unions go after this, and it's I don't
know what it is. I think it's a combo of
sort of a professional vanity, the idea that homeschooling families
tend to do every bit as well, if not on average,
much better than kids in normal school systems. Maybe it's
(27:45):
a sign that you guys are spending all this time,
all this money, all this energy for a product that
doesn't work as well, that you're over credentialed, you're you're
you know, maybe your brains are exploding at the idea
that this whole structure to which you've dedicated your whole
lives maybe isn't the only way to skin this cat.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
There's a lot of ways to educate a kid.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
And maybe it's some professional vanity of theirs all these
people with these ed doctorates, you know, the Jill Biden's
of the world just cannot fathom the idea that a
mom with a bachelor's degree is probably gonna do just
as good a job, if not a better job, educating
(28:29):
her kids because she actually loves her kids. And I'm
not saying teachers hate their students necessarily, but you know,
you don't love your students the way you love your kids. Like,
even if you're a wonderful teacher and you really care
about your kids, even love your kids, you don't love
your kids the way you love your children, your biological children,
(28:51):
and the kind of attention and care and specificity that
you can provide to your own children if you homeschool them.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
But they don't like that.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
It's really I think it boils down to this two
competing worldviews about education and who is supposed to do it.
There's a certain kind of really orthodox, doctrinaire attitude towards
public schools that the role of educating children, educating the
(29:24):
citizenry is not the parent's job. That job is the
government's job, and the point of public schools is the
public good that they provide in forming the next generation
of citizenry to care about the values and ideals of
this political community, which are changing and shifting to basically
(29:47):
reflect standard modern day Democrat party beliefs. I mean that
kind of an argument worked better maybe in nineteen forty five,
when the shared values beliefs of the community were, you know,
a little bit closer to stuff like the Bible, the
(30:10):
Ten Commandments, God and country like that sort of attitude
of forming the next generation of citizenry in a certain
sort of vision of virtue. Sure, maybe that made a
little bit. Maybe that was less offensive in nineteen forty five.
It's pretty offensive to me now. I mean what they
(30:31):
want as normative is they want to form my kids
to fundamentally reject my religious beliefs, my ethical beliefs. They
don't want And it's basically the question of whose kids
are these? Who is the primary educator of children? I
(30:54):
would say that parents are the primary educators of children.
Parents might delegate to schools the education of their kids
in certain things, and trust their kids to the schools
for education in certain things, but fundamentally the parents are
the chief educators of their children.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
This is the Trebortary show on the Valley's Power.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
Talk Basically, you get made a federal judge, you might
have already had a pretty successful career as a lawyer
of some sorts. You've made a lot of money. You're
a federal judge, so you're making good money. You also
can't get fired basically if you're a federal judge. When
you're made a federal district court judge or circuit court judge,
(31:41):
or you're on the US Supreme Court, it's a lifetime appointment,
so you're set. I mean, the only time federal judges
ever actually get fired that they have to go through
the impeachment and removal process through Congress. You've had a
majority of the House vote to peach you, in two
thirds of the Senate vote to kick you out of
(32:02):
your job. And basically the only time that happens to
judges is if they get caught taking bribes or something
like that. That's basically the only time it happens. You've
had judges who are complete nimrods, judges who are total
whack a doodles, issued completely insane, lawless rulings, and they
don't get fired. You know, again, you basically you have
to commit a crime. Basically for Congress to actually take
(32:24):
the effort to impeach and remove you.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
So I think judges kind.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Of live in a bubble of being a very upper
middle class, comfortable person. And Justice Jackson had a great
moment of this. So she's hearing the oral arguments for
this case about whether or not parents have the right
to opt their kids out of certain segments of the
(32:51):
school curriculum in which kids are being presented with books
that are highly sexualized in nature. Under the guys, well,
it's just about promoting tolerance, and it's like, oh, the
picture of someone wearing leather, weird bondage, drag queens wearing
leather bondage, crap, whatever. And one of the arguments being
(33:12):
made is that this is infringing on the free exercise
rights of parents who they're sending their kids to public
schools and they don't have the option to off their
kids out of certain portions of the curriculum that they
find violate their religious viewpoints. And Justice Jackson says, quote,
I'm struggling to see this is her oral argument questioning.
(33:34):
And the way it works is you have the lawyers
for the two sides, lawyers for the lawyer for the
one side comes up starts to give his summary of
the case, and the justices of the Supreme Court are
sitting in a dais above him and pepper him with questions.
They're allowed to interrupt him or her pepperham with questions.
Very intimidating thing. So Justice Jackson is questioning this lawyer
and saying, I'm struggling to see how it burdens a
(33:56):
parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent
disagrees with, you have a choice. You don't have to
send your kid to that school. This recalls the mind.
I think it's an apocryphal story. I think Marie Antoinette
gets a bad rap for this. But there's the apocryphal
story of the people of Paris are starving to death,
(34:19):
Your majesty Marie Antoinette. Well, why don't they they don't
have bread? Well, why don't let them eat cake? It's
the famous phrase let them eat cake. It's subscribed to
Marie Antoinette that the people of Paris have no bread,
so let them eat cake. Well. Justice Jackson's like, oh,
they don't like this, Well, they have a choice. They
can go to a private school. Yeah, all these families
(34:41):
that go to public school. You realize it's because they're
already taxed to pay for the public school. So you're
saying your option is keep paying your taxes for the
public school and then pay an extra I don't know
ten for some place, some parts of the country, private
(35:03):
schools cost ten thousand dollars a year for elementary school tuition.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
This assistant Trevor carry Show on The Valley's Power Talk
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!