S1: Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
S1: and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens,
S1: and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas.
S1: But before you go, I want to tell you about
S1: this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered?
S1: And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me,
S1: going out into the night sky and looking up and
S1: seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
S1: about God? And are you not in a moment of
S1: awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse
S1: of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man,
S1: that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
S1: wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense
S1: of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful
S1: book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written
S1: from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or
S1: a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have
S1: this sense of awe through the work that they do.
S1: In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as
S1: it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
S1: because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you
S1: to walk through the chapters written by people who all
S1: have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes
S1: to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an
S1: amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount,
S1: just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask
S1: for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll
S1: send it right off to you as my way of
S1: saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or
S1: you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall.
S1: When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner.
S1: Those are people who give every single month at a
S1: level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool,
S1: but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter
S1: that includes my writing and an audio piece just for
S1: my partial partners. So 877 Janet 58 or the website
S1: in the market with Janet parshall.org consider becoming a partial
S1: partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you
S1: ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.
S2: Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
S2: is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
S2: the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
S2: and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
S2: look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3: One of the things that we noted was that this
S3: all girls school, this all female institution of higher education,
S3: not only admits biological men who identify as women, but
S3: it also opens all of the bathrooms, locker rooms and
S3: housing accommodations to biological men as well. Which really brings
S3: us back to square one. If title nine was designed
S3: to protect biological girls and give them equal educational opportunity,
S3: what is a women's college doing admitting biological men?
S4: My whole nuclear family, praise the Lord came to Christ And, uh,
S4: and we had an made if you ever saw the
S4: movie The Help you. That's how it was with my
S4: family and so many Jewish families in Portsmouth that we knew.
S4: And her name was Callie Goodman, and she prayed for
S4: me for 22 years. I found this out after I
S4: came to Christ, I didn't know.
S5: Oh, wow.
S4: And she prayed for my whole nuclear family, uh, and
S4: prayed my whole nuclear family into the kingdom of God.
S6: Humans are part of this giant ecosystem that God's created
S6: because of all those things. I have an even, I believe,
S6: deeper appreciation for the ways God's character is displayed through
S6: everything that he's made. So I don't just see God's
S6: beauty and glory, but I see all different kinds of attributes,
S6: even through the lowliest little fish up to the biggest whale.
S6: There's so much to be learned about God's character from
S6: his creation, and I'm really blessed to have a front
S6: row seat to that.
S7: We can listen to the voice of the one who
S7: gave us eternal life through His Son, Jesus. And when
S7: we give heed to that voice, and we surrender our
S7: thoughts and our minds and our bodies and our ways
S7: and desires and everything to him, it changes everything. It
S7: changes everything. It can change the entire course of your
S7: life because it affects everything around you, your relationships, your
S7: I mean, it affects everything. So I'm so grateful for Jesus.
S7: And I know that's an understatement and it's just a given.
S7: But if it wasn't for him, I would not be
S7: here today. I'm telling you, I would not be here
S7: without him.
S2: To hear the full interviews from any of those guests,
S2: go to In the Market with Janet Parshall and click
S2: on Past programs. Here are some other stories making headlines
S2: this week.
S8: As a cease fire sets in following more than a
S8: week of devastating airstrikes and rocket fire, Iran is cleaning
S8: up and cracking down. Officials and activists said Tehran has
S8: intensified mass arrests, executions and military deployments.
S9: In France, smoking will be banned on beaches, in parks,
S9: outside schools and in other public locations starting July. The
S9: government said.
S10: Chinese automakers have pushed to unlock Africa's underdeveloped potential with
S10: a focus on electric and hybrid vehicles.
S11: The custodians of trillions of dollars of global central bank
S11: reserves are eyeing a move away from the greenback, with gold,
S11: the euro and China's yuan all in favor.
S2: Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put
S2: the first story on the table when we return. To
S2: get more information or to download the podcast of any
S2: of the interviews, go to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
S1: Have you ever wondered why music moves us so deeply,
S1: or why beauty takes our breath away? My Truth Tool
S1: this month is a thought provoking book that explores those
S1: moments of wonder we all encounter. It's called Have You
S1: ever Wondered? Consider how ordinary aspects of life point to
S1: the extraordinary biblical truths. Ask for your copy of. Have
S1: you ever wondered when you give a gift of any
S1: amount to in the market, call eight 7758. That's eight
S1: 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall.
S1: Happy Friday to you friends. So glad we're going to
S1: spend the hour together. Of course, Mr. Parshall is with
S1: me because he does that on Fridays. We put on
S1: our glasses the lens of Scripture. We take a look
S1: at the stories being talked about in the marketplace of ideas,
S1: and then we do some insight and analysis. It's never
S1: boring because there's no shortage of things to talk about.
S1: And I'm so glad that you and I are going
S1: to learn how to be good Bereans, test all things,
S1: learn to think critically and biblically. Note to file. Not
S1: a multiple choice test. It is a both and and
S1: implying what the word has to say to the world
S1: around us. It helps us grow up, right? Isn't that
S1: what the directive is in Scripture? Get off that diet
S1: of milk, Paul tells us. And get to a diet
S1: of meat, the meat of the Word of God, so
S1: he can get some spiritual heft on our bones. And boy,
S1: I have to do is spend five minutes outside your
S1: little tent and you realize that the winds are howling.
S1: All of creation is groaning and strong, brave, courageous Christians
S1: are needed now more than ever before. So having said
S1: all of that, roll up your sleeves. Keep your hands
S1: inside the car at all times, keep your seatbelt on
S1: and we're going to go round robin. In case you
S1: didn't know, today was a busy day at the United
S1: States Supreme Court. In fact, how many times do I
S1: always say this is the fireworks before the fireworks? Right?
S1: So this is the Friday before next Friday, which is
S1: the 4th of July. But if you're a court watcher,
S1: you know that their term ends on Monday because Tuesday
S1: is the 1st of July. That meant that all of
S1: the hot, controversial cases were going to get handed down,
S1: probably in mass toward the end of the term. And boy,
S1: oh boy, between yesterday and today, that's exactly what they did.
S1: And there are some winners in there, and I mean
S1: winners for us culturally, and I'm glad we're going to
S1: spend some time talking about it. So let me go
S1: to one, because I am. I am through the roof.
S1: I am so happy about this case. And Craig and
S1: I are going to tell you why in just a
S1: little bit, but I want you to hear this piece.
S1: It was actually done on one of the alphabet soup networks,
S1: and it was done in April when the High Court
S1: was hearing oral arguments in a case called Mahmoud versus Taylor.
S1: It does a great job of explaining the background. Have
S1: a listen.
S12: This is a case that began in a few Maryland classrooms,
S12: but the ultimate decision could affect public schools all across
S12: this country.
S13: We will prevail.
S12: In a fight over parental and religious rights. The nine
S12: Supreme Court justices waded into the classroom at issue whether
S12: Montgomery County, Maryland, should reinstate an opt out policy for
S12: parents who don't want their children, some as young as kindergarten.
S12: Learning from books containing LGBTQ and other controversial themes.
S14: There wasn't coercion here that it was mere exposure. I
S14: understood from the record that all that was required is
S14: that the books be put on the bookshelf.
S15: It has a clear moral message and it may be
S15: a good message. It's just a message that a lot
S15: of religious people disagree with.
S12: One of the picture books mentioned the story of a
S12: prince and a male knight who defeat a monster and
S12: fall in love. Grace Morrison and other parents are suing,
S12: arguing the opt out policy was removed in 2023 without notice.
S16: This is basically restoring the rights that parents have had
S16: in Montgomery County.
S12: They want the opt out policy back in. The opposing
S12: side also at the court today.
S17: We know that a number of our kids are LGBTQ plus.
S17: And the reality that we're talking about today is people
S17: want to erase us from books. They want to erase
S17: us from existing.
S12: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, suggesting the court's final decision could
S12: affect more than the curriculum.
S18: What about a trans student in the classroom? There's a
S18: student who's in the class, must the teacher notify the
S18: parents of the student's existence and give them an opt
S18: out to not be in the same classroom with this child?
S19: No, we've never said that there's an independent right to
S19: be noted for schools to anticipate what parents might object to,
S19: but when parents know something, there could be a sincere
S19: religious burden.
S12: Ultimately, the majority of the court seemed to favor the
S12: arguments by the parents. A decision is expected in this
S12: big case by the end of June.
S1: And guess what? It's the end of June. And guess what?
S1: The decision came down today. And guess what? It is
S1: a 6 to 3 victory. I'm going to turn to
S1: another alphabet soup outlet. They'll give you their take on
S1: what the court did today. And then this fellow sitting
S1: next to me, who knows the law inside out and
S1: upside down, is going to offer a lot of insight.
S1: So here's a CBS news report on today's victory for
S1: parents rights.
S20: The bottom line is that the parents lodged a First
S20: Amendment claim, saying that it violated their free Exercise Clause
S20: rights to not have notice and an opt out provision
S20: when their children were read. LGBTQ inclusive educational materials at school.
S20: Justice Alito wrote the opinion. It looks like it is
S20: exactly as we talked about a few moments ago. Vlad
S20: a win for the parents. I saw very briefly the
S20: majority saying that parents have genuinely held beliefs and that
S20: it substantially infringes on those beliefs, not to provide them
S20: with notice and an opt out when certain materials are
S20: read to their parents. I think this is part of
S20: a larger theme of this court being very protective of
S20: the rights of religious objectors and protective of free Exercise
S20: Clause rights. Um, Vlad, as we talked about before, I
S20: think the fascinating part of this will be looking to
S20: see exactly how the court creates the standard for determining
S20: when parents are entitled to notice and an opt out.
S20: I think my guess again, looking extremely fast, which is
S20: that the court is going to stay fairly close to
S20: these particular facts and, uh, try and highlight that this
S20: is not open season for parents to start saying we
S20: don't want our children to hear X and to hear Y,
S20: and to hear Z, because you do want to provide
S20: school boards with some ability to dictate their curriculum. Um,
S20: so again, this case, as we talked about before the break,
S20: I think predicted a win for the parents, a win
S20: for those claiming that their free Exercise clause rights are
S20: infringed upon. And again, the real question here will be
S20: how the opinion is drafted in order to make sure
S20: that school boards can still dictate large portions of their
S20: own curriculum.
S1: Well, it was drafted beautifully. And by the way, I'm
S1: glad I pointed out CBS. I'm glad I underscored Alphabet Soup.
S1: Now that's a bias. And that little slanted word there.
S1: Objective there. Rather subjective viewpoint on the case comes through
S1: loud and clear. Now I'm glad I'm going to turn
S1: to this fellow here. So let me just tell you
S1: five seconds by way of background. Again, this was a
S1: fascinating case in terms of being a very eclectic group
S1: of parents. There were Orthodox Christians, there were Muslim parents,
S1: there were parents of various different worldviews. But what pulled
S1: them all together was the fact that they said, absolutely not.
S1: We don't want our child exposed to this. We want
S1: the right to opt out. And for a while, Montgomery
S1: County Schools let them opt out and then abracadabra, without
S1: giving any reason, they pulled off and said, you can't
S1: opt out. Well, that's when you know they're moving from
S1: educator to propagator, okay, now they're going to be propagandizing
S1: the kids. And the parents said, no, we want to
S1: be able to say if it's violative of our sincerely
S1: held beliefs, we have the right to opt our child out.
S1: What's so cool, Craig, is when the decision came down
S1: and it was six three, let's call him out, okay?
S1: It's the three liberal female justice again Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson.
S1: All of them were the three that in the final decision.
S1: The brief even includes pictures from the books that were
S1: used in this classroom. Why is that so cool? Because
S1: do you understand, friends, that in Board of Education meetings
S1: all across the country, all you have to do is
S1: spend five minutes on X and you're going to see
S1: how many parents show up and they read from these books.
S1: They tell the school board, this is what my child
S1: is being exposed to, and how many times their mics
S1: were cut, or some sitting school board member would say,
S1: that's inappropriate speech here. Oh, it's okay for Suzy in
S1: second grade to get it, but it's not okay for
S1: Susie's dad to read it at a school board meeting.
S1: I get it. Makes perfect sense. And so the Supreme
S1: Court in The Ultimate Parents Move actually includes the language
S1: and pictures from some of these books to make the point.
S1: So there's no ambiguity. Craig. We desperately needed a reaffirmation
S1: of parents rights, so take it from here. This was
S1: stunningly important.
S21: Yeah, it was, first of all, because the Supreme Court
S21: has sort of danced around the edges of the issue
S21: of parental rights versus the overwhelming power of public school
S21: officials to indoctrinate, to control, and to give permission to
S21: or deny permission for opt outs when the parents object
S21: based on free exercise of religion, which of course is
S21: embedded in the First Amendment. So you'd think there shouldn't
S21: be any argument in this case. The bottom line result
S21: and the reasoning we'll get to in a second. But
S21: the bottom the bottom line result is that the Supreme
S21: Court told Montgomery County, go back. And at least for
S21: the time being, as this case moves on, you're going
S21: to be required to have the same opt out you
S21: originally granted. And there was, by the way, no evidence
S21: whatsoever in the factual record that they stopped the original
S21: permission for opt out for people who, based on faith objections, said,
S21: I don't want my child to be exposed to this
S21: in the grade school. Remember, this is not seniors in
S21: high school ready for college. These are grade school children.
S21: And there was no evidence that it was found to
S21: be infeasible, unfeasible for them. Well, we tried it, but
S21: there were administrative nightmares that we couldn't, you know, cope
S21: with the problems. No, there was no evidence of that,
S21: that it was not feasible. It was feasible. Original originally.
S21: And then they decided to take it away. So that's
S21: the bottom line in terms of the result. But the
S21: reasoning of the case is very important. It's been more
S21: than I'd say, about four and a half decades since
S21: the Supreme Court has dealt front face, uh, on the, the,
S21: the bottom line and the top line of what happens
S21: when there's a conflict between the sincerely held religious beliefs
S21: of parents who send their children with their tax dollars
S21: to a public school, a government school, and that government
S21: public school says, no, that child belongs to us now,
S21: the village, not the parents, and we will force them
S21: to be exposed to this possible indoctrination of social values
S21: that violently conflict with the religious beliefs of the parents.
S21: So it's been four and a half or so decades
S21: since they went into that case and the Yoder case.
S21: Amish families. The Amish families won, the public schools lost
S21: in terms of forced education in general. So this is
S21: a massive clarification of the fact that parents have the
S21: fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and the morals
S21: and the religious beliefs of their children, not the public school.
S1: So when we come back, let's talk about what some
S1: of the justices wrote in their opinion and how this
S1: will affect all 50 schools, and what parents can expect
S1: in terms of being able to be the final arbiter
S1: of what Johnny and Susie have to be exposed to.
S1: This was also, by the way, not just shoring up
S1: parents rights. This is a shoring up of the First Amendment.
S1: So this was essential, timely, and with all of the
S1: challenges out there to parenting our children and our free
S1: exercise clause. Well, this is important. More after this. 6
S1: to 3 the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a decision
S1: for parents for protecting the free exercise of religion clause
S1: in the case Mahmoud versus Taylor. I cannot tell you
S1: how significant and how important this is. And I told
S1: you it was biggie, and I told you it would
S1: be the fireworks before the fireworks. And they waited almost
S1: until the very last minute of their term to be
S1: able to hand it down. So it was just a
S1: Samuel Alito who wrote for the majority. Again, remember, it
S1: was 63 female justices. In fact, a lot of these
S1: decisions we're going to we're going to talk about that
S1: were handed down were all six, three, six, three, six, three, 6363.
S1: Same three dissenting judges every single time. The three liberal females.
S1: So Justice Alito explained that the right to exercise religion
S1: includes the parents rights to direct the religious instruction of
S1: their children and putting parents on the sidelines, which is
S1: Montgomery County. Exactly what they did when they said, you
S1: can't opt your child out while schools impose their own
S1: sexual ideology on children, obviously interferes with that, right. So,
S1: as Alito explained and I'm quoting him now, the board's
S1: introduction of the LGBTQ plus inclusive, that was their title,
S1: LGBTQ Plus Inclusive storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold
S1: notice to parents and forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with
S1: the religious development of their children. That is what every
S1: mom and dad who's been showing up at these school
S1: board meetings for the last two years has been saying,
S1: so you can cut their mics all you want to.
S1: We thank you so much for your service on the
S1: school board. But you got to understand, they're not your children.
S1: They're the children who are of the people who are
S1: coming to the microphone saying, no, absolutely not with my child.
S1: And then the paradox and the farce of all of this,
S1: of the opera buffa that this is, is that you
S1: can say to a parent, no, you can't read that here.
S1: It's inappropriate, but you can read it in second grade. Okay.
S1: So again, many parents don't have any choice. They have
S1: to send their child to a public school. And so Alito,
S1: recognizing that fact, wrote that it is the government's the
S1: government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires
S1: them to submit their children to instruction that pose a
S1: very real threat of undermining hugely important words coming from
S1: a Supreme Court justice. Burdens the religious exercise of parents
S1: who require them to submit to children. To submit their
S1: children to instruction that poses a very real threat of
S1: undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish
S1: to install. So that raises a question. Let me go
S1: back to something that was gently referred to on that
S1: CBS story, which is, okay, this is a victory now
S1: in Montgomery County, Maryland, but this is going to impact
S1: 50 states across the country. So those liberal propagandists who
S1: are in the classroom, who do not respect or cherish
S1: the First Amendment or choose to acknowledge the sincerely held
S1: religious beliefs of parents, they're going to have to put
S1: down these books. And if Susie's mom says, I'm opting
S1: my child out, there aren't strong footing to do that now,
S1: it seems to me.
S21: Yeah, I think so too. The elements that the court
S21: looked at here. First of all, they look at the
S21: past legal precedents for this. And clearly there was precedent
S21: in prior cases. I mentioned the Yoder case, the Amish
S21: families who objected to compulsory public education after a certain age,
S21: and the Supreme Court, uh, two and a half, four
S21: and a half decades ago, agreed with them at that point. Uh,
S21: the Barnette case versus West Virginia, that was a compulsory, um,
S21: recitation of the, uh. You know, a creed that the.
S1: Pledge of Allegiance.
S21: The pledge of Allegiance. That from a creed standpoint, any
S21: creed Jehovah's Witnesses object to. So, uh, for them, any
S21: creedal acknowledgement like that, um, is, uh, is verboten. And
S21: the Supreme Court agreed. Now, that was a free speech
S21: case with religious underpinnings, uh, as was Yoder. But Yoder
S21: was free exercise, uh, combined with the idea of parental rights.
S21: This was, uh, this case, the Mahmood case is, uh,
S21: very explicit about the fact that if there is actual
S21: objective or even implicit coercion of a child in terms
S21: of what they call normative values that conflict, we're not
S21: talking about facts. We're not talking about, you know, I
S21: don't believe in mathematics in my family, uh, as a
S21: matter of religion. So we want our child to be
S21: opted out of mathematics classes. Um, or I want them
S21: not to be exposed to history because I, you know,
S21: my family denies that the Holocaust ever took place. That
S21: is a different situation. Uh, this is where the Supreme
S21: Court looked at the curriculum, and they came to a
S21: conclusion that, in fact, that's that's why they made it
S21: very plain in their decision what this curriculum was. They
S21: said it's normative on one view of sexuality and gender identity.
S21: And that's really indoctrination, number one. So it's coercive. But
S21: number two, it directly burdens families that say, no, we
S21: absolutely don't believe in that normative approach. And again, it's
S21: not math. It's not history. Uh, it was really a
S21: course on sexuality for kids in grade school.
S1: That's why Sotomayor, in oral arguments, when they were doing
S1: the back and forth with the parties who were arguing,
S1: she talked about the difference between coercion and exposure. Well,
S1: it was a form of coercion if you don't allow
S1: Johnny to opt out of the classroom and he's forced
S1: to have to hear it, that's the very working definition
S1: of what it means to be coerced, is it not?
S21: Yeah. You don't need physical coercion. You don't need proof
S21: that they tied them to their desk. As a matter
S21: of fact, the Supreme Court for years. Remember when we
S21: had the rash of cases around the country, uh, that
S21: had been going on for quite a while, where the
S21: valedictorian of a high school class, um, delivers a speech,
S21: and they happen to be a Christian. And so they
S21: share their personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the school
S21: finds out about it in advance and say, no, you
S21: cannot infuse your faith. Uh, and finally, one of those cases, uh,
S21: it was a rabbi who, uh, was invited to speak and, uh,
S21: the Supreme Court said, no, that's that's a, that's an
S21: unwilling audience that shouldn't have to be exposed to that. Well,
S21: now it's turned around in the right way.
S1: So, Alito says perfectly, a government burdens the religious exercise
S1: of parents when it requires them to submit their children
S1: to instruction. That poses a very real threat of undermining
S1: the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to install.
S1: Such interference, we have observed, carries with it precisely the
S1: kind of objective danger to the free exercise of religion
S1: that the First Amendment was designed to prevent. Great day
S1: for parents and a wonderful victory. Thank you Lord. Back
S1: after this. What's the goal of in the market? I'll
S1: tell you. In the market equips men and women to
S1: think critically and act biblically. Why do we do this?
S1: So that we can be confident when speaking the truth
S1: in a confused culture? Are you willing to stand with me?
S1: Become a partial partner today, and enjoy exclusive benefits only
S1: my partners receive while making an impact for the Kingdom?
S1: Call eight 7758 or go online to in the market
S1: with Janet Parshall So we're telling you that today is
S1: a busy day, as was yesterday, by the way, when
S1: the United States Supreme Court is now handing down some
S1: of the most interesting and, yes, some of the more
S1: controversial cases, as they always do at the end of
S1: their term, which is basically today and Monday, because July 1st,
S1: that's it. Then they'll pack up, they'll lecture, they'll write books,
S1: they'll travel abroad, and then they'll get ready to start
S1: all over again the first Monday in October. So another
S1: case had to do with free speech and pornography. And
S1: I want you to hear a state rep and why
S1: this particular person is arguing for kids to have access
S1: to pornography just by way of background. Have a listen.
S22: We should all recognize the dangers that unrestricted access to
S22: explicit content poses to young minds. Studies have shown that
S22: exposure to pornography can lead to issues like predatory behavior, abuse, anxiety, depression,
S22: and distorted views of relationship. Present day pornography is not
S22: the same as things we found in magazines from the 70s.
S22: Simply naked pictures. Pornography. Pornography of this day and age
S22: is more likely to be violent, sadistic, and have emotionally
S22: traumatizing content that children are unable to handle. In 2022,
S22: a report noted that 54% of teens surveyed first saw
S22: online pornography at age 13 or younger, with 15% exposed
S22: before age 11. The Institute for Family Studies highlights that 93%
S22: of boys and 63% of girls report exposure to internet
S22: pornography before age 18, with the average age of first
S22: exposure being 12.
S23: These parameters could limit young people's access to sexual and
S23: reproductive health care information on websites that might fall under
S23: the definition of obscenity, but really be intended for educational
S23: purposes for their use.
S1: Yeah, two different reps, two different worldviews. Big chasm between
S1: the two. Big problem, particularly with number two. You see
S1: this guys? No no no. This is going to prohibit
S1: their education. You know, we want them to be able
S1: to be exposed to these things because hey they got questions.
S1: Yeah I'll bet they do. So in the United States
S1: Supreme Court today answered some of those questions in a
S1: case called Free Speech Coalition v Paxton. Here is a
S1: report from CBS that tells you the outcome.
S24: The one big case they decided was a challenge to
S24: a Texas law that basically imposed age verification requirements for
S24: people who wanted to access porn sites on the internet.
S24: The Supreme Court considered a First Amendment challenge. Basically, adults
S24: were challenging the law, saying that these age verification requirements
S24: infringed on their First Amendment rights to read content that
S24: they wanted to see on the internet. The Supreme Court
S24: reviewed the law and upheld it. They said the law
S24: was constitutional. They applied what's known as an intermediate Immediate
S24: scrutiny test, which is not the test that the challengers
S24: were arguing for. They wanted it to be reviewed under
S24: a more strict standard of review, but the Supreme Court
S24: applied an intermediate standard of review and held that Texas's
S24: law was permissible and survived constitutional scrutiny.
S1: Okay. Now there's an awful lot there, and you're going
S1: to break that down. And for the record, Your Honor,
S1: I should point out that you briefed on this case
S1: and filed an amicus with the United States Supreme Court
S1: on this particular case. So I know you're very happy
S1: because you were arguing for exactly the outcome that happened today,
S1: which is six three. So, first of all, the porn
S1: industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and they want to
S1: get kids as quick as they can and as soon
S1: as they can, because once they've gone and they've gotten
S1: their whole neural pathways rewired, they're hooked for life. And
S1: now we're going to bring them in early so we
S1: can get them to be addicts to pornography. And they
S1: don't really care how much their lives get messed up
S1: or who gets hurt. And it is not, by the way,
S1: a victimless business by any stretch of the imagination. So
S1: you'll get into the weeds. I know about this intermediate
S1: scrutiny in a minute. But just in common parlance, explain
S1: to us exactly what happened today.
S21: Well, first of all, you don't know the ball game
S21: without knowing who the parties are and who was trying
S21: to argue against Texas law that was passed by the
S21: Texas legislature that put restrictions on websites and on social
S21: media companies to have to provide age verification so that
S21: children would not be exposed to what we call obscene
S21: for minors. Now, first of all, Supreme Court has said
S21: for many, many years, obscenity as a rule, as a
S21: general rule is, is can be outlawed, can be prohibited
S21: by legislatures, even for adults. So obscenity as a as
S21: a rule, is not protected by the First Amendment. Now
S21: we have another category called obscene for minors. Meaning from
S21: the standpoint of a minor viewing Interviewing it. It is obscene,
S21: even if it's not deemed to be obscene for adults.
S21: And that obviously makes sense. The emotional development, spiritual, moral
S21: and so forth of a of a child is different
S21: than an adult, supposedly. Um, we allow certain speech to
S21: be exposed to adults that we don't for children. So
S21: that's the general framework. Now, what the the arguments against
S21: this law in Texas about just you got to prove
S21: your age with a variety of different mechanisms, uh, driver's
S21: license or other documents or, uh, any, frankly, any reasonable, uh,
S21: age verification system that isn't unduly burdensome, uh, could comply
S21: could comply with the Texas law. So who are the
S21: people arguing against it? It was the pornography industry and
S21: sex workers who were represented by the same group. In
S21: other words, these are people who want to put the
S21: vilest kind of, uh, emotionally damaging information and content and
S21: visual depictions in front of children, because what's their argument? Well,
S21: because a couple of some, some adults may have it
S21: have a hard time with this idea of I have
S21: to verify my age. I don't like that. Uh, it
S21: invades my privacy. Oh, in other words, you don't want
S21: the world to know. Or at least someone who's regulatory
S21: to know that you want to view this stuff. Well,
S21: that burden is not a substantial burden. The burden really
S21: is on the children whose lives will be destroyed or
S21: twisted as a result of this. In the Supreme Court
S21: decided that this is reasonable. Now, this intermediate, uh, intermediate
S21: scrutiny issue was very, very important because you really have
S21: three levels of scrutiny. One is strict scrutiny. And that's
S21: a very high standard that a state legislature or Congress
S21: has to meet, and very rarely can they meet that
S21: and have their law upheld without being struck down. Obviously,
S21: the porn industry and the sex worker industry wanted the
S21: highest level because they wanted a chance of winning this thing,
S21: hands down. Well, the court didn't give them that. Now
S21: the lowest level is called rational basis, and almost every
S21: law is upheld under rational basis. What they did is
S21: they struck a bargain and they had an intermediate standard.
S21: And I think, frankly, the brief that I wrote up
S21: for an organization American Principles project, we said, look, it
S21: passes either rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny simply
S21: means that you have to have a, quote, substantial state
S21: interest or governmental interest in protecting children. Doesn't have to
S21: be compelling. And you don't have to meet a number
S21: of other requirements in terms of making sure that you
S21: fashion this law perfectly without being overly broad or overly
S21: inclusive or under inclusive and all these technical requirements. No,
S21: it simply has to be a substantial interest, uh, and
S21: tied to a reasonable result in terms of how you legislate.
S21: So the bottom line is this states can now and
S21: by the way, there are more than 20 states already
S21: with similar laws similar to Texas. So this is a
S21: very important case because now it affects a number of states,
S21: these laws and they can put them into effect. And
S21: of course the porn industry is, uh, angry upset because
S21: they're losing their, their money base, uh, because you have
S21: to pay to get onto these sites, many of them,
S21: and they hook you with free content. And then, uh,
S21: teenagers and middle schoolers can start using their parents credit
S21: card to try to overcome the barriers to being able
S21: to have exposure to this. So not only is it
S21: important from the standpoint of porn, it's also the first
S21: time the Supreme Court has really said there are reasonable
S21: mechanisms by which state legislatures or, and or Congress, and
S21: this is winding its way to Congress, uh, are to, uh,
S21: constitutionally going to be able to regulate social media giants
S21: who up to now have had carte blanche in doing
S21: whatever they want to do, and they are rogue nations
S21: in themselves. That's probably going to come to an end.
S1: So let me make this again in common parlance. So
S1: the United States Supreme Court basically lays out the framework
S1: and says, hey, it's constitutional. Now Congress can put some
S1: meat on those bones by saying, we're going to put
S1: in place legislative language that allows at the federal level anyway,
S1: some kinds of requirements for age verification. And we're also
S1: at the same time, because of the Supreme Court able
S1: to protect those 20 states that already have those laws.
S1: So it's huge.
S21: Yeah. Yeah. And this context happens to be porn, but
S21: that there can be a wide variety of harms to children.
S21: And there are on the internet and social media. And
S21: if the Congress now wants to take a look at this,
S21: with this new legal framework that the Supreme Court has given,
S21: is given a template for how it would look at
S21: some federal legislation to further protect children in terms of
S21: online harms. And I think there's some folks right now
S21: in Congress probably making sure they got ink in their
S21: pens to start working on that from a federal standpoint.
S1: And it's got the porn industry hopping mad. And I
S1: couldn't be happier.
S21: Your bias is showing.
S1: Yes. And may it ever be showing.
S21: Yeah. This man I have to tell you, this was
S21: never a free.
S1: It's it's a joke.
S21: Isn't it ironic that the Free Speech Coalition, which was
S21: a lobbying arm for the porn industry, was arguing it's
S21: a free speech issue. It is none of the free
S21: speech issues that the Supreme Court has looked at before, because,
S21: quite frankly, it was not a burden on free speech.
S21: It was a burden on the porn industry. And that
S21: doesn't count.
S1: Yeah, that's exactly right. Again, multi-billion dollar industry. You know,
S1: there is a comparison, is there not between Mahmud, the
S1: first case we talked about and this one, the Free
S1: Speech Coalition, Vpax. And at the center of both of
S1: these are our kids, our families. Satan hates the family
S1: first institution, God's grace and a place of perfection. No
S1: wonder they're under assault. So you know what? Here's that
S1: sound of that trumpet Nehemiah warned us about. Fight for
S1: your families today. You got a couple of great victories
S1: back after this. So we're going to talk about, yet again,
S1: another case, because this really is about something more than
S1: the way it'll be spin in the evening news. And
S1: of course it's going to be spun, because anytime Donald
S1: Trump is in the middle of a news story, it
S1: gets spun. So let me turn to another alphabet soup
S1: outlet and let you hear their summation of this landmark decision.
S1: Have a listen.
S25: In a monumental case before the Supreme Court, the justices
S25: ruling President Trump can move forward with implementing the end
S25: of birthright citizenship. The High Court today, focusing on whether
S25: district courts have the ability to issue nationwide injunctions on
S25: Trump's executive order.
S26: Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to
S26: proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on
S26: a nationwide basis.
S25: The decision six three split along ideological lines. Justice Amy
S25: Coney Barrett, with the opinion of the court writing, universal
S25: injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given
S25: to federal courts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, descent.
S25: No right is safe in the new legal regime. The
S25: court creates.
S26: Birthright. That's a big one.
S25: President Trump signing the controversial executive order on day one
S25: of his second term, limiting U.S. citizenship only to children
S25: born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents, ending a
S25: right that's been guaranteed by the Constitution for more than
S25: 150 years. Federal judges in three states ruled the ban
S25: on birthright citizenship violates the Constitution's 14th amendment, issuing nationwide
S25: injunctions blocking it from going into effect. The Trump administration
S25: then making an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court during
S25: oral arguments in May. The administration argued the federal judges
S25: overreached their authority.
S27: This was only about whether the district judge could enjoin
S27: the enforcement of that nationwide. What will now see is
S27: the actual question of what the 14th amendment means, whether
S27: a president acting alone, without Congress, without an amendment to
S27: the Constitution, can change our understanding of how we've implemented
S27: that for the last 150 years.
S25: And then beyond this case, this decision could have wide
S25: ranging effects on other issues. Other actions Trump is trying
S25: to press forward that have either been stopped or limited
S25: by the federal court. That includes funding freezes and mass layoffs. Liv.
S25: The Supreme Court, Perry russom channel seven Eyewitness News.
S1: Now that's their spin. There's a whole lot more to
S1: it than that. But before we kind of set the
S1: record straight here, the president did react to the decision today.
S1: Here's what he said this morning.
S26: The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution,
S26: the separation of powers and the rule of law in
S26: striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere
S26: with the normal functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme
S26: Court has stopped the presidency itself. That's what they've done.
S26: There are people elated all over the country. I've seen
S26: such such happiness in spirit. Sometimes you don't see that.
S26: But this case is very important. I was elected on
S26: a historic mandate, but in recent months we've seen a
S26: handful of radical left judges effectively tried to overrule the
S26: rightful powers of the president to stop the American people
S26: from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.
S26: And thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file
S26: to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined
S26: on a nationwide basis. And some of the cases we're
S26: talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes
S26: to the fore that was meant for the babies of slaves.
S26: It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system
S26: and come into the country on a vacation. This lets
S26: us go there and finally win that case, because hundreds
S26: of thousands of people are pouring into our country under
S26: birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason.
S1: Now, let's pick up on the fact that why this
S1: case is significant and you may have voted for or
S1: against him. Actually, that's utterly immaterial. This is really a
S1: transcendent question about the separation of powers and whether or
S1: not if a president signs an executive order or pleads
S1: for an injunction to be put in place, whether or
S1: not a lower court judge has the right to supersede
S1: the authority of the executive branch of the government. It's
S1: a fascinating question. If you care about American civics, even
S1: if you're not interested in American jurisprudence, I think it's
S1: an important question. So again, six three, the same three
S1: dissenting on this one as the other two cases we
S1: talked about before. So Amy Coney Barrett talked about the
S1: idea of universal injunction. That's really kind of the spinal
S1: column in this whole case. What does it.
S21: Mean? Yeah. Well, let me contrast what the argument is,
S21: which is any birth from an illegal alien in the
S21: United States has birthright. Now, that's the constitutional question which
S21: the Supreme Court has not yet discussed, or at least
S21: they haven't decided yet. They had to clear, however, the
S21: issue of single judges being able to impose an injunction Nationwide.
S21: And when they took a look at that, they decided,
S21: number one, based on the congressional history of how Congress
S21: has treated this, there's no indication Congress ever intended this.
S21: And by the way, Congress does have authority with regard
S21: to certain procedural aspects of the federal judiciary. There are
S21: separate branches, but Congress does have some limited ability to
S21: weigh in on procedural issues with regard to judiciary. And
S21: the Supreme Court said there's no history there. There's also
S21: really no history of good interpretation by the Supreme Court. Previously, uh,
S21: that there is such a right now, I will give
S21: you one hypothetical that might that might occur, let's say that, uh,
S21: one of the interpreters that our military used over in
S21: Afghanistan is a woman, and she happens to be pregnant,
S21: and she's an interpreter, a language interpreter. She's not an
S21: American citizen. When Afghanistan, of course, falls, and we retreat
S21: and we pull people back, including interpreters and people who
S21: have aided our military effort. We fly that woman back
S21: to the United States, not an American citizen, and that
S21: child is born. There's a good argument under the Constitution,
S21: just like the slavery issue, bringing people into the country, uh,
S21: either against their will or under those circumstances. But illegal
S21: aliens know that will now be decided, and it won't
S21: be on a single judge for the whole country.
S1: To that end, again, it was Justice Barrett who did
S1: write for the majority. And she said, in fact, this
S1: is interesting, Craig. She pointedly addressed Justice Jackson's arguments. And
S1: she said, and I quote, we will not dwell. This
S1: is in her written opinion. We will not dwell on
S1: Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than
S1: two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.
S1: We observe only this justice Jackson decries an imperial executive
S1: while embracing an imperial judiciary. What do you think of that?
S21: Yeah. Separate but equal. Okay. But not super equal. Right? Yeah.
S21: I love that language. And I love that decision. And
S21: we really came down with some blockbusters and I was
S21: you and I are rarely happy on all of those
S21: kind of cases at the end of a term. This
S21: time was remarkably positive for the American people and for
S21: upholding the Constitution.
S1: Yeah. So again, transcended issues. One parents, actually two, dealing
S1: with parents rights, whether they can opt their child out
S1: under the free exercise of religion clause, the second, protecting
S1: their children from being exposed to pornography on the internet,
S1: and the third, this idea of the separation of powers.
S1: And that's extreme. Forget who's in office. It is. That's
S1: the wonderful thing about these documents. They've long outlived anyone
S1: who's occupied the Oval Office or sits in Congress or
S1: even at the High Court. So this was important for
S1: making sure that the Constitution remains fully intact. Hope you
S1: have a great weekend. We'll see you next time on
S1: in the market with Janet Parshall.