BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds parental rights (06-27-2025--Hour2)

What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. All right, so we. Had the nationwide injunctions SmackDown ruling that came down from the US Supreme Court. We also had actually let me read, there's one other piece on that ruling, and if you want you want more on that, go back and listen to the first hour podcast. There's a lawyer. He's actually represented a lot of j sixers. He goes I forget his real name, but on Twitter he goes by the name Shipwrecked Crew. I think his name his last name, maybe ship or something. But anyway, he says the fact that six justices were okay signing on to an opinion where Justice amy Cony Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Kotanji Brown. Jackson is a very strong indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work. Justices circulate memos among among each other with their legal views on certain cases in order to try to bring others around to their way of thinking. Right, they write this stuff up, they send it over. Here's my legal rationale, here's my arguing, and they go around and they talk about this stuff. Right, given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in. This case. To to elicit this kind of a SmackDown from Amy Cony Barrett. Barrett boils it down to a single point that Jackson would elevate the primacy of a single district judge above the executive because they are the court. That's it. That's her rationale, and that is appalling to all six of the Republican appointed judges. And the fact that you would write this in the opinion indicates that the memos that were going around must have been fire. Oh my goodness, what else. We have another ruling that came down. Let me see here. This is from Daily Caller News Foundation. Their little blurb about the case that they wrote up for this morning before the ruling was handed down. This is a case called Mahmoud versus Taylor. Okay, this is a school district in Maryland. I think it's Montgomery County where Muslim and Christian parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Educations refusal to grant a religious exemption to mandated elementary school storybook readings that involved Pride parades, gender transitions, and drag queens. So happy end of Pride month everyone, that's good job. See this is what I mean. The left can never go too far in their minds. There is no end zone. This is why when I have debates about all sorts of topics, I try to ask, like, what is the optimal dollar figure, for example, on per pupil expenditures? Right, give me the number. Where's the end zone? Where's the destination? Because if you don't know the destination, how do we know if we got there, let alone if we're going in the right direction. Because you can't just say fullward all the time like all good commies do, because forward could mean right off of a cliff. I don't want to go forward if I'm going to be plunging down a ravine. So please tell me where we are going, what is the destination, so I will know the direction we are headed. That there's no limiting principle here. And so the left went too far, as they do on everything, they went too far. You started with gay marriage. They just want to be married. They want to, you know, have the same sort of contractual rights. They want to be able to go into the hospitals to be with their dying spouse, like all of that stuff. And those arguments worked to convince a lot of people who are not personally impacted by gay marriage. They didn't care, and they were like, Okay, yeah, I agree with that. And you had this sea change and then you you went too far. Then you went to yeah, actually I do want to dress up like a woman and read to your four year old. And if you say no to that, then you're a bigot. And then you start looking at the books that you're putting on the shelves in the library, and you've got cartoons of people having gay sex. You would not show cartoons of people having heterosexual sex, no, but you have gay sex because you're trying to make it okay. You're trying to indoctrinate, you're trying to normalize, right, you went too far. And when parents stood up and said, well, whoa, whoa, this is not appropriate material. No matter if it's you know, homosexual or heterosexual, doesn't matter, it's this is not age appropriate. And you said, shut up, bigot, and then you had the doj sicked on you for going down to a school board meeting and talking about it. You went too far. And so parents up in Montgomery County they were like, we would like to be able to not have our. Kids exposed to this stuff at their age. And originally the Montgomery school board said okay, fine, and then they dismantled that, but they never told the parents, if I recall correctly the details of the case, they never told the parents that they had changed it. So parents who had thought that they were defaulted to an opt out and if you want your kids to be exposed to the porn, you can opt them in. But what the school district discovered was that there weren't a lot of kids opting in, which in a market system, that's a market signal telling you they don't want it, they don't want to go into these drag queens story hours. They don't want it, and so of course we have to, you know, re educate the bigots. So therefore they scrap the opt in and they turn it into an opt out and they don't tell people, and so then all of a sudden, junior comes home and they're like, I want to be a girl, and like, where'd you hear that? Oh well, we had a drag queen come in and tell me that I should be or something. And now it's like wha wait a minute. So they go down and they're like, this is objectionable. We want to return to the old way, and they were in the Board of Education was like no. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals back in twenty twenty four ruled against the parents, finding that their free exercise of religion rights were not burdened because nobody compelled them to change their religious beliefs or conduct. That was what the Fourth Circus Court of Appeals determined. Well, nobody's making you convert. Yeah no, but you are putting all these ideas into my impressionable, young five year old child's young skull of mush. Right, you are putting it in their heads. They're not equipped to learn this stuff, so they're just going to take what you say as true. Well, then you're just gonna have to parent harder. I guess right. And during oral arguments a majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the parents. So here's how Axios reports it. Parents can opt their children out of school lessons with LGBTQ plus characters or themes. The big picture, the ruling is a win for conservatives, as schools have become a major partisan battleground. Yeah, why Axios? Why have schools become a major partisan battleground? How did that happen? It wasn't conservatives taking over school boards over the last twenty years and injecting this crap into the curriculum. It was the left, exactly cause the left always goes too far. It can never go far enough for themselves for the lefties. The school had initially offered parents a way to opt their kids out of those lessons, but then they dropped it after it became too unwieldy to administer. They said, they said that that was what the school district said. Oh, it's just too much of an administrative burden to keep track of all of this stuff. But parents must be able to have their kids skip lessons to which the parents have a religious objection. The court ruled again six to three. That opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito. You know stories are powerful. They help us make sense of things, to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the people of our past while transcending generations. They help us process the meaning of life, and our stories are told through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video started in nineteen ninety seven and mint Hill, North Carolina. It was the first company to provide this valuable service, converting images, photos and videos into high quality produced slide shows, videos and albums. The trusted, talented and dedicated team at Creative Video will go over all of the details with you to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off in person or mail them. They'll be ready in a week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays, or just your family stories all told through images. That's what your photos and videos are. They are your life told through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you, and they will tell others to come who you are. Visit Creative Video dot Com. All right, let's jump over to the phones and chat with Bain. Hey, Bain, how's it going, man. Hey, keete, it's going good. About thirty years ago I read a book by Frankie Schaefer called it The Time for Anger, and within the book to do a social commentary book, and it was written that freedom without form results in chaos, and out of chaos always emerges a tyrant or five out an ninety four ruling in favor. Yeah. Yeah, no, that's a great, that's a great. And so there's no form with what Katanji Brown was saying. That's what Amy Coney was saying, what's the basis? What's your stipulations mean? Well, what are you connecting this to nothing? Right? Well, and that's the I've been saying this on a whole host of different issues for a long time, which is that chaos. Is the point, that's the purpose. It's to create the chaos, and from that chaos, as you just mentioned, there arises a tyrant because somebody comes and oftentimes the people who create the chaos are the ones that then assert themselves as the solution to the very chaos they have created. You see it in our language as well. We covered this yesterday when Democrats in the Raleigh General Assembly they were arguing over this, you know, sexual exploitation of children and women. Yet they objected to the definitions of what a woman is in the legislation, right, which is just chaos. Like you, how do you even legislate if you cannot agree upon mutually acceptable definitions. And sometimes leaders in positions, certain positions, even I've seen it in business too, they create problems so that they can solve problems. Yep, I've heard. So have you ever heard of the seagull manager? No, no, no, no, so like like the like the bird, the seagull, whereas they they they swoop in, they make a lot of noise. Uh, they crap on everything, and then they leave. So like yes, and so like I've had managers that are like that. I've had bosses that are like that. And now sometimes I think Trump is actually a pretty good example of one of these types of characters, these chaos agents. They come up, they come in, they disrupt. I think Elon Musk also would do something along these lines. Right, You you shake things up, you create the chaos, and then you're able to then get people to move and do things that you may not otherwise have been able to make them do. Yeah, the only difference with them was is there was a principle behind what they were doing. We've got to shake this up because we want to save money, for example, right, or we want to keep a rand from obliterating Israel. There was a principle behind it. But I'm still amazed. And just one last thing is I heard this also from Neil Postman that a lot of people, if there's a problem on a way that you're going down the road, you should put up a road closed, you know, because we can all make mistakes in the direction that we're heading. But some folks say, no, no, no, keep the road open, because at the bottom of the cliff, we've got a nice hospital, we've got helicopters, we have some of the best care people that there are, and so we want to use our gizmos and management to take care of the problem that we created when we simply could have just put up a road clothes sign. Yeah, find another way to get there if getting there requires going off a cliff, right, Yeah, No, I got your ban. I appreciate the call. That's good stuff. Thanks, thank you all. Right, buddy, you have a great weekend. This is from Fox News. This is Shannon Breem. She used to work down the hall here at WBTV back in the day when I was a reporter with her, and she has been in Fox News for a long time. She is also a lawyer. People don't realize that. I think she's a Fox News host, but she's also super smart, one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, too. But she is covering their Supreme Court decisions. And here is her report on the Supreme Court backing the parents in this Montgomery County, Maryland parental rights case. We were Dana. So this brought together a coalition of parents of different religious faiths and backgrounds who said there used to be a rule in this particular school district that would let them know when there were books that dealt with issues that may be in conflict with their religious faith. Well, so many parents were of out that the school board and the school district quit doing it. Well six to three today, in a Justice A decision by Justice Alito, they said these parents have been earned at least a preliminary injunction. So while this case plays out, they said the board has to notify them about a book that's in question or anything similar, so that their kids can be excused if it's in conflict with their faith. He says, as we've explained, Without that, parents are left this choice either risk their child's exposure to burden some instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. Because at one point Justice Jackson, during the arguments is said, had said, why don't they just go to a different schoo Why don't you put them in private school or homeschool them, Justice Alitos and others saying that's not practical for a lot of. People unless you have vouchers. This was the most hilarious part in this oral argument was that you had the liberals saying, well, just go to a different school. So like making a school choice argument inadvertently, because the issue is never the issue, right, The issue is always the revelation. So that's why they get these inconsistent arguments that they have to reach into the bag, pull out this silly argument, make it right now because it helps advance the revolution. Right now. But you've been talking for all these years before about no school choice and shutting all of that down and taxpayer funds for private institutions and blah blah blah. But now you need the argument the other direction, So I will use it in any other direction, because right now is all that matters. This particular argument is all that matters for me right now. The descent by Justice Sotomayer, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, says today's ruling threatens the essence of public education. She says, it's not about bringing kids together to learn about a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project. Until now. She didn't think the dissenters didn't think that the parents should get the opt out, Justice Alito, when the majority say they should. So they should be exposed to genitals, don't you know lots of different ideas? You know, your six year old needs to see this stuff. Otherwise they may not know. And that's not what a good education is all about. Here's a great idea. How about making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina. Just a quick drive up the mountain and cabins of Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion. Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Ashville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi, grills, outdoor tables and your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion, and they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight two eight, three six seven seventy sixty eight or check out all there is to offer at Cabins of Aashville dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. All right? What else? We had another US Supreme Court ruling that came down in a case over a Texas law that was challenged by an adult entertainment industry trade group that calls itself the Free Speech Coalition. Imagine, uh yeah, imagine some uh, you know, First Amendment activists just. Oh, look at that. There's a local meeting of the Free Speech Coalition. I'm going to show up to that meeting, and oh, my gosh, who are these people. It's a bunch of porn industry people, the Free Speech coal Listen anyway, In January, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to this Texas law that required porn sites to verify users' ages. And you may think to yourself, well, what's the problem with that? Right? You want to make sure that whoever's logging onto your porn site is of age? Right, because you wouldn't be able to go to the store and buy one of the NUDI mags unless you were Is it eighteen years old or twenty one years old? I get maybe it dependent on the state. I don't know. Do they even sell those things in convenience stores anymore? I will you could never tell because they had the black thing on the front of it, right, they had like the front cover was always blacked out. It was because it was in like a comic book wrapper, you know, like a plastic wrapper, and the whole front of it was black, so you could never tell. You couldn't see what was on the cover. So I don't even know if those things do they do they even make magazines anymore? I don't even know. But I know that you had to be a certain age to buy that stuff, right, So it kind of makes sense that you would have to have some age verification on the websites, right. Of course, problem nobody wants to give their driver's. License to the website in order to prove it's them, right, They don't want to create a user profile. They don't want to, let alone give over personal information, because far be it from me to suggest that a porn website might not be the most secure website with your data. But yeah, so, by the way, North Carolina has this law too. So Text has passed this law, and the Free Speech Coalition they sued. Now, I'll hang on a second. My live my live update here, just scrolled down to do so. I was reading from two different pieces. Anyway, that's fine, I'll go back to the here it is eleven twenty five. Yeah, but they keep they keep shifting it away. Here it is okay, because it's a live update feed from the Associated Press, so it keeps bumping stuff out of my screen. So I'll read. Let me finish this first, then, So they say, the group said that the law puts an unfair free speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. Well, that's on you guys. Wait a minute, you're suing because you're like, you cannot trust our websites to protect your information. Okay, that is an undue burden on the free speechers that are just coming to look at porn, right, Like, we have terrible security, don't you know where porn sites we got terrible security. So like, that's a burden on the users. Man. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court did not buy this argument. Nearly half of all states have now passed similar age verification laws, as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. This was the case called Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton as I said, it came out of Texas and the Free Speech Coalition represented online porn distributors who argue the law burdens adults First Amendment rights. By the way, did you know that if you try to go down to speak at the city council meetings, if you sign up to speak, did you know that you have to give your name and address? Is that a burden on free speech that you have to give your name an address because they want to make sure that you are actually a Charlotte City resident, right, because they don't need people from other cities, other counties, other countries. You know, they are okay with people from other countries coming in as long as you are like resident, as long as you have like a local address. But otherwise, if you live outside of the city limits, they don't want to hear what you have to say because you're not local. You're not one of their constituents, you know. So there was that. Let's see here, what else? There was another case because they had six rulings. Oh, I have not seen how they've determined this one yet, but there was a there's another case. This was a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana, Louisiana. Sorry, I kid, I kid, Louisiana. I've never even been there. Following a winding journey through the lower courts, the Supreme Court is slated to resolve a conflict over Louisiana's congressional map. I don't know the details of this case either, but I'm going to assume, based on what I'm about to read to you, that this was a bunch of Mark Elias type lawyers of the left suing over congressional drawn districts in order to try to get more Democrats into the US House. So here's the rite of from the Daily Caller News Foundation. After a federal district judge rejected Louisiana's congressional map including only one black majority district, Okay. So I don't know how many districts they've got down there in Louisiana, but the legislature drew the maps and they made one majority black district, Okay, So fifty I don't know, five percent of the voters in the district are black, Okay, And so that would theoretically ensure that a Democrat wins the seat, a black Democrat wins the seat, right, Okay. So They said. Though in the in their lawsuit that that's a violation of the Voting Rights Act. They sued in twenty twenty two, the state legislature redrew the map and they created another black majority district in twenty four Okay, so you think then problem. Solved, right, Haha. Wrong. A three judge panel then ruled that the new map unlawfully made race the predominant factor in its creation. So you got sued because you only had one black majority district. So you draw another set of maps, and this one has two black majority districts, and you get sued again by the same people who say, now you used race as a factor. But if you didn't use race as a factor, as North Carolina did not, they used party identification, They too got sued by the left, saying that the impact was the same and that you didn't use race enough. This is what years ago sam Alito pointed out in one of these rulings in the North Carolina Redistrict in case. He was like, you guys keep changing the rules, Supreme Court, these lower courts, you guys keep changing the rules when it comes to drawing maps, and no legislature in North Carolina can conceivably comply with you, because when you tell them to use race and then they do, you say you shouldn't have used race, and then they don't. You're like, oh, you should have used it a little bit more than you didn't, and then oh, maybe you should have used it not so much or whatever. You're all over the place. This is why I mock the left for their their you know, we want fair maps argument. You don't want fair maps to a democrat. Fair maps are maps where they win. That's what a fair map is for the left. All right. If you're listening to this show, you know I try to keep up with all sorts of current events, and I know you do too, And you've probably heard me say get your news from multiple sources. Why well, because it's how you detect media bias. Which is why I've been so impressed with ground News. It's an app and it's a website, and it combines news from around the world in one place so you can compare coverage and verify information. You could check it out at check dot ground, dot newsos slash pete. I put the link in the podcast description too. I started using ground News a few months ago, and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot. Feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself. Check dot Ground, dot News slash Pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports Ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent. Here's a question. When Joe Biden nominated KBJ to the Supreme Court, Katanji Brown Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is because she's not a biologist, was that actually his nominee? Was that his decision? Now I think the case can actually be made pretty effectively that he did know that, because remember he said that he promised that he would appoint a black woman to the US Supreme Court, And the left went swoony swoony nuts. Right, they just love that so much, and this is why she will forever be sort of tagged as a dei higher, which I having known nothing about her before she was nominated, I thought, that's so unfair for her because she could be very highly qualified, brilliant jurist, you know, And now she's got this label because Joe Biden went out and said, I'm only looking for a black woman judge. And now you read her rulings and her opinions and it's like, oh my gosh, she is really bad. Like now that tag that's going to calcify. There's no way around it. So I think Joe did know that she was. Now I don't believe he knew anything about her, probably, but I don't know. And the reason I don't know this is because I don't know what Joe knew for most of his presidency, if not the entire presidency, maybe even into his vice presidency. But there are members of the House who are trying to figure out who knew what and when, and so they have been inviting all love it devy at first. Of course, they've been inviting members of Joe Biden's staff to come and sit for some questioning with their Congressional committee, and if they don't, they will subpoena your butt. A top aide to former First Lady Doctor Joe Biden suddenly refused to testify this week for a congressional investigation into the cover up of former President Joe Biden's mental decline during his tenure in the White House. Anthony Bernal, who I believe worked for dunder Mifflin Paper Company before arriving at the White House, but he he was long known for being doctor Jill Biden's quote unquote work husband. There are so many, so many things I can say, but I will not say them. I'm better than that most times. So Bernal is now declining to appear for the closed door interview before the House Overside Committee after previously agreeing to go and talk to the committee. So now the committee has issued him a subpoena, like you don't want to come voluntarily, we will now drag your butt here. Comer attributed Bernal's flip to the Trump White House decision to waive executive privilege for the Oversight Committee's investigation into the actions that Joe Biden's inner circle took to hide the extent to which his mental faculties declined throughout his presidency. So, okay, I was not aware that a current administration can waive executive privilege for previous administrations? Did you know that? I thought it was like you're. In my administration and then we're done and somebody subpoena as you and you're like, I'm not going to talk about what Pete and I talked about, because that would be privilege. That's executive privilege, like you know, like attorney client privilege kind of thing. I did not think that a new white ass could come in and say, yeah, we're gonna wave all that privilege. You got to talk now, because honestly, like, why haven't we been doing this for much longer? The White House has been going back and forth Republican to Democrat and all that, Like why not waive all of the privilege? I guess maybe because like you don't want the next guy to wave it on you. So if a Democrat gets into office next, they could wave privilege and now you're going to drag every Trump advisor before congressional committees to testify and they won't have privilege. And honestly, like, part of me is okay with this, part of me is like, yeah, I don't. I mean, well, I'm thinking it through right now. I can see where some conversations would definitely need to be privileged, you know, But when it comes to things like is the president feeble minded and out to lunch, you know, like twenty hours out of the day. I think, I don't know. I think that might be a different kind of scenario. So Comer is investigating the Biden White House's use of the presidential auto pen. The autopen is typically used in ceremonial letters and non official documents, but the Biden administration appears to have used it for executive orders and other official actions. According to National Review piece by James Lynch, Biden and himself dismissed concerns about suspected autopen usage in a statement earlier this month when he said, ah, which translates to I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations, and a suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false. But of course we don't know who wrote that statement on behalf of Joe Biden. Bernal was said to be the second former senior Biden administration aid to testify for Comer's investigation. The first one was Nira Tanden. She's a long time Democrat operative and currently the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, a Democrat think tank which I know sounds oxymoronic. Ms Tanden testified that she had minimal interaction with President Biden, despite wielding tremendous authority. She explained that to obtain approval for autopen signatures, she would send decision memos to members of the presidents in her circle and had no visibility of what occurred between sending the memo and receiving it back with approval. Now, her people, her lawyer, and then there's some Democrat on the committee that has spoken anonymously to Fox News. They say that characterization that she was in the dark when it came to who was giving the final approval. She's like, that's a lie, that's a lie. Former White House staffer received written sign off from Biden on every executive action she presented him with, right, but to whom did she present it? Any characterization is a distortion of the testimony. The unnamed official said to intimate that near A Tanden said President Biden did not approve every single presidential decision and sign off on every executive action coming out of the White House as a lie. Well, that's not what actually, that's not what they said. They said that she never had direct interaction that's what they were saying. So your argument is that Biden did sign off on this stuff, but we don't know that because we can't talk to Biden about all of these things that he signed off on. Right, they haven't called him yet, although they. Have subpoened doctor Jill. Who else, doctor who's actually a doctor, Kevin O'Connor, the personal physician, along with Ashley Williams, Annie Thomasini. These are the people that comprised what you'll recall Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in their book Original Sin. They called this the pollt Buro. These were the people around Joe Biden that protected him, kept everybody else away And yeah, okay, yeah, probably we're running the country. And what Comer has said is that y'all need to come and testify to this stuff because we are. We're exploring, we're investigating whether or not the Congress needs to do something thing regarding the twenty fifth Amendment. Right, do we need to do something to build some some scaffolding, you know, policy wise around exercising the twenty fifth Amendment, Because if you have a cabinet that is staffed with people that refuse to do their constitutional duty under the twenty fifth Amendment and remove the president because he has become mentally infirmed or physically infirmed. But if they refuse to do it, there isn't any other apparatus by which to remove him. So Congress is now exploring this. You guys need to come in and talk about this. So there's your update on President auto pen. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetekallanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.