If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days, from elementary school on up, one of the first things they will tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns and made-up genders.
To call this phenomenon &#8220;unnatural&#8221; would be a vast understatement. It&#8217;s obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases without their parents&#8217; knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it&#8217;s very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls.
After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary-school-age children. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, “Mahmoud v. Taylor” could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation.
Before we review the oral arguments, here is some background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland — introduced a new &#8220;gender and sexuality curriculum.&#8221; Initially, students (or their parents) could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn&#8217;t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it&#8217;s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here&#8217;s an image from one book that children are introduced to.
<div id="attachment_911559" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-911559" class="wp-image-911559 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: What Are Your Words?" width="680" height="446" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U-300x197.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: What Are Your Words?</div>
This is what&#8217;s apparently known as an &#8220;LGBT storybook.&#8221; This one&#8217;s called, “What Are Your Words?” As you can see, one line of dialogue reads, “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-scotus-back-parents-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-storybooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new curriculum</a>:
<blockquote>[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes &#8216;intersex flag,&#8217; &#8216;drag queen,&#8217; &#8216;underwear,&#8217; &#8216;leather,&#8217; and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to &#8216;make sense.&#8217; Teachers are instructed to say doctors only &#8216;guess&#8217; when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.</blockquote>
When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about &#8220;sex work&#8221; and &#8220;gender transitioning&#8221; by Left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots. All these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn&#8217;t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1581-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to yesterday&#8217;s oral arguments. I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality, transgenderism and so on. (To be clear, that&#8217;s what the school district is doing. They&#8217;re not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of class.) The truthful answer to Justice Alito&#8217;s question is simple: The Left understands that, if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age.
But the school district can&#8217;t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district&#8217;s superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be, at a practical level, for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes sense. It gets so bad that, at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy is talking about. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 alito, whats the big deal" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q118nmS1g2s?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
As best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that, because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it&#8217;s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there&#8217;s a chance that they&#8217;ll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points.The big one is that, when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect, as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever. The teacher is in a position of authority. It&#8217;s much easier for a 5-year-old to discount something another 5-year-old says, than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he&#8217;s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it&#8217;s an argument for not having these materials in the school to begin with. Which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it is not an argument against allowing parents to opt out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this but he can&#8217;t admit it. So he ends up confusing everyone in the room with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. Listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that, in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can&#8217;t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute &#8220;coercion.&#8221; The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here&#8217;s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 gorsuch, coercion, correcting himself" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sWOLDR4Q0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, &#8220;a boy can&#8217;t be a girl.&#8221; And then the lawyer states that it&#8217;s not &#8220;coercive,&#8221; in any way, for the teacher to correct the student&#8217;s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.
Even when he&#8217;s not contradicting himself, the school district&#8217;s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. 
Here&#8217;s his opening statement, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 beginning with mr shonfeld" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkw27dw9T5g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there&#8217;s no difference between teaching elementary-school students about wars, and teaching them that boys can become girls. Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it&#8217;s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.
One of the ways we know this isn&#8217;t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there&#8217;s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That&#8217;s because it&#8217;s understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it&#8217;s grounded in reality. On the other hand, gender ideology is just that — ideological.
This lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That&#8217;s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you&#8217;d expect, she did not disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points, just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children, because she takes the Left&#8217;s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 can just go to private school" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-FJrhGbwrw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there&#8217;s no &#8220;burden&#8221; on these parents, apparently. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;burden&#8221; to have to pay more money, and change your child&#8217;s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she&#8217;s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she&#8217;s wrong. And then she goes quiet and they move on.
Here’s one more clip from these arguments, involving Justice Alito questioning the school board&#8217;s lawyer. He follows up on this logic, about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school. He begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 alito, too bad" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgRo17KtvU8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when &#8220;sparks fly,&#8221; so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district&#8217;s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They&#8217;re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they&#8217;re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won&#8217;t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn&#8217;t work that way. And it appears the Montgomery County school district, and school districts all over the country, are about to discover that.
This is not a close case. That&#8217;s why even the far-Left outlet Vox <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250422191725/https://www.vox.com/scotus/409921/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>The Supreme Court’s &#8216;Don’t Say Gay&#8217; argument went disastrously for public schools.</blockquote>
At the moment, the most likely outcome is that, when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology, or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with their established religion. Everyone can see this coming.
And just to underscore that, yesterday Randi Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers&#8217; unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn&#8217;t read these books in the classroom. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Randi" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luc0jWbW_HA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
We all know that Randi Weingarten isn&#8217;t saying this because she believes it. She&#8217;s maybe the most calculating political operative in the country, after Nancy Pelosi. But Weingarten understands when the Left is overplaying its hand. She knows that they&#8217;re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she&#8217;s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there&#8217;s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we&#8217;ve discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country, to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way an ideology like this can survive is by targeting children before they&#8217;re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That&#8217;s their only viable play. And in a few short months, after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it&#8217;ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Parental Rights Regarding LGBTQ Books In Schools

The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated

Books

Brett Kavanaugh

Children's Books

Education

Elementary Schools

gender ideology

Ketanji Brown Jackson

LGBTQ

Matt Walsh

Neil Gorsuch

Opinion

Parents rights

Samuel Alito

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Virginia

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson performed this weekend in Broadway&#8217;s queer rendition of the Shakespeare classic &#8220;Romeo and Juliet,&#8221; which features a non-binary character.
On Saturday night, the liberal justice performed in &#8220;&amp; Juliet,&#8221; a jukebox musical that created a special one-night role just for Jackson.
Jackson, 54, can be seen prancing around the stage in her costume, a light blue corset over a lacy tunic paired with light wash jeans with cargo pockets.
A video of Jackson&#8217;s performance shows her excitedly saying a line from the play —&#8221;Yay! I think what I like about it is that I am having a very strongly negative reaction to it,&#8221; she says on stage.
One of the characters is May, Juliet&#8217;s non-binary friend who ends up marrying a man.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEW: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson makes Broadway debut in “&amp; Juliet,” a queer twist on Romeo and Juliet. 
The play features ‘May,’ Juliet’s he/she/they best friend.
Jackson previously said it was her life goal to perform on a Broadway stage.
“I, a Miami girl… <a href="https://t.co/FauTkn0uBJ">pic.twitter.com/FauTkn0uBJ</a>
&mdash; Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) <a href="https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1868689462915649836?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
In her memoir, &#8220;Lovely One,&#8221; released in September, Jackson said she has wanted to perform on Broadway as a Supreme Court justice since applying to Harvard in the late 1980s.
“I, a Miami girl from a modest background with an unabashed love of theatre, dreamed of one day ascending to the highest court in the land—and I had said so in one of my supplemental application essays. I expressed that I wished to attend Harvard as I believed it might help me &#8216;to fulfill my fantasy of becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage,&#8217;” she wrote in her book.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1734465856887000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0yoXh27k1XJufgc_qcfvEq">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Jackson also said that she took drama class with Matt Damon at Harvard and that her professor once praised her more than Damon for a scene they did together.
&#8220;I was like, &#8216;Oh my god, I was better than Matt Damon in a scene,'&#8221; Jackson told CBS.
The Broadway show &#8220;&amp; Juliet&#8221; is a modern take on the Shakespeare play that explores what could have happened next if Juliet had not ended her life over Romeo.
In one scene, the character Francois is about to marry to Juliet when he changes his mind and confesses his feelings for Juliet&#8217;s non-binary friend May. He starts singing &#8220;It&#8217;s Gonna Be Me&#8221; — apparently a reference to the Internet meme making fun of Justin Timberlake&#8217;s pronunciation of &#8220;me&#8221; in that song.
Jackson stayed to talk with audience members at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre after the show.
&#8220;I think that it means that anything is possible,&#8221; Jackson said of her performance Saturday night.
The Supreme Court currently has several weighty cases on its plate.
One case deals with whether states should be allowed to ban puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria.
Also, TikTok asked the court on Monday to temporarily block a law that would effectively ban the Chinese-owned social media platform in the U.S.

Group Photograph Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Ketanji Brown Jackson Takes Broadway Stage In Queer ‘Romeo And Juliet’ With Trans Character

Ketanji Brown Jackson Stars In Queer 'Romeo And Juliet' With Trans Character

LGBT

Romeo and Juliet

Shakespeare

MixCollage-04-Dec-2024

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End For Gender Ideology

Clarence Thomas

Gender

Gender Identity

Sonia Sotomayor

Transgender

transgender surgery

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ketanji-brown-jackson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ketanji Brown Jackson</a> compared Tennessee’s law against irreversible medical interventions that seek to change children’s sex to laws against interracial marriage.
The comparison came as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the Constitutionality of a Tennessee law protecting children from hormone therapies and surgical procedures that attempt to modify their sex.
“They sound in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day, 50’s and 60’s, with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking in particular about Loving,” Brown said, referencing the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which resulted in the overturning of the law prohibiting interracial marriage. The Justice added that she sees &#8220;parallels&#8221; as to “how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegnation statutes in Virginia operated.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨INSANE
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strains to compare U.S. v. Skrmetti to Loving v. Virginia, suggesting that a law protecting kids from experimental medical &#8220;treatments&#8221; to make them appear like the opposite sex is similar to a law preventing interracial… <a href="https://t.co/7nAQQkZzQD">pic.twitter.com/7nAQQkZzQD</a>
— Tyler O&#8217;Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tyler2ONeil/status/1864342782350909713?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
Brown continued on with her comparison between the two laws. “In that case, everyone seemed to concede up front that a racial classification was being drawn by the statute, the question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races,” Brown said, referencing Loving v. Virginia.
“When you look at the structure of that law it looks, in terms of … you know you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics, it&#8217;s sort of the same thing.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
“It’s interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is here in this case,” Brown went on to add.
Despite Brown’s comments, however, some analysis of the case indicates that the Supreme Court may be leaning towards siding with Tennessee and upholding the state’s law, potentially opening the door to a federal law modeled on it.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh “all seemed to come down on Tennessee’s side,” an <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/12/04/supreme-court-trans-health-care">analysis</a> in Axios reads, adding that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are unlikely to oppose the ban.
Justice Kavanaugh, who was nominated to his position by Trump, also pointed to Europe’s strict regulations on the use of irreversible medical interventions that seek to change the sex of children.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Compares Ban On Child Sex Changes To Law Against Interracial Marriage

Courts

Tennessee

U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is set to headline a conference in Boston this week that will also feature activists who justified Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.
Jackson will deliver a Thursday keynote address at the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) convention. Representing educators from K-12 to college, the 100-year-old organization <a href="https://ncte.org/about/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">adopted a</a> 2017 vision calling on members to “apply the power of language and literacy to actively pursue justice and equity.”
The four-day-long convention, which has the theme “Heart, Hope, Humanity,” will also include Sawsan Jaber and Hannah Moushabeck, two activists who have been outspoken in justifying Hamas’s October 7 attack multiple times.
Jackson <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/blog/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings-live-updates-rcna20973" target="_blank" rel="noopener">faced criticism</a> during her confirmation hearings for her membership in Harvard’s Black Student Association, which invited anti-Semitic speaker Leonard Jeffries to speak during her time at the school. Jackson <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/blog/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings-live-updates-rcna20973" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-NC) that she did not attend Jeffries’ speech and does not share his views.
Mika Hackner, a Senior Research Associate for the Jewish Institute For Liberal Values, said it is “distasteful and unconscionable” that NCTE put Jackson in a position where she will be appearing at an event with anti-Israel activists.
“A Supreme Court justice, a representative of the highest court in our land, charged with protecting the laws and values of our liberal democracy, should not be sharing any kind of engagement or platform with activists who promote the view that Hamas are &#8220;legitimate resistance,” Hackner said.
Hackner noted that several sessions as a whole focus on “using education as a tool of social justice activism.”
Conservative justices have <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/federalist-society-federal-judges-unethical.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">faced criticism</a> in recent years for attending events hosted by groups like the Federalist Society, with detractors questioning their ability to remain “apolitical.”
Moushabeck and Jaber will <a href="https://s1.goeshow.com/ncte/annual/2024/conference_program_sessions.cfm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">share the stage</a> during a Friday session, “Let’s Talk about Palestine: Voice, Experiences, and Education for Liberation.” During the talk, the pair will “model ways in which teachers can be agents of justice through their roles.” Joining them in putting on the session is Nora Lester Murad, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cyhn8oItLAp/?igsh=dGJkcW1kd3Q3cTVo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">who filmed</a> herself ripping down photos of Israeli hostages last October.
Moushabeck will also speak and present in two additional workshops about “Elevating Voices of Women from the Arab Diaspora” and “Reclaiming the Arab Narrative,” respectively.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
Moushabeck has an extensive history of anti-Israel social media activity. Notably, on October 7, 2023, while Hamas was actively massacring, raping, and kidnapping Israeli civilians, she posted <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyHBowhvhcf/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a video defending</a> the terror group’s actions.
“When you reframe what’s happening, you understand why people would retaliate, why people would resist,” she stated. “We’ve seen this in history before we’ve seen this happen here on this very land when settlers took over.”
Other posts include <a href="https://archive.is/s9EBC" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a picture</a> of the Palestinian flag with the words “This is the only flag I fly with pride” <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_WU3ZVRlka/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">and a video</a> with her wearing a “fatties for a Free Palestine shirt.”
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-831699" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-20-at-9.58.54%E2%80%AFAM-1-643x576.png" alt="" width="643" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-20-at-9.58.54%E2%80%AFAM-1-643x576.png 643w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-20-at-9.58.54%E2%80%AFAM-1-300x269.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-20-at-9.58.54%E2%80%AFAM-1-768x688.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-20-at-9.58.54%E2%80%AFAM-1.png 1164w" sizes="(max-width: 643px) 100vw, 643px" /></div>
According to the <a href="https://k12trackers.substack.com/p/the-pennsylvania-council-of-teachers?r=4fx52x&amp;utm_campaign=post&amp;utm_medium=web&amp;triedRedirect=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">K12 Extremism Tracker</a>, Moushabeck was <a href="https://archive.is/kLeBn" target="_blank" rel="noopener">involved</a> in a “Queer story time for Palestine” event in Amherst, Massachusetts with a drag queen where <a href="https://x.com/StopAntisemites/status/1783270561713365345" target="_blank" rel="noopener">toddlers chanted</a> “Free Palestine.”
Moushabeck is currently the co-owner of Interlink Publishing Group, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannah-moushabeck-6669a7ba/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to her LinkedIn</a>.
Jaber has also justified the October 7 attacks, <a href="https://archive.is/zpYdD" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeting days</a> after the invasion Palestinians could not be faulted, because they were “fighting for their humanity.&#8221;
“That doesn’t make them terrorists,” Jaber said. “It makes them human.”
The day after the attacks, Jaber tweeted that her “heart hurts” as her “people get demonized and massacres [sic] again.”
In <a href="https://archive.is/0Mp7t" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a follow-up tweet</a>, she claimed the media “didn’t report fairly” on the Black Lives Matter movement, the American southern border, or the South Dakota pipeline, adding “Why do we believe it would report fairly on Palestine?” She even used the hashtag “#StopTheEthnicCleansing.”
The next day, Jaber <a href="https://archive.is/CVGE9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">condemned</a> school districts sending out pro-Israel statements about the October 7 attack, writing the statements are telling Palestinian students “their lives &amp; lives experiences do not matter.”
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-831707" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Cover-images-4-1-610x576.png" alt="" width="610" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Cover-images-4-1-610x576.png 610w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Cover-images-4-1-300x283.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/Cover-images-4-1.png 762w" sizes="(max-width: 610px) 100vw, 610px" /></div>
When Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was killed in Gaza, Jabar shared a post mourning him, with the text “resistance never dies” and another stating “ideas are bulletproof,” according to <a href="https://k12trackers.substack.com/p/follow-up-sinwar-mourners-sawsan?r=4fx52x&amp;utm_campaign=post&amp;utm_medium=web&amp;triedRedirect=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">K12 Extremism Tracker.</a>
Jaber is scheduled to speak at an American Muslims for Palestine conference next week. The group is currently under investigation for allegedly funneling funds to the terrorist group Hamas, <a href="https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-810733" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Jerusalem Post reported.</a>
Jaber is the Chair of the English Department at Maine West High School, a public school in Illinois. She will also be a presenter in several other social justice workshops including “Beyond Hope: Storytelling, Freedom-Dreaming, and Curricular Design as Pedagogies of Resistance” which will present “pedagogical tactics for bridging literacy, imagination, and activism with youth.”
Jaber will also join “Designing Spaces for Students to Reshape Their Worlds: An Antiracist Pedagogy Workshop.” Participants will learn how to design and assess assignments that guide students’ use of these resources to address the social change they desire.”
Jaber will also present at the “Toward Empowerment, Equity, and Education for Liberation: The Intersections of Critical Literacy and Social Justice” and “Cultivating an Inclusive Classroom: Utilizing Picturebooks to Support Palestinian Identity” workshops.
Jany Finkielsztein, who will be speaking at a poster session for “Multicultural Jewish Children’s Literature” told The Daily Wire it is “deeply concerning” that activists are bringing their ideology into the classrooms.
“It is deeply concerning that activists who glorify the October 7 massacre are attempting to infiltrate our schools with hateful propaganda,” Finkielsztein told The Daily Wire.
Jaber shared a video to <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DCjyPODPv7M/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">her Instagram</a> from writer and activist, Ijeoma Oluo, on Tuesday, that complains that NCTE has a “Palestine problem” and demanded that Finkielsztein’s employer, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, be disinvited from the conference.
The video was accompanied by a link to <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfBUsF72oPu9ac2r9-6ax6Qd64Gmp05SwPXXmtA74hOftdFEw/viewform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a petition</a> accusing the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis of being a “right-wing pro-Israel group that defames educators and undermines the freedom to teach and the right to learn.”
“How can we be safe at the convention if CAMERA is there surveilling us?” the petition asks. “CAMERA is not only a political organization with which we disagree, but a racist and predatory organization that is dangerous to teachers, schools, and students.”
CAMERA fired back at the petition in an exclusive statement to The Daily Wire, accusing the organizers of creating a “hostile environment for Jewish participants.”
“It is ironic and deeply troubling that those who claim to champion inclusion are actively seeking to intimidate Jewish participants and stifle diverse perspectives,” said CAMERA Communications Director Jonah Cohen. “CAMERA’s presence at the NCTE convention is rooted in our commitment to respectful dialogue, accurate education, and the inclusion of all voices — Jewish, Palestinian, and others.”
Cohen added that he hopes Jackson and other leaders will “step up as the moral voice needed to challenge these dangerous trends.&#8221;
Other sessions of the conference taught by other educators include “Disrupting the Canon with LGBTQIA+ Themes, Stories, and Discussions,” which will focus on “incorporating LGBTQIA+ themes and stories in education,” and “the stories of transgender parents in early childhood education.” The “Past and Present of LGBTQIA+ In Elementary Education” will focus on “the importance of humanizing queer and trans content in primary schools.”
Jackson and Moushabeck did not respond to a request for comment. Jaber declined to comment.

Cover images-3 (1)

Ketanji Brown Jackson To Headline Event Featuring Activists Who Justified October 7

Anti-Semitism

Hamas

Israel

Justice Thomas Attends Forum On His 30 Year Supreme Court Legacy

‘The Left Is Triggered By Justice Thomas’: Mark Paoletta On The Crusade Against The Supreme Court

'The Left Is Triggered By Justice Thomas': Mark Paoletta On The Crusade Against The Supreme Court

Democrats

Leftists

Morning Wire

Readers Pass

President Joe Biden&#8217;s sole contribution to the Supreme Court — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — made headlines during her confirmation hearing when she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yes-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-can-define-woman-the-woke-left-just-wont-let-her" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed to define</a> the word &#8220;woman.&#8221;
On Monday, she made headlines again — this time because during oral arguments in the social media censorship case <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/appeals-court-rules-biden-officials-violated-first-amendment-in-social-media-censorship-case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Murthy v. Missouri</a>, she voiced concerns over the fact that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was doing exactly what it was designed to do: restraining the federal government.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights. <a href="https://t.co/gWMCaHDG1W">pic.twitter.com/gWMCaHDG1W</a>
&mdash; System Update (@SystemUpdate_) <a href="https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1769753959315427812?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Speaking to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, Jackson said, &#8220;My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.&#8221;
She went on to suggest that she believed there were occasions when government should have the power — and, in fact, had a duty — to dictate what could and could not be posted on social media, and she &#8220;worried&#8221; that a strict reading of the First Amendment could threaten to rein that in.
&#8220;You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me?&#8221; Jackson continued. &#8220;Because I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.&#8221;
&#8220;Our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people. But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that,&#8221; Aguiñaga replied.
Jackson was not quite finished, however, and she argued that certain situations — such as the COVID pandemic — warranted the government stepping in &#8220;to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) responded to Jackson&#8217;s assessment, noting that in the case of the pandemic, the information the government had suppressed had turned out to be accurate — and pointing out that her chief complaint about the First Amendment appeared to be that it was working as the Founders had intended it to.
&#8220;She said you&#8217;ve got the First Amendment &#8216;hamstringing the government.&#8217; Well, that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s supposed to do, for goodness sake. It was literally one of the craziest things I&#8217;ve ever seen, that you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me,&#8221; Jordan said. &#8220;That is frightening because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading. Understand what took place here. This was censorship by surrogate. This was big government telling big tech to take down speech that they disagreed with, and it was the most fundamental kind of speech. It was political speech.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Jim Jordan Rips Ketanji Brown Jackson&#39;s Concern about the First Amendment: &quot;Hamstringing the Government&quot;<a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Jim_Jordan</a>: &quot;She said you&#39;ve got the First Amendment &#39;hamstringing the government.&#39; Well, that&#39;s what it&#39;s supposed to do, for goodness sake. It was literally one of the… <a href="https://t.co/OhqA0vXKon">pic.twitter.com/OhqA0vXKon</a>
&mdash; KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) <a href="https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1769820119218463038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Holds Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings For Ketanji Brown Jackson

Biden’s Only SCOTUS Pick Can’t Define ‘Woman,’ Objects To The First Amendment

Biden's Only SCOTUS Pick Can't Define 'Woman,' Objects To The First Amendment

First Amendment

Free Speech

General

Joe Biden

Politics

What Is A Woman

Virginia&#8217;s lieutenant governor, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/winsome-sears" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Winsome Sears</a>, called Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson a diversity hire while discussing Jackson&#8217;s dissent to the court&#8217;s affirmative action decision on Thursday.
The Supreme Court ruled against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action policies in a decision that will have a profound effect on the admissions processes at universities across the country.
Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked Sears how she would respond to Jackson and the other dissenting justices, who argued the court&#8217;s decision was a step back for equality.
“Well, what you have is a justice who was chosen because she’s black and because she’s a woman,” Sears said. &#8220;That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re understanding now, what a woman is.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Winsome Sears on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:
&quot;What you have is a justice who was chosen because she&#39;s black and because she&#39;s a woman&#8230;&quot; <a href="https://t.co/v12L6gqHLH">pic.twitter.com/v12L6gqHLH</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1674496686561849350?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Sears added that the state of education in the country is at a crisis level.
“While we’re playing these stupid games, I’m saying that education and the lack of it in America is risen to a national crisis. China is not playing these stupid games. China is interested in total world domination, and so is Russia and the rest of them. That’s what we have to be concerned about. Our children are not learning.&#8221;
Sears mentioned the large portion of college students who need remedial education within their first year. As many as 60% of college students are placed in remedial courses during their first year, costing $1 billion a year, <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/remedial-education/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to the Center for American Progress, which leans left.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;I’m pulling for school choice. School choice now. Our children are in need,&#8221; Sears said.
&#8220;The slaves did not die in the fields so we could be saying in this century that we are victims,&#8221; Sears said later in the Fox segment. &#8220;They would say to us, &#8216;Is that what we died for? No. We died for you to have an opportunity. Take it. You have that.&#8217; We have had a black president.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WINSOME SEARS: &quot;The slaves did not die in the fields so we could be saying, in this century, that we are victims&#8230;They would say to us, is THAT what we died for?! No. We died for you to have an opportunity. Take it! You have that!&quot;
&quot;If you are a victim, that means you need a… <a href="https://t.co/hXO6UCAOmC">pic.twitter.com/hXO6UCAOmC</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1674497399631278091?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The affirmative action case landed before the Supreme Court after a group called Students for Fair Admissions <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-hinting-it-might-throw-out-affirmative-action-used-in-college-admissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued</a> the two elite schools, accusing them of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of Asian American and white applicants who were rejected.
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The court voted six to three in the University of North Carolina case and six to two in the Harvard case. Justice Jackson, a Harvard graduate and former Harvard board member, recused herself from the Harvard case.
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in the opinion for the majority.
“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today,” the court’s opinion stated.
Justices Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents.
In her dissent, Jackson called the majority&#8217;s decision &#8220;truly a tragedy for us all.&#8221;
<div class="page" title="Page 25">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better,&#8221; Jackson wrote.
&#8220;If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more,&#8221; she added.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Virginia Gubernatorial Election Night At The Glenn Youngkin Headquarters

Winsome Sears Calls Ketanji Brown Jackson A Diversity Hire

Affirmative Action

Winsome Sears

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro used a baseball analogy to refute the dissents written by Justices <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ketanji-brown-jackson">Ketanji Brown Jackson</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sonia-sotomayor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sonia Sotomayor</a> in Thursday&#8217;s landmark Supreme Court case that rolled back affirmative action policies at universities.
In a Friday Twitter post, Shapiro applied the justices&#8217; logic in favor of affirmative action to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/baseball" target="_blank" rel="noopener">baseball</a> “to see how idiotic and counterproductive it is&#8221; and illuminate that lowering standards to artificially boost black participation in the long-run hurts, rather than helps, racial tensions and equality.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The logic that Jackson and Sotomayor want to endorse essentially states that in order to rectify past discrimination, current discrimination must be utilized. Let&#8217;s apply that example to baseball to see how idiotic and counterproductive this is.
Imagine, for a moment, that…
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1674768809440182272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Imagine, for a moment, that instead of MLB breaking the color line by recruiting the very best players from the Negro Leagues beginning in the mid-1940s, they had instead changed the rules of the game: black pitchers would now only need to throw two strikes to strike out white batters, and black batters would get four strikes before striking out.” Shapiro wrote. “This would be designed in order to artificially boost the statistics of black players, making them more competitive in MLB.”
But, Shapiro noted, this would have decreased the quality of baseball and exacerbated racial tensions at the same time — the opposite of what Sotomayor and Jackson claim is their goal.
“Would this improve the quality of baseball or decrease it? Would it make for better and more competitive black players in the future, such that the rules could later be made the same for everyone while achieving &#8216;racial balance,&#8217; or decrease such chances? Would it exacerbate racial tensions or close them?”
Echoing Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a>’ majority opinion, Shapiro concluded that the way to remedy past discrimination is not discrimination today. He argues that doing so in the MLB was unnecessary because black players did not need standards lowered for them to compete with white players. College admissions, similarly, should focus on merit, not race.
“If you argue that this was unnecessary in baseball because top black players could already compete despite the discrimination against them — YES. That&#8217;s the point I&#8217;m making. It&#8217;s true in baseball and it&#8217;s true in college admissions. The only way to remedy past discrimination is NOT present discrimination. It never was,” he continued.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1687972190386000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2poz7lKxiyhNV9ljBcMSzM">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Shapiro said that his tweet should not be misconstrued in a way to mean he is against challenging policies that cause specific harm.
“This is distinct from the argument that those who have specific damages from specific policies should be able to receive redress from those who damaged them specifically. That&#8217;s basic tort law. What we&#8217;re talking about is a regime of racial &#8216;correctives&#8217; that don&#8217;t correct, they merely make things far worse.”

Daily Wire Presents Backstage Live

Ben Shapiro Throws Beanball At Affirmative Action, Liberal Justices

Baseball

Ben Shapiro

Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> delivered a scathing response to the liberal justices in Thursday&#8217;s Affirmative Action decision, accusing them of burying a power grab in the dissents penned by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Justice Elena Kagan concurring.
Roberts <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23864238-affirmative-action-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">addressed the dissent</a> on page 46 of his opinion, saying that the Justices had divorced the case from the context in a concerted effort to make the Court the arbiter of which race[s] were entitled to preferential treatment.
&#8220;The principal dissent wrenches our case law from its context, going to lengths to ignore the parts of that law it does not like. The serious reservations that Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher had about racial preferences go unrecognized,&#8221; Roberts began. &#8220;The unambiguous requirements of the Equal Protection Clause — &#8216;the most rigid,&#8217; &#8216;searching&#8217; scrutiny it entails — go without note.&#8221;
&#8220;And the repeated demands that race-based admissions programs must end go overlooked — contorted, worse still, into a demand that such programs never stop,&#8221; Roberts continued. &#8220;Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is &#8216;inherently unequal,&#8217; said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.&#8221;
The Chief Justice went on to attack the liberal justices&#8217; apparent attempt to reserve for the Court the power to choose which race[s] deserve such beneficial treatment, saying it was so egregious that it mirrored decisions rendered before the &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/books/review/the-second-founding-eric-foner.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Founding</a>&#8221; &#8212; when the post-Civil-War-era 14th Amendment and the included Equal Protection Clause put an end to the Court&#8217;s freedom to do so.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;That is a remarkable view of the judicial role—remarkably wrong,&#8221; Roberts said. &#8220;Lost in the false pretense of judicial humility that the dissent espouses is a claim to power so radical, so destructive, that it required a Second Founding to undo. &#8216;Justice Harlan knew better,&#8217; one of the dissents decrees. &#8230; Indeed he did: &#8216;[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.&#8217; Plessy, 163 U. S., at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting).&#8221;

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Chief Justice Roberts Accuses Liberal Justices Of Power Grab In Affirmative Action Opinion

Harvard

John Roberts

Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/clarence-thomas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Justice Clarence Thomas</a> issued a blistering response to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s &#8220;racist&#8221; worldview in a lengthy concurrence with the Court&#8217;s overwhelming six to three ruling that race-based college admissions are illegal.
Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts">John Roberts</a> issued the majority opinion in the Court&#8217;s ruling that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Roberts wrote.
Jackson complained in her dissent that the ruling makes things &#8220;worse&#8221; for minorities because &#8220;race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways&#8221;:
<blockquote>With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces &#8220;colorblindness for all&#8221; by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country&#8217;s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America&#8217;s real-world problems. No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today&#8217;s ruling makes things worse, not better. The best that can be said of the majority&#8217;s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Wow. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent. <a href="https://t.co/ica3ED6LZq">pic.twitter.com/ica3ED6LZq</a>
&mdash; Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) <a href="https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1674424777744977923?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In his concurrence with the majority opinion, Thomas wrote that &#8220;Racialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism.&#8221;
&#8220;Instead, the solution announced in the second founding is incorporated in our Constitution: that we are all equal, and should be treated equally before the law without regard to our race,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors and identities and see each other for what we truly are: individuals with unique thoughts, perspectives, and goals, but with equal dignity and equal rights under the law.&#8221;
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Thomas then turned his focus to Jackson&#8217;s view that America is a &#8220;fundamentally racist society.&#8221;
&#8220;Rather than focusing on individuals as individuals, her dissent focuses on the historical subjugation of black Americans, invoking statistical racial gaps to argue in favor of defining and categorizing individuals by their race,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today. The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society’s riches by racial means as necessary to &#8216;level the playing field,&#8217; all as judged by racial metrics. I strongly disagree.&#8221;
Thomas continued:
<blockquote>First, as stated above, any statistical gaps between the average wealth of black and white Americans is constitutionally irrelevant. I, of course, agree that our society is not, and has never been, colorblind. Post, at 2 (JACKSON, J., dissenting); see also Plessy, 163 U. S., at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting). People discriminate against one another for a whole host of reasons. But, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the law must disregard all racial distinctions:
“[I]n view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.” Ibid.</blockquote>
Thomas noted that with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, &#8220;the people of our Nation proclaimed that the law may not sort citizens based on race. It is this principle that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in the wake of the Civil War to fulfill the promise of equality under the law. And it is this principle that has guaranteed a Nation of equal citizens the privileges or immunities of citizenship and the equal protection of the laws.&#8221;
Thomas continued:
<blockquote>Yet, JUSTICE JACKSON would replace the second Founders’ vision with an organizing principle based on race. In fact, on her view, almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race. This is so, she writes, because of statistical disparities among different racial groups. Even if some whites have a lower household net worth than some blacks, what matters to JUSTICE JACKSON is that the average white household has more wealth than the average black household.
This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Put simply, “the fate of abstract categories of wealth statistics is not the same as the fate of a given set of flesh-and-blood human beings.” T. Sowell, Wealth, Poverty and Politics 333 (2016). Worse still, JUSTICE JACKSON uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.
Nor do JUSTICE JACKSON’s statistics regarding a correlation between levels of health, wealth, and well-being between selected racial groups prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor—and individual outcomes. So JUSTICE JACKSON supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. If an applicant has less financial means (because of generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a university may take that into account. If an applicant has medical struggles or a family member with medical concerns, a university may consider that too. What it cannot do is use the applicant’s skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for “black” he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person.
Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.
JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision. Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries, historically, have ended disastrously.
Unsurprisingly, this tried-and-failed system defies both law and reason. Start with the obvious: If social reorganization in the name of equality may be justified by the mere fact of statistical disparities among racial groups, then that reorganization must continue until these disparities are fully eliminated, regardless of the reasons for the disparities and the cost of their elimination. If blacks fail a test at higher rates than their white counterparts (regardless of whether the reason for the disparity has anything at all to do with race), the only solution will be race-focused measures. If those measures were to result in blacks failing at yet higher rates, the only solution would be to double down. In fact, there would seem to be no logical limit to what the government may do to level the racial playing field—outright wealth transfers, quota systems, and racial preferences would all seem permissible. In such a system, it would not matter how many innocents suffer race-based injuries; all that would matter is reaching the race-based goal.
Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents? And what would JUSTICE JACKSON say to John when deeming him not as worthy of admission: Some statistically significant number of white people had advantages in college admissions seven generations ago, and you have inherited their incurable sin?
&#8230;
While articulating her black and white world (literally), JUSTICE JACKSON ignores the experiences of other immigrant groups and white communities that have faced historic barriers. Though JUSTICE JACKSON seems to think that her race-based theory can somehow benefit everyone, it is an immutable fact that “every time the government uses racial criteria to ‘bring the races together,’ someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race.” Indeed, JUSTICE JACKSON seems to have no response—no explanation at all—for the people who will shoulder that burden. How, for example, would JUSTICE JACKSON explain the need for race-based preferences to the Chinese student who has worked hard his whole life, only to be denied college admission in part because of his skin color? If such a burden would seem difficult to impose on a bright-eyed young person, that’s because it should be. History has taught us to abhor theories that call for elites to pick racial winners and losers in the name of sociological experimentation. Nor is it clear what another few generations of race conscious college admissions may be expected to accomplish. Even today, affirmative action programs that offer an admissions boost to black and Hispanic students discriminate against those who identify themselves as members of other races that do not receive such preferential treatment.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-delivers-must-read-opinion-in-affirmative-action-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ IT: Justice Clarence Thomas Proves Yet Again Why He’s The ‘All Time Greatest’</a>

Clarence Thomas Ketanji Brown Jackson

Clarence Thomas Blasts Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ‘Racist’ Worldview: ‘Cancerous To Young Minds’

Clarence Thomas Blasts Ketanji Brown Jackson's 'Racist' Worldview: 'Cancerous To Young Minds'

Sen.-elect John Fetterman (D-PA), who often wears a hoodie and occasionally dons a suit, has been included in a list of America&#8217;s &#8220;most stylish&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/style/most-stylish-people.html">compiled</a> by The New York Times.
Really.
The entry for Fetterman, which included a picture of him wearing a baggy hoodie, knee-length shorts, and shoes with no socks, says simply: &#8220;The senator-elect from Pennsylvania is going to bring Carhartt to the Capitol.&#8221;
Yes, we had to look up what that meant. Turns out Carhartt, Inc. is an American clothing company founded in 1889 that makes heavy-duty work clothes like jackets, overalls, vests, jeans, and hunting apparel.
The Times explained its list, saying, &#8220;Love them or hate them, all have at least one thing in common. At some point over the past 12 months, they made us talk: about how we dress, how we live and how we choose to express ourselves. We welcome dissent. But we are, without a doubt, correct.&#8221;
The list of 93 people — and fictional characters, along with the James Webb deep-space telescope — includes all the typical entries, from Rihanna to Harry Styles to Kourtney Kardashian to Beyoncé.
Not surprisingly, there was some pushback on Fetterman&#8217;s inclusion on the list.
“How does @nytimes justify putting John Fetterman on the same list as the late Queen Elizabeth?” Sheridan Nolen, a staffer for Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, <a href="https://twitter.com/sheridannolen/status/1602320936107114502?s=20&amp;t=3CdiWrOeairTiL-j2091fQ">wrote</a> on Twitter.
“Total liberal bias, @nytimes⁩!” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) <a href="https://twitter.com/timburchett/status/1602330893955338242?s=20&amp;t=3CdiWrOeairTiL-j2091fQ">wrote</a> on Twitter tongue in cheek. “I not only have the best hair in Congress, but I brought [Carhartt⁩] to Capitol Hill four years ago.”
“What is ⁦@nytimes smoking?” <a href="https://twitter.com/nachamasol/status/1602352997006204928?s=20&amp;t=lEVn7PXakto4yk_FBDgG6w">asked</a> Nachama Soloveichik, a D.C. political consultant.
Author John Hawkins got in a good <a href="https://twitter.com/johnhawkinsrwn/status/1602370449823993873?s=20&amp;t=3CdiWrOeairTiL-j2091fQ">zinger</a>. “No one can possibly believe Fetterman is actually stylish. He dresses like someone who hangs out around a vape shop or convenience store all day.&#8221;
And social media influencer Ian Miles Cheong was able to <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1602352382830030849?s=20&amp;t=YCEZy_9YPU8bFuq7bQu3lQ">work in</a> the Word of the Year, as deemed by Oxford. “2022 is the year of the Goblin Mode. Dress up like a slob and make the NYT’s list of most stylish people,” he wrote.
There were a couple of other political people on the list, including &#8220;Squad&#8221; member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
&#8220;The Massachusetts congresswoman, who has alopecia and has worn her bare scalp with aplomb, this year co-sponsored the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), legislation that seeks to reframe the politics around everyone’s &#8216;crowning glory,'&#8221; the paper wrote.
Yes, this is what U.S. lawmakers spend their time doing as Americans struggle with sky-high inflation and soaring crime. So cute!
The list also included Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden. &#8220;The newest Supreme Court justice has brought statement necklaces to the Marble Palace,&#8221; whatever that means.
Democrats and liberals (duh) dominated the list, which also included New York Mayor Eric Adams, who the paper called the &#8220;Party Mayor&#8221; and said he was picked for his “impeccably tailored suits.&#8221;
Yup, that&#8217;s the most important thing. That&#8217;ll fix New York City.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Lieutenant Governor & Democratic Senate Candidate John Fetterman Holds Campaign Event

Menu