President Biden Delivers State Of The Union Address

Ketanji Brown Jackson Needs To Be Impeached. This Dangerously Idiotic Dissent Is Proof.

Colorado

Conversion Therapy

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Matt Walsh

Opinion

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested on Tuesday that her decision to attend the star-studded 2026 Grammy Awards was really just her way of getting &#8220;out into the community&#8221; while the Court was on hiatus.
Jackson joined the cohosts on ABC&#8217;s midday talk show &#8220;The View,&#8221; where she was primarily promoting the young adult version of her memoir, but the conversation turned to her appearance at the awards show and Republicans who&#8217;d criticized her for attending.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defends her appearance at the Grammys after a GOP senator called for an investigation: &#8220;When the justices are on recess, which is what we are doing right now, we really have an opportunity to go out into the community in various different ways.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/kVUMxIEoIK">pic.twitter.com/kVUMxIEoIK</a>
— The View (@TheView) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheView/status/2021264308802376185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 10, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Some Republicans have criticized the fact that you were even there, given the sort of hot potato political thing with Bad Bunny, et cetera,&#8221; cohost Joy Behar pointed out. &#8220;They didn&#8217;t think you should be there. In fact, Senator Blackburn, Marsha Blackburn, has called for an investigation into your impartiality. So — do you have any response to that?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, I mean, when you are in public life, criticism, you know, is part of the job. I&#8217;m sure all of you have faced it,&#8221; Jackson replied, prompting laughter from everyone around the table.
&#8220;Another part of the job, actually, my job, is public outreach and education,&#8221; Jackson continued. &#8220;When the justices are on recess, which is what we are doing right now, we really have an opportunity to go out into the community in various different ways.&#8221;
Jackson went on to explain that she&#8217;d been in Los Angeles for a moot court — an educational simulation of the appellate court process — &#8220;and it just so happened that I got nominated for this Grammy, and I was already going to be there, and I thought this is great opportunity to highlight my work in this way and to see what&#8217;s happening at the Grammys.&#8221;
Jackson was nominated in the Best Audio Book, Narration and Storytelling Recording category for her memoir “Lovely One,&#8221; but ultimately lost to the Dalai Lama.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Attending Grammys Was Basically Community Outreach

Courts

Media

Politics

The View

On Tuesday, there was a hearing at the Supreme Court regarding a law in Hawaii that bans guns from being carried into supermarkets, gas stations, and other public locations without the property owner’s permission.
Instead of property owners issuing a statement saying, “You can&#8217;t come in here with a gun,” the idea would be that you wouldn&#8217;t be able to walk in with a gun unless the shop owner gives you explicit permission.  
This is the opposite of how the Second Amendment is supposed to work. It is quite possible under the Second Amendment for people to say, “You can&#8217;t come into my establishment carrying a gun,” but this argument would reverse that presumption.
Justice Samuel Alito said the state was relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.
The Supreme Court ruled that people have a constitutional right to carry outside the home for self-defense in 2022, but now lawmakers are attempting some sort of back door to prevent people from doing that. The law is similar to restrictions that already exist in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey as well.  
A truly bizarre moment in the hearing came when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — who&#8217;s become infamous for making dumb comments in the middle of oral arguments — decided that she was going to talk about the “Black Codes.” The codes were legitimately created by racists in order to prevent black people from owning guns. She was talking about them as precedent.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
SCOTUSBlog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-to-hear-oral-argument-on-law-banning-guns-on-private-property/">noted</a> the argument against the law made by its opponents:
<blockquote>In upholding Hawaii’s ban, they say, the court of appeals relied on two laws, neither of which is analogous. The first was a 1771 New Jersey law that barred poaching on lands that were closed to the public. But that law, the challengers wrote, “simply codified the American rule that hunters could hunt on unimproved lands not their own, while improved lands remained off limits. That is a trespass law,” they concluded, rather than a law that – like Hawaii’s – generally prohibits “carrying firearms on any and all private property without advance express consent.” 
And the second, the challengers continue, was an 1865 Louisiana law, enacted as part of that state’s Black Codes to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people, that barred the carrying of guns on “premises or plantations” – that is, private property – without the owner’s consent.</blockquote>
Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined, themselves, to be unconstitutional, doesn&#8217;t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make. So, can you say more about that?”
Sarah Harris, the U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General, responded, “Absolutely. Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception, because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly-freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”
Jackson: “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted. They were part of the history and tradition of the country. And when we have a test now that&#8217;s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don&#8217;t understand why they should be excluded.”
Harris: “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional.”
Jackson: “Afterwards, not at the time. And if the test says what is happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”
Harris: “Respectfully, a law is always unconstitutional from its inception.”
Jackson: “So the history doesn&#8217;t matter. We shouldn’t care about the history, then.”
Jackson seems to be making the argument that when Dred Scott was ruled unconstitutional, the reversal of the decision doesn’t mean that Dred Scott was ever wrong.
This is a truly bizarre agreement she’s making.
She’s implying that Plessy v. Ferguson, which said that segregation under the Equal Protection laws was fully legal, was good constitutional law, and only later was reversed. That means that if there was a subtextual or secondary part of that law, we should look to it as good law even though the Supreme Court’s ruling was a bad decision.
This is absolutely incoherent and nonsensical.

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

Justice Jackson Defends Racist Black Codes As Constitutional History

Ben Shapiro

Blacks

Guns

Hawaii

Leftists

Second Amendment

The Supreme Court this week heard major cases on whether men who think they’re women because they’re mentally ill should be able to play sports with women who think they’re women because they’re women. The cases were a chance for the court to explore the question: is it fair for men who feel like women to play women’s sports or are we living in reality where that would be the sort of question only a nerdy nine-year-old boy would ask just before cracking up at his own joke and then making a series of snorting noises that ends with his accidentally blowing snot on his I Heart Stranger Things T-shirt?
In the event, the case was argued before a gathering of fine legal minds and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The trans-athletes were represented by the famous attorney Foster Closterfockolus who was hired by the Roland Dinghead Memorial Fund, which was named in honor of the famous trans-athlete, a girl who identified as male and joined a men’s boxing club, then sadly died.
Mr. Closterfockolus made the argument that — in theory — there are no real advantages to men who play women’s sports, so we should all live in theory instead of on earth where the idea is completely absurd. Judging by their responses to his argument, the justices seemed divided between those justices with IQ’s higher than a bowl of Cheerios and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The highlight of Mr. Closterfockolus’s argument was when he conjured up the cherished memory of transgender athletes from the past, like Abner Skullfog, a girl who identified as male and joined the local men’s ice hockey team, then, sadly, died. Mr. Closterfockolus said that to ban boys who identify as girls from girls’ sports would be to betray the memory of such pioneers who gave the last measure of devotion to free us from the shackles of sanity and common sense. Mr. Closterfockulus actually fought back tears as he went on to tell the story of another historic transgender innovator, Henry Blither, a woman who identified as a man and managed to join an NFL football team, then, sadly, died — though not before breaking through the Steelers’ offensive line to sack Aaron Rodgers.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1262-the-andrew-klavan-show?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974735 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
When Mr. Closterfockolus concluded his arguments, he was peppered with incisive questions by the brilliant justices and one from Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson asked, “If a man wears a skirt that’s a really soft shade of pink and has girly pleats with maybe a flower pattern, like little roses weaving in a kind of floaty, dream-like feminine way, and that skirt makes him very attractive to the sort of burly man who walks around with his shoulders and arms swinging, and then suddenly he sees this boy in his pretty pink skirt, and okay, it doesn’t develop into anything, but he takes a second look before becoming disgusted with himself, couldn’t we then say that the first boy is as much a female as that gruff detective on the HBO show about Easttown or is the whole scenario of three different local women getting kidnapped by the same man just too unbelievable?”
The next probing question came from Justice Alito who asked the attorney, “What the hell is that moron talking about and how in God’s name did she get on the Supreme Court?”
Throughout the questioning, the Justices tried to be respectful to the defendants by using their preferred pronouns without giggling, which unfortunately proved impossible.
After the question period was over, the attorney for the states banning men in women’s sports, Joan Dark, stood before the justices and wept quietly for twenty minutes before answering questions, including another intricate inquiry from Alito, who said, “Why couldn&#8217;t that dementia-riddled puddlehead of a president find a black woman who had been to law school, or could at least form an English sentence?”
But the final argument startled the justices when it came from a resonant disembodied voice that shook the courtroom, saying, “I created mankind in my image, male and female, and if you’re wondering why I didn’t ask your opinion about it, it’s because I’m omniscient and I knew there would one day be a justice on the Supreme Court who was dumber than a bowl of Cheerios.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fifth installment, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/After-That-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries/dp/1613166869/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3EGZUC370LG46&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y_NI0mDOKeowShheDQTVx5NH-fAeimJoCD56_T0Acpl8C0mup7uJf-nGGSRLEItaaekoDnvS2vWLMa4Zd2UBXQ8Y-g-P502jOWz-Y8IX3ZQsdlO7WMLrg1xIhNoKmjCorSWUR4C2l_RbiZ7apJ1MfPzGOrrEf7AdAXX6xwnJRVP_XqUfWuMuVthTWscaU3P4vgmS86-96n-721enHfX12CFQWTajqFbVnrsDkexfUf4.6_gTH6h1Bb9Pn375QdF_VAVZSayDvjQBBKGXE-MTiFo&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=klavan&amp;qid=1754049918&amp;sprefix=%2Caps%2C80&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">After That, The Dark,</a> is NOW AVAILABLE. Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>.
The views expressed in this satirical piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

SCOTUS II

The Supreme Court Finally Has A Justice Dumber Than A Bowl Of Cheerios

Andrew Klavan

Humor

Samuel Alito

Satire

Transgender Athletes

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump late Friday night, temporarily blocking an order for the administration to somehow fully fund food stamps while Senate Democrats keep the government shut down.
The administration already planned to tap into emergency funds to partially pay out Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments to the tune of billions of dollars. Administration officials said it would be impossible to provide the remaining billions needed to fully fund the program without congressional action, noting that the shortfall was the fault of Congress, not the executive branch.
SNAP payments are made to a stunning 42 million Americans every month.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Judicial activism at its worst.
A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986940990146449762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Given the imminent, irreparable harms posed by these orders, which require the government to transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight, the Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the orders pending the resolution of this application by no later than 9:30pm this evening,&#8221; the administration&#8217;s request said.
&#8220;Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year,&#8221; the request continued. &#8220;The Executive Branch has since exhausted the entirety of its SNAP contingency reserve, which amounted to over $5 billion. But that will be only enough to cover partial payments for the month of November. Such a funding lapse is a crisis. But it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure and one that can only be solved through congressional action.&#8221;
SCOTUS sided with Trump, and agreed to temporarily block the lower court order for 48 hours. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/07/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-snap-benefits-ruling-00643639?utm_source=chatgpt.com">issued</a> the stay.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
More from the administration&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> filing over <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SNAP?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SNAP</a> benefits &#8211; putting blame squarely on lawmakers:
&#8220;Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year. The Executive Branch has 
since…
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1986950886644486149?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨SNAP UPDATE: The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay.
The Federal Government can&#8217;t just create money for food stamps when Democrats CHOOSE to not fund the government (14 times and counting🤦🏻‍♀️).
Activist judges have ordered reckless and unconstitutional legal maneuvers… <a href="https://t.co/kbh2izckOz">pic.twitter.com/kbh2izckOz</a>
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecRollins/status/1987166731081498904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities,&#8221; the Department of Justice argued. &#8220;But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal bankruptcy and appoint itself the trustee, charged with picking winners and losers among those seeking some part of the limited pool of remaining federal funds.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
As our Supreme Court brief puts it:
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities. But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986940996899262542?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case,&#8221; Attorney General Pam Bondi posted to X on Friday night. &#8220;Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case.
Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda. <a href="https://t.co/VJnf2GwPLk">https://t.co/VJnf2GwPLk</a>
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986985866900738242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
Currently, the main webpage of the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that SNAP delays are due to Democrats, who have now voted 14 times to keep the government closed.
&#8220;Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against reopening the government. This compromises not only SNAP, but farm programs, food inspection, animal and plant disease protection, rural development, and protecting federal lands,&#8221; the USDA message reads. &#8220;Senate Democrats are withholding services to the American people in exchange for healthcare for illegals, gender mutilation, and other unknown &#8216;leverage&#8217; points.&#8221;

Group Photograph Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

SCOTUS Sides With Trump On Food Stamp Funding During Shutdown

Congress

Food Stamps

Government Shutdown

Pam Bondi

Trump Administration

Could This Supreme Court Case Permanently Destroy The Democrats?

Elections

Louisiana

Sonia Sotomayor

Voting

Voting Rights

Whites

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s latest opinion pitted her against her fellow liberals on the bench and revealed her to be far less prepared for her weighty role than her peers, according to a legal expert.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said Jackson’s dissent in a Wednesday court opinion showed her as unserious and unfit for the role of Supreme Court justice.
“What it tells me is that Brown Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum and that the other justices are getting tired of her,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire.
Jackson was the lone dissenter in a court opinion that cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin crafting plans to downsize the federal workforce. The junior justice wrote that the majority opinion is “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal on the high court, wrote a concurrence siding with the majority
“I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” wrote Sotomayor. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”
The court opinion and the split on the bench suggests that Jackson is ill-equipped to handle the intellectual rigors of the Supreme Court, according to von Spakovsky.
“This case was eight-to-one. Even justices Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan joined with the majority because they didn&#8217;t want a dissent in this particular case,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire. “Only the lone dissenter, Brown Jackson, was once again, you know, engaging in an emotional tirade about the idea that — horror, shock — federal employees might actually lose their jobs.”
Jackson has been singled out in other cases as well. In a court decision last month over “birthright citizenship,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">suggested</a> that Jackson’s dissenting argument was vacuous, or at least not motivated by any serious legal theory.
“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” wrote Barrett. “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
“I disagree often with what Justice Kagan and Sotomayor put in their decisions, but they at least try to have a legal basis for what they’re saying,” von Spakovsky said.
Jackson claims Trump’s plans to downsize the federal government is &#8220;needless&#8221; and &#8220;there’s no need for getting rid of federal employees,&#8221; von Spakovsky added. “That&#8217;s a policy decision. That&#8217;s got nothing to do with the law. That’s got nothing to do with the constitutional authority of the president to run the executive branch.&#8221;
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s just another sign that, frankly, she was a big mistake getting put on the court, and that she just doesn&#8217;t have the legal acumen to be on the court,&#8221; von Spakovsky said. &#8220;Sotomayor, Kagan, they do, even though I think they&#8217;re often wrong, but I don&#8217;t think [Jackson] does.&#8221;

Even Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Liberal SCOTUS Colleagues Tire Of Her Weak Arguments

Heritage Foundation

There’s been a great deal of talk about the Trump vs. CASA decision at the Supreme Court. This, as you know, is the decision that put restrictions on universal injunctions against Trump administration policies issued by federal judge James Boasberg while Boasberg was wearing a cardboard Burger King crown and spinning around the room with his black robe flung out as if it were a pair of wings and simultaneously singing, “Look at me, mother. I am the ruler of the universe. Everyone look at me.” The court decided six to three along ideological lines that Boasberg should not only quit with the injunctions but also possibly see a mental health professional or at least turn down the volume in order to stop disturbing the neighbors. Boasberg responded to the decision by sitting curled up in a corner and sucking his thumb while still wearing the Burger King crown and muttering, “I don’t care what they say. I’m the ruler of everybody,” but in a much softer voice so the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear him and take his cardboard crown away and make him go to bed early.
The court’s decision was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and much of the media attention focused on Barrett’s comments about a dissenting opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Many felt that Barrett’s response to Jackson’s dissent was derogatory, disdainful, humiliating, sardonic, mocking, derisive, sarcastic, belittling, disparaging, denigrating, contemptuous, taunting and even humiliating — and I know I already said that, but it was so derogatory it was actually humiliating twice, and possibly vice versa.
Now part of the reaction to Barrett’s comments might have arisen from the fact that, during her confirmation hearing, Barrett answered questions with so much precision and expertise that it gave the impression that she’s a highly intelligent woman and also kind of hot in a wonk-girl Catholic mom sort of way, whereas at her confirmation hearing, Ketanji Jackson couldn’t even say what a woman is, giving the impression that she was a DEI hire, selected because she’s a black woman without taking into account the fact that she’s also a functional idiot.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h3>
But here at the Andrew Klavan show, we feel we should take Justice Jackson’s dissent seriously because, you know, that would be funnier. So after spending a great many minutes reading the dissent in depth… I’m not sure exactly how many minutes, but it was a lot. Maybe ten even. I lost count around six or seven. But anyway, after spending a great many minutes studying Justice Jackson’s dissent, I have some important observations.
Jackson dissents to the court&#8217;s decision on the grounds that it hides behind a “smokescreen” of “legalese,” by comparing the issues involved in the case to legal precedents in American and English jurisprudence. Instead of this process, sometimes known as “applying the law,” or “judging,” Jackson proposes a different standard called the “sassy black woman” test. In this test, also known as the “Jasmine Crockett standard,” all court decisions and other forms of reasoned discourse must be able to withstand a black woman putting her fist against one upraised hip and saying completely incomprehensible things in an aggressive sing-song voice while leaving the g’s off the endings of her words and using foul language to declare herself entitled to be heard despite the fact that she’s obviously a functional idiot. Furthermore, if said sassy black woman ends said tirade with the words “full stop,” any disagreement will immediately be deemed racist even if it can be shown that it’s not her skin color that’s at issue but only her functional idiocy.
Justice Jackson also writes in her dissent — and this is a real quote, “A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: ‘what good is the Constitution?’” This, of course, is a reference to the famous Martian clause in the founding documents of Planet Zeebeegununu in the Ratchet and Clank Solana Galaxy, which declares that the opinions of fictional extraterrestrials should be given priority, because, honey-child, these space aliens are way smarter than a fool like you, full stop. 
All in all, I think we can agree that the Jackson dissent is a mind-bogglingly deep dissent, if you spell dissent d-e-s-c-e-n-t.
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins). Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Justice Jackson Invokes Famous ‘Martian Clause’ In Dissent

Justice Jackson Invokes Famous 'Martian Clause' In Dissent

Amy Coney Barrett

Justice Amy Coney Barrett may have penned the majority opinion in the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent case on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions. But it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her dissent that landed in the spotlight — and not in a good way.
In her opinion for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Casa, INC, Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">jabbed at Jackson</a>, suggesting that her dissent was &#8220;untethered&#8221; to any past precedent and stood in direct opposition to the Constitution.
&#8220;We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’S argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,&#8221; Barrett wrote.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
But a closer look at Jackson&#8217;s dissent reveals that Barrett left out some of the strangest rabbit holes down which Jackson attempted to take the Court.
&#8220;A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: &#8216;what good is the Constitution, then?'&#8221; Jackson wrote in her dissent.
&#8220;What, really, is this system for protecting people’s rights if it amounts to this—placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it? &#8216;Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!'&#8221;
Jackson was roundly mocked for adding a parenthetical &#8220;wait for it,&#8221; ostensibly to give her dissent a dramatic pause.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
KBJ’s dissent actually includes the phrase…wait for it… <a href="https://t.co/AGMu2KQULB">pic.twitter.com/AGMu2KQULB</a>
— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1939002006913614116?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 28, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts.&#8221;
Throughout her dissent, Jackson — whom President Joe Biden named to the Court after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-supreme-court-pick-championed-advocates-of-critical-race-theory-in-lectures-speeches">pledging</a> to nominate a black woman — gives no quarter to the possibility that district courts, by dramatically increasing the power and reach of their own decisions based solely on their demand that it be so, actually are the ones participating in a &#8220;power grab&#8221; — nor does she consider the possibility that an executive acting in a way that she dislikes is not necessarily a lawless one.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation To Supreme Court

Biden’s Lone SCOTUS Pick Wonders What Aliens Would Think Of The Court’s Latest Decision

Biden's Lone SCOTUS Pick Wonders What Aliens Would Think Of The Court's Latest Decision

Donald Trump

When the Justices on the Supreme Court are at odds over major and often contentious issues, the verbal jabs and sometimes even insults that typically play out behind closed doors can make their way into written opinions — and in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not disappoint.
Barrett penned the majority opinion in the case that revolves around the idea of birthright citizenship and whether it should apply to the children of illegal aliens — but also tackles the issue of the universal injunctions, being handed down on a regular basis by cherry-picked judges in liberal courts in an attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from implementing his policies.
Trump cheered the win in a post to his Truth Social platform, saying, &#8220;GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.&#8221;
But in addition to laying out the Court&#8217;s opinion, Barrett took the opportunity to deliver a few precision strikes on the body&#8217;s newest justice, appointed by former President Joe Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett&#8217;s remarks aimed at Jackson — who is perhaps best known for her inability to answer, on direct questioning, &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yes-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-can-define-woman-the-woke-left-just-wont-let-her">what is a woman?</a>&#8221; — paint a clear picture of a justice more interested in activism than a Constitutional reading and application of the law.
Barrett began by addressing the principal dissent — which was joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, but written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor — and then panned Jackson&#8217;s by comparison.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
&#8220;The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,&#8221; Barrett wrote. &#8220;JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a &#8216;mind-numbingly technical query &#8230; she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of the courts is to &#8216;order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. <a href="https://t.co/lRmkQvEgYZ">pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ</a>
— May Mailman (@MayMailman) <a href="https://twitter.com/MayMailman/status/1938605036184990038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Still referencing Jackson&#8217;s dissent in the case, Barrett wrote, &#8220;We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON&#8217;S argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries&#8217; worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Amy Coney Barrett pulls no punches on judicial authoritarianism. Says Jackson is at odds with “the Constitution itself” and “ decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”
This is good ACB! <a href="https://t.co/vPFGm078qd">pic.twitter.com/vPFGm078qd</a>
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) <a href="https://twitter.com/megbasham/status/1938629561601888502?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Observing the limits on judicial authority — including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 — is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law,&#8221; Barrett continued, adding, &#8220;JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring &#8216;legalese,&#8217; post, at 3, she seeks to answer &#8216;a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?&#8217; Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: &#8216;[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.&#8217; Ibid. That goes for judges too.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
More of Barrett nuking Jackson from orbit: <a href="https://t.co/joKaIdtr0v">pic.twitter.com/joKaIdtr0v</a>
— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) <a href="https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/1938606567508644039?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Holds Confirmation Hearing For Amy Coney Barrett To Be Supreme Court Justice

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Lays The Legal Smackdown On Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

birthright citizenship

What Is A Woman

The Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of the idea that you don&#8217;t have to be a member of a minority group in order to be discriminated against.
That is obviously true. The fact of the matter is that you can certainly be a white, straight male and be discriminated against, or, in the case reviewed by the Supreme Court, a white, straight female.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/us/politics/supreme-court-straight-woman-workplace-discrimination.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://archive.is/o/WjYeY/https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf">unanimously ruled</a> in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.
The decision came two years after the Supreme Court <a href="https://archive.is/o/WjYeY/https:/www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-admissions-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html">struck down race-conscious admissions programs</a> in higher education and amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity. The ruling will place further pressure on employers and others to eliminate affirmative action and other initiatives that seek to provide opportunities to members of historically disadvantaged groups.</blockquote>
Leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. Again, remember this was a unanimous decision, so the three leftists on the Court, Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, concurred. Despite the best attempts of The New York Times to turn the decision into a right-wing decision, it was not. It was unanimous.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>The standard for proving workplace discrimination under the law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state’s juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion. Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ms. Ames, lacked a college degree.
Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.</blockquote>
Ames claimed that she was discriminated against because she was straight.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2212-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Put aside the underlying facts of the case. The question here for the Supreme Court was whether she had to — as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested —prove that she was a member of a minority or face a heightened standard because she wasn’t a member of a minority group.
<blockquote>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said she could have satisfied the “background circumstances” requirement by showing that decisions about her employment were made by “a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people)” or with statistical evidence. But the appeals court said Ms. Ames had provided neither kind of proof.</blockquote>
The underlying facts of the case are less relevant than the actual ruling, which says that yes, of course, you can be discriminated against if you&#8217;re a white, straight person. If you&#8217;re a member of a majority group, you can indeed be discriminated against.
That should not be a shock in any way, shape, or form.
Good for the Supreme Court for ruling correctly.
* * *
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a></h3>

US Supreme Court Slated To Issue Opinions As Term Nears End

Supreme Court Affirms: Discrimination Can Affect Majority Groups Too

Discrimination

Women

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

Menu