Jay Weber Show transcript 6-30-25 (segment 1 7am)
I have a separate segment on the big Trump win on nationwide injunctions Friday...
And that overshadowed the fact that there were five important cases left to get a ruling on-and trump and we ‘on the right’ got a clean sweep.
Every decision went in favor of the constitution and the limits of responsible government.
For example: the court reaffirmed in a new ruling that- yes- parents have the right to decide whether they want their own children to be taught or ‘shown’ certain things by other adults.
This was the alphabet case that some parents brought in Maryland.
As I say-this should have been a 9-zero opinion, and the fact that is’ not -tells you how politically corrupt our federal judicial system has become.
Two lower courts sided with the state of Maryland on this one... Even though the constitution and the long-standing precedent are obvious.
That’s both sad...and scary.
We all know what these books are ‘about’. Why were they written. How they ended up in the hands of educators. And why the Maryland public schools decided they needed to be part of the curriculum-and- that all children needed to be subjected to them.
We all know why the parents weren’t allowed to opt their children out.
Alito’s right, obviously: let’s not pretend that the Maryland side of this argument doesn’t know ‘why’ those books are in the curriculum and why a parent opt-out was barred from them.
This is Maryland educators and lawmakers insisting that-by god-we are going to indoctrinate the children of Maryland into what ‘we believe’ as educators....and into what ‘we believe’ makes a good person.
And that’s not.... opposing gay marriage and drag shows...that’s ‘celebrating them’. Etc.
The court got the ruling right.
Another one they got right: they upheld Texas’ age-verification law on porn sites...and this decision is likely to cause this to spread to other red states now, as well. I believe Louisiana is the only other state, currently, that requires an age verification process-head of time- before anyone enters an adult sex site.
Now-texas’ law can proceed and you’ve got to believe that other red state lawmakers will follow here.
In the case of Texas versus pervert...
No...
What was the case? Free speech coalition versus Paxton....another 6-3 ruling...
Yes- as Claire Morell puts it in a National Review piece:
Adults in America accept limits every day on their access to certain products or activities for the sake of protecting children. They must verify their age to purchase alcohol or tobacco. They must go through a process of proving their identity and meeting certain licensing requirements to own and operate a firearm or drive a car.
Balancing adults’ rights and the government’s compelling interest in protecting children means that as adults we live with certain trade-offs, especially in areas where it is critical to restrict children from accessing certain substances or technologies that are too powerful for their developing brains and bodies.
Yes.But.... As Claire notes: we have struggled to implement similar trade-offs in the virtual world. As a result, the virtual world has been a wild west for our children — there is almost no corner of the internet that’s off limits to them, including those filled with sexual, dangerous, and harmful content
Yes. As Clarence Thomas wrote: “adults have no first amendment right to avoid age verification.”
Rather, “requiring proof of age is an ordinary and appropriate means of enforcing an age-based limit on obscenity to minors. Age verification is common when laws draw age-based lines, e.g., obtaining alcohol, a firearm, or a driver’s license. Obscenity is no exception.”
And- letting children have access to porn at younger and younger ages seems to be an arrangement the porn industry wants...just like the tobacco companies wanted to get people hooked on tobacco products at younger and younger ages.
The industry wanted to argue in favor of ‘parental content filters’ and claim that was enough...but... The truth is...we all know that
C content filters have not protected children from online pornography.
As Claire Morell puts it:
The truth is the porn industry does not want to accept any accountability for protecting children; instead, they want all the burden to be on the end users of the internet, rather than cutting access off at the source. But consider applying this to the real world: it’s not on parents to run around and keep every store in town from selling cigarettes, alcohol, or pornography magazines to their kids; it’s on the sellers to restrict their access. Like the real world, it should be on the pornography websites themselves to restrict access for minors. And the court’s opinion now will make it so.
Moreover, she says: with today’s technologies, it is difficult to imagine a more minimal cost arrangement for adults for protecting kids from pornography than online age verification. The law merely puts a small hurdle for adults to easily jump over to enter these websites, but a hurdle that effectively keeps kids out.
I’d agree. And this was another important ‘win’ for common sense and responsible adults which-sadly- more and more- has meant ‘only our side of the aisle’.
All Americans should be celebrating these decisions released Friday. Not just those of us on the right.
But hey- what a great era for conservatives and for common sense: a 6-3 supreme court whose members start every inquiry with ‘what does the constitution actually say on this?’....and/or ‘what did the founders intend? What did the congressmen who passed this law intend?Etc.
This is the way the supreme court was always intended to run.
And no- over three or four sessions now-
No- there’s no evidence that any of these court members are drifting to the left. This session was littered with solid 6-3 wins.
Moreover- as predicted...president trump and his team are winning ‘the vast majority’ of the lawsuits that have been brought against them-as i said they would: because virtually all those lawsuits were desperate moves borne out of alarmist leftism...and weren’t ‘real world’ reactions to an executive using his authority.
Jay Weber Show transcript segment 2 (8:30 am)
It’s difficult to ‘over sell’ the Supreme Court ruling on Friday that reined in lower court judges on national injunctions.
And no, that ruling did not ban birthright citizenship in most parts of the country. I saw that mistaken headline....as part of a few other incorrect ones...
But....as a Notre Dame law school professor puts it: the supreme court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch.
I think that’s a good way to put it. Since the bush administration- almost every major presidential order has been frozen in place by some lower court district judge...with a universal injunction that they, then, apply to the entire country.
That’s bologna...and everyone in the judicial branch seemed to know it...and yet.... nothing was being done about this creeping illegality.
A national injunction freezes a presidential action in place...until that court can hear the case and plan on its legality. And they have become the ‘go to way’ for the political activists-on both sides- but far more heavily on the left- to block a presidential administration or agency from proceeding with that president’s agenda.
So, in the short term, Friday’s ruling is a setback for left wing activists and democrats who have a well-worn pattern-over decades now- of ‘judge shopping’.
That’s taking a lawsuit to literally hundreds of different jurisdictions in the hopes that it’s assigned to an activist judge who then agrees to put a nationwide injunction in place...before he or she eventually issues the ruling killing it off that they wanted.... etc.
Well- in just six months- there have been more than 300 lawsuits looking to block president Trump’s executive orders-and fifty of them. Fifty- have come along with nationwide injunctions. Including this birthright citizenship case that the Friday decision was linked to.
And no, the court didn’t decide on birthright citizenship, so if you read otherwise, that ‘expert’ is wrong.
What the supreme court did Friday was ‘use that case’ in order to rule the federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case in court...not just issue some generic injunction that applies to people and organizations not directly involved in the case.
That’s got legal experts already suggesting that the ACLU and these other legal lefty activists are going to have to use the technique of filing ‘class action suits’...to block presidential orders more fully in the future.
If not, the injunctions are only going to apply to the people being sued and in the district in which that judge resides.
Another point of emphasis: this doesn’t mean that there’s a ‘new lawlessness’ that has been created here- or that ‘Trump’s going to get his way on everything’.
As justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion: this only pertains to the lower courts- the supreme court still has-and has always had- an emergency appeals process –
Which is the ‘actual process’ that was intended to lead to nationwide injunctions, if necessary.
In Trump’s second term, alone, here- the Supreme Court has used the emergency docket to block him. Twice? Three times? on deportation-related orders.
They’ve also used it to slap back a few lower court orders leveled against him.
And so, yes, this Supreme Court-is- calling the honest balls and strikes here. They really are.
David brooks is a New York Post Columnist who pretends to be conservative. He also appears regularly on pbs shows as the ‘acceptable, but fake conservative that all the news outlets seem to have’...
‘Conservative’ David Brooks hates to say it’...but...the court got it right.
If the ‘court got it right’, why would you ‘hate to say that’?
The answer is: because he’s a closet lefty appearing on pbs and telling the other panelists something they don’t want to hear that they are wrong on this one.
And they are.
I’ve been mentioning that even liberal justice Elena Kagan has said -at forums- that the lower court judges are abusing nationwide injunctions.
So... why didn’t she vote with the majority in Friday’s decision?
One sidebar story on this rule: Elena Kagan is a hack and a hypocrite. Because here she is- at some forum during the Biden years- complaining about one of Biden’s orders being blocked by an injunction...in 2022.
This-to me-defines what a political hack is: if you believe one thing when your party is in power-and the exact opposite thing-when the other party is in power-you are a feckless hypocrite and hack.
And -this one- sadly, sits on our Supreme Court.
Friday’s ruling is a much-needed and long-overdue correction in the law. District court judges have been ‘going rogue’ for decades with these things-and making unconstitutional moves that the supreme court members should have corrected long ago.
Well, they finally made the correction. Good.
And for the record?
The other two liberals on the court couldn’t mount any ‘actual defense’ of the nationwide injunction abuses, either.
Sonya Sotomayor did her normal thing of-not focusing on the question- and instead, wrote a dissent that dealt with birthright citizenship.
She’s apparently DCS ‘Lena Taylor’....and needs some staffers around her to tell her what they’re debating currently.
No, no, Sonya. We’re not on that right now.
Good grief.
And Ketanji Brown Jacksons' attempt at a defense was so pathetic that-as you probably heard- Amy Coney Barrett didn’t even feel the need to rebut it- in the majority opinion.
The translation is: your analysis is too stupid for the rest of us to even waste time on.
Wow.
Bottom line: the Supreme Court just restored the rule of law when it came to this question ...and lowered court powers.
Today’s trump-hating leftists are going to rage about it, of course, but the next time a democrat president is in power- it will work to their advantage, too.
Apparently, over on blue sky this weekend, (which is lefty bubble twitter) the timelines were just a torrent of hate and ignorance directed at trump and the supreme court- for getting it right.
And-
It leaves the Trump haters looking for a new playbook. That’s the best part, here.
Legal activists on their side spent the weekend trading emails and scrambling to figure out how to ‘block trump in court’ was still possible now.
They’re already scheming for the next ‘overreach’.
And Trump promised to pursue his agenda-aggressively-in court now, to make sure those lower court judges pared back or dropped the national injunctions they’ve issued.
Good.
photo credit: Getty Images
audio version of the segment here > Friday's Supreme Court rulings were huge wins