Supreme surprise: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accidentally came out — for school choice
A few years back, the Montgomery County, Md., school board instituted an 'LGBTQ-inclusive' curriculum that included storybooks for kids as young as pre-kindergarten.
The books are ostensibly part of the English curriculum because apparently they feature words and sentences.
Advertisement
But the rationale for the program, according to the school system itself, is to 'disrupt' the 'binary' thinking of skeptical kids. Which sounds very much like indoctrination.
For instance, one of the 'think aloud moments' for kids reading 'Born Ready,' the tale of a confused girl, is 'noticing how happy Penelope is when his mom hears him and commits to sharing with their loved ones that he is a boy.'
'Pride Puppy' is about a cute little dog who wanders into the Pride parade and meets friendly drag queens and leather-clad participants.
Advertisement
'Love, Violet' and 'Prince & Knight' are about same-sex attraction.
Even secular parents should find the idea of strangers teaching their prepubescent children about sexuality and gender dysphoria at such a young age and in such a frivolous manner unacceptable.
As most conscientious parents understand, kids do not 'know themselves best.'
Advertisement
One of the most vital duties of parenting is guiding children through the confusion of adolescence and teaching them morality. It is not consecrating every harebrained notion that pops into their precious, underdeveloped brains.
In any event, a group of religious parents led by a Muslim family in Maryland who believe the messages in the books conflict with their beliefs sued the county — not to stop the classes, but for the right to opt out of them.
Yet Montgomery County refused to allow them to do it, maintaining that the opt-out requests would be so numerous they would disrupt the class.
This might sound crazy, but if enough parents oppose a non-academic curriculum that it would be endangered, shouldn't a public school do their best to accommodate taxpayers, rather than the opposite?
Advertisement
Of course, in the progressive mindset the individual is subservient to the state, not vice-versa.
So, Mahmoud v. Taylor is now in front of the court. During Tuesday's oral arguments, which seemed to be going relatively well for parents, Jackson conceded that she was 'struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with.'
After all, they have a 'choice,' she noted. 'You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation.'
Theoretically speaking, this makes complete sense.
You can surrender your impressionable young child to hokum about gender transformation that conflicts with your faith, or you can leave the school entirely and, presumably, send your kids to a private institution or home-school them.
The problem here is that Maryland is one of the worst states for parental choice. Jackson, who spent years on the board of a Christian academy in Maryland, should know this.
Other than a tiny voucher program, there is nowhere to go. Maryland doesn't have open enrollment policies that, at a bare minimum, allow parents to change schools within the district.
Whichever school happens to be closest, no matter how poorly it performs or how ill-fitted it is for your child's needs, is where they must go.
Advertisement
Children might be the valuable thing in your life, but a Maryland parent is afforded more choices on where to buy a television than where they educate their kids.
Maryland barely has any charter schools. Parents who want to homeschool, which is challenging enough, must wrestle with needless regulatory burdens to teach their own children.
Anti-reform activists argue that school choice would result in an exodus of parents (and funding), undermining public schools' ability to function. This is called a marketplace.
If you can't attract parents, it's probably because your service is substandard.
Advertisement
Anti-reform activists also argue that voucher programs are for rich people, when the reality is that they are mostly for the middle and working classes, who are unable to escape these propagandizing institutions.
Montgomery County is one of the wealthiest in the country, so perhaps parents there have a better chance of escaping than most.
Irrespective of who school reform would help, it is an exceedingly small favor to ask schools to allow parents to opt out of classes that teach 'inclusivity' — a euphemism for a radical cultural agenda.
Advertisement
The fact that schools refuse to meet this request only illustrates the radicalism of these institutions.
But fortunately, Jackson has the answer on how to fix it.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis' attorney Matthew Staver told Newsweek he is optimistic the court will take the case. William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, wrote in a statement provided to Newsweek he is "confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek it is unlikely the Supreme Court would agree to overturn same-sex marriage. Why It Matters The case, filed by Davis—a former Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail over her refusal to provide marriage certificates to same-sex couples on religious grounds—could represent a threat to federal protections for same-sex marriage one decade after the nation's highest court legalized the unions across the country. Some justices like Clarence Thomas have signaled an openness to revisiting the case in recent years as the court has moved to the right. That conservative shift on cultural issues has been defined by its 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights. If the court overturns nationwide same-sex marriage, the issue would likely return to the states, many of which have still not passed laws allowing members of the same sex to get married. The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, To Know In a recently filed petition to the Supreme Court, Davis' attorney Matthew Staver raised religious objections to same-sex marriage. "Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong,' 'deeply damaging,' 'far outside the bound of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,' and set out 'on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,'" he wrote. Davis' case "presents the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that 'lacks any basis in the Constitution,' " the petition reads. "This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results leaving individuals like Davis 'find[ing] it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,'" it reads. "And, until the Court revisits its 'creation of atextual constitutional rights,' Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'" The filing said that if the court overturns Obergefell, marriage rights would be returned to the states, but that any same-sex couples who were married since the ruling would be grandfathered. Staver told Newsweek he believes the decision is on "weak on shaky ground." "It has no basis in the Constitution," he said. "It's what caused this issue with Kim Davis to be sent to prison for six days and now facing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally, is the Obergefell opinion originally, and I think that it's time to reevaluate that and overturn it." Urman told Newsweek it is "very unlikely for the Court to hear the case." While Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito may side with her, it's appears less likely that conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts would move to overturn same-sex marriage, he said. "There's a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage," he said. "But that's not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don't see a majority of the Court ready to do that. Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls." Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek that while Davis wants to use the case as a vehicle for the court to overturn same-sex marriage, that isn't necessarily the issue at the heart of the case. "Instead, it is about a jury verdict for inflicting emotional damages by violating a same-sex couple's right to marry. This just isn't the right vehicle for challenging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage," he said. Conservative members of the court are likely to be interested in overturning same-sex marriage but may not view this as the best case to do so, Collins said. "If the Court were to take the case, I think they would likely stick to the core issue in the case: the jury verdict regarding Davis violating the couple's constitutional right to marry," he said. Kim Davis' Arguments Have Faced Legal Scrutiny Davis became a national figure after she denied licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell ruling on June 26, 2015, over her religious objections. In September of that year, a judge held her in contempt, and she spent six days in jail. Davis' arguments have been rejected by lower courts. A 6th District Court of Appeals panel earlier this year dismissed her First Amendment argument because she is being "held liable for state action," rather than her individual actions. "Although Davis's assertions are novel, they fail under basic constitutional principles. Under § 1983, Davis is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect—so the Free Exercise Clause cannot shield her from liability," that ruling reads. The Supreme Court also denied an appeal filed by Davis in 2020. How Popular Is Support for Same-Sex Marriage? Polls show that most American support for same-sex marriage remains high, but has dropped in the past few years. Gallup showed that 69 percent of all Americans back the legalization of same-sex marriage in May 2024, down from 71 percent in May 2023. Eighty-three percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents support same-sex marriage, while only 46 percent of Republicans do so. What People Are Saying Attorney William Powell, who represents the couple who sued Davis for not providing a marriage license wrote in a statement to Newsweek: "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst told Newsweek: "Conservative Christians are serious about getting the Court to reconsider Obergefell. This case is being brought by Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal organization. If the Court denies Davis' petition—which I think it will—this won't be the end of the battle against same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights more generally." Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "The current supermajority on the Supreme Court has the votes to reshape American law how they see fit, but the Court still needs to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. Overturning the right to same-sex marriage could spark tremendous public backlash and criticism of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would work very hard to avoid this, and I don't see more than 2 votes (Alito and Thomas) to overturn Obergefell." Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." What Happens Next The Supreme Court could make a decision about whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months but has not indicated either way which way it is leaning.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Video appears to show the moment a Palestinian activist is killed as an Israeli settler opens fire
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — New video footage appears to show the moment a Palestinian activist was killed as an Israeli settler fired toward him during a confrontation with unarmed Palestinians in the occupied West Bank last month. The video released Sunday by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, shows Israeli settler Yinon Levi firing a gun toward the person filming. The footage cuts but the camera keeps rolling as the person moans in pain. B'Tselem says it obtained the video from the family of Awdah Hathaleen, 31, an activist, English teacher and father of three who was shot dead on July 28, and who they said had filmed it. Levi, who was shown firing his gun twice in video shot by another witness and obtained by The Associated Press, was briefly detained and then released from house arrest by an Israeli court, which cited lack of evidence. The shooting occurred in Umm al-Khair, a village that has long weathered settler violence in an area profiled in the Oscar-winning film 'No Other Land.' Settler attacks on Palestinians have spiked since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, as have attacks by Palestinian militants. 'Awdah's killing is another horrific example of how Palestinians, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, are currently living without any sort of protection, fully exposed to Israeli violence, while Israeli soldiers or settlers can kill them in broad daylight and enjoy full impunity while the world watches," said Sarit Michaeli, the international outreach director for B'Tselem. Levi was previously under U.S. sanctions that were lifted by the Trump administration. Both videos appear to show the same confrontation between Levi and a group of Palestinians. The earlier video showed him firing two shots from a pistol but did not show where the bullets struck. Several witnesses told the AP they saw Levi shoot Hathaleen. Avichai Hajbi, a lawyer representing Levi, told the AP that Levi acted in self-defense — without specifying what his actions were. Hajbi pointed to a court's decision earlier this month that released Levi from house arrest, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said Levi did not pose a danger justifying continued house arrest, but barred him from contact with the villagers for a month. The Israeli police didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about whether they'd seen the videos. B'Tselem said Levi was with a crew that brought an excavator from a nearby settlement into Umm al-Khair. Residents, fearing it would cut the village's main water line, gathered on a dirt road to try and block its path, and at least one individual threw a stone at the vehicle's front window. Levi then confronted the crowd while waving a handgun. The new video shows Levi arguing heatedly with three men before firing the gun in the direction of the person filming. Hathaleen was standing at the village community center about 40 meters (130 feet) from the confrontation, said B'Tselem. The bullet hit him in the chest and he collapsed on the spot, it said. Eitan Peleg, a lawyer for Hathaleen's family, said they told him Hathaleen had shot the footage on his phone. He said the police asked him for the video, which they hadn't seen. Peleg said he's urging the district court to investigate Levi for more serious crimes. Levi helped establish a settler outpost near Umm al-Khair that anti-settlement activists say is a bastion for violent settlers who have displaced hundreds since the start of the war. Palestinians and rights groups have long accused Israeli authorities of turning a blind eye to settler violence. In a 2024 interview, Levi told the AP he was protecting his own land and denied using violence. After Hathaleen's killing, Israel's army initially refused to return his body for burial unless conditions were met for the funeral, including limiting the number of people and the location. After an agreement was made with the police about a week later, Hathaleen's body was returned and buried. Hathaleen had written and spoken out against settler violence and had helped produce the Oscar-winning film. Supporters have erected murals in his honor in Rome, held vigils in New York and have held signs bearing his name at anti-war protests in Tel Aviv.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Appeals court orders Trump administration restore public funding tracker
A federal appeals court on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to restore a public database showing how federal funding is apportioned. The administration disabled the database in March as it stared down several lawsuits challenging funding freezes, claiming Congress' mandate to make the data public infringed on President Trump's core executive authority. 'To hear the Government tell it, the separation of powers hangs in the balance and only this Court can set things right. But when it comes to appropriations, our Constitution has made plain that congressional power is at its zenith,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson. The order to restore the database takes effect Friday, though the administration could still attempt to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was unanimous in its ruling. An appointee of the older former President Bush, Henderson was the sole judge appointed by a Republican president. She was joined on the panel by Robert Wilkins, an appointee of former President Obama, and Brad Garcia, an appointee of former President Biden. Henderson decried the administration in her 25-page statement, which Wilkins joined. It began with a reference to an English civil war in the 17th century between the Stuart monarchs and parliament. 'By the end of the upheaval, Parliament emerged supreme in matters of taxation and spending. Our Constitution followed suit, granting the Congress plenary control over the public fisc,' Henderson wrote. 'Recently, the Executive has once again locked horns in a struggle for control over the purse strings.' Two private groups that regularly sue the Trump administration, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy, challenged the takedown in April. They cited two recent congressional spending deals that require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to make apportionment decisions publicly available within two business days. 'They will be deprived of information that the Founding generation—from Franklin to Jefferson to Madison to Mason—all thought vital to our Republic,' Henderson wrote in her ruling. Trump has faced bipartisan pressure to restore the tracker, but the administration contends it contains sensitive information that could pose a national security threat. The Justice Department also argued the two groups have no right to sue and the requirement to post the data is unconstitutional. The administration's appeal to the D.C. Circuit came after U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled last month that the administration must restore the database. The D.C. Circuit halted the ruling as it considered the administration's request for a longer pause. Saturday's ruling lasts until the court resolves the appeal, which will now proceed in normal course.
