The Ben Shapiro Show - Supreme Court SLAMS LGBT Tyranny, DESTROYS Biden’s Student Loan Bailout

00:00:00.000 Well, there were two major Supreme Court decisions that came down on Friday.

00:00:02.000 One of them was on religious freedom.

00:00:04.000 The other one was on Joe Biden's decision to get rid of student loans, essentially to bail out all student loans in the United States.

00:00:11.000 So, both decisions came down the right direction.

00:00:14.000 The Supreme Court, which again, this is the big victory for Donald Trump, the lasting victory that Donald Trump is going to have had from his presidency, whether or not he becomes president again, that's another issue, but The big victory he's going to have had from his presidency is the remolding and reshaping of the Supreme Court.

00:00:27.000 He got three picks on the Supreme Court, and all three of them seem to have been victories on behalf of conservative jurisprudence and originalism.

00:00:37.000 This opinion was written by Neil Gorsuch, who was one of Donald Trump's appointments.

00:00:43.000 He was actually his first appointment to the Supreme Court.

00:00:46.000 And that particular case went 6-3.

00:00:47.000 It was the six conservatives versus the three liberals on the court.

00:00:51.000 And this opinion concerned the question of whether a religious website designer could be forced to essentially create a website on behalf of a same-sex wedding.

00:01:01.000 Now, you may say to yourself, this sounds exactly like the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.

00:01:05.000 The Masterpiece Cake Shop case was a case in which there was a guy who was asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and he decided he didn't want to do that, and the Supreme Court said that's artistic expression.

00:01:15.000 The question was, how broadly would that apply?

00:01:17.000 To what level of services would that apply?

00:01:19.000 Because they're essentially Two issues in American law that are in conflict right now.

00:01:22.000 One is the so-called Public Accommodations Law.

00:01:25.000 That comes from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

00:01:26.000 I've suggested before that the Public Accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act are wrong-headed.

00:01:32.000 I actually think that they are an overstep in terms of constitutionality.

00:01:35.000 They essentially say that if you act in business, then you quote-unquote cannot discriminate.

00:01:41.000 And that was written for good reason.

00:01:43.000 It was originally written in order to make sure that, for example, black people could stay at hotels and people who operate at hotels couldn't bar black people from hotels.

00:01:48.000 So you understand exactly where it came from.

00:01:50.000 The motivations are good.

00:01:51.000 The problem is it's overbroad because it also allows the government now to dictate exactly who you must do business with.

00:01:57.000 So the Public Accommodations Law of the Civil Rights Act is on the one hand.

00:02:00.000 On the other hand is freedom of association and freedom of speech.

00:02:03.000 Let's say that, for example, you weren't a public accommodation in the same way.

00:02:07.000 It wasn't a hotel that was open to everyone.

00:02:09.000 Let's say that you were a bed and breakfast.

00:02:11.000 Did the same thing apply?

00:02:12.000 Well, the Supreme Court has said in the past that it did apply.

00:02:14.000 So, these two things come into deep and abiding conflict when you are talking not really about issues of race, but issues of activity.

00:02:22.000 So, same-sex marriage is, in fact, an activity.

00:02:25.000 So, there's a difference in the law between discrimination against quote-unquote gay people and discrimination against activities done by gay people.

00:02:32.000 Those are not quite the same thing.

00:02:34.000 So, for example, if somebody came into your business, and you live in a state that has a strong anti-discrimination law, like the state of Colorado, somebody walks into your business, and they say, I want to buy a donut.

00:02:42.000 And you say, are you gay or are you straight?

00:02:44.000 That's a violation of anti-discrimination law in the state of Colorado.

00:02:48.000 If, however, the person comes in and says, I want you to bake me a cake, and I want a giant rainbow flag, and a huge slogan on it that says, love is love, and you say no, well that would actually be speech.

00:02:57.000 Right, no longer is this quote-unquote doing business or making a service that is available to everyone, simply available to gay people. 0.95

00:03:03.000 Now you are asking for specific messages to be parroted.

00:03:06.000 So in this particular case, which was about a website designer creating a same-sex marriage website, the question was, does this look more like the donut provider who is just refusing to sell donuts to gay people, or does it look more like the person who's being asked to put slogans across the cake?

00:03:21.000 Now, in my world, you know, in the world of the original Constitution, without the revolution that was the Civil Rights Act, with regard to public accommodation, the Civil Rights Act is exactly right in barring segregation, barring illegal discrimination by government actors.

00:03:36.000 Where the Civil Rights Act, in my opinion, goes too far, and this is sort of the libertarian view, is in dictating how you must operate your private business.

00:03:43.000 It seems to me that the federal government doesn't actually have the power over that, constitutionally speaking.

00:03:47.000 But, put that to the side.

00:03:49.000 What this case really was about was whether this looks more like the donut shop provider who won't sell the donut to the gay guy or whether this looks more like a bakery that refuses to bake a cake with a gay rights slogan on it.

00:04:02.000 And this is really important stuff because if you're a religious person, you're not just religious in your church.

00:04:06.000 You're not just religious in your home.

00:04:07.000 You're religious in how you practice your business.

00:04:10.000 Cases like this come up all the time, where people want their messages purveyed by business providers, and business providers do in fact have a right to say, I don't wish to purvey that message.

00:04:19.000 Or do they?

00:04:20.000 That was the question of this case.

00:04:21.000 So the majority is written by Justice Gorsuch, and it's worth going through it, because Essentially, what's been happening over the past several years under Justice Gorsuch's jurisprudence is what has been called the Utah Compromise.

00:04:31.000 The Utah Compromise suggests that there will be broad anti-discrimination laws that will apply to nearly everyone.

00:04:36.000 You can't discriminate against somebody on the basis of their status as, for example, a gay person or as a woman, as a Jew, right?

00:04:43.000 You can't do any of that.

00:04:44.000 But there are carve-outs for religious people who say that certain activities that these people do are in conflict with their own religious practice.

00:04:51.000 That's what Gorsuch is attempting to do right here.

00:04:54.000 So Gorsuch begins the opinion saying, like many states, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public.

00:05:01.000 Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans.

00:05:04.000 But in this particular case, Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms.

00:05:08.000 It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe.

00:05:12.000 The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

00:05:16.000 So this would seem like a pretty clear-cut case, right?

00:05:19.000 Why should the government be able to force you to parrot a message that you don't actually believe?

00:05:24.000 Why should the government be able to do that?

00:05:26.000 And the answer the Supreme Court gave is the government isn't able to do that.

00:05:30.000 And not just because of religious objections.

00:05:33.000 Because of free speech itself.

00:05:35.000 So the Masterpiece Cake Shop case is about violation of religious freedom.

00:05:39.000 What Justice Gorsuch is saying, this doesn't just violate religious freedom, it violates free speech.

00:05:43.000 There are two separate clauses in the First Amendment.

00:05:45.000 Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the speech.

00:05:47.000 And also, Congress shall not abridge freedom of the exercise of religion, right?

00:05:51.000 These are separate...

00:05:52.000 But, but important aspects of the First Amendment.

00:05:56.000 This falling under free speech is a broader latitude than mere religious exemption.

00:06:00.000 We'll get to more on this decision in just one second.

00:06:02.000 First, our friends over at Genius Health sold out of their dark spot corrector.

00:06:05.000 Our listeners have been begging for a restock.

00:06:06.000 Well, good news.

00:06:07.000 It's back, just in time for summer.

00:06:09.000 GenuCell's famous dark spot corrector has not one, but three cutting-edge ingredients, and goes to work fast to target sunspots, dark spots, liver spots, even old discoloration, both on your face and your hands.

00:06:18.000 You can now enjoy your summer sun, beach, and barbecues without embarrassing spots.

00:06:21.000 GenuCell's most popular package also features their summer essentials,

00:06:24.000 like the best-selling Ultra Retinol Moisturizer with a powerful retinol alternative for safe use in the sun.

00:06:28.000 You'll be amazed at how quickly you'll see results or 100% of your money back guaranteed.

00:06:33.000 Head on over to genucell.com slash Shapiro right now, get your dark spot corrector

00:06:36.000 in GenuCell's most popular package.

00:06:38.000 That's genucell.com slash Shapiro.

00:06:41.000 Again, when you go to genucell.com slash Shapiro, you save over 70% off their most popular package.

00:06:45.000 All orders will include a mystery luxury gift while supplied slash genucell.com slash Shapiro.

00:06:50.000 Their product is fantastic.

00:06:51.000 My wife has used it.

00:06:52.000 My mom has used it.

00:06:53.000 I've used it myself.

00:06:54.000 GenuCell will make you feel better.

00:06:55.000 It'll make you look better.

00:06:56.000 Go check them out right now.

00:06:57.000 GenuCell.com slash Shapiro and get that dark spot corrector in the GenuCell most popular package.

00:07:03.000 When you use GenuCell.com slash Shapiro, you save 70% off that most popular package.

00:07:06.000 Okay, so back to the majority opinion.

00:07:09.000 So one of the points the majority makes here is that the plaintiff in this particular case, the website designer, is quote, willing to work with all people regardless of classification such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender.

00:07:19.000 And she will gladly create custom graphics and websites for clients of any sexual orientation. 0.98

00:07:23.000 But that's not what was being asked of her. 0.97

00:07:24.000 It wasn't make a wedding website for this gay guy. 0.96

00:07:28.000 It was make a gay wedding website. 0.70

00:07:30.000 It is Steve marrying Bob, and they want a website celebrating their gay marriage.

00:07:33.000 That's not quite the same thing as Steve saying, I'm paying for my sister's wedding website, for example.

00:07:38.000 Or, we ourselves have a business that caters to weddings, and we want you to make that business website.

00:07:42.000 Not the same thing.

00:07:43.000 Under Colorado's logics, says Gorsuch, he points out that Colorado protests this.

00:07:47.000 Colorado believes they should be able to cram down on all residents of the state of Colorado their preferred messaging about same-sex marriage, which is unbelievably dangerous.

00:07:54.000 Because once you believe that, then basically all religious people are under fire everywhere they do business in public life.

00:08:00.000 Under Colorado's logic, says the Supreme Court, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic, no matter the underlying message, if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait.

00:08:13.000 Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.

00:08:20.000 The government could require an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message, or an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating evangelical zeal, so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.

00:08:31.000 Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage.

00:08:37.000 And this, of course, is true.

00:08:39.000 As soon as the government says that they can now compel certain types of speech, that means that they can compel all types of speech.

00:08:46.000 Okay, so we'll get to the dissent in a minute, which is truly an awful dissent by Sonia Sotomayor, who is a horrible justice. 0.99

00:09:03.000 She proclaimed when she was appointed that she was a wise Latina justice, which, again, affirmative action attributes being added to your Supreme Court description is never very good for your reputation.

00:09:13.000 Neither are bad dissents.

00:09:14.000 But the majority opinion in this case takes aim directly at Sotomayor's dissent.

00:09:18.000 They say, quote, it is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we're looking at the same case.

00:09:22.000 Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws

00:09:24.000 and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law.

00:09:28.000 And no doubt there's much to applaud here, but none of this answers the question we face today.

00:09:31.000 Can I state for someone who provides her own expressive services

00:09:34.000 to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?

00:09:37.000 When the dissent finally gets around to that question more than halfway into its opinion,

00:09:41.000 it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom.

00:09:45.000 The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. 0.99

00:09:47.000 Smith's conduct, not her speech.

00:09:49.000 Forget Colorado's stipulation that Ms. 1.00

00:09:51.000 Smith's activities are, in fact, expressive, which means that they are, in fact, speech.

00:09:54.000 The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge, but it ignores the Tenth Circuit's finding that Ms. 0.89

00:09:59.000 Smith faced a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the state's.

00:10:03.000 All despite the 10th Circuit finding that Colorado intends to force Ms.

00:10:06.000 Smith to convey a message she does not believe, with the very purpose of eliminating ideas that differ from its own.

00:10:12.000 Nor, says Gorsuch, does the dissent's reimagination end there.

00:10:15.000 It claims that, for the first time in its history, the court, quote, grants a business open to the public a right to refuse to serve members of protected class.

00:10:22.000 Never mind that we do no such thing, and that Colorado itself has stipulated that Ms. 0.60

00:10:26.000 Smith will work with all people regardless of sexual orientation.

00:10:29.000 Never mind, too, that it is the dissent that would have this court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.

00:10:41.000 Now, to be fair, there's confusion that arises when it comes to LGBT issues.

00:10:45.000 Why?

00:10:46.000 Well, because that's a question of self-identity. 0.79

00:10:48.000 How would you even know if somebody walked into your business and they were gay unless they told you they were gay? 0.90

00:10:51.000 I mean, that is literally the only way that you would know.

00:10:55.000 Or, in fact, they asked you to do a message for gay marriage.

00:10:58.000 Or they explained to you that they were married to another person of the same sex.

00:11:00.000 There are a lot of people who have various characteristics who are gay.

00:11:04.000 The gay community is, in fact, not quite as stereotypical as TV would make it out to be.

00:11:09.000 Which means that very often, quote-unquote, discrimination against a gay person is not in fact discrimination against gay person, it is discrimination against behavior that is conducted by a person who happens to be gay.

00:11:19.000 That is not the same thing at all.

00:11:21.000 And that's the point the court is making.

00:11:23.000 This is, by the way, a major distinction that has never been properly drawn in the law, but needs to be drawn in the law.

00:11:29.000 The gay rights movement has claimed they're the new civil rights movement.

00:11:31.000 These are absolutely disparate movements.

00:11:32.000 They are not alike in any way, shape, or form.

00:11:35.000 The black civil rights movement was about the idea that you have an immutable characteristic that is not behaviorally based.

00:11:40.000 You're a race. 0.98

00:11:41.000 It has nothing to do with your behavior.

00:11:42.000 It has nothing to do with your feelings. 0.59

00:11:43.000 You are black, whether you feel black or whether you don't feel black. 1.00

00:11:46.000 Whether you quote-unquote act black or whether you don't act black, obviously. 0.50

00:11:49.000 In fact, there is no such thing as quote-unquote acting black, other than stereotypes.

00:11:53.000 That is not the same thing when it comes to issues of sexual orientation, which is about interior feeling, it is about behavior in the real world, and that is why putting LGBT as members of a quote-unquote protected class under anti-discrimination law starts to get into very dicey activity as far as forcing other people to accept a behavior, not an actual objective state of the world that is visible to everyone else.

00:12:15.000 It's not quite the same thing.

00:12:18.000 The opinion says, in some places the dissent gets so turned around the facts of the case it opens fire on its own position.

00:12:23.000 For instance, while stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on a customer's protected status, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services to the public does have the right to decide what messages to include or not to include.

00:12:36.000 But if that's actually true then what exactly are we debating?

00:12:40.000 Finally, the dissent comes out and says what it really means.

00:12:42.000 And this is the key point.

00:12:43.000 This is how the left would have it if they ran the world here. 0.75

00:12:46.000 Once Ms. 1.00

00:12:46.000 Smith offers some speech, Colorado would require her to create and sell speech notwithstanding her sincere objection to doing so. 1.00

00:12:53.000 And the dissent would force her to comply with that demand. 0.59

00:12:56.000 Even as it does so, however, the dissent refuses to acknowledge where its reasoning leads.

00:13:00.000 Perhaps the dissent finds these possibilities untroubling because it trusts state governments to coerce only enlightened speech.

00:13:05.000 But if that's the calculation, it is a dangerous one indeed.

00:13:08.000 That's an excellent opinion.

00:13:10.000 Obviously, I wish that it went even further, but it goes pretty far in at least guaranteeing the ability of religious people to act out their religion in their daily life, which of course is necessary.

00:13:19.000 And not just religious people, anybody, to act out their principles in their daily life.

00:13:24.000 Somebody went after me on Twitter for all this.

00:13:26.000 They said, well, how would you feel if somebody rejected you because you went in there and you wanted some sort of Jewish message written on a cake?

00:13:32.000 And I said, I'd feel pretty good because that would be America. 0.90

00:13:34.000 And then I just walk across the street to a kosher bakery where they would do exactly what I wanted them to do.

00:13:38.000 In just one second, we'll get to Sonia Sotomayor's dissent.

00:13:41.000 She's an awful justice and she proves it with her dissent first.

00:13:44.000 Let's talk about how you make your home look better.

00:13:46.000 So, one huge thing for me is how natural light flows into my home.

00:13:50.000 Makes a big difference to me.

00:13:51.000 If I'm in a dark place, like if the room is just dingy and dark, there's not enough natural light, it's very depressing.

00:13:56.000 This is why I rely on Blinds.com and you should too.

00:13:59.000 With Blinds.com, you can make sure you stay cool throughout these hot summer months.

00:14:02.000 We do.

00:14:03.000 Blinds.com is the number one online retailer of custom window coverings with over 40,000 5-star reviews.

00:14:08.000 You can measure and install it yourself, or have Blinds.com take care of it with local professionals.

00:14:12.000 There is no showroom, no retail markets, no matter how many you order, installation is just one low cost.

00:14:16.000 If you don't have an eye for design, Blinds.com experts are always available to help choose the style and color that's right for you.

00:14:21.000 Everything they sell is covered by their perfect fit and 100% satisfaction guarantee.

00:14:25.000 With hundreds of styles and colors to choose from, Blinds.com is sure to have the perfect treatment for your windows.

00:14:29.000 Shop Blinds.com's 4th of July sale happening now through July 5th.

00:14:33.000 Save 40% off sitewide plus doorbusters.

00:14:35.000 Get 40% off sitewide right now at Blinds.com.

00:14:38.000 When you check out online, don't forget to tell them you heard about Blinds.com from The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:14:41.000 Rules and restrictions may apply.

00:14:43.000 That's Blinds.com.

00:14:44.000 Go check them out right now.

00:14:45.000 Get 40% off sitewide.

00:14:48.000 Now we get to Sonia Sotomayor's dissent.

00:14:50.000 So remember, we were this close to having a left-wing Supreme Court that would absolutely greenlight the shutting down of rights in states across the nation.

00:14:57.000 So Sonia Sotomayor says this, quote, today, the court for the first time in its history

00:15:00.000 grants a business open to the public, a constitutional right to refuse to serve members

00:15:04.000 of a protected class.

00:15:05.000 Okay, so first of all, that is just a lie.

00:15:07.000 Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the cases that followed hard upon, that basically overwrote the Constitution in favor of certain provisions like public accommodations and the Civil Rights Act, the reality of the world is that for most of American history, it was no shoes, no shirt, no service.

00:15:24.000 And up to and including ugly discrimination none of us would like.

00:15:27.000 Now you can say that stuff is ugly and it should be banned by cities or it should be banned by states.

00:15:32.000 You can say all of that stuff.

00:15:33.000 But the reality is that American law did not only not prohibit that sort of stuff, American law guaranteed your right to freedom of association throughout all of that, understanding and believing, I think correctly, that if there was a business that discriminates against black people, a business will open across the street that does not discriminate against black people and it will out-compete the business that discriminates against black people.

00:15:53.000 This, by the way, is actually the story of the early civil rights movement.

00:15:55.000 If you look at, like, 1960, the Woolworth counter sit-ins, those were not legislatively crammed down desegregation.

00:16:02.000 That was people sitting at the counter, and this becoming such a public relations issue for Woolworths that they had to desegregate their lunch counters.

00:16:10.000 In any case, Sonia Sotomayor goes on because she's wrong, obviously.

00:16:14.000 Specifically, the court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public.

00:16:24.000 And then we get into the Salon.com, Slate.com pitch meeting for Sonia Sotomayor.

00:16:28.000 This is how you know the difference, by the way, between the intelligent justices on the court and the ones who are not particularly smart.

00:16:33.000 The ones who are unintelligent write opinions that sound like they are direct from the Letters to the editor page of Jacobin Magazine.

00:16:41.000 The ones who are actually smart, like Elena Kagan.

00:16:43.000 She's wrong a lot, but she's smart.

00:16:45.000 Elena Kagan's dissent in the Biden student loan case, for example, is actually a smartly written opinion.

00:16:50.000 I think she's wrong, but it's a smartly written opinion.

00:16:52.000 Sotomayor's dissent here is just a disaster area.

00:16:54.000 She says, quote, Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities.

00:17:00.000 New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion.

00:17:02.000 This is heartbreaking.

00:17:03.000 Sadly, it is also familiar.

00:17:05.000 Now, if you're wondering at this point, what does the Supreme Court have to do with any of this?

00:17:08.000 You're right to be wondering that because, really, it doesn't.

00:17:10.000 There are lots of social movements all around the country constantly.

00:17:13.000 That's not the job of the Supreme Court to weigh in and greenlight certain social movements while shutting down others. 0.54

00:17:17.000 In fact, that's explicitly not the purpose of the Supreme Court.

00:17:20.000 But, it is to Sonia Sotomayor and her friends on the left.

00:17:23.000 When the civil rights and women's rights movement sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. 0.84

00:17:28.000 Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate.

00:17:32.000 The brave justices who once sat on this court decisively rejected those claims.

00:17:35.000 Now the court faces a similar test.

00:17:37.000 A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner's religious belief that same-sex marriages are false.

00:17:45.000 Now, again, you could read just directly in that sentence that this isn't about the quote-unquote sexual orientation of the people who are coming into the business.

00:17:53.000 It's about the particular business request they are making.

00:17:56.000 If they had asked, presumably, for some sort of quick website fix, then the Business owner would have provided it, but that's not what they were asking for.

00:18:04.000 They were asking for a website that explicitly endorsed a message.

00:18:08.000 The business argues, and a majority of the court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services.

00:18:21.000 That is wrong.

00:18:22.000 Profoundly wrong.

00:18:26.000 Sonia Sotomayor continues, The legal duty of a business open to the public to serve the public without unjust discrimination is deeply rooted in our history.

00:18:33.000 I mean, first of all, given the fact that you guys believe that American history is replete with racism, I'd like to see the evidence on this one.

00:18:41.000 But, continuing, the true power of this principle, however, lies in its capacity to evolve as society comes to understand more forms of unjust discrimination and, hence, to include more persons as full and equal members of the public.

00:18:51.000 So, by the way, we should point out here that Neil Gorsuch and Bostock suggested the Civil Rights Act applied to, quote-unquote, transgender status.

00:18:57.000 So this means that according to the leftist minority on the Supreme Court, the dissent, If a person walked into your business and demanded that you put a trans flag on the cake, you would have to do it.

00:19:08.000 This is according to Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

00:19:13.000 They would have it that if you, a person who writes speeches for a living, gets a call from a trans activist, you have to take the call and you have to write the speech because you are a publicly available business.

00:19:26.000 There is no limit on this sort of power.

00:19:29.000 This is all Orwellian kind of stuff, but this is what the left would like.

00:19:32.000 Quote, LGBT people have existed for all of human history.

00:19:34.000 Now we just get the rote kind of GLAAD talk from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

00:19:40.000 LGBT people have existed for all of human history.

00:19:42.000 And as sure as they have existed, others have sought to deny their existence and to exclude them from public life.

00:19:46.000 Those who would subordinate LGBT people have often done so with the backing of the law.

00:19:50.000 For most of American history, there were laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy.

00:19:53.000 Wait a second.

00:19:53.000 I thought a second ago you said the public accommodations or public accommodations law has been widespread throughout America.

00:19:58.000 Anyway, a social system of discrimination created an environment.

00:20:01.000 This part is amazing, by the way.

00:20:02.000 This is absolutely amazing.

00:20:03.000 In fact, you know what?

00:20:03.000 I'm going to get to the most amazing part of this insane opinion, this dissent from Sotomayor in just one second, because it truly is wild.

00:20:09.000 I mean, it's just complete misstatement of facts.

00:20:12.000 It is lies piled on lies.

00:20:13.000 Here we go.

00:20:14.000 In one second.

00:20:14.000 First, the 4th of July.

00:20:16.000 It is tomorrow.

00:20:17.000 Many family gatherings are lined up for this week.

00:20:19.000 The last thing you need when hosting your barbecue is turning on the grill and you're out of propane.

00:20:23.000 This is where our friends at Cinch come in.

00:20:25.000 Cinch is a propane grill tank home delivery service.

00:20:27.000 They deliver propane tanks directly to your door on your schedule.

00:20:30.000 They do not require any long-term commitment or subscription.

00:20:32.000 Plus, delivery is completely contact-free.

00:20:34.000 You don't have to wait around at home.

00:20:35.000 Track the order on the Cinch app from anywhere.

00:20:37.000 The perfect summer night would not be complete without Cinch.

00:20:39.000 Go to cinch.com or download the Cinch app.

00:20:41.000 Use promo code SHAPIRO to get your first tank exchange for just $10.

00:20:44.000 That is C-Y-N-C-H dot com. 1.00

00:20:47.000 Promo code SHAPIRO.

00:20:48.000 This is a limited time offer.

00:20:48.000 You have to live within a Cinch service area to redeem it.

00:20:50.000 Visit cinch.com slash offer for details.

00:20:52.000 There's nothing worse than it's time for you to get out to the grill.

00:20:55.000 Everybody's ready to have an excellent barbecue with the hamburgers and the hot dogs and the whole deal.

00:20:59.000 You turn on the grill and you realize it doesn't turn on at all because you ain't got the propane.

00:21:03.000 This is why you need Cinch.

00:21:04.000 Cinch can fix that for you right off the bat.

00:21:06.000 Go to cinch.com, download the Cinch app, use promo code SHAPIRO, get your first tank exchange for just $10.

00:21:10.000 That is C-Y-N-C-H dot com. 1.00

00:21:14.000 Promo code SHAPIRO.

00:21:15.000 Perfect for the 4th of July.

00:21:18.000 This part of the Sonia Sotomayor dissent is absolutely insane.

00:21:21.000 So she's talking, of course, in glowing terms about the gay rights movement and the LGBT movement.

00:21:26.000 And what does this have to do with the case at hand?

00:21:28.000 Nobody knows.

00:21:28.000 It's just a way for her to sound off on what she agrees with.

00:21:31.000 Quote, A social system of discrimination created an environment in which LGBT people were unsafe.

00:21:37.000 Who could forget the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard?

00:21:40.000 Matthew was targeted by two men, tortured, tied to a buck fence, and left to die for who he was.

00:21:44.000 Okay, so first of all, that's probably not true.

00:21:47.000 There are excellent books and excellent documentaries about Matthew Shepard, and the most plausible conclusion is that Matthew Shepard was actually likely an alleged meth dealer who went crossways with some of his clients and then got murdered for his trouble.

00:22:01.000 I mean, so she's citing just... If you think, by the way, that that's an exception, is that she's citing a bad situation?

00:22:07.000 A bad, bad, bad pattern here?

00:22:09.000 How about this one?

00:22:10.000 Or the Pulse nightclub!

00:22:11.000 The second deadliest mass shooting in US history.

00:22:14.000 The Pulse...

00:22:15.000 Nightclub Massacre had nothing to do with anti-gay targeting by right-wing religious groups. 0.99

00:22:22.000 It was a Muslim terrorist who shot up the Pulse nightclub. 0.77

00:22:25.000 So she's not even citing proper cases.

00:22:27.000 Now again, she's citing statistics that just don't exist.

00:22:30.000 people with transgender persons particularly vulnerable to attack. Now again, she is she's 0.99

00:22:34.000 citing statistics that just don't exist. The idea that transgender people are routinely

00:22:38.000 killed in the United States is not true whatsoever. But she continues, LGBT people do not seek 1.00

00:22:45.000 All they seek is to exist in public.

00:22:47.000 Well, I mean, what they actually seek is to make you mirror all of their preferences, which is why they demand that you use their pronouns.

00:22:52.000 It's why they demand that you fly their flag at the White House.

00:22:55.000 It's why they demand that you post a gay rights flag in your profile. 0.90

00:22:59.000 It's why they demand that you use your own pronouns.

00:23:01.000 I mean, that... No, that's not true.

00:23:04.000 But, again, the basic notion here is that Sonia Sotomayor does not like the perspective that is being put forward by the plaintiff.

00:23:10.000 Therefore, the plaintiff is wrong and should be forced by the law to do exactly what Sonia Sotomayor wants.

00:23:15.000 Another example might help to illustrate the point.

00:23:17.000 A professional photographer is generally free to choose her subjects.

00:23:20.000 She can make a living taking photos of flowers or celebrities.

00:23:22.000 The state does not regulate that choice.

00:23:24.000 If the photographer opens a portrait photography business to the public, however,

00:23:27.000 the business may not deny to any person because of race, sex, national origin,

00:23:30.000 or other protected characteristic, the full and equal enjoyment of whatever services the

00:23:33.000 business chooses to offer.

00:23:35.000 That is so even though the portrait photography services are customized and expressive.

00:23:38.000 If the business offers school photos, it may not deny those services to multiracial children because the owner does not want to create any speech indicating that interracial couples are acceptable.

00:23:50.000 Again, interracial couples are not the same thing as a man and a man.

00:23:54.000 That is not the same thing.

00:23:56.000 And again, all this involves is a category error by identifying behavior and then including that behavior alongside immutable characteristic.

00:24:06.000 But, says Sonia Sotomayor, concluding, quote, The unattractive lesson of the majority remains this.

00:24:12.000 What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. 0.80

00:24:14.000 The lesson of the history of public accommodations laws is altogether different.

00:24:17.000 It is that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social case.

00:24:20.000 So I just want to ask what the converse of that is.

00:24:22.000 She says that the unattractive lesson of the majority opinion is what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.

00:24:27.000 Would the opposite be what is yours and mine and what is mine is yours?

00:24:32.000 Because I'm pretty sure that's not the American creed.

00:24:35.000 The notion that you have a right to my services, the belief system that what is mine is owed to you, is deeply un-American and deeply unfree.

00:24:43.000 That, of course, is what the left would like.

00:24:44.000 Okay, so they lost in that particular case.

00:24:46.000 That was one big victory on behalf of constitutional conservatism on Friday.

00:24:50.000 The other one that came down late on Friday was an opinion striking down, again by a 6-3 vote, Joe Biden's attempt to cram down a student loan bailout.

00:24:59.000 So he does not have authority under the law in the United States to simply declare the student loan subsidized by the federal government.

00:25:05.000 You don't have to pay those back.

00:25:07.000 If Congress had chosen to give that authority to the executive branch, they could have done so.

00:25:11.000 They clearly did not.

00:25:12.000 That is the opinion written by Justice Roberts in this particular case.

00:25:16.000 And the case is really quite simple.

00:25:17.000 He says, quote, the secretary, the secretary of education, may issue waivers or modifications

00:25:21.000 only as may be necessary to ensure that recipients of student financial assistance under Title

00:25:25.000 4 of the Education Act or affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially

00:25:29.000 in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals.

00:25:32.000 So in other words, there is an emergency provision of the Education Act that basically said that if

00:25:37.000 there's a war and the people who are affected by that war or there's a terrorist attack and

00:25:41.000 you can't pay your bill because of a terrorist attack, then the secretary has the ability to

00:25:45.000 to issue waivers or modifications as necessary.

00:25:48.000 During the first year of the pandemic, the Department's Office of General Counsel issued a memorandum concluding the Secretary does not have the statutory authority to provide a blanket or mass cancellation, compromise, discharge, or forgiveness of student loan principal balances.

00:25:59.000 And then Biden took office and he flipped that.

00:26:01.000 The Secretary of Education asserts that the so-called HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal.

00:26:09.000 It does not, says the court.

00:26:10.000 We hold today the act allows the Secretary to quote-unquote waive or modify existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite the statute from the ground up.

00:26:22.000 The Secretary's plan has modified the cited provisions only in the same sense the French Revolution modified the status of the French nobility.

00:26:28.000 It has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.

00:26:31.000 The Secretary has not truly waived or modified the provisions in the Education Act authorizing specific and limited forgiveness of student loans.

00:26:38.000 Those provisions remain safely intact in the U.S.

00:26:39.000 Code, where they continue to operate in full force.

00:26:42.000 What the Secretary has actually done is draft a new section of the Education Act from scratch by waiving provisions root and branch and then filling the empty space with radically new tax.

00:26:50.000 So in other words, they just rewrote the law.

00:26:52.000 So as I say, Elena Kagan's dissent in this particular case is not convincing, but it is much smarter than the dissents by Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in the Affirmative Action case and the Religious Freedom case, respectively.

00:27:02.000 Those dissents are just disaster areas that are straight from the op-ed page of a college newspaper.

00:27:07.000 Kagan's dissent is, um, wrong, but at least somewhat interesting.

00:27:11.000 First, she suggests that states did not actually have the standing to sue under this particular case.

00:27:17.000 So standing is the issue that I can't— Like, let's say you get hit by a car.

00:27:20.000 I can't sue the person who hit you with the car.

00:27:21.000 I don't have standing.

00:27:22.000 I wasn't the one damaged.

00:27:23.000 So one of the questions was, if student loans are bailed out, who exactly is damaged?

00:27:27.000 The court held that states can sue because there are, in fact, bodies inside the states established by statutory law in the states that help to collect on all of these payments.

00:27:36.000 And then the state makes money from that.

00:27:38.000 And therefore they have standing.

00:27:40.000 Kagan says that she doesn't believe that's true, that these agencies are established as separate agencies, so really they don't have standing.

00:27:45.000 It's an interesting argument.

00:27:46.000 I don't think it's persuasive, but it's an interesting argument at least.

00:27:50.000 Then she suggests the statute provides the secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules.

00:27:57.000 What the secretary did fits comfortably within that delegation, but the court forbids him to proceed.

00:28:01.000 Congress delegates to agencies often and broadly, and it usually does so for sound reasons.

00:28:05.000 Because agencies have expertise Congress lacks.

00:28:07.000 Because times and circumstances change, and agencies are better able to keep up and respond.

00:28:11.000 because Congress knows that if it had to do everything, many desirable and even necessary things wouldn't get done.

00:28:16.000 In wielding the major question sword, last term in this one,

00:28:18.000 the court overrules these legislative decisions.

00:28:20.000 So basically she is suggesting that Congress delegated all this power to the executive branch.

00:28:24.000 Now, what she says there is really overbroad.

00:28:27.000 It basically says that Congress could theoretically just create a law saying,

00:28:33.000 make good rules and send it to the executive branch and let all the executive branch agencies fill it in.

00:28:38.000 That obviously would be absurd.

00:28:40.000 But at least she attempts to make a legal case unlike her colleagues on the Supreme Court, 0.99

00:28:44.000 just to prove that not all leftists are equally foolish when it comes to their writing of the law.

00:28:48.000 Okay, so two big decisions go against Joe Biden.

00:28:51.000 That followed hard on Thursday's big decision that went against Joe Biden over affirmative action, striking down affirmative action as an element with regard to college admissions.

00:29:01.000 Joe Biden has reacted as you would expect him to.

00:29:04.000 He has mumbled from his face hole incoherently.

00:29:08.000 So here's Joe Biden suggesting that the court misinterpreted the Constitution, which is weird because literally a day ago, Joe Biden was suggesting that the Declaration of Independence is the Constitution.

00:29:16.000 They're the same thing.

00:29:17.000 He actually quoted the declaration and called it the Constitution.

00:29:19.000 I think the court misinterpreted the Constitution.

00:29:29.000 Oh, is that what you think?

00:29:31.000 Is that what you think?

00:29:32.000 And then he was asked a great question.

00:29:34.000 So a Fox News reporter asked Joe Biden, question, why did you sign an executive order waiving student loans when you knew full well you could not?

00:29:41.000 Again, internal papers in the government show that, I mean, Joe Biden himself had said, I don't have the power to simply overturn student loans, and then he went ahead and did it.

00:29:47.000 In the same way that Barack Obama once suggested he had no power to unilaterally make immigration law, and then he just did it.

00:29:53.000 So Joe Biden was asked by Fox, why are you promising people things that you obviously couldn't deliver?

00:29:59.000 The question was whether or not if I would do even more than was requested.

00:30:03.000 What I did I thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done.

00:30:08.000 I didn't give Boris false hope, but the Republicans snatched away the hope that they were given, and it's real.

00:30:15.000 I can win elections this way.

00:30:16.000 If Joe Biden thinks this is an effective electoral strategy, maybe it is.

00:30:19.000 Then you can see the future here.

00:30:20.000 I issue an executive order.

00:30:20.000 the court, who are justices, who are not elected.

00:30:23.000 And obviously this is going to be the democratic plan from here on in with regard to a conservative Supreme Court.

00:30:28.000 I can win elections this way.

00:30:29.000 If Joe Biden thinks this is an effective electoral strategy, maybe it is, then you can see the future here.

00:30:33.000 I issue an executive order.

00:30:35.000 My executive order today, President Shapiro, this executive order says,

00:30:39.000 from the treasury of the United States, a check will be delivered to every household

00:30:42.000 in the United States with the amount of $10 million on deposit for each of you in your household.

00:30:49.000 And then, when it turns out that's wildly unconstitutional, I have no basis or authority to do it, I say, how dare the evil people who oppose me stop such things?

00:30:57.000 How dare they? 1.00

00:30:59.000 Again, this is a stupid game. 1.00

00:31:01.000 Joe Biden never had this authority. 1.00

00:31:02.000 He was lying when he said he had the authority.

00:31:05.000 Now he's going to apparently try to use the education department in order to not collect the funds.

00:31:08.000 He's going to suggest that they are going to actually just delay referring any defaulted loans for enforcement.

00:31:15.000 But of course, eventually they'll be forced to actually do what they are supposed to do under the law.

00:31:20.000 But all of this is leading up to another assault by the left on the Supreme Court itself.

00:31:24.000 The way that this works is when the left doesn't like the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is an evil institution that must be overthrown.

00:31:29.000 When they do like the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is the only institution that needs to exist.

00:31:33.000 We'll get to that momentarily first.

00:31:35.000 Everybody knows that I rely deeply on my Helix mattress.

00:31:37.000 Did you know they just launched their newest, most high-end collection, the Helix Elite?

00:31:40.000 Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience.

00:31:45.000 The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.

00:31:50.000 I've had my Helix Sleep Mattress for at least six, seven years.

00:31:53.000 It is fantastic.

00:31:53.000 It's the only thing keeping me alive right now, given my lack of sleep because of baby, because of three other kids, because of dog.

00:31:58.000 If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be, because Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.

00:32:05.000 Everything else in your life is personalized.

00:32:06.000 Why not the thing you're spending eight hours a night on?

00:32:08.000 I took the Helix Quiz.

00:32:08.000 I was matched with a firm but breathable mattress, which is precisely what I need.

00:32:12.000 Go to helixsleep.com slash Penn.

00:32:13.000 Take their two-minute sleep quiz.

00:32:14.000 Find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.

00:32:16.000 Your mattress will come directly to your door shipped for free.

00:32:18.000 Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty.

00:32:20.000 You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.

00:32:22.000 They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.

00:32:24.000 Helix has over 12,000 five-star reviews.

00:32:26.000 Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so a great night's sleep is never far away for a limited time.

00:32:31.000 Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.

00:32:35.000 It's their best offer yet?

00:32:36.000 Hurry on over to helixsleep.com slash Ben.

00:32:39.000 With Helix, better sleep starts right now.

00:32:41.000 Also, the 4th of July is tomorrow.

00:32:43.000 It is time to declare your independence from woke razor companies.

00:32:46.000 Now I know what you're thinking.

00:32:47.000 Inflation is currently higher than Hunter Biden in Vegas.

00:32:49.000 Or as it turns out, driving to Vegas, he's going 175 miles an hour.

00:32:52.000 That's why we're making it easier for you to say goodbye to your old razors.

00:32:55.000 Head on over to jeremysrazors.com right now.

00:32:57.000 Save 40% on our founder and beard kit.

00:33:00.000 You won't just look good, you'll also feel good knowing that you're supporting a company that doesn't hate you for being a dude.

00:33:04.000 Don't wait too long.

00:33:05.000 Unlike the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy, the sale will not last forever.

00:33:09.000 That is jeremysrazors.com today.

00:33:11.000 Okay, so all of this, all these decisions, this of course is leading to a new spate of Democratic calls to basically destroy the Supreme Court. 0.97

00:33:18.000 Shock of shocks, the irrepressibly stupid Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, congresswoman from Twitch, she is leading the way. 1.00

00:33:25.000 She suggested that it's the justices who are destroying the Supreme Court because they won't do what she wants! 1.00

00:33:31.000 Are you also saying that the justices' power should somehow be limited?

00:33:40.000 I truly do, and this is not a new development in history.

00:33:45.000 This is part of our system of checks and balances.

00:33:48.000 The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and frankly dangerous authoritarian expansion of power.

00:34:01.000 And the Supreme Court has not been receiving My favorite is when she forgets her lines in the middle of lines.

00:34:08.000 preserve their own legitimacy and in the process they themselves have been

00:34:12.000 destroying the legitimacy of the court which is profoundly dangerous for our

00:34:18.000 entire democracy.

00:34:19.000 My favorite is when she forgets her lines in the middle of lines. That's one of my favorites.

00:34:23.000 And she kind of pauses and then she remembers her lines and then she continues.

00:34:25.000 Yeah.

00:34:26.000 Guys, remember, what's profoundly dangerous to democracy is if you, a business owner, are allowed to actually run your business as you see fit.

00:34:32.000 That's anti-democracy.

00:34:34.000 Also, it's against democracy if you are not discriminated against in college admissions.

00:34:41.000 You must be discriminated against in college admissions, particularly if you're Asian. 0.53

00:34:43.000 If you're an Asian person, democracy means that you have to be discriminated against because you're not a black person.

00:34:49.000 Obviously, that's what democracy is. 0.64

00:34:50.000 Democracy also means that the President of the United States can, without any check or balance, simply wipe away half a trillion dollars in actual student loan debt.

00:35:02.000 Minimum.

00:35:03.000 That's what democracy means, of course.

00:35:05.000 And my favorite is when Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez also suggests that Clarence Thomas is being insulting.

00:35:09.000 He's being insulting to the brilliant, wonderful Katonji Brown-Jackson.

00:35:13.000 How could he?

00:35:13.000 It's so mean.

00:35:16.000 I mean, what Justice Clarence Thomas wrote there, I believe, is profoundly disrespectful.

00:35:22.000 I just think it was profoundly disrespectful to his colleague.

00:35:28.000 It includes sweeping assumptions about her worldview, whereas when you look at what the response was from Justice Katonji Brown, we saw that her dissent was grounded in fact.

00:35:44.000 It was grounded in the facts of the case.

00:35:47.000 It was not grounded in anything.

00:35:49.000 We read through a lot of that dissent last week. 1.00

00:35:52.000 It's so insulting that Clarence Thomas called her out for being completely full of crap. 0.98

00:35:56.000 But, again, it's all about creating a predicate for avoiding the law. 0.99

00:35:59.000 That's really what this is about.

00:36:01.000 Elizabeth Warren is openly calling for avoiding the law.

00:36:05.000 In fact, she's calling for packing the Supreme Court. 0.97

00:36:06.000 She put out a tweet saying, She's not an extremist.

00:36:11.000 She's a mainstream thinker who also advocated for modern monetary theory, which is the theory that you can spend endless amounts of money without inflation kicking in.

00:36:18.000 So that went amazing.

00:36:19.000 To rebalance this institution, we must expand it.

00:36:22.000 In the meantime, I'll keep fighting back against their damage to make sure we still deliver student debt relief, to protect abortion rights, to defend our freedoms, says Elizabeth Warren.

00:36:29.000 Well, she definitely needs to protect affirmative action since she got into some of her positions apparently as a fake native. 1.00

00:36:36.000 American speaking of people attempting to avoid the consequences of judicial decisions by simply ignoring the law Entire piece in the New York Times today titled with end of affirmative action a push for a new tool Adversity scores.

00:36:47.000 Oh goody goodies.

00:36:47.000 They're gonna try and find now the the workarounds that we talked about last week These these pathetic workarounds where they're like, so how disadvantaged are you and the person writes on there?

00:36:55.000 I say I'm black and it's like well, that's not a disadvantage Necessarily.

00:36:59.000 I mean, you actually have to explain why that would make you disadvantaged in some way.

00:37:03.000 I mean, maybe you're Clarence Thomas' kid.

00:37:05.000 You know, like, what are we talking about here?

00:37:07.000 In any case, The New York Times says, So first of all, here's my view on medical school.

00:37:10.000 How about mostly kids who score really well on the MCAT and are good at school get to go to medical school?

00:37:15.000 He said, so first of all, here's my view on medical school.

00:37:17.000 How about mostly kids who score really well on the MCAT and are good at school gets go to medical school?

00:37:22.000 Because those are the ones who actually should be doctors.

00:37:24.000 And I don't really care all that much about their backgrounds as much as I care about whether they're going

00:37:29.000 to kill me. 0.80

00:37:30.000 And that like... 0.93

00:37:32.000 When was the last time you asked the disadvantaged background of your pilot on a plane?

00:37:37.000 Or were you just mostly interested that they not crash it into the ground?

00:37:40.000 In his role at the medical school at the University of California, Davis, Dr. Henderson has tried to change that, developing an unorthodox tool to evaluate applicants, the Socioeconomic Disadvantage Scale, or SED.

00:37:51.000 The scale rates every applicant from 0 to 99, taking into account their life circumstances, such as family income and parental education.

00:37:57.000 Admissions decisions are based on that score, combined with the usual portfolio of grades, test scores, recommendations, essays, and interviews.

00:38:05.000 Ooh! 0.96

00:38:06.000 Ah!

00:38:08.000 Well, I mean, here's my real question.

00:38:10.000 How many of those diverse doctors are really, really good at their jobs?

00:38:13.000 Because it seems like I would really, really just want a good doctor.

00:38:16.000 Which is sort of the point of avoiding affirmative action, is that when you lower the standards, and when you artificially allow people into a particular club that requires merit, then you are lowering the standards.

00:38:25.000 That this actually ends with some pretty bad ramifications.

00:38:28.000 But!

00:38:29.000 It turns out that basically all the schools are now telling on themselves.

00:38:32.000 I mean, they're setting themselves all up for lawsuits.

00:38:33.000 So, for example, Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, he recently was caught on tape explaining how he avoids the law in the state of California that bars affirmative action.

00:38:42.000 What I mean by unstated affirmative action is, what if the college or university doesn't tell anybody, doesn't make any public statements?

00:38:53.000 I'll give you an example from our law school, but if ever I'm deposed I'm going to deny I said this to you.

00:39:01.000 When we do faculty hiring, we're quite conscious that diversity is important to us.

00:39:08.000 And we say diversity is important, it's fine to say that.

00:39:11.000 But I'm very careful when we have a Faculty Appointments Committee meeting.

00:39:14.000 Anytime somebody says, you know, we should really prefer this candidate over this candidate because this person would add diversity, don't say that.

00:39:21.000 You can think it.

00:39:23.000 You can vote it, but our discussions are not privileged, so don't ever articulate that that's what you're doing.

00:39:30.000 So, uh, just lie.

00:39:32.000 In other words, avoid the law.

00:39:34.000 Great.

00:39:34.000 Meanwhile, the Harvard president-elect, Claudine Gay, she basically says the same thing.

00:39:40.000 She says, yeah, yeah, we still need diversity.

00:39:41.000 And by diversity, she means ethnic diversity.

00:39:43.000 And we'll keep pursuing ethnic diversity, but we'll pretend that we're not. 0.74

00:39:46.000 So, uh, Asian students, sorry, you're still not getting in.

00:39:49.000 The Supreme Court's decision on college and university admissions will change how we pursue the educational benefits of diversity.

00:39:58.000 But our commitment to that work remains steadfast.

00:40:01.000 It's essential to who we are and the mission that we are here to advance.

00:40:06.000 For nearly nine years, Harvard vigorously defended our admissions process and our belief that we all benefit from learning, living, and working alongside people of different backgrounds and experiences.

00:40:19.000 We will comply with the Court's decision, but it does not change our values.

00:40:24.000 We continue to believe deeply that a thriving, diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence and critical to shaping the next generation of leaders.

00:40:35.000 Unless you politically disagree with us.

00:40:37.000 If you politically disagree with us, that's not diversity.

00:40:39.000 That's just you being bad.

00:40:41.000 So we should look, you know, really diverse in terms of like having a bunch of people of different colors, but not too many Asians.

00:40:47.000 And we should all think the same.

00:40:48.000 That is what diversity looks like.

00:40:49.000 So again, the courts are going to be busy in upcoming years.

00:40:52.000 I was talking to a college student Yesterday, actually, about the results of the affirmative action cases.

00:40:57.000 What I said is basically if you're in the Northeast, don't look for lots of change.

00:41:00.000 If you are in an area governed by a conservative circuit court of appeals, then look for policies to change rather radically at a lot of these colleges.

00:41:09.000 Again, the left does not sleep.

00:41:10.000 They'll continue to push forward.

00:41:11.000 The Supreme Court is Donald Trump's biggest accomplishment as President of the United States, without a doubt.

00:41:17.000 The fact that three Supreme Court justices were added during Trump's four years is a massive victory for constitutional conservatism, and we saw the fruits of that not only in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but in the death of affirmative action, the upholding of religious freedom, and the death of Joe Biden's garbage student loan bailout.

00:41:31.000 So all of that is good news for those of us who care about balance of power, as well as the actual Constitution as it stands.

00:41:39.000 Alrighty, meanwhile, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the situation over in France.

00:41:43.000 So, France has now arrested something like thousands and thousands of people.

00:41:48.000 On Friday night, they arrested a thousand more people.

00:41:51.000 Two of the country's top police unions are threatening a revolt unless Emmanuel Macron's government restores order after protests broke out over an officer's shooting of a teenager outside of Paris, according to dnyus.com.

00:42:02.000 Today, the police are in combat because we're at war.

00:42:03.000 Tomorrow, we'll enter resistance and the government should be aware of this, they said.

00:42:07.000 Apparently British travelers are now being warned not to visit France.

00:42:09.000 Why is all of this happening?

00:42:11.000 Well apparently there was a 17 year old young man who was killed by the police.

00:42:19.000 His name was Nahim.

00:42:20.000 He was presumably of North African descent, I believe.

00:42:23.000 And he was shot point-blank by a police officer.

00:42:25.000 He was pulled over for traffic offenses.

00:42:27.000 And then he continued to try to drive his car after he was told by the cops not to do so.

00:42:32.000 So remember that time that America is uniquely racist and terrible and George Floyd and $2 billion in property damage?

00:42:37.000 Well, France has the same issue over there.

00:42:40.000 Uh, except their issue is, in many ways, significantly worse, because it also cross-cuts not just in terms of race, it also cross-cuts in terms of religion, because a lot of the people who are rioting right now happen to be Muslim immigrants to the country. 0.94

00:42:53.000 Alright, time for a quick thing I like and then a very significant thing that I hate.

00:42:57.000 So, things that I like today.

00:42:59.000 So, I've been re-watching the series Justified with Timothy Olyphant.

00:43:02.000 I never had spent a lot of time with it.

00:43:03.000 Spent time with, you know, maybe the first half of the first season.

00:43:06.000 It is a really well-written, entertaining show.

00:43:08.000 Here's a little bit of the preview.

00:43:10.000 Now just listen to me.

00:43:11.000 I'm Deputy U.S.

00:43:12.000 Marshal Ray Lynn Givens, and I'm offering salvation.

00:43:16.000 Talk to me.

00:43:17.000 Come on, face to face.

00:43:18.000 I'm not opening this door. 0.99

00:43:22.000 Then, as they say in the Bible, you're screwed. 0.98

00:43:27.000 It's a really fun show. 0.96

00:43:28.000 For those who like westerns, it is a modern western.

00:43:31.000 It stars one of my good friends, Nick Searcy.

00:43:35.000 World-famous actor, Nick Searcy.

00:43:37.000 And it's just wildly entertaining.

00:43:39.000 It's fun to watch on an episode-to-episode level.

00:43:43.000 One of the most entertaining shows in the history of modern TV.

00:43:46.000 And definitely worth the watch.

00:43:47.000 You can go check that out.

00:43:48.000 Justified.

00:43:49.000 Over on FX if you're looking for something to watch on this long holiday weekend.

00:43:52.000 Okay, time for a thing that I hate.

00:43:58.000 Well, I mean, I don't hate this apparently as much as Joe Biden hates his granddaughter.

00:44:02.000 That is my only takeaway from a New York Times article talking about the horrific relationship between Hunter and Joe Biden and a four-year-old girl in rural Arkansas.

00:44:11.000 Quote, there's a four year old girl in rural Arkansas who's learning to ride a camouflage pattern four wheeler

00:44:16.000 alongside her cousins. Some days she wears a bow in her hair.

00:44:19.000 On other days, she threads her long blonde ponytail through the back of a baseball cap.

00:44:22.000 When she's old enough, she'll learn to hunt like her mom did when she was young. 0.65

00:44:25.000 The girl is aware that her father is Hunter Biden and that her paternal grandfather is the President of the United States.

00:44:30.000 She speaks about both of them often, but she has not met them.

00:44:33.000 Her maternal grandfather, Rob Roberts, described her as whip-smart and funny.

00:44:37.000 I may not be the president, Mr. Roberts said in a text message using an acronym for the president, but he said he would do anything for his granddaughter.

00:44:43.000 He said she needs for nothing and never will.

00:44:45.000 The story surrounding the president's grandchild in Arkansas, who is not named in court papers, is a tale of two families, one of them powerful, one of them not.

00:44:51.000 But at its story, but at its core, the story is about money, corrosive politics, and what it means to have the Biden birthright.

00:44:57.000 Her parents ended a years-long court battle over child support on Thursday, agreeing that Biden, who has embarked on a second career as a painter, whose pieces have been offered for as much as half a million dollars each, would turn over a number of his paintings to his daughter in addition to providing a monthly support payment.

00:45:09.000 The little girl will select the paintings from Mr. Biden according to court documents.

00:45:13.000 Oh good, she gets absent daddy's finger paintings without the possibility of money laundering, so that's very exciting.

00:45:21.000 We worked it out amongst ourselves, said London Roberts, the girl's mother.

00:45:24.000 Hunter Biden did not respond to a request for comment in this article.

00:45:28.000 Though a trial plan for mid-July has now been averted, people on both sides fear the political toxicity surrounding the case will remain.

00:45:34.000 Both Hunter Biden, the privileged and troubled son of a president, and Ms.

00:45:37.000 Roberts, the daughter of a rural gunmaker, have allies whose actions have made the situation more politicized.

00:45:41.000 There's no evidence the White House is involved in those actions.

00:45:45.000 President Biden's public image is centered around his devotion to his family, including to Hunter, his only surviving son.

00:45:51.000 In strategy meetings in recent years, aides have been told the Bidens have six, not seven, grandchildren, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

00:45:58.000 The White House did not respond to questions about the case, in keeping with how officials have answered questions about the Biden family before.

00:46:05.000 So, just to point that out, that is the President of the United States literally disowning one of his own grandchildren because it is ugly for him and for his son.

00:46:17.000 London Roberts, 32, comes from a clan as tight-knit as the Bidens.

00:46:20.000 Her father is a red state gun manufacturer whose hunting buddies have included Donald Trump Jr.

00:46:24.000 and who taught her at a young age how to hunt turkeys and alligators.

00:46:26.000 She works for the family business, which sits on a winding country road dotted with pastures on the outskirts of Batesville.

00:46:32.000 In pride of her family, the 5'8 Miss Roberts graduated with honors from Southside High School in Batesville and played basketball for Arkansas State University.

00:46:38.000 After graduation, she moved to Washington to study forensic investigation at GWU.

00:46:41.000 She never completed the program.

00:46:44.000 Along the way, she met the son of a future president who is sliding into addiction and visiting Washington strip clubs.

00:46:49.000 In mid-2018, Roberts was working as a personal assistant to Biden, according to a person close to her and messages from a cache of Biden's files.

00:46:55.000 Their daughter was born later that year.

00:46:56.000 By then, Biden had stopped responding to Roberts' message, including one informing him of the child's birth date.

00:47:01.000 Shortly after their daughter was born in November 2018, he removed Roberts and the child from his health insurance.

00:47:08.000 He's a class act, Senator Biden.

00:47:10.000 What a nice guy.

00:47:11.000 He's just a troubled youth who's in his 50s.

00:47:14.000 She filed a lawsuit in May 2019.

00:47:16.000 DNA testing established Biden was the father of the child.

00:47:19.000 Ms.

00:47:20.000 Roberts said in an interview she'd grown used to the onslaught of scrutiny around the case.

00:47:24.000 Her public Instagram account tells its own story.

00:47:27.000 She says, I hope one day when you look back, you find yourself proud of who you are and where you came from.

00:47:31.000 And most importantly, who raised you.

00:47:33.000 She captioned a photo of them at the beach earlier this year.

00:47:35.000 Seen through one prism, the photos are a powerful public testament of love from mother to daughter.

00:47:41.000 Seen through another, they are exploitative, certainly from the perspective of Biden allies, who fear the images and the child are being weaponized against the Biden family.

00:47:47.000 Oh, now four-year-old illegitimate children are being weaponized against their fathers, who have ignored them, tried to cut off their actual medical payments, tried to cut off child support and end up in court.

00:47:58.000 Man, that terrible mom weaponizing the child that Hunter Biden sired. 1.00

00:48:02.000 Wow.

00:48:03.000 Horrible.

00:48:05.000 I had no recollection of our encounter, Biden wrote in his 2021 memoir.

00:48:09.000 That's how little connection I had with anyone.

00:48:10.000 I was a mess, but a mess I've taken responsibility for.

00:48:14.000 Uh, no.

00:48:16.000 No, you have not.

00:48:17.000 In fact, you attempted to downgrade and you succeeded in downgrading your child support payment from 20 grand a month to 5 grand a month.

00:48:26.000 President Biden has worked over the past half century to make his last name synonymous with family, values, and loyalty.

00:48:30.000 Really, has he?

00:48:31.000 The strength of his political persona, which emphasizes decency, family, and duty, was enough to defeat Trump the first time around.

00:48:36.000 He would need to keep it intact if Trump is the Republican nominee in 2024.

00:48:39.000 On a proclamation issued on Father's Day, Biden said his father had taught me, above all, But of course, there is a grandchild that he will not speak of.

00:48:51.000 Amazing, amazing solid stuff there from the New York Times.

00:48:53.000 Still trying to make the case that Hunter and Joe are the real victims in all of this.

00:48:56.000 whether he will publicly acknowledge her now that the child support case is settled.

00:48:59.000 Amazing, amazing solid stuff there from the New York Times.

00:49:04.000 Still trying to make the case that Hunter and Joe are the real victims in all of this.

00:49:09.000 Amazing stuff.

00:49:10.000 By the way, we are now finding out that the DOJ prosecutors who allegedly refused to charge Hunter Biden were donors to

00:49:17.000 Joe.

00:49:18.000 That is according to the Daily Caller.

00:49:19.000 We are also finding out that Hunter Biden's former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, he could have been asked to testify before a grand jury and he never was.

00:49:28.000 So obviously that looks like it's all on the up and up.

00:49:30.000 Alrighty guys, the rest of the show continues right now.

00:49:32.000 You're not going to want to miss it.

00:49:32.000 We'll get into the mailbag.

00:49:33.000 If you're not a member, become a member.

00:49:34.000 Use code Shapiro.

00:49:35.000 Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

The Ben Shapiro Show - July 03, 2023

Supreme Court SLAMS LGBT Tyranny, DESTROYS Biden’s Student Loan Bailout

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript