Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Joe Biden Compromised plus Huge Ruling by SCOTUS on Affirmative Action and Victory in Religious Liberty Case

Transcript

Joe Biden Compromised plus Huge Ruling by SCOTUS on Affirmative Action and Victory in Religious Liberty Case · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:01
Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict for Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
0:04
Speaker 1: with you, a huge ruling from the Supreme Court has
0:07
Speaker 1: come down on affirmative action. We're going to get to
0:09
Speaker 1: that in a moment, plus a religious liberty case victory
0:13
Speaker 1: that we want to get you up to date on.
0:14
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, James Comer has come out,
0:18
Speaker 1: Senator and said that Joe Biden made six policy decisions
0:23
Speaker 1: that indicate that he is and these are his words, compromised.
0:28
Speaker 1: I want to get your reaction to this, as he
0:30
Speaker 1: has now said, they can connect dots. They've identified these
0:34
Speaker 1: six specific policy decisions that President Joe Biden made that
0:39
Speaker 1: indicate that he has compromised by people that I guess
0:42
Speaker 1: he owes favors to Your reaction to.
0:44
Speaker 2: That, well, every day the facts continue to get worse
0:48
Speaker 2: and worse about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. As you noted,
0:51
Speaker 2: James Comer said just this week that his committee has
0:56
Speaker 2: identified a total of six decisions, four of which were
1:00
Speaker 2: made while Joe Biden was president early on. And then
1:04
Speaker 2: this is a quote. We cannot come to any other
1:07
Speaker 2: conclusion as to why these decisions were made other than
1:10
Speaker 2: the fact that this president is compromised. Comber continued, quote,
1:15
Speaker 2: this was organized crime. There's no other way to define it.
1:20
Speaker 2: And here's what Comber continued to say. We're going to
1:23
Speaker 2: try to determine how much money the Bidens took and
1:27
Speaker 2: what role Joe Biden played in all of this. It's
1:30
Speaker 2: a huge puzzle. And then he provided some very real specifics.
1:35
Speaker 2: Here's what Comber stated, quote around thirty to forty different
1:39
Speaker 2: banks and about that many different shell companies. This is
1:43
Speaker 2: an organized attempt by the Biden family to hide the
1:46
Speaker 2: source of money going into these shell companies and to
1:49
Speaker 2: distract from the IRS so that they wouldn't have to
1:52
Speaker 2: pay taxes on it. And that's exactly what the IRS
1:55
Speaker 2: whistleblowers alleged in the transcribed interview with the Ways and
1:59
Speaker 2: Means Committee, that the Biden family never paid money on
2:04
Speaker 2: any of these wires that came into these shell companies.
2:09
Speaker 2: Comer went on to say that the Biden family businesses
2:11
Speaker 2: of the over the course of several years, received at
2:14
Speaker 2: least ten million dollars from Romania and from China. A
2:21
Speaker 2: total of nine Biden family members received payments, including two
2:25
Speaker 2: of Joe Biden's grandchildren and I don't know about you,
2:28
Speaker 2: but it's pretty typical for grandchildren to be receiving payments
2:31
Speaker 2: from Romania and China. Yeah, totally normal and in fact,
2:36
Speaker 2: and a lot of this. Breitbart has a great article
2:38
Speaker 2: that lays a lot of these facts out. But Breitbart
2:40
Speaker 2: continues pointing out that Celtic Capri Corps in its twenty
2:46
Speaker 2: seventeen tax returns listed nearly ten million dollars without specifying
2:52
Speaker 2: revenue line items and raising real concerns about who paid
2:56
Speaker 2: that entity, particularly in the wake of Biden's alleged link
3:00
Speaker 2: to a five million dollar Ukrainian bribery scheme. And I'll
3:04
Speaker 2: point out that Breitbart then quotes from this podcast and says, quote,
3:10
Speaker 2: You're looking at a tax return that has a ten
3:12
Speaker 2: million dollars in cash that came from a mystery source.
3:17
Speaker 2: And I always like when I'm reading for a press story,
3:19
Speaker 2: quoting from the podcast saying that that suggests that what
3:23
Speaker 2: we're covering here matters and it's moving the news forward.
3:28
Speaker 3: You know.
3:29
Speaker 1: One of the other things that I think is so
3:30
Speaker 1: interesting now is how long this investigation took.
3:34
Speaker 3: Senator.
3:35
Speaker 1: It was five years, and the whistle blowers that have
3:38
Speaker 1: now come forward are saying, we believe the reason why
3:42
Speaker 1: this thing dragged on for so long is because they
3:44
Speaker 1: were actually wanting to slow play it so that the
3:49
Speaker 1: statue of limitations for certain years and taxes would then
3:54
Speaker 1: click in so that we ran out of time. In
3:58
Speaker 1: other words, this investigation was a five year investigation, not
4:02
Speaker 1: because there was so much to go through, but because
4:04
Speaker 1: they wanted to make sure that some years that were
4:07
Speaker 1: very damning, that could be major crimes, would just fall off.
4:12
Speaker 1: And that's exactly now what this whistleblower said when he
4:15
Speaker 1: did the most recent interviews. There's money that was never
4:18
Speaker 1: paid on millions of income that we know of that
4:21
Speaker 1: we can do nothing about now because the statue of limitations.
4:26
Speaker 1: That to me is also a shocking abuse of power.
4:30
Speaker 1: If in fact the DOJ was purposely saying, keep slowing up,
4:34
Speaker 1: keep slowing up, and then oh, well, we can't charge
4:37
Speaker 1: him anymore.
4:38
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly right. And there's two other pieces of
4:41
Speaker 2: breaking news that that are broken within the last twenty
4:44
Speaker 2: four hours that are highly relevant to the Biden cover up. One,
4:48
Speaker 2: as you noted, is is the most serious claims were
4:52
Speaker 2: the potential FARA violations and far as the foreign agent's
4:56
Speaker 2: Registration Act concerning twenty fourteen and twenty fifth. Hunter Biden's
5:00
Speaker 2: most problematic conduct was in twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen,
5:04
Speaker 2: So you had FARA violations potentially, and then you had
5:08
Speaker 2: very serious criminal tax violations. And essentially what happened is
5:14
Speaker 2: they slow walked it long enough for the statute of
5:17
Speaker 2: limitations to run on those so that Hunter Biden faces
5:20
Speaker 2: no liability whatsoever. Now, one of the two pieces of
5:25
Speaker 2: new news that has broken is that US Attorney Weiss,
5:31
Speaker 2: who was in charge of this, wanted to bring charges
5:36
Speaker 2: in both the District of Columbia and the Central District
5:40
Speaker 2: of California, and he was turned down. What we have
5:44
Speaker 2: discovered since then is that the US attorney in DC, Graves,
5:54
Speaker 2: who was appointed by Joe Biden, had been a donor
5:57
Speaker 2: to Joe Biden on two separate occasions. Graves gave to
6:00
Speaker 2: Biden five hundred dollars in April twenty twenty and one
6:04
Speaker 2: thousand dollars in May of twenty twenty. So one of
6:07
Speaker 2: the two US attorneys who said no, we're not going
6:09
Speaker 2: to bring charges against Hunter is a Joe Biden donor.
6:13
Speaker 2: The other US attorney as strata in the Central District
6:16
Speaker 2: of California was a Kamala Harris donor, and specifically, in
6:23
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen, Estrada gave five hundred dollars to then California
6:28
Speaker 2: Attorney General Kamala Harris. So you literally had donors to
6:32
Speaker 2: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris saying no, we don't want
6:36
Speaker 2: to bring the really serious charges against Hunter Biden that
6:39
Speaker 2: raises obvious conflicts of interest that the Biden DOJ. It
6:47
Speaker 2: continues to be, sadly the most political attorney general and
6:51
Speaker 2: the most political DOJ we've ever seen.
6:54
Speaker 1: You were, I think the first Senator that I know of,
6:58
Speaker 1: and if I'm wrong, I apologize, But that called for
7:01
Speaker 1: the real possibility of impeaching Merrick Garland over his testimony
7:06
Speaker 1: to Congress. Now, seeing what you have seen, do you
7:11
Speaker 1: believe that there are going to be many more elected
7:13
Speaker 1: officials coming to the same conclusion that not only is
7:16
Speaker 1: this Department of Justice corrupt, but the leader lied to
7:20
Speaker 1: Congress and knew he was lying to cover up for
7:22
Speaker 1: his boss, the President of the United States of America.
7:25
Speaker 2: Look, either these irs whistleblowers are lying or Merrick Garland
7:31
Speaker 2: is guilty of lying under oath to Congress an obstruction
7:34
Speaker 2: of justice. It's one of the two. It is possible
7:38
Speaker 2: the whistleblowers are lying. We need to investigate that and
7:41
Speaker 2: determine that. I will say, on the face of it,
7:44
Speaker 2: the indissia, we have a lot of reason to believe
7:46
Speaker 2: they're credible witnesses. They're not partisan Republicans, they don't have
7:50
Speaker 2: an axe to grind. But if they are telling the truth,
7:54
Speaker 2: then Merrick Garland lied under oath to Congress in response
7:58
Speaker 2: to my questioning, that is a felony with jail time.
8:02
Speaker 2: And if they're telling the truth, Merrick Garland and lawyers
8:05
Speaker 2: working for him are also responsible for obstruction of justice,
8:09
Speaker 2: which is yet another felony. If that is true, I
8:13
Speaker 2: think it is inevitable for any reasonable or rational member
8:17
Speaker 2: of Congress, by which I mean sadly zero Democrats and
8:23
Speaker 2: some Republicans. I think the inevitable conclusion is that Garland
8:27
Speaker 2: must be impeached. The reason I say zero Democrats it
8:31
Speaker 2: doesn't matter. I don't think the Democrats will vote to
8:33
Speaker 2: impeach him, even if it is proven if they have
8:36
Speaker 2: videotape of the committing felonies, the Democrats are not going
8:39
Speaker 2: to vote to impeach him because it's all partisan politics
8:41
Speaker 2: to them. Whether Republicans vote or not, I don't know,
8:46
Speaker 2: but I think the evidence is becoming more and more compelling,
8:49
Speaker 2: and I will say so. On Monday's podcast, I called
8:52
Speaker 2: for the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel
8:55
Speaker 2: to investigate Merrick Garland and whether to prosecute him for
8:58
Speaker 2: lying under oath and obstruction justice. And I will say
9:01
Speaker 2: that got a lot of folks talking. I know on
9:04
Speaker 2: Megan Kelly's podcast, she was wondering, well, wait a second,
9:08
Speaker 2: is there a conflict between this and impeachment. Let me
9:10
Speaker 2: be clear, both should be pursued. Absolutely, the House should
9:16
Speaker 2: open an impeachment investigation into Merrick Garland determine whether or
9:22
Speaker 2: not these irs whistleblowers are telling the truth. That absolutely
9:25
Speaker 2: should happen. Simultaneously, the Department of Justice should appoint a
9:30
Speaker 2: special counsel because these are felonies that on the face
9:33
Speaker 2: of it, there is serious, incredible evidence that Attorney General
9:37
Speaker 2: Merrick Garland committed.
9:39
Speaker 1: I want to ask you one last question on this,
9:40
Speaker 1: and that is the media narrative. We are now starting
9:44
Speaker 1: to see more consistent coverage and.
9:47
Speaker 3: That could go away.
9:49
Speaker 1: But I do believe that we are seeing a media
9:51
Speaker 1: that realizes now they can't get away from this any
9:54
Speaker 1: longer because there's too many people that are coming out,
9:57
Speaker 1: in my opinion, who are just telling the truth, and
10:00
Speaker 1: there's too many secrets that are coming out now that
10:02
Speaker 1: they cannot stop. When you look at it center from
10:06
Speaker 1: that perspective, what is the point of no return for
10:10
Speaker 1: Joe Biden with his relationship with the media. He has
10:13
Speaker 1: been protected, But I also think there's a weird time
10:16
Speaker 1: clock here. If you're gonna get rid of Joe Biden
10:19
Speaker 1: as the candidate, you better do it quickly because you
10:23
Speaker 1: need to find your next horse. And it seems now
10:25
Speaker 1: like they're saying, Okay, do we get rid of him
10:27
Speaker 1: or do we not?
10:28
Speaker 3: Do we let him fall? Do we not? Do we
10:30
Speaker 3: prop him up? Do we not?
10:31
Speaker 1: There's a lot of politics in this from the Democrats
10:34
Speaker 1: now they didn't have to deal with even a month ago.
10:36
Speaker 2: Look, that's exactly right. I guarantee you there are a
10:39
Speaker 2: lot of Democrats getting worried right now. They're still counting
10:42
Speaker 2: on the corrupt corporate media to cover for Joe Biden.
10:46
Speaker 2: But we're seeing cracks in the wall, and CBS had
10:50
Speaker 2: the one of the two irs whistleblowers on the six
10:55
Speaker 2: o'clock news. That was a big deal. I'll tell you
10:57
Speaker 2: another story that broke this week again on CBS News.
11:01
Speaker 2: It's a story from Catherine Herridge, who's done some good
11:04
Speaker 2: reporting for CBS. She's one of the few reporters there
11:06
Speaker 2: that's actually willing to actually track down news. Let me
11:10
Speaker 2: just read you the headline from CBS. Quote Hunter, Biden's
11:14
Speaker 2: former business partner was willing to go before a grand jury.
11:20
Speaker 2: He never got the chance. And this is, of course
11:23
Speaker 2: Tony Babolinski, who testified that Joe Biden was involved in
11:29
Speaker 2: the business dealings, the business dealings with China. He testified
11:32
Speaker 2: he came forward and said that ten percent for the
11:35
Speaker 2: big guy. The big guy was Joe Biden. Now, Biden
11:38
Speaker 2: has flat out denied that as recently as this week.
11:41
Speaker 2: He's told reporters no, wasn't me. I didn't do it. No, no, no,
11:45
Speaker 2: no details. By the way, he just keeps yelling no
11:47
Speaker 2: at reporters. You know, he's kind of like a grumpy
11:51
Speaker 2: old man in his front yard with a shotgun, screaming
11:53
Speaker 2: get off my lawn. He just keeps screaming no, no, no,
11:56
Speaker 2: And that's the total explanation the White House is giving.
12:00
Speaker 2: But here's what CBS reported, which is that Tony Babolinski
12:04
Speaker 2: was willing to testify before the grand jury, and his
12:06
Speaker 2: attorney affirmatively reached out to the office of Delaware US
12:11
Speaker 2: Attorney David Weiss. Weiss didn't return their calls. So the
12:19
Speaker 2: obvious inference is the order from the Department of Justice
12:22
Speaker 2: is we don't want the big guy. If you've got
12:25
Speaker 2: a witness who testifies about the big guy, we don't
12:28
Speaker 2: want to hear about it. We're not interested. We want
12:31
Speaker 2: to plunge our head in the sand like an Ostrich
12:34
Speaker 2: because the job of d OJ is protect the big guy.
12:37
Speaker 2: That is yet another example of at best malfeasance, but
12:45
Speaker 2: at worse, active obstruction of justice from main Justice, shutting
12:51
Speaker 2: down investigations into very serious evidence of criminality by Joe
12:57
Speaker 2: Biden because they didn't want Joe Biden implicated, notwithstanding the evidence.
13:03
Speaker 1: I got to ask you one more question about David
13:05
Speaker 1: Weison since you just brought that up, and this is
13:08
Speaker 1: obviously the media has been obsessed with David Weiss as
13:11
Speaker 1: he was Trump appointed.
13:12
Speaker 3: Trump appointed.
13:13
Speaker 1: You explained in the last podcast how that's incredibly misleading
13:16
Speaker 1: because without the two Democratic senators, he would never have
13:19
Speaker 1: gotten the job. He's a Democrat, he's not a Republican,
13:23
Speaker 1: and it's pretty absurd to imply that he's a Trump guy,
13:26
Speaker 1: especially what we're seeing here.
13:27
Speaker 3: But the fact that Weiss.
13:29
Speaker 1: Didn't return the phone call, now, how damning is that
13:33
Speaker 1: to David Weiss and this investigation. And before you answer that,
13:37
Speaker 1: let me tell everybody about our friends, Augusta Precious Metals.
13:40
Speaker 1: If you have been saving for retirement for a long time,
13:43
Speaker 1: you need to understand that you can protect your money
13:46
Speaker 1: with a gold Ira. Things have changed over the last
13:49
Speaker 1: year interest rates and inflation, and many have lost money
13:53
Speaker 1: in the retirement accounts in their four to one case.
13:56
Speaker 1: If you're sick and tired of losing money and you
13:59
Speaker 1: want to protect harder and assets, especially if you are
14:02
Speaker 1: close to retirement or in retirement, because there is no
14:05
Speaker 1: time to make up those losses, you need to talk
14:08
Speaker 1: to Augusta Precious Medals.
14:10
Speaker 3: They do things a little bit differently.
14:11
Speaker 1: Number One, they're gonna send you the free investors guy
14:13
Speaker 1: on gold right, you're gonna get that. But two, they're
14:15
Speaker 1: gonna do a one on one web conference with you
14:17
Speaker 1: and They're going to talk to you about the economic
14:20
Speaker 1: insights of a gold ira and give you the peace
14:23
Speaker 1: of mind so you can feel safe and secure with
14:26
Speaker 1: your retirement. Call them eight seven seven the number four
14:30
Speaker 1: gold I r A eight seven seven the number four
14:35
Speaker 1: gold Ira or online Augusta Precious Medals dot com. That's
14:40
Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Medals dot com. Use promo codverdict and they'll
14:43
Speaker 1: even pay your fees for up to ten years. I
14:46
Speaker 1: Guessta Precious Medals dot com. Senator Back to David Weiss.
14:50
Speaker 1: If he didn't return their phone call, it's probably because
14:53
Speaker 1: he knew exactly what he was going to hear from
14:55
Speaker 1: Tony Bobolinski and he didn't want to admit that he
14:57
Speaker 1: hurt it.
14:58
Speaker 2: Well maybe, and I will say one thing you said
15:01
Speaker 2: we don't necessarily necessarily know is true. You said that
15:04
Speaker 2: Weiss is a Democrat. We don't know that. What we
15:08
Speaker 2: know is that he was not a vocal and outspoken Republican.
15:12
Speaker 2: And we also know that his appointment is US Attorney
15:15
Speaker 2: under Trump had to be signed off on by both
15:18
Speaker 2: Democrat Senators Chris Coons and Tom Carper. So there's no
15:23
Speaker 2: evidence I'm aware of that he's actively a Democrat, but
15:27
Speaker 2: he's not. Every time the media refers to him as
15:29
Speaker 2: Donald Trump appointed US attorney, they're trying to suggest he's
15:32
Speaker 2: a Republican and a Trump partisan. There is zero evidence
15:36
Speaker 2: of that. He may be a Democrat, but we simply
15:38
Speaker 2: don't know. What we do know is that Tony Bobolinsky
15:41
Speaker 2: said at a press conference. This is a quote from
15:43
Speaker 2: Tony Bobolinski quote. I've heard Joe Biden say that he's
15:47
Speaker 2: never discussed business with Hunter. That is false. I have
15:52
Speaker 2: first hand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with
15:57
Speaker 2: the Biden family, including Joe Biden, and CBS News contacted
16:04
Speaker 2: him and baby Lensky says he stands by those statements.
16:07
Speaker 2: And so the fact that when his attorney called David
16:10
Speaker 2: Wise and said, hey, if you want me to talk
16:11
Speaker 2: to the grand jury about this, they didn't call him back,
16:15
Speaker 2: what it tells you is DOJ did not want to
16:18
Speaker 2: hear that evidence. What we don't know is whether it
16:21
Speaker 2: was David Weis who didn't want to hear it, or
16:24
Speaker 2: whether it was the higher ups a DOJ that were
16:26
Speaker 2: preventing him from going down that line. Because we talked
16:29
Speaker 2: about in both Monday and Wednesday's pods, and I will say,
16:32
Speaker 2: if you're interested in this story, Monday and Wednesday's pods
16:36
Speaker 2: this week are exceptionally important because we do deep dives.
16:39
Speaker 2: We've covered three new major pieces of breaking news on
16:43
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden in this podcast. But there's a lot in
16:46
Speaker 2: Monday and Wednesday that we went into, including the fact
16:49
Speaker 2: that that main Justice and that the US attorneys actively
16:55
Speaker 2: prevented investigation into the Big Guy. Assistant US attorney working
17:01
Speaker 2: for David Weiss actively prevented investigation into the Big Guy,
17:06
Speaker 2: into Hunter Biden's father. And so that is consistent with
17:11
Speaker 2: what the whistleblowers told us, which is they didn't want
17:14
Speaker 2: to hear anything anything, anything that implicated Joe Biden in
17:19
Speaker 2: criminality and not calling Tony Bobelinski back is one hundred
17:24
Speaker 2: percent consistent with the whistleblowers testimony, which, among other things,
17:29
Speaker 2: raises the likelihood that the whistleblower is telling the truth.
17:33
Speaker 2: And Merrick Garland lied under oath to Congress and committed
17:37
Speaker 2: felonies for which impeachment is merited and for which a
17:41
Speaker 2: special counsel should be appointed.
17:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, and as you mentioned, if you missed the last
17:46
Speaker 1: two shows, go back download them. And make sure that
17:49
Speaker 1: you listen because we have a lot more in there.
17:51
Speaker 3: I want to move to.
17:52
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court case that is rocked the liberal mindset today,
17:57
Speaker 1: the liberal world. They are genuinely freaking out right now.
18:00
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has ruled that racial preferences are unconstitutional
18:07
Speaker 1: in college admissions. The racial preferences in college admissions violate,
18:14
Speaker 1: they said, the equal Protection Clause the Constitution. The Supreme
18:17
Speaker 1: Court has decided in this historic decision, it will have
18:21
Speaker 1: profound implications for racial preference in many areas of law
18:24
Speaker 1: and public policy. But there was two cases that they
18:28
Speaker 1: looked at here. One of them dealt with an Ivy
18:30
Speaker 1: League school. The other one dealt with unc And in
18:33
Speaker 1: both of these cases they said, you cannot give basically
18:37
Speaker 1: extra credit or points or bonuses, or have quotas solely
18:42
Speaker 1: based on the color of someone's skin. Explain this in
18:47
Speaker 1: more detail and specifically how the Fourteenth Amendment applies in
18:51
Speaker 1: these cases.
18:52
Speaker 3: Well, because there's been a lot of debate about that.
18:54
Speaker 2: Well, this decision yesterday is a major landmark decision. It
18:59
Speaker 2: is a six three decision. The majority opinion is written
19:04
Speaker 2: by Chief Justice Roberts, and this decision strikes down racial
19:10
Speaker 2: discrimination and racial quotas in universities. As you noted, there
19:14
Speaker 2: were two cases that were consolidated. One was the University
19:17
Speaker 2: of North Carolina. Now that is relevant because UNC is
19:20
Speaker 2: a state school, so it is action by the government.
19:23
Speaker 2: And what the court concluded is that the fourteenth Amendment
19:26
Speaker 2: to the Constitution, which protects grants every citizen the equal
19:31
Speaker 2: protection of the laws, that under the fourteenth Amendment, the
19:35
Speaker 2: government cannot discriminate based on race. So every government school,
19:39
Speaker 2: whether you're talking about UNC, whether you're talking about University
19:42
Speaker 2: of Texas, whether you're talking about University of California, if
19:45
Speaker 2: it is a government school, they cannot discriminate based on race.
19:49
Speaker 2: That's a landmark ruling. The other case was Harvard University. Now,
19:53
Speaker 2: Harvard University is not a government school. It is a
19:56
Speaker 2: private university. The fourteenth Amendment does not con strict what
20:00
Speaker 2: a private university does. The fourteenth Amendment applies only to government.
20:05
Speaker 2: So the ruling about Harvard University concerned Title seven, which
20:09
Speaker 2: is the landmark civil rights decision, and also Title six.
20:16
Speaker 2: It's actually Title six of the Civil Rights Act of
20:18
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty four, which governs university, and it concluded the
20:22
Speaker 2: same standard applies that under the Civil Rights Act of
20:25
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty four, at likewise under the Fourteenth Amendment, that
20:30
Speaker 2: racial discrimination is illegal. The consequences are massive. Two days ago,
20:37
Speaker 2: under existing Supreme Court precedent, it was permissible for UNC
20:42
Speaker 2: and for Harvard and for every other school to say,
20:45
Speaker 2: if we like your race, if it's a race that
20:48
Speaker 2: we want to favor, we can give you a benefit,
20:51
Speaker 2: we can give you a plus factor. We can favor
20:53
Speaker 2: you entirely because of your race. And if we don't
20:57
Speaker 2: like your race, we can penalize you, we can harm you,
21:01
Speaker 2: we can reduce your chances of admission entirely because of race.
21:06
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court, by a six ' to three vote
21:08
Speaker 2: yesterday said that is unconstitutional with state schools, that is
21:12
Speaker 2: illegal with private schools. Discriminating based on race is wrong.
21:18
Speaker 1: When you see this case, how will this change things,
21:22
Speaker 1: not just in the school admissions process, but now And
21:26
Speaker 1: they've been screaming on TV about this all day long,
21:29
Speaker 1: that this is going to destroy minorities chances to succeed.
21:33
Speaker 1: That's clearly not the case in college admissions. In fact,
21:36
Speaker 1: affirmative action has been hurting Asian Americans for quite some time.
21:40
Speaker 1: In a major way, not being able to get into
21:43
Speaker 1: some universities with incredible qualifications. They're saying, this is also
21:47
Speaker 1: going to destroy this country in businesses and private sector
21:51
Speaker 1: as well. Put that into perspective.
21:53
Speaker 2: Well, this is a landmark change because every university that
21:58
Speaker 2: was engaged in racial to discrimination is going to have
22:01
Speaker 2: to change their admissions policies. Now, I fear the vast
22:06
Speaker 2: majority of universities are going to do everything they can
22:11
Speaker 2: to get around and to fight and to engage in
22:14
Speaker 2: massive resistance to this decision. The vast majority of our universities,
22:20
Speaker 2: the faculty and the administrators bizarrely want as a matter
22:27
Speaker 2: of principle, as a matter of virtue, they want to
22:31
Speaker 2: discriminate based on race. And the bizarre thing is, look,
22:34
Speaker 2: one of the parades of horribles that you will see leftists,
22:39
Speaker 2: whether Democrats or corrupt corporate media voices or university administrators say,
22:46
Speaker 2: is without discriminating based on race, we will get lily
22:50
Speaker 2: white schools. That that's the specter that they put forth. Now,
22:56
Speaker 2: they are a host of ways that you can ensure
23:00
Speaker 2: sure that you have a diverse student body without discriminating
23:04
Speaker 2: on race. The most obvious one that some universities do
23:08
Speaker 2: is to give a preference for low income students, a
23:11
Speaker 2: student who is from a poor family, a student who
23:16
Speaker 2: has struggled to overcome adversity. And I think there's a
23:19
Speaker 2: very reasonable and principled argument that a student who is
23:23
Speaker 2: overcoming adversity, that that's a real sense of accomplishment. That
23:27
Speaker 2: if you grow up with enormous privilege and enormous advantages
23:30
Speaker 2: and you do well, great, But if you're a single
23:33
Speaker 2: mom in a really tough environment and you excel academically,
23:37
Speaker 2: that reflects something positive or beneficial. That will produce student
23:43
Speaker 2: bodies that are racially diverse. But what it will not do.
23:47
Speaker 2: So the existing university racial preferences benefit African American students
23:54
Speaker 2: and Hispanic students whose parents are rich, who go to
23:57
Speaker 2: a fancy boarding school, but yet they just view it
24:00
Speaker 2: as race. And so if you happen to be a
24:02
Speaker 2: minority student with very significant socioeconomic advantages, you get an
24:06
Speaker 2: enormous boost. And if you happen to be a poor
24:09
Speaker 2: white student. Let's say you're growing up in Appalachia and
24:12
Speaker 2: your parents no one in the family has ever gone
24:14
Speaker 2: to college, and you work your tail off, well, they
24:18
Speaker 2: don't recognize that, and so if universities want to, they
24:22
Speaker 2: can number one create a preference for low income students
24:26
Speaker 2: to give an additional benefit to overcoming adversity. They can
24:29
Speaker 2: number two create a benefit if you're the first person
24:34
Speaker 2: in your family to go to college. That's another way
24:37
Speaker 2: that we know will statistically produce a more racially diverse
24:40
Speaker 2: student body. They can number three create a preference if
24:44
Speaker 2: you grow up in a household where English is not
24:46
Speaker 2: the first language. All three of those are non racial
24:50
Speaker 2: proxies that result in a racially diverse student body. Now
24:53
Speaker 2: here's the amazing thing, ben most of our universities don't
24:58
Speaker 2: care even if they can get the exact same damn
25:01
Speaker 2: student body they had yesterday in terms of racial breakdown.
25:07
Speaker 2: They affirmatively want to discriminate on race. It shows them
25:12
Speaker 2: I am woe care me roar. And so you're going
25:15
Speaker 2: to see a couple of things happen. Number one, there's
25:20
Speaker 2: a portion of this decision where the majority says, look,
25:23
Speaker 2: nothing in this case means that universities cannot consider overcoming adversity,
25:30
Speaker 2: overcoming discrimination, overcoming hardship. What's going to happen is in
25:35
Speaker 2: university essays, the schools are going to try very hard
25:40
Speaker 2: to replicate exactly the affirmative action and quota system they
25:43
Speaker 2: had before. And by the way, if someone is a
25:47
Speaker 2: minority student, every student is going to be coached that
25:50
Speaker 2: they're opening sentence is going to be as a Hispanic
25:55
Speaker 2: kid growing up in hardship, here's the adversity of as
26:01
Speaker 2: an African American. Here's all of the hardships I overcame.
26:07
Speaker 2: That will be the game to get around the system.
26:12
Speaker 2: And here's the second piece, Ben. You may have noticed
26:16
Speaker 2: universities all aroun across the country in the past year
26:19
Speaker 2: announcing that they're eliminating the SAT and the ACT, announcing
26:24
Speaker 2: that those tests are optional. And you may have wondered why.
26:28
Speaker 2: I mean, look, when you and I went to school,
26:30
Speaker 2: we had to take either the SAT or ACT. It
26:32
Speaker 2: used to be every school required that. Why have they
26:35
Speaker 2: suddenly started getting rid of it in mass And the
26:37
Speaker 2: answer is simple. Most of the universities anticipated yesterday's ruling.
26:45
Speaker 2: The writing was on the wall. They knew where this
26:47
Speaker 2: was going, and so they knew that come June of
26:50
Speaker 2: this year, they were not going to be able to
26:52
Speaker 2: discriminate based on race. And these radicals and universities they
26:56
Speaker 2: want to so much that they said, oh crap. If
27:00
Speaker 2: we have SAT school scores, if we have ACT scores,
27:03
Speaker 2: and we keep doing the same thing, we keep admitting
27:06
Speaker 2: people of races that we want a preference whose scores
27:10
Speaker 2: are one, two hundred and three hundred points lower than
27:13
Speaker 2: students of different races, well then it's going to be
27:16
Speaker 2: obvious and we're gonna get sued, and we're gonna get nailed,
27:18
Speaker 2: and we're going to pay judgments. So the way we
27:22
Speaker 2: avoid it is we just won't collect SAT scores or
27:24
Speaker 2: ACT scores, so there won't be that objective metric. The
27:29
Speaker 2: entire reason the schools are getting rid of these scores
27:32
Speaker 2: is because they want to defy the Supreme Court decision
27:36
Speaker 2: and they want to keep discriminating even though they could
27:39
Speaker 2: get the identically diverse student bodies without racial discrimination. These
27:45
Speaker 2: leftists believe racial discrimination is an affirmatively good thing.
27:50
Speaker 1: There was a question that was asked of Joe Biden today,
27:52
Speaker 1: and I want to get your reaction to this, He
27:54
Speaker 1: was asked by a reporter after he came out denouncing
27:58
Speaker 1: this decision by the Supreme Court and basically telling universities
28:01
Speaker 1: keep doing what you're doing. He was asked, is this
28:05
Speaker 1: a rogue court? And I want to play his answer.
28:08
Speaker 1: But before I do that, let me tell you about
28:10
Speaker 1: our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you're sick and
28:12
Speaker 1: tired of giving your money to WoT companies, WoT corporations
28:16
Speaker 1: that are actually fighting against your values when you pay
28:19
Speaker 1: your bills, you've got an option now when it comes
28:22
Speaker 1: to your cell phone. For years, big mobile companies have
28:25
Speaker 1: been dumping millions and millions of dollars into leftist causes.
28:30
Speaker 1: Many of them have given millions to Plan Parenthood, and
28:33
Speaker 1: that's just one of the many radical groups they've been supporting.
28:38
Speaker 1: Now you have a choice. You don't have to give
28:41
Speaker 1: your money to them. Patriot Mobile America's only Christian conservative
28:46
Speaker 1: wireless provider. Not only do they offer you dependable nationwide
28:50
Speaker 1: coverage where you get to keep your same cell phone
28:53
Speaker 1: number you have right now, many times you can keep
28:55
Speaker 1: the same cell phone you have in your hand, and
28:59
Speaker 1: they give you coverage on all three major networks, so
29:02
Speaker 1: you get the best possible service in your area without
29:06
Speaker 1: the woke propaganda that the leftist companies are pushing on you.
29:11
Speaker 1: When you switch to Patriot Mobile, a portion of your
29:13
Speaker 1: bill every month actually goes back to support free speech
29:17
Speaker 1: and religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment,
29:21
Speaker 1: our military, our veterans, our wounded warriors. And that is
29:25
Speaker 1: why I want you to switch. It costs you not
29:27
Speaker 1: a single extra dime when they do that every month.
29:30
Speaker 1: They have one hundred percent US based customer service team
29:32
Speaker 1: that can make switching easy. And if you have a
29:34
Speaker 1: business or a small business, they have a division just
29:37
Speaker 1: for you. Call Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriot that's
29:41
Speaker 1: eight seven eight Patriot, use a promo code vertic. You'll
29:45
Speaker 1: get free activation and the best deals of the year
29:48
Speaker 1: eight seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict
29:54
Speaker 1: that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash Verdict center.
29:59
Speaker 3: I want everybody to hear the president.
30:01
Speaker 1: He clearly wanted this question asked, and he stopped as
30:05
Speaker 1: he was walking out the room. The question from the
30:08
Speaker 1: reporter so you can hear it is the question. This
30:11
Speaker 1: is short. It says, quote, is this a row Court question?
30:14
Speaker 1: Mark President Biden. You'll hear him say in the background,
30:18
Speaker 1: this is not a normal court.
30:21
Speaker 3: Listen, and the pression of lafe Pocket said.
30:23
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has pally good question its own legitimacy.
30:26
Speaker 2: Is this a row of course, this is.
30:32
Speaker 3: Not a normal senator.
30:35
Speaker 1: You could hear him there only thing he said, this
30:39
Speaker 1: is not a normal court, and then he walked out
30:42
Speaker 1: of the room. This to me is screams another example
30:45
Speaker 1: of the left trying to undermine the Supreme Court, making
30:49
Speaker 1: way for the possibility of packing the court, telling you
30:52
Speaker 1: that the court doesn't do what we think on the left,
30:54
Speaker 1: on the radical left, we'll just redesign the court until
30:57
Speaker 1: it fits the way we want it to look.
31:00
Speaker 2: So Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in
31:04
Speaker 2: the Senate have for multiple years been engaged in an
31:07
Speaker 2: extreme campaign to demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme
31:12
Speaker 2: Court of the United States. Their campaign is dangerous. It
31:16
Speaker 2: undermines the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary
31:20
Speaker 2: is fundamental for protecting our civil liberties, protecting our constitutional rights,
31:24
Speaker 2: to upholding the Constitution. And these Democrats do not give
31:28
Speaker 2: a damn. These are the same people Merrick Garland, leading
31:31
Speaker 2: Biden's doj sits by refuses to enforce federal law while
31:36
Speaker 2: violent radicals protest in front of the homes of Supreme
31:39
Speaker 2: Court justices that he disagrees with that. Joe Biden disagrees
31:43
Speaker 2: with They're threatening violence, and the Biden DOJ refuses to
31:47
Speaker 2: enforce the law because they would tear the court down,
31:52
Speaker 2: they would burn it to the ground. Chuck Schumer stood
31:55
Speaker 2: on the floor on the steps of the Supreme Court
31:57
Speaker 2: and said, you will re the whirlwind if you issue
32:02
Speaker 2: rulings we do not like. I think it is shameful
32:06
Speaker 2: what Biden is doing. And by the way, the decision
32:09
Speaker 2: that he says is not normal is that discriminating based
32:15
Speaker 2: on race is wrong and illegal. And let me tell
32:18
Speaker 2: you a different aspect of this decision that is really important,
32:23
Speaker 2: which is many most of our universities in this country
32:27
Speaker 2: today actively and aggressively discriminate against Asian American students. The
32:33
Speaker 2: Ivy League schools, Harvard is quite shameless and naked in this.
32:36
Speaker 2: And sadly, I'm an alumnus of Harvard, and so I'm
32:39
Speaker 2: embarrassed of the school. I went to law school. But
32:42
Speaker 2: they say, look, if we admitted students based on merit,
32:48
Speaker 2: there would be too many Asians. Asian Americans do really
32:52
Speaker 2: well in school, they have great grades, they get great
32:54
Speaker 2: test scores. We don't want too many Asians. So we're
32:58
Speaker 2: going to use racial discrimination to prevent Asians from getting
33:02
Speaker 2: in at the numbers their academic results would merit. It
33:07
Speaker 2: is shameful. And by the way, Harvard has a long history.
33:10
Speaker 2: You go back to the nineteen fifties, Harvard had what
33:13
Speaker 2: was called the Jewish quotas, where they capped Jewish students
33:17
Speaker 2: and it was the same argument, if we let students
33:20
Speaker 2: in based on merit, based on their scores and grades,
33:23
Speaker 2: we'd get too many Jews. This was how Harvard put it,
33:26
Speaker 2: too many Jews. We don't want too many Jews, so
33:28
Speaker 2: we're going to put a quota because we don't want
33:31
Speaker 2: merit to produce outcomes we don't like. That's what these
33:35
Speaker 2: schools are doing. And I got to say, you know,
33:41
Speaker 2: during the Trump administration, the Democrats voted on what they
33:48
Speaker 2: called an Asian American Hate Crime Bill, and it was
33:50
Speaker 2: based on a fairly ludicrous conceit, which is they said
33:55
Speaker 2: there has been an increase in violence against Asian Americans.
33:59
Speaker 2: That's true, and they said the reason for that is
34:02
Speaker 2: because Donald Trump said that COVID nineteen came from Wuhan,
34:05
Speaker 2: China and called it the Wuhan virus. That's absurd. But
34:09
Speaker 2: they're playing politics. They wanted to say, Haha, the reason
34:12
Speaker 2: there's violence against Asian Americans is because Donald Trump accurately
34:16
Speaker 2: described the source of COVID nineteen. Well, when the Senate
34:21
Speaker 2: voted on that, I authored an amendment, and I forced
34:24
Speaker 2: to vote on the Senate floor. And my amendment was
34:26
Speaker 2: one paragraph. It's very simple. You can go and read
34:29
Speaker 2: the amendment. My amendment said, and I'm paraphrasing. I don't
34:32
Speaker 2: have the language in front of me, but my amendment said,
34:35
Speaker 2: any university that discriminates against Asian Americans in admissions or
34:40
Speaker 2: in scholarships shall be ineligible for federal funds that the
34:45
Speaker 2: federal government is not going to pay you if you're
34:47
Speaker 2: engaged in racial discrimination. That's all it said. It was
34:50
Speaker 2: one paragraph. You know what. The vote was a straight
34:54
Speaker 2: party line vote. Every single Democrat voted no. The author
35:02
Speaker 2: of the ridiculous political bill, Maisie Herono, who is herself
35:07
Speaker 2: Asian American, she happily voted no. And you know what,
35:11
Speaker 2: I am convinced, to my knowledge, not a single Democrat
35:14
Speaker 2: has ever been asked by a single reporter, why did
35:17
Speaker 2: you vote in favor of universities discriminating against Asian Americans.
35:23
Speaker 2: And I got to tell you, Ben, in these two
35:25
Speaker 2: Supreme Court cases, I filed an amicus brief in the
35:29
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court. I did it jointly with Michelle Steele.
35:31
Speaker 2: Michelle Steele is a Republican from California. She's an Asian American.
35:36
Speaker 2: The two of us together filed an amicus brief along
35:39
Speaker 2: with eighty of our colleagues in Congress, urging the Supreme
35:42
Speaker 2: Court to do exactly what it did yesterday. And because
35:48
Speaker 2: the Court said you can't discriminate based on race, Joe
35:53
Speaker 2: Biden and the Democrats are trying to tear the court
35:55
Speaker 2: to the ground and delegitimize it.
35:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's truly incredible when you look at it from
36:00
Speaker 1: that perspective. I want to also ask you about another issue,
36:03
Speaker 1: and it was a religious liberty case that has really
36:07
Speaker 1: kind of been under the radar screen that people need
36:11
Speaker 1: to know about that. Listen to verdict it's a victory there,
36:15
Speaker 1: and talk to us a little bit about this victory
36:17
Speaker 1: because we've been doing obviously with these other two breaking
36:19
Speaker 1: news issues.
36:19
Speaker 3: But this is a really big deal.
36:22
Speaker 2: Yes. So this case is called Groth versus the Joy
36:26
Speaker 2: and it involved an individual as an evangelical Christian who
36:30
Speaker 2: was a postal worker and he worked for the Post Office.
36:33
Speaker 2: He began working in twenty twelve, and Groff's position generally
36:39
Speaker 2: did not require him working on Sundays. But in twenty thirteen,
36:44
Speaker 2: after he began working for them, the Postal Service began
36:48
Speaker 2: delivering for Amazon on Sundays, and Groth asked for a
36:53
Speaker 2: religious accommodation. He said, as an evangelical Christian, he wanted
36:57
Speaker 2: to observe the Sabbath on Sunday and not work work,
37:01
Speaker 2: and the Post Office said no and in fact punished him.
37:09
Speaker 2: He received quote progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays.
37:14
Speaker 2: He eventually resigned in twenty nineteen, and he filed a
37:16
Speaker 2: lawsuit saying that under Title seven that the Post Office
37:21
Speaker 2: could have accommodated his request to observe the Sabbath without
37:25
Speaker 2: undue hardship on the conduct of the Post Office's business. Now,
37:32
Speaker 2: in this instance, there was a really bad Supreme Court decision,
37:37
Speaker 2: an older decision called trans World Airlines versus Hartisan, where
37:42
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has said you don't have to accommodate
37:46
Speaker 2: someone's religious faith if there is quote more than a
37:50
Speaker 2: deminimous cost. In other words, if there's more than just
37:53
Speaker 2: even the tiniest costs of the employers, Nope, you can
37:56
Speaker 2: ignore the employees say screw you. Your religion doesn't matter.
38:00
Speaker 2: You have to violate your faith. Well, the Supreme Court
38:05
Speaker 2: unanimously ruled in favor of growth. Ruled in favor of
38:11
Speaker 2: religious liberty. Justice Alita wrote that Title seven requires employers
38:16
Speaker 2: who are denying religious accommodation to show that the burdens
38:20
Speaker 2: of granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs.
38:26
Speaker 2: This is a great victory for religious liberty, and the
38:29
Speaker 2: fact that every single justice agreed, even the liberals, is
38:33
Speaker 2: really important. This is another case where I led the
38:37
Speaker 2: amicus brief. I led it along with Senator James Langford
38:42
Speaker 2: and along with Congressman Mike Johnson and ten other members
38:45
Speaker 2: of Congress, urging the Court to rule exactly as they ruled.
38:49
Speaker 2: And I got to say, if you're a person of faith,
38:51
Speaker 2: or if you even just care about religious liberty, you
38:55
Speaker 2: want the First Amendment interpreted to protect your religious liberty,
38:59
Speaker 2: not to have your employer be able to just trample
39:02
Speaker 2: on your faith willy nilly. This is a great victory
39:06
Speaker 2: for religious liberty and it's reason for everyone to celebrate.
39:09
Speaker 2: And I got to tell you so, my in laws,
39:13
Speaker 2: Heidi's parents are Seventh Day Adventists. Seventh Day Adventists worship
39:18
Speaker 2: on their Christians and Protestant Christians, but they worship on
39:23
Speaker 2: a Jewish Sabbath, so they worship between Friday sundown and
39:26
Speaker 2: Saturday sundown, and they take the Sabbath very, very seriously.
39:30
Speaker 2: I have to admit I had great joy texting my
39:33
Speaker 2: in laws and telling them about this decision, which they
39:36
Speaker 2: were very happy with because they want their religious liberty
39:40
Speaker 2: rights protected, whether it's worshiping on Saturday or Sunday or
39:44
Speaker 2: whatever your faith is. The Constitution protects religious liberty and
39:49
Speaker 2: this unanimous Supreme Court decision is a big victory for that.
39:53
Speaker 1: Moving forward with this victory, what does this also mean
39:56
Speaker 1: for other religious you know, liberty victory. There's been a
40:00
Speaker 1: lot of people that feel like that people's faith has
40:03
Speaker 1: been persecuted recently, and people are starting to realize that
40:07
Speaker 1: you can fight back through the court system. Will this
40:10
Speaker 1: help in other cases and other precedents and other issues
40:15
Speaker 1: with religious liberty? And I go back to the issue
40:18
Speaker 1: for example of adoption and fighting against abortion. There's a
40:23
Speaker 1: lot of Christians that have been perscuted. We've seen people's
40:25
Speaker 1: homes that have been rated, We've seen have been arrested
40:27
Speaker 1: and harassed by the government. They say it's their right
40:30
Speaker 1: to be able to protest, for example, but it really
40:32
Speaker 1: does come down to your faith in your religion. There's
40:34
Speaker 1: Christian groups that have been attacked and there's a concern
40:38
Speaker 1: that the government's getting so heavy handed. Is this going
40:42
Speaker 1: to be a step in the right direction for these
40:45
Speaker 1: other issues? And before you answer, let me tell you
40:47
Speaker 1: about our friends of chalk real quick. If you're a
40:49
Speaker 1: guy and you feel like you are losing your edge,
40:53
Speaker 1: you feel like fatigue is setting in, you feel like
40:55
Speaker 1: you're just tired all the time, you just don't feel
40:59
Speaker 1: like yourself. Well, chalk choq dot com is here to
41:02
Speaker 1: help you maximize your masculinity by boosting your testosterum levels
41:08
Speaker 1: up to twenty percent over ninety days now. I've been
41:11
Speaker 1: taking the Mail Vitality Stack and I can tell you
41:13
Speaker 1: it works. Those days of just feeling like I've got
41:17
Speaker 1: complacency and weakness are over. I feel basically like I'm
41:21
Speaker 1: my old self again. That strength and Vitality is back now.
41:25
Speaker 1: If you've never tried Chalk, do it now, and I'm
41:27
Speaker 1: going to save you over thirty thirty five percent off
41:30
Speaker 1: any Chalk subscription for life. Yeah, you can boost your
41:34
Speaker 1: testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Go
41:37
Speaker 1: to Chalk choq dot com and grab the Mail Vitality
41:42
Speaker 1: Stack right now. Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven
41:46
Speaker 1: to have game changing effects on your energy, your focus,
41:50
Speaker 1: your mood.
41:50
Speaker 3: So go to Chalk choq dot.
41:52
Speaker 1: Com use promo code Ben for thirty five percent off
41:57
Speaker 1: any Chalk subscription subscription for life. That's seeq dot com
42:02
Speaker 1: promo code Ben center. This is a step in the
42:05
Speaker 1: writer's direction. But is this going to have precedent moving forward?
42:10
Speaker 2: Well, yes, and this is going to make a difference
42:12
Speaker 2: in the workplace. So this was a decision not under
42:14
Speaker 2: the Constitution, but under Title seven, which is part of
42:19
Speaker 2: the landmark civil rights law of nineteen sixty four, and
42:22
Speaker 2: it applies to workplace discrimination. And what it means is
42:26
Speaker 2: that if you have a genuine religious belief and you
42:30
Speaker 2: ask your employer to accommodate that religious belief, that the
42:35
Speaker 2: employer has to do so unless it imposes an undue
42:42
Speaker 2: hardship on the employer. And this ratchets up the standard
42:47
Speaker 2: for what constitutes an undue hardship. It used to be
42:50
Speaker 2: the case that your employer could basically say, well, tough,
42:53
Speaker 2: your your faith doesn't matter, We're not going to work
42:57
Speaker 2: to accommodate you. After this decision, there's going to be
43:00
Speaker 2: a lot more lenient see a lot more willingness to
43:05
Speaker 2: recognize that faith is legitimate. Look, ben, there is a
43:09
Speaker 2: reason that religious liberty is protected literally in the first
43:13
Speaker 2: clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
43:16
Speaker 2: The framers of our constitution believe that every other limit
43:20
Speaker 2: liberty begins with the first liberty to worship God Almighty
43:25
Speaker 2: with all of your heart, mind, and soul. That is
43:28
Speaker 2: an incredibly valuable protection. And by the way, multiple religious
43:33
Speaker 2: organizations engaged on this issue, including organizations representing Jews, representing Muslims,
43:39
Speaker 2: representing Sikhs, representing Seventh day Adventists that they've engaged saying
43:44
Speaker 2: the deminimus test has denied even minor recommodations in the workplace,
43:50
Speaker 2: things that would have been easy for employers to give,
43:54
Speaker 2: but they just said, well, tough, no, we're not going
43:56
Speaker 2: to let you that this is a great victory for liberty.
44:00
Speaker 2: And I will say there are a lot of areas
44:03
Speaker 2: in which this Supreme Court has been really, really strong,
44:07
Speaker 2: but religious liberty may have been the strongest. Consistently. You've
44:12
Speaker 2: got six justices who care about religious liberty and have
44:15
Speaker 2: been vigorous and defending it. And I'm really encouraged that
44:21
Speaker 2: all nine agreed on this, that that's a good thing today,
44:28
Speaker 2: yesterday was a good day for liberty, and a good
44:31
Speaker 2: day for religious liberty in particular.
44:34
Speaker 3: No doubt about it.
44:34
Speaker 1: Don't forget we do Verdict Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. So
44:38
Speaker 1: make sure you hit that follow button if you're listening
44:41
Speaker 1: on Apple right now, the subscriber auto download button if
44:45
Speaker 1: you're on other platforms, so that you get every episode.
44:48
Speaker 1: We'll be back in the TV studios for our next episode.
44:51
Speaker 1: So you can also a lot of you, one hundreds
44:53
Speaker 1: of thousand of you watched our lap last episode just
44:56
Speaker 1: on YouTube below, so we do one show on video
44:59
Speaker 1: and audio once week. We'll be back in the studio
45:01
Speaker 1: for that coming up. Don't forget Monday, Wednesday and Fridays
45:04
Speaker 1: and Monday's episode. Like I said, you can also watch
45:07
Speaker 1: on YouTube. We'll see you back here in a couple
45:09
Speaker 1: of days.