Hour 1: The Ticking of Time

about God? And are you not in a moment of awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man, that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you

wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have this sense of awe through the work that they do. In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse

because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you to walk through the chapters written by people who all have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll send it right off to you as my way of

saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall. When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are people who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool, but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter that includes my writing and an audio piece just for

my partial partners. So 877 Janet 58 or the website in the market with Janet parshall.org consider becoming a partial partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.

And I know that's an understatement and it's just a given. But if it wasn't for him, I would not be here today. I'm telling you, I would not be here without him.

Happy Friday to you friends. So glad we're going to spend the hour together. Of course, Mr. Parshall is with me because he does that on Fridays. We put on our glasses the lens of Scripture. We take a look at the stories being talked about in the marketplace of ideas, and then we do some insight and analysis. It's never boring because there's no shortage of things to talk about. And I'm so glad that you and I are going to learn how to be good Bereans, test all things,

learn to think critically and biblically. Note to file. Not a multiple choice test. It is a both and and implying what the word has to say to the world around us. It helps us grow up, right? Isn't that what the directive is in Scripture? Get off that diet of milk, Paul tells us. And get to a diet of meat, the meat of the Word of God, so he can get some spiritual heft on our bones. And boy, I have to do is spend five minutes outside your little tent and you realize that the winds are howling.

All of creation is groaning and strong, brave, courageous Christians are needed now more than ever before. So having said all of that, roll up your sleeves. Keep your hands inside the car at all times, keep your seatbelt on and we're going to go round robin. In case you didn't know, today was a busy day at the United States Supreme Court. In fact, how many times do I always say this is the fireworks before the fireworks? Right? So this is the Friday before next Friday, which is

the 4th of July. But if you're a court watcher, you know that their term ends on Monday because Tuesday is the 1st of July. That meant that all of the hot, controversial cases were going to get handed down, probably in mass toward the end of the term. And boy, oh boy, between yesterday and today, that's exactly what they did. And there are some winners in there, and I mean winners for us culturally, and I'm glad we're going to spend some time talking about it. So let me go

to one, because I am. I am through the roof. I am so happy about this case. And Craig and I are going to tell you why in just a little bit, but I want you to hear this piece. It was actually done on one of the alphabet soup networks, and it was done in April when the High Court was hearing oral arguments in a case called Mahmoud versus Taylor. It does a great job of explaining the background. Have a listen.

a win for the parents. I saw very briefly the majority saying that parents have genuinely held beliefs and that it substantially infringes on those beliefs, not to provide them with notice and an opt out when certain materials are read to their parents. I think this is part of a larger theme of this court being very protective of the rights of religious objectors and protective of free Exercise

Clause rights. Um, Vlad, as we talked about before, I think the fascinating part of this will be looking to see exactly how the court creates the standard for determining when parents are entitled to notice and an opt out.

I think my guess again, looking extremely fast, which is that the court is going to stay fairly close to these particular facts and, uh, try and highlight that this is not open season for parents to start saying we don't want our children to hear X and to hear Y, and to hear Z, because you do want to provide

school boards with some ability to dictate their curriculum. Um, so again, this case, as we talked about before the break, I think predicted a win for the parents, a win for those claiming that their free Exercise clause rights are infringed upon. And again, the real question here will be how the opinion is drafted in order to make sure that school boards can still dictate large portions of their own curriculum.

of parents. There were Orthodox Christians, there were Muslim parents, there were parents of various different worldviews. But what pulled them all together was the fact that they said, absolutely not. We don't want our child exposed to this. We want the right to opt out. And for a while, Montgomery County Schools let them opt out and then abracadabra, without giving any reason, they pulled off and said, you can't

opt out. Well, that's when you know they're moving from educator to propagator, okay, now they're going to be propagandizing the kids. And the parents said, no, we want to be able to say if it's violative of our sincerely held beliefs, we have the right to opt our child out. What's so cool, Craig, is when the decision came down and it was six three, let's call him out, okay? It's the three liberal female justice again Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson.

All of them were the three that in the final decision. The brief even includes pictures from the books that were used in this classroom. Why is that so cool? Because do you understand, friends, that in Board of Education meetings all across the country, all you have to do is spend five minutes on X and you're going to see how many parents show up and they read from these books.

They tell the school board, this is what my child is being exposed to, and how many times their mics were cut, or some sitting school board member would say, that's inappropriate speech here. Oh, it's okay for Suzy in second grade to get it, but it's not okay for Susie's dad to read it at a school board meeting. I get it. Makes perfect sense. And so the Supreme Court in The Ultimate Parents Move actually includes the language and pictures from some of these books to make the point.

So there's no ambiguity. Craig. We desperately needed a reaffirmation of parents rights, so take it from here. This was stunningly important.

and the reasoning we'll get to in a second. But the bottom the bottom line result is that the Supreme Court told Montgomery County, go back. And at least for the time being, as this case moves on, you're going to be required to have the same opt out you originally granted. And there was, by the way, no evidence whatsoever in the factual record that they stopped the original permission for opt out for people who, based on faith objections, said, I don't want my child to be exposed to this

in the grade school. Remember, this is not seniors in high school ready for college. These are grade school children. And there was no evidence that it was found to be infeasible, unfeasible for them. Well, we tried it, but there were administrative nightmares that we couldn't, you know, cope with the problems. No, there was no evidence of that, that it was not feasible. It was feasible. Original originally. And then they decided to take it away. So that's

the bottom line in terms of the result. But the

reasoning of the case is very important. It's been more than I'd say, about four and a half decades since the Supreme Court has dealt front face, uh, on the, the, the bottom line and the top line of what happens when there's a conflict between the sincerely held religious beliefs of parents who send their children with their tax dollars to a public school, a government school, and that government public school says, no, that child belongs to us now,

the village, not the parents, and we will force them to be exposed to this possible indoctrination of social values that violently conflict with the religious beliefs of the parents. So it's been four and a half or so decades since they went into that case and the Yoder case. Amish families. The Amish families won, the public schools lost

in terms of forced education in general. So this is a massive clarification of the fact that parents have the fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and the morals and the religious beliefs of their children, not the public school.

exercise clause. Well, this is important. More after this. 6 to 3 the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a decision for parents for protecting the free exercise of religion clause in the case Mahmoud versus Taylor. I cannot tell you how significant and how important this is. And I told you it was biggie, and I told you it would be the fireworks before the fireworks. And they waited almost until the very last minute of their term to be able to hand it down. So it was just a

Samuel Alito who wrote for the majority. Again, remember, it was 63 female justices. In fact, a lot of these decisions we're going to we're going to talk about that were handed down were all six, three, six, three, six, three, 6363. Same three dissenting judges every single time. The three liberal females. So Justice Alito explained that the right to exercise religion includes the parents rights to direct the religious instruction of their children and putting parents on the sidelines, which is

Montgomery County. Exactly what they did when they said, you can't opt your child out while schools impose their own sexual ideology on children, obviously interferes with that, right. So, as Alito explained and I'm quoting him now, the board's introduction of the LGBTQ plus inclusive, that was their title, LGBTQ Plus Inclusive storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with

the religious development of their children. That is what every mom and dad who's been showing up at these school board meetings for the last two years has been saying, so you can cut their mics all you want to. We thank you so much for your service on the school board. But you got to understand, they're not your children. They're the children who are of the people who are coming to the microphone saying, no, absolutely not with my child.

And then the paradox and the farce of all of this, of the opera buffa that this is, is that you can say to a parent, no, you can't read that here. It's inappropriate, but you can read it in second grade. Okay. So again, many parents don't have any choice. They have

to send their child to a public school. And so Alito, recognizing that fact, wrote that it is the government's the government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that pose a very real threat of undermining hugely important words coming from a Supreme Court justice. Burdens the religious exercise of parents

who require them to submit to children. To submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to install. So that raises a question. Let me go back to something that was gently referred to on that CBS story, which is, okay, this is a victory now in Montgomery County, Maryland, but this is going to impact

50 states across the country. So those liberal propagandists who are in the classroom, who do not respect or cherish the First Amendment or choose to acknowledge the sincerely held religious beliefs of parents, they're going to have to put down these books. And if Susie's mom says, I'm opting my child out, there aren't strong footing to do that now, it seems to me.

recitation of the, uh. You know, a creed that the.

This was, uh, this case, the Mahmood case is, uh, very explicit about the fact that if there is actual objective or even implicit coercion of a child in terms of what they call normative values that conflict, we're not talking about facts. We're not talking about, you know, I don't believe in mathematics in my family, uh, as a matter of religion. So we want our child to be opted out of mathematics classes. Um, or I want them not to be exposed to history because I, you know,

my family denies that the Holocaust ever took place. That is a different situation. Uh, this is where the Supreme Court looked at the curriculum, and they came to a conclusion that, in fact, that's that's why they made it very plain in their decision what this curriculum was. They said it's normative on one view of sexuality and gender identity. And that's really indoctrination, number one. So it's coercive. But number two, it directly burdens families that say, no, we

absolutely don't believe in that normative approach. And again, it's not math. It's not history. Uh, it was really a course on sexuality for kids in grade school.

cannot infuse your faith. Uh, and finally, one of those cases, uh, it was a rabbi who, uh, was invited to speak and, uh, the Supreme Court said, no, that's that's a, that's an unwilling audience that shouldn't have to be exposed to that. Well, now it's turned around in the right way.

for parents and a wonderful victory. Thank you Lord. Back after this. What's the goal of in the market? I'll tell you. In the market equips men and women to think critically and act biblically. Why do we do this? So that we can be confident when speaking the truth in a confused culture? Are you willing to stand with me? Become a partial partner today, and enjoy exclusive benefits only my partners receive while making an impact for the Kingdom?

Call eight 7758 or go online to in the market with Janet Parshall So we're telling you that today is a busy day, as was yesterday, by the way, when the United States Supreme Court is now handing down some of the most interesting and, yes, some of the more controversial cases, as they always do at the end of their term, which is basically today and Monday, because July 1st,

that's it. Then they'll pack up, they'll lecture, they'll write books, they'll travel abroad, and then they'll get ready to start all over again the first Monday in October. So another case had to do with free speech and pornography. And I want you to hear a state rep and why this particular person is arguing for kids to have access to pornography just by way of background. Have a listen.

traumatizing content that children are unable to handle. In 2022, a report noted that 54% of teens surveyed first saw online pornography at age 13 or younger, with 15% exposed before age 11. The Institute for Family Studies highlights that 93% of boys and 63% of girls report exposure to internet pornography before age 18, with the average age of first exposure being 12.

was constitutional. They applied what's known as an intermediate Immediate scrutiny test, which is not the test that the challengers were arguing for. They wanted it to be reviewed under a more strict standard of review, but the Supreme Court applied an intermediate standard of review and held that Texas's law was permissible and survived constitutional scrutiny.

which is six three. So, first of all, the porn industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and they want to get kids as quick as they can and as soon as they can, because once they've gone and they've gotten their whole neural pathways rewired, they're hooked for life. And now we're going to bring them in early so we can get them to be addicts to pornography. And they don't really care how much their lives get messed up or who gets hurt. And it is not, by the way,

a victimless business by any stretch of the imagination. So you'll get into the weeds. I know about this intermediate scrutiny in a minute. But just in common parlance, explain to us exactly what happened today.

by legislatures, even for adults. So obscenity as a as a rule, is not protected by the First Amendment. Now we have another category called obscene for minors. Meaning from the standpoint of a minor viewing Interviewing it. It is obscene, even if it's not deemed to be obscene for adults. And that obviously makes sense. The emotional development, spiritual, moral and so forth of a of a child is different than an adult, supposedly. Um, we allow certain speech to

be exposed to adults that we don't for children. So that's the general framework. Now, what the the arguments against this law in Texas about just you got to prove your age with a variety of different mechanisms, uh, driver's license or other documents or, uh, any, frankly, any reasonable, uh, age verification system that isn't unduly burdensome, uh, could comply could comply with the Texas law. So who are the people arguing against it? It was the pornography industry and

sex workers who were represented by the same group. In other words, these are people who want to put the vilest kind of, uh, emotionally damaging information and content and visual depictions in front of children, because what's their argument? Well, because a couple of some, some adults may have it have a hard time with this idea of I have to verify my age. I don't like that. Uh, it invades my privacy. Oh, in other words, you don't want the world to know. Or at least someone who's regulatory

to know that you want to view this stuff. Well, that burden is not a substantial burden. The burden really is on the children whose lives will be destroyed or twisted as a result of this. In the Supreme Court decided that this is reasonable. Now, this intermediate, uh, intermediate scrutiny issue was very, very important because you really have

three levels of scrutiny. One is strict scrutiny. And that's a very high standard that a state legislature or Congress has to meet, and very rarely can they meet that and have their law upheld without being struck down. Obviously, the porn industry and the sex worker industry wanted the highest level because they wanted a chance of winning this thing, hands down. Well, the court didn't give them that. Now the lowest level is called rational basis, and almost every

law is upheld under rational basis. What they did is they struck a bargain and they had an intermediate standard. And I think, frankly, the brief that I wrote up for an organization American Principles project, we said, look, it passes either rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny simply means that you have to have a, quote, substantial state interest or governmental interest in protecting children. Doesn't have to

be compelling. And you don't have to meet a number of other requirements in terms of making sure that you fashion this law perfectly without being overly broad or overly inclusive or under inclusive and all these technical requirements. No, it simply has to be a substantial interest, uh, and tied to a reasonable result in terms of how you legislate. So the bottom line is this states can now and by the way, there are more than 20 states already

with similar laws similar to Texas. So this is a very important case because now it affects a number of states, these laws and they can put them into effect. And of course the porn industry is, uh, angry upset because they're losing their, their money base, uh, because you have to pay to get onto these sites, many of them, and they hook you with free content. And then, uh, teenagers and middle schoolers can start using their parents credit card to try to overcome the barriers to being able

to have exposure to this. So not only is it important from the standpoint of porn, it's also the first time the Supreme Court has really said there are reasonable mechanisms by which state legislatures or, and or Congress, and this is winding its way to Congress, uh, are to, uh, constitutionally going to be able to regulate social media giants who up to now have had carte blanche in doing whatever they want to do, and they are rogue nations in themselves. That's probably going to come to an end.

online harms. And I think there's some folks right now in Congress probably making sure they got ink in their pens to start working on that from a federal standpoint.

your families today. You got a couple of great victories back after this. So we're going to talk about, yet again, another case, because this really is about something more than the way it'll be spin in the evening news. And of course it's going to be spun, because anytime Donald Trump is in the middle of a news story, it gets spun. So let me turn to another alphabet soup outlet and let you hear their summation of this landmark decision. Have a listen.

injunctions blocking it from going into effect. The Trump administration then making an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court during oral arguments in May. The administration argued the federal judges overreached their authority.

But this case is very important. I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively tried to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. And thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined

on a nationwide basis. And some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore that was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation. This lets us go there and finally win that case, because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason.

a fascinating question. If you care about American civics, even if you're not interested in American jurisprudence, I think it's an important question. So again, six three, the same three dissenting on this one as the other two cases we talked about before. So Amy Coney Barrett talked about the idea of universal injunction. That's really kind of the spinal column in this whole case. What does it.

And when they took a look at that, they decided, number one, based on the congressional history of how Congress has treated this, there's no indication Congress ever intended this. And by the way, Congress does have authority with regard to certain procedural aspects of the federal judiciary. There are separate branches, but Congress does have some limited ability to weigh in on procedural issues with regard to judiciary. And the Supreme Court said there's no history there. There's also

really no history of good interpretation by the Supreme Court. Previously, uh, that there is such a right now, I will give you one hypothetical that might that might occur, let's say that, uh, one of the interpreters that our military used over in Afghanistan is a woman, and she happens to be pregnant, and she's an interpreter, a language interpreter. She's not an American citizen. When Afghanistan, of course, falls, and we retreat and we pull people back, including interpreters and people who

have aided our military effort. We fly that woman back to the United States, not an American citizen, and that child is born. There's a good argument under the Constitution, just like the slavery issue, bringing people into the country, uh, either against their will or under those circumstances. But illegal aliens know that will now be decided, and it won't be on a single judge for the whole country.

while embracing an imperial judiciary. What do you think of that?

even at the High Court. So this was important for making sure that the Constitution remains fully intact. Hope you have a great weekend. We'll see you next time on in the market with Janet Parshall.