Breaking news today on Sekulow as the U.S. Supreme Court begins its contentious fall term. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.
We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. As today the Supreme Court begins its fall term. There are three major cases we want to focus on that are coming at the Supreme Court for our oral argument this fall. The first is a major Second Amendment case.
This is an ACLJ's file to brief this case. This is the city of New York basically trying to prevent the ability to have a concealed carry license. And the Supreme Court then again taking up another case. Similar challenges we saw out of Washington, D.C. before that have fallen to the Supreme Court. And this case as well, this idea that you have the Second Amendment right. How far do the states have to go in upholding that right and also giving you access to that right? And so in New York the situation involves directly the right to a concealed carry permit.
And so that case up first. The major challenge to Roe vs. Wade in the Dobbs case, that will be argued December 1st. So we'll get a decision in June. That is an on the merits challenge to Roe vs. Wade. It's a 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi.
And this is out of Mississippi and so it follows in a line of cases that we've seen. So this will go before the case has made a lot of news out of Texas. But it hasn't been on the merits yet.
It has been procedural. This is on the merits. And I can't underscore enough a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade.
ACLJ's filed there as well. And then another school choice case. We thought after the Espinoza case where the Supreme Court basically struck down those Blaine amendments. That were really anti-Catholic amendments back in the day that states adopted.
The federal government never adopted. The court is looking at one of those again. So this is yet another opportunity to open the door for more school choice options including religious schools. So the challenge there is specific to a religious liberty case. It's these, again, state constitutional amendments that bar monies from going to parochial schools.
And these amendments were passed during a heightened anti-Catholic and anti-Catholic schools movement in the United States. Which is blatantly unconstitutional. The court saw that in the Espinoza case. It is looking at it yet again in the Macon case.
Another very important school choice case. So you've got these three major cases at the Supreme Court. A lot of talk about the politics of the court.
Coming into the studio today, they're talking about polling on the Supreme Court. And this idea that while only 40% of Americans trust where the Supreme Court is going. You have to think about a poll on the Supreme Court. Most of those Americans could not name a Supreme Court justice.
And if they could even name one out of the nine, don't follow the court regularly. I think the reason why you even get polls on the Supreme Court is because if they take cases that are actually controversial, majority of which are not. But there are three major cases. You've got Second Amendment, challenge to Roe vs Wade, and a school choice case. So all three cases, these are highly, you know, outside of law, these are highly partisan issues. Second Amendment rights, school choice rights, unfortunately has become highly partisan. And of course the debate over abortion.
Highly, highly partisan. So when we get back, we're going to start, we're going to analyze each of these cases with our team. Rick Grenell is going to be joining us too in this first half hour to talk about what's going on around the world.
More of these aggressive moves by China, by Turkey, so you've got by our adversaries and even those countries that are supposed to be our allies. So we'll talk about that with him as well. As I encourage you, go to ACLJ.org.
That's ACLJ.org. Later in the broadcast today, the second half hour, ACLJ through our European Center for Law and Justice has appeared before the UN. Once again, we will let you see that as well. I think it's important for our audience to be able to see that and to see how we're still engaging at the international level. Even during the pandemic, we're able to engage. You've seen me do the interventions. You've seen Christophe from our team in France. You'll see C.C.
Heil from our team in the US doing so today. We'll be right back on Secular. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.
Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift.
Welcome back to Secular. So let's walk through these cases and we'll take your phone calls about them too if you've got a question about that 1-800-684-3110. I also want to let you know if you watch the show on Facebook, I know we're talking to a lot of our radio audience and you're watching this from various other streaming services as well. There's a technical issue there. There's no other issue with Facebook. It's just a technical issue that we're having with Facebook.
So you can check out, again, YouTube, Rumble, and I appreciate you going to those other places. You saw that link that we posted as we're having the issues with Facebook. It's just a technical issue. I want to start off with the New York case. It's New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett. This is a case out of the Supreme Court.
The New York law says that to get your concealed carry permit outside the home, you have to show proper cause. So you have to have special need for self-protection. Now here's where that goes. That favors the elites, right? That favors celebrities, the wealthy, not the average person. That's not how the Second Amendment reads. It's not a right if you can show cause. So right off the bat, I think that this law is in serious jeopardy at the Supreme Court. When you look at the makeup of the court and the new justices that have come along, this idea that the Second Amendment rights shouldn't be. It's okay for me, as we've seen members of Congress try to make those arguments as well who are anti-Second Amendment, but try to say, well, it's okay for me.
I need the security. That's what New York is trying to say is, you've got to make a case to us about why you need this. Now if you were someone high profile, assuming that's a pretty easy case, but what if you're just the average citizen? Even showing cause is a burden on your constitutional right. So I think, Wes, this one right off the bat, I feel pretty confident about. I don't like to predict these cases, but the Supreme Court decided to take this case in the midst of a very strong Second Amendment jurisprudence when these cases make it to the court.
It's the first time they've done this in a while. You can't really look at any of the amendments in our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and say, well, they only apply to you if you're special in some way. You have to show proper cause while you have protections under an amendment to the Constitution. And that's really what this New York law is saying, that in order for the Second Amendment to apply to you, it doesn't apply to you because you're an American, because we have a Constitution, but only if you can show proper cause while you need it.
And here's the thing, Jordan, the elites, the wealthy people, the left coast elites, the East Coast elites, Hollywood actors, people like that, they really don't face the same threats day to day that the average citizen does in a city like New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles where the crime rate is absolutely going through the roof. And with the conservative court, I feel pretty hopeful about this, that they're going to say, no, you don't have to show a special, special reason, some special status in your life, some special threat that you have in order to have rights as an American citizen under the Constitution. I want you to know that ACLJ is filed in this case as well. It's an important case.
This issue, hyper-partisan issues, I think you can buy all three of these as we work through them. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, a lot of members of Congress at least give way to the idea that they support this idea. I think our brief is important because this should not be, it's just one of those classic examples that if one of our First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Bill of Rights is, well, you get this right if you can show us that you need it. I mean, it's a classic political move, but I think that this falls, I don't know, Washington might try to use this one politically, but I think it's saving most of it for the abortion cases.
Well, yeah, they might try to use it politically, and I would just say even more locally, Jordan, Washington, D.C. has been through this exercise recently. I mean, you referenced the Heller case. That was a case out of Washington, D.C., dealing with a very similar question. And I'll tell you, when the actual merits and the details of that case sort of made its way to residents, Jordan, it wasn't, even though Washington, D.C. is a very liberal city, a very left city, the breakdown wasn't nearly as partisan as you would think when people understood what the issue was. When you went to them and you said, look, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. It's not a right that the government grants, and if there's going to be any restriction or any limitation on that, where does the burden lie, Jordan? The burden has to lie on the federal government. It can't lie on the individual who has to prove, as you were just saying, that they are entitled to this right.
Jordan, they start with that right, and any restriction on it, any burden to limit that in any way has to fall on the federal government. And when it sort of made its way to the population in Washington, D.C., even though many of them certainly still supported the restriction, it was a little bit surprising, Jordan, how much of the city's residents thought, oh, actually, that does make sense. I would expect the same thing to happen in New York. Yeah, and then, Harry, I want to move to the school choice case before getting to Dobbs.
We spent a lot of time on Dobbs. We'll go through that again. That's Mississippi's challenge to Roe v. Wade, but there's also yet another, it's interesting that the Supreme Court decided they need to hear oral arguments on this case, because a similar case out of Montana, the Supreme Court struck down the bans on, said if you're going to have school choice, you can't limit it to only secular schools, Harry. And so we already have that precedent, but they're looking at it again.
You are absolutely correct. And a group of us are working on a religious treatise which looks at this specific case. Why? Because this case arguably goes counter to prevailing U.S. precedent. And so I think at the end of the day, it's highly doubtful that this main statute, Tory provision, which prevents parents from sending their kids to a secular school, is arguably a right that the Supreme Court has already upheld. And so I think at the end of the day, it's highly doubtful that this main statute, Tory provision, which prevents parents from sending their kids to a sectarian school will indeed be upheld. These so-called Blaine Amendment cases represent perhaps one of the worst forms of bigotry still left in the United States, anti-Catholic bigotry. And I think at the end of the day, the parents are entitled to send their kid to a private school.
Why? Because public schools are unavailable in many rural areas of Maine, and they're entitled therefore to send their kids to a sectarian school if that's the best school for their child. So I think this is arguably an easy case, but I also agree with you, Jordan, that I wonder why the Supreme Court didn't simply reverse this case in terms of a summary judgment. I think if you base off their precedent, the existing precedent, it's good for the school choice. It's good also because if you're a school choice advocate, if you're someone that supports school choice, clearing these laws, making it clear that school choice is legal in a state. And that if you're going to open up the opportunity for people to have the choice, that you can't exclude a group of schools from a parent's decision. Remember, no one's forcing you to send your kid to a Catholic school or religious school in these states if you were eligible for the school choice program. It's just saying if you're eligible, these schools, if they want to be part of this program, have the right to be in the program. The Supreme Court's already made that clear, but it's like they're looking at these state-by-state, maybe circuit-by-circuit, and these amendments that have been on the books since the late 1800s, but are clearly, again, these are discriminatory amendments.
The idea that there was that level of anti-Catholic bias in the United States is something, part of our history, but it still sits on many state constitutions, not just state laws, but state constitutions. And so the Supreme Court, these states say that they're bound by this, even though they're discriminatory, and they're forcing the courts to take action. But the fact that these cases keep coming is good news for school choice. The big case, the one that's going to get the most attention, this is the justification for their idea of court packing or rearranging the court is the Dobbs case out of Mississippi, and the fact that so much attention on these cases involving abortion, but this is a major one because it's a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. So it's not just like a partial birth abortion ban.
This is a 15-week ban. It's the most serious abortion case the court has taken in decades. Yeah, Jordan, first of all, I would tell you that the fact that the left is threatening to pack the court is probably one of the big reasons why the competence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, as you just talked about.
I think it's that threat that's threatening the confidence of the court. But yeah, this Dobbs case, Jordan, it was interesting when the various sides were filing their briefs in the case, Planned Parenthood and NARAL essentially said, well, you can't side with Mississippi on this because that would be a change to the fundamentals of Roe and Casey. That would challenge the actual merits of Roe and Casey. Surely that can't be what Mississippi is asking for.
Mississippi came right back on top and said, yep, you got exactly right. We think Roe and Casey were wrongly decided. We are enacting our state sovereignty to restrict abortion before the accepted state viability that was set in Roe. Clearly that is not any longer in step with medical developments, and we're going to challenge that. So, yes, we think the fundamentals of Roe and Casey should go.
We don't disagree with you on that. So, Jordan, both sides, it's a challenge to Roe. All right, folks, when we come back, we're going to be joined by Rick. Now we're going to talk about some of the foreign policy issues involving Turkey, also involving China.
Major news there, the idea that conflict in Taiwan, what would that look like for the world? We'll talk about that with Rick as well. I encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org.
We'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.
And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.
Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular, Senior Advisor for Foreign Policy and National Security. Rick Grinnell is joining us live now.
Rick, I want to go right to you. This has been a theme as we've talked to you. It's the idea of what's going on in the world that we're not paying attention to that is very important. I mean, one of the issues that is getting some attention today is what we're seeing in China and the Chinese aggression towards Taiwan and the idea that this has been the makings of what would potentially be the moniker of the next World War III if all the parties engaged that have various treaties and agreements did get involved. And the reason why we're talking about it is because the aggressive moves by China, 52 different aircraft, we have fighter aircraft, they are taking aggressive steps and sending a message to one of our allies. And it's one of our allies, Rick, that can shoot back at a certain point as well. Look, and I don't think it's just about China and Taiwan, but I think it's about America.
Look, our listeners, if you're not paying attention, let me just be very blunt. The weakness of the Joe Biden administration is causing chaos in the world. We've seen it in Afghanistan. We've seen it with Russia. There's 100,000 troops on the border in Ukraine.
We see it all over every part of the world. And now what we're seeing it really unfold in the Pacific where the Chinese are beginning to do things that they would have never thought to do in the Trump administration. So while there's a lot of people that can complain about Donald Trump's tweets or things that they didn't like about the Trump administration, you really have to look at the dangerous precedent that's being set by a weak President Biden. Rick, another one of these issues I'm looking at too, I think it goes to the weakness level, but it was one that I know the Trump administration was very involved in, and that was that on the one hand we've got China in an adversary taking these moves, and we have to stand up with our ally. But we still are seeing these issues with Turkey, who is supposed to be our NATO ally, and this delivery of a missile system, not from the United States, not from the Western allies, but the S-400 missile system from the Russians. We saw the delivery in 2019, but this was something the Trump administration was pushing back aggressively against, basically warning Turkey not to install the system, and now another one of these issues where they're moving ahead, we have a NATO ally using Russian military equipment to defend itself.
Look, it's 100% unacceptable because the whole idea, the creation of NATO is to blunt Russia, is to make sure that the Russians didn't go into Europe and take over the transatlantic alliance, and so we need to be very clear-eyed about what's happening here with our NATO ally. And I hope that the Biden administration can be just as tough on Turkey as the Trump administration. We were very clear with the Turks that if you're going to be a NATO ally, you're going to have to act like a NATO ally. And that means not buying Russian material, not having a relationship with Russia when you're a member of NATO, and of course everybody knows we also demanded that if you're going to be a NATO, you've got to pay your bills. Yeah, you know, and the thing about this whole issue with Turkey, Rick, is that Erdogan is a radical Islamist de facto dictator. He has taken Turkey in a completely different direction, and they may be our NATO ally, but under his leadership, they're certainly not our friend. This is why we removed them from the F-35 fighter program under the Trump administration, because this S-400 missile system is actually designed to shoot down American aircraft, and yet our NATO ally is buying it.
It's really incomprehensible that they're doing this. But this is a very difficult issue, because as you say, Turkey is a NATO ally. They've been a member of NATO since, I think, 1951 or something.
I mean, it's really been a very long time. Look, Erdogan is unique here, because he started off not like he's finishing here, and I'm very concerned about the radicalization of Erdogan over the last years, and certainly in the Trump administration we fought. We fought with Pastor Brunson, and ACLJ had to get involved.
Thank God that they did. But there's a whole bunch of other issues. We've seen Erdogan pick fights with the Israelis, the flotilla incident. There's been a growing problem of Erdogan. I will say that I put this issue into the same category as the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, and the Chinese-Taiwan issue, in that Turkey was not flexing this much muscle when Trump was in charge, but they feel once again with Biden in charge that there's some wiggle room, and they're going to test that wiggle room. Just circling back to China, Rick, if this was to escalate, because I want to underscore it to people, because that's why it gets any news at all, is that if it does escalate, it is a serious conflict. We're talking about conflict with China. We've got agreements to defend Taiwan. Obviously, we have a President, he's going to make the call on these decisions on that, but so does the rest of the world.
This involves basically the entire world. Look, I think the Pacific and the Middle East and a whole bunch of regions, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, are all wishing that Donald Trump was in the White House, because when they see Joe Biden and then they see the Chinese react like this, I think the Taiwanese are very nervous. They've got to be looking at the Afghanistan example and saying to themselves, is this a President? Is this a U.S. President that's going to have the clear vision?
Here are the issues, and we don't want to send a strong message to China. I'm not sure that they have that confidence. Rick, thanks for joining us today.
I think we've got a little bit of a glitch there, but I think everybody can hear that at the end. Let me just underscore again, the idea that once the confidence in the United States begins to wane, it all starts falling apart. You see the boldness from these leaders. I'll play this from Erdogan.
Take a listen by 13. So it sounds like you still intend to buy another round of these S-400s, of these Russian missile systems. In the future, nobody will be able to interfere in terms of what kind of defense systems we acquire, from which country, at what level. Nobody can interfere with that. We are the only ones to make such decisions. He could talk big like that, but that wasn't the case for the last few years.
He wasn't able to just do whatever he wants. He's part of NATO, part of a NATO alliance. As Wes pointed out, these are missile systems designed to shoot down western aircraft, specifically U.S. aircraft.
So why protect yourself from that? And of course, the NATO alliance is also to fight Russian aggression. So putting this all together, we've got Rick on, we've got a lot of these domestic issues, which are certainly important. We're going to spend the next half hour mostly on those issues. But to look at the world, to take a step back, because you hear this news out of China, you hear about Taiwan, and you kind of say, well, I've been hearing about that for years and years, but just how serious it would be if things escalated any further. Same thing with Turkey.
We've been talking about this S-400 system to you directly for years on this broadcast. You understand the importance of this, the shift that's ongoing, and the weakness. The idea that the U.S. can't just say no, and the world's not listening anymore to those kind of statements. We got used to, as a country, being able to kind of put our foot down and most of the world going by what we decided.
That is not the case anymore. So in the second half hour, then we're going to shift back, work through those Supreme Court cases. First day of the Supreme Court today.
We'll be right back on Secular. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.
ACLJ.org. The fight for the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Secular.
And now your host, Jordan Secular. I think it's very important to do that, if you missed that final segment, talking about what's going on in the world as we focused on a lot of these domestic issues here on the broadcast today. Obviously, you know the ACLJ, we're engaged around the world on global issues all the time. You'll see the next segment in the last 10 days at the United Nations.
It's a different time at the UN, but we have engaged on Myanmar, Afghanistan, and you'll see Pakistan as well through our European Center for Law and Justice. Different people from our organizations, whether it's our team in France, team here in the United States, or me doing the intervention. This has been unique because usually you'd be going to Geneva, you do these interventions in person. Right now, because of the pandemic globally, you're doing these interventions via video, and it just shows the team that we have in place behind the scenes that you don't see. Whether you're listening or you don't hear, or see if you're watching the broadcast, why we're able to keep all that moving forward, all of our work engaged, almost like it was normal. Maybe to some extent at the UN, because of the ways that they've opened up for the groups that are approved like we are, you're able to maybe even be more engaged in some issues because of the lack of these other groups not having the sophistication to be able to stay engaged when they don't just show up.
And now you've got to have that technical ability to do that and continue that work we do at the ACLJ, we do at the European Center for Law and Justice as well. But let me reset for you, three major cases of the Supreme Court, I mean there's other important cases at the court, but I think these three deal with kind of hot button issues. Second amendment, religious liberty, and of course abortion. Three major cases at the court, the first one the court will hear is on the second amendment. Just to recap that for you, in New York, New York tried to pass a law that said you basically have to show cause for getting a concealed carry permit.
I think you can all be listening right now and realize how that's easy for a celebrity, that's easy for someone who's a corporate executive, who's making a lot of money in fear of threats to their family, but it's not so easy for an everyday person because you're burdening a constitutional right. So when you put these burdens on constitutional rights, the strictest of scrutiny is involved, and the Supreme Court if you look at this court, even with the changes that have been made on it, I think those changes have only made it a more friendly court to the second amendment, which it should be because the second amendment is so clear. And so I think again this case though it's going to get a lot of attention because it does involve the second amendment. Second case, which I think is very important is the school choice case, this is yet another challenge to this time in Maine, last case was out of Montana, same basic situation where state constitution bars resources, state resources, including tax resources from going to any religious institutions. These were amendments put in the state constitutions, they tried to do it at the federal level, it never happened, but states adopted it, they're anti-Catholic amendments, they were put there because of the growth of Catholic schools and the history is clear on that. And the court is just saying that if you're going to open up your state to a school choice program, you can't exclude a religious school that wants to be part of the program, just because they happen to be religious.
And remember the choice is not for the state, the choice is to the parents if they're going to send their kid to a religious school or not, no one's forcing them, no one's making them or telling them they have to do that. But then Harry, the third case, the one that is getting clearly the most attention, it's the direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade, it's the Dobbs case out of Mississippi. Absolutely, so one of the things that we should consider is that there is a perfect storm brewing at the United States Supreme Court. This perfect storm puts Roe vs. Wade in the crosshairs of Supreme Court jurisprudence and I think this particular challenge to Roe vs. Wade has a reasonable chance of succeeding on the merits.
Alright folks, we come back, we'll continue to analyze this into some of our work at the UN and these cases, if you've got questions too on the Supreme Court, which one of these cases is most important to you, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110, is it the Second Amendment, is it the life case, is it school choice, is it all three combined? I feel like there's similarities there between these cases about how you view the Constitution, give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. The challenges facing Americans are substantial, at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena, and we have an exceptional track record of success, but here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support.
We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms, that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, if you're already a member, thank you, and if you're not, well this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive, and that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, it's called Mission Life, it will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support, and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, playing Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Now what's continued to be unique too about this Supreme Court term is that we're going to get the audio continued out of the court, so they're going to continue with that even though they are returning back to the building. They're not allowing people to attend the arguments, some press, limited press will be in the courtroom, but they are going to have the audio available, that means on December 1st when the Dobbs case is argued, and as everybody, it doesn't matter what side of the issue you're on, this is the biggest case involving abortion to be at the Supreme Court in about, people say about 30 years. So consider a lifetime of the court, that's a full shift in the US Supreme Court, with of course a lot of new justices to weigh in on a direct challenge like this. There were a lot of people who thought, can a case like this even be granted cert? Would the court even spend its time on this kind of case?
I would say different court, no. Different court would not have taken these challenges, would not have even considered a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade. But Harry, this court, new justices, appointed by President Trump, and so at least we could know that there were four who wanted to consider whether this law was constitutional. It did not just go through the abortion distortion of just declaring it unconstitutional right from the start. I think that's correct, and I also think this particular case underscores the fact that elections matter, elections have consequences. And one of the consequences is the President's ability to appoint nominees to the United States Supreme Court, and then pursuant to confirmation, they get to render decisions. And I think President Trump has done a good job in appointing or nominating individuals who believe in principle. And so one of the things to keep in mind is that the opponents of Roe vs. Wade argue that the Constitution itself does not provide for a, a right to an abortion, and b, to an unlimited right to an abortion. The Democrats, by contrast, they don't really believe in principle, they believe in so-called unlimited freedom, and the consequence is they are willing to support, and we've seen this in state legislatures in New York and in Virginia, the idea that you can have an abortion up to the moment of birth. And so I think the Supreme Court has the, an opportunity to strike against this so-called unlimited right to abortion, and to allow states to promote a pro-life agenda that I think is consistent with the United States Constitution. Thanh, this, for our audience, and obviously for ACLJ supporters, this is key if not the number one issue for them when they decide who they're going to vote for, the legislation that they support, why they're even engaged in politics. There's a lot of people I'm talking to right now who are engaged in politics because they were brought into the issue and decided, hey, I can't sit on the sidelines anymore because I do believe, you know, that this is life and that this procedure is murder that we're allowing the United States. So for all those folks, this has been a long battle. It's not done yet. It's certainly, I mean, this would, again, be one of the most difficult cases to predict.
We're certainly not going to do that. But the idea that these cases are even being heard, I think part of it, Harry is right, the other side of this pushed so aggressively over these last 30 years to be completely unregulated, to be able to do whatever they want, to not be treated like a normal, even like normal men. So even like normal medical facilities, you know, it's abortion distorts the idea that no laws, no restrictions. And we've seen that fall by the wayside where courts have said, well, you know, maybe there can be some restrictions. This would be, though, 15 weeks, the most serious restriction that would ever have been upheld by court. It's hard for me to even imagine 10 years ago this case being taken up by the court. I agree with that, Jordan.
A couple of things. I mean, first of all, one of the reasons that it's the most important issue for so many voters is because without the right to life, all of the other things that we fight about, and I use the word fight loosely, Jordan, you know, in a diplomatic sort of way, in a public policy sort of way, they're meaningless. I mean, the argument about whether or not you should play high taxes or low taxes or whether the welfare state should have a long arm or a short arm, Jordan, those are irrelevant if you're not allowed a chance for life. So that's one of the reasons why it's the most important issue.
And you're right. I mean, you think back to President Trump's legacy, Jordan. Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, their presence on the court, I'm convinced, is why this case is being heard. But once it is heard, Jordan, it will be on the merits. And I've got to tell you, even though the Texas case that you mentioned is not up for hearing this session, I think if you look at those two cases, the one out of Mississippi and the one in Texas in conjunction, it underscores the points you just made that the pro-abortion industry has really pushed too far. Because in the Mississippi case, you're looking at the standard of viability, which back when Roe was considered was typically believed to be around 20 to 24 weeks. Well, Jordan, we know conclusively that a child born before that stage can now survive outside the womb. I mean, my family and I have cared for them personally, Jordan.
We know it firsthand. You take that in conjunction with what is at stake in the Texas case, where Texas has said, look, if there is activity of a fetal heartbeat, if you can hear a heartbeat, there's cardiac activity. We think that's a life being defended. Jordan, if the left or the pro-abortion industry is now in a position where they are saying that they think a baby with a beating heart should be terminated or a baby that absolutely has viability outside the womb can be terminated, I think that has pushed beyond even the mainstream inside their party.
I think it's an untenable position for them. It does seem now that that position, Wes, this extreme pro-abortion position, it's not mainstream in America. It used to be kind of the mainstream idea is that you didn't touch abortion, you didn't talk about abortion. This is a constitutional right, and people get confused, understandably get confused about when you start talking about those constitutional rights. It's not like the Second Amendment, which is an issue, where there's some right in the Constitution. We're defining the limited scope of the right. It's completely judicially created.
There's no law on the books in the Congress, and so we hear all these threats, the idea of court packing. I think the abortion industry is really feeling the pressure. Out of this Texas law, it's prevented most abortions from occurring, say what happened in Mississippi, and of course we know half the country would follow these states if the court were to uphold something like this.
And the left is up in arms over this because they realize that this has the potential to totally redefine the issue and to reverse some of the judicial acrobatics that were involved when Roe v. Wade was decided in the first place. And three things have changed over the last two generations, Jordan. The court certainly has changed just in the last few years. It's a much more conservative court, and they look at the Constitution in a much more pure fashion, but also public opinion on this has changed over the last 10 years or so, and they realize we are talking about the ending of a human life. And then science has changed. We also know about viability and that, as Thanh alluded to, that babies that would not survive had they been born this early before, we know they do survive, that when the heart is beating, there is a life there. And so the viability issue. So the court has changed, public opinion has changed, science we know more, and that also has changed. And so this case has the potential to really, really set the whole issue back on its heels as far as the left is concerned.
Harry, I just want to refocus because it's also there. Another school choice case, and what these are doing, I see the parallels here, because what these are doing is also opening the doors ultimately. The court has been striking down any of the barriers in place. It's not forcing states to adopt school choice programs, it's not forcing anybody to send their kids to a certain school, but it's certainly making it so, in the recent precedent, the court has been making it easier for school choice laws to survive state scrutiny, but also so that the state legislators and governors know what they can do.
I think you're precisely correct. So I think it's very important from a background standpoint to keep in mind that the progressives in the United States, and historically, have traditionally been anti-religious in orientation. They believe that sectarianism should be ruled out of bounds in the United States and in most western democracies, and instead they argue that the Supreme Court should declare the state as a state of neutrality, but it turns out that the Supreme Court needs to intervene in these particular cases. Why? Because the state of Maine is discriminating against the parents in Maine who wish to send their kids to a religious school, and the Supreme Court, at least in my view, should rule out of bounds this anti-sectarian discrimination and restore our faith and confidence.
In the text of the Constitution, which protects the free exercise rights of parents and children, and does so, I think, in a fair-minded manner. All right, we come back for the break. More on the ACLJ's work internationally. We're going to show you, if you're watching or if you're listening, our latest intervention at the UN. It's only about 90 seconds, but this is on Pakistan, so that will be coming up for you, as well as continue, again, the focus on these major cases at the Supreme Court. There's going to be a lot of attention on this term as it begins today.
Be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.
ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular. I know we've covered a lot today on the broadcast. One of the issues, though, I wanted to highlight from the ACLJ continually through our broadcast, especially during all this talk about what's going on in the world, and this idea, I think that you can feel a little bit isolated from the world right now.
It doesn't really matter where you live in the United States. Certainly the kind of travel that we're used to and the idea of just hopping on a flight, going wherever you want the world, that's not the case right now, though things are starting to change and have been changing. Our work at the United Nations, this massive international institution, which also has faced a lot of challenges in operating, has never ceased, has not ceased. So you've seen me do the interventions, that's what they're called at the United Nations, but it gives us an opportunity where you are recognized by the UN Human Rights Council, and we're recognized at the European Center for Law and Justice, to bring attention, to bring focus to issues of human rights, and of course we focus a lot on the religious persecution going on in the world. It's an opportunity, one, to name these countries, to confront these issues, but also so that the world is on notice for what's happening. So whether it's Myanmar, whether it's Afghanistan, and what you'll see in this intervention, which just occurred today, you'll see C.C. Hall from our team at the UN on Pakistan. And let me just say, the reason why we've been able to stay so involved is because really your support for the ACLJ and all the work that we do around the world, because our team is able to stay up with all the tech needs, because you're not able to just travel, put your name on the list, and address these bodies right now.
It takes three or four more back in steps, but we're able to do it, no problem, because of our team that we've got, of course we've got that team because you support the work of the ACLJ. So let's take a moment here to see this important intervention by C.C. Hall of Pakistan. We'll now hear from European Center for Law and Justice.
Thank you, Madam President. The ACLJ has previously highlighted concerns regarding religious freedom in Pakistan and various reports to this council. Today we would like to draw this council's attention to two cases that require immediate intervention as Pakistani authorities have failed to provide justice. The first case involves a false blasphemy accusation. Shahzad Masih has been in prison for over four years despite the fact there was no evidence against him. In fact, the superintendent of police testified in court that Shahzad was not guilty. Yet Shahzad remains in prison, and if convicted, this innocent young Christian man will be sentenced to death. The second case involves a young 14-year-old Christian girl who has tragically disappeared. Although her father, James Masih, turned over evidence of their 45-year-old Muslim neighbor inappropriately contacting their daughter's cell phone over 40 times at the time of her disappearance, the police refused to investigate, even after the inspector general directed them to do so.
To date, this innocent young girl has not been found, and her parents do not know if their daughter is still alive, sold into prostitution, or forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Pakistan cannot allow these types of cases to continue without justice. We request that this council remind the government of Pakistan of its national and international obligations and to follow through on its commitment to protect all its citizens, including its minorities.
Thank you. That's just another example, and I want to go to Thanh, being our representative in the United States, primarily to the UN as well, I think it's been tremendous that we've been able to continue this in a time, it's so important, at a time when domestic issues, been isolated from the world, feel like things maybe aren't as connected as they used to be internationally, that our work has not only not ceased, but it's continued, it's continued to expand, continued to grow. That we haven't been held back by this pandemic. Yeah, Jordan, we've had to pivot. I mean, that's been true here domestically with the United States Congress, it's been true overseas as well, whether it's New York City, Geneva, Strasburg, or the others, Jordan, but as you said, we've been able to do it because of our members, we've been able to do it because of the team behind the scenes. The other thing I wanted to highlight, just listening to CC make that intervention there, she mentioned two specific cases, Jordan. I think this is the other component that makes our advocacy so effective in these spaces. Because of our work on the ground in these places, I mean, Pakistan is a great example, we're able to bring to those chambers, Jordan, specific evidence and specific information. I mean, I know you've sat in these chambers as these debates take place, and sometimes they get very archaic, they get very academic, and look, there's a place for that. I mean, we're a legal organization that makes legal arguments as well, but when you can put real faces on this type of persecution, real cases from our work on the ground, and bring them into the chamber, Jordan, I'm telling you, literally, people turn in their seats to see who's addressing them when you're in person, or in this case, it's virtually people perk up and they listen to that specific information. So I think those two dynamics, number one, the ability to pivot to a more technologically driven approach, and then two, couple that with real experience on the ground, I think it's really bolstered our effectiveness. Yeah, again, that was done, that was just today at the United Nations.
So all these different issues, countries that we've talked about a lot, whether it's a place like Pakistan, or countries like Myanmar, which we've brought to light as well. I do want to pivot a little bit right here, the last few minutes of the show, because Harry, one of the things with the Supreme Court, I think everybody has to be on alert for us, kind of finish out the broadcast today. They're talking about polling, they're talking about on the court, they're talking about, and again, I think that that's such a joke, because they're not constantly polling how you feel about the Supreme Court, so the idea that they're even asking you the question is leading in that sense. But the pressure campaign on the court this term may not happen as much to the second, I think they're picking and choosing, but on the abortion case specifically, I think they're probably hearing, this is, it is not the 1980s, this court's not immune from the pressures at all. Some justices I think more than others, but the pressure campaign is just beginning on this court. I mean they're threatening the court to be basically dissolved if they don't do what they want.
Precisely. And so we could go back to the video featuring Senator Chuck Schumer, basically telling Justice Kavanaugh that if he doesn't vote the correct way, that he's going to unleash certain things on the court. But I think at the end of the day, the left is trying to prepare the American people for change, and one of the ways that they do so is by constantly repeating negative stories about the United States Supreme Court.
And so I think the left has launched a public relations campaign. They want to raise the size of the Supreme Court, perhaps up to 15. They want to institute a mandatory retirement program for Supreme Court justices. But I think at the end of the day, I believe that the conservative justices will stand strong in the face of public pressure, and hopefully they will do the right thing which is predicated on the reading of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution, and the text of statutory law. Yeah, certainly you get these times when the Supreme Court makes a lot of news and some years where it doesn't.
This is obviously, this day in particular is the first day of the court's term. It's still not back to normal there in the sense that they are having oral arguments in the courtroom with a couple of reporters, but I mean there's no guests so they've got the audio going. We know the major cases involving the Second Amendment in October, then you've got Dobbs, then you've got school choice. To have these kind of cases all on the same term with these new justices at the court, obviously there is a lot of attention, but I think you have to be weary of some of the attention too on the court. This kind of pressure campaign that used to be quiet and now is very public with this idea. Go to ACLJ.org, get educated and up to speed on all these issues.
We'll talk to you tomorrow. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-08-14 03:43:54 / 2023-08-14 04:06:36 / 23