Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a major parental rights case in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a challenge to Montgomery County (Md.) requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. It is a case that could produce sweeping changes across the county as parents object to the use of public schools to advance social and political agendas. These books are being required for children 3-10 years old. The parents have the stronger argument in my view. A ruling in their favor could prove one of the most important victories for parental rights in decades.
Parents objected in Maryland in 2022 when the county approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for inclusion in its language-arts curriculum. The county then announced that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks.
Various parents sued, including some citing their Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox beliefs. They lost in the lower courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the Court declared that it was “recognized ‘beyond debate’ the First Amendment right of parents ‘to guide the religious future and education of their children.’” In that case, the court held that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade because it conflicted with their religion.
They also argue that the Maryland policy is neither neutral nor generally applicable as required under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. That could produce the greatest number of questions from the justices today. The parents argued that the county has long allowed notice and opt-outs for material and instruction that address family life and sexuality. However, it refused to do so here.
The parents alleged religious hostility in comments made against the challengers. They raise the question of why such children cannot be allowed alternative reading options.
The Montgomery County Board of Education is arguing a narrower view of the free exercise clause and that public education requires a uniform curriculum, including recognition of our society’s diversity. They insist that allowing some to opt out would present an overwhelming burden on the schools.
A decision for the parents could significantly change public schools’ handling of such controversial materials. I have previously written about how administrators and teacher unions are destroying public education by elevating agendas over academics.
Teachers and boards are killing the institution of public education by treating children and parents more like captives than consumers. They are force-feeding social and political priorities, including passes for engaging in approved protests.
As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of “white supremacy.” Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of “equity.”
Once parents have a choice, these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families. They are no longer a captive audience. If public unions want to maintain funding, they will have to actually improve educational results for these families.
Notably, figures like American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten have opposed the elimination of the Department of Education because it might help voucher schools and other alternatives to public education.
In a podcast, Weingarten explained, “We know, for example, what Texas would do. They’ll use it for vouchers. So they won’t give [federal funding] to the kids who have it now, they’ll just give it for vouchers.”
There is reason for Weingarten and the teacher’s union being so concerned. Florida allows for school choice and has demanded greater performance from public schools. Despite attacks by Weingarten and other Democrats, Florida has been ranked as the number one state for both education and the economy.
However, public educators have continued to lower proficiency requirements and cancel gifted programs to “even the playing field.” The result has been to further hide the dismal scores and educational standards of many public school districts.
There is an irony in the position before the Supreme Court by public educators. A reversal may be a critical change in slowing the departure of families from public schools. One of the families discussed in this case sold their house to afford private schooling for their children.
By limiting such mandatory programs, some families may be less likely to seek alternatives to public schools. These families want to send their children to public schools while retaining their role in instilling religious values for their children. Montgomery County is forcing a choice that few parents will make against their family values.
As on earlier controversies over parental rights, Democrats will find that this is not partisan; it is primal for parents.
Except for Alito and Thomas, the SCOTUS LOVES depravity, degneracy, death, and destruction and HATES America.
Here is the link to the oral argument, which C-Span broadcast live:
https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/mahmoud-v-taylor-oral-argument/658604
It was fascinating, as the Court and counsel discussed, among other particulars, various Constitutional standards for courts’ decision-making, “exposing” versus “compelling,” the Court’s prior Free Exercise decisions, expressions of hostility to a religious belief, as occurred in Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. Philadelphia, and opt-outs which schools allow on non-LGBTQ issues.
One issue which came up more than once was the adequacy of the current record in Mahmoud, where the plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction. It is thus possible that the case will not be decided on the merits, but remanded for development of the record.
Also, incest, pedophilia, sadomasochism, polygamy (e.g. friends with “benefits”), grooming, and other queer sexual orientations made legal, celebrated under Democratic law.
Get your head out of your ass and back to reality
Wym? These are all qualities that Democrats love their new immigrant constituents for!
Wokery is a mental disease.
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1914886371170295968
“We’re taking America, your Constitution, and your Bill of Rights away from you, Americans.”
– Comrade General Secretary And His Majesty King Of The Juristocracy John Roberts
Before anyone else comments on this topic, I would suggest that you go back to Page One and Two of the comments section (the page with the earliest comments) and read Commenter “Elmer’s” contributions, –several excerpts from Petitioners’ Brief, which in turn lift actual text from the books that are being read to these little kids, as well as instructions and guidelines for teachers. (“Elmer” has a bright blue icon/avatar.)
Then you will be better able to understand what the alarm/concern is over…
I would also take note that the President of the American Federation of Teachers Union (2008-present), Randi Weingarten, is openly lesbian/homosexual, and this may be why this issue has been so prominent over the last few years…
When I was young, I got my hand pushed down when I pointed to the first Black person I had ever seen. My mother explained all when we got back to the privacy of our car. When I was in high school, I became aware of the first homosexual I had ever seen (a very effeminate male). Another student explained it to me.
That was the way it was handled and I really never thought much about it/either, ever again.
That is the same way I am today….until I am confronted with in-your-face forceful tactics — which are wholly misrepresentative and disproportionate to the actual numbers/percentages in today’s world.
(“Dennis” has grossly misrepresented the actual numbers, according to U.S. and academic statistics.)
#. Ok. Perhaps there should be a hotline established that parents can call for an evacuation from the area asap. Some way tobrescue families within such school districts. A 911_ rescue line.
It’s becoming more apparent that it’s very dangerous as the agenda included gangs and gang rescue flights by senators.
Tread lightly…
Adieu. DJT rescue lines for immediate relocation. Instructions to lay low till.rescued. have you seen Michelle Obama podcast with hair in bear ears?
Thank you professor Turley for the blog.
#. ^^^^^ excuse typos. I have sausage fingers.
OT: I won’t identify State but prices have gone down significantly. Doesn’t match MSN.
You are lucky that your fellow student could explain homosexuality in a neutral way. Not everyone is so fortunate; many are taught to hate the gays before they even meet one. I think having a neutral exposure in a watchful environment like school is reasonable. Many lessons are taught through books and require conversation to answer questions and dispel misconceptions, the Bible being a notable example. I am suspicious of parents who don’t think there can be a way to have a neutral exposure in age-appropriate ways.
At one time, to treat gays as non-threatening deviants made sense. It mostly worked. It could have worked even better if parents had prepared heterosexual boys how to gracefully deflect unwanted homosexual come-ons while maintaining their social status among other boys.
But, we’re learning the hard way that tolerance is easily misread as a greenlight for aggressive subcultures to walk over the majority. It’s hard to define nuanced toleration, i.e., we’re OK with a few % of homosexuals, but we’re going to oppose any attempt to grow that % — which means we won’t tolerate proselitizing a homosexual lifestyle to children.
The tolerance that was legally established by Obergefell was exploited by trans activists, who define tolerance in militant fashion “If you don’t go along with all our demands, it’s because you hate us”.
This way of exploiting tolerance (moving the goalpost) indicates how hard it is to maintain norms necessary for reproduction while ceding “equality” to gays and trans. Society must have decided preferences for adult lifestyles that keep the society going. Why can’t non-heterosexuals (the activists) accept this reality?
Homosexuals are in the transgender spectrum. Why the phobic exclusion? That said, civil unions for all consenting adults. Political congruence (“=”) is a bigoted construct of Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies).
Fine, you wish for tolerance and harmony. Please explain how teaching grade schoolers about blowjobs and anal sex and exposing them to drag queen lunatics is teaching tolerance? Parents are reacting because deviant groomers have access to their children, not because some thoughtful people are teaching children that everyone is not the same and just treat each other decently.
The book in question only shows adult men holding hand, not even kissing, because it is meant for grade school children. Where are you getting these anal sex lessons stuff from?
Trans/homophohia is a projection. The real issue is albinophobia celebrated with Rainbow rhetoric and symbols in parades, etc. That and the transhumanism of Levine’s Dreams of Herr Mengele, abortionists, groomers, etc normalized, legalized under Democratic law. #HateLovesAbortion
Another judge who thinks he is President
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372530/voa-trump-radio-free-asia
If the Supreme Court doesn’t get this under control, then what?
Could Trump declare a national emergency and martial law?
The thought would have been horrifying to me not long ago.
Now it is looking better than rule by these jumped up robed tyrants.
I wonder how much of the country is beginning to think something similar? The courts are training the country to despise them and they sense no rising sentiment against them.
You are proposing a dictatorship, which could not be more un-American. You can’t be serious.
It’s John Roberts’s responsibility to make the lower court judges operate with respect toward the Constitutional separation of powers. I don’t see him as anything other than a passive figurehead. He’s worthless.
Actually no —- the current President was handed a nearly impossible to solve problem by Joe Biden et. al. who violated his/their oath to protect the country and uphold the constitution — 10 million illegals in 3 years? Really? —
The left wing Democrat politicians and main stream (left wing) press would have a field day, and a very hard time, if the President felt it was an absolute necessity to declare martial law to tackle the national emergency —- the emergency being hundreds of district court judges barring the Federal Government from its national security obligation — including deportation of 100’s of thousands of criminals who knowingly entered the US without doing so legally —
Jonathan: Speaking of major cases you fail to mention the blockbuster decision by the SC at 1:00 am on Saturday preventing the deportation of more Venezuelans to El Salvador from a detention center in Texas. The ACLU got wind of the plans of the regime to do what they did in the Boasberg case but this time they got to the court in time and the Court, in a emergency application, prevented the planes from taking off. The ruling was 7-2, with only Thomas and Alito dissenting. It seems Roberts and the majority have finally had it with the DJT regime’s ignoring of court orders.
The response of the DJT regime to the SC order was fast and furious. Paul Ingrassia, a right-wing zealot and the WH liaison to DHS, said that judges “have been infected with parasitical ideology. The judges in law courts today, including the majority in the nation’s Highest Court, telegraph with their decisions that they have no understanding of the law and its proper function and role”.
But right-wing influencers have gone farther. Jesse Kelly, an influencial fascist podcaster in Texas, demanded: “Ignore the Supreme Court. Arrest any one who tries to enforce this. Dissolve the Supreme Court entirely if they push. You can deport foreigners or you don’t have a country any more. There are no good choices”. There were other DJT supporters on the right saying the same thing.
The above is the language if fascism. Like Ingrassia, Hitler also used “parasitical ideology” to refer to his political opponents–the liberals, constitutionalists, socialists and communists. After Hitler took power he purged the courts of all independent judges and replaced them with Nazi party judges who understood the law and “its proper function and role”. We are definitely on a collision course between the rule of law, democracy and fascism in this country. DJT is trying to put our country on a path to a fascist dictatorship. As long as the courts and the people stand up to the DJT regime we have a chance of preventing that!
Dennis,
Alot of people are disturbed by the SCOTUS decision – there are more than 150 years of immigration law that SCOTUS is ignoring.
If you are not in the US legally the due process you are entitled to is pretty simple,
a hearing at which the only uestion is “are you in the US legally ?”
If the answer is no – your gone. You can SOMETIMES play games and delays being gone a bit.
But absent delaying until you get a president that chooses to ignore the law – your gone.
My guess is that the conservatives that stalled on allowing Trump to continue using the AEA punted.
The decision accomplished nothing except a very small delay. It is slightly more difficult to deport without using the AEA.
John Say,
“ If you are not in the US legally the due process you are entitled to is pretty simple,
a hearing at which the only uestion is “are you in the US legally ?”
You’re wrong here. That’s not what due proccess is. Your oversimplification of the process is much more ivovled than that.
It doesn’t invovlve “just one question” It also depends on what the government accuses you of. The right to challenge that accusation is.
Trump is denying those immigrants any chance to contest the government’s claims of all of them being MS-13 gang members or terrorists. It’s the government’s burden to prove it, not just claim it.
Trump has been playing games with court orders and the full story is that Trump is moving immigrants out of districts where there are court orders to halt deportations. The Supreme court got wind of Trump’s scheme and issued a more direct order to stop the deportations because Trump still has not given immigrants the due process right they are entitled.
“ My guess is that the conservatives that stalled on allowing Trump to continue using the AEA punted.
The decision accomplished nothing except a very small delay. It is slightly more difficult to deport without using the AEA.”
The conservatives didn’t punt the decision. They agreed to hear the case on the merits and clarify that using the AEA is illlegal. We have not decalred war on Venezuela and gang members are not military invaders from that nation. Trump’s goal is to bypass as many laws and rules to deport as many as he can before the courts can shut him down. The Supreme court noticed this and is now acting on it.
Furthermore, Alito’s ‘late dissent’ is riddled with legal garbage trying to justify the court’s very legal and proper actions in this case.
Honey, suspicion is sufficient if the person is without passport and visa. It’s a simple deport.
Asylum isn’t a lifestyle. It ends when it ends.
The mistake was in surge.. it’s a shame.
This is why Real ID is a step forward. It makes it possible to prove immediately that you are entitled to be here. Judgments based on appearance and accent are crude and inaccurate by comparison.
Under the Immigrant Responsibility Act passed under “W”, the law provides for “expedited removal” of Mexican illegals who are caught with 100 miles of the border. No hearing required. Fingerprinting / photo, and removal.
Dennis,
This is a fight that Trump is ecstatic to have.
SCOTUS made both a legal and political mistake this weekend.
We are now seeing idiot article III judges pretending that there is such a thing as a habeaus class action – which there is not.
And demanding that TdA members being deported unfder the AEA get MORE due process than people being deported under the INA have ever been legally entitled to.
The INA provides that illegal aliens get a relatively limited scope hearing before an Aricle II Immigration judge, Which BTW even under the AEA every single person that ICE has arrested has received ALREADY.
If a person is found deportable under the INA – not the AEA they are untiled to an appeal to an Article II appeals board – that is the NEXT step in “due process”. If the person being deported loses before the Article II apelate Board, then and only then can they appeal to Article III courts.
Please NOTE – they do NOT get a new hearing in front of Article II courts – something that Boasberg, Xinis, and a whole reft of left wing nut judges keep pretending. The Article III court’s jurisdiction is limited to whether the AEA or INA has been violated in the effort to deport these people. There is not and never has been a right to a from scratch new hearing.
I would note this is NOT unusual. This is much the same process you face if you are accused of non-criminal tax fraud by the IRS.
The matter is handled by Article II Tax courts and any appeal is limited to whether the Article II tax courts properly followed the law.
If you are charged with CRIMINAL Tax Fraud – that requires a trial and criminal rather than civil due process before an Article III court.
Other interesting things have come up as the history of the AEA has been reviewed.
Congress passed the AEA specifically because of concerns about a “predatory incursion” – by people in Quebec, essentially attempting to annex parts of the US by occupying it. At the time Quebec was part of France, and France was NOT at war with the US, nor was their any danger of War with the US.
So this idiotic claim that the AEA only applies when there is a declared war is false based on the explicit basis for which the AEA was originally written.
We are now having idiot left wing nut judges ordering that ICE can not detain a TdA member under the AEA and transport them to an ICE detention fascility outside the state – as if there is infinite ICE detention fascilities in every state in the country.
I would note this is a an apriori ruling and their for presumptively illegal and unconstitutional.
I would further note that ICE can arrest illegal aliens under the INA, remove them to whatever detention center is convenient and deport them from there. This has been the operation fo the law for possibly 140 years, certainly through my lifetime.
But suddenly nut job left wing judges are pretending that deportation under the AEA is actually far harder than under the INA – though apartently this new idiotic court orders apply to anyone arrested as an alleged TdA member – and possibly anyone arrested by ICE within these states.
We also have new left wing nut idiocy in the case that resulted in the SCOTUS stay that will likely result in sanctions against the ACLU lawyers.
The judge in that case Refused to rule immediately on a Stay request by the ACLU.
An ACLU attorney called the Judges chamabers, adn left a voicemail demanding an immediate stay, and then 41minutes later – before the judge even received the voicemail went to the appeals court, who ruled against the ACLU which then went to SCOTUS.
So we have ACLU violating the rule of professional conduct – you can not communicate with a judge on any matter of substance without the other party being present, and a coicemail demand for a stay is the equivalent of filing a mortion with the court and demandind the court act on that motion without allowing the other party to see, know about or respond to the motion.
So the entire process going to the supreme court is tainted and could be thrown out.
I would further note that the SCOTUS stay is pending a decision by THIS judge, who is really pissed at the ACLU for going arround him and violating the rules of professional conduct . This is further problematic because the exparte actions taken by the ACLU here allow for DOJ to require the judge to recuse himself. That is unlikely to happen as this is a favorable court for the government.
Regardless, the judge has published the transcript of the entire voicemail.
I would expect that the Judge may be sanctioning the ACLU attorney AND DOJ may be seeking action before the TX bar against the attorney.
But this is interesting – because it appears that much the same process was used by the ACLU with Favorable judges in other jurisdictions.
It appears this is what has been done in Colorado, NY, MD, and DC.
In those cases we have Ex Parte TRO’s issued by favorable judges – that implicates BOTH the plantiff attorneys AND the judges in violations of cannons of ethics.
Eventually these case will get to the supreme court for real. And left wing nuts are building an abysmally bad record.
Judge Xinis is demanding DOJ’s proof that Garcia is an MS13 member. She has been provided with the Finding of the IF article II court and the IJ appeals board, as well as the expiration of Garcia’s right to appeal.
The finding that Garcia is an MS13 member is FINAL, it is NO LONGER reviewable by Xinis, yet she is demanding more – as if he the right to toss out final decisions of other courts after those decisions have become final and all appeals have been exhausted.
Some people are homosexuals. Most people are not. Many people consider homosexual conduct immoral. Many nations consider homosexual normalization to be a threat to public decency and order.
The entire leadership of “the west” such as that is now, is evidently pro-gay. So much that some mock the “Global American Empire” calling it the GAE. And indeed revelations about USAID funding gay-themes all over the third world seem to confirm the joke.
As a native born white American, I reject persecution of homosexuals. I believe they should be free to pursue their decadent activities in private with each other after adulthood. That’s as liberal as I can get on this. I was also a supporter of the DOMA. As were Clinton and Obama. Most people I have ever known were tolerant of homosexuals but did not consider it as preferable. I have known a few homosexuals who were pretty conservative and kept it mostly to themselves, out of good taste and respect for their neighbors.
So what happened? How did the “west” get so pro-gay? My hypothesis is that the big money (western plutocracy) wanted to use the gay card to oppress the people to divide the workers, to generate social chaos. And oh how it has!
I observe that Taiwan has legalized gay marriage and the evil commies in Red China have not. Maybe the evil commies aren’t so evil? Maybe we are the baddies? Maybe our own bogus intellectual, deep-state leadership would burn down the society we live in just so they can stay fat rich and safe? The revolt against them has only just begun. In the end it won’t matter what the SCOTUS says, they will say what organized muscle tells them to say. We all know deep down these questions will be resolved as all political contests are in the end.
Sal Sar
There was also a time when Americans would consider a book including black characters as indecent.
The question is: Were white American’s fears of black people rational? History has shown them to have been irrational, fueled by guilt over enslavement. Those fears have largely been laid to rest.
That said, there are very rational reasons why heterosexual married couples are the preferred adult lifestyle for raising children. It’s a self-repeating kinship system necessary for continuation of a civilization. It’s not optional, and to say it is invites extinction.
I would bet a lot of school administrators and teachers like to teach LGBTQ classes becasue there is no testing required to see if kids retain this information…unlike say a math, science or history class.
The Supreme Court orders that you give your country to the slaves and orders that it be invaded by Mexicans.
Now you must bow down to homosexuals and the entire spectrum of perversions and freaks of nature.
Of course, the Constitution confers greater status on all but actual normal Americans.
true
Why?
What are you even talking about
See, this is why you can’t joke around kleptomanic idiots.
They take everything literally.
Most of what constitutes the lgbtqxyz narrative is made up garbage, complete with totally ridiculous academic articles to back it up. when kids are old enough teach them reproductive biology. Keep the social engineering out entirely.
PS – I am not at all religious, more of a 17th c rationalist
What academic articles are you even talking about here? And what is your opinion on when kids are old enough to teach them about reproductive biology?
Some breaking news:
– Venezuela thanks US Supreme Court for keeping dangerous criminals out of their country
– For the first time, Supreme Court has 5 female justices (Barrett, Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan, and Roberts)
– Democrats begin chugging artificial food dyes to protest RFK, Jr.
– Cardinals to consider electing a pope who’s actually Catholic this time
– People who bypassed legal process in migrating to USA demand legal process before being kicked out
– Dalai Lama quietly cancels scheduled meeting with JD Vance
– Christianity Today publishes op-ed: “Jesus may not have existed and the Bible is a lie and God is dead”
– Harvard awards honorary degree to man who firebombed Governor Shapiro’s house
– Ilhan Omar withdraws support for East Palestine after learning it’s in America
– Guinness World Records monitoring Cuomo and Whitmer for most seniors killed
– Dylan Mulvaney now blackmailing corporations by threatening to endorse their products
Finally, apropos of today’s topic, there’s this:
– MS-13 Added To LGBTQ Acronym
U.S. — In yet another step toward the advancement of protections for all people groups, activists announced today that MS-13 had officially been added to the LGBTQ+ acronym to ensure that the rights of violent foreign gang members were recognized. Civil rights groups hailed the announcement as a significant step forward in the ongoing crusade to see MS-13 gang members be given their rightful place in society among other persecuted groups after decades of mistreatment and ostracism. “MS-13 gang members are some of the most oppressed and vulnerable in our society,” said LGBTQMS-13 activist Cherise Hargrave. “For far too long, we have been forced to watch brave MS-13 gang members get shunned and shamed, with people demanding that they hide who they truly are. No more! It’s time for MS-13 members to be celebrated for their valuable and important contributions to our world.”
The rest of the story is here:
https://babylonbee.com/news/ms-13-added-to-lgbtq-acronym
LGBTQ++ education lought to come when students are rather older.
I suggest starting basic biology in 6th grade.
How about leaving it to the discretion of the parents, concerning when they want their kids to be exposed, and with what materials? The government has no business being involved in it at all, which is true of all types of social engineering.
Yes.
so, parents can opt out of a social studies discussion on George Washington?
can parents opt out when a Muslim student talks about their historical traditions and mentions Muhammed?
where does it stop? as one Justice mentioned today, you could have parents opting out of nearly everything in a social studies or history class.
I’m sorry, but I may have misunderstood. Are you suggesting that these are bad things, and are listing them as OBVIOUS bad things? While I don’t think that reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate legal or logical argument, neither is listing areas of NATURAL parental rights and responsibilities as bad things at all persuasive. That is unless, of course, you are a Marxist socialist who believes that all people belong to the state and all individual efforts must be subservient to the almighty collective. In other words, unless you are a Democrat.
Rob seems to start from the premise that the government has natural God-given rights, and parents – who pay the real estate taxes that fund the public schools – should be grateful for any little scraps of freedom that the government chooses, in its largesse, to bestow upon its subjects. I say F–K that.
Hey don’t be so hard on Marxist socialists. Did you know the Communist leadership in China refuses to legalize gay marriage, even though the decadent lapdogs of American liberalism in Taiwan have legalized it? Labels can be deceiving. Don’t be sucked into this mess too deeply.
Sal Sar
“So, parents can opt out of a social studies discussion on George Washington? can parents opt out when a Muslim student talks about their historical traditions and mentions Muhammed?”
Any group that hopes to survive must pass down its history and rituals. These bind people through shared memory and meaning. Rituals keep history alive and values intact.
Without history, identity fades. Without ritual, the group dissolves, often under outside pressure.
Rob, do you see now why American schools must teach about George Washington? Teaching about Muhammad might be worthwhile, but it’s not essential.
Kansas Elder, in my opinion it ought to be part of senior high school health class along with so-called sex education. And no, students cannot opt out, even with a ‘notre from their parents’.
David, public education exists primarily to unite a people, to equip them with the knowledge to be productive, and to help them remain law-abiding. (see my comment above)
S. Meyer, yes, the senior high school health class helps to “equip them with the knowledge to be productive”; which includes avoiding drugs and causing/getting knocked up. Also STDs so something about LGBTQ++ is to be included.
S. Meyer
This Benson guy is clearly not “engaging” with you.
I suggest you dismiss him with one of your usual snotty, condescending, supercilious responses.
You’re using bigger words. You must have bought a thesaurus. Now to have better ideas, you’ll need to purchase a Thinkosaurus.”
Oh come now !!!
You can do much better insults than that.
Why don’t you try again????
I think there was a power failure! I said Thinkosaurus, not Obliviousaurus.”
David, I gave you the purpose behind the actions of offering public education to children. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.
There are many things I want to be taught to those who wish to listen. Based on what we have today, a voucher system so each parent can choose the education they believe their child should have would satisfy most needs. That would lead to competition and an improvement in the public school system.
S. Meyer
Definitely a dismissive comment, but not even close to your usual standard of snottiness and condescension.
Try again.
I know you can do better.
What type of nonsense are you purveying?
S. Meyer — Not if the so-called education leaves out basic civic virtues, teaching only obedience to church elders. Not if it leaves out health eduction as previously mentioned.
Not to mention reading, writing and mathematics…
S. Meyer
This Benson guy is most definitely not “engaging” with you.
You really must respond appropriately with a more dismissive tone and much more condescension.
LGBTQMS-13 begins at age 9? Docs give HPV Vax at 9.
Tragic
#. No one really understands school funding. Yes, give your child an education of choice at 150 dollars per month.
That’ll pay the cost of transportation for fuel and your car.
What type of nonsense are you purveying?
David, if you’re interested, I refer you to New York City, where charter schools made tremendous advances—far beyond what most people expected. They took the same standardized tests as the public schools. Look up Thomas Sowell and charter schools; there’s also an interview on Uncommon Knowledge
70-75 years ago, my father gave me all the education anyone needs on this subject:
“For some unknown reason, a few men want to dress up as women. They probably have (he used the 1950s term for PTSD).”
I take it your father worked with his hands?
This seems like an 80-20 or 90-10 issue to me. This issue cuts across racial, social, and religious lines. What I find troubling is that the lower courts ruled against the parents. Increasingly we find that the judiciaries rulings are at odds with the vast majority of what the public views as a fundamental right. The judicial branch has a credibility problem already. This case just contributes to the growing distrust of the application of the rule of law.
The government has a vested interest in preparing it’s next generation for success. As population grows, our isolated communities collide, and preparing students to recognize their neighbors as fellow Americans will be critical for success as a nation in this increasingly competitive world.
It’s not even a political side issue. its “Parents who want what’s best for kids” vs “childless people who want to vicariously pass on their mental illness (i.e. convert) the children of those parents.” In that, any rational sane person should squarely mark this as a 99. 9-0.1 issue
Professor Turley,
You fail to actually delve into any specifics of this case. The Supreme Court has never before held that mere exposure to material to which parents have a religious objection is the kind of COERCION needed to establish a claim under the free exercise clause.
There is a reason Petitioners will focus on Yoder even though it was about required schooling rather than the content taught at school. This is an enormous – an in my opinion – insurmountable difference.
If parents can object to this age appropriate material, it will be impossible to offer truly “neutral” content. If a book where a man has a boyfriend doesn’t belong, then neither does a book where a man has a girlfriend.
When I taught early elementary school, all of the suggested materials included antiquated notions of acceptable family units. The man was always a doctor, the woman was the nurse. My female students didn’t think women could be doctors. I view offering a book which normalizes this content as no different from that.
Furthermore, there are plenty of religious beliefs, like Jehovah’s witnesses (and I had a student of this religious persuasion in my class) that don’t believe in modern medicine. What is to stop that parent from opting her out of all books involving birthdays and medical care?
If a book where a man has a boyfriend doesn’t belong, then neither does a book where a man has a girlfriend.
This is the kind of statement that is so stupid, only an academic could believe it.
It’s a girlfriend not a wife.
When I taught early elementary school, . . . the man was always a doctor, the woman was the nurse.
By the time I went to law school in the early 1990s, things had already changed drastically from that. In the hypotheticals given in text books and judicial opinions, all workers including auto mechanics and lumberjacks were female. Except secretaries and nurses — they were always male. One got the impression that these legal scholars were virtue-signaling in the most annoying way possible . . . or else they lived on a different planet.
That wasn’t the reality in rural North Carolina, where I taught in 2012. When I asked a female student in Second Grade what she wanted to be when she grew up, she said a nurse. I asked, “Why?’ She said, “Because I want to help people, and girls who help people are nurses.”
She did not know that girls could become doctors and that was not that long ago.
This is the reality for lots of kids in underserved areas. Not everyone has the access to the resources you have. The idea that you could reference “JUDICIAL OPINIONS” in the context of an anecdote related to Second Grade kind of shows how supremely out of your element this discussion is for you. For those without access to the resources you have, their only access to learning is through public education.
I dare you to find a McGraw Hill (or insert other large company) Second Grade textbook from 1993, where “all the secretaries and nurses” are female.
I referenced judicial opinions as one example, among others. I have raised five kids, two of whom are still in public schools. I am familiar with their homework assignments. So your sarcasm and mischaracterizations of what I said are not appreciated.
She did not know that girls could become doctors and that was not that long ago.
It is acceptable to simply tell her, “Girls can become doctors, in fact there are many woman doctors.” There, problem solved. If she wants to be nurse, more power to her, that is a very noble and well-respected profession. I don’t see why any of this justifies sexually grooming little kids.
#. The good ol days. Today she’s a black lesbian with two children married to her wife, she’s also a wife and an astronaut. She fights for transgenders, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestiality, euthanasia and abortion as sacred charities and donates yearly. She proudly belongs to the church of Satan. She has given directions for her body to be hacked into oieces and strewn on the prairie for the wolves and vultures. It’s her way of giving back to all life.
What a grotesque picture to imagine, a male nurse or secretary. We must shield children from such pornographic ideas. Those are subservient roles and it is a female’s place to be second in command to any male present.
What a silly, airheaded reaction to the ridiculous situation I described.
This is about more than “exposure.” It is about more than instilling civility or respect. It is about allowing parents to opt their children out of factually incorrect and potentially damaging indoctrination. The books present as facts things that simply aren’t: that doctors “guess” a baby’s “gender” at birth and assign that until the child grows up and makes up his or her own mind; or that boys can become girls. Barrett raised these and other points at oral argument. They interfere with basic truths let alone religious beliefs. The lesson the School Board wants to teach is that these things are true, not that some people think them and they must be treated civilly and with respect even if they are wrong in your view.
The petitioners are not saying that the Board must change its curriculum. They are saying only that they must restore the opt out that used to be available, and is still available for several other things.
The way it sounded to me, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are likely to side with the petitioners. It’s possible that Roberts will too , though he may weasel again and leave things with the Board.
What is “factually incorrect” about households with two dads?
If it helps, distinguishing fact from fiction is also a Second Grade skill. Should we review?
Where did I say anything about households with two dads?
You didn’t. The anonymous troll is making stuff up.
Sex is known at birth, gender is not. That is also a fact. Again, this is why this exposure is necessary.
Sex is known at birth, gender is not.
Only in the sense that there is no way to know at birth whether the person will have a mental disorder, or delusional thinking.
That’s true, but doctor’s do not guess “gender” at birth. They observe the baby’s sex and record it.
Exactly.
Nothing to do with “gender.” So what is being taught is simply false.
I think the person meant that “gender” is different from biological sex. And you’re right that at birth doctors observe and record biological sex, and at that juncture they don’t care about any such concept as gender. If what the person says is true, then certain kinds of doctors – psychiatrists – care about “gender” when the person is older, at least to the extent the patient “feels like” a different sex than they actually are, i.e., suffers from gender dysphoria.
I agree with that. I was quoting from a book for children. It says at birth the doctor guesses the gender and assigns it to the baby. This is false.
The baby may grow up to experience gender dysphoria or incongruence. A psychologist may diagnose that. It has nothing to do with what a doctor at birth does.
So the children’s book chosen by educators is teaching falsehood.
Addressing the actual merits of this case and presuming we are going to continue to have public schools.
Then the right answer for SCOTUS is NOT that parents can have their kids opt out,
But they schools can not teach this dross without the support of the parents.
The transformation of society is NOT a legitimate govenrment purpose.
I do not see teaching the 3R’s as a legitimate govenrment purpose.
Regardless for the pat 60 years the left has been making changes to our education – going far beyond the 3Rs.
If those changes had actually had any societal benefit – their might be an argument for this LGBTQ+ curriculum.
But even basic sex education has failed to accomplish any of the purposes that were offered for incorporating that into public education. Post the introduction of sex education there has been no benefit with respect to teen sexuality.
We have as much venereal disease as ever, as many teen pregnancies, as many sing parent families.
In fact by every measure education is worse and more expensive as a result of the progressive incursion into education.
The “fight” over should parents be able to opt out, is the wrong issue.
The correct issue is should public schools teach this at all ?
What is the EVIDENCE that any of the progressive changes to public education have had ANY societally beneficial effects ?
If government wishes to abrogate the rights of parents or other private individuals it MUST demonstrate many things.
But CORE to all of what govenrment must prove to infringe on a private right, is that the purpose government seeks to accomplish will actually be accomplished.
We have not seen that to be true in a SINGLE progressive change to education – even changes that sounded or sound imminently reasonable.
It is not predjudiced to say “You will not waste my childrens time teaching an agenda that shows no evidence at all of accomplishing anything worthwhile”.
I do not care what you are teaching – if you fail to produce a clearly measurable benefit, you are NOT free to do so by FORCE.
We can prove the benefit or teaching kids, Reading. Writing and Arithmetic.
Teaching them about sex – even the fundimentals of normal heterosexual sex has resulted in ZERO measureable benefit.
So NO you can not teach some ideology to all kids in school that you can not show any measureable value to teaching.
Our kids graduate with poorer overal ability to read, write and do math than ever before.
Get the fundimentals of education right, before you add ideology with no proveable benefit.
Should a parent who is a Jehovah’s witness be able to opt out of all books about holidays? About any book that involves medicine or health care?
ATS
Yes.
I would note that a Gay group has filed an Amicus brief in this case asserting that parents should NOT have to assert a religious objection to allow their children to opt out of this nonsense. That even though this case was filed by Mulsim parents and joined by Christians, and Jews, and others, that even athiests and non-sectarians should have the right to opt their kids out of indoctrination by schools.
I would further note that while your “holiday” example is prett close to on point – and yes, parents shoudl be able to opt their kids out of material related to holdiays if that is what they wish.
Your counter regarding medicine is NOT on point – medicine and health care are more of a complelling state interest than holdiays or non-reproductive sexuality.
At the same time YES, Jehohavahs witnesses should be able to opt their kids out of anything that the state wishes to force on their kids.
You seem to beleive that because YOU beleive something is correct, or good that you can force it on others, or worse still force it on the children of others.
That is FALSE – even if you were actually right, it is certaintly false if you are wrong.
While IN PRINCIPLE – Government has no legitimate role in education.
It is separately true IN PRACTICE – that All government expansion of curicula – whether it be heterosexual sex education or whatever other nonsense those of you on the left have concocted, have FAILED. Sex Education has not merely failed to deliver the benefits is claimed 60 years ago, it has made those problems worse. The other nonsense you have forced on our schools has made or schools cost more than twice as much – adjusted for inflation – and more like 6-8 times as much without adjusting, while at the same time delivering students less able to read, write or do basic math than ever before.
John Say is a classic liberal. Aka a liberterian. I used to be one. Now I’m not. I am a lot more realistic.
Accordingly, I adhere to Plato’s philosophy on politics as it is elucidated in “The Republic.” Which is about, inter alia, education. We must educate properly to lead people to the habits of the mind that support truth and justice.
Ergo, we must teach norms of morality and social ethics in public schools. They are the foundation of public order. The liberal-liberterian notion of tolerance fails in the presence of too much “diversity.” As we can see, lacking sufficient cultural unity, we become ever more disparate and disunified, and fail to inculcate ethics. Having failed we surrender the youth to the leadership of sexually confused individuals who are the subject of all this disruption.
Someone must rule. It will be them– the current corrupt plutocrats who backed the senile Biden; and even some of those who did not for their own reasons; or the people. We must win. They are enslaving us. And make no mistake the unelected, lifetime federal judicial tyrants are the cornerstone of the “Deep State” protections against democracy envisioned by the very Founders we sometimes revere too much.
Sal Sar.
Plato is the philosophical pinacle of his era. That era was about 2500 years ago.
Without diminishing Plato – we have come a long way since.
Augistine followed plato by 800years, Aquinus 400 years later, myriads of other advances in philosophy have occured between and since.
DeCarte, Spinoza, Kant Kierkegard, Buber, Bonhoeffer, Franklin, Locke, Smith and the rest of the scottish enlightenment.
Relying on Plato today is like relying on J. J. Becher and phlogiston theory in physics rather than Bohr or Einstein.
I too can be quite realistic. The FACT is the only system of education that will not inevitably create enormous conflicts between individual rights and govenrment powers is completely private an unregulated education where parents pay for or provide the education of their kids.
Inarguably that will work the best and result in the least infringments on individual rights. It will also inevitably prove the least costly.
That is what Free markets ALWAYS do – deliver the greatest value at the lowers cost – I would suggest reviewing Coases law developed in the late 1950’s
But that is NOT a battle that I am going to win. People are too timid and to bound to a modern status quo that has failed over and over.
The next best option – still a bad one, but far better than what we have – and an option that we are making strides towards as conservatives have adopted it, is government funded private education – that is what alot of europe has.
I would note that in Plato’s time and for much of history after – the overwhelming majority of people did NOT recieve an education.
For most of human existance – education has been a luxury good available only to the elites.
Like all other luxury goods that eventually became universal it was the free market driven rise in standard of living that has allowed what had been luxuries for nearly all of human existance to be norms for even the poorest of people throughout the world.
With respect to your claims about teaching norms and morality and social ethics – how exactly is it that society existed – even in Plato’s time when only the elites had the benefit of that education.
Amazingly – with or without education most of us understand the fundimentals of morality and the norms of our society by the time we ar teens often early and are expected to conform fully by the time we are adults – everywhere in the world at every time in history regardless of education.
We are better at the foundations of public order today that 2500 years ago. Maybe Plato plays a part in that. Though frankly I think Locke and the scottish enlightenment are more important.
The existance of large “multicultural” diverse societies REQUIRES the limited government individual rights approach that classical liberals brought us.
One of the factors driving the failure of greece is that classical greek ideas and greek governance and greek society were unable to scale.
While the US is based on myriads of scotish enlightenment classical liberal principles, the structure of our government borrows heavily from republican rome – because that scaled far better, and because it was compatible with the scottish enlightenment value of individual liberty.
You are correct that diversity – religious, racial, and every other form is dependent on the classical liberal values of limited govenrment and individual liberty.
While the greek model failed. It is absolutely true that you can have a cohesive govenrment with limited liberty that is also efficient
If and only if you have a mono culture – The pre-EU european nations managed to not be destroyed by socialism light during the mid 20th century primarily because on an individual nation basis they are monoculture – 98% of the people in must european countries were of the same race, religion even the same ethnic tribe. That means WITHOUT massive education and/or massive authoritarian government conformance to norms could be acheive – but only so long as you had a near monoculture.
Conversely the anglosphere – first England, then Canada, the US, AU, and NZ have never been a monoculture and have actively grown away from monoculture.
I would further note the anglosphere – and particularly the US – with the relatively speaking – atleast int he past lightest wieght govenrment greatest value of individual liberty and the greatest diversity have outperformed the rest of the world
With all respect to Plato – it is the philosophy of the west that has brought about the highest standard of living in history, and it is the scottish enlightenment – classical liberal philosphy that has produced the pinacle of western standard of living.
Diversity comes with problems. But history teaches us the benefits outwieght the problems.
Classical liberalism is NOT Utopian – Marxism and socialism are Utopian – to an extent classical Greek philosophy is Utopian.
But there is no doubt that classical liberalism and a diverse nation outperform anything else.
But there is a difference between the diversity that has synergy with classical liberalism, and the postmodern marxist progressive nonsense of the modern left.
The modern left does not allow for the freedom of ideas, cultures values that produces high standards of living and light weight government.
The modern lefts idea of diversity REQUIRES authoritarian govenrment – which is exactly what this case is all about.
It is NOT about the free competition of values, ideas and cultures, but the FORCED imposition of them.
Aside fromt he philosophical aspects – that is INEFFICIENT.
We must never forget that Government is FORCE and govenrment is a COST. The bigger government is the more it costs and the exponentially greater the benefits it must deliver to break even.
Socialism and all other forms of statism ultimately fail – because they cost more than they can possibly deliver in value,
so the standard of living will always be lower than a freer society.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Adam Smith
Some Government is necescary but not that much.
Adam Smith worked that out – his quote above is NOT a theory – it is a summery of the historical data that he reviewed.
Plato was the pinnacle of his time, he is one of the giants whose shoulders modern success rests. He is a foundation – he is NOT the house.