BREAKING: Senate Votes to Repeal Federal Vaccine Mandate for Businesses

US votes to repeal private businesses born now you call one 800 68311 secular.

We are to hear from you as well. What hundred 684 31 two that's what hundred 683110 yesterday evening, the U.S. Senate not remember this U.S. Senate that is 50-50 right now but is controlled by the Democrats because of all Harris could be the tie-breaking vote as President of the Senate, which is one of your jobs as vice President so they are technically the majority of the way it's been set up at this the specific measure which was an emergency measure that you're able to utilize the say that you can bypass the 60 vote threshold to take a vote on a resolution and the resolution was to disapprove of President binds up the private employer mandate. The 100 employees or more mandate. The mandate we filed a lawsuit against representing the heritage foundation and at this past by the Senate so gives the by administration 52 to 48 center mansion considered tester were the two Democrats who joined all Republicans in voting against the private mandate all the Band-Aids have had significant issues in court the mandates involving federal employees that work for Medicaid services Medicare services CMS employees are that's been held up as a different different argument that has to be made because they are federal contractors but they're losing a court in the. The business mandate as well. We just filed earlier this week we have got to her this week on the air. A petition on behalf of heritage foundation.

This is now or in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals up opposing the deep department of justice motion to remove the stay on the mandate so I they are inundated the Biden DOJ trying and lucid. This mandate in their losing everywhere across the cut yet and are losing not just on the major issues, but their lender.

All major issues of sleep, but the losing of what I would call the sub issues you got federal contractor mandate. Yet the private workplace, employer mandates and is not just in one court.

It's been a whole series of course now it's interesting here is that jurisdiction now is been any consolidated everything into US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ultimately, I think the ghost of the Supreme Court, but everything is now the Sixth Circuit, although there's some fighting about trying to move it out with that with the order that came down yes Sixth Circuit and in the sense is good for people who are on the conservative minded side and includes states that are largely conservative. I think Kentucky and Tennessee are in the Sixth Circuit believe and there is an effort. Of course being made to move that up. Nothing is but instead of it is you say J ultimately this is a matter that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Question about is no doubt about not enough and tells a little bit about what happened in Washington last night was last night actually was a strong indication that the manager also losing in the court of public opinion because I will tell you when these resolutions of disapproval come up there so that their resolution jaded the Congressional review act authorizes in the Senate can take a vote to reject the rule dispatched by the administration, but look a senator never get a vote against his or her own President on these things. I mean almost never does it even if it's a policy they disagree with because they want to show deference to the to the President of their party. So J the fact that Sen. tester and Sen. mansion voted with all 50 Republicans to reject this mandate and pass this resolution of disapproval shows just how displeased I think the American people are with the mandate jails are quickly say this, the measure does now moved to the house but Speaker Pelosi does not have to call this measure up.

Unless unless a handful of Democrats in her caucus signs the discharge petition and make her do it. Look after these two senators voted in favor the resolution date. Maybe that could happen yet another major school choice case at the US Supreme Court said this exit involving these states to open up choice but to try to prohibit religious schools for being involved because of certain argument stated made it into. We come back break as well give us a call was Smith made a fair question about school choice case, one 800 684 31 two that's what hundred 684314 Terrace.

Our work@aclj.org double the impact your donations of natural talent. This final month of the year ACLJ.org building today.

The two will be right back. The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ.

The work we simply would not occur without your generous support to Courtney and her matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family.

You forgive today online ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. 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, defendant 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 will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to as many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right question free copy of mission life today online ACL data/secular to just set the stage got this made about by the U.S. Senate because instead explain.net explained again but but the idea that you had to Democrats crossover in a resolution like this unique way that where they're able to pass these resolutions would resolution of disapproval and they don't it doesn't it's not subject to the filibuster seat up to get the 60 vote threshold so I passed it so this is again but the city did with it was say we don't support what you're doing.

A present by that we disagree with your with your power grab here on try to enforce said this was specifically of the same mandate that we file the lawsuit gets with the heritage foundation as our client, the employer mandate the hundred or more employers that mandate again this week at the DOJ tried to file Teva stay lifted. We filed a motion opposition to that our case the bid that was a DC that's in the six circuit Court of Appeals upholds that my hands right as that was filed just a couple days ago was having got it to it on air, but that ties together with the stated vote out what what you see is the crossover of even to Democrats that explained that because it's a resolution like this. It usually even if they believed it, they wouldn't say the President was acting out of the power did have the power was that wrong. They were going to disapprove if it was a policy decision, but to date it was assess interventional West Virginia Sen. tester of Montana. This is sitter broad of Indiana.

He was the sponsor of this vote take Alyssa by 22 federal government has no authority to make anyone choose between getting a vaccine and keeping their job, then this is a question that's come up with a lot of these different mandates come up with the mandates with the CMS employees federal contractors this idea that that the choose a good job of choosing this the putting the burden of the employer's as our case that we can. We have an issue with that case and our case because they burden on employers but I want you to forget because just the importance of getting those two Democrats to crossover enjoying all Republicans in this resolution disapproval is a big deal. Jordan almost never happens in it. Specifically, never happens when Democrats are in power, and here's why many Congressional review act authorizes both chambers of Congress, but the Senate has a fast-track procedure to do this it authorizes Congress to take a vote to pass a resolution of disapproval actually overturn a rule passed by the executive branch typically Jordan senators will vote to support the President of their party making act, even if they're gonna try to convince the President to change his mind on the policy or they can try to pass legislation overturning the Jordan we think about this ideologically, it is it especially rare for Democrat senators who actually believe that much of this power should be delegated to the executive branch and they want their President to have expansive power in these in these areas is very rare for them to come to the floor and vote for a resolution under the Congressional review act, but two senators felt so strongly about this indoor not to tell you is a direct result of them hearing from constituents. That's where the pressure point is coming from on this. That's why John tester and Joe mansion voted with Republicans to overturn it and send this resolution a disapproval to the house. We'll see what happens there but Jordan at a bare minimum, I think it is a very strong sign of where the public sentiment is on this and it's very interesting because vaccine rates are going up and the same without the government mandating this mandate is not been held constitutional in any court is not in a court heard this with them is baffling. There's not been a court with discipline held constitutional. I think that's precisely correct and I think the Senate resolution reflects public opinion and increasingly the body of legal opinion. It's also interesting to note that Gov. Gretchen Witmer, a Democrat in Michigan has expressed sympathy toward businesses. Now she may be simply occurring favor with business because she faces a tough reelection campaign in 2022. But again, that reflects the power of public opinion, and so while many individuals believe in the efficacy of the vaccine. They do not believe in mandating it, and there are clear and unmistakable constitutional, statutory, and political questions concerning the viability of the Biden administration's approach, and I think the Biden administration's approach with respect to the vaccine will prove long term to be another Biden failure to be this idea that that you got this opposition. Building a you got your groups like the heritage foundation, perfect ACLJ filing businesses, filing altogether, these whether it's organs you so be it from different walks like different politics, different beggars are safe in this is tough.

This is impossible for us to comply with this, but since unique position where we might be our wood within subject to HIPAA rules because were dealing with people's health information, said the insurance company that the employer proposes to deal with that because you have to you have to under this rule. This is what is the certainty of the rulemaking under this really have to have somebody your office for anybody's nonvaccinated weekly. They were just regular that they don't forgive the tests we have monitored gift of monetary gift to write it down at least tested okay.

But that hope has been 100% of the testator. The ones if you go to the doctors or a hospital tester, but okay. It just brings apologists a let's say what the person monitoring the test. The person took the test. It do it the right way that a lawsuit to get the business that we that opens up outside in the private business that was potential liability and that is where the issues it with here is the this is why you do these things at the local level you deal with businesses that are your localities right and you know again you know who's in your community and how they can operate and we've seen that already have companies already doing this really started to get advice we would look at me with no one mandated that we had a put in a costly filtering system throughout our offices and studios. We did it because we want to protect our employees are staff our colleagues and it was better for everybody so that we needed a government mandate to say you're in a studio would probably be good idea to have filtering systems to keep the air moving we did it because it was the right thing to do when mandated to do it now. Some people are making act.

Not a great decision frankly but that's up to them, but doubt were making good decisions. The question here is, they have not yet Harry from a policy standpoint. This policy when OSHA said. In fact, we can't do this, they said we were not capable of doing this, we don't have the authority to do what we know that the Met. We can't do this but the mine administration use that entity anyways and then they kinda doubling down on this policy and then you had a course a situation with just yesterday with the Senate, immunity to me it seems like everything stacked against him. So we've seen a cask dating series of events, both in the Senate and in the courts, suggesting that the Biden administration when it comes to this particular mandate is acting like an emperor without clothes.

So if you look for instance at the OSHA mandate Pres. Biden himself said he lack the authority to issue this command and then if you actually look at the statutory authority granted to OSHA.

The OSHA statutory authority focuses on work place, toxic, and health and safety issues, and so you cannot plausibly claim that COBIT 19 is primarily a workplace risk. Certainly it's a risk in the workplace, but it the risk does not generally come from the workplace and so OSHA is supposed to focus on improving workplace safety and basically the Biden administration is now stock with a number of court decisions from the Fifth Circuit, then the Sixth Circuit has essentially upheld the Fifth Circuit was just another example of government overreach. We've had 11 months of out-of-control executive orders quickly that violate the Constitution and the way our government and the way our societies decide the rules by which we live are supposed to go through normally a legislative process and that's not happening. The Democratic Party themes, and those on the left. They love a large central government and government mandates.

Those on the right team to be a little suspicious of government. And that's really historically right on target.

Because our founders had a healthy suspicion of big government or Gabby. I think I get this is we've got a second briefing we filed this case initially was the petition that in this case, not just fall yes respond to days ago. We haven't talked about the area.

This is in opposition to the try to dissolve the states that this goes into effect in January and again that's for the battle, the, the courts of been reluctant to do that have not five courts.

I look at what New York try to do most of the incoming mayor is to dissolve that within four days because you give it the fact the five general either has never vaccine that the test doesn't work to go into anywhere which can't be so puts you in a tough situation. It is the ortho say like that you have a method that was exact words used but but you again were seeing this idea of these power grabs even in the localities in the Buddhist others if they go too far. Courts and the people are to say no that that is that is a bipartisan effort that the tritium attended to the states is the businesses only thyroid, art, syncope, Republican or Democrat told you it just doesn't feel American but I think what we did was that this is looking at the slope slogan this year, the pervasiveness and no more than ever. Just look at this with fans working with his team in DC on these resolutions with better teams here working in court were broadcasting this to you live around the country to give you informed and educated without website information up front and upon our social media platforms. All because you support the work of the ACL day when a matching challenge campaign ACLJ.Borg.

That's a sale only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and 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, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally pro-life and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were 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 Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online/American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous support in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you.

You forgive today online ACLJ case two of them made it back to the second after the broadcast business of education for supreme court involving school choice yet again after you been following us may think.

Why give this case after euros reported this was this handled the 2020 in the Espinoza case out of Montana, where the Supreme Court said you can't have this kind of a division and this this case now is out of date. That may made a very unique argument and Chief Justice Roberts immediately seized on it so that they would try to distinguish themselves from Montana State no problem giving buddy to your school. If you're a rookie of the church is that runs the school, but it can't have a sectarian curriculum you have to offer a nonsectarian curriculum that where this gets even more unique is that does that mean okay just don't have Bible class, but what about all the things that your worldview within have inputted everything that is very difficult for me a downside areas) school right meticulous is lighter question because it shows the hostility that still exist to religious groups. Initially, this was it resistance to Catholic schools way back in 1800 but but now you will lose this room that would limit it.

Maybe it's because narrative of schools in the rural area right people to attend you got have a choice elicit this lighter question because it shows the hostility still exist on nonreligious people. Chief Justice Roberts a bite six. Let's suppose you have two schools.

School is run by religion a and and that religion has a doctrine that they should provide service to their their neighbors. So the running set up and running the school, but there's nothing in there and their doctor about propagating the faith or whatever, so it does look just like school but it's owned by religion. Religion P also has a school finance doctrine requires adherence to educate children in the faith in the in the school is infused in every subject with their view with the faith, not with the first school get the funds yes okay with the second school no. That's because of the difference between the two religions right.

That's because they are there. There program is specifically instilling and promoting brightness to any other religion does not correct so you discriminating among religions based on their beliefs right now. I would not say that religious can have whatever belief they want, but if they want to take part in Maine's tuition program the education service that provide has to be the service that maintenance personnel in one religion says that's what they do with education and the other religion says no we use it to propagate the faith. So it is the beliefs of the two religions that determines whether or not there schools are going get the funds are not okay him and him having a flashback to 1992 Landon family versus center in the richest union preschool the same exact issue now here we are 20 years later, almost of the day and there are in the same issue and what is the issue. The issue is can you discriminate amongst religions. You can't discriminate against religion and non-religion. That's content-based discrimination here. As you said Jordan goes a step further that, here's what they're doing there saying we're going to deny access to funds. If your religion teaches proclaims evangelism where you say that's what is no discrimination between religious groups is also viewpoint discrimination violates the religion clauses violates the free speech clause is freedom of association. But this shows you that you join you, said the work, the hostility here any disarmament you remember what Justice Scalia said during Landon K's know he said it used to be thought that religious people and religious practices were good for the community. Apparently that's not the view of the government incentive richest union preschool district anymore is a house that working out. That's exactly pretty much paraphrase a little bit that's pretty much what Justice Klee said that's exactly the point that's exact that was 190.

I wish we had Justice Scalia back when I gonna win this case. 90701 and 63 on the is any question about the questioning was very tough what Chief Justice Roberts says is your discriminating among religions based upon their beliefs. That's what they're doing and he pointed to how one religion taught the same as a public school, but a different religion taught differently. The first would be able to participate in the program. The other would not so the beliefs of the two religions determines whether or not the schools to get the funds and just as rock.

Chief Justice Roberts said, and we have said that that is the most basic violation of the First Amendment religious clauses for the government to draw distinctions between religions based on their doctrines. You would think that by now in the year 2021, we would know that J and we would not have that as an argument, but the Biden administration right there supporting the male horse of course, and Justice Clarence Thomas torn I thought had the greatest line when he talked about homeschooling.

This is this is this is classic Clarence Thomas number 10 in Maine. Can a parent decide that they simply do not want to send their child to any school at all.

They could homeschool that now I Charlie zero education no no, there is compulsory attendance laws. He said he might acquire them to go to school and you in certain areas. You don't have schools available, that's correct.

So if you did you require them to go and you don't have schools available and you make provisions for them to comply with that compulsory law, then how could you say that going to a particular school is a subsidy population going to medical school. As you say you require them to go to schools to do something that you haven't provided for. But then you make a way for them to do that and you have now that you now say it is a benefit or subsidy, but it is you who required them to do it in certain places. You can provide them with the public school and other places you can, but they still have to comply with the law, yes you, but this court is made clear that states have a legitimate and interesting compulsory education laws but IME.

I understand that I'm not arguing with that you have required them to go required them to go and then you're saying you can't go to this particular school simply because of religion. Maine's large rural people to realize that there are 260 school districts in Maine out of those over half over half do not even have a high school and so they depended on private schools in a liquored up this morning there were 14 Roman Catholic high schools in Maine and there are 32 non-Catholic Christian high schools in Maine. These 46 schools sometimes are the only high school in the district and the other thing it is religious. You can go is crazy and is ironically found what what what you're saying.

Maine's position is, will not violate against religious schools as long as they're not religious, just at your front Justice Roberts again seven ways of this most basic kind of violation of the First Amendment take, but it bites them your discriminating among religions based on their beliefs right now.

I would not say that religious can have whatever belief they want, but if they want to take part in Maine's tuition program the education service that provide has to be the service that maintenance personnel in one religion says that's what they do with education and the other religion says no we use it to propagate the faith.

So it is the beliefs of the two religions that determines whether or not there schools are going get the funds are not an and we have said that that is the most basic violation of the First Amendment religion clauses for the government to draw distinctions between religions based on their doctrine is that we had a series import over decades, and on that exact point. Most 181 or unanimous establishment clause doesn't license religious people to practice and be treated as a person versus the American Republic. You can have half pathways is what they're saying here is that you can't open it up private schools able to receive this body ended in the same type statement that this religious book that religious your question event that may be to religious that's that's not religious enough that so what gets it and what doesn't in the government writing about Mexican-American the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate will be managed $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ keeping you informed anything now is Jordan secular school choice case, the Supreme Court, yes it was that it will reset to 42 the US it has voted a 5248 disapproval of present bribes, private business vaccine mandate that is the same mandate. The EC LJ has filed a lawsuit against representing the Heritage foundation. I would follow DC the court cases down the Sixth Circuit earlier this week, we filed the motion. It's odd because the government is trying to remove the stay is preventing this road to effective January for those employers and have 100 or more employees with unbelievably high fives and crippling fines for businesses puts it in really bizarre situation.

If that like so a task at your office or multiple people. If you are a bigger employer to be basically test watches and they would have to record these tested I give the level the liability of taking people's medical information and trusting a printed out card which receive issues with all over the world is that it's a piece of paper from a printer and to kill it. If it cannot carry with me wherever I go, but I mean that there is a lot of safety measure you what you would think they would have a a system that was a little bit more protective on. I like the idea that if you're vaccinating the ability to know if I've got to be getting a bath or something that's good to think be a better system than this, but I think Harriet go back to this.

They have nights of this and begin the program was late again like I'm in favor the vaccines have been clear on that. We think the science is good.

That's our position might my position and I've been fully vaccinated and thought I have been we have a filtering system insider office and extensive filtering system we put in when COBIT broke out when new filtering systems were developed. Why, because we wanted to protect her colleagues, but the government enough to tell us to do it in here the state government was doing it that the one thing but this is I don't even know if the federal government could do it that even the right agency but that's another question that only the federal government can do it.

I think that's probably correct and certainly if the Biden administration's Justice Department was not so concerned about potentially prosecuting of parents who appear at school board meetings and calling them domestic terrorists. I think the Biden administration Justice Department would have researched the law and given Pres. Biden the benefit of the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly bars. Much of what the Biden administration is trying to do in the Sibelius case. The Obama care case, the Supreme Court clearly and unmistakably side of that the federal government violates essentially the commerce clause by issuing a healthcare mandate and so now we have a similar situation here and yet the Biden administration's Justice Department apparently either hasn't gotten through to the President or doesn't know what it's doing. In addition, if you look at caselaw. The case law suggests that the police power belongs to the state, not the government that the state was doing absolutely and then on the on the legislative front went to the Senate as a resolution.

It's not. There's no way passes in the house, correct well it would take five members of the democrat caucus to actually for Speaker Pelosi to put it on the floor. I don't think that's gonna happen. J I'm not saying it's impossible to look directly think the significance of this is not the fact that there we go all the way enacted into law because I think Pres. Biden would veto it and I don't think there's a veto override. But the significance of the J is what you underscored a second ago is a clear sign to the administration and by the way to the courts considering this as well that this is not the way the American people want this issue handled. But even that even the leader of this resolution. J said essentially the same thing you did. He said I'm vaccinated. I think people should get vaccinated, but the federal government should not force them to do it this very practically J and what what is the worst way to convince someone who's on the fence to get a vaccine for the federal government to come to their doorstep and so you must get it.

That's just not going to work that would be very different was a state safest the policy issue is that the Legalist Policy Guidance Continue Ave. S., Chuck Schumer the for the civic partisans making it again. Keeping this is a partisan issue with instrument losses. This is lawyers placing this is too much. This is a business.

It's also been a weird relationship between the employer of the way.

The watcher over the test-taker to who's keeping these documents are your pharmacy yard where he got back the American Center for Law and just as were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those for their faith covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the EC LJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the EC LJ the work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online LJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the ministry. What Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership is powering the right question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow. We are to your phone calls 100 684 30 would say that Ed is coming from Nevada online. One with the Greek restaurant school choice. I cases was related to that again on the bronchus right now and welcome secular on the Michael about school, school, religious school, and you know the debate about what curriculum their teaching and so on and so forth. What happened there. School adopt the Bible as a textbook cause them to have a constitution adopted the other less. You may be adopted. All the other text is a textbook on the affirmation I think about this West is up as a priest you ran you at schools that were in your church is just absolutely can't control school so if you are in Maine providing that service to the government coming in tell you what to teach. Absolutely not in the other than a local school board.

You want the government telling even a public school what to teach as well. Interesting thing about this is that this bias against religion was almost unheard of in America until about the 1950s or so, and yet then it became a real issue, but in fact our nation was founded openly on some religious principles and the Constitution says we can't make a law, Congress can't to establish religion but on the other hand, they cannot make a law to deny the free exercise thereof either. And that that fine line that balance is what America is live by for 245 years and yet there are groups who would like to take that away. It's interesting because you got does a great line which will get to by Justice Alito limpet also. Justice Breyer had some two heaping kind of moderate on this I would say let's take a listen. I mean, it is discriminatory against religion.

I think the establishment clause problem or interest underlying it forever has been beware if the government gets too involved one people within the government favor some things in as opposed to others and that that will cause strife. I think it is discriminatory religion but is this no one said they inhabited right they could build public school. Leslie and I have money to do it right, then of the taxpayer. Maybe good, so it's cheaper for the state so offer these vouchers to people like rural areas or places like that don't even have a high school to go to art within how many miles so with our religious schools and like we withdrew their status Catholic schools is promising schools is by other religious schools and know what force made into the position we support school choice week. I'm glad you made his opening things. No one forced Maine to do the system now. There's actually a lot of rent a lot of red states still haven't adopted school choice you write it because it's a lot of that reason because the laws of their books are these laws the Supreme Court as it clearly and yet here so it was interesting to Justice Breyer's condominium more moderate on the religion clauses that and then some expected him to be. That was interesting the way he phrased it is discriminatory.

Yes, I think you raise a very very valid point, but I think in order to step set the stage properly.

It's important to look at what the state of Maine has sad particularly in its oral argument, and so in its oral argument before the Supreme Court.

The state of Maine in my opinion has impeached itself more than just a small number two on the other hand, the state of Maine has a compulsory education requirement and on the other hand, I beyond that is important to note that Maine discriminates this Justice Breyer points out against religious schools that teach religion in addition for Maine to force its discrimination against religious schools must engage in something that is precluded by the Constitution, which is an excessive entanglement with the school order to decide which private religious schools are eligible for Maine state funding, and excessive entanglement means that the state of Maine is in effect establishing a preference and that means it's establishing a preferred religion which violates the lemon versus Kurtzman task which is, I agree with you but I think the state of Maine has placed itself yeah all space which it cannot get out but I want to play the beginning of Justice Breyer statement again because this is this is called classic Stephen Breyer take a listen. I mean, it is discriminatory against religion, but there you go. Okay, it is discriminatory but but is a professor so I get that but it's interesting that they're all acknowledging this then you put out to this is going to be another issue because if Bill back better has an early childhood education price sounds nice to everyone when you say you provide this and you know so people don't have to figure out if preschools and things like that. But this also. This dives right into that issue. I think a place right in the clip you played from Justice Breyer Jordan because I mean like the ramifications of this go way beyond education in this is a tactic in Washington DC from the left more and more they want to exclude faith-based providers or faith-based services from all sorts of rounds in that bill back better act that the President Biden is pushing it is being considered in United States Senate. Right now there are bunch of dollars. And I mean a lot of dollars Jordan for child care.

They say that faith-based providers cannot access those dollars and you look there. There's one study that says when parents have a choice. More than half. I think the numbers 53% actually choose to send their child to a faith-based provider sure you take that choice. First of all, away from parents. Second of all, when you send those dollars for child care services. Why are you going to discriminate against the faceplates for faith-based providers adorn. I would just say you like the education one is maybe the most significant is the one at that play in this case, we gotta be aware that the aim from the left is to push this theory in all sorts of different realms.

The idea that you can't hear the early childhood field like that.

Ralph is mostly run by private companies who do these three schools that are all over the country branded or religious extent that's it. It said that bill back better was exclude all the religious schools, many of which the parents. I get that young kids did not being indoctrinated into something to this point. It's just that's a nice place for your kid to go because they run a good program and there is no other choice because you know the public schools vision of the tax base to do it so.

Do it. Just do it right.

Interesting comment by the lawyer and then Justice Alito take a listen number 14 Publix was often have a set of values that they want to instill public service. Be kind to others.

Be generous, I think what what what the defining feature or what power or what would make the difference is, is whether children are being taught that you religion demands that you do these things that that religion you really are discriminating on the basis of religious belief. When I described this I think pretty close to Unitarian Universalism is in man is a that is a religious community so that would be okay, that religious community is okay. They can have a school that inculcates students with their beliefs, because those are okay religious, but other religious beliefs now the Greek Orthodox Church was Greek Orthodox schools if they were in the situation could not teach their view, but they Unitarian Universalist candidate that is fundamental religious discrimination. While that is Jay Leno. Once again I will were were were taking apart and parsing in a very nice fashion in a very instructive fashion. The different justices, but I want to call out specifically a justice who impressed me in the Dobbs case by rattling off the number of cases that were overruled by the Supreme Court and started to sizes was insisted by Justice Breyer as being so important and so and then he ruled rattled off a number of cases in which it was the wrong case is been overruled by the Supreme Court and he got again.

In this case Carson the make and the main program case, the heart of injustice. Brett Cavanaugh. He insisted and said very clearly what the real issue is Maine's program is discriminatory by treating religious schools different than secular ones.

Just send it out discriminating against all religion versus secular is itself a kind of discrimination that the court has said is odious the constable if what makes unworkable.

We have what makes a couple is that the have to submit your curriculum to the states of Edward state-by-state did so. This attorney samples that Universalism question right so if you're Universalist you to do all religion is a wonderful that's still to religious and he thinks it might be. So the follow-up is that even that would not qualify under as it is nonsectarian enough because it's too religious for Maine by 14 often have a set of values that they want to less you can say that you would treat Unitarian school in the same manner as Christian school or an Orthodox Jewish school or Catholic school, then I think you got a problem, discrimination among religious sewing regarding the settlement, regardless of the religious group that is affiliated with a particular school that is at issue in the case for us so part of the challenger.

I think you know is is in part the definition of religion it right there. If they can't, for definition religion don't have a law that says you can have a religious school with the work is how they know what is good if it be what will happen is what they want to do is so that religious school started yet because if you have the government in your curriculum all over that that I think is probably the Justice Breyer Steinbeck open the store. The government can't go through and say all this Muslim school is okay that the Sunni schools okay this year school baby that's true to its two Muslim there. This was to Jewish. This universe was there just to religious only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership is powering the right question free copy mission life today online/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those faith covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you today online okay this case is a little bit make use of this is that the overturning of Roe versus Wade on the city a lot of thought ready able this in 2020 about Taylor that if the state opens it up to what they're saying there. The difference is it Montana was just if your religious school or not.

That's it. They did provide an option right in Montana to be a religious school that provides a secular education curriculum and so that's that's how the Supreme Court decided this is a different case it's about that case at a Montana did not define what happened in May that let me tell you the truth, but I believe I think this report is still dance around the Montana probably should've gave the main casing and got it.

There is Montana should hold assisted just not sure you get this this top. This makes it tougher. School choice advocates because you can't get go into a state and say every schools of available if you like it I can have a constitutional crisis. So maybe after this one. If you can't do it.

Just make stuff that their religious and you can't do it because their curriculum is religious and that should be it.

I don't know what else is left but actually can find something hopefully not, but I would like to slog a bite to justice Cavanaugh to give the state the state of Maine. But it gets the heart of these issues.

By 18.

The problem I think, and attention with what you just said is to those two questions is that our case law suggests that discriminating against all religions as compared to secular comparable secular is discriminatory, just as it is discriminatory to say exclude the Catholic and the Jewish and include the Protestant and so it's not exclusion of religious people and religious institutions from public benefits solely because their religious is itself discriminatory to have a look and we said that Trinity Lutheran said odious to our Constitution. How do you deal with with that. So I think there's a nuance going on here that I just wanted to make sure I can clarify that I think that there there is a difference between sort of state regulations and the like. State prohibitions and and state programs that are providing funding and so I think when it comes when it comes to prohibitions a state can't discriminate based on status or use.

So you can't you can say a person can't be Catholic, and you also can't say that a person can take communion. I also think when it comes to subsidy programs. There you can disseminate based on status so you can say that with a playground program but you can't, you're not eligible for your religious, but I think that there's 1/4 category, and in the fourth category is a subsidy program that where were the subsidies being used for a specific purpose and it excludes purposes that are that are contrary to what the government is trying to establish and are to be used to directly advanced religion penalizes religious adherent yet because it doesn't allow that. And that's exactly what the state of failing grades argument is that by 14 use of public schools, and often set of values they want to instill public service.

Be kind to others. Be generous. That's the finding of a published way that somehow different than it like a religious school doesn't want their kids to be nice in public service agenda for this by 40 we display his part that shows you where the state of Maine. As you see this a lot the Northeast.

That's why Leo brought up the universalism. You might not see a lot of Universalist churches where you live but if you live in the upper Northeast. He still existed as part of the country and they actually have some congregants going so meticulous, adjusted where where Maine believes this is a very sweet public school and Jerry really is what they think Publix will often have a set of values that they want to instill public service.

Be kind to others. Be generous, I think what what what the defining feature or what power or what would make the difference is, is whether children are being taught that your religion demands that you do these things that that religion you really are discriminating on the basis of religious episode. They think because it's especially there, they like to take a copy. You know what they're promoting is a good person because you think God will should do this exactly as if the angle doesn't create the same thing was the kind good person who thinks it's good to take care your community mentioned that they were not discriminating and get dirt there argument is blatantly discriminatory in oh and what they're basically saying it in one way is that we really need our kids to go to your religious school because we can't afford our own schools, but were all we also reserve the right were going to tell you what you can teach and what you cannot teach and that's just just wrongfully levels and justice Cavanaugh quote that you played it right on. This is discriminating in treating a religious school differently than effectiveness.

When Elena Kagan thinks that discriminating is okay on religion is listen. What she said. The state generally doesn't have to subsidize exercise of a right now and we can't put you in jail for saying something. We also can't deprive you of an unrelated benefit for saying something we can say you don't get food stamps because we don't like your speech, but that doesn't mean we have to pay for your speech and we do that all over the place in constitutional law, we do it in the free speech clause we do it in other areas as well. Exactly around Justice Kagan, Maine created the program. Nobody required McMahon could've said that the speech mode right school be able to go is his food in Maine necessary legislators that you know what the tax base locally but working as a state come in and provide schools to our citizenry. She hasn't exactly the opposite of what the actual situation and they do this these justices.

They turn the hypothetical what the response should be is that's interesting. That's not this case because doing as you said the food you referring to their food stamp food stamp to school. It's the school you have to go it in the estate sale you provided us the federal laws about providing it, so there's no question that you got a provided ended. The question is if you can't provided to allow these private institutions to be not discriminate wire you been, and it's a cheap price flip rather confuse people because they have a hostility towards anybody religious exactly. Absolutely. So I think it's important to keep in mind that Justice Kagan who is a brilliant lawyer is absolutely confused yes.

So in this particular case she prefers deprivation of a benefit given by the state to a religious school on its face that is discriminatory. She doesn't seem to understand this and her hypothetical basically impeach is her claim. One of my case I came up with lime chapel or morgans Justice O'Connor wrote you cannot treat the religious practitioner religious police. Not only is it subversive to the American Republic would subject them any two unique disabilities which this does Kagan really is disingenuous.

Her statement, she knows exactly what you doing. By the way, and the statements that she made a such as the bike that we played really need to be evaluated from the base that she is along with justice under Mayor against any kind of religion whatsoever in my opinion, and they're just trying to justify why what their position really is and where it really ties back into that right now that this is because the public schools.

The teachers don't like any of these laws they will make it possible for a state like Maine to to implement these laws so they'd rather may go back and just so you know what this is too much for us will just have to raise taxes right to be very tough estate like made was very independent and even Republican leaving especially of fiscal issues so you to raise taxes even if something is available in the small communities, rural setting, and split his teacher. The ACLJ was involved in the issue with the Senate with the mandate we filed suits on that we follow brief that the Supreme Court of the United States on the school choice issue in Maine and were available broadcast around the globe, country because of your support of the ACLJ were a matching challenge campaign. Let me encourage all of you right now. You haven't done so. If you have thank you ACLJ.or any metric donate get a matching report and you get a link to our video series. The revenge of the Alabama chicken want to say so again ACLJ.org@ACLJ.org the matching challenge campaign will talk to you tomorrow at the American Center for Law and just as critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ