Supreme surprise: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accidentally came out — for school choice
During oral arguments in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unintentionally made a practical and convincing case for universal school choice.
A few years back, the Montgomery County, Md., school board instituted an 'LGBTQ-inclusive' curriculum that included storybooks for kids as young as pre-kindergarten.
The books are ostensibly part of the English curriculum because apparently they feature words and sentences.
Advertisement
But the rationale for the program, according to the school system itself, is to 'disrupt' the 'binary' thinking of skeptical kids. Which sounds very much like indoctrination.
For instance, one of the 'think aloud moments' for kids reading 'Born Ready,' the tale of a confused girl, is 'noticing how happy Penelope is when his mom hears him and commits to sharing with their loved ones that he is a boy.'
'Pride Puppy' is about a cute little dog who wanders into the Pride parade and meets friendly drag queens and leather-clad participants.
Advertisement
'Love, Violet' and 'Prince & Knight' are about same-sex attraction.
Even secular parents should find the idea of strangers teaching their prepubescent children about sexuality and gender dysphoria at such a young age and in such a frivolous manner unacceptable.
As most conscientious parents understand, kids do not 'know themselves best.'
Advertisement
One of the most vital duties of parenting is guiding children through the confusion of adolescence and teaching them morality. It is not consecrating every harebrained notion that pops into their precious, underdeveloped brains.
In any event, a group of religious parents led by a Muslim family in Maryland who believe the messages in the books conflict with their beliefs sued the county — not to stop the classes, but for the right to opt out of them.
Yet Montgomery County refused to allow them to do it, maintaining that the opt-out requests would be so numerous they would disrupt the class.
This might sound crazy, but if enough parents oppose a non-academic curriculum that it would be endangered, shouldn't a public school do their best to accommodate taxpayers, rather than the opposite?
Advertisement
Of course, in the progressive mindset the individual is subservient to the state, not vice-versa.
So, Mahmoud v. Taylor is now in front of the court. During Tuesday's oral arguments, which seemed to be going relatively well for parents, Jackson conceded that she was 'struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with.'
After all, they have a 'choice,' she noted. 'You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation.'
Theoretically speaking, this makes complete sense.
You can surrender your impressionable young child to hokum about gender transformation that conflicts with your faith, or you can leave the school entirely and, presumably, send your kids to a private institution or home-school them.
The problem here is that Maryland is one of the worst states for parental choice. Jackson, who spent years on the board of a Christian academy in Maryland, should know this.
Other than a tiny voucher program, there is nowhere to go. Maryland doesn't have open enrollment policies that, at a bare minimum, allow parents to change schools within the district.
Whichever school happens to be closest, no matter how poorly it performs or how ill-fitted it is for your child's needs, is where they must go.
Advertisement
Children might be the valuable thing in your life, but a Maryland parent is afforded more choices on where to buy a television than where they educate their kids.
Maryland barely has any charter schools. Parents who want to homeschool, which is challenging enough, must wrestle with needless regulatory burdens to teach their own children.
Anti-reform activists argue that school choice would result in an exodus of parents (and funding), undermining public schools' ability to function. This is called a marketplace.
If you can't attract parents, it's probably because your service is substandard.
Advertisement
Anti-reform activists also argue that voucher programs are for rich people, when the reality is that they are mostly for the middle and working classes, who are unable to escape these propagandizing institutions.
Montgomery County is one of the wealthiest in the country, so perhaps parents there have a better chance of escaping than most.
Irrespective of who school reform would help, it is an exceedingly small favor to ask schools to allow parents to opt out of classes that teach 'inclusivity' — a euphemism for a radical cultural agenda.
Advertisement
The fact that schools refuse to meet this request only illustrates the radicalism of these institutions.
But fortunately, Jackson has the answer on how to fix it.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Around 100,000 march in Budapest Pride in open defiance of Hungary's ban
One marcher, Blanka Molnár, said it was 'a fantastic feeling' that more people had attended the Pride march than ever before despite it being outlawed. She said it was 'increasingly important' for Hungarians, 'even those who have never been to Pride before,' to push back against the government's policies. 'This isn't just about LGBQT+ rights, it's also about the right to assemble and about standing up for each other and not allowing (the government) to oppress us,' she said. Advertisement The massive size of the march, which the government for months had insisted would no longer be permitted in Hungary, was seen as a major blow to Orbán's prestige, as the European Union's longest-serving leader's popularity slumps in the polls where a new opposition force has taken the lead. Orbán and his party have insisted that Pride, a celebration of LGBTQ+ visibility and struggle for equal rights, was a violation of children's rights to moral and spiritual development — rights that a recent constitutional amendment declared took precedence over other fundamental protections including the right to peacefully assemble. Advertisement The law fast-tracked through parliament in March made it an offense to hold or attend events that 'depict or promote' homosexuality to minors underage 18. Orbán earlier made clear that Budapest Pride was the explicit target of the law. Authorities installed additional cameras throughout the city center before the march, and were expected to use facial recognition tools to identify individuals who attend the banned event. According to the new law, being caught attending Pride could result in fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints ($586). Marcher András Faludy said the 'hysteria' that has emerged in Hungary over the Pride march in recent months was 'damn pathetic. It's nonsense.' 'I could use an uglier word because I'm extremely angry, but I won't,' he added. The ban was the latest crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights by Orbán's government, which has already effectively banned both same-sex adoption and same-sex marriage and disallowed transgender individuals from changing their sex in official documents. Police rejected several requests by organizers in recent weeks to register the Pride march, citing the recent law. But Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony joined with organizers and declared it would be held as a separate municipal event — something he said doesn't require police approval. But Hungary's government remained firm, insisting that holding the Pride march, even if it's sponsored by the city, would be unlawful. Hungary's justice minister this week warned Karácsony that organizing Pride or encouraging people to attend would be punishable by up to a year in prison. Advertisement Many marchers expressed their belief that the Pride march represented a struggle not just for the protections of the rights of sexual minorities, but for the democratic future of their country. Participant Zsófia Szekér said the number of attendees showed that a major part of society desired a new direction for Hungary. 'I think we can only achieve change if so many people take to the streets,' she said.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump's refusal to enforce TikTok ban is his most lawless presidential act
The first several months of Donald Trump's second presidential term have been marked by controversy and charges that he's a lawless president. However, the most brazen example of Trump's lawlessness is his refusal to enforce the TikTok ban, which has been passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. On June 19, Trump extended the deadline for TikTok to shut down by another 90 days, marking the third time he has done so. The TikTok ban is the law of the land, and Trump's refusal to enforce it is a dereliction of his duties as president. Those who are silent on it should put aside their own personal motives and bring more attention to this fact. Many forget that a TikTok ban was originally Trump's idea, and that many Democrats wrote the idea off as just another piece of his anti-China agenda. However, things have changed. Trump seemingly developed a soft spot for TikTok because he believes it helped him win reelection. Still, in the time between Trump's original stance and his change of heart on the issue, a law banning TikTok passed the House and Senate and was signed in 2024 by then-President Joe Biden. The Supreme Court even upheld the ban, against the arguments of TikTok's lawyers. The law banning TikTok does have a provision that allows for the president to delay the deadline for TikTok to cease operations or agree to a sale. Still, the criteria allowing for such an extension are nowhere close to being fulfilled. Briggs: Jim Banks would let Trump commit any crime you can imagine The text of the ban allows for the president to extend the deadline a single time for 90 days, so long as TikTok is close to reaching a deal with an American company to sell. There is no indication that's the case, and Trump's arbitrary executive orders are flagrantly illegal. Even Trump's guise in refusing to enforce the law – the idea that he is attempting to give TikTok time to broker a deal − doesn't make sense. Nothing would be more compelling for TikTok to sell the app to an American company than the ban going into effect. An app that cannot run is useless to its owners, and their best course of action would be to sell. The president does not have discretion over which laws he would like to enforce and which he would like to ignore. Trump's decision to arbitrarily extend TikTok's lifespan does exactly that. The president, along with the rest of the executive branch, has an obligation to enforce the laws of the nation that have been passed by Congress and signed into law. A president's job is to enforce the law, whereas Congress' job is to decide what the law is. When a president can choose which laws he is to enforce, he is deciding what the law is, in a sense. Hicks: The middle class isn't disappearing. It's just spending money differently That's why Trump's refusal to enforce the ban is his most lawless action as president. Sure, there's the constitutionality of his deportation schemes and his reinterpretation of birthright citizenship, but those instances had judicial checks. In no other area is Trump as actively derelict in his duties as president without repercussions as he is in relation to the TikTok ban. For all the talk about Trump being a lawless president, Democrats and Republicans have both been relatively quiet about this single worst example of Trump acting as such. Republicans should be wary about the next administration of Democrats that comes along refusing to enforce a certain law because they disagree with it, or they simply don't feel like it. If Democrats were the ones refusing to enforce the ban on TikTok, it would be the only thing Republicans talked about. I'm sure that the outrage would be far louder if Trump were refusing to enforce other statutes, such as parts of the National Firearms Act, the tax code, or any other number of statutes that Democrats are sympathetic to. However, because it concerns a popular social media platform remaining in service, the complaints are rather quiet. Refusal to enforce laws is not a path Americans want our presidents to travel. That slippery slope can take us to some very dangerous places.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
