Joe Biden Compromised plus Huge Ruling by SCOTUS on Affirmative Action and Victory in Religious Liberty Case

Summary

Joe Biden Compromised: Allegations and Investigations

The episode delves into serious allegations against President Joe Biden, highlighted by Senator James Comer's claims that Biden has made six policy decisions indicating he is "compromised" (00:01). Comer asserts that these decisions are influenced by corrupt interests, suggesting an organized effort by the Biden family to conceal financial transactions. Specifically, Comer points out that "around 30 to 40 different banks and about that many different shell companies" are involved in hiding the source of funds (00:45).

Ben Ferguson emphasizes the gravity of these claims, stating, "every day the facts continue to get worse and worse about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden" (00:45). The discussion reveals that the Biden family reportedly received at least $10 million from Romania and China, with payments distributed to nine family members, including Biden's grandchildren. Ferguson criticizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly delaying investigations to allow the statute of limitations to expire, rendering certain actions unprosecutable (03:28).

A significant portion of the conversation addresses potential conflicts of interest within the DOJ. Ferguson highlights that U.S. Attorney David Weiss, appointed by Biden and a known donor, did not pursue charges against Hunter Biden despite evidence suggesting misconduct. This lack of action is seen as indicative of broader corruption within the DOJ, leading Ferguson to call for the impeachment of Attorney General Merrick Garland, alleging that he "lied under oath to Congress" (06:54).

Ferguson further criticizes the media's role in protecting Biden, noting cracks beginning to appear as more whistleblowers come forward. He underscores the politicization of the DOJ, stating, "the Biden DOJ... is the most political DOJ we've ever seen" (10:36). The segment concludes with Ferguson urging for both impeachment investigations and the appointment of a special counsel to independently probe Garland's actions (09:38).

Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action

A landmark decision by the Supreme Court has declared racial preferences in college admissions unconstitutional, a ruling that has sent shockwaves through liberal institutions. The Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, determined that such practices violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (17:43). This decision impacts both government-affiliated universities like UNC and private institutions such as Harvard, stating that "discriminating based on race is wrong and illegal" (18:54).

Ben Ferguson discusses the broader implications, predicting significant changes in university admissions policies. He explains that while institutions may attempt to resist, the ruling forces them to abandon race-based criteria. Ferguson critiques affirmative action, arguing that it has adversely affected Asian American applicants who are often held to higher standards and face implicit discrimination (21:18).

The conversation also touches on the immediate responses from universities, such as the removal of SAT and ACT requirements, which Ferguson interprets as a strategy to circumvent the Court's decision by eliminating objective metrics that could highlight racial disparities (27:50). He warns that universities may attempt to maintain diversity through non-racial proxies like socioeconomic status, but ultimately views the decision as a victory against "woke" policies that prioritize race over merit (21:53).

Ferguson further criticizes Democratic leaders, including President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, for undermining the Supreme Court's legitimacy and promoting the notion of a "rogue court" (30:22). He emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary in upholding constitutional rights and warns that Democrats' efforts to delegitimize the Court threaten the rule of law (31:00).

Victory in Religious Liberty Case: Grof v. DeJoy

The podcast highlights a significant Supreme Court victory supporting religious liberty in the workplace through the case of Grof v. DeJoy (35:57). The case involved an evangelical Christian postal worker, Grof, who requested a religious accommodation to observe the Sabbath on Sundays. The Postal Service denied his request and disciplined him, leading to his resignation and subsequent lawsuit (36:21).

Ben Ferguson explains that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Grof, overturning the precedent set by Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. Justice Alito authored the opinion stating, "Title VII requires employers who are denying religious accommodation to show that the burdens of granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs" (42:10). This ruling raises the standard for what constitutes "undue hardship," making it more difficult for employers to refuse accommodations based on religious beliefs.

Ferguson celebrates the decision as a "great victory for religious liberty," noting its positive impact on individuals seeking to balance their faith with workplace obligations (36:21). He shares a personal anecdote about his in-laws, Seventh Day Adventists, who benefit from this ruling, highlighting the practical implications for various religious communities (39:53).

Looking ahead, Ferguson anticipates that this decision will set a precedent for future religious liberty cases, empowering employees to seek accommodations without fear of retaliation. He asserts that this marks a step forward in protecting First Amendment rights, ensuring that individuals can practice their faith without undue interference from employers (42:10).

Conclusion

Throughout the episode, Ben Ferguson provides a detailed analysis of two major Supreme Court decisions and their implications on American society. He ties these legal developments to broader political and social issues, emphasizing the struggles against perceived corruption within the Biden administration and advocating for the protection of religious liberties. The discussion underscores the ongoing tension between progressive policies and conservative viewpoints, advocating for accountability and the preservation of constitutional rights.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome. It is verdict of Senator Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you. A huge ruling from the Supreme Court has come down on affirmative action. We're going to get to that in a moment. Plus a religious liberty case victory that we want to get you up to date on. But before we get to that, James Comer has come out, Senator, and said that Joe Biden made six policy decisions that indicate that he is, and these are his words, compromised. I want to get your reaction to this as he has now said they can connect dots. They've identified these six specific policy decisions that President Joe Biden made that indicate that he is compromised by people that I guess he owes favors to. Your reaction to that?

[B]

Well, every day the facts continue to get worse and worse about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. As you noted, James Comer said just this week that his committee has identified a total of six decisions, four of which were made while Joe Biden was president early on. And this is a, quote, we cannot come to any other conclusion as to why these decisions were made other than the fact that this president is compromised. Comer continued, this was organized crime. There's no other way to define it. And here's what Comer continued to say. We're going to try to determine how much money the Bidens took and what role Joe Biden played in all of this. It's a huge puzzle. And then he provided some very real specifics. Here's what Comer stated. Quote, around 30 to 40 different banks and about that many different shell companies. This is an organized attempt by the Biden family to hide the source of money going into these shell companies and to distract from the IRS so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes on it. And that's exactly what the IRS whistleblowers alleged in the transcribed interview with the Ways and Means Committee, that the Biden family never paid money on any of these wires that came into these shell companies. Comer went on to say that the Biden family businesses over the course of several years received at least $10 million from Romania and from China. A total of nine Biden family members received payments, including two of Joe Biden's grandchildren. And I don't know about you, but it's pretty typical for grandchildren to be receiving payments from Romania and China.

[A]

Yeah, totally normal.

[B]

And in fact. And a lot of this Breitbart has a great article that lays a lot of these facts out. But Breitbart continues pointing out that Celtic capricor in its 2017 tax returns listed nearly $10 million without specifying revenue line items and raising real concerns about who paid that entity, particularly in the wake of Biden's alleged link to a $5 million Ukrainian bribery scheme. And I'll point out that Breitbart then quotes from this podcast and says, quote, you're looking at a tax return that has a $10 million in cash that came from a mystery source. And I always like when I'm reading for a press story quoting from the podcast, saying that that suggests that what we're covering here matters and it's moving the news forward.

[A]

You know, one of the other things that I think is so interesting now is how long this investigation took, Senator. It was five years. And the whistleblowers that have now come forward are saying, we believe the reason why this thing dragged on for so long is because they were actually wanting to slow play it so that the statute of limitations for certain years and taxes would then click in so that we ran out of time. In other words, this investigation was a five year investigation not because there was so much to go through, but because they wanted to make sure that some years that, that were very damning, that could be major crimes would just fall off. And that's exactly now what this whistleblower said when he did the most recent interview said there's, there's money that was never paid on millions of income that we know of that we can do nothing about now because the statute of limitations, that to me is also a shocking abuse of power. If in fact the DOJ was purposely saying, keep slowing up, keep slowing up and then, oh well, we can't charge him anym.

[B]

Well, that's exactly right. And there's two other pieces of breaking news that are broken within the last 24 hours that are highly relevant to the Biden cover up. One, as you noted, is the most serious claims were the potential FARA violations. And far as the Foreign Agents registration act concerning 2014 and 2015, Hunter Biden's most problematic conduct was in 2014 and 2015. So you had FARA violations potentially and then you had very serious criminal tax violations. And essentially what happened is they slow walked it long enough for the statute of limitations to run on those so that Hunter Biden faces no liability whatsoever. Now, One of the two pieces of new news that is broken is that U.S. attorney Weiss, who is in charge of this, wanted to bring charges in both the District of Columbia and the Central District of California and he was turned down. What we have discovered since then is that the U.S. attorney in D.C. graves, who was appointed by Joe Biden had been a donor to Joe Biden on two separate occasions. Graves gave to Biden $500 in April of 2020 and $1,000 in May of 2020. So one of the two U.S. attorneys who said, no, we're not going to bring charges against Hunter is a Joe Biden donor. The other U.S. attorney, Estrada, in the Central District of California, was a Kamala Harris donor. And specifically in 2015, Estrada gave $500 to then California Attorney General Kamala Harris. So you literally had donors to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris saying, no, we don't want to bring the really serious charges against Hunter Biden. That raises obvious conflicts of interest that the Biden doj. It continues to be, sadly, the most political Attorney General and the most political DOJ we've ever seen.

[A]

You are, I think, the first senator that I know of. And if I'm wrong, I apologize. But that called for the real possibility of impeaching Merrick Garland over his testimony to Congress. Now, seeing what you have seen, do you believe that there are going to be many more elected officials coming to the same conclusion that not only is this Department of Justice corrupt, but the leader lied to Congress and knew he was lying to cover up for his boss, the President of the United States of America.

[B]

Look, either these IRS whistleblowers are lying or Merrick Garland is guilty of lying under oath to Congress and obstruction of justice. It's one of the two. It is possible the whistleblowers are lying. We need to investigate that and determine that. I will say, on the face of it, the indicia we have a lot of reason to believe they're credible witnesses. They're not partisan Republicans. They don't have an axe to grind. But if they are telling the truth, then Merrick Garland lied under oath to Congress in response to my questioning. That is a felony with jail time. And if they're telling the truth, Merrick Garland and lawyers working for him are also responsible for obstruction of justice, which is yet another felony. If that is true, I think it is inevitable for any reasonable or rational member of Congress. By which I mean, sadly, zero Democrats and some Republicans. I think the inevitable conclusion is that Garland must be impeached. The reason I say zero Democrats, it doesn't matter. I don't think the Democrats will vote to impeach him even if it is proven. If they have videotape of him committing felonies, the Democrats are not going to vote to impeach him because it's all partisan politics to them. Whether Republicans vote Or not, I don't know. But. But I think the evidence is becoming more and more compelling, and I will say so. On Monday's podcast, I called for the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to investigate Merrick Garland and whether to prosecute him for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. And I will say that got a lot of folks talking. I know on Megyn Kelly's podcast, she was wondering, well, wait a second. Is there a conflict between this and impeachment? Let me be clear. Both should be pursued. Absolutely. The House should open an impeachment investigation into Merrick Garland, determine whether or not these IRS whistleblowers are telling the truth. That absolutely should happen. Simultaneously, the Department of Justice should appoint a special counsel, because these are felonies that on the face of it, there is serious, incredible evidence that Attorney General Merrick Garland committed.

[A]

I want to ask you one last question on this, and that is the media narrative. We are now starting to see more consistent coverage, and that could go away. But I do believe that we are seeing a media that realizes now they can't get away from this any longer because there's too many people that are coming out, in my opinion, who are just telling the truth, and there's too many secrets that are coming out now that they cannot stop. When you look at it, Senator, from that perspective, what is the point of no return for Joe Biden with his relationship with the media? He has been protected. But I also think there's a weird time clock here. If you're gonna get rid of Joe Biden as the candidate, you better do it quickly because you need to find your next horse. And it seems now like they're saying, okay, do we get rid of him or do we not? Do we let him fall? Do we not? Do we prop him up? Do we not? There's a lot of politics in this from the Democrats now they didn't have to deal with even a month ago.

[B]

Look, that's exactly right. I guarantee you there are a lot of Democrats getting worried right now. They're still counting on the corrupt corporate media to cover for Joe Biden. But we're seeing cracks in the wall. And CBS had one of the two IRS whistleblowers on the 6:00 news. That was a big deal. I'll tell you another story that broke this week again on CBS News. It's a story from Kathryn Herridge, who's done some good reporting for cbs. She's one of the few reporters there that's actually willing to actually track down news Let me just read you the headline from cbs. Quote, hunter Biden's former business partner was willing to go before a grand jury. He never got the chance. And this is, of course, Tony Bobulinski, who testified that Joe Biden was involved in the business dealings, the business dealings with China. He testified he came forward and said that 10% for the big guy. The big guy was Joe Biden. Now, Biden is flat out denied that as recently as this week, he's told reporters, nope, wasn't me. I didn't do it. No, no, no. No details. By the way, he just keeps yelling no at reporters. You know, he's kind of like a grumpy old man in his front yard with a shotgun screaming, get off my lawn. He just keeps screaming, no, no, no. And that's the total explanation the White House is giving. But here's what CBS reported, which is that Tony Bobulinski was willing to testify before the grand jury, and his attorney affirmatively reached out to the office of Delaware U.S. attorney David Weiss. Weiss didn't return their calls. So the obvious inference is the order from the Department of Justice is, we don't want the big Guy. If you've got a witness who testifies about the big guy, we don't want to hear about it. We're not interested. We want to plunge our head in the sand like an ostrich because the job of DOJ is protect the Big guy. That. That is yet another example of at best, malfeasance, but at worst, active obstruction of justice from main justice shutting down investigations into very serious evidence of criminality by Joe Biden because they didn't want Joe Biden implicated, notwithstanding the evidence.

[A]

I got to ask you one more question about David Weiss, since you just brought that up, and this is obviously the media has been obsessed with David Weiss as he was Trump appointed. Trump appointed. You explained in the last podcast how that's incredibly misleading, because without the two Democratic senators, he would never have gotten the job. He's a Democrat. He's not a Republican. And it's pretty absurd to imply that he's a Trump guy, especially what we're seeing here. But the fact that Weiss didn't return the phone call.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

How damning is that to David Weiss and this investigation? And before you answer that, let me tell everybody about our friends Augusta Precious Metals. If you have been saving for retirement for a long time, you need to understand that you can protect your money with a gold ira. Things have changed over the last year. Interest rates and inflation and many have lost money in their retirement accounts and their 401ks. If you're sick and tired of losing money and you want to protect your hard earned assets, especially if you are close to retirement or in retirement, because there is no time to make up those losses, you need to talk to Augusta Precious Metals. They do things a little bit differently. Number one, they're going to send you the free investors guy on gold. All right, you're going to get that. But two, they're going to do a one on one web conference with you and they're going to talk to you about the economic insights of a Gold IRA and give you the peace of mind so you can feel safe and secure with your retirement. Call them 877-the-number4 Gold IRA 877 the number 4 Gold IRA or online Augusta precious metals.com that's Augusta precious metals.com use promo code verdict and they'll even pay your fees for up to 10 years. Augusta precious metals.com Senator, back to David Weiss. If he didn't return their phone call, it's probably because he knew exactly what he was going to hear from Tony Bobulinski and he didn't want to admit that he heard it.

[B]

Well, maybe. And I will say one thing you said we don't necessarily know is true. You said that Weiss is a Democrat. We don't know that. What we know is that he was not a vocal and outspoken Republican. And we also know that his appointment as US Attorney under Trump had to be signed off on by both Democrat Senators Chris Coons and Tom Carper. So there's no evidence, I'm aware of that he's actively a Democrat, but he's not. Every time the media refers to him as Donald Trump appointed U.S. attorney, they're trying to suggest he's a Republican and a Trump partisan. There is zero evidence of that. He may be a Democrat, but we simply don't know. What we do know is that Tony Bobulinski said at a press conference this is a quote from Tony Bobulinski. I've heard Joe Biden say that he's never discussed business with Hunter. That is false. I have firsthand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden. And CBS News contacted him and Bob Lenski says he stands by those statements. And so the fact that when his attorney called David Weiss and said, hey, if you want me to talk to the grand jury about this, they didn't call him back, what it tells you is DOJ did not want to hear that evidence. What we don't know is whether it was David Weiss who didn't want to hear it or whether it was the higher ups at DOJ that were preventing him from going down that line. Because we talked about in both Monday and Wednesday's pods, and I will say, if you're interested in this story, Monday and Wednesday's pods this week are exceptionally important because we do deep dives. We've covered three new major pieces of breaking news on Hunter Biden in this podcast. But there's a lot in Monday and Wednesday that we went into, including the fact that main justice and that the US Attorneys actively prevented investigation into the Big guy. The Assistant U.S. attorney working for David Weiss actively prevented investigation into the Big Guy into Hunter Biden's father. And so that is consistent with what the whistleblowers told us, which is they didn't want to hear anything, anything, anything that implicated Joe Biden in criminality. And not calling Tony Bobulinski back is 100% consistent with the whistleblower's testimony, which, among other things, raises the likelihood that the whistleblower is telling the truth. And Merrick Garland lied under oath to Congress and committed felonies for which impeachment is merited and for which a special counsel should be appointed.

[A]

Yeah. And as you mentioned, if you missed the last two shows, go back, download them and make sure that you listen because we have a lot more in there. I want to move to this Supreme Court case that is rocked the liberal mindset today. The liberal world. They are genuinely freaking out right now. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial preferences are unconstitutional in college admissions. The racial preferences in college admissions violate, they said, the equal protection clause, the Constitution. The Supreme Court has decided in this historic decision, it will have profound implications for racial preference in many areas of law and public policy. But there was two cases that they looked at here. One of them dealt with an Ivy League school. The other one dealt with unc. And in both of these cases, they said you cannot give basically extra credit or points or bonuses or have quotas solely based on the color of someone's skin. Explain this in more detail and specifically how the 14th Amendment applies in these cases. Well, because there's been a lot of debate about that.

[B]

Well, this decision yesterday is a major landmark decision. It is a 6:3 decision. The majority opinion is written by Chief Justice Roberts. And this decision strikes down racial discrimination and racial quotas in universities. As you noted, there were two cases that were consolidated. One was the University of North Carolina. Now, that is relevant because UNC is a State school. So it is action by the government. And what the court concluded is that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects, grants every citizen the equal protection of the laws, that under the 14th Amendment, the government cannot discriminate based on race. So every government school, whether you're talking about unc, whether you're talking about University of Texas, whether you're talking about University of California, if it is a government school, they cannot discriminate based on race. That's a landmark ruling. The other case was Harvard University. Now, Harvard University is not a government school. It is a private university. The 14th Amendment does not constrict what a private university does. The 14th Amendment applies only to government. So the ruling about Harvard University concerned title 7, which is the landmark civil rights decision, and also Title 6. It's actually Title 6 of the Civil Rights act of 1964, which governs university. And it concluded the same standard applies that under the Civil Rights act of 1964, likewise under the 14th Amendment, that racial discrimination is illegal. The consequences are massive. Two days ago, under existing Supreme Court precedent, it was permissible for UNC and for Harvard and for every other school to say, if we like your race, if it's a race that we want to favor, we can give you a benefit, we can give you a plus factor, we can favor you entirely because of your race. And if we don't like your race, we can penalize you, we can harm you, we can reduce your chances of admission entirely because of race. The supreme court by a 6:3 vote yesterday said that is unconstitutional with state schools. That is illegal with private schools. Discriminating based on race is wrong.

[A]

When you see this case, how will this change things, not just in the school admissions process, but now? And they've been screaming on TV about this all day long that this is going to destroy minorities chances to succeed. That's clearly not the case in college admissions. In fact, affirmative action has been hurting Asian Americans for quite some time in a major way. Not being able to get into some universities with incredible qualifications, they're saying this is also going to destroy this country in businesses and private sector as well. Put that into perspective.

[B]

Well, this is a landmark change because every university that was engaged in racial discrimination is going to have to change their admissions policies. Now, I fear the vast majority of universities are going to do everything they can to get around and to fight and to engage in massive resistance to this decision. The vast majority of our universities, the faculty and the administrators, bizarrely want, as a matter of principle, as a matter of virtue, they want to discriminate based on race. And the bizarre thing is, look, one of the parades of horribles that you will see leftists, whether Democrats or corrupt corporate media voices or university administrators say is without discriminating based on race, we will get lily white schools. That's the specter they put forth. Now, there are a host of ways that you can ensure that you have a diverse student body without discriminating on race. The most obvious one that some universities do is to give a preference for low income students. A student who is from a poor family, a student who has struggled to overcome adversity. And I think there's a very reasonable and principled argument that a student who is overcoming adversity, that that's a real sense of accomplishment, that if you grow up with enormous privilege and enormous advantages and you do well, great. But if you're a single mom in a really tough environment and you excel academically, that reflects something positive or beneficial that will produce student bodies that are racially diverse. But what it will not do. So the existing university racial preferences benefit African American students and Hispanic students whose parents are rich, who go to a fancy boarding school, but yet they just view it as race. And so if you happen to be a minority student with very significant socioeconomic advantages, you get an enormous boost. And if you happen to be a poor white student, let's say you're growing up in Appalachia and your parents, no one in the family has ever gone to college and you worked your tail off. Well, they don't recognize that. And so if universities want to, they can, number one, create a preference for low income students to give an additional benefit to overcoming adversity. They can, number two, create a benefit. If you're the first person in your family to go to college. That's another way that we know will statistically produce a more racially diverse student body. They can, number three, create a preference. If you grow up in a household where English is not the first language, all three of those are non racial proxies that result in a racially diverse student body. Now here's the amazing thing, Ben. Most our universities don't care. Even if they could get the exact same damn student body they had yesterday in terms of racial breakdown. They affirmatively want to discriminate on race. It shows them, I am woke, hear me roar. And so you're going to see a couple of things happen. Number one, there's a portion of this decision where the majority says, look, nothing in this case means that universities cannot consider overcoming adversity Overcoming discrimination, overcoming hardship. What's going to happen is in university essays, the schools are going to try very hard to replicate exactly the affirmative action and quota system they had before. And by the way, if someone is a minority student, every student is going to be coached that their opening sentence is going to be, as a Hispanic kid growing up in hardship, here's the adversity I overcame as an African American. Here's all of the hardships I overcame. That will be the game to get around the system. And here's the second piece. Ben, you may have noticed universities all across the country in the past year announcing that they're eliminating the SAT and the act, announcing that those tests are optional. And you may have wondered why. I mean, look, when you and I went to school, we had to take either the SAT or act. It used to be every school required that. Why have they suddenly started getting rid of it en masse? And the answer is simple. Most of the universities anticipated yesterday's ruling. The writing was on the wall. They knew where this was going. And so they knew that come June of this year, they were not going to be able to discriminate based on race. And these radicals in universities, they want to so much that they said, oh, crap, if we have SAT scores, if we have ACT scores and we keep doing the same thing, we keep admitting people of races that we want to preference whose scores are 100, 200, 300 points lower than students of different races, well, then it's going to be obvious and we're going to get sued and we're going to get nailed and we're going to pay judgments. So the way we avoid it is we just won't collect SAT scores or ACT scores. So there won't be that objective metric. The entire reason the schools are getting rid of these scores is because they want to defy the Supreme Court decision and they want to keep discriminating even though they could get the identically diverse student bodies without racial discrimination. These leftists believe racial discrimination is an affirmatively good thing.

[A]

There was a question that was asked of Joe Biden today, and I want to get your reaction to this. He was asked by a reporter after he came out denouncing this decision by the Supreme Court and basically telling universities, keep doing what you're doing. He was asked, is this a rogue court? And I want to play his answer. But before I do that, let me tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you're sick and tired of giving your money to woke companies, woke corporations that are actually Fighting against your values. When you pay your bills, you've got an option now when it comes to your cell phone. For years big mobile companies have been dumping millions and millions of dollars into leftist causes. Many of them have given millions to Planned Parenthood. And that's just one of the many radical groups they've been supporting. Now you have a choice. You don't have to give your money to them. Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider, not only do they offer you dependable nationwide coverage where you get to keep your same cell phone number you have right now, many times you can keep the same cell phone you have in your hand and they give you coverage on all three major networks so you get the best possible service in your area without the woke propaganda that the leftist companies are pushing on you. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, a portion of your bill every month actually goes back to support free speech and religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the second amendment, our military, our veterans, our wounded warriors. And that is why I want you to switch. It cost you not a single extra dime. When they do that every month they have 100% US based customer service team that can make switching easy. And if you have a business or a small business, they have a division just for you. Call Patriot Mobile 878 Patriot. That's 878-PATRIOT. Use a promo code VERDICT. You'll get free activation and the best deals of the year. 8:78 Patriot or patriot mobile.com/verdict. That's patriot mobile.com verdict. Senator, I want everyone to hear the President. He clearly wanted this question asked and he stopped as he was walking out the room. The question from the reporter so you can hear it is the question. It's. This is short. It says quote is this a rogue court? President Biden, you'll hear him say in the background, this is not a normal court. Listen.

[B]

The Congressional Black Caucus said the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy. Is this a rogue court? This is not a normal court.

[A]

Senator, you could hear him there. Only thing he said, this is not a normal court. And then he walked out of the room. This to me is screams another example of the left trying to undermine the Supreme Court making way for the possibility of packing the court, telling you that the court doesn't do what we think on the left, on the radical left. We'll just redesign the court until it fits the way we want it to look.

[B]

So Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate have for multiple years been engaged in an extreme campaign to demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme Court of the United States. Their campaign is dangerous. It undermines the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to protecting our civil liberties, protecting our constitutional rights, to upholding the Constitution. And these Democrats do not give a damn. These are the same people. Merrick Garland, leading Biden's doj, sits by, refuses to enforce federal law, while violent radicals protest in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices that he disagrees with, that Joe Biden disagrees with. They're threatening violence, and the Biden DOJ refuses to enforce the law because they would tear the court down. They would burn it to the ground. Chuck Schumer stood on the floor on the steps of the Supreme Court and said, you will reap the whirlwind if you issue rulings we do not like. I think it is shameful what Biden is doing. And by the way, the decision that he says is not normal is that discriminating based on race is wrong and illegal. And let me tell you a different aspect of this decision that is really important, which is many, most of our universities in this country today actively and aggressively discriminate against Asian American students. The Ivy League schools. Harvard is quite shameless and naked in this. And sadly, I'm an alumnus of Harvard, and so I'm embarrassed of the school. I went to law school. But they say, look, if we admitted students based on merit, there would be too many Asians. Asian Americans do really well in school. They have great grades. They get great test scores. We don't want too many Asians. So we're going to use racial discrimination to prevent Asians from getting in at the numbers their academic results would merit. It is shameful. And by the way, Harvard has a long history. You go back to the 1950s. Harvard had what was called the Jewish quotas, where they capped Jewish students. And it was the same argument. If we let students in based on merit, based on their scores and grades, we'd get too many Jews. This was how Harvard put it, too many Jews. We don't want too many Jews. So we're going to put a quota because we don't want merit to produce outcomes we don't like. That's what these schools are doing. And I gotta say, you know, during the Trump administration, the Democrats voted on what they called an Asian American hate crime bill. And it was based on a fairly ludicrous conceit, which is they said there has been an increase in violence against Asian Americans that's true. And they said the reason for that is because Donald Trump said that COVID 19 came from Wuhan, China and called it the Wuhan virus. That's absurd. But they're playing politics. They wanted to say, haha, the reason there's violence against Asian Americans is because Donald Trump accurately described the source of COVID 19. Well, when the Senate voted on that, I authored an amendment and I forced to vote on the Senate floor. And my amendment was one paragraph. It's very simple. You can go and read the amendment. My amendment said, and I'm paraphrasing, I don't have the language in front of me, but my amendment said any university that discriminates against Asian Americans in admissions or in scholarships shall be ineligible for federal funds. That the federal government is not going to pay you if you're engaged in racial discrimination. That's all it said. It was one paragraph. You know what the vote was? Straight party line vote. Every single Democrat voted no. The author of the ridiculous political bill, Mazie Hirono, who is herself Asian American, she happily voted no. And you know what? I am convinced, to my knowledge, not a single Democrat has ever been asked by a single reporter, why did you vote in favor of universities discriminating against Asian Americans? And I got to tell you, Ben, in these two Supreme Court cases, I filed an amicus brief in the U.S. supreme Court. I did it jointly with Michelle Steele. Michelle Steele is a Republican from California. She's an Asian American. The two of us together filed an amicus brief along with 80 of our colleagues in Congress urging the Supreme Court to do exactly what it did yesterday. And because the court said you can't discriminate based on race, Joe Biden and the Democrats are trying to tear the court to the ground and delegitimize it.

[A]

Yeah, it's truly incredible when you look at it from that perspective. I want to also ask you about another issue, and it was a religious liberty case that is really kind of been under the radar screen that people need to know about that. Listen to verdict. It's a victory there. And talk to us a little bit about this victory because we've been dealing obviously with these other two breaking news issues. But this is a really big deal.

[B]

Yes. So this case is called Grof versus DeJoy. And it involved an individual who's an evangelical Christian who was a postal worker and he worked for the post office. He began working in 2012 and Grof's position generally did not require him working on Sundays. But in 2013, after he began working for them. The postal service began delivering for Amazon on Sundays, and Grof asked for a religious accommodation. He said as an evangelical Christian, he wanted to observe the Sabbath on Sunday and not work. And the post office said no and in fact, punished him. He received, quote, progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays. He eventually resigned in 2019, and he filed a lawsuit saying that under Title 7, that the post office could have accommodated his request to observe the Sabbath without undue hardship on the conduct of the post office's business. Now, in this instance, there was a really bad Supreme Court decision, an older decision called Trans World Airlines versus Hardison, where the Supreme Court has said, you don't have to accommodate someone's religious faith if there is, quote, more than a de minimis cost. In other words, if there's more than just even the tiniest cost to the employers, nope, you can ignore the employee, say, screw you, your religion doesn't matter. You have to violate your faith. Well, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Grof, ruled in favor of religious liberty. Justice Alito wrote that Title VII requires employers who are denying religious accommodation to show that the burdens of granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs. This is a great victory for religious liberty. And the fact that every single justice agreed, even the liberals, is really important. This is another case where I led the amicus brief. I led it along with Senator James Lankford and along with Congressman Mike Johnson and 10 other members of Congress urging the court to rule exactly as they ruled. And I gotta say, if you're a person of faith or if you even just care about religious liberty, you want the first Amendment interpreted to protect your religious liberty, not to have your employer be able to just trample on your faith willy nilly. This is a great victory for religious liberty and it's reason for everyone to celebrate. And I got to tell you, so my in laws, Heidi's parents are Seventh Day Adventists. Seventh Day Adventists worship on their Christians and Protestant Christians, but they worship on a Jewish Sabbath. So they worship between Friday sundown and Saturday sundown, and they take the Sabbath very, very seriously. I have to admit, I had great joy texting my in laws and telling them about this decision, which they were very happy with because they want their religious liberty rights protected, whether it's worshiping on Saturday or Sunday or whatever your faith is. The Constitution protects religious liberty, and this unanimous Supreme Court decision is a big victory for that.

[A]

Moving forward with this victory, what does this also mean for other religious, you know, liberty victories? There's Been a lot of people that feel like that people's faith has been persecuted recently and people are starting to realize that you can fight back through the court system.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Will this help in other cases, in other precedents and other issues with religious liberty? And I go back to the issue, for example, of adoption and fighting against abortion. There's a lot of Christians that have been persecuted. We've seen people's homes that have been raided. We've seen people that have been arrested and harassed by the government. They say it's their right to be able to protest, for example. But it really does come down to your faith and your religion. There's Christian groups that have been attacked and there's a concern that the government's getting so heavy handed. Is this going to be a step in the right direction for these other issues? And before you answer that, let me tell you about our friends at Chalk real quick. If you're a guy and you feel like you are losing your edge, you feel like fatigue is setting in, you feel like you're just tired all the time, you just don't feel like yourself, well, chalk choq.com is here to help you maximize your masculinity by boosting your testosterone levels up to 20% over 90 days. Now, I've been taking the male vitality stack and I can tell you it works. Those days of just feeling like I've got complacency and weakness are over. I feel basically like I'm my old self again. That strength and vitality is back. Now, if you've never tried chalk, do it now and I'm going to save you over 35, 35% off any chalk subscription for life. Yeah, you can boost your testosterone levels up to 20% over 90 days. Go to chalk choq.com and grab the male vitality stack right now. Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So go to chalk choq.com, use promo code BEN for 35% off any chalk subscription for life. That's cheap. Promo code Ben. Senator, this is a step in the right direction, but is this going to have precedent moving forward?

[B]

Well, yes, and this is going to make a difference in the workplace. So this was a decision not under the constitution, but under Title vii, which is part of the landmark civil rights law of 1964, and it applies to workplace discrimination. And what it means is that if you have a genuine religious belief and you ask your employer to accommodate that religious belief, that the employer has to do so unless it imposes an undue hardship on the employer. And this ratchets up the standard for what constitutes an undue hardship. It used to be the case that your employer could basically say, well, tough. Your faith doesn't matter. We're not going to work to accommodate you after this decision. There's going to be a lot more leniency, a lot more willingness to recognize that faith is legitimate. Look, Ben, there is a reason that religious liberty is protected literally in the first clause of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution believe that every other limit liberty begins with the first liberty to worship God Almighty with all of your heart, mind and soul. That is an incredibly valuable protection. And by the way, multiple religious organizations engaged on this issue, including organizations representing Jews, representing Muslims, representing Sikhs, representing Seventh Day Adventists that they've engaged, saying the de minimis test has denied even minor accommodations in the workplace. Things that would have been easy for employers to give. But they just said, well, tough. No, we're not going to let you. This is a great victory for liberty. And I will say there are a lot of areas in which this Supreme Court has been really, really strong, but religious liberty may have been the strongest consistently. You've got six justices who care about religious liberty and have been vigorous in defending it. And I'm really encouraged that all nine agreed on this, that that's a good thing today. Yesterday was a good day for liberty and a good day for religious liberty in particular.

[A]

No doubt about it. Don't forget we do verdict Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. So make sure you hit that follow button if you're listening on Apple right now, the subscribe or auto download button if you're on other platforms so that you get every episode. We'll be back in the TV studios for our next episode. So you can also a lot of you, hundreds of thousands of you watched our lap last episode just on YouTube alone. So we do one show on video and audio once a week. We'll be back in the studio for that coming up. Don't forget Monday, Wednesday and Fridays and Monday's episode. Like I said, you can also watch on YouTube. We'll see you back here in a couple of days.