Point of View June 28, 2024 – Hour 2 : Weekend Edition

[00:02:17] But Kelly, we've already talked with Penta Dexter about this. I talked about it again yesterday, but one more time. Many people thought that this may be the First Amendment landmark case because we really caught the federal government with its hands in the cookie jar, if you will,

[00:02:34] actually doing all it could to manipulate what would or would not be posted on social media. And yet the Supreme Court under Justice Amy Coney Barrett decided that, well, these groups did not have standing. And so it became another case of the Supreme Court

[00:02:52] deciding not to decide. Yeah, I you know, I think the theme of that day was, I mean, if you're being kind, avoiding a decision, yes, many people would say cowardice. That's where

[00:03:08] I saw a lot. You had a Supreme Court that had three conservatives who wanted to issue an opinion three liberals who were going to be on the wrong side of that opinion and three so-called conservatives

[00:03:23] that wanted to avoid issuing a decision. That would be, you know, the chief justice, Amy Coney Barrett and and Justice Kavanaugh. And in in in the Missouri case, it was really disturbing. I mean, really disturbing. Essentially, what happened is there was lots of evidence. And I

[00:03:44] if people have a chance, I mean, it's easy to, you know, look it up. Murthy M.U.R.T.H.Y. versus Missouri. Long decision. But you can read Amy Coney Barrett's decision where she essentially

[00:03:57] says, yeah, there was all this activity from, I mean, federal officials calling and and essentially threatening Facebook and these other people if they didn't start censoring people. And and yet she said, since ultimately the platforms like Facebook made their own decision, that meant that,

[00:04:21] you know, you couldn't really prove that it was because of the government that they did that. Now, think of what that would mean. I mean, the government can go around threatening people

[00:04:31] all over the place. And if any of them comply, then you're out of luck that, you know, I would encourage you read Justice Alito's dissent. Yes, it's so good. Has so many facts.

[00:04:45] And I mean, the way I would think of this is, I mean, for instance, if somebody is say an employer fired you because of your race, let's say, oh, you know, let's say they let's say this. Let's

[00:04:58] say they fired you. And one of the things they said is they don't like any people who are black or whatever. And that's one of the things that they say motivates them.

[00:05:09] I mean, is a court going to say, well, we know that was one of the reasons, but we're not sure that was the only reason. And so, you know, no violation. That's essentially what she's doing

[00:05:19] here. And the danger is she's giving this power to the government. To squelch people's free speech, and there were times I think it's going to be so hard to ever get facts like this.

[00:05:29] I mean, they got a lot of these facts because of what, you know, Twitter, Twitter files. Yeah. Because because Elon Musk released this stuff when he took over. And so this is a really

[00:05:42] disturbing opinion, this Missouri case. And and then you had the on the same day, the Idaho abortion law where they kind of again, they they said, well, you know, we we think that things have shifted a little bit in the during the the case. And Idaho,

[00:06:01] you know, is not going to, you know, really come into conflict with this on as many situations as we thought. And so we're just going to kind of wait. So, you know, those are two kind of passes.

[00:06:16] And my theory is the reason they did that is because the election's coming up and this is about abortion. Yeah, but which shouldn't be a reason to do it. But that made you think,

[00:06:25] oh, no, this is horrible. And so today turn the corner in a different direction. But all these cases were six to three. Those two that you mentioned were six to three, kind of the way we wouldn't want them to go. And after the break, we'll talk about six,

[00:06:38] three going the other direction. But Dr. Merrill Matthews, you know, here is a good example of we say the government cannot control your free speech. And they'll say, well, we'll just work through a secondary actor to control your free speech. And I don't think that's constitutional

[00:06:53] either, is it? Well, you know, if you've been around Washington, you know how Washington works and people in power use that power at times. And I still remember somebody who was when they were

[00:07:04] trying to pass Obamacare, the head of the of the committee over that sent a number of requests from insurance companies files that they said we want this information, this information. And the government didn't need that. Nobody they knew they didn't need it. This is just we're letting

[00:07:20] you know who's the big dog in town and you need to get on our page along with us or we're going to make your life miserable. And that's how government sometimes works. Sometimes some of these people could have been a little more aggressive, some a little less aggressive.

[00:07:35] But when the government's hanging over you, you know, you sometimes are going to be it's got you're going to get squeezed if you're not careful. Well, again, we'll come back and talk about some of the positives. And Dr. Murrow-Matthews has something interesting as well.

[00:07:47] A lot of people thought that this conviction of Donald Trump would really hurt him and it's actually helped him with a rather surprising group of individuals, which also gets us into a conversation we're going to have with Kelly, because one of the cases that we haven't heard

[00:08:01] because the court will stay till Monday is on immunity. So I want to get into that discussion as well. But as we go to a break, perfect time for you to call if you've been waiting to the last day

[00:08:12] of the last week. Well, that's where we are now. So 1-800-347-5151. We appreciate some of you that have called in that have been able to make a small gift. But can I also challenge a few of you that

[00:08:25] have the financial resources to give a larger gift to maybe consider calling in right now? Or of course, you can go to the website pointofview.net. We have that matching challenge

[00:08:34] still on the table and you can simply go to Point of View, click on the button that says Give Now. Hope some of you might even want to join on a monthly basis. That would help us out tremendously.

[00:08:45] Let's take a break. We'll talk about some other of these very important legal cases right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. You know, the latest polls show a moral slight of generations. A good example can be found in George Barna's American Worldview Inventory 2024.

[00:09:10] He concludes that what millennials began, Generation Z, is accelerating. This is a generational transformation of this country's moral landscape. Let's begin at the top level and then work down to specific moral issues. The percentage of Americans who have a biblical worldview has

[00:09:25] been declining over five consecutive generations. The number of adults with a biblical worldview plummeted from 12% to 4%. A majority of Americans accept lying, abortion, gay marriage, and consensual sexual intercourse between unmarried adults. This is due in large part because they reject the concept

[00:09:42] of absolute moral truth, and less than half of all adults embrace the Bible as their primary guide to morality. So let's look at some specific issues. A majority of millennials say telling a lie is of minor consequence in order to protect your personal best interests or reputation,

[00:09:58] and six in ten of Gen Z also believe that is morally acceptable. Two-thirds of millennials endorse abortion, and a slightly higher percentage of Gen Zs endorse abortion. Two decades ago, two-thirds of boomers did not support gay marriage. Today, more than six in ten endorse two people of

[00:10:14] the same biological sex getting married. Those percentages are even higher for Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z. We also find similar increasing percentages from one generation to another concerning premarital sex. This ranges from 59% for boomers to 73% to Gen Z. The first step back

[00:10:34] to a moral foundation is to make sure that we teach biblical morality in our families and within the church. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free copy of Kirby's booklet,

[00:10:49] A Biblical View on Inflation, go to viewpoints.info slash inflation. That's viewpoints.info slash inflation. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. You know, just a minute ago,

[00:11:05] I held up our little booklet on social media and deep state. Could hold up another one, A Biblical Point of View on Criminal Justice. And Dr. Merrill Matthews, you had a piece that came out on the

[00:11:14] Hill. Could Trump's conviction help him with black voters? And the situation is that I think the assumption was by the New York City District Attorney Alvin Bragg that this would be the end of the Trump candidacy. And interestingly enough, as indeed this particular, some people call it

[00:11:35] lawfare, was brought against Donald Trump, it seems to have increased the interest on the part of some of the African-American voters. What did you find? And his donations right after the conviction. He pulled in, I believe, nearly a hundred million dollars, or at least his PAC did.

[00:11:52] Huge amounts of money coming in after that. And some of that was large donors, some of the small donors. But the interesting thing was, as you said, there was a sense that this would turn voters against him, but there was so much discussion about the process, the extremes,

[00:12:11] the district attorney had to go to, to try to make this happen, sort of magnifying the case and the criminal convictions and so forth, the crimes, alleged crimes, and those types of things that

[00:12:22] I just thought that there were probably a large number of people in the black community who look at this say, this looks like this is a railroad job, not because of what he did, but because of

[00:12:32] who he is. And they've been doing the same thing to us for a long time. That's what I'm hearing. Pew Research Centers published a survey a few years ago where 87% of blacks felt like they

[00:12:45] are treated worse by the justice system, unfairly by the justice system, nine and 10, nine out of 10. So it looked like it was, my sense was, it's not going to register with all. I'd be very

[00:12:59] surprised if Republicans drew the majority of black votes, but you don't have to draw the majority. If you get around 18, 19, 20%, something like that, Republicans win. And so there's already the black votes have already been trending towards Trump over the past few months. We've seen that,

[00:13:18] especially in the swing states and this could have exacerbate that. That's amazing. Kelly, that kind of sets up a couple of things here. And that is, we have a decision that has come down

[00:13:29] that affects the J6 defendants. And we have one coming down on the issue of presidential immunity. So what about this? Because these cases always looked a little bit like lawfare and this was

[00:13:45] going to be tough because the Supreme Court decided not to release the case today. You know, I guess make the announcement on Monday. We'll talk about it. You got to thread the needle. You don't want

[00:13:54] to give so much immunity. The president can do anything, but you also want to recognize that we don't want some of what has been happening ever happen again. Yeah. Let's follow first with what

[00:14:04] Merrill was just talking about. And I mean, we were on the air when that decision came down and I, you know, with regard to Trump and I said on the air, I don't even remember. I said,

[00:14:18] I think this is going to help him with the African-American vote because they're going to identify with injustice in this case. And, and so it's fascinating that the January 6th case today, the lineup of the justices was different. Yes. Okay. There you go. You have six to three,

[00:14:36] but a little different six to three, but you had one person in the majority that you didn't expect. And that was justice Jackson, the African-American justice, because what this was about was this was about a statute that was created during Enron to deal with trying to like destroy

[00:14:58] evidence. That's what it was about, like deleting documents and things like that. That is that law, which is about destroying documents is what they've used against all these January. That's not what that's about. Okay. That's not, they were using an obstruction

[00:15:16] type charge that wasn't appropriate. And the Supreme court said, you can't do that, which is going to affect as much as well, hundreds of January 6th defendants. Now, some have already kind of worked out a plea deal or they, you know, and so they're too late,

[00:15:32] but there are others who either have things ahead or it was part of their sentencing that'll have to be relooked at. So this is significant, but I do think it's interesting that you had justice

[00:15:43] Jackson on that, on the immunity. I mean, the question is not, I think whether they're going to have some immunity for the president of the United States, they are it needs to happen. We,

[00:15:56] otherwise you could, you could, you know, you could have some DA anywhere in the country go after Biden for all the people who have died because of how he's handled the border and say he's a murderer. I mean, you're going to have to have immunity from criminal.

[00:16:10] And the question is where you draw that line and that's going to be a tough one. And, and, you know, they could, I mean, they could draw the line in a way where, where, and I think this will affect it watching what happened to Trump.

[00:16:25] I think probably affected. They were, this is really a real thing, right? This is crazy. What happened in New York? It's it was a silly criminal prosecution, converting a misdemeanor into a felony based upon all kinds of federal law, which they had no authority over. And they just

[00:16:42] violated all kinds of things. It was clearly a political prosecution. And so that's going to make them realize we've got to have a line and where they draw that line, I think is anybody's

[00:16:52] guess. They, they could draw the line in a way that throws out his case. Although the immunity case is really not about that case. But I think it's going to be one of those monumental decisions

[00:17:04] because we've never had to do this. They're going to have to set up what it's going to be in the future for every other president. Or I think it's clear now that people politically will use

[00:17:15] lawfare to try to go after presidents for what they do as president. And, and so that decision is going to be one of those big, big, big decisions that we're going to be talking about

[00:17:26] for decades into the future. I might just mention too, this one about the J6 defendants. You might remember that we did an interview with one of the defendants from prison at the time, and it was

[00:17:37] his case along with the one that actually went forward, Joseph Fisher, that provided this. But again, Katonji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas, two African Americans actually were part of that six that made that six to three. So very significant indeed. And we'll get back to some of

[00:17:55] these issues in just a minute, but we thought it would be appropriate to bring in the president of Point of View, Warren Kelly, to give us kind of an update on what's going on.

[00:18:04] Well, actually we have a very unique situation. We've never done this before exactly. We have the matching challenge that you're aware of, and this was a group of supporters that came together to kind of put this together. Well, two of those supporters who made a $5,000 contribution to this

[00:18:23] have offered to move their gift into a position that creates a $10,000 double match. So if you're going to give $100, your gift now becomes $300. If you're going to give $150, your gift becomes

[00:18:42] $450. So this is a great opportunity for you to really make a difference, but we need to do it before the end of the day here. So we need to do it quickly. So we do need to hear from you

[00:18:54] right now. Well, again, let's just go around the round table because you've been around Point of View for some length of time, Dr. Merrill Matthews, and you know about what we do

[00:19:05] to provide that. I mentioned just a minute ago as Kelly did that we're a nonprofit and we have a pretty lean budget, as you probably have noticed. But what would you say to our donors that are

[00:19:15] thinking about, or even our listeners who have never been a donor, thinking about supporting this ministry? Well, you know, from a Christian ministry, this is one of the most important Christian ministries out there because you're able to reach so many people. They don't have

[00:19:28] to be by television. They can be in their car. They can be walking and listening. So it is one of the most important ministries. And as you point out, I've been around since 92, so that's 32 years,

[00:19:40] and it goes all the way back to 1972, I believe. So it has been around and affecting people's lives for decades, including some people that, some politicians and others who will come back and say,

[00:19:54] you know, when I was a young person, I listened to this program and that influenced me and it taught me and got me encouraged to get involved. One of the things I just did a minute ago is we are

[00:20:05] encouraging some people to give monthly. And that, of course, if you give a dollar a day, $360 a year, but if we're tripling it or doubling it again, it's a double match. That's 720, 360,

[00:20:18] that's 1,080. So very quickly you give a dollar a day, $30 a month, and it becomes a thousand dollars. That's pretty amazing. So that's something I thought we might mention. Kelly, any quick comments

[00:20:31] before we go to the break? I'm assuming the phones will start ringing again. It's just the key time. I mean, you know, what we're talking about now, I guarantee you, you're not going to hear

[00:20:40] this anywhere else, right? I'm sure of that. And you're probably not going to understand a lot of these cases from what you hear. You're not going to understand how they would affect you as a

[00:20:48] Christian. We're about to talk about a few big cases that occurred at a state Supreme Court that I guarantee you will not hear about, but they're big cases for anybody who's a believer. So

[00:21:00] that's why you give to Point of View so you can get this information out, not only to yourself, but to many other people around the country. Well, again, double match, never done it before.

[00:21:10] And so again, we've got some money that is available there. So this is a perfect time to call. We've never done this before. We'll see what it generates. 1-800-347-5151. We have about a half

[00:21:22] an hour left. So again, give us a call, 800-347-5151. And of course you can go to the website, pointofview.net. We'll be right back. The next 12 months will be a critical time for America.

[00:21:35] Make a difference now by supporting Point of View. In the year ahead, Americans will need accurate news and a biblical perspective both before and after the next election, regardless of the outcome. Point of View is committed to being a source that citizens like you can trust.

[00:21:55] And most important, Point of View equips listeners to apply biblical truth to the important issues of our times. Today is the final day for Point of View's fundraising for the fiscal year. The good

[00:22:10] news is anything you donate by midnight tonight will be doubled thanks to a group of generous donors who, like you, want to equip Americans to think clearly in the months ahead. Give now.

[00:22:25] Double your impact at pointofview.net or you can call toll-free with your gift 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:03] The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again is Kirby Anderson. Final half hour. We have never had

[00:23:15] a double match so let me just mention that that is going on even as we will continue talking and it is 800-347-5151. But for just a minute, even though we recognize this as a national show,

[00:23:27] sometimes what happens in Texas is something that can be a model for what can happen in your state. You've heard the old joke, you know what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. Well, that's not

[00:23:38] the case and boy I tell you what happens in California doesn't stay in California. Yeah, and certainly we want to take that. So Kelly, I've got two cases. One is a religious liberty

[00:23:48] case and it's something that maybe even if you don't live in the state of Texas and most of our listeners are outside of the state can learn because you had this individual, Judge Diane Hensley,

[00:24:00] who is an individual that wanted to accept the fact that I will certainly be glad to marry people but if it's inconsistent with my beliefs in terms of same-sex marriage, I'll refer it to someone

[00:24:14] else and you've won a victory in that case. We did. The Texas Supreme Court ruled today in our favor and it's a great victory. If you've watched this issue very much around the country,

[00:24:30] you've been kind of waiting for one of these to kind of lay down some precedent and so this is a great start. Diane Hensley, Judge Justice Hensley was doing everything right. I mean,

[00:24:43] she's a judge. She could not in good conscience because of her faith marry two men or two women and so she made a way where and the choice that she was kind of told is look you can either do

[00:24:57] no weddings or you have to do the same-sex weddings and she was like well I can't do that and she found a way to make it work for everybody and she if people came to her who were same-sex,

[00:25:12] she had it arranged for the same price for the equal distance just not very far from where she was. There was somebody that was willing to do that and take care of that situation

[00:25:23] and she had no complaints none but somebody did an article in the newspaper and the judicial commission even though there was no person that complained about what she was doing went after

[00:25:35] her as a federal judge. I mean, a justice of the peace and so and you know when she tried to challenge it they said no you can't challenge it and the Texas Supreme Court just ruled today oh

[00:25:49] yes you can. Yes you can. And a number of the there's a concurrence that's really good to say that this is a clear violation of religious freedom. So that's a very good victory in a

[00:25:59] very important case and there aren't many precedents out there at all on this issue and this will be a good one to get started on giving people protection. People shouldn't be forced just because they're in a job or an elected official they shouldn't be forced to do things

[00:26:13] that violate their faith especially if there are other people who can do the same thing. This sort of real intolerance that no no I want you to do this. It's so anti what we are about as a country

[00:26:29] of freedom of conscience and so it's a great victory and it makes a lot of sense and it gives a good example of how people can accommodate give people what they need but not violate their faith.

[00:26:40] And if you think about this we on Wednesday talked with Pentadexter about the ninth anniversary of of course Obergefell which is the same-sex marriage thing and it takes nine years later to say no you have freedom religious freedom when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage. The

[00:26:57] other one I thought I'd mention which came out of the Texas Supreme Court and is happening all over the country that is the Texas Supreme Court also ruled that the law that was created by the

[00:27:07] House of Representatives and the Senate it's called Senate Bill 14 which would protect children from what are called child gender modification cutting off body parts ruled in favor of that so there

[00:27:21] seems to be a very significant pushback on that regard. And the Supreme Court took a case on that very issue that they will be hearing this next term so that'll be an issue at the Supreme Court

[00:27:33] as well on that same thing that states that are passing these laws to protect children from really gender mutilation I mean from actually removing body parts etc of people who are not old enough

[00:27:48] to make those decisions that will be decided by the Supreme Court. The argument up there by the Biden administration is that that violates equal protection because transgenders are being discriminated against in that process and that'll be the issue the Supreme Court answers in those

[00:28:04] cases. Let me also pick up something we talked about earlier in the week and that is this executive order by the president having to do with what you might call amnesty and Dr. Merrill Matthews you have a piece Biden's immigration amnesty scheme will cost taxpayers are you ready

[00:28:21] for this billions of dollars run the numbers for us what's going on? Well what the administration is going to do is he's going to allow what they estimate to be about 500,000 people who have who

[00:28:33] are married and been living in the United States for 10 years they're going to essentially let let them go through the process to get work permits and be here legally another 50,000 children of them yes and so and this this goes back to something back in May that President

[00:28:53] Biden did he's going to allow some hundred thousand of the dreamers sign up but what this means they're not going to be able to do everything but they will be able to sign up for

[00:29:02] the Affordable Care Act. Most of the people we're talking about here are going to be in the middle income range lower income range that means they're eligible for the subsidies so when you go and

[00:29:13] you look at what the average subsidy is and I just sort of did a rough calculation 500,000 another 50,000 another 100,000 650,000 if you look at the average subsidy it's a lot of money it's we're looking around four billion dollars a year for Obamacare subsidies for this now it's probably

[00:29:32] not going to be that high because some of these people will have health insurance through in their a spouse who's a citizen and maybe gets it through an employer but some may also have not helped

[00:29:43] their spouse doesn't have health insurance so they may sign up for the full coverage so we don't know what their actual cost is going to be but that's why I did kind of a top in but it's a lot of money

[00:29:53] and it's on top of all the other money that we're seeing there were debates there were discussions last night about the biggest spender in Washington and Biden the Congressional Budget Office is already having to up Biden's budget now there I think they're estimating had 1.7 billion last year

[00:30:12] I think the budget deficit now is going to be they've upped it another three or four hundred so they put around 200 or two trillion for this year so Biden may have said that Trump was the

[00:30:23] biggest spender he's trying to catch up in a hurry and Trump's most spending was due to the pandemic right but Biden is trying to catch up with all his handouts handouts people you know again I'll go

[00:30:34] around the round table you know the one of the things came up last night was about social security and of course first of all it's false to say that Donald Trump was going to end social security

[00:30:42] that's just a talking point that's false but Donald Trump did bring up something that I've imagined if anybody's thinking about it go wait a minute if you have all these people 10 billion 10 million that probably or more we'll just use the 10 million figure they'll eventually

[00:30:57] go on social security and they haven't been paying into it but they could be receiving out of it I mean you talk about a budget buster doesn't that kind of create that well I it it didn't dawn

[00:31:09] upon me initially later I remembered that Obama allowed a number of people who've been here parents of dreamers and so forth to be eligible for social security and I remembered oh I actually

[00:31:19] did some calculation on that because typically but the problem there was most of us work here our whole lives so you get 40 50 years worth of paying into social security if you let people

[00:31:31] come in mid-career later career they still have to put in the 10 years but we actually have a provision now that we have an agreement with a number of other countries that if somebody had

[00:31:43] worked and paid into their social security five six seven years then they can just finish up the 10 years by doing three years here so you really are letting people coming in without paying

[00:31:55] sort of a full lifetime in there they're paying a small amount of it but they get the full benefits now again the uh kelly was saying just a minute ago you know you're going to hear things that you'll

[00:32:05] hear nowhere else and there's a good example of that we come back from the break we're going to talk about this idea of chevron deference and I guarantee you you won't be hearing an intelligent

[00:32:13] conversation about that as a matter of fact I was reading the New York Times so you don't have to and there's already an editorial there making it sound like this decision today by the Supreme

[00:32:22] Court maybe lead to the end of the republic as we know it because now we no longer let these unelected bureaucrats making all these decisions for us so I'm going to have kelly explain what's

[00:32:33] going on and why this has been something he's been talking about for some time and you won't hear it anywhere else except here on point of view but let's take a break and just before we do so

[00:32:42] don't forget we got a double match never done that before don't know if we'll ever do it again but we did it today and so it's an opportunity as we are coming to the end of the week and the

[00:32:53] end of the program if you could give us a call 800-347-5151 I don't know how many calls we're getting but even if you happen to get a busy signal just call right back or if you are on hold

[00:33:07] just hold on for just a minute we'll get to you but I hope that we can just kind of finish off this matching challenge which was put together actually by a number of different individuals

[00:33:16] and then we have two of those that both give about five thousand dollars so there's about ten thousand dollars of that it's available for a double match never done it before so let's if you can

[00:33:26] join with us of course even as we go off the air you can still join and say that you would like to be part of this go to the website which again has a section that says biblical clarity in cultural

[00:33:39] chaos click on the button that says give now come back and talk about one other supreme court decision that you need to know about right after this on a recent trip to Greece I learned that during the

[00:33:58] Athenian golden age 449 to 431 BC there emerged a fervent belief in the ability of man our tour leader David Sparks explained the development of democracy in ancient Greece which culminated in Athens taking power from the hands of a single ruler or aristocratic ruling class and redistributing

[00:34:17] that power to all male citizens regardless of social or economic status each male citizen over 18 was allowed participation in the assembly the legislative body that elected magistrates and created legislation it's hard to overstate the importance of this shift from rule by the few

[00:34:35] to rule by the many this idea democracy is foundational to our government and culture sometimes our leaders forget that nine years ago this week the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a landmark ruling that violates the very principles of democracy in the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges

[00:34:52] decision the court struck down all state laws specifying that marriage is the union between one man and one woman bringing legal same-sex marriage to every state when you get a bad decision from the Supreme Court it's worth reading the dissenting opinion in this case each of the

[00:35:09] four dissenting justices wrote his own all lamented the damage the ruling does to democracy the dissenters agreed the question in this case was not whether same-sex marriage is a good idea but who

[00:35:20] should decide it should not have been the court but the people and their elected legislators Chief Justice Roberts spoke of the sheer arrogance of the ruling saying the court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the state and orders the transformation of a social institution that has

[00:35:36] formed the basis of human society for millennia he wondered just who do we think we are since then the left has pulled out all the stops to force acceptance of same-sex marriage into law and

[00:35:48] policy for point of view i'm penna dexter you're listening to point of view your listener supported source for truth last segment of the last day of this week so again if you haven't made that phone

[00:36:05] call 800-347-5151 i understand we're about halfway through that double match so that's kind of encouraging i held up this booklet just a few minutes ago on the deep state and that's what

[00:36:16] we're going to be talking about but it's kind of interesting because i didn't put it in this booklet but another one i did on the liberal mind a quote from hayek the road to serfdom and i

[00:36:26] years ago said i've heard all these people quoting from this book i guess i need to sit down and read it cover to cover and i did and he was warning about what happens when well-meaning bureaucrats

[00:36:36] who are unelected think they're doing it for your good and thus have a disproportionate influence on policy and kelly this decision from the supreme court is something you've been talking about for

[00:36:48] some time supreme court ruled six to three that what is called chevron deference is no more and that's another very significant decision that came down today very significant i i i think it's

[00:37:02] probably the most significant of the term uh and our good friend paul clement argued the case yes all one uh he was our lead attorney in the coach kennedy case and has won a lot of cases at the

[00:37:14] supreme court um but what to explain to people well let me give you a summary first this might be the biggest blow to the power of bureaucrats that we've seen in you know certainly decades

[00:37:30] i'd say that's true a bureaucracy just took a real body blow and what this was is that you know we pass laws that you know your elected officials pass this is not about laws this is about

[00:37:46] bureaucrats who are not elected in all these different agencies who pass regulations and that may become and you know maybe maybe you've got a pond in your backyard and you know a government agency comes back and says well you violated you know one of our regulations because

[00:38:07] you dammed up some water that would have normally gone through your land into somewhere else and so you're not going to jail and you're like wait and that's not what this statute or that's not

[00:38:18] what this regulation says well how you know but they say yeah well that's our interpretation and what had happened is the supreme court when it was more liberal had taken real uh uh they had they had gone way beyond and kind of pushing their left-wing agenda by reinterpreting

[00:38:41] these things and so under the reagan administration they pushed that hey you need to you know like take away this power from the courts and and give it to the to the uh you know the regulators the

[00:38:52] bureaucrats and they did and so there was this doctrine that said look when there is any sort of ambiguity about what a regulation means we're going to defer to the people who made the regulation the bureaucrats right and so that gives all this power to the bureaucrats over

[00:39:11] your business your home your land your all these things and all the deference all everything is kind of leaning their way well they realize that's really a bad idea um you think and they

[00:39:24] what they said today is chevron deference which has been in place for a good while now and has given all kinds of power to these bureaucrats is overruled it's gone and they said look they're not

[00:39:35] more able to interpret a regulation that's our job as judges we do it all every day statutes laws regulations we will say what it says so this is a major you think of all the you know the epa and

[00:39:53] all this stuff and what they do to businesses and industries and the danger and the power they have this takes a lot of the power of all these agencies and all their bureaucrats away

[00:40:03] this would be one of the biggest sort of reduction in regulation and over regulation of businesses that that we'll probably see maybe in our lifetime might just mention the reason it has chevron it was chevron usa versus natural resources defense council back in 1984 but dr merrill matthews let's

[00:40:21] go to your area so many times i remember and i've actually taken the time to try to read through some of the affordable care act obamacare and so many times it said as the secretary of health and

[00:40:33] human services shall determine yes there's a guy who just gave everything over to the bureaucracy there's about 3 000 references there who says the secretary shall determine the secretary shall decide the secretary shall make rules and most of that was the secretary of health human services

[00:40:48] sometimes of the department of commerce but congress is essentially passing a number of these decisions over and that's been a trend going on for some time if you're making huge sweeping legislation congress can't decide every aspect of that but one of the things that's

[00:41:03] happened is i think you could make the case that 30 40 years ago uh people bureaucrats were generally civil servants they were coming in they might have been a little bit on the left but they were there

[00:41:14] to do a civil servant job what's happened over the past couple of decades is liberals have moved into the bureaucracy and they see this as an attempt for them to be able to sort of impose

[00:41:26] their agenda on the country that you can't get through congress and president biden has been encouraging that because he can't get his agenda through so the chevron deference i think is just

[00:41:39] that overruling that is just going to be a huge deal and it's really going to clamp down on a lot of those liberals in washington in bureaucrat bureaucracies who see see that as a way for them

[00:41:50] to be able to make the country more liberal yeah this is we talk about the deep state right and swamp and all this there you go this is the biggest shot to the deep state that we've seen

[00:42:02] and uh it's it's why there are a lot of uh you know people on the far extreme left who want to get rid of the supreme court they want to pack it they want to put term limits and throw out the

[00:42:13] conservatives they want to they're pushing to do it's why there's an attack on thomas like every day justice thomas and justice alito um it's this is really going after their power and returning it

[00:42:25] back to the people let me just mention that next week of course we will have a fourth of july so we'll do a little bit on of course the religious uh heritage of our country and a few others

[00:42:36] and also of course we'll be playing tapes both on thursday and friday but i thought you'd just pick up a phone call real quickly lana we only got about a minute can you share your testimony i

[00:42:44] know yes thank you so much i i just saw had to jump in there uh we can we like to contribute to your program because we just love your program you are just awesome and i just wanted to share that

[00:42:57] i've met you and your wife and and janna and you're just beautiful people and so we want to keep in touch and keep supporting you because we need your station and we just love the way you present

[00:43:07] it and how respectful you are in handling you know all of these issues and not mocking you know the um the opposing people um you are just uh just a wonderful wonderful christian testimony

[00:43:21] and we just want to share our appreciation we just want to keep you on the air thank you well let me i'm just about out of time but just to mention she was calling in from knlb in arizona but around

[00:43:31] the round table real quickly any reason why people should support point of view to keep the voice going you've got to have somebody that counters the media out there the mainstream media which

[00:43:40] they are going to uh always spin towards the left yes and support kelly shackle for two first liberty needs your help as well yeah you just go to firstliberty.org or you can you can do a twofer

[00:43:52] right you can go to pointofyou.net and uh make a donation there and then right on pointofyou.net there's the first liberty you can click on first liberty and you go there and again there's a big

[00:44:02] donate button there and we're down to the last few days and and this is the last you know the the weekend is the end of of everything here as far as the fiscal year so i would encourage people to

[00:44:13] do that i mean we're going to be off the air in less than a minute do that now uh when you get off or you know it might not happen because you'll get busy so uh important time right now

[00:44:25] i just got a note that says we have about twenty five hundred dollars left so we're getting to the goal line and if you can help us out we greatly appreciate that first of all i want to thank you

[00:44:35] guys for coming in and i i'm sorry we tried to use our electronic shoehorn to get as much in as we could we covered a lot of cases and we will come back and cover some more on monday including of

[00:44:46] course this whole issue of presidential immunity and maybe come back and explain a little bit more about chevron deference but first of all i want to thank everybody who's made a part of this program

[00:44:55] thank you for engineering the program steve thank you for producing the program i want to thank everybody around the other side of the glass for answering the phones enjoy the weekend but still

[00:45:05] give us a call 800-347-5151 we'll see you back here on monday the next 12 months will be a critical time for america make a difference now by supporting point of view in the year ahead americans will need

[00:45:21] accurate news and a biblical perspective both before and after the next election regardless of the outcome point of view is committed to being a source that citizens like you can trust and most important point of view equips listeners to apply biblical truth to the important issues of our

[00:45:43] times today is the final day for point of use fundraising for the fiscal year the good news is anything you donate by midnight tonight will be doubled thanks to a group of generous donors who

[00:45:58] like you want to equip americans to think clearly in the months ahead give now double your impact at point of view dot net or you can call toll free with your gift 1-800-347-5151

[00:46:16] that's point of view dot net and 1-800-347-5151 point of view is produced by point of view ministries