The Stack: The Fight for the Constitution … and 6 More Weeks of Winter
Six more weeks of winter, according to Punxsutawney Phil — a reminder that sometimes tradition is more reliable than the so-called experts. From there, today’s conversation turns serious, examining why the American court system has become one of the most consequential battlegrounds in our politics.
Todd breaks down two recent court cases: one blocking efforts to require citizenship verification for voting, and another attempting — unsuccessfully — to halt ICE operations in Minnesota. Together, they highlight the growing divide between judges who interpret the law as written and those who attempt to reshape it to fit political outcomes.
The episode also marks Justice Samuel Alito’s 20 years on the Supreme Court, using his words and rulings to explain the difference between constitutional originalism and judicial activism. As the country approaches another critical election cycle, understanding the proper role of the courts isn’t optional — it’s essential to preserving a nation governed by laws, not judicial activism.
🎧 Listen to Today’s Episode
📰 Stack Links
Here Are 10 Great Justice Alito Quotes To Mark His 20 Years On The Supreme Court
Activist Judge Blocks Trump Executive Order Requiring Citizenship To Vote
🛒 Shop The Official Todd Huff Show Store
Clean, classic, and unmistakably you. This white hoodie features the Todd Huff Show crest embroidered on the left chest in full color for a sharp, timeless look and all-day comfort.
Throw it on for cool mornings, late nights, or any time common sense needs a little extra warmth.
📝 Transcript: Six More Weeks of Winter and the Fight for the Constitution
The Todd Huff Show – February 2, 2026
Host: Todd Huff
Todd Huff: Six more weeks of winter, my friends. That’s what Punxsutawney Phil has told us. And I gotta tell you, he is as reliable as any other source in mainstream media and probably in weather prediction as well, so why not? Why not accept it? I’m used to the cold. I guess six weeks is six weeks and we’ll be done with it. But Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow here this morning. And I’ve shared on this program before, this is a spectacle for me. I love all the things that happen in American culture and society and so forth. The little things like this. This is one that entertains me to no end. In fact, I had to take advantage. I want to take advantage of this. If someone out there, if someone out there has a connection to what happens on the ground on Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney, I want to know about it. I would love to be one of those dudes in a black top hat.
Todd Huff: Holding or holding the groundhog would be great. Of course, I’m sure that this is nearly impossible, but I’m just going to put it out there. I would happily — the hour of the day that you have to get up for this is insanely ridiculous — but I would do it. I would hold the groundhog. I would hold the scroll. I would even be somebody in the background. This, to me, is the height of hilarity. And it’s fun, and it’s a break from all the nonsense that we have to deal with. And so anyway, Punxsutawney says six more weeks of winter. And why not? I mean, again, he’s more reliable than Don Lemon.
Todd Huff: All right. So, that being said, today, what I want to talk about today, I want to talk — there’s a couple of court cases out there I think are relevant to the larger narrative about what is happening as we seek, as this country seeks, to move back to a nation of laws. And a nation of laws that are reasonable and sensible and logical and that makes sense. And so there’s a couple of court cases I want to talk about. There’s been some rulings on some cases, and it’s led me to want to, I guess, further discuss the court system in general.
Todd Huff: And some key principles here. Justice Alito, believe it or not, for those of you who have followed politics for some time, he has been on the court now for 20 years, which seems unbelievable because I remember pretty clearly Justice Alito being appointed to the court. And that entire process. He is one of the most — he’s one of the strongest defenders of the Constitution and liberty on the court. Justice Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are the three conservative, reliable, reasonable people on the Court who care about liberty and the Constitution. And originalism and those sorts of things. Anyway, I want to talk about this. This matters a lot in our society. And there are people out there that have no idea. They just, they have no idea. They haven’t been taught in our public education system. There’s probably teachers out there that don’t understand the American system of justice, the role of the judicial branch and so forth. And there’s just so much ignorance out there.
Todd Huff: And it’s important that we understand it correctly, because it is one of the branches that we’re going to have to get back into order, so to speak, back into the confines of the Constitution in order for us to salvage this great nation. And so that’s what I want to talk about today. And let me tell you this. This is going to be what I want to say, kind of the big picture of the judiciary, Alito’s role. In fact, there’s an article I want to reference that have some of the most, some of the best quotes that we have gotten from Samuel Alito. And this matters a lot. I think that these things matter a whole lot.
Todd Huff: They’re not given the attention that they need, and we’re going to try to do that here today on the program. So, friends, that’s where we’re headed. In the meantime, you know that one of the biggest challenges that we as conservatives face is finding ways to ensure that our values align with the way that we live our lives. That includes a lot of things, but it includes, among those things, how we invest our money. I’ve said on this program for a long time it’s very, very — it can be disheartening. I don’t get disheartened, but it can be disheartening to fight for a cause, to fight for principles, and then find that one of the companies that you invest in or that you purchase from or whatever is using the profits. Or the investment dollars that you are providing to it to more or less undermine your principles and values.
Todd Huff (Sponsor): And that’s why I love what the team at 4:8 Financial is doing. They specialize in biblically responsible investing. That means they screen out companies that don’t align with their faith, their value, so that they’re not funding things that go completely against what we believe in. They do all the heavy lifting. They make sure that they’re the ones that do the research and the assessing and so forth. All we have to do is answer some questions. So head on over to https://48financial.com to do your part in answering that very quick assessment so that they can complete the assessment and help you see to what degree your investments align with your values. Again, https://48financial.com, because your money, my friends, should work for your values, certainly not against them.
Todd Huff: Okay. So let us get to two court cases here. I want to touch on these briefly today. Today. The first — which one do I want to do first? I want to do this. Townhall is where you’ll find this, by the way. You’ll get all of these links on our show notes page on the website. These are also emailed out in our daily email newsletter. That’s free, by the way. It gives more background information. It gives source links. It’s a shareable version of this program. If you want to share what we discuss with other people — which that would be great if you did that — help us to reach more people. Help people to understand the truth about this country, some of these important foundational principles and so forth. But you can sign up for that email newsletter for free at the website anyway.
Todd Huff: Headline here: Judge blocks Trump’s executive order requiring citizenship to vote. I’m going to read just a part of this article. A federal judge has permanently enjoined President Donald Trump’s executive order that requires citizenship to vote. The January 30th order from U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly consolidated three lawsuits from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Democratic National Committee, and the League of Women Voters Education Fund versus Trump and the Republican National Committee. The ruling reads in part: “The court shall declare that two provisions of this Executive Order, both purporting to impose new requirements for verifying the U.S. citizenship of people registering to vote or applying to receive absentee ballots, are inconsistent with the constitutional separation of powers and cannot lawfully be implemented.”
Todd Huff: “The court shall permanently enjoin the relevant defendants from taking any action to implement or give effect to these provisions.” So basically, Stephen Miller summarized it as this — this is on X — Democrat judge says illegal aliens can vote as long as they check a box. Check the box saying they are American. And that’s effectively what’s happening here. So Trump wrote an executive order. And again, we’ve talked about executive orders on this program. Executive orders in and of themselves are not — they’re not necessarily good or bad. What matters is the content. The content of the executive order. And the context of what that executive order does. An executive order that helps clarify how the law is interpreted and how the executive branch will enforce that particular law is fine. Now, of course, in theory that’s fine. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be ridiculous interpretations.
Todd Huff: And ways that laws will be enforced or not enforced. But the point here is that an executive order designed around that, at least in theory, is fine. One that simply tries to make up the law along the way is not fine. And so sometimes you get into areas where it’s a little bit fuzzy. So Trump writes an executive order to try to prevent — we’re on the same page here — that citizens are the ones who should be able to vote, right? I mean, surely we can agree on that. I know in some blue cities you can vote in local elections as a non-citizen, which is absolutely crazy. In fact, I would make the case that that is — you don’t have that discretion as a state. Well, if you are allowing someone to vote at a time when there’s also a federal election, meaning if there’s a ballot that is federal as well.
Todd Huff: Asking the poll workers to be able to only give local ballot access to people who are only allowed to vote locally is nonsensical to me. That is a recipe for disaster that should not be allowed to happen. Now, you’re literally a half a step away from people being able to vote in a federal election just from some clerical error, which we all know that this is happening anyway. And I would maintain by design. This is intentional. But the founders, when they framed this country, obviously they write, “We the people of the United States,” right? This is the preamble to the Constitution.
Todd Huff: “We the people of the United States.” It doesn’t say, “We the people in the United States.” We the people of the United States. There’s a difference between being a shareholder here in this country. There’s a difference between being someone who is vested, who belongs to this country, who calls this country home legally, and someone who is not. Someone who is trespassing in this country. Someone who is visiting this country. Surely we could all agree that the founders, when they were writing about the American people in the preamble, were talking about people of, not just in, the United States.
Todd Huff: There is a difference, and that difference is important. If the ambassador from France was visiting the United States during election time, at the time of the Founding Fathers here in the U.S., they wouldn’t have said, “Oh, have you cast your ballot for the day?” And that’s an obvious distinction. In fact, I think it was so obvious that the founders did not even take the time to clarify that, because that should go without saying. That is an obvious thing. In order to be a voter in a country, you have to be someone who has a vested interest. You are a citizen of that country. That goes, again, without saying. Just like it goes without saying a lot of things that’s common sensical in the Constitution and in life in general. For example, when you talk about “we the people,” you don’t need to specify that you’re not talking about dogs and cats as well. There are words that mean things. And there is a certain general understanding where you don’t have to explain every minutia and every detail.
Todd Huff: And we’ve gotten to the point where there are people who literally think that illegal aliens should be able to vote, which is crazy to me. And that illegal aliens should count in the U.S. census. And that those numbers should be used for allocating — as they are — they count illegal aliens in this country. That is used to determine a state’s population. That then is used to determine how many representatives a state gets. That then, in turn, determines how many electoral votes a state gets at presidential election time. It’s crazy. This is literally how we’re being governed. It’s how it was done during the Biden regime. Trump is effectively trying to bring some election common sense back.
Todd Huff: And so in trying to enforce what’s on the books — that legal citizens are the ones who are supposed to be able to vote — Trump issued an executive order. A judge blocked it. And in the assessment of Stephen Miller, all you have to do now as an illegal alien is get your hands on a driver’s license or some photo ID. In fact, some states don’t even have photo ID requirements. But for some that do, getting a photo ID as an illegal alien is not even very hard. We’ve heard about the number of illegal aliens who have gotten their CDL. In fact, we’ve shared stories on this program. I remember talking about one in Florida who hit and killed someone on the highway system and was an illegal alien, wasn’t even supposed to have a CDL. Just all this stuff that’s unraveling and unwinding in our culture and our society because people don’t enforce the law.
Todd Huff: So this is one case that’s out there, a decision that’s been made recently. Another case that I want to hit on is this. This is at DailyCaller.com. Headline here: Biden judge rejects Minnesota’s request to end ICE operation now. This case — this is a good ruling because ICE has the responsibility and the authority to enforce federal immigration law. It is their job. It can do it. ICE can do it in U.S. cities and states. Let me read a portion of this story to you again at DailyCaller.com. A judge appointed by former President Joe Biden — so this is someone who’s a leftist judge, which we’ll talk about here as the program unfolds — rejected the Minnesota government’s request to end federal immigration enforcement operations in the state Saturday. Minnesota-based District Judge Catherine Menendez, whom Biden appointed to the federal bench in 2021, rejected the request by Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Todd Huff: Of course, that’s Jacob Frey, the most dangerous mayor in America, to immediately remove Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other federal law enforcement officers from the state. So they filed a lawsuit. Keith Ellison did, alongside the most dangerous mayor in the country. They filed a lawsuit that said ICE can’t operate here. Basically, get them immediately removed from our state. The Democratic-controlled state and city governments sued President Donald Trump’s administration on January 12, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security Operation Metro Surge was unconstitutional. In what way is this unconstitutional? It is mind-boggling to me. This is not serious. This is the “means justify the ends” mentality. They will excuse any means possible if it prevents ICE from doing what it is constitutionally allowed to do.
Todd Huff: If it creates or if it has those ends — if it means the end of ICE enforcing the law in Minnesota — they’re down for it. They don’t care what that means. Because again, as I’ve stated before, this is a key voting bloc. Listen, there may be money laundering here. This is a mess in Minnesota. And it’s being cleaned up, and it has been cleaned up pretty aggressively, by the way. Minnesota’s one state. How much more of this is happening? What does California look like? Trump has alluded to that as well. What’s happening in the People’s Republic of California? But as I’ve said before, it is clearly the job of the federal government — the Supreme Court’s ruled on this — to enforce immigration law. When Obama was president, the federal government was not enforcing immigration law. So the state of Arizona said, “Fine, we’ll do it.” So there was a court case, and the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t enforce federal immigration law, Arizona, or any other state. You have to basically wait upon the federal government to do it.
Todd Huff: Now when the federal government is actually doing it, you have states saying you can’t do it. This is preposterous and nonsensical. But again, it’s all part of their plan to try to stir up people into being confused and conflating issues and all this sort of stuff. Ellison’s office — that’s Keith Ellison, radical lunatic — and the city of St. Paul did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Menendez wrote in her ruling that Minnesota and the Twin Cities “have provided no metric by which to determine when lawful law enforcement becomes unlawful commandeering.”
Todd Huff: Simply arguing that the excess of Operation Metro Surge are so extreme that the surge exceeds whatever line must exist. This is fantastic. This is written by a Biden appointee. So she’s basically saying you’ve not given any way for me to measure legally what is excessive here, what is unlawful. You’re just saying it seems like a lot. The job of the federal government is to enforce the law. It doesn’t say that you can only send 100 ICE agents into a city, or 50 million — which we don’t have that many, but you get the point. And she says that’s not what the law says. You’re just saying it feels excessive.
Todd Huff: And that’s effectively what this lawsuit is. Again, it was a bit of wishful thinking by the left, even with someone in the position — well, that’s a Biden appointee — in that role. So these sorts of things happen all the time. I just wanted to hit on these because they’re relevant to what we’ve been talking about on this program. They’re relevant to the direction this country is going, especially as it pertains to elections. We have an election coming up this fall, as you well know. A midterm election. A huge election. In fact, the outcome of this election is going to be very consequential as we move into Trump’s second half of his final term. So these things matter tremendously. Trump is trying to clean up elections. The left is trying everything in their power to not allow elections to be cleaned up. That was the first case. And they’re also happy to prevent any enforcement of federal immigration law at all.
Todd Huff: Because this, again, is a core voting constituency for the left. So I want to spend the rest of our time talking about the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, that sort of thing. These matters — this stuff matters a lot, my friends. So let me talk about that on the other side of the break. Before I get there, though, friends, if you are in marketing, if you have a small business, if you’re in HR and you need logoed merchandise, if you need apparel, if you need signage, if you need promotional products. Giveaway items, anything with your logo, your messaging on it, Red, White and Brand is here to help you. They can put your logo on almost anything. RedWhiteAndBrand.com is the website. You can go, you can shop, you can check it out. Discount code TODD will save you 10 percent, my friends. RedWhiteAndBrand.com — your logo on almost anything. Quick timeout for me, my friends. Back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends. Going through here some legal cases that are relevant to what’s happening in the country today. On top of that, my friends, we’re also going to now venture into a discussion about the court system, the judicial system, as well, in a larger context — the importance and some key foundational ideas.
Todd Huff: Justice Samuel Alito has been on the court now for 20 years, which is hard to believe. I remember when he was appointed by Bush, well, 20 years ago now, which seems remarkable to think about. But he has become a conservative, reliable conservative on the court. And I like Alito a lot. In fact, I’ll really quickly just give you my assessment of the Supreme Court. Of course, there’s nine justices. Nine justices. The conservative justices — now, what do I mean by conservative? Well, I’ll talk about that in a minute. But let me tell you how I view the breakdown of the court. You have three reliable conservative justices. You have Samuel Alito, you have Justice Clarence Thomas, and I think Neil Gorsuch.
Todd Huff: I think they have established themselves as the conservatives. I’ll explain this in a moment. Then you have people — if you look at the conservative wing of the court on the right side of a continuum and you move to the left, and the further the left you move, the further you move from originalism, which basically says, “Hey, this is — we care about the intent of these words when they were written by the framers.” The Constitution — what did they mean when they wrote them? Not how can we manipulate it to fit our political agenda today. That’s not the role of a judge. Originalism is someone who cares about the original intent of both the Constitution and the law. And all that being said, that is — those are the three what I consider reliable conservative votes on the Supreme Court.
Todd Huff: Then you have Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sometimes find themselves aligned with those constitutional originalists and sometimes don’t. These folks are still good to have on the court, but they’re not as reliably conservative. Sometimes they’re more what you would call institutionalists. They care more about the impact of a ruling and societal impacts and those sorts of things than the more conservative wing of the court, which is basically, “Hey, this is what it says. If Congress wants to fix it, they better fix it.” If it’s a states’ rights issue, states need to fix it. You get the idea. These things should be fixed at the legislative level. Then you have Justice John Roberts, who’s truly a coin toss. He really concerns himself with all sorts of things — people’s feelings, reactions, and all that sort of stuff. And so he’s the most unpredictable on the court. He’s not by any stretch an outright activist, but in many cases he becomes an activist because he’s concerned about the impact this might have on society.
Todd Huff: Then you have the folks who are on the leftist-appointed side of the court. Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson. These folks are concerned about effectively trying to implement their political opinions from the bench. And that’s really what it comes down to when you look at the Supreme Court, or you look at justices or judges in general. You have those who interpret the law as it was written. These are the originalists. These are people who want to understand the history, the debate surrounding the law, whether it’s a statute or a constitutional principle. They want to understand what the founders or what the folks who were writing statutes and laws were doing, what they were trying to accomplish, what the thinking was, why they used certain words.
Todd Huff: And then they apply that understanding to the case at hand. How does this law apply here? What does that law really mean in these circumstances? How do we make sense of it by being and remaining true to the Constitution and the laws that have been written since then? That is the direction that the conservatives on the court want to take, and that’s the direction we want. So when I say conservative justice, I really just mean someone who interprets the law to the best of their ability and applies it to the case at hand. They do the best they can. Their intention is to understand the law and apply it as it was intended. That’s their goal. That’s the objective. That’s what should be sought. A conservative justice is not someone that comes to the bench and says, “Hey, I like conservative principles, so I’m going to make sure that whatever case is before me, I push my political beliefs.” That’s not conservative. It’s not conservative when conservatives do it, and it’s not reasonable when the left does it. That’s not the role of the courts.
Todd Huff: The role of the courts is to interpret the law and the Constitution and try to apply it as best they know how within the rules and confines of the law and the Constitution. That is how this is supposed to work. When I talk about leftist judges, I talk about activist judges. I talk about people who want outcome-driven jurisprudence. If you want to hear a larger word here this morning, they want the law to be interpreted so that they can get what they want politically. And perhaps the worst at that, the most obvious example on the current court, may literally be Ketanji Brown Jackson or potentially Sonia Sotomayor. Elena Kagan is probably not quite as far as those two, but again, they’re very open about this.
Todd Huff: You’ll hear terms like “the Constitution is a living, breathing document.” You’ll hear talk about the impact on society and all this sort of stuff. And they’re willing to reinterpret the text to reach what they think, or what they want you to believe, is the right moral conclusion, when in reality it’s activism. It’s judicial activism. This is not a good thing. They are not meant to be another legislative branch. Their job is very straightforward. But in practice, my friends, people in the court system — judges, lower-level judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court — they have a propensity, many of them, to simply implement what they want to be the law into the law. And that is not what they’re supposed to be there for. In fact, I think it was Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing — which was a spectacle in and of itself, if you remember that — but he was asked about interpreting a law that he did not agree with.
Todd Huff: And he said, “Listen, if I don’t make some decisions along the way that I personally disagree with, then I’m not doing my job.” In other words, my job is to interpret the law. I don’t like every law that’s passed. If I had it my way, some of these laws wouldn’t be law. But I’m still going to interpret them and apply them as they were written and as they were intended. It’s not my job to say that’s a bad law. My job is to make sense of the law and apply it fairly and consistently. And if the law needs changed, allow the legislature — federal or state — to fix that problem.
Todd Huff: That’s how this should be done. But it’s not done that way. And oftentimes it’s a hopeless feeling because we don’t elect these people. This is where you’ve seen in recent years all sorts of proposals for the court, because the left is not in control of it. They want to use it as a politically immune failsafe to protect radical ideas. And so they want to pack the court. They want to go from nine justices to fifteen justices. And they want to put six liberals on there, six activists on there, to interpret the law the way that they want it to be interpreted, which is really creating the law from the bench. You hear all sorts of things like lifetime appointments to the court being unfair. It’s one of the reasons why, if you have people that are truly interpreting the law, it shouldn’t really matter if they have a lifetime appointment or not.
Todd Huff: Because if they are true to the Constitution and the law, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. Of course, we do have things to worry about, because they aren’t always true to the Constitution and the law. So we’ve got to take a breather here real quick, my friends. Let’s face it, living with discomfort is tough. And while prescription medications can help, they often come with a very long list of side effects, not to mention the risk of dependency. That’s why more people are exploring natural options, like kratom from Christopher’s Organic Botanicals. This is a family-run company that does things the right way. They work directly with Indonesian farmers.
Todd Huff: They lab test every batch to make sure it is safe. It is clean. They use no synthetics, no chemicals, no surprises. It’s just honest, natural kratom that’s been used for generations. The problems that you hear about come from synthetic blends, contaminated junk that’s out there, shady sellers. Christopher’s is not any of those things. They keep it real. They keep it clean. They keep you informed. You can start with their kratom starter pack. Use code TODD HUFF. You’ll save ten percent on that purchase. ChristophersOrganicBotanicals.com. That’s ChristophersOrganicBotanicals.com. True tradition. Transparency.
Todd Huff: Timeout for me, my friends. Back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends. Want to — told you I was going to share some of Gorsuch’s quotes, some of his — this is listed at TheFederalist.com. Headline here says, “Here are ten great Justice Alito quotes to mark his twenty years on the Supreme Court.” We won’t get to all ten, of course. You can go to the website or whatever to read these or search at TheFederalist.com, but I will do my best to get through at least some of these to give you a flavor of what it means to be a qualified and just good judge, good justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Todd Huff: Because he is definitely that. Friends, ever notice how some families seem to have a plan that lasts for generations? That is not by accident. Full Suite Wealth works with people who want their wealth to make a difference for years to come. Their team brings together high-level investment strategies like private equity, private credit, options strategies. All coupled with expert legal guidance. It’s about making sure your vision becomes a reality for the people you love — today, tomorrow, and in the years to come. If you’re looking to do more than just manage money, if you want to leave your mark, build something lasting, take a look at Full Suite Wealth. FullSuiteWealth.com is the website. Again, that’s FullSuiteWealth.com.
Todd Huff: Build your legacy. Secure your future. Here are a couple of quotes from Neil Gorsuch. He says this, quote, “We are not supposed to do what is popular. We’re supposed to do what is right.”Oh, that is music to my ears, my friends. We’re supposed to interpret the Constitution and figure out what it means and then apply the Constitution. Where basically a democratic country, he writes, but the framers wanted to put some restraint on things that people might do during a particular era because they’re caught up in the emotions that are triggered by the events of the day. That’s politics. That’s the political narrative. Those are my comments, by the way. So he says we have to stand firm on this, and I think we have done a pretty good job on it. But we have to keep it up because challenges will continue to come.
Todd Huff: Talking about free speech, he says this. “Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government, and speech that advances humanity’s store of knowledge, thought, and expression in fields such as science, medicine, history, the social sciences, philosophy, and the arts.” That’s what Alito wrote, and that is exactly right. He also said this: “We are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.
Todd Huff: The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what people say, hear, and think.” That, as he wrote it, is regrettable. That was his writing a dissent in the Murthy v. Missouri case in 2024, if you want to read more on that. Parental rights — which is a big thing today, a very big thing today in our society that’s falling more and more in love with big government and so forth — he says this, or he wrote this, I should say, in the majority opinion. This was in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held that parents can opt their children out of LGBTQ propaganda pushed in their public schools.
Todd Huff: He writes, “It must be emphasized that what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.” The board’s introduction of the LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ right to the free exercise of their religion. Again, beautiful stuff. Beautiful stuff. He’s talking here about overturning Roe, the Roe case, the Casey case. He says this: “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Todd Huff: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” That’s exactly right. Now, it is a moral issue. Don’t misunderstand me, by the way. I am an abortion — what’s the term that they use now — I’m an abortion abolitionist. That’s not where some people are. Some people are pro-life, and that’s okay. But the more that I’ve read and thought and studied about this, I’m an abortion abolitionist. He says it’s time to return this issue back to the people’s elected representatives. That’s exactly where it always belonged. This is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.
Todd Huff: So people were upset that they overturned Roe and Casey, when in reality those cases were bad law, bad interpretation of law. They created law from the bench. This is exactly what happened. Anyway, there’s more to say here, but it’s good to have justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch on our Supreme Court. We are, folks — we owe these individuals a debt of gratitude for standing in the gap when it has become en vogue to push radically left political agendas in courts and on the Supreme Court. I’m simply out of time today, folks.
Todd Huff: Thank you for listening. I hope you have a wonderful Groundhog’s Day. SDG.
