25 Burst results for "Kelly Shackelford"

Kelly Shackelford on the Separation of Church and State

The Doug Collins Podcast

01:16 min | 3 months ago

Kelly Shackelford on the Separation of Church and State

"This idea of separation of church and state is not that they are these two blocks that never do me. It's going back and I want to explain that one a little more for folks so that they can, you know, for those who have been indoctrinated saying, oh, you can't have a cross on public property. You can't pray at a school board meeting. In terms that now can lighten them a little bit more. How does this lemon overturning, but this candy case helped them? Yeah, separation, I mean, number one, it's not in the word separation of church and state or nowhere in the constitution. And most people think it's in there. It's not. The first clause of the First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. And in other words, we are not going to establish a national church that everyone has a support. That's what they came from from the Church of England. That is it. I mean, that's all that's in there. So there's nothing about separation of church saint. It's not about it's about not having an established church. Which I don't think we're in danger of the denominational differences and all the diversity out there on that. There is no way we would ever have. We can't even have two bad discharges in the same room. There's first and second, can't even come together, right?

Church Of England Congress
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:03 min | 3 months ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast

"And I had all the job offers and I just sat in my little clerk's office and I thought, I just feel like that's not what I'm supposed to do and work for one of these big law firms. I remember thinking, well, what do you want to do? And I thought, well, you know, I should use my legal skills because I feel like God shown me I should do that. But I want to help pastors and churches and religious freedoms and our founding principles and not even like to go to seminary. And a laughed because there was no such paying job in the country at the time. And about two weeks later, two guys called me never met him, big partners with big national law firms. They said, look, we go to lunch. And I said, sure, they said, you know, we started donating our time for religious liberty, and we're not getting so many calls. It's hurting our ability to make a living. So we were wondering, would you be willing to come on, do legal cases, help passers, churches, religious freedoms, and our founding principles, and you can even go to seminary part time. If you want to. You know, being a little, maybe a little immature in my faith at that time and my mid to lower 20s. I said, let me pray about it like that wasn't the answer to prayer. And what I said yes, they said, how much you need to live on and I was at the time I was making 28,000 as a clerk for a federal court. So, I mean, they pitched in out of their pocket. We started a nonprofit, and that was 33 years ago. And, you know, 33 years later, first liberty is the largest legal nonprofit in the country that all we do is really just freedom and amazingly, and I give God the glory for this because you could never produce this of your own effort. We just had two landmark victories at the Supreme Court within 6 days of each other for religious liberties. So it's amazing it's an American story, right? Something that didn't even exist, but somebody had a dream and God carried him along and now we're, you know, where we need to be, which is unfortunately really we need to be able to handle last year over 700 legal matters because of what's happening across our country.

coach Kennedy Paula revere Assad Paul Revere Supreme Court Doug
How God Lead Kelly Shackelford to Co-Found First Liberty Institute

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:03 min | 3 months ago

How God Lead Kelly Shackelford to Co-Found First Liberty Institute

"And I had all the job offers and I just sat in my little clerk's office and I thought, I just feel like that's not what I'm supposed to do and work for one of these big law firms. I remember thinking, well, what do you want to do? And I thought, well, you know, I should use my legal skills because I feel like God shown me I should do that. But I want to help pastors and churches and religious freedoms and our founding principles and not even like to go to seminary. And a laughed because there was no such paying job in the country at the time. And about two weeks later, two guys called me never met him, big partners with big national law firms. They said, look, we go to lunch. And I said, sure, they said, you know, we started donating our time for religious liberty, and we're not getting so many calls. It's hurting our ability to make a living. So we were wondering, would you be willing to come on, do legal cases, help passers, churches, religious freedoms, and our founding principles, and you can even go to seminary part time. If you want to. You know, being a little, maybe a little immature in my faith at that time and my mid to lower 20s. I said, let me pray about it like that wasn't the answer to prayer. And what I said yes, they said, how much you need to live on and I was at the time I was making 28,000 as a clerk for a federal court. So, I mean, they pitched in out of their pocket. We started a nonprofit, and that was 33 years ago. And, you know, 33 years later, first liberty is the largest legal nonprofit in the country that all we do is really just freedom and amazingly, and I give God the glory for this because you could never produce this of your own effort. We just had two landmark victories at the Supreme Court within 6 days of each other for religious liberties. So it's amazing it's an American story, right? Something that didn't even exist, but somebody had a dream and God carried him along and now we're, you know, where we need to be, which is unfortunately really we need to be able to handle last year over 700 legal matters because of what's happening across our country.

Supreme Court
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

02:15 min | 5 months ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

"Guys, what a perfect time to bring back to the podcast, our friend Kelly shackleford, he's the president and CEO of first liberty institute. He's a constitutional scholar. He's argued before the Supreme Court testified before the House and Senate. One numerous landmark First Amendment and religious liberty cases. He was named one of the 25 greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century by Texas lawyer Kelly welcome to the podcast. I mean, you should have a big smile on your face. This has been a pretty momentous week to massive victories for religious freedom. One, of course, the coach, the football coach spraying on the field and the other the case in Maine that involves sort of tuition subsidies and will I want to talk about both. But let's begin with the coach. Now that was a case that first liberty, that was your case. So talk about what the key issue was in that case and what the court what the court decided and what the other side was pushing for. Well, the case was pretty simple. Most people understand coach made a pledge to God that after every game, win or lose, he would go to the 50 yard line when people were milling around, checking their cell phones, talking to friends. He would the first thing he would do is go to a knee for 20 seconds, maybe 30 seconds tops, and just give thanks for the privilege of coaching those young men. And he did that for over 7 years until the school told them that if he did that again, they were going to fire him. And he did because he made a pledge and they fired him for going on his on his knee for about 20 seconds and saying a silent prayer. And, you know, the argument, of course, on our side was that he has free speech rights. He has free exercise of religion, right? So under the First Amendment. And they tried to argue that, well, no, some student, you know, might see him from 200 yards away and feel coerced to pray because he's

Gorsuch Supreme Court Texas justice Sotomayor dinesh Kelly Maine roe V wade of religious libert Senate Joe Kennedy football government House baptist church Kavanaugh roe V wade Kennedy
Kelly Shackelford on His SCOTUS Victory Affirming Religious Freedom

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

02:15 min | 5 months ago

Kelly Shackelford on His SCOTUS Victory Affirming Religious Freedom

"Guys, what a perfect time to bring back to the podcast, our friend Kelly shackleford, he's the president and CEO of first liberty institute. He's a constitutional scholar. He's argued before the Supreme Court testified before the House and Senate. One numerous landmark First Amendment and religious liberty cases. He was named one of the 25 greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century by Texas lawyer Kelly welcome to the podcast. I mean, you should have a big smile on your face. This has been a pretty momentous week to massive victories for religious freedom. One, of course, the coach, the football coach spraying on the field and the other the case in Maine that involves sort of tuition subsidies and will I want to talk about both. But let's begin with the coach. Now that was a case that first liberty, that was your case. So talk about what the key issue was in that case and what the court what the court decided and what the other side was pushing for. Well, the case was pretty simple. Most people understand coach made a pledge to God that after every game, win or lose, he would go to the 50 yard line when people were milling around, checking their cell phones, talking to friends. He would the first thing he would do is go to a knee for 20 seconds, maybe 30 seconds tops, and just give thanks for the privilege of coaching those young men. And he did that for over 7 years until the school told them that if he did that again, they were going to fire him. And he did because he made a pledge and they fired him for going on his on his knee for about 20 seconds and saying a silent prayer. And, you know, the argument, of course, on our side was that he has free speech rights. He has free exercise of religion, right? So under the First Amendment. And they tried to argue that, well, no, some student, you know, might see him from 200 yards away and feel coerced to pray because he's

Kelly Shackleford First Liberty Institute Texas Supreme Court Senate Kelly Maine Football House
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:49 min | 5 months ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Someone who actually just won a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, we're going to ask him about that and also about this amazing victory. Kelly shackleford from the wonderful first liberty dot org Kelly, welcome back to the program. Happy to be on Charlie. Kelly, tell us about the significance of this decision today when it comes to the Second Amendment. It's huge. This has been a battle for a long time. Most people probably don't remember, but for many, many decades, we really had no decisions on the Second Amendment. And it was only in recent years that we had that, but since that, we really haven't had a lot of development of that. But one of the things that justice Thomas has been saying over and over again, even when they've not taken cases, he'll denial absurd. He'll put a comment in, which is very rare in a denial of cert, normally they just say certain I know 7, 8000 times a year. The point he's made over and over is, why are you treating this right this individual right? Differently and like it's some sort of second class constitutional right. You know, you do things to Second Amendment rights of individuals that you don't do to First Amendment rights of individuals. And this is a great example of that. I mean, think of what they're doing here, Charlie. The government is telling citizens, you have to show, give us a proper cause why you can carry a concealed firearm. You have to prove why you get the right versus like, can you imagine that if they did that with free speech? Well, you could speak, but you have to show us that you have a proper cause for what you want to say.

Charlie John Roberts Thomas Kelly New York
Kelly Shackelford on the SCOTUS Gun Strike Down in New York

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:49 min | 5 months ago

Kelly Shackelford on the SCOTUS Gun Strike Down in New York

"Someone who actually just won a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, we're going to ask him about that and also about this amazing victory. Kelly shackleford from the wonderful first liberty dot org Kelly, welcome back to the program. Happy to be on Charlie. Kelly, tell us about the significance of this decision today when it comes to the Second Amendment. It's huge. This has been a battle for a long time. Most people probably don't remember, but for many, many decades, we really had no decisions on the Second Amendment. And it was only in recent years that we had that, but since that, we really haven't had a lot of development of that. But one of the things that justice Thomas has been saying over and over again, even when they've not taken cases, he'll denial absurd. He'll put a comment in, which is very rare in a denial of cert, normally they just say certain I know 7, 8000 times a year. The point he's made over and over is, why are you treating this right this individual right? Differently and like it's some sort of second class constitutional right. You know, you do things to Second Amendment rights of individuals that you don't do to First Amendment rights of individuals. And this is a great example of that. I mean, think of what they're doing here, Charlie. The government is telling citizens, you have to show, give us a proper cause why you can carry a concealed firearm. You have to prove why you get the right versus like, can you imagine that if they did that with free speech? Well, you could speak, but you have to show us that you have a proper cause for what you want to say.

Kelly Shackleford Org Kelly U.S. Supreme Court Charlie Kelly Thomas
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

05:09 min | 6 months ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Hello everybody. Today on the Charlie Kirk show, we dive into Google. What is Google doing with Google documents, Google is more powerful than our government, we dive into it with alum bakari. And also a Supreme Court update from the great Kelly shackleford from first liberty dot org. When will the roe versus wade ruling come down? What will it be? That and so much more. Email me your thoughts is always freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com and make sure you come to sass, our student action summit, people of all ages welcome. It is a student focused event, TPUSA dot com slash SAS that is TP USA dot com slash SAS be there. We have desantis. We have Trump. We have Kayleigh McEnany Cruz, Josh hawley Greg gutfeld. We have cat temp, we have Jesse waters, Pete hegseth, and more TP USA dot com slash SAS that is TP USA dot com slash SAS. Buckle up everybody here. We go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running The White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job. Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, turning point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Brought to you by Andrew and Todd a Sierra Pacific mortgage for personalized loan services you can count on, go to Andrew and Todd dot com, the wonderful Andrew and Todd dot com. I have been keeping an eye on scotus blog dot com. I actually think scotus blog is pretty fair, I'd love to hear our guests opinion on scotus blog in just a second. But scotus blog is where we would find the rulings as they happen. June is always the month where the Supreme Court Justices issue their opinions. It looks like there's been a lot of delays, but there is no better person. To help us navigate all of the Supreme Court drama than someone who's actually argued in front of the Supreme Court. In fact, I believe has a case in front of the Supreme Court right now. He runs one of the most important organizations in America first liberty and he's with us right now, Kelly shackleford, great American patriot Kelly. Welcome back to the program. Great to be with you. So what is the latest with the Supreme Court? It seems like they're delaying the row ruling. When do you think we'll hear about that? You know, what's been going on has been really different. Charlie, I mean, if people don't realize, they get about 9000 requests a year, 8000 requests, and they took 65 cases this year. And those were all argued starting in October. And just, I guess, two weeks ago. I think we still had like 30 cases out of the 65 that hadn't been handed down. And that was a record. It was like back to 1950 that you had that much of a backlog. So they've been sort of whittling that down some. We're now down to 18 cases left, but all the big cases that controversial cases, the ones that you'd be talking about are still left. Obviously the Dobbs case, the Second Amendment case, you mentioned religious liberty actually we have two cases right now at the Supreme Court. The two religious liberty cases left. One's a school choice case. One's the coach Kennedy are both we're waiting for those. Additionally, there's the remain in Mexico, the border case. So all these really hot button cases, we're down to two weeks and those decisions are down yet. So it's coming to the crunch into the very end. What is the Second Amendment case that's in front of the court? It's case that in New York about whether you can restrict people's gun rights. I mean, I think it's going to be a ruling my guess is in favor of the Second Amendment. I think all these cases, if you look at them, you know, the Dobbs case and what leaked out the Second Amendment case, the coach Kennedy case, which will be a huge case on religion in our schools. The school choice case really big case, the board. I think they're all going to be massive losses for the left. And so I've been predicting for a while now that since these are all coming here at the end, as soon as we get through the end of this month, we're going to see the biggest force and energy we've ever seen from really the Marxist for court packing, which would destroy our courts. So this is, this is why I've been saying that because they're not going to like the fact that we're moving back to the constitution and they're going to react to it. And this is the one thing they don't control right now is our courts. And so the constitution is still in place and I think they're going to try to destroy our course by adding four justices. They've got bills on this. They've been pushing it already, but I think they're really going to come with everything they've got. After.

Charlie Kirk Supreme Court Kelly shackleford America Google alum bakari Kayleigh McEnany Cruz Josh hawley Greg gutfeld Pete hegseth Todd Charlie Andrew Sierra Pacific desantis patriot Kelly SAS wade Jesse White House
First Liberty CEO Kelly Shackelford Gives an Update on SCOTUS Cases

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:40 min | 6 months ago

First Liberty CEO Kelly Shackelford Gives an Update on SCOTUS Cases

"But there is no better person. To help us navigate all of the Supreme Court drama than someone who's actually argued in front of the Supreme Court. In fact, I believe has a case in front of the Supreme Court right now. He runs one of the most important organizations in America first liberty and he's with us right now, Kelly shackleford, great American patriot Kelly. Welcome back to the program. Great to be with you. So what is the latest with the Supreme Court? It seems like they're delaying the row ruling. When do you think we'll hear about that? You know, what's been going on has been really different. Charlie, I mean, if people don't realize, they get about 9000 requests a year, 8000 requests, and they took 65 cases this year. And those were all argued starting in October. And just, I guess, two weeks ago. I think we still had like 30 cases out of the 65 that hadn't been handed down. And that was a record. It was like back to 1950 that you had that much of a backlog. So they've been sort of whittling that down some. We're now down to 18 cases left, but all the big cases that controversial cases, the ones that you'd be talking about are still left. Obviously the Dobbs case, the Second Amendment case, you mentioned religious liberty actually we have two cases right now at the Supreme Court. The two religious liberty cases left. One's a school choice case. One's the coach Kennedy are both we're waiting for those. Additionally, there's the remain in Mexico, the border case. So all these really hot button cases, we're down to two weeks and those decisions are down yet. So it's coming to the crunch into the very

Supreme Court Kelly Shackleford Patriot Kelly Charlie America Dobbs Kennedy Mexico
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes

ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes

03:14 min | 11 months ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes

"Go. So somewhat somewhat good news ladies and gentlemen as we maneuver through and we'll have more context later on today as we're able to read through the opinions that are written by the justices. So there you go. Reading from the ruling, by the way, are good friend and chief executive officer glasscock sends a cis note. Let me see if I can't read this. The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities, the exercise of authorities, the agency has long been recognized to have. But the reality here folks is this. We've had pandemics and are in our history. I mean, this is nothing unusual. We have had these kinds of issues. I would contend that this pandemic has been blown extraordinarily out of proportion. And I say that simply because we heard from the CDC director Rochelle Walensky just a few days ago, telling Bret pear, that of the people who have died, the 75% of the people who have died from the China virus had some sort of a comorbidity. In many cases, had four. Comorbidities. So when you factor all of that in, it's not like people are, let's say chickenpox is not like everybody's getting chickenpox and dropping dead from chickenpox. No, they had something else severely wrong with them. That's what's going on here. So at the end of the day, and this may take you, we may not even be alive when the historians finally get around to figuring out what we've all been through over the past two and a half years. But when the historians do look back on this time, an American history. I suspect I suspect they're going to say that it was one of the greatest I wouldn't say prank, but the governments of the world are pulling a fast one here. Want to read some comments coming in here as this breaking news comes in from the Supreme Court. First liberty institute, a represented three national religious ministries, the American family association, answers in genesis and day star television network, and we have a statement from first liberty institute. We are pleased the Supreme Court is preventing this unconstitutional mandate from going into effect, but we hope the court will strike it down to avoid a constitutional crisis. This is from Kelly shackelford. President Biden is not a king. He can not federalize the nation's workforce and force employees to violate the conscience rights of their employees. We will continue to fight on behalf of our clients and the American people to protect them from this illegal, dangerous expansion of government power. So that coming in from Kelly shackelford over at the first liberty institute, grace baker, I understand, do we get a statement from Tony Perkins? No, we did not. All right, so.

chickenpox glasscock Rochelle Walensky Bret pear First liberty institute CDC first liberty institute Congress Kelly shackelford Supreme Court China American family association President Biden grace baker Tony Perkins
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

10:22 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Thing almost. And so coming back to your whole point, take my religious freedom. Every I believe this really and I've been saying this in speeches around the country. Every American is about to have more religious freedom than they've ever had in their life. It's amazing. And it's simply because the justices are going back to the words in the constitution. And the founders built this country on religious freedom. So that and this time of darkness and attack on religion and attack on basic principles of right and wrong. It's so odd at the same time is going to be a time of some of the greatest religious freedoms of that interesting. And it's just that and I do want to give credit the conservative movement did do a good job of holding the line and focusing on judges. Not the only thing, but it's very important. Let me ask you about roe versus wade as much as you can comments on this. Sure. So roe V wade a reckless unconstitutional corrupt. I think drive by shooting at the constitution that happened, which set a precedent that abortion is legal, but it was never passed by Congress, it was never voted on by the people, talk a little bit about that, kind of the unconstitutional nature of it, and what exactly is being now discussed in the Dobbs Venus. Is that right, the Mississippi? That's right. I think that's I think that's gonna be a case that's as well known as Planned Parenthood V Casey. So because that's the second chapter of this is what happened with roe is really a misuse of our system. The way our systems are supposed to work is that legislative or public policy issues are decided by the people through their representatives, the Congress, your state legislature, your federal legislature, your local officials. They decide the moral questions that the constitution doesn't address. And if you don't like it, you throw them out of office and you change the law. Yeah. But what happened in row is 5 justices essential 6 decided what our public policy was in a back room. That's not how we super corrupt. There's everybody knows who's honest. Read the constitution. There's nothing in there about abortion, okay? As a result, that's an issue for the people to battle out. And so they took this out of the hands of the people and they shouldn't do that. That's not the job of justices. That is now coming to a head, I think. Well, it didn't Planned Parenthood V Casey, right? And then our friend Kennedy wrote the most bizarre opinion about the way it was the imaginative clause or something. The mystery of who knows what life really is. It's defined your own existence. Can you talk a little bit about that? It was one of the most bizarre I'm gonna go be like kind of this eastern Buddhist philosopher. If I'm not mistaken, right? It wasn't about the constitution. It was like to say that you got to the ledge and he walked back. He really did, right? And he typical Kennedy style, though, because this was the Catholic conservative guy. That's supposed to be really, really who was confirmed like 92 nothing or something or 97 nothing. And so that's why having 6 three now is so important. When you're 5 four, somebody starts to lose their courage. But when it's 6 free, it's a lot harder. So the Dobbs pace and if people don't know what the Dodge case is about, the row case just out of whole cloth just out of nowhere created a trimester system under the law for when the government could do. Before the technology was even that good, by the way. Yeah. I mean, before we could even see the baby in the world. That's basically. And this case out of Mississippi, no. You can't touch, you know, you can't touch the baby way earlier than that. And so it was really a challenge to row. And most experts who have been following this pace, say, really, if you uphold the law, in Mississippi, you overturn roe. I mean, just doesn't mean it outlaws abortion though. No. But you overturn roe. And so most people think it's one of two things that's going to happen here. Either the justice are going to overturn roe, but do it in a more soft way, right? They'll say, we're upholding the law. Here's our new standard, okay? Or they're going to say, roe V wade is overturned. And that is, that is the question. But what does that mean? That means just have that. It means it's now back to the state, if they do that, right? It's now every state passes whatever they want to pass on that. I think it's going to happen. Do you think that's the most plausible or likely I think after the argument? What happens is, by the way, we didn't talk about this earlier. We have an argument on Wednesday, just like our argument was last Wednesday. Friday, they huddle. They go into a room by themselves the justice and they know clerks. No courts. 9 of them vote. Whoever the majority has start providing their opinion, whoever this is. And then they share those things back and forth over the next month to convince people that they could change their vote, right? And all the way until probably the end of June, we'll get a decision. If you, if you force them to write a decision, the day after the argument, I think it would have been 5 justices saying romey wait is overturned. Chief justice Roberts saying, let's do it more subtly. Yeah. And then the three saying, a board is a Russians great, right? But the question is, will Roberts, who's a very politically savvy guy? Be able to convince somebody between now and June to join his more moderate way to do this. And you mean pick off like a Kavanaugh or a Barrett or some I think that's his only sort of get the three on the other side. Yeah, but I think it's going to be I just can't see them not. I don't think those three are going to budge either. I think those three years going to be three, three, and then the other three, where do they go? Kavanaugh, Barrett. Thomas isn't moving. Thomas has also Gorsuch is not right. And so the question is, right now, there's Barrett and Kavanaugh. I think are with them. I think you're right. And can Roberts pick one off and you end up with this sort of three three three decision or four. So what you're really articulating Kelly is the unknown of Amy Coney Barrett. Yeah. And Kavanaugh. I mean, I think you know a lot about Kavanaugh, for instance, on religious freedom. Same with Gorsuch. But when it comes to this, this is new. This is you haven't seen a lot of opinions here, but I think if you watched what was going on in the argument, Kavanaugh and Barrett are really strong. And if you remember Kavanaugh made the point in the argument to say, hey, look, if we overrule row, all we're doing is being neutral by letting everybody else this boy is that a move to the overton window though. That's a bit I mean, that's a strong to say that out loud as a Supreme Court Justice. I mean, all of a sudden you're the nay raw and Planned Parenthood and the reproductive they said, how have we lost this over the last 50 years? You know what I mean? For one Supreme Court Justice to say that, is a big deal. Let alone that to become a majority. That goes to show the work you're doing, Kelly, and the conservative legal work has been one of the untold successes. I think of the last 30 years. I really believe that. It hasn't obviously been enough, but it's without it. I don't know where we'd be. I would say what's really fun for me. I've been doing this for 32 years. And religious freedom, we're just at the beginning of a new renaissance, right? Yeah. I mean, it's so exciting. But I will say this behind all of this part of the reason this is all happening is because younger people are more pro life. Yes, I agree with that. I mean, we were losing the battle back in 1973 with roe V wade. But what's happened is politically. I totally agree. It's where pro life country now. So look at the race where they ran a ton of ads against him for being prolific. Most people didn't care and those who did animated them to vote for. We're pro life. That's right. So it's not, I think when that politics is underneath, it makes it easier for me to be Hamilton predicted that the judges are human beings. Yes. And they are going to go the way of pressure. And you saw that in the gay marriage thing, right? That 90% of the country was not upset with the gay marriage decision. Now they should have been considering what it did with the states, rights, component of it, but they used the same playbook from row. First liberty dot org, is that right? First liberty data. How could people help you? What else do you have coming up? You're doing such amazing work, Kelly. I can talk to you all day long. There are a lot of fun. We have endless cases, so we can go on. The best thing that can do is just get the weekly update that can be one of our insider updates first, liberty dot dot org and they can sign up there. And that way when the seals face comes down, they can tell other people because most people don't know about all these victories. So that so let's say right now we have a lot of people listening. Let's say that they are a marine or they're working in the army. That seals case could impact. It's huge. It's huge. And let's say they know somebody about to lose their job because of the vaccine and we have plenty of listeners. You go to our website at first liberty dot org. There's a kit that lays out. Here's what the law is. Whatever your situation, here's an example exemption for 90% of the people that just follow that, they get exempt. They keep their job, their careers safe. But a lot of people just don't know. So maybe the person watching this isn't that person, but I bet they know somebody. So just first liberty has all those kinds of resources for people to let them know what their rights are because people aren't bold when they don't know their rights and they don't know we're winning. That's when you see that. And that's why I would tell your folks be the Paul or Paul law revere to go encourage other people to be bold to speak out to stand for our freedoms. Our cases, I think, help people do that. Do a great job. First liberty is first liberty..

Kavanaugh roe roe V wade Mississippi federal legislature Gorsuch Barrett Casey Kennedy Congress romey Chief justice Roberts wade Amy Coney Barrett Roberts Dobbs Kelly Thomas Supreme Court
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:27 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"So interesting Kelly is that as the country was probably more conservative in the 60s or 70s, the court was more liberal. And now is the country has become a little bit more liberal or left wing. And I think that's undeniable versus the culture of the 60s and 70s, the court has become more conservative. Why is that? Well, I mean, I think for a long time, the conservatives didn't pay attention to the court. I think that's right. And for years of my life, the Republican approach was pick somebody without a track record. Yes. So they won't see how conservative they really work kind of freaked a lot of people out, right? Because fork, first time you had the televised hearings of it, I think that it was Reagan that appointed bork right now. I think he preemptively pulled his nomination, even though the Senate screwed up on it. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because bork was a really he was a Scalia type scholar. Brilliant guy. But very intellectual and too intellectual looked a little creepy because he had the weird Jack Welch look, right? But he had facial hair going from the top all the way around. He had this whole kind of look. It's surprised people because it's the first time it was televised and it was the first time we ever politicized Kennedy. Yeah. The judiciary, because what we had done before is, whether you're Democrat or Republican, you just looked at is the person bright, do they have a judicial temperament where they'll be fair? And then you just said, I know we have different philosophy. We'll let you go through as long as they're not crazy. This is the first time Scalia was almost unanimous. Yeah. And then you had work and then you had fun. We won on Thomas. They lost on board. And it was horrible what they did to Tom. It was all lies still to this day. And the whole thing was so I just want to say something. We have a lot of younger listeners that aren't, I encourage all of you to research and watch the documentary and clearance comments. If you want to talk about cancel culture, me too before, I'm very critical of Georgia W Bush, but he deserves credit for standing by clarence Thomas. Absolutely. He could have pulled that nomination. And it was very similar. A replay to watch cabinet really was. That's how I think was even more unfair. But I mean, and so that's what changed there. That's what changed. And so as a result of that, though, with board, the Republicans lessened that they learned was pick people that don't have a really clear record. That's what we that we know are conservative. Like that link in the nod. Yeah. Suitor. Yep. Didn't turn out to be so conservative. Right. And so Alito was the change of that. Yeah. Bush Roberts was before Alito from that mistake. Yes. And then bush picked Perry Myers, his friend, and people pushed back and they said, no, we want people with a strong judicial record. So he gave up on her and he put okay, I'll put a lido who had one of the most extensive conservative records who's been phenomenal, by the way. And he got through. And they went, oh my gosh. We can actually pick somebody with the right philosophy and get a match what really changed things with that. Little Obama puts Sotomayor and Kagan. Yes. Right. And he only but then he wanted Merrick Garland who is now on a revenge campaign against the American people. And to McConnell's credit, he said, let's wait for the American people to speak. And then we got Gorsuch. We got Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Which they never would have expected. Three and one turned out a lot. That was a God thing. It was a rebalancing like I'm gonna give you another shot type.

bork Scalia Jack Welch Kelly Reagan Alito Senate Bush Roberts Kennedy clarence Thomas Perry Myers Thomas Tom Georgia cabinet Bush Merrick Garland bush Sotomayor Kagan
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

06:08 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Through this Kelly's. So nowhere in our constitution does it say separation of church and state? Nope. Nope. It was a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1803 to the Danbury baptist convention. Yes. And that's even taken out of context. But this idea of separation church and state first really started to come in either the war in court or the burger court. That's right. That's right. Talk a little bit about. The case called the lemon case that really sort of put this in into the law. Yeah. What the constitution says is, Congress, this is the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise zero. We didn't want there to be an established national church like in England. And so that's why they put that in there, but in 1971, the war in court said, no, no, no. It means it means more than that. Separation of church and stuff. It means separation church and state. So when they quoted that from Jefferson, who didn't even write the U.S. Constitution. Right. He was out of the country. When they were enjoying wine and doing sorts of things. So it was just, it was just something they threw out there, but it became what they used to really create a hostility to religion by the government. So our whole lives, we've seen a tax on nativity scenes that have a menorah before Hanukkah. A tank commandments monument, a religious symbol. Why? Because the founders would have had any problem with those things? No, because they abuse the establishment cause and created this hostility to religion. So what we did two years ago is we had that blainsburg cross case. Yeah, that was a big one. And this is across that was put up a hundred years ago by mothers who lost their sons in World War I and the American legion. And they said at the Court of Appeals, federal Court of Appeals to Obama judges said unconstitutional after all to have the cross at the national cemetery. It was outside of D.C. and blainsburg, Maryland. It had been a federal property or something. It was originally American legion property, but because they built roads around it, the state of Maryland took over the land just for safe on it. And then they said we have to tear it down and they're like, we don't tear down veterans memorials. I mean, if we're gonna do this, we're gonna have to go on the tomb in the unknown soldiers and erase known but to God off the tomb, we're gonna have to take down all kinds of crosses all the atheists will do that next. They would. And so we said, this is not right. So we went to the Supreme Court and by now, we were at the Supreme Court we looked, Kavanaugh was there. Gorsuch was there. We said, you know, we might have 5 votes to get rid of this old lemon case. And so we argue, you know, not only preserve the memorial. It's time to get rid of lemon this hostility to religion. So where does that stand? We won, you got rid of lemon? We won the case 7 two 5 four the justice has said we're not following women. Which was huge. So for 50 years, we've gone in this hospital when was all this. That was two years ago. Two years ago, June. So is lemon now in question or it's all the lower courts say, quote, lemon is dead because of this opinion. And it's changing. Well, I'm seeing all the presumptions in the lower court decision. I'm seeing a theme here, which is the court reconsidering role versus wade court reconsidering lemon. There is some super radical decisions made by a bunch of postmodern secular progressive John Dewey types in the 60s and 70s that are now getting a fresh constitutional look. Is that right? That's right. The way I put it is, it's kind of like the continental divide. It was raining on this side. It just changed and it's now raining on the other side. Yes. That might not look very big, but that water is going to a very different place. Wow. When you put originalists in there, look, you might disagree with a lot of their opinions, but this is the first time in 80 years we've had a majority of justices who think their job is to look to the original meaning of the text. Yes. The constitution, the statute. It's not what we feel is best. It's not the evolving constitution. It's what is the original meaning? The Anthony Kennedy thing. Yes. What is the original meaning? Well, there is no robey way in the constitution. Yes. There's nothing about abortion in the constitution. There is nothing about separation of church and state in this hostility to religion approach. So they're going away from what people feel or what they've said about what they feel to. What does the constitution say? And this is because of political victories. Let's make no mistake, right? I know that you're a C three, but also just looking at it as it is, not taking a position if it wasn't for the surprise election of Donald Trump. No doubt. There's no way you could connect those two together. He's the first candidate who has ever run for office on the issue of judges. Yes. And it's so successful. And fulfilled them. Totally. He said, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to point these I was at the meeting thousand evangelical and other leaders in New York, meeting Donald Trump, and 6 of us got to ask questions. I asked the question about judges. I said, you say you're going to put people like Thomas and Scalia on the court. But there's hundreds of these. How are you going to know how are you going to make sure and do that? And he said, I'm going to listen to groups like yours, the federal society, or did a great job. Heritage. And I'm going to put it. He put originalist, not politicians, not people who were conservative politically or whatever. People who said, you know, that's not my job. My job is not to be a politician. My job is to follow what what is the original meaning of the text? And that's a huge difference between conservatives and liberals, liberals want to use the court for their political as it means to the end, yes. That's right. Whereas conservatives like a justice Thomas will say yes he did. I don't understand this anti homosexual law, but you know what? My job is not to say what the public policy is. My job is to look at the constitution. That's what you want is judges who won't push their politics. They will just say, here's what the text says. Here's what it means. What's.

Danbury baptist burger court federal Court of Appeals national cemetery blainsburg Congress Gorsuch Maryland Thomas Jefferson wade court Supreme Court Kelly Kavanaugh Jefferson Court of Appeals England D.C. John Dewey U.S. Donald Trump
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

07:04 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Come down in June and I think have a big impact. So you wrapped up the argument, but first liberty, you guys have other cases as well that you've won on and you have this navy seal case. Is that right? Very important case. 35 navy seals over 350 years of combat service. What are they arguing on? They were told they have to take the vaccine. Oh, wow. And they said, we have religious objections. Plus, we don't things that our body. Okay? What would the virus do to these guys? Nothing. Yeah, exactly. Okay, a lot of immune. But there is a right under the law, including for people in the military to ask for religious accommodation. And that's what they did. Because they asked, they're now being told they're going to court in the court martial. Are you serious? They're told they're going to take their trident away. They were told that they might have to pay the $1 million for their training when they're thrown out of the military. This is all bullying. It's really an ideological part. Of course it is yes. And of course there's like 40,000 people in the military that this has happened to, but these are our best. These are our elite warriors. I think there's even more that haven't taken the vaccine. Oh, yeah. So this could impact everybody. It will set a precedent. And I think because what we're asking for is an injunction against the Department of Defense. That's a big asset. You can't do this. It is. But they're violating the law. There is federal law that says you have to accommodate the religious beliefs of your employees, including in the military and if we ever get to a point where the military thinks it doesn't have to follow the laws, we're in trouble. Yes. So this is really important. If they want to follow the law and see if they can accommodate, but they're just flaunting it. They've they've acknowledged that they have granted no exemptions and over the past few years for religious accommodation. Despite the fact the law requires it, it's really just kind of an arrogance and an abusiveness that they think they can get away. So where does this, where does this one stand? We filed in federal court, where in federal court in Fort Worth will be before a federal judge, next Monday, the 20th of December, we're going to ask for an injunction. I hope we'll get a decision by the end of the year. And I hope that by the end of the year, we will have an injunction against the Department of Defense that not only protects these 35 seals. I mean, think of the idea of throwing these guys out of the military. These are our best. Over what? I mean, over something that won't affect them that at all. Most of them have already had. Yes. And just because they ask a religious question meanwhile they're the ones that are dodging bullets and like holding their breath for 6 months. Some of them have PTSD. They have all kinds of issues that they've suffered for us. So, but not only will this if we get the injunction, not only will it do a great thing for them, the 35 of them, but it will really impact all these other people who are right now being bullied, they're being told they're going to be dishonorably discharged. They've been told they're going to lose their pension an example. Our lawyer on staff topped military lawyer in the country, Mike Barry. Mike has been told he's in three years his pension best. He is still in the reserves. He was a marine still as a marine. He's a marine and still serves in reserve. They're going to take away his pinch. They're going to kick him out. They're going to do all this stuff. Why? He's had it. Wow. He's immune, the guys that the healthiest guy you've ever seen, his doctor told him, do not take the vaccine in light of your scenario. And yet that's the kind of guy you can see the kind of bullying that's happening to. I mean, 40,000 people in our military right now. This will affect all of them. So what other cases are you guys working through? Probably one of the biggest ones that's sitting at the Supreme Court right now are waiting to decide if they take or not is the coach Kennedy case. Is that the one from Washington? Is that the one who prayed that Neil that 50 yard line or something? That's right. He's a marine for 20 years. I saw this movie facing the Giants before he went to work, which is about Christians and coaching and it just convicted him that after every game I'm going to go to the center of the ob by myself, say a 22nd silent prayer and just thank God for the privilege of coaching these young men. And that's what you did for 7 years until they came to him and said, if you go to a neat again, we're going to fire you. And he's a marine and he's like, what kind of example am I going to be for these kids? So he went to a knee. Wow. And they fired him. And unfortunately for him, he lives in the 9th circuit. Which is out of San Francisco. And they said, coaches are not allowed to pray in public if anybody can see them. And so we went to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court, it was really interesting. They didn't take it. They said, send it back down. There's some more facts you want to develop. But the four conservatives at the time, this is before Amy Coney Barrett wrote a very unusual statement. Usually you don't respond to what's called a cert request. They said we found this very disturbing and they kind of flagged it saying when this comes back up, we were going to watch this. It went back down back up the 9th circuit made it worse. Not only did they say, yes, we're not going to allow coaches to pray in public. But the guy who wrote the majority opinion for the liberals. And by the way, there are 11 distinct. So we had a lot of judges. He ended the opinion by saying that his religion, the judge's religion, was that you shouldn't pray in public. And then he castigated coach Kennedy for doing so. I'm like, now, what is it? That's bizarre. Since when does a federal judge say you don't have my religion and so I'm going to discriminate against you. Did he really say that? He did. His religion was not a religion or something. Yeah, that coach Kennedy was doing wrong. The two things that I thought were so incredible that were added to the already what was going on was that was that, well, you really should pray in public if you're a religious person and then trying to put his religious beliefs on coach Kennedy, but the other was, they said that coach Kennedy was quote pugilistic, meaning a fighter that somehow it's inappropriate when you're fired to bring a lawsuit because that shows you're kind of a troublemaker. Oh, that's the nice circumstance. So I'm sure our founders are so enlightened that if you actually assert your constitution, you should somehow have them taken away if you assert that that's the 9th argument that anyone who files lawsuits is doesn't deserve hearing. And so update now we filed our brief and the Supreme Court asking them to take it. So of course, it's a leado Kavanaugh Barrett. Thomas. They're keeping an eye on. And all they need is four, right? They take it. The other side, the school district has now hired outside counsel, guess who they've hired. Perkins cooey. No. The Americans united for separation of church and state are left wing atheist organization to represent the school district against coach Kennedy. Wow. And so this is becoming quite an interesting. But let's walk.

navy Department of Defense Mike Barry coach Kennedy Supreme Court Fort Worth Amy Coney Barrett PTSD Kennedy Mike Neil Giants Washington San Francisco Kavanaugh Barrett Perkins cooey Americans united for separatio Thomas
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

04:39 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"So then you're suing the state of Maine. You had the opening argument? Is that right? We open and then Maine responded to us. They're solicitor general or whatever. And then the solicitor general of the United States jumped in to join them. Biden's lackey. So while Trump was in office, they filed a brief supporting us. And then the government switched. And they flipped sides in the middle of the litigation. And so we basically got 35. We got 30 minutes left 5 minutes for a rebuttal. So we went 30, then they went 20 and 15, and then we got our 5 minutes of rebuttal at the end. But the thing that was so unusual was the justices can ask questions beyond the time. And, you know, they might do that some. Our hour and ten minute argument ended up being over two hours. So because of so many are you allowed to say who asked questions or you can tell, you can listen to who asked questions. Every one of them. All night, every one of them. Clarence Thomas even has absolutely doesn't ask questions. He made some great points. He one of the arguments that the Biden administration was trying to make is, well, you have a right to the free exercise of your religion, but you don't have a right for the government to provide you money to do it. But the first time somebody said it's not the government's money, though. And he said, isn't this a compulsory attendance? So the state is forcing them into a school, and then they're saying, but we're not going to allow you to choose the Christian school. He said, how is it a subsidy when you're forcing them to do it? But the facts and circumstances probably played into your hand because of Maine not having other public options. Is that right? Somewhat, but I think it had been the same either way. Okay. I think the idea that if you create a, you don't have to create a program. Main, if they wanted to just create public schools and everybody go to postal spot. But when you create a program that says we're going to let parents choose, you can't at that point start discriminating because really it's no different than let's say let's take a college university. We're going to allow the student groups to use our facilities. But then as soon as the religious student groups apply, they say no. Right. We've got old cases that say you can't do. So then who else asks questions? You said all 9 did, but the Kavanaugh asked good questions. Kavanaugh was great. Kavanaugh was really strong. The chief was Robert. Really? Yeah, one of my two favorites were both by Alito. Okay. Him asking them so the white supremacist school is okay and the CRT school is okay, but not the religious school. My other favorite, he said, what if my religion, my religious school, was that what their beliefs were were tolerance and American values like and he went through these sort of American values. And the response from the attorney for Maine was, well, that's real close to what the public school teaches. So that would be okay. A leader responded by saying, what I just described to you was the Unitarian religion, which he had just said, certain religions are in in certain are out, which that's a very bad thing for them. So I think the way the argument went, it showed, of course, pagan breyer Sotomayor, the liberals in the court, were very much against this and what was their arguments. I mean, some of them were bizarre. The argument by briar was to me the most unusual. He kept saying, well, there's all these religions. If you allow religious schools, it's just some sort of weird slippery slope. It's gonna be divisive and strife. And I wanted to like raise my hand and go, know what? What strife about treating everybody the same. Strife is when you discriminate against people, which is what you're doing. And there's some guy in Augusta Maine, who's looking at your curriculum and how you're teaching and deciding whether you're really religious or not. Because there were schools that said that they said, well, we're not sure we see you have a chapel. And they said, yeah, but our chapel, we just really teach, you know, math. Yeah, we teach issues and things like that. And they said, well, you're okay. And then there was another school that had a chapel with a prayer. And they said, hey, look, we allow everybody we're for diversity. We're for all these different things. And they say, well, no, yeah, so you've got this bureaucrat sitting in deciding whether you're too religious or not, which is in and of itself probably. This could have national ramifications. It will. And it'll.

Maine Kavanaugh Biden administration Clarence Thomas Biden white supremacist school Trump pagan breyer Sotomayor United States Alito government Robert briar Augusta
Unitarian Religion School Drops Mic in the Supreme Courte refunds Argue

The Charlie Kirk Show

00:47 sec | 1 year ago

Unitarian Religion School Drops Mic in the Supreme Courte refunds Argue

"Then who else asks questions? You said all 9 did, but the Kavanaugh asked good questions. Kavanaugh was great. Kavanaugh was really strong. The chief was Robert. Really? Yeah, one of my two favorites were both by Alito. Okay. Him asking them so the white supremacist school is okay and the CRT school is okay, but not the religious school. My other favorite, he said, what if my religion, my religious school, was that what their beliefs were were tolerance and American values like and he went through these sort of American values. And the response from the attorney for Maine was, well, that's real close to what the public school teaches. So that would be okay. A leader responded by saying, what I just described to you was the Unitarian

Kavanaugh White Supremacist School Alito Robert Maine
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

06:07 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Right. And I tell you like two of the well, the mom and dad, we had a number of families. But one of them was really sad. They wanted to pick the Christian school, not even really just because it's Christian. But the testimony was powerful, I thought. The father said, you know, he's having to do a snowplow, he's a farmer just for extra money. They said, why did you pick this school? He said, because I know that other local school, he said, and the education is horrible. And they said, how do you know that? He said, because I went there and I'm still suffering from it. Wow. And I want my child in the Christian school which is a much better education. They said, no. We're going to discriminate against you because that's cool. And the way they did it is they said, if you, if you taught everything that the public school wanted you to teach, but you added one class on religion, you're out. And this was all religious schools, basically. Every one of them. In Maine. So what option would there be for these families then? They would have to choose like a private school that's not religious. Or you could even pick a school outside of Maine. You can do like a boarding school. Or whatever. Absolutely. And that was my favorite is they said, they said, why are you doing this? They asked the main attorney and he said, because we want we want to offer an education that is equivalent to a public school. And this is equivalent. And a number of the good justice is asked this question. They said, so you're saying exeger Exeter? Consider. The same example that I used is equivalent. Yes, it's equivalent because there's no religion in it. So this is the argument like St. Paul's or episcopal outside what this quote will be religious, but not really would be, I guess those are religious, but you accident is secular. Now why this is important, though, is people say, okay, it's about Maine. No, no, no. It's much bigger. Yeah. Because there are school choice programs every Arizona, for example. And what this will mean is if we win, and I do think we're going to win. Probably late June, along with the abortion decision, this will be another one of the controversial decisions. But if we win, it'll mean that from now on when you have a school choice program, you can't exclude religious schools. It's a big deal. You think about all the years now we can't, where there are no choices like that. They're going to come into existence because people who now as parents wanted to pick those types of schools, they'll come together and form those types of schools. So isn't like a huge difference in a lot of people's lives from here going forward. So not everyone gets to argue in front of the Supreme Court. Walk us through it, that's like. So you wake up super early that morning, you've been prepping like crazy. Just walk us through the kind of the game day of arguing and the United States Supreme Court. The most nervous I've ever been in my life was sitting in the lawyer's lounge before the argument. Because you're not in there yet, right. So this was not the first time you've argued. No. And I was second, in this case, there was another guy who never argued. He was we let him have his first time. He did a great job. But I guess 25 years goes the first time I was there. And you know, what you do is you there's a lot of briefs about. You say briefs, they're 50 to 60 pages. You file one, the other side follows one, then you follow reply and then about 50 outside groups each bowel. Amicus briefs. Briefs. They're all in here and the courts reviewing all these things. And then you do what's called a moot. A number of them. Which means Mark. Yes. So like we went to Georgetown, law professors pretended they were justices. We did Harvard. We did a number of different places. So that you're ready for any kind of question that might come your way. And you polished you work on it. You work on better answers, you really get your best ideas. And then you go into that lawyer's lounge where you're waiting. And then they eventually let you out into the courtroom. And for me, and I told our guy who was with me this time, Michael Mendes, good guy with institute for justice. I said, this is the most nervous I was where you're standing right now. I knew he was probably nervous. And I said, just realize, when you get in there, as soon as the argument starts, it'll all go. Because I noticed within a football game. Yeah. Exactly. When my opponent got up within 30 seconds, I remember thinking I'm not nervous. I'm going to destroy this guy. I got a better argument. Yeah. And so that's what you think. So as soon as you get in there, it's fine, but it is unlike anything else because people think you go in there and like you give a speech and the justice just clap or cry or whatever, no, no, no, that's you start and they come at you. And they're all interrupted any time, is that right? Yes. From the beginning, do you even get an opening argument? Well, you didn't used to. You used to get about 30 seconds most and they would come at you. They just changed the rules where you now get up to two minutes on interrupted, and then it's free. Games are off. That's the game. So the rules are up. So go ahead. But the thing that you don't realize is the justices have had all these briefs and all this stuff. And they've all got four of the smartest young attorneys in the country clerking for them. But they have not talked to each other about this case. The first time they do is when the oral argument occurs, they're talking through you. So but when do they so when they're having lunch or whatever they're not talking about the case? They throw an argument at you because they're actually trying to speak to other justices. Are there people in the gallery while you're doing this? Normally this last week because of COVID, no one allowed. And it's not broadcast though, but it's audio cast. It was, in fact, if people want to listen to it, we've got the audio where they can listen to the actual argument that occurred at first liberty live dot com. We have the so they can listen and hear the questions and what they'll realize what a lot of people said to me is I had no idea how intense and how hostile it was. I said, yeah, this is not these are not friendly questions. So walk us through it.

Maine Supreme Court Exeter Michael Mendes St. Paul Arizona institute for justice Georgetown Harvard United States Mark football
Kelly Shackelford Walks Us Through Arguing With the Supreme Courte

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:39 min | 1 year ago

Kelly Shackelford Walks Us Through Arguing With the Supreme Courte

"To a public school. And this is equivalent. And a number of the good justice is asked this question. They said, so you're saying exeger Exeter? Consider. The same example that I used is equivalent. Yes, it's equivalent because there's no religion in it. So this is the argument like St. Paul's or episcopal outside what this quote will be religious, but not really would be, I guess those are religious, but you accident is secular. Now why this is important, though, is people say, okay, it's about Maine. No, no, no. It's much bigger. Yeah. Because there are school choice programs every Arizona, for example. And what this will mean is if we win, and I do think we're going to win. Probably late June, along with the abortion decision, this will be another one of the controversial decisions. But if we win, it'll mean that from now on when you have a school choice program, you can't exclude religious schools. It's a big deal. You think about all the years now we can't, where there are no choices like that. They're going to come into existence because people who now as parents wanted to pick those types of schools, they'll come together and form those types of schools. So isn't like a huge difference in a lot of people's lives from here going forward. So not everyone gets to argue in front of the Supreme Court. Walk us through it, that's like. So you wake up super early that morning, you've been prepping like crazy. Just walk us through the kind of the game day of arguing and the United States Supreme Court. The most nervous I've ever been in my life was sitting in the lawyer's lounge before the argument. Because you're not in there yet, right. So this was not the first time you've argued. No. And I was second, in this case, there was another guy who never argued. He was we let him have his first time. He did a great job. But

Exeter St. Paul Maine Arizona Supreme Court United States
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:22 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's run in The White House folks. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job, building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, turning point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries destroyed lives and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Hey everybody, welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk show with us is Kelly shackelford from first celebrity first liberty dot org. I get that right? You got it man. We've been doing a lot of partnerships together this year. Your supreme coup and many other things. But you just argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Is that right? Yeah, we had an argument last week. It's a big deal. Tell us about it. It's a case out of Maine where for if you're in Maine, most of the school districts do not have a public school. So for over a hundred years, they've said, we're just going to let the parents pick any public any private school, put their kids there, and we'll use the state tuition amount, and they can just pair it to whichever one. Until a few decades ago, they just said, you know, we're going to change that. And we're just going to say you can pick any school you want as long as it's not a religious school. Wow. And well, we said you can't do that. You can't, you can't create a program where everybody gets treated the same, except discriminating against very orwellian. Yeah. Some are equal. And so our favorite my favorite question in the oral argument was about justice Alito. He asked the main attorney. He said, so. CRT school, okay. White supremacist school, okay. Wow. Religious school, not okay. What was the answer? The answer is, well, if we had white supremacist schools or CRT schools, I think our legislature would create a new law to take care of those. But the point is, under this law, the only people that get discriminated against are the parents who want to choose the school is best for their kids and it's a religious school. And I mean, we had clients, farmers didn't have the money, and they were being robbed of the ability to part of Maine is this. What the whole state? So you say there's no public schools in part of the main? Most of the school districts no public schools. So what kind of schools do they have? They just have, you know, private schools that pop up other schools, but you can use taxpayer money to go to those schools. Is that right? Including you can go to the most exclusive all girls school in Portland Maine or whatever. And it's $67,000 and you just take your look and you can apply there and it discriminates there on the basis of sex. Does all these things that public schools can't do? But that's fine. The one thing you can't do is go to just curious main hasn't had a public school system for a while. Parts have public school systems? Yes. Parts. Maybe banger or Portland or Kenny bunk port. Half of half of the school, they're called essays, but they're basically school districts. Have a school. And so you can go to the public school. But if you can't, which is why the rural areas in these other areas, what do you do? What I've said, well, you will allow you to take this and go to a voucher. That's right..

Charlie Kirk Kelly shackelford Maine Charlie CRT school White supremacist school U.S. Supreme Court White House USA Alito legislature Portland Kenny bunk
Kelly Shackelford in Supreme Court: CRT and White Supremacist Schools? Ok. Religious Schools? Not Ok

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:12 min | 1 year ago

Kelly Shackelford in Supreme Court: CRT and White Supremacist Schools? Ok. Religious Schools? Not Ok

"Show with us is Kelly shackelford from first celebrity first liberty dot org. I get that right? You got it man. We've been doing a lot of partnerships together this year. Your supreme coup and many other things. But you just argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Is that right? Yeah, we had an argument last week. It's a big deal. Tell us about it. It's a case out of Maine where for if you're in Maine, most of the school districts do not have a public school. So for over a hundred years, they've said, we're just going to let the parents pick any public any private school, put their kids there, and we'll use the state tuition amount, and they can just pair it to whichever one. Until a few decades ago, they just said, you know, we're going to change that. And we're just going to say you can pick any school you want as long as it's not a religious school. Wow. And well, we said you can't do that. You can't, you can't create a program where everybody gets treated the same, except discriminating against very orwellian. Yeah. Some are equal. And so our favorite my favorite question in the oral argument was about justice Alito. He asked the main attorney. He said, so. CRT school, okay. White supremacist school, okay. Wow. Religious school, not

Kelly Shackelford Maine U.S. Supreme Court Crt School Alito White Supremacist School
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

05:39 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Joni ernst took money from google five thousand dollars. Roger wicker ben sasse. I'm just naming republicans by the way not democrats. Obviously james lankford barosso tillis on the list goes on. Let's let's do some in the house. Kevin brady who's retiring. His kevin brady his whole life was all about cutting corporate taxes for companies. That hate us. Only thing that kevin brady wanted to do. The thing that kevin brady cared about most was. How do i cut taxes for companies. That hate my voters. And we're gonna make america worst place to live. That was kevin. Brady's life mission and boy he got it done. Kevin brady delivered the goods for companies that funded his campaign and he was like you know what my greatest crowning achievement is. I cut corporate taxes from thirty two percent to twenty six percent. Congratulations meanwhile your voters at home. It's harder than ever to have. Children prices are going up. Gas prices are going up. The border is wide open. Our military humiliated in kabul. These companies are crushing us. Online amazon is building warehouses across the country to destroy small businesses and republicans delivered that for them. They delivered it right up and they said congratulations. We are going to give you the biggest corporate tax and out in american history. Why is it that google and these companies have been able to do what they do because every time republicans get political power. We don't do anything to try to create the equivalent of a check and balance against them. That we don't try to create a system where all of a sudden google steps out of line that there's something preventing them from kicking somebody off of youtube kicking somebody off of social media. Alex berenson has been kicked off twitter. Who is new york times reporter before all this started. Steve scalise took ten thousand dollars from louisiana from google from louisiana. Ten thousand dollars. Michael mccall seventy five hundred dollars. Don bacon andy bar all funded by google. Google knows what they're doing here. Do you think they're really donating these candidates because they believe in their world of course not. They're placing bets. Obviously google knows exactly what they're doing here. Google goes in and they will fund candidates and races that are going to be helpful to them through google. Llc net pack that they actually are never have to be investigated or meaningfully subpoenaed on capitol hill republicans play along because republicans care most of them just about getting reelected not about actually protecting their voters or doing what is necessary for the country and i want to read this one email really quick i get i get these these people that email me and very angry. They say hi hon. I'm a boomer and we aren't stupid. We know exactly who the democrats liberals progressive communists are even one basket been fighting them all my life so that was rather insulting comedy made earlier. I cannot understand. Why every boomer insulted when i say this. So let me get this straight. You can insult millennials all day long which is generation. They're lazy they're stupid they don't do anything and i can't say that boomers have left generally less desirable country to live in. And by the way. I said that there's plenty of boomers that don't apply to this. She said i really a new movement arising. It's time to get rid of boomer. I hear regularly this day. Not all of us have been selling to this country as those in congress. University have been listen up everybody. We are just weeks away from yet. Another american travesty. One that could lead our country even further down the road to tyranny. I'm talking of course about court packing the far left radical plan to rig our entire federal judiciary system by adding four four liberal justices to the supreme court and completely destroying the constitutional rule of law in our country as we know it. Thankfully my friends at first liberty institute. A national nonprofit law firm are taking a stand. They've written a letter telling the biden commission to reject this brazen court packing scheme and now prominent leaders plus over a hundred thousand patriots like you have joined their coalition franklin. Graham former attorney general. Ed meese dr dobson. Plus organizations like the american policy association concerned women for america are all on board. Now it's up to you. Sign your name right now. Next to these leaders by september fifteenth go to supreme cu dot com. That's supreme ceo up dot com right. Now they're trying to pack the supreme court. My friend kelly shackelford runs this amazing organization. So do me a favor. Check it out sign it. It's free of charge. Supreme cu dot com. So larry elder is running for governor of california and a white woman in a gorilla mask. Came up to larry elder through an egg at him. And then somebody else said doesn't larry elder knows what's good for his people. Why does he just stay in line. The way he's supposed to the essence of what was said. And i want you to imagine if a let's say any black leader cory booker or anyone on the left was running for office and a wearing a gorilla mask came up and threw an egg at that black candidate. It would be the number one new story in the country and everyone will be tweeting out thoughts and prayers. This is disgusting. this is wrong. This has no place in american politics instead. The left is laughing about it. We know who the left truly is the left arm true racists. We know what's actually at the core of this. Here's a video of this to watch here. And that is cut forty one.

kevin brady google Joni ernst Roger wicker ben sasse james lankford barosso tillis Alex berenson Steve scalise Michael mccall Don bacon andy louisiana kabul Brady kevin america
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

05:49 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

"Officials the importance of voting in every election and taking our civic duties that has been given to us by our founding fathers as important Sacred trust that we have as we the people and also as believers in jesus and then also to help people engage in basic civic engagement education how to understand how the sausage is made how to respond to god as it relates to the pre-born human trafficking whatever initiatives or issues. That they wanna get involved with so. We're kind of like the on ramp beginning place for us to get active. Well sounds like something that super necessary. I know that there are a lot of christians that are asking the questions that you guys are answering. What does god have to say about abortion. What is gonna have to say about the family. And what is the biblical definition of justice. These things that the secular world seems to be trying to answer but christians wanna know. What does god's word say and you guys really help christians understand that. Tell me what happened between your organization. Christians against the irs well we applied for tax exempt status like every organization does when we launched back in december twenty nine thousand and eighteen months later in. May we received a letter from the irs. Pretty much denying are tax exempt status. And they did that and they said in writing that biblical teachings are quote affiliated with the republican party which is interesting because i always felt like the bible was kicked him kingdom document not partisan document right so they pretty much violated their own rules and we do everything that any other organization does which is educate people on their civic duties educate people from a biblical perspective So the situation here with the iowa s is that if that decision was meant to stand in that could affect really every christian organization that teaches the bible around america right because they could say that this is a partisan organization when it's not simply because they're espousing biblical values. So what happened after that. Obviously you tried to you try to reverse. The decision appeal the decision. So what happened yeah. We had an amazing friends. At first liberty institute kelly shackelford and his team leah. Patterson is my attorney and they appealed for us at twelve page..

irs republican party iowa america first liberty institute kelly shackelford leah Patterson
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:47 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Then no one. Ever stop to ask that question because they didn't think it was possible because of technology because of merger and acquisition culture in silicon valley where they buy their competitors. Were kind of there like what we're seeing with blackrock right now so. Let's talk about that right. So some people on twitter thinks it's perfectly fine for a company a trillion dollar assets to go being single family homes or anything nine trillion. I think i think that they should. I think should be illegal. Do they receive government. Like how close are they to the federal reserve. Do they do they. Just get like a stream as the someone tidy things check. Pacific tweeted out. I think some fannie and freddie See that changes thing and they also manage a lot of pension money but let's let's pretend they were just all bunch of brilliant wasp which obviously usually not the case. Is it right to say like we want to create a renting culture. So no one who shovels. Their driveway voted for joe biden. No one who shovels their own snow voted for joe biden the dough that person that almost contradicts with a lot of the the idea to create that kind of society does almost i mean it kind of contradicts with the earlier sentiment in the federalist papers when the founders were argument with each other about property ownership and taxation and totally and that i mean what brought about a lot and it brings up a lot of reasons a lot of really big questions because i think when public money comes into it. That's a game changer. Say i am just to give you where i fall politically. I- republicans are too liberal for me. i tend to vote republican but i am very if it's not article one section eight. It should be abolished and done away with entirely so that would be a lot more and then be and then everything else be determined by the state according to the states just constitution or how people when edmund amended but everything has become to federal to corporate ties. Too big too big. I just decided to come in too big to fail. I become to come to the sad realization. We're never going to get rid of these departments and somebody like all you're thinking too small we have to deal with what is m- and either we're going to use political power in public policy to preserve what matters or we're going to be principled while we managed the decline of the greatest country. Hey guys you guys have heard me talk with my friend. Kelly shackelford before kelly shackelford from i. Liberty is a good person look. We talked about court packing in the tool of left wing authoritarians who go shabas packed. Venezuela's supreme court with his socialist cronies and pave the way for his toronto regime. But now joe biden an american socialists. Radicals wanna pack our supreme court with four new liberal justices court. Packing isn't some policy idea to improve our courts. It's a coup.

kelly shackelford Kelly shackelford nine trillion joe biden twitter republican republicans freddie edmund Pacific fannie four new liberal justices cour article one section eight Venezuela american trillion dollar assets each single family supreme court i. Liberty
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:44 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"You hear a lot about having a conversation about race but in critical risk theory at conversation goes like this. You listen to me talk about my impression that you can't possibly understand and shut up because you're an oppressor who can only be an oppressor in your only hope is listening to me. So the conversation becomes one side. That's not a conversation. No sounds like i don't wanna say an interrogation it's the opposite of interrogation. It's it's blatantly. Wanted to lecture. it's electric. That's the word i was looking for. That's why you have the phd. So the book is fault. Lines by voting block meteor riding in the car and say who is the super wise person. And you say yes. I know confuse it with the host bank. We'll be back. The point is that you gotta go buy this book because this is happening in your church. Your youth ministers are being propagandized by this on social media. I saw so many pastors over the last year. Say some names. We're going to be disciplined here and rb everybody but you probably knew that are engaging a very dangerous level. I don't think they quite understand it but this book will inform them in more ways than one. Hey guys you guys have heard me talk with my friend. Kelly shackelford before kelly shackelford from i. Liberty is a good person. Look we've talked about court packing. It's the tool of left wing authoritarians who go shabbat packed venezuela's supreme court with his socialist cronies and pave the way for his toronto regime but now joe biden and american socialists. Radicals when a packer supreme court with four new liberal justices court. Packing isn't some policy ideas to improve our courts. It's a coup.

Kelly shackelford kelly shackelford last year one side joe biden i. Liberty american four new liberal venezuela court one
"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

06:20 min | 1 year ago

"kelly shackelford" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"You learn the truth about what's happening in the courts but more importantly there's a big take action button so you could do something to stop the supreme court coup. So do me a favour support. Kelly shackelford in this and get involved view on it. Defend our god given freedoms and stop the let's court packing scheme head over to supreme cu dot com slash kirk that supreme cu dot com slash kirk. Su r e m e co up dot com. Slash kirk this hour is going to be one of the most important we've done in quite a while and it's thanks to a trail blazer tucker carlson who shocked the world last night on television this is something that republicans do not want to admit but they better wise up. We've been warning about this. We talked about this at great length about a month ago. Now it's about a month and a half ago when the raids were happening at mayor. Giuliani and the targeting of susan. Steve bannon and many others were the criminal. Justice system was being used as a political super pac with jail time that they're in kind. Contribution was not television advertisements instead. It was that we'll just go put your political opposition in jail. Joe biden has a new national strategy for countering domestic terrorism. Now i'm still working my way through this. But here's what's happening after the sixth of january and after what happened at the capitol the democrats realized they were given a gift. The democrats realized that they could under the disguise under the feeder and while wearing the costume of fighting domestic terrorism. They now have a massively funded widely appealing excuse to go eliminate extinguished their political opponents. It's a perfect situation for them. Democrats are gleeful. Because now they get to take pieces off the chessboard. They get to devise a scheme that goes after trump. Supporters donors supporters people in media all under the excuse of countering domestic terrorism. Now of course they're not serious about countering domestic terrorism. If they were they'd go after inc they would go after antifa. They go after the cartel they would go after street gangs you know before of before worrying about trump's supporters. Why don't they worry about the bloods and the crips killing each other over five hundred people a year in the streets of chicago. No but the real problem is you voted for donald trump. We're gonna come after you so tucker. Carlson kind of shocked the world yesterday. And you could tell every journalists. Don't even know how to cover the him. A conspiracy theorist of course because they don't know how else to handle him. Now i'm gonna go through this segment by segment and we're going to tell you exactly what we know and what we think we know and what we what we don't yet know. Those are the three categories. What we know what we think. We know what we don't get no. And this is all based on a story by darren beatty from revolver news revolver dot news. That asks the obvious question. What was if any the federal government's involvement in january six. Did they have unindicted co-conspirators. Did they have people pay roll. That were within the ranks of these groups. And if so why didn't they stop it. What did the federal government no before january six. Why is it that parlor now court. According to new documents that have been declassified not declassified better now public parlor went to the fbi and warn them that there was violence being planned. Why didn't they do anything about that. We'll tucker. carlson goes a step further tucker. Carlson paints a picture that this entire thing was a false flag operation. Now this is a very serious topic. I am not trading on this lightly and tucker does not say he knows this to be definitively true said tucker carlson a friend of mine and a man who's willing to talk about things that no one else is willing to talk about really creates the framework and a compelling starting an argument. The federal government has to give us some answers or else a logical person can say that. There's something here more than what meets the eye. So let's piece-by-piece. He starts with justin tyronn roberts. Tom went how he shot. Five people in the span of one day and he admitted he did it because of his hatred of white men cut thirty nine. But before you play it. Did you hear about this. Justin tyrant roberts who shot five people because he hates white people. Do you think you would hear about a story of a white guy. Shot five black people because he said he hated black people. Why was this not frontline. News cut thirty nine this weekend. Police in columbus georgia arrested a thirty five nine year. Old man called justin entire roberts over the course of a single day. Robert shot five separate people in two different states. We know this happened. Because roberts has admitted he did it he also said why he did it in this confession. Police say roberts quote explained it throughout his life specifically white males had taken from him so he decided to kill them. In one case. Robert roberts walked up behind the white man. A total stranger is he was getting out of his car and shot him in the back by any definition. These crimes of viciousness motivated by race hate. They're not unique in this country. Not by a long shot and so tucker continues by saying and cut forty. An america's leaders are claiming that white supremacy is the greatest threat. We face is that right did did white supremacy is that what is now happening in chicago. White supremacy. let's just go through the chicago statistics your today. Two hundred ninety three people shot and killed one thousand four hundred and four shot and wounded one thousand six hundred ninety seven total shot and three hundred ten total homicides. Almost all of those are black on black crime in two thousand and twenty. They're seven hundred. Nineteen.

Steve bannon Joe biden Robert Robert roberts donald trump trump Tom Kelly shackelford seven hundred one thousand january six five people justin justin tyronn roberts chicago two thousand Nineteen yesterday Five people darren beatty