The Ring of Fire
@theringoffire·1.4M subscribers·27K videos
Judge Rules That Children In America Have NO Right To Intelligence
Posted
July 13, 2018
Views
12,782
Likes
562
Comments
158
Engagement
July 13, 2018
12,782
562
158
5.63%
Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
See what was published immediately before and after this episode.
7:32Now PlayingA federal judge last week ruled that children in this country actually DO NOT have a read to learn how to read. Ring of Fire's Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this.
Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!
Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel
Be sociable! Follow us on:
Follow more of our stories at
Subscribe to our podcast
A federal judge last week ruled that children in this country actually don't have ... they don't have a right to learn how to read. I mean, if you really drill down on the ruling, that's what it is. I think what bothered me about this story was you have this judge that had the ability to really ... to say that, you know, there are some rights that we need to protect.
Right.
One of them should be the right to get an education, the right to be able to read. Instead, gives us all this flowery language, "Gee whiz, illiteracy is a terrible thing, illiteracy is something we got to stop, but I'm not going to show any courage and find a way to make that happen." Now, understand this judge could have ruled favorably without ever going down the path that he said he had to go down. Pick it up from there.
Well, you know, they wanted to make this as it's more of a moral issue, not a legal issue. But, really, if you think about this, because the people who brought this were representing children who were arguing that we were provided a substandard education that did not prepare us, one, to pass the mandated test for public schools and, two, to be productive members of society. You failed us.
Now, on the legal side, they should have argued, okay, first and foremost, we don't have an option to not pay taxes for schools. We pay for that. It comes out of our checks. There's number one. Number two, you're legally required to send your children to school. If I'm legally required to pay for it, legally required to send my kids to it, you should be legally required to provide some kind of substantive education such as learning how to read.
Yeah.
The judge specifically says, you know, "As plaintiffs point out, voting, participating meaningfully in civic life, and accessing justice requires some measure of literacy, but it doesn't necessarily make access to literacy a fundamental right.
Yeah. What's bothering me about this is the judge didn't even have to go there.
Yeah.
The judge did not have to go to a fundamental right argument. He could have mandated, look, you know, it's just like busing. I'm mandating that this take place because you're failing to do your job not based on any type of fact that we're reviewing this from the standpoint of this being a fundamental right. There was no need to get there.
Now, either one or two things happened. Either the people who brought the case kind of screwed the pooch and pushed it that way, at which time the judge could have said, "Well, you know, you got another way you can come at this." Or the judge said, "Well, you know, I'm going to say all these ... " I mean, listen to this. This is the judge. "Plainly, literacy and the opportunity to obtain it is of incalculable importance." This is the judge. Judge Murphy. Judge Stephen Murphy, a US district court. He goes on to say like, "Oh, this is awful. It's awful that these kids don't have an education. But rather than me being creative and rather than me doing something that there's another way to get to it," he chooses, "Well, I'm going to save myself. I'm going to say that they're asking me to determine that education is a fundamental right." He didn't have to go that far. He could have gotten this another way.
A 40-page opinion is what it was.
Yeah.
40 pages where he's trying to say, "I so support your literacy."
Yeah.
To me, it almost is reminiscent of the prosecutors with the baker who didn't want to make the cake for the gay wedding.
Right.
That would have been a slam dunk case if the-
Lawyer had been right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It seems like the same thing happened here because this ... You could have gotten what you wanted out of this case.
There's no question.
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.
