April 24, 2025

THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC CALLED AND SUGGESTED THAT 2025 DIAL IT BACK A NOTCH OR TWENTY:

Here’s the rest of the text:

Imagine going back in time to any point—even just a few years ago—and explaining that this is considered a serious argument. What I find most remarkable about the exchange is the attorney’s acknowledgment that their intent is to “influence” children. He begins to explain that the goal is to install “civility,” which is the “natural consequence of being exposed to—” before he is cut off. Was he going to say that “civility” results from exposure to sexual content at a very young age? What could “civility” possibly mean here?

MR. SCHOENFELD: Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That’s no longer in the curriculum.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: That’s the one where they’re supposed to look for the leather and things—bondage, things like that, right?

MR. SCHOENFELD: It’s not bondage. It’s a woman in a leather—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Sex worker, right?

MR. SCHOENFELD: No. That’s not correct. No.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I thought—gosh, I read it.

JUSTICE BARRETT: It’s a drag queen in drag.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Drag queen in—drag queen?

MR. SCHOENFELD: So, correct. The leather that they’re pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket, and one of the words is drag queen in this—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And they’re supposed to look for those?

MR. SCHOENFELD: It is an option at the end of the book, correct.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. Okay. And you’ve included these in the English language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students, is that fair? That’s what the district court found. Do you agree with that?

MR. SCHOENFELD: I think, to the extent the district court found that it was to influence, it was to influence them towards civility, the natural consequence of being exposed to—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Whatever, but to influence them.

MR. SCHOENFELD: In the manner that I just mentioned, yes.

My God. More details (and a Republicans pounce! moment) here: Supreme Court Leans Toward Parents on Opt-Outs for LGBTQ+ Lessons.

The argument tended to keep returning to the books.

Jackson said it was her understanding that the Montgomery County district was explicit that the LGBTQ+ storybooks “were to be used only to supplement the English/language arts curriculum as reading instruction and not to teach about gender or sexuality.”

She said it seemed “infeasible” in elementary school English lessons that “every time this particular kind of book comes out, we have to start letting people leave the classroom.”

Throughout the long argument, none of the justices or the lawyers representing the parents and the Trump administration had mentioned two books that were initially part of the Montgomery County program but were later pulled, My Rainbow and Pride Puppy!

So it was a bit of a surprise when Schoenfeld, the district’s lawyer, brought up Pride Puppy!, a book aimed at 3- and 4-year-olds which has drawn controversy from some quarters for asking readers to search, on pages of an LGBTQ+ pride parade, for images including “underwear,” “leather,” “lip ring,” and “[drag] queen.”

When Gorsuch asked about what kind of lessons were being offered to pre-K students as young as three, Schoenfeld noted Pride Puppy! and that it was no longer part of the curriculum.

Gorsuch pounced.

“That’s the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and things, and bondage—things like that, right?” he said, adding “a sex worker?”

Schoenfeld suggested some of those descriptions were inaccurate and that even Pride Puppy! helped influence students “towards civility.”

A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.

Earlier:

UPDATE:

Posted at 1:22 pm by Ed Driscoll