The Daily Signal - TOP NEWS | Supreme Court Hears Affirmative Action Case, Two Americans Dead in Seoul, and Frightening Study on Teen Screen Time | Oct. 31

Episode Date: October 31, 2022

On today’s Daily Signal Top News, we break down: The Supreme Court hears arguments for a major case on affirmative action.  Former President Donald Trump asks the Supreme Court to block a House committee from gaining access to his tax returns. The man accused of breaking into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and assaulting Paul Pelosi with a hammer is reported to have had a list of other targets.  Two Americans are confirmed dead in the Halloween celebration stampede that happened in Seoul, Korea over the weekend.  According to a new study reported on by The Federalist, Americans ages 11 to 18 spend an average of 10 hours a day staring at a screen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Virginia Allen and I'm Jillian Richards. And this is the Daily Signals top news for October 31st. Here are today's headlines. The Supreme Court heard arguments today for a major case on affirmative action. The ruling on this case could ultimately affect college students across America. Affirmative action policies permit universities to use race as a determining factor when considering college admissions. Lawsuits were brought against the University of North Carolina and Harvard University. for their affirmative action policies. And now it's up to the court to decide what the law of the land is moving forward.

Jean-Carlo Canaparo is a senior legal fellow in the Edwin-Meese, the Third Center for Legal and Judicial Studies here at the Heritage Foundation. He joins us now to discuss this. John Carlo, thanks so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Virginia. So tell us what the justices are deciding in this case. Yes. So as you said, Harvard and UNC use race in their admissions. And what is alleged here and what was found at trial, is that because admissions are a zero-sum game, right, there are a limited number of spots, and the universities want to increase the number of some minorities on campus, they have to discriminate against others. So Asians tend to do very well academically. And so if they, academics was all that was considered, they would become what's called overrepresented in colleges

with respect to the, compared to the percentage of the total population. So Harvard, for instance, has diminished or decreased the number of Asians that it lets in by sort of playing with the personal rating, which is a subjective rating about character and personality to diminish the number of Asians they let in so that they can let in more blacks and Hispanics. That's fascinating. So John Carlo, this case was argued before the court today. I know you listened to those arguments. What stood out to you? Well, Justice Clarence Thomas in one line of questioning. got right to the deep heart of the case when he asked one of the lawyers defending the schools,

if this case had been brought against a school in 1960 that was discriminating against the black students on the basis that segregation yielded educational benefits, would we have deferred to their judgment the way we were deferred to school's judgment today? And of course, the lawyer had to concede no. And that exchange highlights what's really at the heart of this case. It's a struggle between the principle that all men and women are created equal and popular notions of racial justice. The principle at stake is that all of us are equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race. But the colleges and their defenders recognize rightly that there are still disparities between racial groups. And so they argue that the principle of racial equality has to yield in pursuit of social justice.

Many of the justices, Justice Thomas in particular, is aware that what we call justice today is not necessarily justice tomorrow. Justice Thomas's question about school segregation in 1960s was not a hypothetical. Many intellectuals back then genuinely believed that segregation actually yielded the same educational benefits that racial diversity proponents say today. So to him, history proves that it's just too dangerous to trust anyone to implement racial policies in a way that is benign, especially in Harvard's case. Harvard created this personal rating in the 20s and 30s to discriminate against Jews. So why should we sacrifice the principle to sort of trendy notions of justice, knowing that they tend to not look so good in hindsight? So based on the arguments that you heard today, how do we expect the justices to rule?

You know, I'm cautiously optimistic that the court will probably say that you cannot use race alone in admissions. The Constitution is colorblind. The only thing, I mean, just that what we conceive of as racial justice today will change. But what does not change is the principle that all men and women are created equal. And I think that there is a majority to stand by that principle. Be sure to check out John Carlo's piece in The Daily Signal where he goes a little bit further. in-depth on this. Great reporting there, John Carlo. And also, for all of our listeners who love podcasts, be sure to check out your work and the work of Zach Smith on the SCOTUS 101 podcast. You can

find it wherever you get your podcast. But John Carlo, we really appreciate your time today. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. In other news from the Supreme Court today, former President Trump asked the justices to block a House committee from gaining access to his tax returns. Trump filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court requesting his tax returns stay private after a federal appeals court declined the former president's request. Trump's lawyers said in the filing to the Supreme Court that this case raises important questions about the separation of powers that will affect every future president.

Trump's team is asking the Supreme Court to grant an administrative stay on the release of the tax return records by Wednesday. The man accused of breaking into the court. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home and assaulting Paul Pelosi with a hammer is reported to have had a list of other targets. Police say they found a list of names the assaultant apparently wanted to target. Police have not released any of the names on that list. The assailant's ex-partner says he has been mentally ill for a long time. Pelosi was seen visiting her husband at the hospital on Sunday.

Two Americans are confirmed dead in the Halloween celebration stamp. that happened in Seoul Korea over the weekend. Stephen Blessey and Annie Gieski were among the more than 150 people killed in the stampede. Both were college students studying abroad in Korea. Blesi was a junior at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. He was interested in international business and he hoped to work in East Asia one day. Blessey's father posted a photo of his son on Saturday night asking if anyone had any news

of their son who had attended the Halloween celebration. On Sunday, the father wrote on Twitter, We just got confirmation that our son died. Thank you for the outpouring of love. We need time to grieve. Annie Gisky was a nursing student at the University of Kentucky. She had just celebrated her 20th birthday on October 28th. President Biden said Sunday that he and the First Lady are devastated to learn that at least two Americans are among so many

who have lost their lives in soul. Our hearts go out to their loved ones in this time of grief, and we continue to pray for the recovery of all who are injured. More than 80 people were injured in the tragedy. A new study on teen screen time was released today on Halloween that is appropriately frightening. According to the study reported by the Federalist, Americans ages 11 to 18 spend an average of 10 hours a day

staring at a screen. That does not include time on screens for academic purposes. Teens are spending 10 hours a day texting, playing video games, scrolling social media, or doing online shopping. A team of researchers completed the study, including psychologist Gene Twenge, who is the author of IGen and Generation Me. Twinge and the other authors write that they found the adolescents most likely to be depressed, lonely, and dissatisfied with life, are heavy digital media users in step-parent, single-parent, and other non-intact families. The link between excessive technology use and poor mental health is larger for youth in non-intact families compared to those in intact families.

The study found that children in intact families spend an average of 63 hours a week online, while children in broken families spend an average of 77 hours per week online. That's an additional 14 hours a week compared to kids from intact families. We will leave the link to the study and the Federalist Report in today's show notes. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for listening to The Daily Signal's top news. If you haven't gotten a chance, be sure to check out our morning show right here in this podcast feed, where we interview lawmakers, experts, and leading conservative voices.

Join us tomorrow morning for the Daily Signal's interview edition. I'm going to be sitting down with Faye Ben Kostman. to discuss her new book, You Are Not Your Race. Also, make sure you subscribe to The Daily Signal wherever you get your podcast and help us reach more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. We read all your feedback. Thanks again for listening.

Have a wonderful night, and we'll see you right back here tomorrow morning. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. The executive producers are Rob Bluey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Rank. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geiney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.