July 4, 2023
The U.S Supreme Court did its job quite well last week. In three notable cases, the Court did exactly what it was designed to do: it ruled according to the language and the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
In the case ending affirmative action in higher education, it ruled that affirmative action, the measure which for decades was used to end discrimination, was itself discriminatory, and therefore unconstitutional.
In the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis a graphic designer refused to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple, due to her religious beliefs. However, her refusal was in breach of Colorado’s discrimination law. But the Court upheld the designer’s free speech rights and religious beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
And in the case where President Joe Biden tried to make the taxpayers bailout people with outstanding student loan debt through an Executive Order, thereby bypassing Congress, the Court again properly ruled that the president of the United States does not have the Constitutional authority to do that.
Interestingly, some years ago, before he was President, Biden publicly said that the action he later took was not Constitutional. That sentiment was also expressed by Nancy Pelosi, when she was the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2021.
And, predictably, the liberal’s reaction to these rulings is both strong and off the mark. Some of them probably do understand why the Court, doing the right thing, ruled as it did. Others are going to complain, despite that reality.
Contrary to the idea that many people have, the Supreme Court’s job is not to make Biden or Trump, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, or any group happy with its rulings.
Its job is not to make decisions that are politically based, or to reinterpret the Constitution or laws to make a ruling that is more likeable or pleasing to anyone. Its job is to correctly interpret the Constitution and the laws of the country.
And that is what the justices who are judicial conservatives did. And the liberal justices opposed them with their votes, which also opposed the meaning of the Constitution.
While Biden’s attempt on the student loan bailout would have made thousands of people very happy, allowing that to happen would be allowing the President to exercise powers that are reserved for the Congress. Fortunately, the proper understanding of the Constitution’s tripartite federal government held by the judicial conservatives on the Court, led to the correct ruling in the case.
A very timely and effective look at the difference between judicial conservatism and judicial liberalism occurred in the opposing positions on the affirmative action ruling. And the two sides are represented by black/African-American Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson is the newest member of the Court, taking her seat this year. When asked during her confirmation hearing by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, to define the word "woman," she replied, “I can’t.” Shortly after that, she added, “not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”
And her dissent on the affirmative action ruling said this: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that [the University of North Carolina] and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.
“No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today's ruling makes things worse, not better,” she continued.
Thomas, on the other hand, took a vastly different view in his concurring opinion. “The solution to our Nation’s racial problems thus cannot come from policies grounded in affirmative action or some other conception of equity,” he wrote. “Racialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism. Instead, the solution announced in the second founding is incorporated in our Constitution: that we are all equal, and should be treated equally before the law without regard to our race. Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors.”
Jackson’s argument focuses not on the constitutionality of the discrimination favoring one race over others, which was the question before the Court. Her argument focuses on her concept of racism and whether or not it is important.
This is a common mis-focus of the liberal justices: social justice, not justice by law. They argue for social justice, even if in doing so the principles of the Constitution are ignored or trampled on.
Our founders created a brilliant Constitution, and made a special point of guaranteeing certain rights, without which rights a free nation cannot exist. We must always honor those guarantees, even if doing that is inconvenient for some of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment