Thus Spoke SCOTUS

As it did last year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has handed down controversial rulings.

1. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruled that the current use of race to determine admission to the university was unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Essentially, affirmative action has suffered a blow.  This change is long overdue.  That a less qualified applicant should be chosen on account of race is just racism.  Yes, at one time it may have been necessary to amend for wrongs of the past but it has been half a century.  Those who are 'paying' for this new form of discrimination have mostly been of Asian ancestry.  Let us judge applicants on their merit, not their melanin.  Of note, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the court had upheld affirmative action, though Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had suggested that it would no longer be needed in another 25 years.  She was only off by 5 years.

2. Biden v. Nebraska ruled that the President cannot forgive student loans.  The court even offered a quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi who had stated that only the Congress could forgive loans.  The ruling so obvious that it should never have gotten this far.  Congress allocates money, not the president.  It is so clear in the Constitution that one should be concerned that it was a 6-3 ruling.  Of course, President Biden knew - in his lucid moments - that this wouldn't fly but it was a good campaign issue.  All those young voters might gamble on voting Biden/Democrat in order to escape college debt.  Instead, it turns out of if you agree to a loan, you need to repay the loan.  However, colleges should take some responsibility for the ballooning student debt.  One might say they defrauded the student by convincing them that their degree would get them a high paying career rather than a job as a Starbuck's barista.

3. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis held that a website designer was not obligated to design wedding announcements that were contrary to her Christian faith.  This is a repeat of the cake case and also comes from Colorado.  Businesses should have the right to refuse service.  It is curious how these cases are always filed against Christians but never Muslims.  During the cake case, a YouTuber had gone to several Muslim bakeries and was always refused when asking for a LBGT cake.  Why no lawsuit?  That the same case has repeated only for a different product means that there will be more of them.  Christian florists, Christian DJs, Christian venues, and many others will be targeted.  The point may not be to get all the way to the Supreme Court but merely to bankrupt businesses with legal costs.

That the court has made a decided shift to Originalist thinking has triggered the call for packing the court.  Add another 4 justices and we will have 7-6 rulings with the 'correct' outcome.  The court is far too important because the Congress has outsourced its authority to the court and the bureaucracy.  The government is too big, too intrusive, and unaccountable for failures.