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.

Judging without Law

The Supreme Court has decided that President Obama's executive order that implemented DACA despite the Congress refusing to legislate an actual law cannot be invalided by a countering executive order by President Trump.  That presents some serious problems.  The purely executive action of one president has been enforced against a later president.  Ergo, DACA is being treated as law.  President Obama has successfully legislated his policy preference without the participation of the legislative branch!  If Biden is elected, will the Supreme Court uphold Trump's executive orders when Biden seeks to revoke them?  If yes, then presidents are legislators.  If no, the Supreme Court is picking sides rather than ruling on law.  Both of those options are disastrous for the Rule of Law.

This was not the only troubling ruling from the court.  Much as the authors of the 14th Amendment would be amazed that they had codified birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, the authors of the 1964 Civil Rights law would be dumbfounded to learn they had provided legal protections for homosexuals and transgenders.  If the legislature can't get these policies implemented then it is up to the court to bypass the democratic process and just make it happen.  That's how we got gay marriage and now this.  Why do we have Congress?

In a democratic society, big issues must be decided through the elective bodies.  When courts mandate a solution, that is just a majority vote of 9 unelected judges rather than an extended debate that involves hundreds of legislators who must answer to voters.  Look at the abortion debate.  Rather than solve the problem, Roe v. Wade has created an irreconcilable division that has roiled the country for nearly 50 years.  It is why judicial fights are so brutal now because everyone knows that courts - not legislators - will have the final say.  That's not democratic.  That is not the rule of law, but the rule of judges.

News on the Gender Wars

This was entirely predictable.  If two students were caught filming girls showering in the 'gender-neutral' bathroom, how many weren't caught?  I did like the sarcasm when describing those who want gender specific bathrooms as bigots.  Yes, what was normal behavior yesterday is now bigotry.  It is hard to keep up with the social justice warriors.

 

With the rare exception of maybe 1 in 1500 people who, according to Wikipedia (take with a grain of salt), are born intersex (possessing physical or genetic characteristics of both sexes), there are only two sexes.  Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner is a man with psychological issues that are currently in fashion.  There is something called body integrity identity disorder (BIID), sometimes called amputee identity disorder, in which a person wants to amputate a healthy limb.  Note how it is a disorder?  However, if a man wants to amputate his penis, that's laudable and he should start using the ladies room.  Heck, Caitlyn managed to be woman of the year!  There should be some cognitive dissonance in this.

 

One of my favorite memes of the gender wars is this: JFK put a man on the moon.  Barack Obama put a man in the ladies room.  It says something about the seriousness of our times.  Transgenders account for a fraction of 1% of the population - vastly less than homosexuals - and yet this is the civil right of the era.  The vast majority must conform to the desires of a barely there minority.  In so doing, we get the inevitable Peeping Tom antics and probably worse to come.  Yes, this is so much better.

Who Gets to Refuse Service?

North Carolina has passed a law that requires individuals to use the bathroom that matches their biology.  This has the transgendered community and their supporters up in arms.  In fact, several corporations (e.g. Pay Pal), governments (e.g. New York State), and performers (e.g. Bruce Springstein) have decided to boycott, ban travel to, or refuse to perform at previously scheduled concerts.  In a free society, I have no problem with that.  However, these very companies, governments, and people considered it a crime when florists, bakers, and photographers refused service to people with whom they disagreed.  Can you say hypocrisy?

 

As someone who leans libertarian, I have no qualms with private individuals or companies refusing to associate with persons, places, or companies for whatever reason?  The first amendment provides for a Freedom of Association.  Why should government have the authority to force you to ignore your deeply held believes, no matter how ill-conceived they may be?  If Nancy refuses to bake a cake for me because she doesn't like the color of my eyes, my politics, or that I'm male, so be it.  I may offer a colorful epithet, write a scathing review on Yelp, and tell everyone I know that she should be avoided, but I can get a cake elsewhere.  However, if you are the kind of person who is going to sue Nancy, you are the problem.  You are intolerant.

Freedom can suck sometimes, especially when people who don't agree with you exercise it.  The alternative is worse.  Far too many people want the alternative.  While it works in their favor, they are pleased.  Eventually, freedom will be extinguished by inches and the tyranny that has been founded will crush the foolish who enabled it.