The Supreme Court has offered up several decisions that has the radical left in a frenzy of fearmongering and political hatred – which is nothing new. The left-wingers are so upset that they have resurrected their hapless and hopeless demand to change the Supreme Court into a permanent left-wing institution – something they believed they had already achieved. They call for the impeachment of current justices and the packing of the Court with more of them – appointed by a left-wing President, of course.
The left’s criticisms of the recent court decisions are based on misinformation, false narratives, and the usual political propaganda. They infer – and in some cases outright claim – that the Supreme Court has virtually ended abortion … taken away a fundamental right and protection from the gay community … ended academic diversity … and imposing unwarranted costs on student loan recipients.
None of those things are true. Let us examine the major decisions that have the left’s propaganda machine going over time.
Abortion
According to the leftwing/Democrat narrative, the Supreme Court took away a woman’s “right” to have an abortion at any time for any reason. Far from it. They proffer this false argument to foment public anxiety and divisiveness for political advantage.
What the Supreme Court clarified is that under the Constitution there is no “right” to have abortions performed on developing human beings. BUT (🡨 A big but) … there is no constitutional or legal inhibition to abortions at any stage for any reason. The decisions on abortion are left to the people of the states. Based on demographics, those decisions will vary from state-to-state – just as most laws vary from state-to-state.
The Court did not make abortion on demand illegal. It left it up to the people and legislatures they elect to establish laws regulating, limiting, or outlawing abortions – or not. The fact that the elected representatives of the people in half the states have decided to restrict abortions in various manners is strong evidence that there was no overwhelming support for UNLIMITED abortion-on-demand – as abortion advocates claim.
The Roe v. Wade case was decided on constitutional shaky ground. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was concerned that it would be overturned because of that. It was a unique interpretation of the privacy clause – a stretch of conventional legal understanding. It was not the first time that the Court made a bad decision based on public sentiment. One only need recall the Dred Scott Decision and a number of decisions supporting slavery and de jure racist laws and politics.
From the FEDERAL perspective, abortion-on-demand is as legal today as it was before the Court decision. And … most of the limitations against late term abortions are supported by a majority of the American public. Something you do not hear about from the proffers of left-wing propaganda.
Affirmative Action
The left bleats as though academic diversity has ended on college campuses. Not even close. What has ended is a mandated requirement to establish some sort of quota system based on black admissions. The decision does not prevent colleges and universities from considering a student’s application based on a self-imposed school policy of creating a diverse campus. It just means that skin color alone cannot be the sole determinant.
The Supreme Court decision also ends the discrimination against non-black applicants – especially Asians. It will tend to produce a system in which the best and the brightest are admitted – and that is how it should be. And … there are more than enough of black best and the brightest to maintain diversity on campuses.
It does not resolve the problem of the unequal education in the segregated major cities that is depriving millions of blacks and Hispanics from access to college because of the poor quality of inner city schools. That is a problem that requires a different fix.
I recently wrote a more complete commentary on this subject.
Gay rights
The Supreme Court decided in favor of a website designer who did not wish to create websites for gay weddings based on her personal beliefs – religious or otherwise. The court agreed that in this narrow, but important, issue forcing her to produce the website is tantamount to forced speech –the other side of the First Amendment coin. She would be forced to create language – essentially a public statement – with which she personally disagrees.
Contrary to the misinformation coming from the left, this case was NOT about “public accommodation” – providing general business services without discrimination. She would serve gay customers seeking websites for their businesses or other matters. It was the message, not the sexual preference of the potential customer, that was at issue.
It would be as if some local law required me to write commentary supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine for a paid customer seeking writing services. I could refuse. Obviously, that would violate my First Amendment right to express my own opinion. In fact, I have occasionally refused potential clients with whom I disagreed politically or morally. For example, I would never write a commentary supporting abortion-on-demand if Planned Parenthood asked me to do so and was willing to pay. Even a business has a First Amendment right not to be forced into speech.
The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and did no harm to gay rights in the marketplace of “public accommodations.”
School Loans
The Supreme Court was correct on two counts with regard to the student loan forgiveness program – although only one was based on the Constitution. The other was merely coincidental. The Court was correct on the law. It was not within the power of a President to forgive such a legal obligation to the national treasury. It was an abuse of power by President Biden – and I suspect he knew that.
Biden has now proposed an alternative – an equally unconstitutional way to forgive billions of dollars of legitimate financial obligations to the government. I suspect it will also not pass constitutional muster and be struck down by the Supreme Court. And I suspect, Biden knows it.
I doubt Biden cares one way or the other – if the Court allows it or not. He is seeking – and potentially getting – political points from millions of student loan holders. He is attempting to buy their votes with taxpayer money. And if that does not work, he will take political credit for trying.
The secondary benefit of the Court decision was one of fairness. It is just not fair to forgive some borrowers after others have paid off their student loans – and unfair to those who will be assuming them in the near future. Biden’s plan is not fair to the American taxpayer, who would be footing the bill.
I have been very critical of the Student Loan Program. A lot of you people have gotten screwed. But it is not fair to alleviate the burden on just a few.
Summary
The Supreme Court is doing its job – upholding the Constitution and protecting the balance of power between the three federal branches. Those on the left prefer a Court that bends to their authoritarian will … and ignores the Constitution when it conflicts with their political agenda. They want the Court to be the servant of THEIR interests as opposed to the Constitution.
They want it so much that they will lie to the public and use those lies to build a fraudulent case to take over the court by political means – essentially ending the careful balance of powers. God help us if they succeed.
So, there ‘tis.