To recap a whirlwind past two days of U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
The authoritarians to the left of us:
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2023
Upset you can't racially discriminate.
Upset you can't be forced to support causes you oppose.
Upset the President does not have the power of the purse.
I weighed in Thursday on the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College ruling, a case with resulted in the overturning of "affirmative action" (aka racial discrimination) in the college admissions process.
Then on Friday, SCOTUS finally took a firm stance on whether or not business owners can be compelled to use their creative talents for causes, events, etc. which violate their religious beliefs.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages, in a landmark decision that pit the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom.
In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which said that, "In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."
"But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong," Gorsuch continued.
"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.
Many leftists and media outlets (and heck, even two of the dissenting Justices) have been misrepresenting the facts of this case by essentially saying the Court is legalizing discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
CBS later deleted this tweet
The fact is no one has ever looked to deny a business relationship with people because they're gay. No, the issue is providing a service which is part of an exercise the business owner personally believes violates his/her beliefs. For instance, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner (and devout Christian) Jack Phillips will gladly sell anyone a cake but he will not decorate it to commemorate a same-sex wedding. These rules also apply to, say, a Muslim artist who can not be forced to create a portrait caricaturing the prophet Mohammed.
And then there was the "student loan debt case."
In a 6-3 decision, the court held that federal law does not allow the Secretary of Education to cancel more than $430 billion in student loan debt.
"The Secretary’s plan canceled roughly $430 billion of federal student loan balances, completely erasing the debts of 20 million borrowers and lowering the median amount owed by the other 23 million from $29,400 to $13,600," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree."
Again, progs do what they always do in that they let feeling and emotion cloud the legal aspect. Quite simply, a President of the United States does not have the "power of the purse," thus he can't unilaterally draft fiscal legislation. Heck, from January 2021 thru December 2022 (nearly two years), Dems had full control of Congress plus the White House. If this legislation was so critical, why not use the actual tools of our representative republic by having the House and Senate pass a bill?
As news of this ruling broke, there were many leftists on Twitter essentially saying that this decision robbed people of $10,000. That's an absolute warped perspective since student loan recipients made an active decision to borrow money with the intention of paying it back. In no sane society is it robbing someone when they're instructed to fulfill an obligation to which they personally committed.
In all seriousness, as tempting as it is to gloat as well as engage in a proverbial end zone happy dance, our progressive friends need some compassion. As I've said in this space on myriad occasions, leftists look at government as a deity, so it's easy to understand why they're likely in a bad way this week. While they probably aren't ready to hear this yet (if they are ever be able to), the fact is the government is comprised of flawed human beings. As such, lefties are inevitably going to be wronged because people they support for elected office may be idealistic at first but will ultimately devolve into power-hungry beings. In essence, the needs of the people become expendable.
With that in mind, the following tweet put out by Jon Gabriel 5 years ago this week has aged flawlessly.
Maybe if government didn't interfere so much in our lives, every Supreme Court decision wouldn't be such a life-or-death deal.
— Jon Gabriel (@exjon) June 28, 2018
A. Men.
-----------------------------------------------------
