Leroy N. Soetoro
2023-08-12 20:38:00 UTC
https://nypost.com/2023/07/01/supreme-court-rulings-favor-american-
freedom-despite-what-the-left-thinks/
From the Supreme Court to America: Happy Individual Independence Day.
OK, the court didnt actually say that, but its key rulings did.
The final cases rang out with a consistent clarity that the Constitution
favors individual liberty over group rights and government power.
The distinction is what helped make America different from the start, yet
to witness the hysterical outcry against the rulings, fewer and fewer
Americans understand the founding principles.
Either that or they want to trash American exceptionalism so they can
force everybody to think alike.
You dont have to read the opinions to see the pattern.
You only have to see who is furiously denouncing the court as a right-wing
instrument of hate and exclusion.
The list includes the usual suspects President Biden, The New York
Times, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and all the petty potentates of the
progressive-media-government complex.
They are united in demanding more sweeping government power and fewer
rights for individuals who dissent from their orthodoxy.
Their distorted descriptions of the rulings amount to disinformation as
they try to rally their shock troops and rile up their donor bases.
Expect a fall onslaught against the court, more personal attacks on the
justices and a new surge of demands for court packing.
Selective outrage
The words and subjects change, but the goal is always the same far-left
Democrats want to get from the Supremes what they cant get from Congress.
When the court says no and sticks to the Constitution, it is a threat to
democracy.
An inflammatory headline on Axios captures the madness: Supreme Court
rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers.
In fact, the 6-3 majority ruled a Colorado web designers First Amendment
rights mean she cannot be forced to accept commissions for same-sex
weddings that would conflict with her Christian beliefs.
In simple terms, her constitutional freedom of speech trumps a state law
that would force her speech to conform to its dictates.
That so many in the media denounced the ruling shows they dont understand
or believe in the First Amendment that makes their occupation possible.
In contrast to the rile-em-up rhetoric, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing
eloquently for the majority, said: 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.
Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel
Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch added that 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.
Bravo!
Naturally, the courts left flank trotted out a parade of horrors that
might result from speech it doesnt like.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling heartbreaking
and veered into end-of-the-world alarmism.
The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and
lesbians for second-class status, she wrote for herself and Justices
Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Hmm, is a symbolic effect really an effect?
The pattern was repeated with the ruling that Biden exceeded his authority
in wiping out student loan debt.
He wanted to allow 43 million borrowers to skip repayment of up to $20,000
each, costing $400 billion.
Opponents cited the vast scope and the inherent unfairness of forcing
taxpayers, many of whom paid their own way to college or couldnt afford
to go, to cover the debts of others, many of whom borrowed for useless
graduate degrees.
Even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Biden didnt have the power to
cancel the debt, but the left demanded it so loudly that the White House
crafted a fishy plan and hoped the court wouldnt dare say no.
Fortunately it did, again with the same 6-3 split.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that the law requires that
Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally
alter large sections of the American economy.
In other words, a president is not a king and the people express their
will through Congress, which never approved Bidens bailout.
Sen. Warren reacted in her usual voice of rage, declaring an extremist
Supreme Court substituted politics for the rule of law, denying hard-
working Americans life-changing relief from crushing student debt.
Yada, yada, yada.
The left reflexively accuses the Supremes of being extremist and playing
politics when the court rules against them.
Warren, a Harvard law professor, should know better, but she wants the
court to bless every program she favors or its corrupt.
The mother of all decisions, of course, concerned affirmative action.
Initially, the words meant broadening the applicant pool for jobs and
college admissions to make sure those who had been excluded on the basis
of race had an equal chance of being hired or admitted.
Over time, the protected categories expanded and affirmative action came
to mean outcome rather than opportunity, much as equity has replaced
equality.
But the blatant favoring of one race must come at the expense of others,
and thats clearly unconstitutional, as the court declared.
The same 6-3 majority ruled that admissions decisions at Harvard and the
University of North Carolina violated the 14th Amendments equal
protection clause.
The pattern at Harvard was obvious in showing many qualified Asian-
American students being rejected while less qualified black students were
accepted.
Roberts majority opinion said too many colleges had concluded, wrongly,
that the touchstone of an individuals identity is not challenges bested,
skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our
Constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.
Thomas, the courts second black member, has long railed against the
stigma of racial preferences.
His concurring opinion called the schools policies rudderless, race-
based preferences that fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution.
Doom forecasters
The other side of the coin comes from a PAC fundraising for the ever-more-
radical Congressional Black Caucus.
It sent an email denouncing what it called racist, corrupt Justices.
The Times was more restrained even as it, predictably, predicted doom.
An editorial insisted that states where racial preferences were banned in
higher education saw declines in the percentage of Black students, in
some cases dramatically.
It said black enrollment at the University of Michigan was 4% in 2021,
down from 7% in 2006 when Michigan voters eliminated race as a factor in
admissions.
Framing the argument that way proves the courts point.
While racial diversity is a good goal, it cannot be the deciding factor if
it means more qualified applicants are rejected on the basis of race and
ethnicity.
Thats racism and never should have been permitted, but the Times, which
effectively has a quota system in its newsroom, favors racial preferences
so the hell with equal protection for all.
Fortunately for America, we have a strong majority on the Supreme Court
that doesnt agree and takes seriously its oath to support the
Constitution.
Happy Independence Day.
--
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.
Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
freedom-despite-what-the-left-thinks/
From the Supreme Court to America: Happy Individual Independence Day.
OK, the court didnt actually say that, but its key rulings did.
The final cases rang out with a consistent clarity that the Constitution
favors individual liberty over group rights and government power.
The distinction is what helped make America different from the start, yet
to witness the hysterical outcry against the rulings, fewer and fewer
Americans understand the founding principles.
Either that or they want to trash American exceptionalism so they can
force everybody to think alike.
You dont have to read the opinions to see the pattern.
You only have to see who is furiously denouncing the court as a right-wing
instrument of hate and exclusion.
The list includes the usual suspects President Biden, The New York
Times, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and all the petty potentates of the
progressive-media-government complex.
They are united in demanding more sweeping government power and fewer
rights for individuals who dissent from their orthodoxy.
Their distorted descriptions of the rulings amount to disinformation as
they try to rally their shock troops and rile up their donor bases.
Expect a fall onslaught against the court, more personal attacks on the
justices and a new surge of demands for court packing.
Selective outrage
The words and subjects change, but the goal is always the same far-left
Democrats want to get from the Supremes what they cant get from Congress.
When the court says no and sticks to the Constitution, it is a threat to
democracy.
An inflammatory headline on Axios captures the madness: Supreme Court
rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers.
In fact, the 6-3 majority ruled a Colorado web designers First Amendment
rights mean she cannot be forced to accept commissions for same-sex
weddings that would conflict with her Christian beliefs.
In simple terms, her constitutional freedom of speech trumps a state law
that would force her speech to conform to its dictates.
That so many in the media denounced the ruling shows they dont understand
or believe in the First Amendment that makes their occupation possible.
In contrast to the rile-em-up rhetoric, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing
eloquently for the majority, said: 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.
Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel
Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch added that 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.
Bravo!
Naturally, the courts left flank trotted out a parade of horrors that
might result from speech it doesnt like.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling heartbreaking
and veered into end-of-the-world alarmism.
The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and
lesbians for second-class status, she wrote for herself and Justices
Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Hmm, is a symbolic effect really an effect?
The pattern was repeated with the ruling that Biden exceeded his authority
in wiping out student loan debt.
He wanted to allow 43 million borrowers to skip repayment of up to $20,000
each, costing $400 billion.
Opponents cited the vast scope and the inherent unfairness of forcing
taxpayers, many of whom paid their own way to college or couldnt afford
to go, to cover the debts of others, many of whom borrowed for useless
graduate degrees.
Even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Biden didnt have the power to
cancel the debt, but the left demanded it so loudly that the White House
crafted a fishy plan and hoped the court wouldnt dare say no.
Fortunately it did, again with the same 6-3 split.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that the law requires that
Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally
alter large sections of the American economy.
In other words, a president is not a king and the people express their
will through Congress, which never approved Bidens bailout.
Sen. Warren reacted in her usual voice of rage, declaring an extremist
Supreme Court substituted politics for the rule of law, denying hard-
working Americans life-changing relief from crushing student debt.
Yada, yada, yada.
The left reflexively accuses the Supremes of being extremist and playing
politics when the court rules against them.
Warren, a Harvard law professor, should know better, but she wants the
court to bless every program she favors or its corrupt.
The mother of all decisions, of course, concerned affirmative action.
Initially, the words meant broadening the applicant pool for jobs and
college admissions to make sure those who had been excluded on the basis
of race had an equal chance of being hired or admitted.
Over time, the protected categories expanded and affirmative action came
to mean outcome rather than opportunity, much as equity has replaced
equality.
But the blatant favoring of one race must come at the expense of others,
and thats clearly unconstitutional, as the court declared.
The same 6-3 majority ruled that admissions decisions at Harvard and the
University of North Carolina violated the 14th Amendments equal
protection clause.
The pattern at Harvard was obvious in showing many qualified Asian-
American students being rejected while less qualified black students were
accepted.
Roberts majority opinion said too many colleges had concluded, wrongly,
that the touchstone of an individuals identity is not challenges bested,
skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our
Constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.
Thomas, the courts second black member, has long railed against the
stigma of racial preferences.
His concurring opinion called the schools policies rudderless, race-
based preferences that fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution.
Doom forecasters
The other side of the coin comes from a PAC fundraising for the ever-more-
radical Congressional Black Caucus.
It sent an email denouncing what it called racist, corrupt Justices.
The Times was more restrained even as it, predictably, predicted doom.
An editorial insisted that states where racial preferences were banned in
higher education saw declines in the percentage of Black students, in
some cases dramatically.
It said black enrollment at the University of Michigan was 4% in 2021,
down from 7% in 2006 when Michigan voters eliminated race as a factor in
admissions.
Framing the argument that way proves the courts point.
While racial diversity is a good goal, it cannot be the deciding factor if
it means more qualified applicants are rejected on the basis of race and
ethnicity.
Thats racism and never should have been permitted, but the Times, which
effectively has a quota system in its newsroom, favors racial preferences
so the hell with equal protection for all.
Fortunately for America, we have a strong majority on the Supreme Court
that doesnt agree and takes seriously its oath to support the
Constitution.
Happy Independence Day.
--
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.
Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.