7-23
If you follow the coverage of each Supreme Court ruling lately, you may have noticed how democrats, the media, and republicans change their public narrative on the court depending on whether or not they benefit from each ruling, not based on whether or not the constitution actually supports their claims.
Democrats and their shills in the news media routinely whine that the Supreme Court is an “extreme” and “right-wing” court, hell-bent on bringing pain and misery to the people of this country. That is, when they don’t get their way. When they do get their way, they hail the court as virtuous and all- knowing.
Because of the constant dishonesty on all sides, it’s almost impossible to know who’s telling the truth when the court makes a ruling. So, let’s take a look at the most recent spate of rulings to see if any of their claims pan out.
INDEPENDENT LEGISLATURE
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against a republican claim that state legislatures have the sole authority over election laws (such as drawing congressional districts) without a legal review of state courts.
Democrats claimed that all election laws must be subject to judicial review in cases where state legislatures make unfair laws to benefit one political party.
Joining “conservative” Justice Roberts in the 6-3 majority decision were “conservative” Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, as well as the court’s three so-called “liberal” Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. A weird alignment for sure, given what we are fed on CNN and in The New York Times every day.
What they ruled is that the constitution says nothing at all about legislatures having “sole authority” over election laws.
Democrats (and their shills in the media) who decry a “right wing, extremist court” when they don’t get their way, were chirping loudly about how the court’s ruling gave legitimacy to their position and how “judicious” they were in getting this ruling correct.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Days later, however, when the Supreme Court ruled that racism is still unconstitutional, striking down the use of affirmative action in college admissions, members of the Democrat Party (cult?) who had just hailed the court as virtuous in the “independent legislature” case, were suddenly back to their tired, old propaganda about an “out of control extremist court” filled with “right wing ideologues” who only rule the way republicans want them to.
It was silly and embarrassing for a political party that once stood with Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society, but there it was. Democrat after democrat attacking the court and proposing “court reform” to try and get future rulings that will benefit them.
STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
The court also ruled against President Biden’s efforts to forgive student loans because the constitution gives only congress the role of spending money, incurring, and forgiving debt. Since Biden was trying to forgive these loans without congressional approval, the Biden plan was struck down.
He certainly could have gotten congressional approval and achieved his goal when congress was controlled by the democrats in his first two years in office. But, he chose not to do that.
Biden and his followers then blamed republicans instead of themselves for killing the debt forgiveness plan, because he certainly couldn’t have said “Yeah, you got me, we knew all along that this wasn’t constitutional, but we had to try!”
That would be too honest, and if there’s one thing neither party can tolerate on the national stage, it’s honesty with the American people. So, they clutched their pearls and predicted Blacks would be back in chains within a few years.
FREE SPEECH vs. LGBT RIGHTS
The most recent ruling stems from a Christian web designer who objected to same sex couples being able to force her to design a gay wedding webpage.
What they said was, while she has no right to refuse service to a client because they are gay or lesbian, she has every right to refuse to support a website with a “message” she does not agree with.
In other words, if a gay man owns a web design business, he cannot refuse to create a webpage for a Catholic. He does, however, have the right to refuse to design a Catholic webpage that opposes gay marriage, or interracial relationships.
It’s all about the message, not who the client is. The government cannot “compel speech” and forcing a web designer to create content they do not agree with violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
Yet, CNN and the democrat controlled “news” media “reported” that LBGT rights were in peril because of the “extremist court” and that the ruling was a “blow to LGBT rights” sending us backwards 100 years. The ruling did no such thing, and has no bearing on gay rights. But that doesn’t benefit the current politics of the Democrat Party, so they lied to the public yet again.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that home equity theft by government entities is unconstitutional, securing an individual’s right to just compensation when their property is confiscated and sold in a tax foreclosure. For example, if someone owes $15,000 in back taxes and the government takes their property to satisfy that debt, they can only keep the $15,000 they are owed when the property is sold. The balance of the sale must be given back to the rightful property owner.
Strangely, republicans hailed the ruling while the democrats said nothing at all, and the democrat-controlled “news” media barely reported on it. That’s because it didn’t fit the narrative of an “out of control right wing extremist” court.
THE ROLE OF THE COURT IS NOT TO EXPAND RIGHTS!
The saddest part of all of this is that most Americans have no idea what’s in the constitution, and have been taught to view it as a “living breathing document” that should “change with the times.”
It isn’t.
It says what it says, and it means what it means, just like every other law in this country. It is not fluid, it is static. It has to be in order to mean anything.
The function of the Court is to apply what the constitution actually says, to current laws being challenged. If the constitution does not address a particular issue, that issue is a right to be decided by the states, not the federal government.
This was the problem with Roe v. Wade and why the court rightfully overturned it in the Dobbs decision. Abortion and “privacy rights” are mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and therefore a right to be decided by the individual states.
Yet, republicans who had just spent 50 years complaining that abortion was a state’s rights issue, are now laughingly advocating for a federal abortion ban.
This, even though the Dobbs decision very clearly states that the federal government has no say on abortion.
CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION
The fact is, if Americans don’t like what the constitution actually says, (democrats in the Dobbs case, republicans in the “independent legislature” case) they can’t change it with judicial rulings, because eventually it will be overturned by a future court.
To change the constitution, we must use the mechanisms contained within the document. That is; holding a constitutional convention where 2/3rds of the states ratify an amendment, then 2/3rds of the federal legislature ratifying it.
Remember, slavery was originally a state’s rights issue because the constitution (at the time) did not address slavery.
So, some states outlawed slavery while others embraced it.
Courts ruled correctly again and again that slavery was indeed constitutional. To rectify this, a convention was called. States ratified the 14th Amendment, congress and the president ratified it, and the U.S. Constitution was forever changed.
But, it wasn’t done by putting people on the court to simply rule that slavery SHOULD be unconstitutional. That’s what democrats did with abortion, and it was eventually (and rightfully) overturned.
Now, because democrats don’t like these most recent rulings, they are again talking about expanding the court, instituting term limits on justices, and even more destructively, publicly attacking judges, their families, and their personal lives because judges ruled against their political interests or, more accurately, the interests of their donors.
If democrats were to be successful in any of these efforts it would forever threaten every provision in the constitution’s Bill of Rights and could, in the future, result in the repealing of the first amendment protections of free speech, a free press, and freedom of religion.
It could also repeal the the 14th amendment making slavery constitutional again because it “changed with the times.”
That is not a far-fetched prediction. For, if one part of the Bill of Rights can be perverted by activist judges for political ends, every part of the Bill of Rights would be up for grabs by future courts as the “times change”.
SITUATIONAL ETHICS IS RUINING THE COUNTRY
So far, the court has ruled correctly on all these recent cases, even though neither political party agrees.
The fact is, according to the actual text of the constitution, affirmative action IS, in-fact racism and therefore unconstitutional.
The government cannot take your property without making you whole. Business owners are and should be free to refuse to participate in an activity and messages they do not agree with. The president does not have the right to forgive student loans without congressional approval. Abortion and privacy rights are nowhere in the constitution, and state legislatures do not have the sole right to make election laws without judicial review by state courts.
If you don’t like any or all of that, your remedy is to change the constitution with a constitutional convention. Don’t blame the justices for applying what the constitution actually says.
To do so, would make no more sense than the morally vapid leaders of both political parties who flip flop on the issues depending on what benefits them.
If you ask me, I think we’ve had enough of situational ethics from the media, republicans, and democrats.
If we don’t start educating people about the function of the constitution and what it says – and why – we may not have a real constitution very much longer. ◊