A Good Week For The Constitution

Last week was a good week for the Constitution.

It was not so good for the progressive leftists in the United States who over the last 50 years came to expect that they could rely on the Supreme Court to fulfill all of their dreams and demands.

Most of the important issues in the liberal agenda over those 50 years have been tied to the Supreme Court.

Why?

What the Democrats were not able to gain at the voting booth years they have relied on the federal courts or the Supreme Court to circumvent the constitutional process.

That is why the Supreme Court is everything to Liberals. Most everything they care about in the last 50 years did not come from legislation or constitutional amendments but by the opinions of five Supreme Court justices. Look no further than abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action as prime examples. 

They never had the backing of the necessary majorities of American voters to support and extend their progressive agenda. They did not want to follow the Constitution to get there.

The Democrats simply didn't want to wait and do the heavy lifting necessary to get what they wanted.

They knew there was no way they could legalize abortion or gay marriage through the legislative or constitutional process. 

Why not just convince five jurists rather than 330 million people?

Our Founders wanted a clear consensus before we made radical changes to the rules that governed us. 

If you want to know a major reason why the country is so divided right now look no further than what the Supreme Court has done to undermine our constitutional principles over those 50 years. It has moved the country before it was ready to move to support that progressive agenda.

The pendulum has swung back to the right and it is not something the left is not used to.

Consider three of the decisions last week that liberals are unhinged over.

There was the affirmative action decision in which the Supreme Court held that no longer can race be used  by colleges to provide an admissions advantage.

Affirmative action has been used for over 50 years to give a boost to Black (and Hispanic) admissions to selective colleges. The argument initially was that it was necessary to provide a more diverse college experience. 

However, in recent years it mainly worked against another minority group---Asian students. It became clear it was not being used for a more diverse student body. It was being used to discriminate by and in itself for select groups of minorities.

For example, at Harvard, a similarly qualified Black student in the top decile of applicants has a 56% chance at admission compared to a 15% chance for a While applicant and only 13% for an Asian student.

Affirmative action policies have worked to give a huge advantage to Blacks while seriously disadvantaging Asians.

Is this consistent with the equal protection guarantees under the Constitution?

The Supreme Court stated last week that it is not.

However, Democrats see this as a monumental travesty.

Rather than attempting the heavy lifting of working to improve the academic performance of Blacks and Hispanics (you could say Whites as well), they want the Supreme Court to continue to bless this inequality.

The Constitution exists not to protect select groups, It exists to protect all.

There has been a similar outcry by Democrats concerning the decision that a web designer in Colorado cannot be forced under a state anti-discrimination law to use her expressive talents to create a web page for a same sex wedding which would conflict with her religious beliefs.

Despite what Democrats are saying the decision does not say that it is permissible to discriminate against gays. This is a case in which it is recognized that the First Amendment rights of religion and speech also have to be recognized under the Constitution.

This decision does not allow a McDonald's employee to refuse to serve a gay person. It involves the right of someone to exercise their right of free speech through their expressive talents not to be forced to use those talents in promoting something they do not agree with.

The same ruling could be applied to allow an abortion activist designer to not have to use their talents to work for a right to life group.

In last week's decision there is nothing that shows how much the Democrats have come to rely on the Supreme Court than the student loan debt forgiveness issue.

You may recall that when Joe Biden ran in 2020 he said he was going to eliminate student debt for a substantial number of borrowers.

This is what he said in a townhall appearance in October, 2020.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2020/10/07/biden-affirms-i-will-eliminate-your-student-debt/?sh=1e359aaf58a7

Of course, Biden could not get any student loan forgiveness through Congress in his first two years even though Democrats held majorities in both chambers.

What did he do?

He went ahead and tried to do it through executive order even though Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had earlier stated Joe Biden had no such power.

Why did he do it?

Politics.

The 2022 midterms were coming up and Biden and the Democrats had not delivered on a major promise.

They knew what they were doing was unconstitutional but a lot of young voters would not know that.

As an added bonus, when the Supreme Court struck down the student debt cancellation the Democrats could then demonize the Court and Republicans for being obstructionists.

Look at some of the reactions that prove that.

A promise is a promise?

What about the promise to repay the debt that was made and signed for when the loan was taken out to pay for the college expenses?

Isn't a loan like this typically called a promissory note?

You would think the Supreme Court forced those 43 million to take out those loans at gunpoint and made them promise to pay the money back. Does anyone have evidence of Clarence Thomas or the other justices doing that?

Even more ridiculous is the comment from Democrat Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The Supreme Court will not dare to help Americans saddled with student loan debt?

This guy is the leader of a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Has he introduced a bill to cancel student loan debt in either the last term of this term?

Did he dare to do anything in the Senate to help with student loan debt?

No.

Why? The votes aren't there.

The Democrats have gotten used to getting around this problem by relying on the Supreme Court to do what they could not do on their own.

It is not working any more and they are not happy.

It was good week for the Constitution.

It was not a good week for the progressive/leftists.

Perhaps it is time for the Democrats to start following the Constitution and stop undermining the nations's highest court with inflammatory and inaccurate statements intended to harm one of the key institutions that supports our republic.