Democracy 2024: # 26

Elections have consequences.

That should seem abundantly clear to Democrats and liberals this week who seem to be absolutely besides themselves over three Supreme Court rulings. In my view, these rulings are not even good enough reason for them to be upset as compared to last year's decision on abortion. 

Nonetheless, those on the left who are despondent can look back to Hillary Clinton's narrow 2016 defeat, embarrassingly enough to Donald Trump, which fluke or not, has had profound impact on the shape of the judiciary. Clinton lost a race she should have won, at least considering her opposition, and a major part of that reason was that the way she had handled classified documents left many believing she was thoroughly disqualified from receiving their vote for President. I happened to share that view, although of course I could not vote for Trump either. Had Hillary Clinton been charged at the time or otherwise forced to leave the race due to her serious ethical misjudgements, she would have been replaced on the ballot (likely by Joe Biden) and Trump would have lost. That might have lead to many other consequences, but one of them would certainly be that we would have a liberal Court today instead of what is viewed as a conservative Court.

As I have always stated, I believe that the winner of the 2016 Presidential election had the right to fill the sudden vacancy of Antonin Scalia, and the outgoing President did not during the election cycle. This was also a factor in the election in which Trump won, and indeed, he did get to fill that vacancy, with the help of Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society. Had the roles of the parties been reversed in 2016, nobody can seriously suggest that the Democrats would not have done the exact same thing. Later, Justice Kennedy voluntarily resigned and Trump also had the right to fill that vacancy, even as the left hurled completely salacious and unsubstantiated allegations, dating back to his High School years, for the person nominated to be Justice.

Then, late in the 2020 cycle, as Trump was seeking an uphill reelection. Justice Ginsburg, who had passed on opportunities to retire when a Democrat was President, passed away, and Trump and his Republican allies in the Senate filled that vacancy too. I am on the record in having stated and still believe, that while I admire Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that vacancy should have been filled by the winner of the 2020 election. On this matter, I have always been completely consistent, unlike most professional politicians in both parties who are rank hypocrites. Nonetheless, the decisions this week were 6-3. I suppose if Barrett had not been seated, they would have been 5-4,  but the end result would have been the same. Since I also believe elections have consequences, I also supported the confirmation of Biden's Supreme Court pick. I also believe I supported at least one of Obama's selections, but think there may have been some issue way back then to have given me pause on another.

Now, when it comes to the current Court, those on the left have certainly been pleased and those on the right displeased by recent decisions that went one way, such as the Congressional maps in Alabama and Louisiana, which may very well serve to elect more Democrats to the U.S. House or by the decision stating that a Biden immigration policy was legal.

This week, some decisions went against the left, and they are apocalyptic and even Biden himself is claiming this is "not a normal Court." So much of the outrage of course is performative. This is how both parties  raise money and gin up angry voters to hopefully go to the polls. The left has been doing this for decades and it is very easy to see through them. In my view, the right has only beclowned itself more recently thanks to the malignant influence of Trump and what he represents.

While I am no Constitutional scholar, as a citizen, I happen to agree with these three 6-3 rulings and I also happen to think that despite what the Democrats might claim, the American public does as well. In that regards, this is a different circumstance than last year's ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade.

 

Race based affirmative action in college admission has now been ruled against and I can understand at least why that is controversial. It is much harder to take seriously the "slippery slope" rhetoric of the left who are suggesting that racial minorities will now be forbidden to attend colleges. From an historical perspective, I think it was appropriate in the past to have had race based affirmative action, but we have come a long way since those days and such a practice cannot just be expected to continue indefinitely. A pure meritocracy is  always preferable (and that relates to both academics and athletics in terms of college acceptance) but those who may struggle to measure up based on grades or test scores should be given consideration based on actual financial need and not purely by the color of their skin. The majority opinion of the Court did state that students can of course talk about race on essays or as part of the admission process as it relates to how it has affected them as an individual.

The answer to past racial discrimination should not be continued racial discrimination. This especially relates to many Asian-Americans, who have felt they have been harmed by these policies and were part of bringing this suit. It is also a fact that the black and Hispanic middle class has continued to grow in America, while other parts of the country, including rural whites, have fallen further behind. No, racism has not disappeared in America, and we should not pretend it has or that it must not always be vigorously opposed, but the inequalities of today relate more to class than race. I remember back to when George W. Bush first ran for President in 2000, as an opponent of race based affirmative action. He talked about how a law he ushered into effect in Texas allowed a certain top percentage of students from all schools in the state an admission into a state University. Something like that definitely had the effect of bringing about a diverse student body and helping individuals and families utilize higher education to achieve the American Dream. That sort of thing is the direction our country should look for goals we all aspire to, rather than asking people to check a box based on what their skin looks like.

On the next day, the Court ruled that a website designer in Colorado, who happened to be a religious Christian woman, could not be forced to create a website for a same sex wedding. In the past, a similar challenge to a Colorado law from a wedding cake baker who had religious objections failed. I wrote at great length about that at the time. I said that somebody's personal views should always be respected and that it was a very different matter than public accommodation laws which would ban people altogether from a good or service. This case succeeded (though many question if the plaintiff even had a legitimate standing to bring the case) because it was presented as a free speech issue in which her artistic expression would be coerced. She must of course design a website for a gay client if they pay for it, but what the message is hers to accept or reject based on her own free speech. I happen to agree entirely, even if I think she might be wrong on the specifics. In America, people have the freedom to be wrong. People have the right to turn down money for their services. Others will be willing to accept it of course. Hypothetical or not, I do not know why somebody wants so badly to have someone make something for them that they would begrudge doing and might be of lesser standard.

In 2023 I do not believe it would be remotely difficult for any same sex couple to find a website designer to make them a wedding site, or bake them a cake, or anything else. That can be seen as a positive aspect of social change.That should not mean though that every American must be forced to automatically fall in line. Again, this is very different than kicking somebody out of a store or restaurant or refusing to rent them a place to live. Based on the rhetoric of the left though this week, it is the same thing already or will lead to widespread discrimination. They need to get a grip.

 

Finally, the Court ruled that Joe Biden's recent student debt forgiveness executive action was unconstitutional. I said that would be the case at the time and even many Democrats knew that would be the case once it got to SCOTUS. The left-wing of the Democrats wanted Biden to put through action to forgive billions of dollars of debt for people who took out college student loans. Such a proposal was clearly never going to be able to pass Congress,and Biden said for a while that there were limitations to what he could do.  Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi also agreed on the limits of Presidential authority, in a statement that made it into the majority ruling this week. Eventually though, the political pressure on his left flank was enough for Biden to do something seen as politically expedient in the short-term, hoping to drive young voters to the midterm polls. The President now bemoans that anybody could accuse him of offering "false hope" to these individuals, but that is exactly what he did, and apparently is still doing by promising other executive measures ahead of the 2024 election, which are likely also beyond his authority.

The Biden plan of forgiving student debt is both wrong on the merits and fundamentally unfair to those who did do what they were expected to do and pay back their debt. Of course,it is also unfair to financially strapped individuals who never even went to college, to be expected to pick up the tab for people who are now today making a lot more money than they are. Those are political or policy points though. This seems to be a simple Constitutional matter. No President should have the authority, without Congressional approval, to unilaterally spend this much money on a domestic policy program. On the matter of Executive Orders in general, Obama abused his authority, Trump certainly did also,and Biden has followed in those unfortunate footsteps.

I have spent so much time over the past several years being disappointed and angry with my former Republican allies over the whole Trump cult thing, that it can be easy to forget just how loony the left in America can truly be. Much of the things they have been saying on television this week regarding these three court decisions have reminded me though.

This country really needs a mainstream conservative President, or at least a moderate one (such as what Joe Biden falsely promised he would try to be),but with the Republican Party in its current state, that seems unlikely to happen. With each passing day, more and more foreboding legal news or evidence comes to light regarding Trump and he continues say crazier and crazier things. (Along those lines Robert Kennedy Jr. had a completely crazy performance at a NewsNation Town Hall in Chicago this past week. The Democrat challenger to Biden said he would not agree to support the eventual nominee and indeed very much sounds like someone who could even endorse Trump in a general election.) If not Trump, the next in the polls is Ron DeSantis, who the excesses of the left as discussed above aside,seems to be betting that running on a platform opposing the LGBTQ community is somehow a ticket to success in a general election this day and age.I happen to think that would not be very likely.

Trump fans and Republicans in general need to be reminded of Hillary's problems with classified documents and how that cost the party an election and the Supreme Court. What goes around comes around in politics though and it would be pretty dumb for a party to nominate someone like Trump, with all his classified document problems. He would cost the party an election and a few years down the road, the Supreme Court might look very different again.