XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.conservative   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov   
      
   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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 can’t 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 designer’s 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 don’t 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 court’s left flank trotted out a parade of horrors that   
   might result from speech it doesn’t 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 couldn’t 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 didn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 Biden’s 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 it’s 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 that’s 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 Amendment’s 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 individual’s 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 court’s 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.”   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)