|
|
 |
|
If neither dominant party represents you, consider the Libertarian Party.
SCOTUS
First off, I HATE the references to a Liberal or a Conservative court. SCOTUS is to defend The Constitution of the United States without prejudice and interpret legislation passed by Congress against provisions set forth in the The Constitution of the United States. It is to do so based on Law, NOT politics.
Yet, since The New Deal, SCOTUS has been politicized. Sadly FDR influenced SCOTUS to the left to advance his New Deal scheme. Since then, there have been legal pendulums to both right and left. Prior to President Trump appointing three Supreme Court Justices the court was 5–4, left leaning. With Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett the court has allegedly swung far right.
Originalism and Textualism
The truth is President Trump gave SCOTUS a shot of originalism and textualism. This is most refreshing versus a blatantly political court. Many on the left are now crying foul because they have lost their influence on the court. And the truth be told, the right is also NOT happy with the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh. Their judicial "conservatism" is NOT aligned with the GOP's right leaning platform.I like most SCOTUS decisions since the addition of the three Trump appointees. Again, the focus has been The Law. Today SCOTUS is critical of Congress for NOT doing its job, for NOT legislating what it ought. SCOTUS will NOT support Executive Orders that are clear overreach of duties given to the legislative department.
Federalism
Originalism and Textualism do NOT align with Progressivism. Hence, Ds/liberals are now frustrated. In several decisions Federalism has been reintroduced into our civics. We are (finally) leaning toward Life, Liberty, and legally obtained Property and away from BIG federal gov't nudge thanks to SCOTUS.
Recent Decisions
Dobbs v Jackson (2022)
Governance over abortion was wrestled from the federal gov't and given back to the sovereign states. Since social issues belong to the sovereign states this is a particularly good decision.Besides there is NO right to privacy listed in The Constitution of the United States. Amendment XIV's equal protection clause does NOT include, nor infer a "right" to privacy. The current court has reassessed some creative interpretation circa 1973. Originalists do NOT operate in such creativity.
Biden v Nebraska (2022)
Executive orders cannot appropriate $ 430,000,000,000. That level of spending must be done legislatively. And then that program must benefit ALL US citizens and residents; it cannot be another instance of Legal Plunder.Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College (2022)
SCOTUS got the larger question right. Discrimination (a good definition is needed) is wrong. Gov't services and public accomodations MUST BE available to everybody. Affirmative Action is discrimination because part of the public is excluded.
Discrimination (Mike's try) – the denying of a lawfully avaialable service by a gov't provider/agent or by a public accomodation. Discrimination does NOT apply to private transactions because they do NOT use public funds, nor do they use a public facility.A proper definition must be established.
Yet, I think SCOTUS got this one basically wrong. Harvard is a private institution and NOT a public accommodation. Harvard should have full ability to run the institution and set its administrative policies as it sees fit. The People will judge Harvard.
A side thought – News of YUGE endowments … may open some institutions to more public scrutiny.
And as all public colleges and universities are public accommodations, they MUST be governed for the public good. This Students decision is fully correct for public institutions.
Creative LLC et al. v Elenis et al. (2022)
Like the Students decision, private businesses are outside of laws to direct public accommodations. Each private business owner has to be free to make business decisions. These decisions and strategies will determine the number of customers and profit or loss. The gov't cannot unduly impede private business enterprises.Besides, there are ample graphic designers in the open market.
Trump v Anderson (2024)
The implications of this case are high. Yet, the legal standard was most precarious (maybe even nefarious).I agree with the anticipated outcome of oral argument (2/8/24). Yet, I do NOT follow/agree with the reasoning/questions.
First, do 4 plaintiffs have standing for an entire state? Their requested remedy is beyond the scope of their complaint. IMO, the lack proper standing.Each state legislature defines the voting process, NOT the judicial. When you review Shelby County v. Holder (2013) it clearly states that state legislatures direct state elections.
Why did SCOTUS discuss the federal nature of the upcoming election? Isn't Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 clear?
"Each State shall appoint, in the Matter as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to …"
– Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the United States.
Life, Liberty!, Property
Web Author - Mike Kolls