Last day of June and we’ve completed half of 2023. About 18 months left for the sock puppet in the White House to finish off America. Unless he’s re-elected, you understand. And by “re-elected,” I mean “re-installed.” Nobody in their right mind would vote for the Resident again. And those who would vote for him again only make my point.
The Supreme Court of the United States is issuing its decisions this week, a couple of which have substantial implications for our life together as citizens. The first was a 6-3 decision in the case of Moore v. Harper which examined who has the power to set elections rules.
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that limited state courts’ ability to wrest control of elections law from state legislatures in a North Carolina redistricting case. The ruling does not, however, entirely stymie activist attempts to use courts to override elected legislators’ decisions about election law.
In Tuesday’s Moore v. Harper decision, SCOTUS held that the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause “does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” But it also failed to defend state legislatures’ constitutional right to control elections law, including redistricting, as shielded from court review.
In essence, SCOTUS ruled that state legislatures do not control policies around federal elections in spite of the clear language of the Constitution. Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin was apoplectic.
“[Republican Justices] Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett are truly pathetic,” a frustrated Levin tweeted. He added two long tweets arguing that the SCOTUS decision undermined the Constitution of our besieged republic. The decision seems to be in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.
Only the states and Congress can regulate elections, according to the Constitution. But not according to SCOTUS.
Levin called out the Supreme Court for flouting the Constitution. “So, now the Framers’ and ratifiers’ clear language in the Constitution about state legislatures (not state governors or state courts) having the final say on electoral matters is the interpretation of right-wing kooks,” he asked sarcastically. Only Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion. So much for the “conservative” Supreme Court.
”[T]he Supreme Court just ruled that those who wrote the Constitution, adopted it, and ratified it really didn’t mean for final authority to rest with the state legislatures,” Levin explained. “They [supposedly] intended absolutely nothing by that language. The lawlessness continues, and the Court has opened even further the interference in our elections by activist bureaucrats and courts, and the controversy that will continue to ensue, for as long as this unraveling republic exists.”
Given the 2024 election, this is a terrible decision. Poorly decided with especially poor timing.
The second significant decision is that in a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS outlawed affirmative action, which began under President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful for colleges and universities to use race as a factor in admissions, overturning rulings from as far back as 1978 that claimed institutions of higher education had a valid interest in promoting racial diversity on campus and could thus give favorable consideration to black and Latino applicants in their admissions process.
Two separate decisions were reached in which the nation’s highest court ruled that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices based on race that violated the Constitution. “[T]he Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” the opinion read. “Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”
All the liberal justices dissented, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined with the conservative court members, writing for the majority.
From where I sit, this is a long-needed decision. Affirmative action policies used in college admissions — let’s just call them what they are: quotas — violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But because progressives live and die by the myth that institutionalized racism is still a thing, they believe minorities can’t succeed on merit alone and need the state to step in to give them a hand up.
Maybe 50 years ago there was a need for affirmative action, but affirmative action at its core is unfair and discriminatory. How many qualified students, ie., based on merit, were rejected from schools they wanted to attend because of an affirmative action admission that was based not on merit, but on the color of the student’s skin?
Equality, not equity.
This principle holds true in God’s kingdom, too. No one gets into heaven based on the color of their skin. God doesn’t look at the masses in heaven and say, “there’s not enough diversity here. I need some affirmative action policies.” No, we all, no matter tribe, nation, color or creed, are saved only by the merit of Jesus Christ.
No exceptions.
Have a good weekend.