America's Supreme Challenge

So tomorrow is July 4th, time to celebrate America's birthday.

Well, "celebrate" may not be the right word. 

May be just let out a sigh of relief and/or worry that we're not quite dead yet.

Last week the Supreme Court handed down rulings that pointed the fate of democracy in different directions. 

In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court sided with a group of North Carolina voters who challenged an attempt by state Republican lawmakers to fucking gerrymander the shit out of our election map.

The case centered on a  controversial legal concept called the  "independent state legislature" theory, which contends the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides state legislators alone the power to govern federal elections without any oversight from state constitutions, courts and governors.

Under the "independent state legislature" theory, a state Republican legislature would not have to answer to any legal, judicial, moral or ethical guidelines in setting voting districts.  The could fucking set up 12 districts in North Carolina with 1 of them being designed only for Democrats. In short, gerrymandering would just be a thing you can do now since there is no one to say you can't.

Led by Justice John Roberts, 6 justices of the Supreme Court called bullshit on that idea.

Roberts wrote "The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution."  

Translation: No, you can't fucking do what you want.

Well, that was a good day for democracy. Perhaps the voices of all Americans and not just registered Republicans may count after all. 

Yay for America! Feeling good now! 

And... good feeling gone.  

Then the Supreme Court swung the pendulum the other way.  

The Supreme Court ruled that admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina relying in part on racial considerations violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, a historic ruling that will force a dramatic change in how the nation’s private and public universities select their students.

Here's what John Roberts wrote about that decision.  “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have 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.”

Roberts added that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

 Conservatives have been bucking for years to overturn racial affirmative action and finally found a court stacked with enough conservatives to overturn decades of precedent (as they did this time last year to overturn Roe V. Wade) and strike a death blow to affirmative action.  

Which would not be a big deal if racism was over. But it's not.

Despite the myopic view of conservatives that racism ended when Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, racial prejudice is still a thing to contend with.  Yes, things are better but not so improved to toss out these protections. 

Mostly conservatives are motivated by white supremacy and are apoplectic over the idea that black people getting into Harvard might mean black people making it into the boardrooms of corporate America. 

There is one interesting carve out in this repudiation of affirmative action: military academies still can factor race into their admissions process. 

So for African Americans, we want to make sure you have an equal chance to get into the military and shot at in a war zone. Not so much to get near the actual levers of power in America.

After gunning for the affirmative action for African Americans, the Supreme Court went out of it's way to affirm that LGBTQ+ discrimination is A-OK! 

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, Colorado web designer Lorie Smith asked the court to grant her the right under the First Amendment to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples due to her Christian religious beliefs. 

Here's an interesting twist: Smith has never been asked by a same sex couple to make a wedding website and felt forced to comply or threatened if she refused.  

In fact, Smith has never made a single wedding website for anybody. 

The whole damn case is speculative.  

In a 6-3 vote, the court’s conservatives ruled that a civil rights law in Colorado that bars anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination violated Smith’s First Amendment speech rights. 

This makes it much easier for businesses to discriminate and not just against the LGBTQ+ community. People have used their so called "Christian religious beliefs" to justify discrimination against women. Pharmacists have refused to fill birth control prescriptions for women because of their alleged "Christian religious beliefs." 

Religion has been used in the past to justify discrimination against black people, Jews, Muslims and more.  

“The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: "Some services may be denied 

to same-sex couples."”

- Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

The opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have become smaller.

The promise of truth and justice for all has become more narrow.  

Happy birthday, America!