Supreme Court V

 

Opps, I Did It Again

Oops, I did it again
I played with your heart, got lost in the game
Oh baby, baby
Oops, you think I'm in love
That I'm sent from above
I'm not that innocent

Has SCOTUS did it again?

SCOTUS, especially the Robert’s court, has made some decisions with which I do not agree.  Some major recent decisions have been:

Citizens United v. FEC.  Corporations are NOT the People. The plaintiffs had no standing, and the Corporations also had no right of free speech.

Shelby County v. Holder.  Pre-clearance was being applied to a group, not to an individual.  While 50 years is indeed a long time for an individual, that time is irrelevant for a group.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. et al. A non-viable fetus has no standing.  The taking of a woman’s womb by the state to protect a non-viable fetus for no compensation is a constitutionally prohibited taking, in this case, and in Roe v. Wade.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis In addition to accepting lies on the part of the plaintiff, the decision also confuses the artist with the art.  In every transaction there are three components, the buyer, the seller, AND the goods and/or services being exchanged. The seller, the artist, has free speech.  The buyer, the customer, has free speech.  But the goods and services have NO such right.  I can agree that Kevin Spacey is a morally repressible human being and that Kevin Spacey deserved an Oscar for his performance in American Beauty. The two statements are not inconsistent because the artist is not his art. I can also agree that 303 Creative has free speech, and that 303 Creative can not discriminate in providing its services.

Biden v. Nebraska.  The government has a responsibility to regulate common goods.  An educated workforce is a common good.  Expenditures for an educated workforce that is directly to educational institutions, or the expenditures on the students of those institutions should be treated identically.  The forgiveness of loans after the expenses have occurred, is no different than grants to students before the expenses have occurred.  Student loan forgiveness thus appears to be a legitimate government expenditure.

Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College.  The court confused the process of admitting individuals with the outcome for a group.  The actions were intended to achieve a diverse outcome for the group, and that outcome does appear to be to be of interest to the court. However the court should have made no ruling on the process by which that outcome was achieved.

In these and other cases, the Court has been improperly considering standing, has confused the rights and dominance of the individual, with certainty of the group.  Remedies to address this confusion would appear to be in order.  The court should be making decisions which increase the certainty of the Nation and protects individuals, not merely protecting the dominance of certain individuals.