29 opinions were released by the Supreme Court this past June. Many were 7-2, 8-1 or even unanimous decisions, finding common ground on voting rights, immigration issues, etc. We, though, oft focus on cases that are more divided and passionate — and on the ones via which we see only a singular side. With all due respect, that’s a significant challenge for us. When we focus solely on a singular side — legitimate as our passion and perspective may be — we typically miss the bottom line. We fail to see what the issue is about when we dismiss detail and ignore other perspective.
Take three of the high court’s decisions released in the end of the week news dump. (No doubt all institutions/administrations have learned said art of sharing controversial info on Thursdays, Fridays or right before a holiday, making it hopefully easier to avoid ample media scrutiny.) We speak today of Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, and Biden v. Nebraska. My point today is not to offer advocacy nor opposition; my point is to acknowledge the bottom line of each case — what is being addressed — and thus the core issue we may miss when passionately wrought by singular perspective.
In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admission programs is unconstitutional.
Brief details… Many who disagree are persons who believe they or those they love benefitted from affirmative action decades prior; they understandably want others to have the same opportunity… Called into question is how other ethnicities have been discriminated against in the process, specifically those of Asian and Latino descent… And interestingly, California, one of the most liberal states of the union, banned affirmative action at their public colleges 27 years ago…
The legal bottom line addresses the Equal Protection Clause embedded in the 14th Amendment. Such forces a state to govern individuals impartially, meaning all U.S. citizens must receive “equal protection of the laws.” If others are discriminated against via the process, impartiality is the question. The additional core debate recognizes that affirmative action originated in 1961, and thus wonders if current circumstances and needs for correction are the same as they were 62 years ago. This issue isn’t about discriminating against any one ethnicity; it’s about the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court ruled that the state cannot force a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which she disagrees.
Brief details… Many who agree and disagree with this decision perceive the ruling as a blow to the rights of our friends in the LGBTQ+ community, suggesting this legalizes increased discrimination… The plaintiff argued not that she didn’t want to work with LGBTQ+ individuals; she solely does not want to create same-sex wedding or trans wedding websites due to her faith…
The legal bottom line addresses the question of free speech embedded in the 1st Amendment. Can a person be forced by the state to express something that their religious faith prohibits? The additional core debate is whether or not a website falls under such expression; do “creative products” count as speech? This issue isn’t about LGBTQ+ rights; it’s about the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
And lastly, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when they announced they would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans.
Brief details… Many who disagree with this decision are persons who would benefit from not having to pay their own loans back; makes sense. There simultaneously exists significant question as to who this would most help/hurt, as the debt wouldn’t simply go away; other taxpayers would have to absorb the outstanding financial obligation… Candidate Joe Biden made the pledge that he would permanently cancel up to $20,000 in debt during his 2020 presidential campaign… After elected, Biden said, “I don’t think I have the authority to do it”… Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power”…
The legal bottom line addresses America’s separation of powers; it’s one of the key elements which laudably distinguishes the U.S. from other monarchies, dictatorships and more authoritarian forms of government. This means that government’s responsibilities are distinctly divvied up into the three branches of government in order to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The legislative branch is responsible for not only enacting the laws of the state but also appropriating the money necessary to operate. In other words, Congress holds the “power of the purse,” the power to control government spending. The President does not. Such is why Speaker Pelosi said so prior to the court case; she was actually cited in the Supreme Court’s decision.This issue thus isn’t about student loans; it’s about Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Friends, I understand the legitimate passion in both agreement and dissent; there exist strong opinions on affirmative action, LGBTQ+ rights and student loan forgiveness; each affects people differently. But let not our passion prompt us to dismiss the details and therefore unintentionally miss the bottom line.
Respectfully… always…
AR