{"id":13751,"date":"2023-07-02T00:42:55","date_gmt":"2023-07-02T04:42:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=13751"},"modified":"2023-07-02T00:42:58","modified_gmt":"2023-07-02T04:42:58","slug":"what-details-are-we-dismissing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=13751","title":{"rendered":"what details are we dismissing?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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 \u2014 and on the ones via which we see only a singular side. With all due respect, that\u2019s a significant challenge for us. When we focus solely on a singular side \u2014 legitimate as our passion and perspective may be<\/em> \u2014 we typically miss the bottom line. We fail to see what the issue is about when we dismiss detail and ignore other perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take three of the high court\u2019s 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.) <\/em>We speak today of Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,<\/em> and Biden v. Nebraska.<\/em> My point today is not to offer advocacy nor opposition; my point is to acknowledge the bottom line of each case \u2014 what is being addressed \u2014 and thus the core issue we may miss when passionately wrought by singular perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,<\/em> the court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admission programs is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brief details\u2026<\/strong> 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\u2026\u00a0 Called into question is how other ethnicities have been discriminated against in the process, specifically those of Asian and Latino descent\u2026 And interestingly, California, one of the most liberal states of the union, banned affirmative action at their public colleges 27 years ago\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cequal protection of the laws.\u201d 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\u2019t about discriminating against any one ethnicity; it\u2019s about the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, <\/em>the court ruled that the state cannot force a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which she disagrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brief details\u2026<\/strong> Many who agree and<\/em> 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\u2026 The plaintiff argued not that she didn\u2019t want to work with LGBTQ+ individuals; she solely does not want to create same-sex wedding or trans wedding websites due to her faith\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201ccreative products\u201d count as speech? This issue isn\u2019t about LGBTQ+ rights; it\u2019s about the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And lastly, in Biden v. Nebraska,<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brief details\u2026<\/strong> 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\u2019t simply go away; other taxpayers would have to absorb the outstanding financial obligation\u2026 Candidate Joe Biden made the pledge that he would permanently cancel up to $20,000 in debt during his 2020 presidential campaign\u2026 After elected, Biden said, \u201cI don\u2019t think I have the authority to do it\u201d\u2026 Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, \u201cPeople 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\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal bottom line addresses America\u2019s separation of powers; it\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cpower of the purse,\u201d 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\u2019t about student loans; it\u2019s about Article I of the U.S. Constitution. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respectfully\u2026 always\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u2014 and on the ones via which we see only a singular side. With all … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “what details are we dismissing?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-event"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13751"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13760,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13751\/revisions\/13760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}