This has not been a banner week for the US Supreme Court. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite. This past week has been the kind of week that will live in infamy throughout the coming years. While the Supreme Court split 4-4 on Obama’s illegal amnesty, meaning the President’s unconstitutional power grab was struck down, they’ve also made some horribly dreadful decisions.
First, the Court chose endorse race-based discrimination in college admissions, practically allowing colleges to discriminate against certain students due to the color of their skin. The opinion handed down means that Supreme Court has once again chosen to allow racist policies to fester in the public arena.
When race-baiting liberals now argue that racism is endemic in the system, we’ll be able to reply in agreement with them. Only, the racism exists in the reverse of what they claim. Colleges can, and indeed are encouraged to, discriminate against Caucasian and Asian students while catering to African-American students with fewer credentials.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent and explained that the Court’s decision essentially allowed “school officials to “justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve ‘the educational benefits of diversity,’ without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives.”
He further noted that the university had never offered a “coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race” but instead relied on “unsupported and noxious racial assumptions.” Thomas also dissented, arguing that the Constitution “abhors classifications based on race,” and that “does not change in the face of a ‘faddish theory’ that racial discrimination may produce ‘educational benefits.’”
The second terrible decision from the Court this week came when they ruled against Texas’ new abortion laws. Texas’ law does not specifically restrict abortions; instead it requires any clinic conducting abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and it requires that the clinic be certified as an ambulatory surgical center (since they are, after all, performing surgery). Instead of complying with these rules, the majority of Texas’ clinics have decided to shut down and then sue the state for hardship. Sadly, Justice Stephen Breyer and the majority wrote, “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes…” For the life of me, aside from politics, I cannot understand how the court cannot understand how these provisions would benefit the health of women throughout the state.
Texas’ Attorney General Ken Paxton was not pleased with the court’s overreaching ruling.
“HB2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women,” he said. “It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives.”
Texas Right to Life’s Legislative Director John Seago further explained that the pro-abortion liberals had rigged the system to avoid spending the money to comply with the law. “This dangerous SCOTUS ruling allows the abortion industry to challenge any safety laws by threatening to close rather than follow law,” Seago argued on Twitter.
This dangerous SCOTUS ruling allows the abortion indstry 2 challenge any safety laws by threatening 2 close rather than follow law. #txlege
— John Seago (@Johnseago) June 27, 2016
Justice Clarence Thomas was apoplectic about the majority decision as well, choosing to excoriate the court decision in his dissent.
Today’s opinion does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the Court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.
The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment.
Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is ‘a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.’
Senator [score]Ted Cruz[/score] (R-TX) was equally angry with the Court’s decision to legislate from the bench and ignore the will of the people in Texas.
The #SCOTUS ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is profoundly disappointing. Texas enacted HB 2’s commonsense health standards to ensure that women receive safe care.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court sided with abortion extremists who care more about providing abortion-on-demand than they do protecting women’s health.
This decision will not silence our fight to protect the most helpless and innocent among us, nor will we cease our efforts to protect women from an abortion industry that prioritizes profit margins over improving the safety and health of Texas women. We will continue to stand resolutely to defend unborn life because we know that every life is a gift from God, and without life there is no liberty.
The current court may philosophically be the weakest-minded yet most-politicized court in our nation’s history. The liberal, legal dilettantes who serve on the bench have been lauded by their masters on the left, but their jurisprudence continues to prove to be both shortsighted and constitutionally inept.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com