The Supreme Court Rules the ‘Right’ Way In The Culture War

There comes a time when warring factions set aside battle, and allow peacemakers to attempt to relieve the tension and violence. Over the last year, we have witnessed significant life-changing battles fought in the great American Culture War. In this phase of the war, the battle-scarred armies waited with much anticipation and uncertainty for the peacemakers, who would come together and decide on the issues. 

The results and the outcome created tremendous anger and frustration for one side, and jubilation and joy for the other. The sides I speak of are the Right vs. the Left, and the peacemakers, the Supreme Court. Its rulings since June of 2022, through recent decisions, are nothing less than monumental. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade sent supporters of abortion rights into fits of hysterics and outbreaks of violence and attacks on churches, pro-life organizations, the Justices, and even an attempted assassination.

Both sides, Right and Left, are diametrically opposed on most, if not all, social issues, and any way forward. In recent rulings on Affirmative Action, Religious/Free Speech Rights, and Student Loan Forgiveness, the Court majority gave the Right and conservative Christians an early Christmas present. The six conservative justices voted unanimously to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in each case, while the three ‘minority’ justices were left to complain in their dissents.

On Affirmative Action: The Court ruled and struck down Harvard University's and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs, which were deemed in violation of the 14th Amendment. The ruling also dismisses the 2003 “Grutter vs. Bollinger” that found colleges could consider race as a factor in determining admissions to achieve racial harmony. The two groups who were victims, and were the subject of discrimination, were White and Asian students in particular.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. And the Equal Protection Clause, (which) we have accordingly held applies without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; it is universal in its application. The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race.” In writing for the minority, Justice Sotomayor was highly critical “By ending race-conscious college admissions, this Court closes the door of opportunity that the Court's precedent helped open to young students of every race.”

On Student Loan Forgiveness: When President Biden issued an executive order that wrote off over $400 billion in student loan debt, it was a known fact that he did not have the constitutional right to do so. In past remarks both then-Vice President Biden and then-Speaker Pelosi spoke out against canceling any debt without congressional approval. The Justices agreed, and struck down the order; Chief Justice Roberts wrote in part for the majority, “The question here is not whether something should be; it is who has the authority to do it. The Secretary of Education claims the authority on his own to release 43 million borrowers from their obligation to repay $430 billion.” The Secretary does not have the authority.

The widespread belief among Republicans, some Democrats, and a majority of the American people, is that Biden promised to relieve student loan debt, before the November 2022 midterm election, in order to garner the vote of young people. He knew full well that he did not have the authority; his motive was pure selfishness, giving false hope, and a pathetic ruse to maintain power.

On Freedom of Speech/ Religion:  In past writings, I have discussed the controversy surrounding Colorado baker Jack Phillips. In 2018 his case came before the Court. Mr. Phillips is the proprietor of Masterpiece Bakeshop and was requested to bake a special cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. He declined, stating his Christian faith found such unions as antithetical to its beliefs. The state of Colorado Civil Rights Division accused him of denying the couple their civil rights. The Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips.

In the recent case “303 Creative v. Elenis,” Lori Smith is a graphic artist and website designer, who also happens to live in Colorado. In a similar situation to that of Jack Phillips, Smith endeavored to create a website devoted to wedding ceremonies. Before activating the site, she issued a statement that explained she would not accommodate same-sex couples, due to her religious convictions and biblical held beliefs of marriage as between a man and woman. This violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws, which require goods and services to be extended to all people regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch wrote in part that the first amendment bars Colorado from “Forcing a web designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.” In her dissent writing for the minority, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote, “Today the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” 

There is one overriding factor that created the climate for what transpired here, and you can sum it up in one word: Trump.