From the Highest Court in the Land to the Heart of America: Celebrating Individual Independence Day. Although not explicitly stated, the Supreme Court has made it clear through its recent rulings that the Constitution prioritizes individual liberty over group rights and government authority. This distinction has always set America apart, but it seems that fewer and fewer Americans truly grasp the fundamental principles upon which our nation was built. Either they fail to understand or they intentionally seek to undermine American exceptionalism in order to enforce conformity. You don’t need to read the actual opinions to recognize this pattern. You simply need to observe who vehemently denounces the court as a right-wing instrument of hate and exclusion. The usual suspects include President Biden, The New York Times, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and all the influential figures within the progressive-media-government complex. They are united in demanding more extensive government power while simultaneously advocating for fewer rights for individuals who dissent from their orthodoxy. The way they distort the court’s rulings is nothing short of disinformation, as they attempt to rally their followers and appease their donors. Brace yourself for a relentless onslaught against the court, complete with personal attacks on the justices and renewed calls for court packing. This selective outrage may vary in its specific content, but its ultimate objective remains constant — far-left Democrats hope to achieve through the Supreme Court what they cannot obtain through Congress. When the court rejects their demands and adheres to the principles of the Constitution, they view it as a threat to democracy. Take, for example, the uproar surrounding the ruling that businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers. In reality, the 6-3 majority ruled that a Colorado web designer’s First Amendment rights protect her from being compelled to accept commissions for same-sex weddings that conflict with her Christian beliefs. Simply put, her constitutional freedom of speech takes precedence over a state law that would force her to comply with its mandates. It is deeply concerning that many in the media are quick to denounce such a ruling, demonstrating a lack of understanding or belief in the very First Amendment that enables their profession. In contrast to their incendiary rhetoric, Justice Neil Gorsuch eloquently stated for the majority, “The opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” This sentiment was shared by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Gorsuch further emphasized that “the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” Bravo! Naturally, the court’s liberal faction presented a parade of potential calamities resulting from speech they find disagreeable. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, called the ruling “heartbreaking” and descended into alarmist predictions of doom. However, is a “symbolic effect” truly consequential? This pattern repeated itself with the ruling on student loan debt, where Biden exceeded his authority. The court’s 6-3 majority once again prevailed. Biden had sought to allow 43 million borrowers to avoid repaying up to $20,000 each, at a cost of $400 billion. Opponents raised valid concerns about the vast scope of this action and the inherent unfairness of burdening taxpayers – many of whom either paid for their own education or couldn’t afford to attend college – with the debts of others, particularly those who pursued impractical graduate degrees. Even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that Biden lacked the power to cancel the debt. Nonetheless, the left’s clamor for debt cancellation pushed the White House to devise a questionable plan, hoping that the court would not dare to reject it. Thankfully, it did, maintaining the same 6-3 split. Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinion, affirmed that the law “requires that Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.” Justice Gorsuch echoed the sentiment that “the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” The most significant decision, of course, centered around affirmative action. Initially, this policy aimed to broaden the pool of applicants for jobs and college admissions, ensuring that individuals previously excluded due to race were given equal opportunities. Over time, however, the concept of affirmative action expanded beyond equal opportunity and became more focused on achieving specific outcomes, much like how equality has been supplanted by equity. Yet, favoring one race inevitably comes at the expense of others, and this is unquestionably unconstitutional, as the court has declared. In another 6-3 ruling, the court found that admissions decisions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The explicit bias against qualified Asian-American applicants, who were rejected in favor of less qualified black students, was evident in Harvard’s practices. Chief Justice Roberts stated in the majority opinion that too many colleges had erroneously concluded that an individual’s identity should be solely determined by their skin color, rather than their accomplishments, skills, and personal growth. This choice contradicts our constitutional history. Justice Thomas, the court’s second black justice, has long criticized the stigma attached to racial preferences. In his concurring opinion, he characterized the policies of these schools as “rudderless, race-based preferences” that “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution.” On the other side of the spectrum, a political action committee linked to the increasingly radical Congressional Black Caucus sent an email condemning the justices as “racist” and “corrupt.” The New York Times, while demonstrating some restraint, still managed to paint a picture of impending disaster. An editorial argued, somewhat predictably, that states that banned racial preferences in higher education experienced declines in the percentage of black students enrolled, citing the University of Michigan’s decrease from 7% in 2006 to 4% in 2021. However, framing the argument in this manner only reinforces the court’s point. While racial diversity is a worthwhile goal, it cannot be the sole deciding factor if it means rejecting more qualified candidates based on their race or ethnicity. That is unequivocally racist and should never have been sanctioned. Unfortunately, The New York Times, which effectively operates with a quota system in its newsroom, supports racial preferences at the expense of equal protection for all. Thankfully, America can take solace in the fact that we have a robust majority on the Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution and takes its oath seriously. So, Happy Independence Day to all. The principles that underpin our nation’s foundation remain intact, thanks to the unwavering commitment of our justices.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
