The Supreme Court of the United States consists of nine justices, six of whom are conservatives. That is not to say that conservatives that made it that high up in government are not capable of being intelligent and unbiased, but the cases lately have all been conservative trigger topics. Political views have far invaded the court.
The first case involves a heavy debate between both political parties: religion versus LGBTQ+ rights. A website designer from Colorado refused to provide her service to a same-sex couple. The case ended up favoring her six to three just as most could have predicted. The majority argued that her service counted as speech.
However, Colorado has a public accommodation law in which you can’t deny “the full and equal enjoyment” of a product because of traits like race or sexual orientation; this does nothing to free speech, but rather prevents basic discrimination and is intended to halt us from moving backward. The religious beliefs of the justices and their political stance on LGBTQ+ rights interfered with their ability to see the fact that this shouldn’t be treated as a free speech case.
The next case about affirmative action sparked controversy in the political and academic worlds. Harvard and the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill were accused of violating the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment by considering race as a factor during the lengthy application process.
Affirmative action was conceived after the Brown v. Board of Education case to desegregate schools. Affirmative action started helping students of color overcome the institutionalized barriers of financial and social disparity in a post-segregation world.
The justices’ inability to look at that clause from a different perspective and see that the idea is to help people of color – which affirmative action does – shows their one-lane thinking that comes out in cases like this.
Between the student loan case and the upcoming case about whether the Second Amendment is violated when a gun is taken from a domestic violence restraining order situation, I’m sure the Constitution will continue to be twisted in a way that favors the conservative point of view.
Personally speaking, I don’t agree with all that the Constitution has to say. However, the one thing my high school government teacher and I agreed on was that the job of the Supreme Court is to act as a rule enforcer. The political views of the justices should not be known because the decisions they make should have nothing to do with their stances. Granted, I understand that is far easier said than done, but there are only nine citizens out of millions who were deemed worthy to do such a job. They should be capable of this.
I also am speaking for many when I admit that if the situation was flipped and catered to favoring my beliefs and values, perhaps I wouldn’t have such a problem with it. That is part of the problem, though. Until laws and amendments are revised or added, the Supreme Court is doing its job correctly if it follows the Constitution. With that said the main issue right now continues to lie in the fact that it’s not.
Layne Rey is a sophomore studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnist do not reflect those of The Post. What are your thoughts? Let Layne know by tweeting her @laynerey12.
