The 2022-2023 term for the U.S. Supreme Court concluded last week with landmark rulings delivered on affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, and the freedom of speech and association. Predictably, the legacy media is losing its mind over them.
“The Supreme Court is falling off the pedestal it built for itself, down into the muck of normal politics,” reads an Axios article.
What utter BS!
To review, the court’s conservative majority ruled that race-based admissions policies violates the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause; that the president cannot just unilaterally erase $400 billion in student loans with zero action by Congress; and that a website creator cannot be forced by the state into making wedding websites for gay couples.
The first is the clear application of the Constitution’s prohibition against discrimination. The second is an attempt to prod the branch who is tasked with making laws to actually do so. The third is an obvious adherence to the freedom of association, or from association, with ideas or statements with which this vendor disagrees.
Every one of those is an example of the court acting in concert with the original intent of the laws when they were written — something the liberal junket of the court hates!
The Axios article then opines, “The justices tried very hard, for a very long time, to cultivate a perception that they existed on an elevated, erudite plane far above the petty concerns that occupy elected politicians.”
“They said the court’s work was wholly separate from considerations like public opinion. Even when they had to take up a case with political implications, they approached it only as a question of legal scholarship, not sullied by ideology or policy preferences.”
What’s that old saying about leading a horse to water but being unable to make it drink?
To people who view every legal debate as might-makes-right or a function of run-of-the-mill politics, rulings they don’t like are nothing but political and everything is a nail to a hammer.
The legacy media is a true believer in the “living constitution,” the idea that rather than changing laws or the constitution, we should read into them new, more desirable meanings that differ from what those who actually wrote the laws meant.
That’s not the rule of law, that’s the rule by present feelings.
They feel like student loans should be canceled, therefore a law written 20 years ago that wasn’t crafted for that purpose can be twisted into doing what “we” like at the moment.
They feel like a baker or a website designer should be forced to support something they don’t want to support, therefore 230 years’ understanding of the First Amendment should be thrown out the window.
They feel like discriminating against Asian-American students is okay because of slavery and Jim Crow, therefore decades after the civil rights movement concluded, discrimination must be employed to right past historical wrongs against people who weren’t even born yet.
It’d be one thing for a liberal activist to take these positions — and God knows they have, throwing tantrums all over the internet over this — but for a “news” publication that is supposed to be reporting the facts to cannonball into punditry is gross negligence.
This is just another case study into why The Texan does what it does, and has done so so successfully. People want the facts and want to make up their own minds about it. They don’t want to be spoonfed biased garbage from organizations who like to claim objectivity.
There’s already an over saturation of crap, half-baked political takes without Axios contributing to it. But that’s where we are with the legacy media right now.