I really don’t have much to add legally to the outraged commentary I’ve heard about the Supreme Court undoing Constitutional precedent by overturning Affirmative Action and also overturning protections that had made it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ human beings -- and for that matter, against any person in any of the protected classes.

For starters, there are only so many times that I can use the word “hypocritical” without it becoming white noise – in more ways than one.   And I will leave the legal specifics of the outrage to the experts. 

But a great many general thoughts do leap out.

For a while, I’ve heard some people explain that when looking for the point behind so many hurtful Republican actions these days, it’s a waste of effort trying to find nuance and meaning because the point is simply to be hurtful.  That has always struck me as a bit generic and over-the-top -- except when, it's becoming more clear, judged against reality.  Though the explanation is definitely simplistic, that doesn’t mean there isn’t at least some truth to it.  The concept of hurting those you hate and are frightened by because they’re different is as old as time, and also core to fascism, which the Republican Party has become these days.  I do think there’s more to all these actions (like the push for power) than just being mean, but it’s certainly become a good starting point.

For all the analysis of the Court’s majority opinion that overturned protection of the LGBTQ community and allowed for discrimination, I think the most pathetic line in the decision – even more than the legal gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable – is Justice Neil Gorsuch writing that "Tolerance (not coercion) is our Nation's answer."  The legal contortions in his majority opinion have the most impact and meaning, of course.  But it’s his “tolerance” reference that transcends this ruling alone and covers his empty philosophy in general.  Because apparently in the World According to Neil Gorsuch, tolerance is the hallmark of today's Republican Party – as evidenced by Red state laws to ban healthcare to trans minors and ban shows put on by men wearing dresses, and Florida banning colleges from diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives in public colleges.  That to today's GOP and the conservative Roberts Court is the epitome of tolerance.  Banning diversity, equality and inclusion. Tolerance!  Though admittedly I haven’t quite figured out yet how Neil Gorsuch's lofty concept of "not coercion" fits in with things like Florida outlawing children from reading books in a school library if just any one parent doesn’t like it, forcing their frightened, homophobic or racist views on all others, and making it illegal for educators to teach Black history, compelling a lily white view of America on children, and Red states banning abortion to coerce pregnant women to give birth against their will.  Still, there’s something fascinating about men like Neil Gorsuch and his conservative compatriots who, in the name of “tolerance,” undo a Constitutional right of protection in order to allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community.  Indeed, against pretty much all those previously protected.

Tolerance??  The utter, sick, pure gall of Neil Gorsuch to even think of using that one word.  Tolerance? This was a Supreme Court ruling that undid a Constitutional protection of half a century and literally allows for discriminating against LGBTQ’s and, make no mistake, discriminating against all members of protected classes -- all in the name of supposed religious freedom.  Please, spare us. What part of Christianity or probably any religion follows a God that permits discriminating against those most in need of protection?  It’s hard to fathom the depth of cruelty and depravity in this Court decision to throw out Constitutional precedence based on no new evidence -- something the Justices swore under oath at their confirmation hearings they wouldn’t do -- but do so just because, for personal reasons, they wanted to and could.

And this is just the cherry on top of the Roberts Court ending Affirmative Action and student loan relief over two days.  Not to mention their prior ruling ending Roe v. Wade.  And Neil Gorsuch dares lecture about “tolerance”.  While making the GOP foundation of “coercion” a now-legitimized ruling of law.

That’s one small step by six Justices, one giant leap backwards for the United States.

Of course, it’s worse than just a giant leap backwards, bordering on an H.G. Wellsian use of a time machine taking the country back to the prehistoric time of the Morlocks.  It is a decision that is quite literally ludicrous and unsupportable.

"Quite literally" because it has subsequently turned out that the very basis of the lawsuit doesn’t even appear to exist!  The Supreme Court can only hear cases where someone has been harmed.  And thanks to impressive reporting by Melissa Gira Grant in The New Republic, that doesn't appear to be what happened.

Complainant Lorrie Smith said she had received an inquiry about designing a website from a same-sex couple named Stewart and Mike, and so then sued the State of Colorado because its anti-discrimination laws required her to do so against her what she insisted were her religious beliefs.  The problem is that reporter Grant actually tracked down and spoke with Stewart.  He not only is not gay, is married to a woman and even has a child -- but he himself is a web designer!   As Stewart told the reporter, he only barely knew much about the case, and can’t imagine why he, a web designer, would ever even want to hire another web designer -- who has never before designed a wedding website -- to do a website for him about anything, let alone his wedding...when he’s already married.  And he's in San Francisco and she's in Colorado.

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

Yeah, that’s a pretty good point.  

​

​You can read the full article here. 

​Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court, says that not only is there a procedure that allows the Supreme Court to rehear a case when there is new material that impacts a ruling, but that the Colorado Attorney General has a duty make the request, adding that a Supreme Court Justice could also request the court to review the new information.  Whether either of those things will happen, we’ll see.

MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin had the most interesting observation about the Court’s decision.  He pointed out that in their nomination hearings to be put on the Supreme Court, the prospective conservative Justices all avoided questions about controversial, dicey subjects by claiming they couldn’t comment on hypotheticals.  Yet here, Mohyeldin noted, they actually make a Court ruling on what was literally a hypothetical.

By the way, in making her lawsuit on behalf of being allowed to discriminate, Lorie Smith said, “I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage —the very story He is calling me to promote."

Religion has always been to me a personal thing, and when a person tries to impose their religious views on others (which the result of this lawsuit does – “I believe my religion is anti-gay, so anyone with those religious beliefs should be allowed to discriminate against them") – that’s when you run into a miasma of societal problems.  Further, what would stop anyone from starting their own religion, fill it with tenets of hate and cruelty towards others you don’t like, and then claim you should be allowed to practice it free of consequence?  But the conservative Roberts Court has been ruling that way repeatedly, starting with the Hobby Lobby decision on not having to provide contraceptive health care to employees.  So far, this Court has pretty much only backed the Christian religion, but at what point do they start allowing any religion its way without deciding what qualifies as a legitimate religion.

Almost more to the point, however:  when does the Court draw a line between a society living under secular law as opposed to one religious doctrine?  And it is this point that – bizarrely, but truly – has an actual impact on the Supreme Court’s other decision on Friday blocking President Biden’s action to eliminate various levels of college debt.  While acquiescing to religious beliefs on allowing to discriminate against LGBTQ and all minorities if you don’t like them, because it served their conservative purpose, the Court ignored another teaching from the Bible that would have been deeply problematic for their ruling and contradicted it – and, indeed, would have opened the door to larger problems.

That’s because there’s a passage in the Bible I was unaware of that turns out, remarkably, to have absolute direct bearing on the issue of student debt.  It goes –

“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the Lord’s release.”

-- Deuteronomy 15:1-11

Yes, the Bible really says all debts should be ended after seven years.  And I am certain that that many devoutly religious people who follow the Bible as God's infallible word consider all those words core of their religious beliefs.

Now, to be clear, I don’t think societal laws should be passed based on Biblical teachings.  But if there are people who insist that their Christian belief should have precedence over laws that govern everyone, and to not allow for such religious concerns “would compromise my Christian witness,” it certainly does provide a problematic slope for the Supreme Court to allow some religious beliefs to supersede federal law when expedient to conservatives (as they have done), while ignoring others that are contrary to their personal views and disastrous for Big Business.

Who did any of these Roberts Court rulings last week really help?  How did any of this advance the needs of American society?  How did this accomplish anything but allow for cruelty?

And all from a Court that is in the midst of its own ethics crisis.  Go figure.  What a shock, I know.

Well, at least one good thing was accomplished by the conservative Roberts Court.  We can finally put to rest the ridiculous Republican canard that they hate “activist judges.”  It’s clear that conservatives absolutely adore activist judges.  They just hate them when ruling in ways that conservatives don’t like.

There.  All that without even using the word “hypocritical” once!  Let alone in every paragraph.  (Talk about “judicial restraint”…)  And only one mention of "fascism". And even without opening my thesaurus to find additional synonyms for “cruel, mean, inhumane, repugnant, vicious, reprehensible, deplorable, depraved” and plastering them all across the page.

One other good thing was accomplished.  It’s been made clear to the public ever since overturning Roe and now shining a bright light on it by allowing discrimination against those most in need of protection that voting really matters.  And that who appoints judges really matters.

I can only imagine the outraged legions preparing for 2024.