SHIFTING VALUES L

ast week we had the U.S Supreme court the highest court in the nation which was intended to be non-partial to one party, but rather to lean into the Constitution and interpret what is meant as cases are brought to them that question one’s constitutional rights, weighed in on a hypothetical case. The consequence of such was that they ruled in favor of the individual’s what if question about not wanting to design websites for LBGQT couples. They also struck down affirmative action programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard in a major victory for conservative activists, ending the systematic consideration of race in the admissions process. the uPset

The court ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and are therefore unlawful. The vote was 6-3 in the UNC case and 6-2 in the Harvard case, in which liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused because she is a Harvard alum.

But the court did not rule out race entirely in admission programs, adding, “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”

The decision was hailed by prominent conservatives, who say the Constitution should be “colorblind,” however Donald Trump called it “a great day for America.” Liberals, however, condemned the ruling, saying affirmative action is a key tool for remedying historic race discrimination. Here’s something to think about . . . is not the Diversity, Equity ,Inclusion Act something to fall back on?

Diversity, equity, and inclusion refers to organizational frameworks which seek to promote “the fair treatment and full participation of all people”, particularly groups “who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination” on the basis of identity or disability.

The decisions are what they are, reflecting that hard work of the Republicans to stack the highest court in America with the intention to acquire the outcomes they want not necessarily what the country wants. Again, the court is to rule according to what they interpret the Constitution according to what the founding founders intended or meant when it was written.

The way they vote is not surprising because they represent the Re- publican conservative values. What is wrong is that they strategically blocked President Obama to seat a nominee for an open seat on the supreme court in

Mitch McConnell, who blocked President’s Obama Supreme Court pick in 2016, during that year’s presidential campaign, stated that he’d be fine helping to confirm Donald Trump’s choice if an opening were to occur on the nation’s high court in the 2020 election cycle. Double standard.

“Uh, we’d fill it,” the then Senate majority leader from Kentucky responded with a sarcastic smile when asked about such a scenario during city chamber lunch in Paducah. Yeah, back then while Obama was still in office the disrespectful Republicans under McConnell, who said it is important for the Senate to “give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy” by waiting until the next president takes office. McConnell’s office said he gave Garland that message in a phone call with the nominee Wednesday.