Horseface is once again complaining to remain pertinent.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) alleged that the conservative justice majority of the Supreme Court was driving the nation toward “authoritarianism” based on three significant political decisions from the previous week.
The nation’s highest court, which consists of six conservatives and three liberals, is overturning decades of leftist-communist legislation, and Democrats are, of course, incensed.
In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the conservatives, invalidating a student loan rescue program implemented by the Biden administration.
In addition, the court invalidated race-based student admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, putting an end to affirmative action in college admissions.
In addition, the court ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic designer who wishes to design wedding websites has the right to decline work from same-sex couples.
The left is shrieking like out-of-control animals due to the conservatives’ triple-play victory.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday regarding the court rulings that eliminated affirmative action, LGBTQ rights, and Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. In her remarks, the anti-white representative brought up current ethical issues involving the court, which she also charged of “expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself.”
“That, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on,” she claimed. “The danger of this court and the abuse of power in this court, particularly as it is related to the entanglements around conflicts of interest as well.”
Ocasio-Cortez has previously been outspoken in her criticisms of the judiciary and assertions that it lacks “legitimacy.” Following criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas for debating Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on affirmative action, the New York representative advocated for restrictions on judicial authority.
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Supreme Court “has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary to preserve their own legitimacy,” and she asserted that Congress has the authority to investigate.
“And in the process,” she continued, “they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.”
According to Ocasio, “The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court, which is what we are seeing now, from the overturning of abortion rights to the ruling that discrimination and, frankly, stripping the full personhood and dignity of LGBTQ people in the United States. These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court.”
Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, successfully appealed lower court decisions upholding the two prestigious institutions’ initiatives to promote a diverse student body in last week’s affirmative action case.
The verdict, supported by the court’s conservative members, was 6-3 in favor of Harvard and 6-2 against the University of North Carolina. The liberal justices dissented. Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case.
As stated in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, “Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” alluding to the principle of equal protection under the law in the U.S. Constitution.
Students “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” according to Roberts.
“At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Roberts added.
Regarding the Christian graphic designer who desired to design wedding websites and reject work from same-sex couples:
The court sided with fashion designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado statute that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender, and other factors. Smith had claimed that the law violated her right to free speech.
Smith’s opponents warned that if she were elected, businesses could discriminate against Black, Jewish, Muslim, interracial and interfaith couples, and immigrants. However, Smith and her supporters stated that if she were to lose, other artists, including writers, vocalists, photographers, painters, and even sculptors, would be compelled to produce work that went against their moral convictions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch declared on behalf of the court’s six conservative justices: “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.”