The last week in June always has an obvious news theme: It’s the final week of the Supreme Court’s term, so the news is dominated by a flurry of controversial decisions. Last year the Court went out with a bang, eliminating abortion rights, striking down a century-old gun control law, and blowing a big hole in the wall between Church and State. In each case, the boundaries of the decision were unclear; the logic of the majority invited future cases that could be even more consequential.
This year the Court also went out with a bang, but none of the decisions are likely to strike as live a wire as last year’s anti-abortion ruling. The targets of this year’s attacks — LGBTQ people, Blacks hoping to go to college, and young people drowning under student debt — may be outraged, but the vast mass of the electorate will probably shrug and move on. Most of the Court’s victims probably weren’t going to vote Republican anyway, so politically, what difference will it make?
So I decided to shift my coverage in a more abstract direction. Even if you are unaffected by the specific cases decided this week, the Court’s behavior should bother you, because it is systematically blowing through all the traditional restraints on its power. Aspects of the law that the general public considers arcane (like standing and precedent) are being cast aside. And new interpretative principles (like the major questions doctrine) are being instituted. The result is to give the Court’s conservative majority the power to intervene anywhere it wants and come to any conclusion it desires.
That’s a problem, and I’ll try to explain why in “The Court Unleashed”, which should be out between 9 and 10 EDT.
Reading the nearly 400 pages of the week’s three major decisions took up an inordinate amount of my time this week, so the weekly summary should be short. I’ll try to get it out by noon.
The Weekly Sift 
Comments
The Rehnquist Court has actually made less “revolutionary” decisions than the previous two courts.
The latest decisions after reading the text are very different than political media on both sides portrays.
Compelled speech was issue about bakers and web designers refusing to advocate for beliefs that they did not agree with, not a new right to refuse to bake a cake of make a website.
I would not myself like to make either if message was : Eliminate and Kill Jews”!
I would refuse such compelled speech as I’m sure you all would too?
The decision about abortion was not eliminating abortion, only that abortion issues must be decided by states, but can be addressed by congress.
Congress reflecting all voting citizens now are working on a 15 week cap which is similar to many European countries.
The school loans was only about power of the purse, and Congress deciding if such gift to some students, would be paid by taxpayers, decision not by the executive branch as we have no king.
And admission to college by character and merits not by color of skin, the Asians now applaud but this is more complicated, as unless school vouchers let parents decide which education their kids get Pre-K through high school, the zip-code-denoted public schools clearly do favor the wealthy not the poor, and poor are more often ethnic minorities, illegal aliens and black citizens descended from slaves.
(Slaves defacto until JuneTeenth as my tee shirt reminds everybody)
Thus unless we level the playing field BEFORE applying to college, current public and non performing school system is very unfair.
(My own kids went to public schools in Jersey City to learn about diversity, inclusion and kindness to fellow students, and did, but our zip code had good public schools, thus we and they benefitted from zip code unfairly)
Yes I would refuse to make a website advocating murder (of Jews or anyone else) or robbery or other crimes. That’s not what the Court’s decision was about.
Compelling a citizen to advocate for any speech they disagree with is what court decision was about clearly as I read the decision. The case speech itself was about gay marriage (which I fully support) but it addressed the compelled speech issue.
The center of of citizen voters representing 55-65% are tired of the extremes on both sides, and the Supreme Court or White House was never intended to be the one making decision that Congress and Senate were designed to do.
Our two party system has failed as both are ruled by their extremes and the unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists rule defacto.
We are like the Byzantine Empire before it collapsed and Communist China is smiling.
Trump our own orange monster accomplished us going both sides to the polls again and that is great.
Term limits maybe one solution or open primaries to ensure more willingness to put America first and unite us all.
Happy 4th of July and wearing a JuneTeenth tee shirt to remind all some of us joined later -not because of them being late – but because it took (Republican) President Abraham Lincoln (probably closet bi or gay) to emancipate them with one million citizens dying in the civil war, of all colors.
Let’s unite again!
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case had nothing to do with compelled speech; the interaction never got that far. The baker refused to talk to the same-sex couple about a cake, and so he never had any idea what “message” the cake would contain. His rejection of their business was purely based on what they were, not what they wanted. Colorado was right to cite him for violating its law against discrimination.
Maybe you should read the decision.
I have read the decision. It is wrong.
The best way to understand compelled speech is to consider two ways the baker/same-sex-couple conversation could have gone, if the baker had not been a bigot and had discussed anything with them.
Example 1: One of the two men says: “I loved the cake you made for my cousin’s wedding. That’s what we want: three tiers, but we want the cake chocolate and the icing lemon.”
Example 2: Same as above, except the other man adds: “And we want a rainbow flag on one side, the motto ‘All Love is Sacred’ on the other, and two grooms on top.”
In #2, the baker may well say “I don’t want to make that cake, because I don’t agree with the messages on it.” If anybody forced the baker to make that cake, it would be compelled speech.
But in #1, the cake is just a cake, indistinguishable from the kinds of cakes he sells every day. The only reason not to sell it to the two men is because they are gay. That’s discrimination and is rightfully illegal in Colorado. Forcing the baker to sell that cake to them is not compelled speech.
In the actual case, by not even asking what the men wanted in a cake, the baker revealed that his refusal had nothing to do with any “message”. He was just a bigot.
Isn’t it great our highest court can’t make decisions and rulings based on speculation only on facts. While if I could I certainly would make a cake or website for a gay couple , I would not want a Nazi walking into my store demanding me doing either advocating for fascism.
I don’t understand the point of your first sentence — the Rehnquist Court ended in 2005, getting close to 20 years ago??
Doug, any comments you could provide on how we can tell whether a SCOTUS decision is “correct” would be helpful. Given that I’m pretty much always going to agree with the liberal viewpoint, how can I tell the difference between a “conservative ruling” that’s legally the correct decision vs. one that’s just based on ideology – when, in either case, I will disagree with it. Put another way, how do I know when my disagreements with the conservative majority are valid or just liberal bias?
I suggest we together count how many decisions are in % in 2023
9-0
8-1
7-2
6-3
5-4
4-5
3-6
2-7
1-8
Based on who appointed them
If 6-3 is majority both sides can be seen as ideologically driven
I hope for 7-2;8-1;9-0