The Supreme Court of the US finished up a session with three significant decisions, each of which will be discussed briefly below. First, however, take a look at the cartoon above which accurately depicts the current situation with a slightly more conservative and Republican court tilting the balance slightly against the liberal, Democrat justices. Both sides of the aisle are making noises about packing the court. Ex-president Trump has said that if he got another term, he would like to add up to nine more justices with a conservative bent. Many Dems would like to add more justices with a liberal bent. President Biden has wisely said that he is not in favor of such a massively divisive political move. Two thumbs up, Joe!

The makeup of the top court is, unfortunately, subject enough to the vagaries of our partisan political landscape. Any attempt to take control of the court by one side or the other would be a huge mistake and would lead to massive partisan unrest. The Court is not perfectly ideal as is, but it is nearly evenly split because of the way the white house changes hands.

Some Dems are not happy with the three recent decisions. Keep in mind, there will come another day. Meanwhile, let’s review.

In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. V. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Court ruled that Harvard, and by extension, other colleges and universities, cannot use a racial quota system to fill the finite number of seats in higher-level classrooms. What is clear is that the Court has ruled against racial quotas. If a deserving African American student just below the threshold for admission is bumped up on the list, then a deserving white student must be bumped down. The Supreme Court has not ruled against any and all forms of Affirmative Action, nor should they.

In The Department of Education et al. V, Brown et al., the Court has ruled against President Biden’s attempt to curry favor with many young voters and their parents by forgiving student loan debt. College admissions are incredibly expensive, and education can be costly and financially burdensome, but people have the free will to incur the responsibilities attached to a loan or not. Consumers should live with the consequences of their own decisions.

In 303 Creative LLC et al. V. Elenis et al., the Court has made its most controversial ruling. They ruled that a business can exercise its right to refuse payment and withhold services, in this case involving a gay couple and a same-sex marriage. This is a controversial decision because, in this country, everybody has equal rights. The Court has ruled that, in this kind of circumstance, a business has the same rights as an individual. What the Court cannot do, and should never do, is to legislate discrimination.