Supreme Court supports individual rights and congressional authority

I recently shared online an opinion editorial by Michael A. Cohen, of MSNBC, in which he falsely claimed that the Supreme Court’s latest rulings are examples of judicial activism. Judicial activism is defined as judicial lawmaking that exceeds the proper exercise of judicial authority, replacing impartial interpretation of existing law with the personal feelings of the judge or holding that the Constitution’s meaning changes with the nation’s needs and temperament. Cohen wrongly accuses the Court of replacing their opinions for the legislature’s. In fact, the latest Supreme Court rulings confirmed and called for legislative authority. This Court has stated in multiple opinions that Congress alone can create law. In several cases, they have addressed bureaucratic overreach by the Executive Branch. The Court has opined that Executive Branch agencies cannot arbitrarily interpret ambiguously written legislation to create laws that the legislature never voted for. The Court has ruled that agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives cannot use general authorizations from Congress to create substantive laws and regulations.

Some individuals have claimed that the Court has endorsed discrimination in its ruling on 303 Creative v. Elenis, which ruled that the state could not force a Christian web designer to create a website for a same-sex wedding. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court stating that Colorado could prohibit discrimination by businesses against any individual when selling goods or services but that the state could not force an individual to create any form of speech that the individual does not endorse or believe. The opinion ruled that while a web designer could be forced to develop a website for any individual, the designer could not be compelled to create specific websites that contradict her views. In this case, the designer could not refuse to create a website for a same-sex couple, but she does not have to make a website contrary to her beliefs. This ruling means that an African American web designer could not be forced to create a website that promoted the Ku Klux Klan, and a Democratic web designer could not be forced to create a website promoting a Republican candidate. Opponents only claim that it is discrimination because they support forcing acceptance of LGBTQ+ lifestyles and have no problem infringing on the rights of deeply religious individuals.

In Biden v. Nebraska, the Court ruled that President Biden and the Department of Education had overstepped with Biden’s student loan debt relief program. In the majority opinion, the Court quoted President Biden and Speaker Pelosi stating that the Executive Branch did not have the authority to relieve the debt. Both Democrats had indicated that Congress would have to act to forgive the debt. The Department of Education used the HEROES Act to justify forgiving the debts of most student loan borrowers. The Court ruled that an act passed by Congress after 9/11 to forgive the debt of specific borrowers in response to war, military operation, or national emergency could not be used to forgive the debt of most borrowers because COVID created a national emergency. The Court decided that the COVID emergency did meet the act’s intent and that the act did not allow for such a substantial modification of provisions applicable to student loans. Again, the Court stated that Congress has the power to forgive student loan debt, but the Secretary of Education does not have the authority to reinterpret an act of Congress to fulfill the desires of the President.

Liberals and Democrats would have praised these rulings less than two decades ago. Many Democratic Party leaders have endorsed similar beliefs as recently as two years ago regarding student loan forgiveness. I used to believe in and support the American Civil Liberties Union. These are the types of rulings the ACLU used to fight for. Now, these groups are crying judicial activism. Think for yourself.