If neither dominant party represents you, consider the Libertarian Party.


In the wake of Dobbs and the cancellation of Affirmative Action in college admissions (July 2023), it is time to comment on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

First off, I HATE the references to a Liberal or a Conservative court. SCOTUS is to defend The Constitution of the United States without prejudice and interpret legislation passed by Congress against provisions set forth in the The Constitution of the United States. It is to do so based on Law, NOT politics.

Yet, since The New Deal, SCOTUS has been politicized. Sadly FDR influenced SCOTUS to the left to advance his New Deal scheme. Since then, there have been legal pendulums to both right and left. Prior to President Trump appointing three Supreme Court Justices the court was 5–4, left leaning. With Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett the court has allegedly swung far right.

Originalism and Textualism

The truth is President Trump gave SCOTUS a shot of originalism and textualism. This is most refreshing versus a blatantly political court. Many on the left are now crying foul because they have lost their influence on the court. And the truth be told, the right is also NOT happy with the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh. Their judicial "conservatism" is NOT aligned with the GOP's right leaning platform.

I like most SCOTUS decisions since the addition of the three Trump appointees. Again, the focus has been The Law. Today SCOTUS is critical of Congress for NOT doing its job, for NOT legislating what it ought. SCOTUS will NOT support Executive Orders that are clear overreach of duties given to the legislative department.


Originalism and Textualism do NOT align with Progressivism. Hence, Ds/liberals are now frustrated. In several decisions Federalism has been reintroduced into our civics. We are (finally) leaning toward Life, Liberty, and legally obtained Property and away from BIG federal gov't nudge thanks to SCOTUS.

Recent Decisions

Trump v US

Presidents (and other federal offiicals?) have full sovereign immunnity for official acts. Personal acts are still under the scrutiny of the law. IMO, this means actions taken to discharge duties prescribed by The Constitution of the United States allow officials to get 'er done. This decision re–emphasizes current practices and customs of federal service. However, it may now define punishable personal acts done during public service … like, Insider Trading maybe?

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo (2024)

Reversed the "Chevron doctrine". Administrative agencies can NO longer interpret their (own) poorly worded regulations. Executive agencies can NO longer also be judge and jury. This is a YUGE win for US business and citizens.

Let's take a further step to reverse the Reorganization Act of 1939.

Fischer v US (2024)

Jan 6 protesters cannot be indicted under Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) obstruction provisions. The court's Originalist ethic dismissed these creative charges.

Grants Pass, Oregon v Gloria Johnson (2024)

Municipal camping in public spaces bans can be enforced. SCOTUS reaffirmed communities have authority to address local/social issues. This is an especially good decision … it aligns with Amendment IX. It rightly brings the problem of homelessness to municipal leaders. I wait for a community to find "the solution" and have other municipalities adopt that workable solution.

Trump v Anderson (2024)

Shelby County v Holder (2013) asserted that sovereign states control their voting processes. The Trump decision that states cannot determine eligibility of federal offices seems counter intuitive. Do the sovereign states "own" the voting process for their state?  I lean towards YES.

However, a mere handful of state citizens do NOT establish legal standing. Hence, the complaint is denied.

This will "let" the voters decide.

Dobbs v Jackson (2022)

Governance over abortion was wrestled from the federal gov't and given back to the sovereign states. Since social issues belong to the sovereign states this is a particularly good decision.

Besides there is NO right to privacy listed in The Constitution of the United States. Amendment XIV's equal protection clause does NOT include, nor infer a "right" to privacy. The current court has reassessed some creative interpretation circa 1973. Originalists do NOT operate in such creativity.

Biden v Nebraska (2022)

Executive orders cannot appropriate $ 430,000,000,000. That level of spending must be done legislatively. And then that program must benefit ALL US citizens and residents; it cannot be another instance of Legal Plunder.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College (2022)

Affirmative Action programs for college admission are illegal. By favoring some, others are discriminated against. Laws MUST apply to everyone. Discrimination in any form is repugnant. Public accommodations cannot discriminate; they use public funds and/or public facilities. Yet, Harvard is a private institution.

A side note – Harvard's YUGE endowment may raise public ire.

Creative LLC et al. v Elenis et al. (2022)

Private businesses are NOT public accommodations. A business will either succeed or fail based on its business decisions. Controversial business practices can lose customers and cause the business to fail.

Besides, there are ample graphic designers in the open market.

Life, Liberty!, Property

Web Author - Mike Kolls