Cheap Seats 2023 By Rich Trzupek

Two For One - 07/12

By Rich Trzupek
  Two very significant Supreme Court decisions and two partisan responses. Most on the left appeared to interpret the Supreme’s decisions to end affirmative action and require congressional approval of federal debt relief as if each decision were a personal affront. Most on the right appeared to interpret those same decisions as if they were smashing victories for their political party of choice.
  Neither interpretation makes much sense to me. These decisions are not about making one party a winner or another party a loser. These decisions are about reaffirming America and American ideals. Whatever party you identify with, or whether you don’t identify with any party at all, if you’re an American who believes in American traditions these decisions should be most welcome.
  From a purely equitable point of view, I’m pleased that the Court reaffirmed the idea that the Constitution of the United States of America places national financial decisions squarely in the realm of Congress to adjudicate. Having paid for my college education though student loans and having duly and painfully repaid those loans over time, I have little patience for those whiners who look to taxpayers to assume their debt.
  It is equally pleasing to find the High Court reaffirming the American ideal of rewarding talent and accomplishments rather than creating special and exclusive routes to rewards based solely on birthright characteristics.
  Reactions to these two decisions displayed core values of the right and at the left. Broadly speaking the left wants the system to be fair, while the right wants the system to be equitable. The left strives to guarantee equal outcomes, while the right is primarily concerned with equal access. The left has color on their mind, while the right strives to be color blind.
  A young friend recently explained to me that color blindness is considered racist by a great many younger folks today who identify as progressive. It’s ironic to find this is so. After all when I was a lad Doctor King’s dream of a world where everyone is judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin, was a decidedly liberal point of view. Back then if you disagreed with King’s dream you were labeled a racist and rightly so.
  Now it appears that race must be identified so that the wheat (disadvantaged minorities) might be separated from the chaff (white folks and privileged minorities). By this way of thinking the only legitimate way to combat racism is to be racist.
  There are certainly many a sincere and good-hearted person who generally believe that affirmative action and debt forgiveness were good things. Yes there are raving lunatics on the left who are intolerant fascists, but the left should not be judged by this worst element anymore than conservatives should be spattered by the mud slung by our extreme elements.
  If enough people truly want debt forgiveness they can have it. That’s what their elected representatives are for. If Congress can’t pass a law dealing with taxpayer dollars then it’s plainly unconstitutional for the executive branch to arbitrarily redistribute those dollars on its own.
  If enough people want to introduce race as a necessary qualification for certain types of education or employment they can do so. The court was very clear that the 14th amendment prevents institutions and individuals from using race in this way. So if you want to make an exception to the 14th amendment then you propose a new amendment and get it passed.
  Yes these answers are difficult to execute. The founders wanted decisions like these to be difficult to execute. The harder and the more important the decision the more we need certainty when changing public policy and the law. That’s why change under the Constitution is so hard. Because it has to be. God bless the Supreme Court for upholding that principle.
  Email: richtrzupek@gmail.com