Supreme Court Season Finale

For some time now I’ve been watching a set of cases on the docket for the Supreme Court. The list was basically brought to my attention by Heritage Action, although many others have been watching these as well. All but one of these has been ruled on—most of them just last week, which is the SCOTUS version of the end-of-June finale.

Here’s the list we’ll be going through:

Case	About	Date	Ruling
303 Creative v. Elenis	Freedom from coercion for creative services	June 30	No coercion allowed
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina	Affirmative action in college admissions	June 29	No racism by affirmative action in college admissions
Biden v. Nebraska  and Department of Education v. Brown	Biden’s student loan forgiveness order	June 30 June 30	Not legal except through legislation
Allen, Alabama SOS, et al. v. Milligan	Redistricting	June 8	Minorities must be represented in redistricting
Moore v. Harper	Redistricting	June 27	Federal courts have some oversight authority
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo	Reconsider Chevron deference, regulatory powers	NA	Not yet ruled

  

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS

Synopsis:

Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.

The ruling: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

Response:

As you might expect, the opposition to freedom is very put out that they don’t get to coerce behavior and force submission to their agenda. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was particularly offended. Although his Transportation position gives him no special knowledge about online businesses or First Amendment free speech rights, he’s homosexual, so he thinks that should give him a right to complain about the ruling. His complaint was that this was all a setup; the woman wasn’t harmed by the law but just filed suit to get a ruling. Yes, I think that’s what the synopsis says. It has taken seven years to get through the judicial process, and we can thank her for asking the question and pushing it through to a final answer: creative service providers cannot be coerced into producing messages that violate their personal beliefs.

During those seven years of waiting for a decision, she was not able to go ahead with the wedding website business in question. I was glad to note it was only an expansion of the design business she was already doing, so she wasn’t deprived of a living in the interim. Now she can go ahead with the expansion if she so chooses. And so can other creative service providers.

We might note that such services also could choose not to provide pro-Nazi messages, or pro-Moloch worshipping. Or even something the opposition might loathe, such as a pro-MAGA message. Coercion is taken off the table. Thank you, Supreme Court.

There’s a fair amount of similarity here between this case and the Masterpiece Bakeshop case in 2018, including the state it’s coming from. In that one, however, the question wasn’t finally decided; the baker won because the state of Colorado was illegally targeting based on religion. That meant, if the state could find a way to discriminate against him without making it look religious-based, they still might force him to produce artistic services against his beliefs—which a series of cases against him have continued to attempt. This case settles the question more broadly: creative service providers cannot be coerced.

No one loses here. There are plenty of other such service providers—which was true in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case as well, and the Barronelle Stutzman case out of Washington State, and multiple others. It has never been about certain people getting the products they wanted; it has been about coercing other people, against their will, to provide those products for them. Because, tolerance and stuff.

 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS v. HARVARD and STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

Synopsis:

Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer are admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admissions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can depend on a student’s grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricular involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Ruling: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Response:

There’s some interesting debate going on in the footnotes, thanks mainly to Justice Clarence Thomas, who has some life experience on this subject. In his autobiography, he tells us the harm affirmative action did to him. He went to Yale for law school, on his merits. But he couldn’t get hired afterward, because the assumption was that he was an affirmative action recipient, so potential employers didn’t think he was really qualified. He did grow up poor and underprivileged. But he got where he has by sheer grit and hard work, and a mind he uses to good effect. He put a nickel yard sale sticker on his framed diploma, because that’s what it was worth to him—because of affirmative action’s unintended consequences. Here’s his first footnote, referencing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent from the Court’s opinion:

Footnote 1, “According to SFFA’s expert, over 80% of all black applicants in the top academic decile were admitted to UNC, while under 70% of white and Asian applicants in that decile were admitted. 3 App. in No. 21–707, at 1078–1083. In the second highest academic decile, the disparity is even starker: 83% of black applicants were admitted, while 58% of white applicants and 47% of Asian applicants were admitted. Ibid. And in the third highest decile, 77% of black applicants were admitted, compared to 48% of white applicants and 34% of Asian applicants.”

In chart form it looks like this: 

Race	Decile of applicants accepted at UNC
	Top decile	2nd decile	3rd decile
Black	>80%	83%	77%
White	<70%	58%	48%
Asian	<70%	47%	34%

 

 The footnote adds info about Harvard (not quite enough to chart, but significant.)

The same is true at Harvard. See Brief for Petitioner 24 (“[A]n African American [student] in [the fourth lowest academic] decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).” (emphasis added)); see also 4 App. in No. 20–1199, p. 1793 (black applicants in the top four academic deciles are between four and ten times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Asian applicants in those deciles).

An interesting detail I heard (on a podcast, haven’t verified) was that, of blacks accepted to Harvard, the vast majority come from other than hardship—from mainly upper middle class. They aren’t giving opportunity to underprivileged blacks, as they claim is their intended goal. One might also wonder how many of the privileged blacks are taking the slots of underprivileged whites (including Hispanics) and Asians, who may have the aptitude but not the “right” skin color.

Justice Clarence Thomas
photo by Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool; found here

Justice Thomas wrote a scathing rebuttal of Justice Brown’s dissent in his concurrence. Justice Brown, it might be noted, was put on the Court because Biden promised to appoint a black woman, which she is, rather than a qualified justice, as ought to be the goal. Thomas said,

JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.

There’s more:

JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to “experts” and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will “tell us [what] is required to level the playing field” among castes and classifications that they alone can divine.

For a collection of some of these fireworks, see this Townhall piece. 

 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

This case and Department of Education v. Brown, below, both address the Biden administration’s student loan bailout.

Synopsis:

All this leads the Court to conclude that “[t]he basic and consequential tradeoffs” inherent in a mass debt cancellation program “are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at ___. In such circumstances, the Court has required the Secretary to “point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ ” to justify the challenged program. Id., at ___, ___ (quoting Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324). And as explained, the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone “clear congressional authorization” for such a program. Pp. 19–25.

The Ruling: Reversed and remanded.

1.      At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Education Secretary’s program.

2.      The HEROES Act [Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003] allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal.

Response:

The executive branch overreach is curtailed, at least for now. The scheme to forgive debts—and placing that debt burden instead on taxpayers—is not allowed by executive order. It must go through a legislative process to be done—but then it can be done, according to this ruling. I hope it isn’t It doesn’t seem right for people who paid off their school debts, or who didn’t get higher education because they didn’t feel like they could take on the debt, are conscripted into paying the debts of privileged students.

There’s another question altogether, not handled here, of course, about the value of the education for the price. There ought to be more transparency in borrowing about whether the particular education will yield some value to the person taking on that debt, as to whether the education will lead to income enough to pay off the debt—or at least the information showing that it will not.

Heritage did an analysis of the oral arguments, ahead of the ruling, here. 

Biden may already be scheming on a work-around, or possibly do as directed by the Court and let the legislature to do it. We’ll see how determined they are to buy votes with taxpayer money.

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 

Synopsis:

The “complaint alleges that the Secretary was required to follow notice-and-comment and negotiated-rulemaking procedures in promulgating the Plan, which all agree he did not do. Brown and Taylor argue that the HEROES Act’s procedural exemptions apply only when the rule promulgated is substantively authorized by the Act, and because the HEROES Act does not authorize the Plan (they argue), the Secretary was required to follow negotiated rulemaking and notice and comment.

The Ruling: Because respondents fail to establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan, they lack Article III standing, so the Court has no jurisdiction to address their procedural claim.

Response:

This case is mainly dismissed based on plaintiffs not having standing. If this were the only case, the issue wouldn’t be settled. But it was settled in Biden v. Education; see that response above.  

 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN

Synopsis:

The court decides that the state of Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.

The Ruling: The Court affirms the District Court’s determination that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 violates §2.  

The Court did not rule in a way to change the Gingles 3-part test for discrimination in voting redistricting that has been used for 40 years.

The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that §2 may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States. Instead, the Court simply holds that a faithful application of precedent and a fair reading of the record do not bear those concerns out here.

Response:

While it doesn’t look like a victory for “colorblind” methods of redistricting, which ought to be an ideal goal, it also isn’t disastrous. In Alabama, the “Black Belt” voting bloc tends to vote Democrat in a state that votes typically Republican. Because this minority votes differently from the majority, the question comes up about their ability to be represented. The possible silver lining is that minorities of other types might also benefit from this ruling in future situations. States cannot set up their districts in such a way that shows their intention to discriminate against any particular minority, which may include religious or non-woke minorities. So, while it doesn’t look like an immediate win, we’ll watch and see.

 

 

MOORE v. HARPER 

Synopsis:

This case concerns the claim that the Clause [Art. I, §4, cl. 1 of the US Constitution] vests state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal elections free from restrictions imposed under state law. Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina’s General Assembly drafted a new federal congressional map, which several groups of plaintiffs challenged as an impermissible partisan gerrymander in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court found partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable under the State Constitution, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. While acknowledging that partisan gerrymandering claims are outside the reach of federal courts, the State Supreme Court held that such questions were not beyond the reach of North Carolina courts. The court also rejected the argument that the Federal Elections Clause vests exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to draw federal congressional maps. The court enjoined the use of the maps and remanded the case to the trial court for remedial proceedings. The legislative defendants then filed an emergency application in this Court, citing the Elections Clause and requesting a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision. This Court declined to issue a stay, but later granted certiorari….

The court ultimately withdrew the opinion in Harper II concerning the remedial maps and overruled Harper I, repudiating its holding that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims but did not reinstate the 2021 congressional plans struck down in Harper I under the State Constitution. This Court has entertained two rounds of supplemental briefing on jurisdictional questions in light of the state court’s rehearing proceedings.

The Ruling:

1.      The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case. Prior to the appeal and rehearing proceedings in Harper II, the court had already entered the judgment and issued the mandate in Harper I, and the legislative defendants acknowledged that they would remain bound by Harper I’s decision enjoining the use of the 2021 plans.

2.      The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

3.      Although the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. This Court has an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law.

The Court need not decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause, as petitioners did not meaningfully present the issue in this Court.

Response: Roberts wrote the opinion, and was joined by the Democrat side of the Court as well as Kavanaugh. Again, this is also mixed, a similar case to Milligan. For more background, you can read Heritage legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky on the impact of the new North Carolina Supreme Court ruling and his earlier background on the case.

 

 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO:

Summary: This case considers the question of whether the Court should overturn (or clarify) the Chevron doctrine, which says that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the federal agency’s interpretation of the statute so long as that interpretation is reasonable (even if a court believes that the interpretation is wrong). The Court has been pushing back on Chevron deference for years. Justice Gorsuch has appeared to be particularly willing to reconsider Chevron deference.

The Ruling: This one hasn’t been decided yet. Deadline for filing the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended through July 10, 2023. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended through August 30, 2023.

SCOTUSblog shows the various movements in the case, including the most major motion granted on June 5 to extend the time to file the briefs. 

Response:

Technically this is still in this year’s (the 2022) session, but it’s unclear to me whether a ruling will come out before the beginning of the next term. We think of June 30 as a deadline, but that is traditional only. However, I don’t see that oral arguments have been heard, and they may not be until after the briefs are all filed. Somebody who knows procedure better than I do might be able to say whether this will push the case into the 2023 session, which ends next June, but a ruling could come out whenever the Court is ready.

This could return the power to interpret law to the courts and will help rein in the power of executive branch agencies. It may also prompt Congress to write more precise laws. Read more from Heritage legal scholars on Chevron deference.

As I was reading the Declaration of Independence on July 4^th, one of the grievances stood out to me. Replace King George with The Federal Government, and it says:

[The Federal Government] has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

That’s the regulatory state in a nutshell. We didn’t consent as a people to these executive branch agencies taking over the duties of the legislature and judiciary and regulating us out of our freedoms. So I hope this case goes well.

 

Overall, it was a pretty good SCOTUS season for our Constitution.

One Nation Under God

I was in the middle of writing something education related; it will have to wait until I gather another couple of details. And I’m anxious to write about the Supreme Court rulings; ‘tis the season. Maybe next week.

For now, I’m just trying to celebrate our country’s birthday, this coming Tuesday. Most nations don’t have birthdays to speak of. Most nations are based on land, heritage, or result of war—either separating them as conqueror or bringing them in as conquered.

A 4th of July teaching moment, enough years
ago that my granddaughter isn't little anymore.

But our nation was founded on the idea that we are all created equal, not with some created rulers and others created to be ruled. We were all endowed by our creator "with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

All of these come down to life. It is ours, our gift from God. If someone takes our liberty, they are taking our life for their purposes, not ours. If someone tries to control how we live our lives—how we pursue happiness—that is usurping control over our lives. And that is wrong.

We are free to choose how to live our lives—and in the end we offer up the result of those choices, like in the parable of the talents, when the ruler (God) comes for a reckoning, and the good and faithful servants offer the doubling of the good they were given. They made something of their lives, offering Him the result.

Our nation is founded on that idea. It requires a connection to God. Unbelievers may live here among us, but they must not be allowed to take away our founding idea, or they are taking away our very nation—along with the life, liberty, and fruits of our living that the government was established to protect and defend.

Our government hasn’t done so well, these 247 years in—that’s since the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, so, our birthday; it was 1787, 236 years ago, that the Constitution was written, and a year later ratified.

Maybe we need to take some time, with family or by ourselves, to reverence these founding documents.

Abraham Lincoln, in a note to himself[i], used the image of a golden apple in a silver frame. The golden apple is the Declaration of Independence—the declaration of our right to rule ourselves, because God has made us all equal before the law. This golden apple is framed by the Constitution—the purposes of government, to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. This image works to illustrate the close connection between these two documents.

image from The Ashbrook Center article Lincoln's Apple of Gold

You might want to take time this weekend to read the Declaration of Independence—even with all the grievances; it takes five or ten minutes. It takes a bit longer to go through the Constitution, although it’s certainly readable in less than an hour, amendments and all.

Maybe it’s time to read The Federalist Papers once again as well. And while you’re at it, take a look at the Anti-Federalist Papers; those were the warning voices saying, “Don’t give that much power to a central government; it will go wrong.” They are probably saying “I told you so about now.” Although I still think we had to try the experiment. It isn’t that our Constitution wasn’t the right balance of centralized and localized power; that balance is spelled out quite clearly. It is that the Constitution has been ignored, twisted to mean something altogether other, and even denigrated as archaic or never good to begin with. And who says those things about it? People who want to control other people, petty tyrants all.

So the prevention is for a critical mass to understand, to know inside and out, the discussions our founders had in freeing us from tyranny and setting the stage for the rest of the world to try self rule.

It is likely that the founders of this nation were the best assemblage of men ever to attempt to write a government document.

A friend passed along to me a talk by Ezra Taft Benson, from 1987. I’ve heard it multiple times; I heard it live. (He was the prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during my young adult years. He was also at one time the US Secretary of Agriculture. Not to be missed is his address “The Proper Role of Government.”) This talk is called “Our Divine Constitution.”

Ezra Taft Benson, giving the talk "Our Divine Constitution"
screenshot from here

I encourage you to listen to the whole thing. There are just a few parts I want to reference. One is a reminder of what some of the signers of our Declaration of Independence sacrificed:

This Declaration was a promise that would demand terrible sacrifice on the part of its signers. Five of the signers were captured as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War; another had two sons captured. Nine died from wounds or from the hardships of the war.

Then he talks about the followup and necessary document—the Constitution:

Between the critical years of 1783 and 1787, an outsider viewing the affairs of the United States would have thought that the thirteen states, different in so many ways, could never effectively unite. The world powers were confident that this nation would not last.

Eventually, twelve of the states met in Philadelphia to address the problem.

It took four months—summer months, inside, before air conditioning. That wasn’t quite the sacrifice of war, but it must have stretched patience pretty thin. As William Gladstone said, the Constitution was “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”[ii]

Ezra Taft Benson goes on to talk about the danger our Constitution is in; this was 1987, and it did seem bad then. But now—those concerns are increased a hundred-fold. He says,

How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

·       First and foremost, we must be righteous….

·       Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers….

·       Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented….

·        Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

Ezra Taft Benson mentions a prophecy of Joseph Smith[iii], from July 1840, that there would come a day when the Constitution is in grave danger. But Benson says,

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.

Prayers are more urgent this year, as we celebrate our beloved nation’s birthday—with concern and hope that it will not be the last such celebration. May we be the righteous men and women who understand and abide by the principles of the Constitution. May each of us do our part—and, with God’s help, may it be enough.

---

[i] See “Lincoln’s Apple of Gold,” January 25, 2023, on the Ashbrook Institute website. 

[ii] William Gladstone, North American Review, Sept.–Oct. 1878, p. 185.

[iii] Benson gives the whole quote in the talk: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” The citation is 19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City.

End of Session—Well, the Regular Session Anyway

The Texas 88^th Legislative Session ended May 31. And the first Special Session started the next morning, so it feels like it hasn’t ended. And we’re told there will be multiple special sessions this year. So it seems never ending.

The Texas Capitol, in Austin
from a visit in 2018

The idea, I think, was to limit the legislature to part time, just January through May every other year. But someone is not clear on the concept.

I’ve been making a bill list—a list of bills to follow and do citizen lobbying on—for six sessions now. Each time my list is both larger and more focused on specific priorities. And each time I feel as though I am woefully unaware of actual good bills and what is possible to get done. Some of this is, I’m sure, my trying to have a life beyond being a citizen lobbyist. But some of it is the sheer size of the challenge.

This session there were 9,114 total bills filed: a record 5.301 by the House,  and 2,565 by the Senate.

The Bills

The bill list that I set up for our local Tea Party to follow (and lobby for) included 137 bills. These were based mainly on the list of SREC approved bills. The SREC is the State Republican Executive Committee; it is made up of two committee members (generally one man and one woman) from each senatorial district in the state. Theirs, and mine, categorized the bills according to the legislative priorities chosen by the delegates at last year’s Republican Party of Texas committee. These included:

o   Protect Our Elections.

o   Secure the Border and Protect Texans

o   Ban Gender Modification of Children.

o   Stop Sexualizing our Kids

o   Ban Democrat Chairs.

o   Abolish Abortion in Texas.

o   Defend our Gun Rights

o   Parental Rights and Educational Freedom

I also added on a sort of miscellaneous category called Platform Issues—Not Legislative Priorities. These were things that showed up in the state party platform but didn’t make it onto the list of legislative priorities. The SREC also had such a list, here, although I didn’t include all of theirs.

Of the 137 bills I tracked throughout the session, 11 passed. And we’ll spend a bit of time covering what those were. Here’s the basic list:

Election Integrity bills that passed

·        HB 1243, Hefner: criminal penalty for illegal voting. Effective 9-1-2023.

·        SB 1750, Bettencourt: return responsibility for elections to elected officials. Sent to Governor 5-29-2023.

·        SB 1933, Bettencourt: greater AG oversight of elections officials. Border Security Sent to Governor 5-29-2023.

·        SB 1403, Parker: interstate compact for border security. Effective 9-1-2023.

Ban Gender Modification of Children bills that passed

·        SB 14 Campbell: Lt. Gov. priority, ban gender modification. Effective 9-1-2023.

Stop Sexualizing Texas Kids bills that passed

·        HB 900, Patterson, Shaheen, et al: READER Act, restricts sexually explicit books in school libraries. Effective 9-1-2023.

·        SB 12 Hughes: restricting sexual performances on public property or in presence of child. New to the list. Sent to Governor 5-29-2023.

Abolish Abortion—no priority bills passed

Defend Gun Rights—no priority bills passed

Parental Rights

·        SB 17 Creighton, Kolkhorst, et al.: Limiting DEI in public education and higher education. Sent to Governor 5-29-2023.

Platform Issues—Not Legislative Priorities 

·        HB 1666, Capriglione: no commingling of funds by digital asset service providers. Effective 9-1-2023.

·        SB 15, Middleton, Bettencourt, et al: Lt. Gov. priority, protect women in college sports. Sent to Governor 5-29-2023.

·        SB 29, Birdwell: no vaccine or mask mandates, no school or business shutdowns for COVID. Effective 9-1-2023.

Rep. Tom Oliverson reviews the TX legislative session
at the Cypress Texas Tea Party, June 15, 2023
screenshot from here

 

Key Wins

Key win in Election Integrity, SB 1750, which gets rid of the position of Election Administrator in large counties. This was aimed at Harris County, which has had one botched election after another since the Commissioners’ Court invented the position, taking it away from the joint work of the County Clerk and County Tax Assessor. As it stands, those positions are currently occupied by Democrats, but at least they’re elected and answerable to the people, instead of these (purposely?) incompetent appointees.

Key win in Ban Gender Modification in Children is SB 14, which took some doing to get passed. It makes you wonder what kind of world we live in when there’s opposition to preventing mutilation of children, predictably ruining their health and their lives—while failing to address the underlying issue of gender dysphoria.

Another related key win, which I categorized as a Platform Issue, was SB 15, protecting women in college sports from having to compete with biological males. We got a similar bill through last session, but it only applied to K-12 schools. Now women in college sports are also protected. And enough other states have passed similar legislation that the NCAA can no longer discriminate against schools with this policy.

A key win in Stop Sexualizing Texas Kids was HB 900, called the READER Act (Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources), which restricts sexually explicit books in school libraries. The mechanism is a requirement for publishers to identify level based on content, and only certain materials can be included in libraries. It goes into effect September 1, 2023, so it will be in place this coming school year.

The bills that pass are few. And this year, because so little got accomplished (stonewalling by the Republican-led House, backed completely by Democrats) means multiple special sessions to address the Governor’s priorities, which might occasionally happen to align with ours. And the Governor has been on a vetoing spree, aimed, it appears, mainly at my State Senator Bettencourt’s bills—bills that got through the entire legislative process and passed in both houses, but will have to now go through that all again. 

The Governor is pressuring the Senate to go along with his version of property tax relief. There are two plans, one supported by each chamber; Governor Abbott supports the House version, while Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, along with leaders like Senator Bettencourt, support the other plan. The House plan is based on lowering taxes through compression. The Senate bill aims at maintaining the Homestead Exemption. I don’t understand taxing systems well enough to explain either one, or even know which one to prefer. Both, I’m told, would indeed lower property taxes. Maybe there’s a compromise that will use both ways. I don’t know. But I resent a Governor seeming to think he has dictatorial powers, which he’s glad to use against his own party if he doesn’t get his way. (I used to think so highly of Greg Abbott.)

I looked up the bills being vetoed, and so far it looks like the ones on our list are not vetoed, although a few of ours are also not yet signed by the Governor.

Senator Paul Bettencourt review the TX legislative session
at Cypress Texas Tea Party, June 15, 2023
screenshot from here

 

Other Post-Session Reviews

There are a lot of people doing reviews of the legislative session. The thing that kind of overwhelms me is the number of really good bills I was basically unaware of—both that passed and that didn’t.

The SREC wrote their summary here. 

There’s an excellent list of “48 Conservative Bills the Texas House Killed This Session” by Luke Macias for Texas Scorecard. I only had 10 of his 48 on my list. Macias also did a podcast on the good bills that passed, here. 

We had both Representative Tom Oliverson and Senator Paul Bettencourt speak at Cypress Texas Tea Party last Thursday. I’ve posted the videos, which I’ll link below.

Rep. Oliverson did a pretty thorough review of legislation he had his eye on. Oliverson, a physician, was a key figure in the passing of SB 14 to ban gender transition surgery in minors. He had a number of bills I never had on my radar. I think you can see his presentation well enough in the video, so I won’t list them here.

A concern I’d had was that some bills might have gotten shut down because of the Paxton impeachment hearing just before end of session. But Rep. Oliverson assured me that the House had already completed their conference committees (that's where they work out differences when the second chamber makes amendments to the bill as it came out of the first chamber), so I can set aside that frustration at least.

Sen. Bettencourt is nicknamed the Taxman, from his years as Harris County Tax Assessor, where he had a reputation for helping people get the lowest rates, often by helping them challenge their property assessments. He’s also nicknamed Uncle Paul, I'm not sure why; maybe because so many think of him as their favorite “uncle.” I should add that he seems satisfied with what he’s doing in this position, without any need for political climbing. He’s influential in the legislature, and his constituency is bigger than a US congressional district. (There are 38 US congressional districts in Texas and only 31 state senatorial districts, so there are more constituents in an SD than in a CD.) He highlighted a few more bills—many of them the bills he passed that got vetoed.

In the video, after Sen. Bettencourt’s presentation, he and Rep. Oliverson both handled Q&A together. Here are both of those recordings (apologies for lighting; it’s whatever I can manage on my phone):

·        Rep. Tom Oliverson speaks at Cypress Texas Tea Party June 15, 2023 

·        Sen. Paul Bettencourt speaks at Cypress Texas Tea Party June 15, 2023 

So there’s more to be done. We’re promised that at some point this year, we’ll get school choice. I’ve been looking for that for a long time.

I’m trying not to be too discouraged. The battle must continue. What is the alternative? Succumbing to tyranny? But it is frustrating that, not only do we have to face the other party’s opposition, but a whole lot of our own party. My view might be skewed, because of the people I associate with. But from my perspective most of the grassroots are constitutional conservatives. It’s not about party or people; it’s about restoring our nation—and our state and local governments—to the limited government promised to us in our covenant, our US Constitution. It’s up to us—as Benjamin Franklin put it, “if we can keep it.”

Just to Be Clear

I plan to make this short today. There’s something I want to spell out, as clearly as I can manage. I’ll say it slowly and carefully, so it doesn’t go over the heads of—someone like California Governor Newsom, who proposed a 28^th Amendment to the US Constitution yesterday, to nullify the 2^nd Amendment.

Governor Gavin Newsom, image found here

His announcement says they’re not really touching actual gun rights; they’re just—well, here’s what it says: 

While leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition, the Governor’s proposal guarantees common sense constitutional protections and gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independent voters, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – including universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21, instituting a firearm purchase waiting period, and barring the civilian purchase of assault weapons.

The federal government is limited; they cannot do any federal gun laws. To refresh your memory on the 2^nd Amendment, it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Shall is a legal term. It is absolute. Infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is something the federal government cannot do.

There’s this other little clue, near the end of Newsom’s paragraph, telling us they’re not serious about protecting our rights: “barring the civilian purchase of assault weapons.” How are they defining that? Because we know from long experience that “assault weapon” is not an actual category; it is a catchall for “any gun we think is scary looking enough that we can convince people to think it’s an automatic military-grade weapon,” even when it’s just a simple rifle, such as an AR-15, which is a brand name, meaning Armalite Rifle. It is not an automatic rifle, which has been illegal for decades; it is a fairly basic semi-automatic rifle. It was not developed for the military, although some versions have been adopted by the military, because of its light weight and ease of use.

an AR-15 rifle
image from here

If a threatening bad guy has a gun, the threat can best be stopped by a good guy with a gun—and most efficiently by the person being threatened, because it’s immediate, instead of after damage is done. Government doesn’t get to set the terms, or decide on the tools, or determine the safe and lawful use of those tools.

There is plenty more we could say about weapons, and the anti-gun crowd’s harangues against all guns held by law-abiding citizens. But we’re keeping this simple, for their sakes, and in slightly larger print.

The right to self-defense isn’t granted by government; the right belonged to the people before any US government was formed. The right to defend oneself is inherent in all human beings.

We have the right to self-defense, as human beings, because we got that right from God. Even if you don’t believe in God, you don’t stop having the right to self-defense. It’s inalienable.

We don’t get the right to self-defense from the Constitution; the Constitution declares the right, to make sure no tyrannical government oversteps its lawful limits and attempts to infringe on that right. That’s true of all the rights in the Bill of Rights—the first 10 Amendments. And it’s true of other rights not stated (as summarized in the 9^th and 10th Amendments). These other rights include, for example, the right to the care and upbringing of our children, or the right to choose how we attempt to make a living, or the right to make medical decisions for our own bodies. Government doesn’t get to dictate our choices, unless our choices directly prevent another person from experiencing their God-given rights.

There. Just three paragraphs. If read slowly enough, that should be clear now.

We need a reminder, then, as John Adams put it:

“Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

There’s a paragraph on the Spherical Model website, where I say why we need a belief in God:

Why Every Civilized Society Must Be a Religious Society

If rights are God-given to every human being, then there must be a God from whom they come. Without God granting the rights, then “rights” would be totally dependent on whoever or whatever entity currently wields power over human beings. So, freedom from tyranny is only possible if we acknowledge God as the right-giver, and then we set up governmental systems for the specific purpose of protecting those rights—limiting governmental power to protecting rights rather than taking or granting them.

I was reminded of this in a recent interview with Robert P. George, in which he says, 

Robert P. George
image from here

But we are a country founded on the principle of ethical monotheism, the idea that there is a more-than-merely-human source of meaning and value—a Creator, a God who cares about us, who endows us with rights, and to whom we are ultimately answerable for how we conduct ourselves. So it’s not a merely human source of rights and obligations. It’s a divine source. And since our basic rights did not come from presidents or kings or parliaments or congresses, or any merely human power, those rights can’t be taken away legitimately by any merely human power.

So faith in God plays a very important role in the American constitutional order, a very important role, historically, in our self-understanding as Americans. And when faith in God, trust in God, and fidelity to God begin to wane, there are real social and political consequences. Our sense of our responsibilities begins to weaken, including our responsibility to honor and protect and never violate the rights of others.

Our “rights can’t be taken away legitimately by any merely human power.” That does not prevent tyrants and would-be dictators from attempting to take them away. Such despots lie, cheat, and steal—and sometimes harass and prosecute—to override any protections we have from what they see as that pesky piece of parchment people keep bringing out, that old Constitution we revere for some reason. They’ve been attempting this override with impunity. And they only get stopped when enough of us, referred to as We the People, take a stand and say, “No! You can’t do that.”

So, to be crystal clear—No, you can’t create a 28^th Amendment that allows you to take away a God-given right, one that is spelled out in bright letters in the Constitution by prescient writers who foresaw people like you who would try to do this very thing. No. You can’t tyrannize us without our consent. And, like our forefathers, we do not consent to tyranny.