AOC Furious With Biden’s Decision To Not Expand SCOTUS

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Horseface is complaining again in an attempt to remain relevant.

With three decisions on significant political tenets last week, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) charged that the conservative justice majority of the Supreme Court was pushing the nation in the direction of “authoritarianism.”

The nation’s highest court which is has 6 conservatives and 3 liberals, is undoing decades of leftist-communist legislation and of course, Democrats are melting down over it.

In the case of Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that was 6-3 in favor of the conservatives, and it invalidated a student loan rescue program that had been implemented by the administration of President Biden.

The court also invalidated race-conscious student admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, ending affirmative action for entrance into colleges.

At the same time, the court decided on Friday that a Christian graphic designer who wants to create wedding websites has the right to reject work from same-sex couples.

The triple-play victory for conservatives has the left screaming like out-of-control goats.

On Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez spoke with CNN’s Dana Bash about the court decisions that eliminated affirmative action, LGBTQ rights, and Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. In her remarks, the anti-white representative brought up current ethical issues involving the court, which she also charged of “expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself.”

“That, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on,” she claimed. “The danger of this court and the abuse of power in this court, particularly as it is related to the entanglements around conflicts of interest as well.”

In previous times, Ocasio-Cortez has been loud in her criticisms of the judiciary and assertion that it lacks “legitimacy.” Following criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas for debating Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on affirmative action, the New York representative backed judicial authority restrictions.

The Supreme Court, according to Ocasio-Cortez, “has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary to preserve their own legitimacy,” and she asserted that Congress has the power to examine it.

“And in the process,” she continued, “they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.”

According to Ocasio, “The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court, which is what we are seeing now, from the overturning of abortion rights to the ruling that discrimination and, frankly, stripping the full personhood and dignity of LGBTQ people in the United States. These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court.”


In last week’s affirmative action case, the judges granted the appeal of lower court decisions upholding the two elite institutions’ initiatives to promote a diverse student body on behalf of Students for Fair Admissions, a group formed by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum.

The verdict, supported by the court’s conservative members with the liberal justices dissenting, was 6-3 in favor of Harvard and 6-2 against the University of North Carolina. Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal justice, abstained from the Harvard case.

As stated in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, “Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” alluding to the principle of equal protection under the law in the U.S. Constitution.

Students “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” according to Roberts.

“At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Roberts added.

Regarding the case of the Christian graphic designer who wanted to create wedding websites and reject work from same-sex couples:

Despite a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, color, gender, and other factors, the court found in favor of fashion designer Lorie Smith. Smith had argued that the law went against her right to free expression.

Smith’s opponents cautioned that if she won, a variety of businesses would be free to discriminate against consumers who identify as Black, Jewish, Muslim, interracial or interfaith couples, or immigrants. But Smith and the people who backed her said that if she lost, other artists would be pressured to produce work that went against their moral convictions, including writers, singers, and even photographers, painters, and photographers.

Justice Neil Gorsuch declared on behalf of the court’s six conservative justices: “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend