court observers scratching their heads. “The law in question targets con-
duct, not speech, for regulation,” wrote Sotomayor, “and the act of dis- crimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution con- tains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.” But even the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals, which found for the state, acknowledged that the “very purpose” of CADA was “eliminating ideas” — not conduct, as Sotomayor argued. George Washington Law Profes-
Tom Jipping say the court got it right “affirming that the First Amendment means what it says in protecting our freedom of speech. “The government cannot force Americans to abandon their constitu- tional rights in order to operate a busi- ness, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission seems determined to suppress First Amendment rights in order to advance an ideological agen- da,” they said. “The Supreme Court has already
rejected the commission’s hostility to religion and does the same regarding freedom of speech,” they added — a reference to an earlier case involving Colorado-based baker Jack Phillips, who declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent,
along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, left many
sor Jonathan Turley highlighted this statement in a column he wrote when the high court agreed to hear the case. He called the majority ruling “a vic- tory for free speech.” Transportation Secretary Pete But-
tigieg claimed on CNN that the web designer had gone into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking “a case like this.” Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., did
Buttigieg one better and claimed it was a deliberate snub directed at the gay community.
“On the last day of Pride Month, an
extremist and unelected SCOTUS uses a made-up case to hand out a ‘consti- tutional’ right to discriminate against LGBTQ people,” he tweeted. “What an embarrassment for our country.” Boston University School of Law
offered counseling to distraught stu- dents after the Student Government Association published a statement denouncing the Supreme Court deci- sions.
ernment seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” The affected agencies include the Department of Jus-
tice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This came out of a lawsuit filed in May 2022 by the
Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, who alleged that the president and administration officials caused statements on subjects like COVID-19, election integrity, and other issues to be suppressed in the name of combat- ing “misinformation.”
Colleges Look for Work-Around
L
egal experts expect colleges and universities to try to
circumvent the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admission programs.
The high court struck down so-
called afirmative action admission programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in a move that conservatives are hailing as a “historic decision” and the “biggest win for colorblind education since Brown v. Board of Education.” Writing for the majority, Chief
Justice John Roberts said any student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.” Curtis Hill, Indiana’s first male
African American attorney general and the son of a civil rights leader, called the court’s decisions “another step in the direction of justice and equality in our country.” Jonathan Butcher, a fellow in
education policy at The Heritage Foundation, expects admissions ofices to “try to go around bans on racial preferences.” Butcher said schools will likely
come up with a “new formula” to get to race, such as paying closer attention to an applicant’s ZIP code, socioeconomic status, or what high school they attended. In doing so, Butcher said schools will be looking not only at a student’s achievements but their “lived experiences” in what admissions ofices like to call taking a “holistic” approach. — Marisa Herman
Ironically, most of those suppressed statements
proved to be accurate. Two years ago, then-White House press secretary Jen
Psaki admitted that the administration was “flagging” social media posts for censoring. At about the same time, the administration confirmed
that it had established what it called a Disinformation Governance Board to go after what it believed was dis- and misinformation. It was allegedly dissolved four months later, following Republican backlash. — M.D.
AUGUST 2023 | NEWSMAX 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
