SCOTUS Ruled Against Affirmative Action And Abortion. And It's Not Done.

Two Harvard University students hug outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday in Washington.

Saturday, June 24, marked the first anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, in which the Supreme Court — in an act of unfettered ashiness — saw fit to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that federally protected abortion rights.

If the high court has any mandate — expressed or otherwise — to protect U.S. citizens, it dropped the ball: Overturning Roe has made it harder for women to seek proper medical care and for doctors to fulfill the Hippocratic oath to do their job. Never mind the fact that the general public is in support of abortion rights — a meaningful aspect of health care is now at the mercy of certain idiotic governors (and, by proxy, some of their idiotic constituents).

But this piece isn’t about abortion. This is about how the Supreme Court could start down the path of redeeming itself — and why it probably won’t.

This week, the court is delivering some of its biggest decisions of the term before justices head to summer break. Apparently, the court often saves the most contentious rulingsfor the end of the term,and this time is no different.

These decisions will have reverberating social and political effects, with the largest impact on the most vulnerable communities. Unfortunately, the court is the most conservative it’s been in generations, with six of the nine justices apparently willing to turn the country into the Republic of Gilead, thanks in large part to former President Donald Trump’s appointments.

Maybe the high court will pleasantly surprise me, but breath is not being held. Let’s look at the issues that will likely have many of us fussing on social media this week and next:

Affirmative Action

I wrote about thisrecently. On Thursday, the court, as expected, axed race-based admissions at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University, effectively ending the practice across the country.

The high court first dealt with these kinds of affirmative action policies in the 1970s, when it voted against the use of race-based quotas. But around half a century later, despite all we know about the positive impacts of affirmative action in schools and the potential negative effects of its abolition, even a diverse court featuring women and ethnic minorities ruled against it. 

The court voted along ideological lines, which means I don’t even need to look to see how Clarence Thomas voted, given his weird-ass beef with affirmative action.

Unsurprisingly, Black and Latino students will most acutely feel this decision. Expect a tiki torch-laden party or three thrown by white conservatives thrilled to maintain the racial achievement gap. 

Student Loans

This is another school-related decision. President Joe Biden endeared himself to many of us, if for no other reason, with his student loan forgivenessprogram, which aims to erase at least $10,000 in debt for individuals making less than $125,000 a year and families making less than $250,000. 

This plan could impact more than 40 million Americans saddled with student loan debt. But Republicans are obviously in a tizzy because they think it’s unfair to people who have paid off their loans — hence Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, two cases on deck for the high court.

Sure, if you take out loans, you should expect to pay them back. But student loans aren’t quite the same as credit card debt from copping a new pair of Jordans: You earn more money with a college degree, but obtaining one puts you into debt — so sayeth the system.

Cogent arguments exist on either side of the fence, but in a country that generally plays fast and loose with debt, we don’t have proof of the long-term impact of student loan erasure.

We do know two things. First, our three years of student loan deferment amid the COVID-19 pandemic didn’t tank the economy or the American college system. If anything, the end of the forbearance, expected Sept. 1, will have a detrimental effect on the economy.

Second, the university system is a goddamn racket to begin with. College costs have risen sharply in the past few decades, such that starting an OnlyFans page has become an increasingly attractive proposition for new college graduates. Meanwhile, some of the top universities are sitting on 11-figure endowments. (I chuckle when my alma mater calls asking for money. Then I hang up.)

I’m not sure which way the court will go on this, but I simply don’t wish to hear baby boomer Republicans who finished four years of college for $27.99 and a pack of No. 2 pencils complain about loan forgiveness.

LGBTQ+ Protections

It might be my imagination, but it feels like this Pride month has been more of a thorn in the boat shoe of the religious right than in recent years. Something about the practice of gender expression has really made these conservatives uncomfortable — it’s both sad and amusing to watch.

They’ll tack on another win if the court sides with Lorie Smith, the owner of Colorado-based design company 303 Creative, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Smith is suing the state for the right to refuse creating wedding websites for same-sex couples, as Jesus apparently prevents her from doing so with a good conscience.

Smith has reportedly never built wedding websites for anyone, so this is one of those ideological battles that she wants to be the face of because … Karen. The problem is that the court voting in Smith’s favor may create a precedent that allows businesses, for any reason, to refuse service to marginalized groups.

While I’m not sure that private businesses should be forced to service customers they’d rather not, I’m in full support of one that utilizes discriminatory practices abdicating its right to any governmental funding or protections. If upset hackers were to get into Smith’s business website and front-load it with rainbows and transgender flags, for example, she should have to figure that all out on her own.