It was not a matter of whether but when according to members like\u00a0<\/strong>Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D., HI)\u00a0who declared\u00a0she would vote against Barrett because\u202f\u201cshe will vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n At the time, I objected that the narrative was wildly off-base and that there was little chance that\u00a0the majority of\u00a0the justices\u00a0would use the case to strike down the act. To the contrary, the act was overwhelmingly likely to be decided on technical grounds on either standing or severability. I also noted that, if anything, I would expect Barrett to rule against striking down the act in this case.<\/strong>She did so and joined in the\u00a07-2 decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n This was never a plausible\u00a0narrative\u00a0but it did not matter to either the Democratic members. They demanded that Barrett assure them that she would vote for the ACA in the case \u2013 a\u00a0dangerous and raw demand\u00a0for a guarantee on a pending case as a condition for confirmation.\u00a0Despite treating her as a virtual\u00a0judicial\u00a0serial killer, none will likely apologize or even recognize the unfair treatment at the confirmation hearing. It was after all just politics in an age of rage.\u00a0<\/p>\n From left, Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor. (Photo: ERIN SCHAFF, Pool Photo)<\/span><\/p>\n Arguably, the most important\u00a0of\u00a0the \u201cbig ticket\u201d\u00a0cases was\u00a0<\/strong>Fulton v. Philadelphia\u00a0<\/strong>on\u00a0whether a Catholic adoption agency could be forced to assist LGBT couples when such adoptions\u00a0countermand religious beliefs. The Court delivered a 9-0 decision in favor of the Catholic charity and held that Philadelphia was violating the free exercise clause of the Constitution in requiring adherence to the city\u2019s non-discrimination policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held\u00a0“The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents…violates the First Amendment.”\u00a0<\/p>\n It is a major win for religious rights and the Court spoke as one in reversing the lower courts\u00a0with a strong majority opinion and concurring opinions. It also adds strength to other pending cases, including yet another case involving the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to make cakes celebrating LGBT events.\u00a0<\/p>\n After winning a narrow decision before\u00a0the Supreme Court\u00a0in 2018, Jack Phillips was\u00a0pursued by critics\u00a0to make additional cakes and create the basis for another challenge.\u00a0They may now regret that decision if Phillips builds on the earlier narrow ruling to secure another major ruling\u00a0not\u00a0just on religious freedom but free speech\u00a0grounds.\u00a0<\/p>\n Men-only military draft: <\/strong>A vestige of anti-woman bias. Supreme Court should strike it down<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The Court continues to frustrate critics who insist that it is\u00a0dysfunctional,\u00a0divided and needs to be\u00a0radically changed\u00a0from\u00a0packing the Court with a liberal majority to actually creating a new court for constitutional rulings like the Fulton case.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n For example,\u202fProfessor Kent Greenfield\u202fargued that \u201cthe Supreme Court has become too partisan and unbalanced to trust it with deciding the most important issues of our day.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Court itself however is not cooperating with this\u00a0inconvenient line of unanimous decisions.<\/strong>The fact is that most of the opinions of the Court are not ideologically divided. Indeed, Justice Stephen Breyer\u00a0recently objected\u00a0to those calling the Court \u201cconservative\u201d and opposed those demanding that Congress pack the Court to achieve an immediate liberal majority.<\/p>\n Liberal groups and media figures are aggressively pushing\u00a0Breyer to retire,\u00a0including an\u00a0insulting billboard campaign by a group called \u201cDemand Justice.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Sonia Suter: <\/strong>Supreme Court should respect Roe’s viability line for abortion<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The Court itself does not engage in such\u00a0public\u00a0campaigns. It speaks through its opinions and the message could not clearer.\u00a0For a hopelessly divided ideological Court, it seems to be saying a lot in one voice not just about the law but about its own institution. In the end, it is unlikely to matter. The utter collapse of the narrative means nothing if it is not\u00a0recognized\u00a0in the\u00a0media. The justices do not run billboards in the streets of Washington like Demand Justice. They will continue to be denounced as utterly \u201cout of whack\u201d because\u00a0 politics demands it.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\nFalse narrative smears Barrett\u00a0<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.gannett-cdn.com\/presto\/2021\/06\/17\/USAT\/e136d225-3985-4ee2-a190-4726b570f7cc-Justices.jpg?width=540&height=&fit=bounds&auto=webp\")
<\/p>\nReligious freedom upheld in court\u00a0<\/h2>\n