It’s an age-old problem in Washington that whenever conservative Justices actually join the Supreme Court, pressure immediately gets put on them to move to the left. It comes from the media, their colleagues, and the people they lunch and golf and attend cocktail parties with. Some (looking at you, John Roberts) seem to sprint to the left, others inch leftward, and only a rare few, like Justice Thomas, stick to their principles despite all the slings and arrows hurled at them. And of course, when they do move left, this is described by the media as the Justices “evolving” and “growing.”
Those of us who think of moving leftward as the wrong direction for America consider that “devolving.” And despite all the wails from the media about the “far-right drift” of the Supreme Court, there were plenty of disappointments among the few victories for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the most recent term. Here’s a recap of that term, along with an account of what happened when former Vice President Pence pointed to the appointment of conservative judges as a great victory at the Family Leader leadership summit in Iowa. The audience wasn’t buying it.
Not since Ford introduced the Edsel has so much hype been followed by so much disappointment.
BUT...here’s the kind of case for which I hope those allegedly conservative Justices will be able to find their principles: Incoming college freshman Olivia Sandor was denied admission to BYU Hawaii and lost the $200,000 scholarship she’d earned because she asked to be exempted from the state COVID vaccination mandate. The reason: she has serious medical issues (she was paralyzed from the waist down for over a month due to Guillain-Barre Syndrome after getting a vaccine in 2019), and her doctors advised her not to get the jab and even wrote her a letter to exempt her, but to no avail.
Sandor says she’s now without a school or scholarship and has nowhere to turn. Personally, I’d turn toward the office of the best attorney I could find. I know one court already ruled that colleges could require it, but would this case be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Might be an argument worth pursuing.