Header Graphic for Sarges.com Go to Home Page of Your Historical News Source LeftNavBar_Background_Color_Bar Visit News Columns written by Bill Sargent Check out Sarge's FaceBook page Visit Sarge's Twitter Page Send a message to Sarge via a Webform Visit Sarge's 2018 campaign Website Visit the Department of Justice - FBI Archived pages Visit the archived National Security Web pages Visit the archived Foreign Policy Pages Visit the archived immigration reform pages Visit the archived pages about the Economy Visit the archived 2nd Amendment web pages Visit archived political stories Authorization to copy items from this website You are here > Home > News Columns > The Supreme Court Starts a new term with follow on issues from last session


The Executive Branch Must Act Within Its Authority

Lack of Planning Means Goals Aren't Reached!
SCOTUS Past and Present
Beware, This could happen to the U.S. Economy

Published in The Galveston County Daily News
November 3, 2023

In its last session, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on many major cases that addressed elections; the rights of private businesses to refuse business when accepting the work would compromise strongly held religious beliefs; and the ability of colleges to use race-based quotas in determining admission policies.  In the North Carolina election’s case, the question was whether state legislatures have the sole power to determine how elections will be conducted.  SCOTUS ruled that the state legislatures must share their Constitutional authority with other governing branches (i.e., courts would continue to have authority to determine whether legislative decisions infringe upon the rights of voters). What wasn’t answered by the SCOTUS decision was whether a governor or courts could act on their own without the consent of the legislature.  Actions by non-legislative bodies in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona impacted outcomes in 2020.  The court needs to address this issue.  Last session SCOTUS also ruled against the use of race-based quota systems in college admissions.

In the current term, SCOTUS will address a South Carolina case where the state legislature established Congressional districts, not based upon race, but upon voting patterns where more “conservative” candidates might have an advantage. In this case the NAACP seeks to limit what they contend is gerrymandering that negatively impacts the voting power of minority voters.  The NAACP claims the South Carolina legislature enfolded Black voters into larger voting populations instead of establishing a majority-minority district.  Last year SCOTUS overturned the Alabama maps that established a majority-minority district that opponents claimed “packed” the district based upon race instead of splitting the minority voting strength into multiple Congressional districts.  

Another case SCOTUS will hear concerns limitations on firearm possession.  In this case the defendants contended it’s unconstitutional to limit the rights of citizens to bear arms for minor/misdemeanor infractions.  A federal district court found a citizen’s right to bear arms could be prohibited if the individual was found guilty of NON-felony charges.  The appellate court overturned the lower court decision saying it’s unconstitutional to prohibit gun possession for misdemeanors. SCOTUS will need to render a decision on which is correct.

From the freedom of speech to the freedom to reject business based upon religious beliefs; from the legislatures’ ability to establish voting districts to efforts to protect the rights of gun possession, we continue to see liberal activists assaulting Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  We’re hopeful SCOTUS will strike down these attacks.   However, we advise caution because we’ve learned that when one hyper-focuses on one goal it often results in unintended consequences. If the court rules in the South Carolina case to continue the move away from race-based voting districts it could be inconsistent with the Alabama ruling and result in legislatures establishing less race-based districts.  If it rules in favor of the NAACP, it would continue the practice of establishing majority-minority districts while perhaps limiting the expansion of minority candidates being elected. The Court clearly needs to address and protect our fundamental rights. We applaud their willingness to do so. 

About the Authors and Columnists
Bill Sargent and Mark Mansius


Bill Sargent and Mark Mansius have written
over 250 guest columns since 2014 and continue to do so.
Bill lives in Galveston, Texas and Mark in St. Georges, Utah.
Both ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary
for Texas Congressional District 14, since then
they have become close friends and colleagues.