Gee, Ursula, Medved spar over key recent Supreme Court rulings
Jul 7, 2023, 6:50 PM | Updated: Jul 9, 2023, 6:01 pm
Medved believes this court has expanded the rights of individuals while Gee and Ursula feel the opposite.
“I think they’ve had a series of Supreme Court rulings that have expanded the rights of Americans and the rights of people as well,” Medved said. “For instance, to determine how you are going to run a business, whether you are going to be compelled to come out and make websites that don’t disagree with your personal morality or your personal philosophy.”
Listen to the entire discussion, including Michael Medved, Gee Scott, and Ursula Reutin’s takes on Republican gubernatorial candidate Dave Reichert.
Medved was referring to the case of the Colorado web designer who did not want to be forced to make a wedding site for a gay couple.
Former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna on KIRO Newsradio: Supreme Court website ruling more complex, nuanced than it appears
He also agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling to throw out affirmative action when it came to college admissions.
“I do believe that the court has been moving in a constructive direction,” Medved said.
Ursula expresses disappointment in affirmative action decision
“I am disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, in particular on affirmative action, especially considering that they didn’t apply that to military academies, but they want that applied to colleges,” Ursula said. “I don’t think this Supreme Court gave us additional rights. And you need to look into the (website) business decision that was, for lack of a better word, trumped up. That wasn’t even something that was a lawsuit filed by that business owner.”
Medved said the business owner filed the lawsuit in order to protect herself and to help her avoid the danger of being sued. As it turned out, the person who supposedly asked for the website was not gay. He was a married, straight man who didn’t know how his name got connected to the case.
Gee countered by saying he felt Medved was “on the wrong side of history. And in 2024 (in the presidential elections), you will see the results from that. Because the majority of America, like you like to say, disagrees with you.”
Medved said he thought Gee was wrong. “According to voters in Michigan and California, which are among the most liberal states in the union, and across the board, people believe that the Constitution should be as just as Justice Marshall Harlan said in 1896.”
Harlan held that “our Constitution is color-blind,” noting that “in this country, there is no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens,” and that it was wrong to allow the states to “regulate the enjoyment of citizen’s civil rights solely on the basis of race.”
Some background on decisions: The Supreme Court issues its biggest rulings of the year
“Color-blind in 1896?” Gee countered.
“One of the things that the court has been fighting for is to not judge people by the color of their skin. But to do, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, judge them by the content of their character,” Medved said.
“They assassinated Dr. King, Michael,” Gee responded. “It’s funny how everyone always brings up white supremacy. White supremacy is what killed Dr. King and white supremacy still lives today. That is the reason why we’ve had the continuation of taking rights away. And so the reason why the Republican Party has not won the outright vote for the president of the United States (in multiple elections) is that you’re constantly in the minority of the thoughts that you’re having. And taking away the rights of others is the minority thinking in this country. It is not the majority.”
Medved said the idea is that people should not be judged by their ancestry, not by their skin color, and not by their racial identification. “Gee, whenever this has been put to voters, whenever there has been a resolution, and that’s true here in this state, we voted to judge people in a color-blind way,” he said. “And the fact that you believe that this is some kind of assault on decency and fairness is completely outrageous.”
Gee: Real Estate is just one example of where skin color mattered
Gee disagreed saying, “A lot of people would have benefited from real estate if the color of their skin didn’t matter. Some people did not get to take part in that. And I’m glad to hear everybody’s showing up now saying, ‘Hey, let’s not look at color.’ But just understand that this whole game of talking about and talking down on color wasn’t started by black people.”
Medved replied: “Absolutely. Right. And it’s time that we complete the work that was started in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling.” (In the landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools were unconstitutional.)
“All Americans are deserving of respect and fairness on that,” Medved said.
Listen to Gee Scott and Ursula Reutin weekday mornings from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. on KIRO Newsradio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.