San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The Supreme Court Is A Joke

Man am I embarrassed.  As brilliant as I consider myself to be, I completely missed the fact that, according to the pundits, the Supreme Court of Jokers for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika had a 5-4 conservative majority until the death of Antonin Scalia.  I would have bet the mortgage that the 5-4 majority evident in many recent votes was indicative of a liberal majority.  I was talking with a person who is far more intelligent than I am over the weekend when the news came in.  Seeking to impress him with my knowledge I informed him that the 5-4 liberal majority was destined to become even more powerful with a new liberal appointment.  I explained how a 6-3 liberal majority, after King Obama's nominee is appointed, would give the liberals a virtual hammer-lock on the Supreme Court.  He politely and humbly informed me that I had things backwards.  A new liberal appointee would now give the Supreme Court a 5-4 liberal bias as opposed to the conservative bias it has had in recent years.  Like I wrote....man am I embarrassed.
I think you can understand my confusion about this issue.  Maybe you have been confused yourselves.  According to this CNN report, "In a landmark opinion, a divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a historic victory.  In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.  Nearly 46 years to the day after a riot at New York's Stonewall Inn ushered in the modern gay rights movement, the decision could settle one of the major civil rights fights of this era. The language of Kennedy's opinion spoke eloquently of the most fundamental values of family, love and liberty."  If the Supreme Court had a 5-4 conservative bias how did it come about that it was able to discover a provision in the Constitution of the United States that mandates state recognition of sodomite "marriages?"  I don't understand that.  It seems to be that a conservative would oppose gay marriage.  
According to this CNN  report, "In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court saved the controversial health care law that will define President Barack Obama's administration for generations to come. The ruling holds that the Affordable Care Act authorized federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces. It staved off a major political showdown and a mad scramble in states that would have needed to act to prevent millions from losing health care coverage. 'Five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in America, health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all,' Obama said from the White House. 'The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.'  In a moment of high drama, Chief Justice John Roberts sent a bolt of tension through the Court when he soberly announced that he would issue the majority opinion in the case. About two-thirds of the way through his reading, it became clear that he again would be responsible for rescuing Obamacare."
I am told that Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative.  That is why it sent a "shock" through the liberal media when he was chosen to read the majority ruling on Obamacare.  As a conservative he should have recognized that my neighbor does not have a right to take some of my money to pay for his health insurance.  As a conservative he should have recognized that the Constitution of the United States does not delineate a civil right called "the right to health insurance."  As a conservative he should have opposed Obamacare, but he didn't.  In fact, two of the allegedly conservative justices had to vote with the liberals to derive the final 6-3 margin of victory for Obamacare.  I do not understand how a conservative could believe that the federal government has the right to force the citizens of this land to purchase health insurance and then, when they comply with the law, declare that the insurance premium is really nothing but a non-deductible tax, but it happened.
Two of the most significant rulings issued from a conservative Supreme Court over the past couple of years were decidedly liberal in nature.  If conservative really means conservative that never would have happened.  Clearly conservative no longer means conservative.  Clearly the justices of the Supreme Court of Jokers in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have abandoned the Constitution of the United States.  That is what makes them, and the entire judicial process, nothing but a cruel joke.
Now that Scalia is dead the scramble is on for the next appointee.  King Obama is looking for a liberal judge to nominate and the Senate is promising to reject the nomination.  Much is being made of historical precedent and whether the King could or should bring forth a nominee for the Senate to consider.  It seems pretty clear that it is the King's right to offer up his God-of-the-Bible-hating selection for the office.  And it seems pretty clear that the Senate is free to reject it.  What seems most clear to me, however, is that none of this matters.  There is no distinction between conservative and liberal, if recent votes are any indication of the current state of the court.  Supreme Court decisions are awash in humanistic subjectivity and have no correlation to the constitutionally mandated purpose for the nation's highest court.  The idea that the Court would judge each case presented to it on the merits of its constitutionality is absurd.  I am no historian of the Supreme Court but I do know enough to understand that when Rowe vs. Wade brought about the judicial declaration that the Constitution of the United States contains a provision declaring that women have a right to murder their babies, the Supreme Court of Jokers had abandoned their constitutional mandate.  Nothing that has happened since then changes my opinion. 
The Supreme Court is nothing more than a piece of the political puzzle that rules us all.  We pretend as if it actually does things that are substantive but, in the final analysis, all it does is support the status quo.  It is used by career politicians and career bureaucrats to feather their nests, obtain the adoration of the public, and continue the fiction that we are members of a country that believes in limited government and the separation of civil powers.  What a joke it all is.

No comments:

Post a Comment