I am not sure which is the higher crime, torturing Law or torturing Logic but surely the Supreme court has committed both crimes and against humanity. Law is the highest guiding wisdom of any society, of any civilization. Some seek the guidance of law through religion as the means for rational living. Others base law on “political” values. It must be noted that there is little difference between the two since the former claims divine guidance and the latter intrinsic human rights. Neither one has any basis in science and often logic becomes the sacrificial victim. But in general, both try to develop formal and informal codes of conduct for the mass of individuals to follow as best they may. Unfortunately both systems have never learned that formal language changes, it never is “carved in stone” forever and a day. By its nature language is imprecise, inexact, and subject to interpretation by both the speaker and the listener.
Time and again the Supreme Court has justified its decisions through convoluted logic and confused language use, usually for a political purpose. The original justification for a third branch of government,the court system was the an independent and non political body should be set in place so that justice would be impartial, that it would stick to the facts of the mater and remain impartial to the emotions of the plaintiffs and defendants. To convict an individual on the basis of emotion and ignorance of fact is to commit a grave injustice not only to the individual thus charged but to society as a whole. But as of late, justice in this country has come to mean the will of emotional out bursts and irrational thought processes. It has become the will of the mob. What matters most is that those individuals of very high educational attainments practice a demagoguery of the worst type. Where political philosophers struggled to find the general and the specific principles for governing the society under question today’s political philosophers, if one can soil that term so casually, seek the governance of society by convenience not to principle but to emotion and irrational thought.
When the ACA (Affordable Care Act) was passed by voice vote long before those who were charged with representing the citizens (and not just those who voted for them) of their geographical areas had been given time to read the proposed law and thus pass personal judgment on its content and its affects upon those whom they represented. We have come to expect the worst from out politicians since we elect them as a matter of emotional dependency upon so political allegiance. In today’s world political thought is irrational thought. For the most part the evidence suggests that the law was written partly by paid contractors, partly by the healthcare industry, and partly by a few elected and non elected government employees. Its contents were kept secret from most of the elected representatives and their staffs so that it could be forced upon an unsuspecting Congress. The reality was that is was written as a direct tax upon the American people and yet disguised in the most tortured language and logic as formal accessory to healthcare. The claim that it would bring affordable healthcare through regulated insurance rates and offered ways to reduce healthcare expenses were pure unadulterated lies. This was a bill, that when passed into law, would continue and protect the healthcare industry’s monopoly. It would insure the ability of healthcare providers at all levels to raise rates at will and without regard for the people to whom they offered their services. It is their right to put both hands in the public’s pockets.
The original Supreme court decision that the law, as passed, constituted a tax, was a bit of tortured logic for the law obfuscated that particular fact through the use of IRS sanctions for not buying the official insurance policies. That the law forced individuals to buy a private service or pay a government penalty was certainly unconstitutional. Unfortunately the majority of the judges did not interpret the facts in a logical manner, but chose, rather to construe obfuscation as clear and sound language. It is one thing for the government to force owners of automobiles to buy insurance for the operation of such vehicles since there is a benefit to the public at large by such compulsion. But we do not compel those who do not own any motor vehicle to buy automobile insurance by way of IRS penalty. The ACA is clearly unjust law regardless of how many poor people lack healthcare insurance. If the intent of the Obama administration was to construct a single payer system for healthcare insurance where the government administered the access to healthcare and the individual was charge a tax, then the intent is not quite met.
The most recent ruling by the Supreme court that the tortured language and obfuscated intent of Congress really meant that the federal government in all conditions would help the poor in paying for healthcare insurance through the use of subsidies given through the IRS (in the same way that one received tax rebates even though no tax has been collected or paid), is an outrage to logic, law, and justice. For in so ruling the court again took the task upon itself the rewriting of the law. No court should ever do this once, let alone twice for the same law. The question before the court is solely whether a law should stand or not. It is more than enough when politicians preach gross stupidity. But when those individuals who sit in courts of law, and in particular the highest court of law, start preaching that same gross stupidity then the law is in peril as is society in general.
We might leave the criticism of the court here but for another decision and that has to do with the Affordable Housing Act. In an attempt to guide communities towards a better allocation of housing to all groups, the law gave leave to individuals to bring suit for discrimination by way of statistical methods. The law says in effect that the policy of groups, public or private, that result in a disparity of opportunity for any minority group is unlawful even if such a disparity arises from any policy that is not explicit in its discrimination but merely “accidental”. If a housing subdivision is owned and occupied by ninety percent of the white population then that is prima-fascia evidence of discrimination by the developer, the city planning agency, and the various lending institutions. This amounts to the compelling of individuals to buy housing according to their tastes and financial abilities but rather forces them into quota systems as the deciding factor for their choice of living arrangements. The implications are draconian. The government might as well tell us which automobiles we can and can not buy and how many. If the minority are limited to used sedans then either we set aside more new luxury cars and SUVs or we must start buying used vehicles as well. On the other hand, since the black population is 13 percent of the general population, then the law would require that each neighborhood contain 13 percent black against the other populations. But do we not gerrymander geographical areas so that blacks can elect to political offices their “own” representatives? We grant dispensation in the latter case and yet allow the legal financial looting of communities and individuals because we have allowed such dispensations through individual economic choices. I fail to see how society has gained from upholding such a law.
If the proper remedy for healthcare is not insurance but a reduction of healthcare costs and that reduction can only be carried out through applying anti-monopoly laws, protection against deceptive practices, truth in advertising, and in sum, a reversion to a regulated competitive market, then that is what we should demand of or representatives, not special interest legislation. The courts should recognize these facts and act accordingly. The problem with healthcare insurance is that it is not healthcare but merely a manner of paying for it. It we agree that the government should assist or pay in total the healthcare insurance of those who are poor, then we should realized that there exists the problems of co-payments, deductibles, exemptions, and the rest of those out of pocket expenses so common for the least costly insurance premium. The progressive and liberal individuals and groups that believe the latest Supreme Court decision was a win for the poor to have access to healthcare are merely deluding themselves. I’ll say it again, insurance is not healthcare. It never was and never will be.
The proper remedy to perceived discrimination is not set-a-side or quotas. It is access to opportunity. Unfortunately such access, while not denied, is very limited due to economic conditions of our own making. If one is any minority or white, for that matter, and employment is very limited then one’s access to opportunities is very limited and no amount of legislation will cure that problem, in particular stupid laws. The grave economic fact is that we need large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs to begin to provide access to opportunity. Unfortunately we have passed trade agreements that have reduced such jobs and most of our industries have moved operations to foreign countries where labor is cheaper even when adding in the cost of training. Now we are engaged in the greatest folly of trade agreements. These new agreements will attempt to subvert control of trade from congress and vest it in the hands of unaccountable federal employees and heads of business units, both here and abroad. This trade bill is clearly unconstitutional and yet I expect the courts will decide in the name of expedience and social equality that it should stand. We clearly are becoming less a nation of law and more a nation of expedience by political fiat. This country was founded on the basis of law and the freedoms that such law espouses. In the rest of the world, the law determines all public and private behavior. What is not expressly allowed is forbidden. In America, all behavior is allow except that which s expressly forbidden. We started out as a nation imbued with freedom and we are in danger of becoming a nation that knows only a very limited freedom.
Of course, as a final commentary, we have Obama’s use of executive order as a substitute of Congressional legislation. The battle flag of the southern armies of the confederacy is not illegal to show, possess, and manufacture. The black minority has taken great umbrage at this piece of history claiming it fosters racism. Yet they cling to the Democratic Party as the true savior of the black people. I suppose that our public schools no longer teach that it was the democratic party that, for some sixty years or better sought to extend slavery in the United States. It was that same Democratic Party that forced secession by the southern states from the political union of the United States of America, And it was that same party after that was of secession was lost perpetrated the gross racism against blacks, strove against any type of integration into society by the black people, enacted myriads of laws aimed at perpetuation white supremacy over that same black population and even started and ran the Ku Klux Klan. I think it may have been wiser to object to the Democratic Party , which as a whole voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was those “racist” Republicans who passed that act. It was those “racist” Republicans, who as they came to power in the southern states in the 1960s and beyond, fought of integration and and end to discrimination. The possession of all such memorabilia such as confederate flags and what not is not illegal and the president has exceeded his power and authority. I am sure a case will come quickly enough before the Supreme Court but I fear that expediency will rule against free speech and freedom of expression. If such a decision goes against the mere possession of such a flag then we, as a society that has been raised in the belief of liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness, will be in that long decline to serfdom.
Who is to blame for this decline? We all are for we keep electing to public office the incompetent, the stupid, the avaricious individuals. We due this out of our own ignorance, our own want of entitlement, and our blind party loyalty. We deserve what we get for our own stupidity. Obama is so concerned with his “legacy” and sees the court decision os vindication of his importance in history. I have news for that clown. Obama will become known in a decade or two as the worst possible U.S. President we have ever had and possibly ever could have. The ACA will fall of its own weight as healthcare costs keep increasing and become an ever increasing percentage of consumer spending. that is the problems with monopolies, they destroy the very market they though was a never ending enrichment. Monopolies consume their hosts. There is a mathematical limit to the rapaciousness of healthcare and it won’t take more than a decade to reach. In fact, the world will reach the end of the continuous creation of debt very soon. I doubt that healthcare, the new trade agreements, the Congress and Senate of millionaires, and ex-president charities (repositories for the selling of influence) will last after that debt bubble bursts. The fear is that the current state of fascism will turn into a totalitarianism of national socialism governments intent of carving out new empires. That would be unspeakable.