Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

The Supreme Court Nominee and Hypocrites

Posted by Troy on 1st February 2017 in Current Events, Political

So I get to see Chuck Shumer talking about how the Supreme Court is too important not to have bipartisan support.  Gee…like the overhaul of our medical system (ie, 18% of our economy)?  I also remember how Democrats raged at Republicans being “obstructionists.”  I remember Obama constantly trashing Fox News and talk radio.  I see them foaming at the mouths because they can’t filibuster the cabinet seats (thank Harry Reid) and railing about using the nuclear option for the Supreme Court.  Hey…guys…MAD.  Mutually Assured Destruction.  That is the deterrent from using nukes.  Maybe you should have contemplated MAD when you invoked something EVEN YOU called “the nuclear option.”  Once someone pulls a nuke, the other is going to pull a nuke.  It’s WHY YOU DON’T PULL A NUKE!!!!!  Please write this down.  If you have trouble understanding it, I want you to read and re-read that over and over so that you might understand.

That being said, Republicans are being a little hypocritical at this juncture.  While the Democrats have taking “obstruction” to the point of absolute lunacy (and it’s backfiring as they look more and more foolish…learn to pick your battles, seriously), Republicans demanding a straight up and down vote on the Supreme Court nominee is laughable.  While they did follow prior tradition of not approving a nominee in an election year, it is very clear that they exercised their discretion and their power to do so.  If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate, they could have confirmed someone virtually overnight.  The reason for this is because the Democrats are unable to come up with a platform that the vast swath of States can get behind (otherwise, they would AMEND THE CONSTITUTION).  Instead, they rely on activist judges to do their bidding.  Why pass laws and take the heat?  Why go to all the trouble of actually AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION when you can have the Supreme Court just tell us that the Constitution suddenly changed!  The Senate never has to approve a new judge.  It’s part of the checks and balances system.  ”But that undermines the Supreme Court!  We need nine justices!”  No, we don’t.  We started out only having six (an even number).  Not having an odd number means nothing.  All it means is you might have a tie (which happens from time to time even with an odd number).  In this case, the lower court’s ruling stands.  If the people don’t like it, they will vote their Senator out and replace him.  Example: You have Democratic President and a Republican Senate.  The people believe that if a Democrat places a justice on the Supreme Court they will undo the 2nd Amendment.  As such, they continually put in Republican Senators that never appoint the Democratic appointee.  Is it distasteful?  Possibly, but you do see how this becomes a check and balance.  It is possible that a party may obtain an electoral majority while possibly having vast opposition from the majority of states.

So do I want the Republicans to enact the nuclear option?

No.  First, I’d like to go back to having NO CLOTURE.  As mentioned above, pulling nukes lead to more nukes.  This is super early in Trump’s Presidency.  There are 38 Democrats.  The longest filibuster was 24 hours and 18 minutes set by Strom Thurman.  Say what you will…he was old school.  I doubt any of these whimps could last more than 20 hours.  So that means that the absolute longest they could hold out would be 38 days.  So, let’s do this.  ”Okay, filibuster.  While you are talking, we will be reading the laws that the House has been passing while you blather on and on.”  Pay them no attention.  At the end of the day, take the CSPAN footage and just put together a compilation of every stupid thing they say.  Make it a YouTube sensation.  Mash it up with video clips (etc) a la Water’s World.  Just absolutely mock the shit out of them.  Meanwhile, they are making themselves look dumber and dumber with each passing day.  I doubt it lasts more then ten days.

That is what they should do go ahead and start the hearings, and let’s go.

Long Live the Constitution!

Gay Marriage: Be Prepared for Buyer’s Remorse

Posted by Troy on 26th June 2015 in Current Events

First, let’s get one thing out of the way.  I am a Libertarian.  If gay marriage had come up for a vote in my state, I would have voted for it.  However, I cannot agree with what the court did today.  What the justices said is “the five of us are overruling the 150,000,000 of you.”  These are unelected officials that have just completely re-wrote several laws with a wave of the hand with no recourse from the voters whatsoever.  That being said, all they did was hit fast forward.  If you had been patient, over the course of ten years, you would have gotten the same thing as more and more states decided to allow gay marriage.

Again, I am not against gay marriage.  I am against the way it was brought about.  And I am very much against what is going to come next, as I will explain.

I believe gay marriage was the Save the Whales of the 2000′s.  It was the trendy thing that Hollywood and the cool and the “tolerant” could jump on the bandwagon.  I say “tolerant” because I haven’t met a Leftist in a LONG time that has been able to contain their temper when having a rational discussion.  It always seems to devolve into them yelling and screaming.  For thousands of years in most cultures, marriage was between one man and one woman.  Everyone seemed okay with this it seemed.  If you were gay, you were together, and that was it.  Suddenly, there is a movement.  Gay marriage is plastered on TV shows and advertisements and movies.  This is the way Hollywood works.  Essentially, brainwashing.  That’s fine.  All’s fair in love and brainwashing as it were.  They do the same thing against the patriotism and capitalism and guns.  Whatever they decide is good or evil, you too must accept as good or evil.

I truly believe that the entire movement is based on “getting” gay marriage, not gay marriage itself.  It’s about the attention and the spectacle.  It’s the “Hey!  Look at me!”  Something I generally hate.  Where you lost me was when you started forcing florists and bakers and others to bow to your will.  If you were really just concerned about marriage, you would find a florist and a baker that wanted to service your wedding.  Seriously.  Do you expect me to believe you can’t find a gay florist?  [That's a joke, develop a sense of humor!]  Instead, you ruin the lives of these shop owners just to force them to do your bidding.  It’s a sickness of the mind and soul.  Do you think you are going to win over their hearts and mind that way?  Again, if you just wanted marriage, you would just marry the person you love and be done with it.  This is about force.  This is about attention.  And that’s where you lose me.

So, you have it now.  Welcome to Hell.  Here’s something you will get to hear now: “Why aren’t we married?  So and so is married.”  And you also get to find out about divorce.  ”Shit, we can’t just ‘break up?’”  Most heterosexual couples that marry have some child aspect (either wanting one or having one) that helps keep the relationship going.  Most gay couples will be missing this, and will face a heavier divorce rate.  I predict that gays will soon hate lawyers more than any other group.  You will also learn that there is a difference between being together and marriage.  I hope you like what you got.

Again, I would have voted for ya, but I don’t like how it was done.

Long Live the Constitution!

Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision

Posted by Troy on 30th June 2014 in Current Events

It was a good decision, in a series of good decisions from the Supreme Court of late.

What did they decide?  They decided that small corporations can decide not to provide contraception methods that do not jive with their religious beliefs.

What’s the difference between a large corporation and a small one?  They didn’t say, but I would say that the large corporation is a conglomerate and must be deemed to hold the same morals as the underlying society (which by and large approves of contraception).

Of course, the Left is already decrying this as taking away a woman’s right to choose.  Hell no.  It does no such thing.  A woman can choose any method of birth control they want…they just have to pay for it themselves.  Have we forgotten that not having someone else pay for you does not equate to you being unable to get it.  I have a right to buy a Lamborghini…I just have no ability to pay for it on my own and have yet been able to make the government pass a law where someone else has to buy one for me.

Why have we decided that companies have to provide health care for their employees?  They are employees, not children.  Here’s a question…do people need healthcare?  Eh…debatable.  But what we DO need is food and housing.  Well, definitely food.  So why don’t corporations have the obligation to feed and house their employees…  Of course, we did that once.  It was called slavery.  You work for a company and they provide food, housing, clothing…  Now we are about to do the same, but this time the government will eventually hold the chains.

Freedom comes at a cost.  That cost is paying your own bills.  If you’re not doing that, you live at the mercy of someone else, and you will never have true freedom.  I thought everyone learned that growing up.  ”As long as you live under my roof, you live under my rules.”  Now we DEMAND to live under someone else’s roof.  I will never understand the new generation…

Long Live the Constitution!

Obamacare or Obamatax?

Posted by Troy on 2nd July 2012 in Political

And the dance begins!  Obama is so happy his bill survived, but suddenly he has another problem.  Now, he has to call it a tax.  If they say, “it’s not a tax,” then people can respond that it has to be a tax otherwise it is unconstitutional.  As Romney is already saying, “Is it unconstitutional, or is it a tax?”  If you count the actual cost of this “tax” to the people, it is going to end up being the single biggest tax increase in history (after accounting for the skyrocketing insurance costs which we will be obligated to buy and all the penalties).

In 2084, I said that Obamacare was created to fail.  It was meant to fail to usher in a government, single-payer system.  After looking at this law further, I think I was too kind to it.  This bill is a killer.  It is literally going to destroy businesses.  If it is not defeated, we will be Socialists.

When I was growing up, Socialism was bad and Capitalism was good.  Suddenly, everyone wants to give Socialism a fair shake.  Look, Capitalism works.  That’s the beauty of it.   Nothing has done more to raise the mass of men than Capitalism.  Socialism leads only to destruction.  If you point to our debt and say we have the same issues as the Socialist countries, I agree…but these are all a direct result of the socialist programs of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and the like.

We would have been better off if we stuck to the old ways.  Families should take care of their elderly family members.  Communities should take care of their poor.  Families and individuals should have to make the hard choices in medical care.  Perhaps if they had to face those choices, they would choose to live healthier lifestyles.

We must defeat Obamacare in 2013.  All the destruction comes in 2014.  Know why?  It’s after Obama’s re-election.  If you could see what is coming, there is no way you would support this bill.

Long Live the Constitution!

On the Eve of the Obamacare Decision

Posted by Troy on 27th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

You do not have the right to healthcare.  You do not have the right to a home.  You do not have the right to food.  You do not have the right to anything that you cannot afford.  If that sounds harsh and unfair, so be it, but it is true.  You only have the right to have the ability to buy these services and possessions.  All the things you have the right to are free: speech, thought, religion, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to protect yourself, to equal treatment under the law, to a trial by jury, and the like.

To those people who like Obamacare because of the pre-existing conditions, they are going to charge you dearly for this insurance.  As such, you will not buy the insurance anyway and will pay the penalty.  You will then buy the insurance when you need treatment and will drop it as soon as you no longer need treatment, and this will cause insurance rates for everyone to jump, and then everyone will do exactly what you are doing, and then the insurance companies will go bankrupt, and then the real fun begins when the government steps in to save us.  Read 2084.

If you want to solve the issues with pre-existing conditions, how about this: If you buy insurance before age 25, the insurance companies cannot deny you coverage.  As long as you stay current with your premiums, they cannot kick you out.  We can even make a rule that they cannot charge people more than 125% of the average premium to prevent people from being priced out of the market.  We can even put more responsibility to the insured and state that these restrictions only apply if they remain non-smokers, do not use illegal drugs, and maintain a BMI under 30.  Hell, that would solve a lot of problems right there.

I am a fan of doing away with insurance altogether.  I think that insurance severs the link between the patient and the bill.  This leads to insane choices.  If you had to pony up $90,000 for a knee replacement, you might choose to buy a $50 cane instead–particularly if you are near the end of your life and would rather your kids have $90,000 more when you die.  This would lead to chaos for five to ten years, but this would end up solving most of our problems with “health care.”

May the whole thing be overturned.

Long Live the Constitution!

Busy day at the Supreme Court

Posted by Troy on 25th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

I’m probably not the only one that checked the headlines every five minutes, hoping for the ruling on Obamacare, but alas it was not to be.  I am glad that they had the heart enough to let us know that it was going to be Thursday.  However, it was still a big day.

The first ruling I would like to talk about is their ruling that minors cannot serve life without parole for murder.  I have mixed feelings for this.  I remember there was a case where a thirteen-year-old killed a six-year-old just to see how it would feel and kept her skull as a trophy.  In her diary, she talked about how thrilling it was and that she would write more after she got home from some party.  The Court ruled that putting a child in prison for life is cruel and unusual or excessive, and as such, unconstitutional.  I see their point, but I’m not entirely sure if I agree.  I still think that excessive fines for piracy  should be visited.  How is $100,000 per illegal download NOT excessive?!  Still, I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they at least tied it to the Constitution.

The second ruling is to reaffirm that corporations have the right to political speech.  I agree with this decision.  Corporations are collections of individuals and should have the right to defend themselves against the free speech of special interest groups and politicians that malign them.

The final ruling is about the Arizona immigration law.  The court struck down most of it but upheld the controversial section which states that the police can check the suspect’s immigration status.  In response, President Obama has instructed ICE not to send agents if AZ finds someone who is there illegally (unless they are wanted for a major felony at least–can’t have THAT making headlines in an election year, can he?).  I think that the Court nailed the decision.  There were some problems with the law that would lead to profiling, but there is no reason why the police cannot check someone’s immigration status if they arrest them.  However, it is clear that Obama has no respect for the rule of law.  He is so hungry for the Latino vote that he is actively undermining the laws that are on the books.  This goes a step worse that just ignoring a law and telling his federal officers not to enforce it.  Now he is thwarting the efforts of the states to enforce laws that they view as vital for the safety of their citizens.  Everything he does is political, and this is inexcusable.

I would like to congratulate the Supreme Court today.  They had an excellent record today in upholding the Constitution and it was across “party lines.”

Long Live the Constitution!

Severability Analogy

Posted by Troy on 4th April 2012 in Current Events, Political

I have said that the court should throw out the entire Affordable Healthcare Act if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional.  The reason I say this is that there is no severability clause in the law.  As such, the law must be struck down in its entirety as there is no way to say that individual sections would have passed on their own merit when Congress originally voted on Obamacare.  Here is an example:

Boy A wishes to trade his Tim Tebow trading card for Boy B’s Hank Aaron card and $5.  Boy A hands Boy B the trading card, and Boy B gives him $5.  Boy B explains that the Hank Aaron card belongs to his dad, and his father said that he had no authority to trade it.  Since half of Boy B’s obligation has been overruled, must Boy A bear the cost and accept $5 for the Tim Tebow card?  Of course not!

However, in addition to the first deal, the boys came to another agreement to trade a Hot Wheels Lamborghini for a Matchbox Hummer.  Even though the first deal got struck down, the second deal should still stand because these deals were separate.  The first deal has nothing to do with the second deal.

Why the Supreme Court Must Overturn the Entire Healthcare Act

Posted by Troy on 29th March 2012 in Current Events, Political

A lot of people are saying that the Supreme Court is wrong not to read the entire 2,70o page document and salvage what they can of the act.  Justice Ginsburg advocates that the Supreme Court should go through the bill and salvage what they can.  This may sound reasonable, but they must not do this for the same reason why we should not have a line-item veto.

The line-item veto sounded like a wonderful thing.  If a bill had one bad provision, the President could strike out that one line and send it back for approval.  The Supreme Court ruled that this was not Constitutional because it hurt the separation of powers.  In addition, this wrecked the lawmaking process.

Imagine a situation in which the Congress put together a bill.  To get some Representatives on board, they gave them some concessions.  The reluctant Congressman goes along with it due to the concessions.  The President strikes the measure that got the Congressman on board.  In the end, the law gets signed, and the Congressman gets the shaft.

That brings us to Obamacare.  Before it was actually brought before the Supreme Court, Obama said that if the mandate was unconstitutional, the whole thing would have to go.  This is why he did not put a severability clause in there to start with, even though his legal team begged him to do so.  The individual mandate is the funding mechanism.  Without it, the whole thing falls apart.  What would have been a disaster after five to fifteen years becomes a disaster in five to fifteen months.  Without a severability clause, Congress said that the bill is meant to be taking as a whole, and it should.  That bill was the result of months of negotiations, backroom deals, and payoffs.  If the Supreme Court start going through and saying this stays and this goes, then the bill becomes something else entirely.  The bill the Justices create by taking out the individual mandate and other provisions may not have gotten a single vote if such a bill had been presented before Congress.  The Supreme Court are judges, not legislators.  They should not try to write legislation on their own.  The only responsible thing, given the lack of a severability clause, is to kill the entire bill.  If Congress doesn’t like it, they can do one of two things.  They can either go back to the drawing board and try to write a Constitutional health care bill, or they can try to amend the Constitution.  Of course, the Left will never actually try to amend the Constitution.  They are a firm believer that it is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

Long Live the Constitution!

Obamacare – Day 3

Posted by Troy on 28th March 2012 in Current Events, Political

Today was the last hearing on Obamacare before the Supreme Court.  Today’s topic was the severability.  If the individual mandate is shot down, can Obamacare survive without the individual mandate?

You may remember that, when it was passed, it was pointed out that it did not have a severability clause.  Many on Obama’s staff urged him to include a severability clause.  However, at the time, he declined to do so.  At the time, he said that the bill could not stand without the individual mandate as it was the funding mechanism.  Of course, now they are saying that it could be severed.

I like it when one justice invoked the Eight Amendment and said there was no way they were going to go through a 2,700 page documents and pick out which pieces could stay and which ones would not.

I will boldly predict that it will be a 5 to 4 vote.  Two of the Liberal judges were appointed by Obama, and one of those worked on the Healthcare Act directly (Kegan).  Gingsburg thinks the US Constitution is outdated.  Basically, the Leftist judges really didn’t care what The individual mandate will be thrown out, and the rest of the bill will be thrown out due to a lack of severability.  All the Democrats that sold their souls to the Party to pass it an and lost their jobs because of it will have destroyed their careers for naught.

Long Live the Constitution!

Obamacare – Day 2 – The commerce clause

Posted by Troy on 27th March 2012 in Current Events, Political

Originally, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution was intended to ensure smooth operation of trade between the States and foreign countries.  About twelve years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case about an old lady in Washington who was busted for growing marijuana.  The thing is, she had a prescription for it.  As such, it was legal for her to have marijuana.  The Feds couldn’t figure out what to do, so they prosecuted her under the Commerce Clause.  Their case was that she was supposed to smoke medical grade pot, not just stuff she grew.  Medical grade pot is grown in Texas.  As such, she is interfering with interstate commerce.  In the dissenting opinion, one Justice said, “If we rule this way, we give unlimited power to the Federal government because what doesn’t affect interstate commerce if you take it out to the nth degree?”

I grow rosemary.  How is that any different?

Now they say they can require you to own health insurance because most people will use some sort of medical treatment, and it is unfair that the young and healthy don’t buy insurance.  As such, only the old and sick buy insurance, and this raises cost.  So, rather than identify that insurance is the problem, we are going to force everyone to buy a product.   What’s really amazing is how stupid the young people are that they can be convinced to demand to be forced to buy a product.

As I laid out in 2084, their plan is designed to fail.  Inevitably, the only solution that is based upon a common pool will be to initiate Death Panels that do an actuarial analysis of the value of the patient’s life.  The reason that medical costs are so high is as follows:  In World War II, employers came up with the idea of health insurance so that they could get around compensation limitations that were in place as part of the rationing program.  As more people got on insurance, doctors were able to charge more for their services.  As doctors charged more for their services, more people felt the need to get insurance out of fear of not being able to afford medical care.  As more people got insurance, doctors were able to charge more.  As the market for insurance got saturated (everyone who could and would buy insurance had already done so), insurance companies had to raise their rates to cover the increased charges by the medical profession.  After that, it’s a spiral.  It’s all simple, self-interested, human behavior that an eighth grader can figure out.  We see the same thing happening with dental work, and we are about to see it play out with pet insurance too.

As I discussed yesterday, the Health Care Act is not covered by the powers of taxation.  It also isn’t covered by the Commerce Clause.  There is no way that the Founding Fathers would have given the government the power to deem that possible future economic transactions are to have occurred currently and demand action on a citizen.  Under this same thought process, Congress could declare that you are probably going to buy stuff and charge you the present value of all National Sales Taxes for the next twenty years at the current date.  Why not?  Under their logic, it is the same thing.

You want to fix medical costs?  Get rid of insurance completely.  There will be about five years of chaos.  After that, prices will regulate.  Third party payment systems are always doomed to failure in any market because it breaks the link between the consumer and the supplier.  Without this link, goods and services will not be priced correctly.  If you put out a product “for free,” people will take it just to take it.  This is one reason why I always sell my books instead of just give them away.  I figure if they’re not willing to pay for the book, they will just take it and not read it.

If you think the prices and supply of healthcare is bad now, just wait until it’s “free.”

Long Live the Constitution!