The Supremes miss the boat

You have got to hand it to the Supreme Court of the United States: They probably have done more damage to the country than they realize.

In two days, in my opinion (and one shared by many people), the justices in split decisions have done considerable damage to the rule of law in the United States.

Granted, I am not saying that the justices don’t have that power, because they do, and however wrong I, or anyone else, may think their reasoning and conclusions may be, what they say is how the law is supposed to be interpreted and applied in the United States. That is the compact we live under. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it.

But love or hate the decisions they make we have to accept them as the new rules that govern the nation (at least until the political process can come up with a new way someway to interpret the compact that stands the scrutiny of the justices). If you don’t like that, then move to another country.

Now, having said all that, I think the Court’s rulings on both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and on “gay” marriage are faulty. Both of them for basically the same reason: They chose to redefine words with established definitions.

To some people this may not seem to be a big deal, but in the realm of the law, its rules live and die on definitions. How words are defined is established by tradition and precedent, and in both these cases the concurring justices chose essentially to say that neither tradition nor precedent was enough to warrant not changing the definitions.

Now, liberals and progressives will tell you this is as it should be because words evolve, the language evolves and over time things mean differently than they did before. Only in these cases, that really is not the situation. The justices just decided it was.

For example: the word “state” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Congressional legislation has a pretty specific meaning that has been held for roughly 228 years. That definition is no longer valid. When legislation or regulatory rules are made now, rather than meaning just the political subdivision of US called the “state” (of which there are 50 of them), the word now means either the states (in the traditional sense) or the federal government, depending on how you want to interpret it in the political/social context.

I understand the argument that ruling the PP&ACA (Obamacare) would have adversely impacted millions of Americans and I imagine that played a significant role in the thinking of the justices. The court is loath to play bull in the china shop with the U.S. economy and usually seeks ways to avoid doing it. Of course, the court could have done as it did 30+ years ago with the bankruptcy code and stayed striking it down in Toto and told Congress it had six months to fix the problem. But that would not have served the ends of those on the liberal end of the court whose political view of the world is that role of the government is expansive and such things such as health care are a right (wrong … but that is an argument for another day).

The justices did the same thing with granting equal rights to same sex marriages.

Look, I have no problem granting two people of the same sex who wish to enter into a contractual relationship (which, legally, is all “marriage” is) and receiving government benefits equal to those granted “married” couples. No problem whatsoever. But you have to recognize that this really isn’t about people loving each other or living together; it is about those benefits. All the rest really is just window dressing.

Granted, it is an effort by a minority of our population trying legislate social acceptance of behavior which is, by any estimation, a tad bit on the abnormal side and in most cultures is considered something other than acceptable behavior. In some it may be tolerated more than others but pretty much universally it is considered aberrant.

So, the justices decided, based pretty much on a loud and orchestrated campaign of political correctness, to say that such pairings had right to be called “marriages” and were indeed a constitutional right (S0 that they had to be recognized in all 50 states). In essence, they redefined the millennia old meaning of a word in almost all cultures and religions to fit what they thought was correct in our evolving world.

The court, however, was correct in saying what is a contractual right in one state has to be in all states. So, in that sense, they did do something right.

To me, at this junction, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My objection is to the laisse faire playing with the language. Now, I know this is what lawyers and judges do all the time and it is what they get paid to do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I see it as an assault on the rule of law, for remember the law hinges on words and how they are defined. Start changing the definitions and you tear at the foundations of the law. And if people can change definitions at will, then we become a nation of men and not law, as the old saying goes.

In one footnote, I would say that this ruling opens the door to polygamy becoming a constitutional right. You might say “nah, never happen”, but 20 years ago people were saying the same thing about gay marriage.

Inequality is life

Obama: Inequality is morally wrong

 

President Obama, never my favorite person, just leaves me shaking my head with wonder.

Where did we find this guy?

Look, I think somebody needs to explain the realities of life to him (not that I expect it to happen).

When one speaks of  “equality” in the political/historical sense, we are not talking about equality of outcomes. We are not talking about everyone having the same as everyone else, or even anything approximating equality of what we may or may not possess.

No. what we are – or should be – talking about is equality before the law; with government treating us all equally and not showing favoritism toward any individual or group (or the flip side, persecuting or discriminating against any individual or group). However, it seems that concept has been lost in transition between generations somewhere … or maybe it was in translation.

Granted, the generations that came before us were not perfect, nor were they omniscient or omnipotent. Like us, they were flawed individuals who strove to make a more perfect union. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell people like President Obama and other progressives, that “union” does not mean people are to be shaped with a cookie-cutter to be exactly the same.

Equivalence of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, or – even more importantly – equality before the law.

As the President said in his speech this week, many people are being conditioned to believe: Inequality is wrong.

At first glance, it is hard to argue that “inequality” is wrong, but we have to define what is not being equal. If we are talking about economic outcome, then we are talking about something that is not the Provence of any government.

People are different. Individuals are essentially unique and therefore implicitly and explicitly INEQUAL. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen. You can not use government to make everyone equal in life … it is impossible.

But our President is decrying the inequality of economic conditions and pledging to use the powers of government to correct this perceived problem … and if Congress doesn’t cooperate, he plans to do it by executive fiat.

If this doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand that freedom isn’t free, liberty comes at a price and that if you want either then you have to accept that some people are just going to be different.

But no, we can’t have that. We have to resent all that others have.

That is beginning to scare me. I see far too many people, the President included, saying this group is wrong and that group is wrong and it is the federal government’s job to correct all that they define as evil, or wrong or an injustice.

We have lost our way, and unfortunately, the more I look at it, the more it seems that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was politically prophetic.

 

This however is so very true:

Life is like a cup of coffee

Political cover for Hillary

Sebelius won’t be punished for Hatch Act “violation”
Office of Special Counsel Advisory on Hatch Act.
Hatch Act of 1939
What part of the following does the Office of the Special Counsel in the Obama Administration not understand?
“(T)the law permits employees who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to widely engage in political activity while on duty and in government buildings, even these employees are prohibited from soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”
Office of the Special Counsel – 2/14/2001
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and certain designated high-level employees of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity.
Wikipedia article
It provides that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
Fox News may be reporting the news correctly, but the Office of Special Counsel in the Obama Administration is putting out a line of equine manure.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, did not break any federal law when she spoke at a “Human Rights Campaign Event” back earlier in 2012. Sorry, but you idiots at the OSC need to go back and actually look at what the law says: “An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines polices to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws” is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.
The HHS secretary is, at least the last time I looked, an official member of a president’s cabinet and head of a specific executive department, subject to approval (advice and consent) of the Senate. If Sebelius does not fit that description, then why is she called the HHS secretary.
According to the Fox News report:  In her North Carolina remarks that prompted the report, Sebelius urged voters to make sure Obama "continues to be president for another four years." 
Sorry, but that doesn’t rise to the level of  “soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”  The only area that the Hatch Act does apply to cabinet officers.
No, folks, this is the OSC covering up for the State Department’s and the White House’s claim that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not legally attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte last week. I really wish someone in the national media would get their fricking act together and point out that this OSC statement that Sebelius violated the law, and the subsequent statement, apparently, that all was made good by her changing her status and the campaign paying for the trip, and she would not be prosecuted, is so full of bovine scatology that it isn’t even funny anymore.
Sorry, but the OSC is wrong … and I will continue to say it is wrong, until someone can come up with some specific language in the Hatch Act that unexempts cabinet secretaries from the law.
Doesn’t this tend to make you angry? It makes me angry because this country is supposed to be one of law and when you go about misrepresenting what the law says, then you are doing the country no favors. In fact, you are actively trying to hurt the country and that type of behavior I will oppose to my dying breath.
I may not agree with the law, but I will pledge my life, my wealth and my sacred honor in its defense, of that have no doubt.

Something wrong here

Egyptians storm US Embassy compound in Cairo
Protesters scale wall of US Embassy in Egypt
Libyan protesters burn American consulate
Libyan protesters kill US Consular employee
US Embassy statement on events
OK, folks, something is seriously wrong with this picture and it ain’t the U.S.’s fault.
Sorry but Muslims are going to have to get a tougher skin and stop acting like idiots because it reflects badly on them and their religion. Tuesday, 9/11/12, Muslim protesters in Egypt and Libya attacked U.S. diplomatic offices, killing one person, wounding a second and tearing down the U.S. flag while painting graffiti on the walls of the U.S. Embassy compound in Cairo, Egypt.
Their reason: Because America allowed some unknown filmmaker in California to produce a movie that depicts the prophet Mohammed in a bad light … actually; it apparently depicts him as a sex-crazed murdering maniac.
This of course is insulting to any true-blue Islamicist and merits at least a riot or two, burning buildings and flags and possibly killing some people. What a bunch of bovine scatology or maybe I should say porcine scatology or porcine fecal material!
I am sorry Egyptians; I am sorry Libyans; but in this country you are allowed to insult religions, people, government institutions, businesses, hospitals, your neighbors, etc. and if you don’t like it, then you take them to court. You do not shoot people; you do not storm their property; and you do not destroy or deface their property. No, you don’t do those things because you respect the rights of others to be idiots.
And especially you don’t go blaming the government or some government agency of a nation that isn’t even yours for letting their citizens act like idiots. Obvious, the Americans are much more enlightened than you are, or at least more tolerant than you are, because we just nod our heads and say, “They are at it again” and go on about our lives.
We don’t storm the local mosque, or the Egyptian Embassy or whatever goes for the Libyan Embassy, every time a mob kills a bunch of tourists or Christians or whatever minority group is in disfavor in the Middle East. No, Americans look at the person who is insulting and say, “What an idiot” and let him go on being an idiot.
You see, we Americans are governed by the rule of law. Apparently that concept is alien where you live. You really ought to try it sometime. It lets all sorts of people with differing views and opinions coexist peacefully without destroying people or lives. I am beginning to understand that in Egypt and in Libya your people apparently don’t like the idea that an individual can be allowed the freedom to think for themselves. Apparently, if these latest actions are any indication, you think that everyone has to believe just as you do, or they should die or something worse.
And despite the rhetoric being spouted by our government and its leadership, we are starting to get just a tad bit exasperated with the screaming intolerance being exhibited by your so-called demonstrators.
We put up with you burning our flag, burning and destroying religious texts that we hold sacred, because a) you are not Americans and we don’t expect you to understand the concept of the law and tolerance and b) because you are not here. Otherwise we probably would be suing your pants off, in court where the law is the master and not your emotions because you were insulted.
I think I can speak for a lot of Americans. You all in the Middle East, and much of Muslim world, need to grow up real fast and understand that you can’t just throw temper tantrums when somebody offends you. You consider the source, call them ignorant if you want, and then move on.
But going down and defacing their property, shooting people, and basically showing your derrieres is so beneath what you could be as a person. It definitely shows a enormous lack of dignity and self-respect on your part.
One of these days, those with patience, well, you will see their patience tested, if not run out and though might does not make right … might does wield a pretty big hammer and you don’t want to be where it falls.

Big fib

Convention but no Hillary

Why no Hillary

Illegal for Hillary to be there

Hatch Act references

The Hatch Act as Amended

The Hatch Act of 1939

Federal employees limited in partisan political activities

Justice Department explains

Sorry, but an unidentified senior Obama administration official needs to go back and check the law before mouthing off.

It is not “illegal” under the so-called Hatch Act for a secretary of state to attend a political function. As a matter of fact, such high-level political policy-making presidential appointees are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.

For those who are not familiar with the “Hatch Act”, it was initially passed in 1939 to prohibit federal government employees from having to work in the political campaigns of their elected masters. Sounds quite reasonable to me; however, the act was amended in 1993 (and went into effect in 1994) to make it easier for those federal employees to express their political views. Those amendments did not bar the secretaries of state and defense or the attorney general from attending political meetings such as the national conventions.

Now, then-President Clinton delegated the authority to those three (but not others) to put out “rules” and guidelines that limited what political activities could be involved in, but did not explicitly say: The Secretary can not participate. Beep! Wrong answer.

So, despite what the senior Obama administration official was saying, there was no law banning her from the Democratic National Convention … and if there is, I wish someone would show me exactly where it says that a secretary of state is barred from attending such a political convention.

No, folks. This unfortunately is a big fib, being pushed along by the reporter at CNN and others.

Good try, though.

Justice upheld

Canada orders deportation of Iraq War resister
It seems a U.S. Army soldier who had a change of heart and fled to Canada to avoid the possibility of being deployed to Iraq no longer is welcome there.
The soldier has been given new marching orders and that is to leave Canada. I am glad our neighbors have declared the soldier persona non grata, although its impact on family members might be difficult.
The soldier, who apparently has four children and a spouse, was living in Toronto and was given until Sept. 20 to leave Canada. Tough, I suppose, but then again, the usual defenses about leaving an army don’t really apply here. The soldier was not drafted into the Army. The soldier was aware that the Army was fighting a war. So, there is no case for saying the soldier was coerced or forced into doing something they didn’t know they were going to do.
Soldiers volunteer for service these days in the United States and not just conscripted into the military, and then swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to OBEY the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them. There is no clause in there that if you disagree with those orders that you can just ignore them, and nowhere does it say if you get tired of what you are doing or don’t want to do what you are going to be told to do that you can just vote with your feet and skip out. Sorry, but that is not an option.
No, the military adheres to some archaic ideas like your oath is your bond. That when you swear something it actually means something, like you will hold up your end of the bargain you made. The military doesn’t promise that you won’t go somewhere that you do not want to be, do not like and do things that you don’t want to do. Sorry, but that is not what you signed up for.
Now, the Canadians could have given this soldier continued sanctuary, but they already have turned two others back to the U.S. and the worst they got was a year in jail. I am sorry, but even our military prisons aren’t that bad that a soldier is being harshly treated by being sentenced to serve 12 months behind their walls. It is difficult for me to see how the Canadian government could have decided on “humanitarian” grounds that the soldier could not come back and face the consequences of the desertion in time of conflict. Granted, it is not like the “old” days when they shot or hanged deserters.
Canada has to look to its own order and discipline in its own defense forces and realize that allowing soldiers to just vote with their feet anytime they don’t agree with their superiors is really a very bad idea. Bad for discipline, bad for good order and definitely bad when the soldiers are  fighting for their lives.
In addition, it is sad that integrity has become something of a passé trait among Americans. No longer, it seems, that when you make an agreement, or a pledge or a promise or swear an oath, that it means much. Sign a contract? Tear it up, it doesn’t matter. Find a loophole, get out of it anyway you can, even if it means violating the law. The law, you say? But that is only meant to apply to idiots and fools. It is meant to be bent, broken and ignored as long as it interferes with our feeling good and enjoying life, especially if it means we might have to face some hardship.
Sorry, soldier, but you swore to do you duty. You didn’t and now it is time to pay the piper.
Oh? Did I happen to mention the soldier was a woman? Sorry, shouldn’t matter. I know it did when I was in, but that was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Applying the law equally

Judge strikes down Ohio early voting law

Ok, I hope I got this correctly.

The legislature of State of Ohio standardized its early voting procedures. Before that the people wanting to vote early had to check with their local county board of elections (all 88 of them) which had different hours on different days. However, it seems, they could vote on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday prior to the election (even if hours on Saturday and Sunday were reduced in some counties but not in others). The new legislation cut off early voting on the Friday before election Tuesday so that local election boards would have time to prepare for Tuesday.

However, the legislation allowed an exemption for those serving in the military or coming back from overseas, to vote on Monday (it is unclear whether the local boards had to be open on Saturday and Sunday). The judge ruled that exemption was unconstitutional infringement on the privilege for those not covered by the exemption and that if early voting was extended to the serving military and/or people returning from overseas to vote on Monday, then everyone should have until Monday.

Ok, I can buy that or, an alternative interpretation could be that those who could have voted until Monday now have to vote by Friday. I admit, I am not a legal beagle but it would seem to me that with the exemption struck down, then early voting for the majority would be the time that stands. But then, what the heck, it is just a law right? We can ignore those we don’t like.

Anyway, it seems everybody gets until Monday to vote in Ohio … that is if they don’t want to vote on Tuesday, which is Election Day, but we want people not to have to inconvenience themselves on Tuesday. It might discourage participation in the election. They might have to stand in a line.

Anyway, my sympathies to the county election officials and I just hope they have their ducks in a row.

Auto industry success?

Obama says let us have more bailouts

GM costs taxpayers $25 billion

Sometimes I think one has to be seriously delusional to be a politician, or otherwise how can they believe what they say?

President Obama told a political rally that he wants to repeat the success of the auto industry bailouts of three years ago with other industries. Is he kidding?

First of all, I fail to see how the “bailouts” or “rescues” to use the more politically correct term were a success. Oh, yes, GM and Chrysler still exists, sans more than a few nameplates and dealerships. Both ended up in bankruptcy court and apparently GM is threatening to return to bankruptcy court. Now, if that is what is termed a success, I hate to see what would be termed a failure.

Second, the federal government really doesn’t have any business owning large consumer product companies … and that is what car companies are: Consumer product companies. I can see a case for the government owning businesses that provide government with products, although that often can be done just as effectively and cheaply by private agents, but I don’t see that large enough demand for cars for the government to be building cars for itself … tanks, maybe; cars, no.

Third, I really don’t like seeing the federal government circumventing the law to favor one group or another or one industry over another. Yes, watching companies go belly up for any reason is not pretty and it hurts … humans get hurt really bad sometime. However, that is part of life and it seems it is a part of life that, for some crazy reason, a whole bunch of people seem to think that we can avoid. Speaking from personal experience: WRONG ANSWER!

I have made any number of lousy stinking decisions in my life, and I have paid a price for most of them. Very few of those times was that price something I enjoyed. No, and some of them hurt like the dickens but I learned I had to endure them.

Yet, it seems that somewhere along the line, we in this country have come to the idea that we don’t have to pay a price for our bad decisions. We have decided that we are not responsible for the things that go wrong and they always are the fault of someone else. Our president seems particularly adept at making that claim, much to my dismay.

You know, sometimes tsunamis happen. It isn’t your fault, but you get swept away all the same. Well, over the last four or five years, there have been a number of economic tsunamis that have swept across the landscape of the U.S. and the world and every one of them probably could have possibly been avoided if we lived in a perfect world. But, you know what? We don’t.

But instead of doing what we should have done, which was try to cope and then rebuild from the creative destruction and chaos that resulted, we tried to soften the impact by not letting the Wall Street financiers and the corporate giants and big banks take it on the chin and let the market sort itself out. That was a huge mistake and I thought so at the time, and I still think so.

It all sounds well and good that our government is riding to our rescue … but you know something, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

No Fear tour

No Papers No Fear tour

Ok, it sounds like some music group, but apparently there is a bus-load or so of undocumented immigrants / illegal immigrants / illegal aliens (you take your pick) on a tour of U.S. cities flouting the fact that they have no immigration papers and basically, at least from my impression, are telling American citizens and their government where they can stick their immigration laws and rules.

Once again, folks, does this seem right to you? If it does, I surely would love to have an explanation, because I don’t understand. You see, I have first hand experience with the U.S. immigration system: My wife is, and still is and will be, a Canadian citizen. She has her “Green Card” which took almost three years to get. She has a work permit, which took a year to get. In other words, we played by the rules. We paid the fees, etc., too. So, between you and me, I don’t have a lick of sympathy for these people who have entered the U.S. without following the rules and the law. Sorry, like in the game of Chutes and Ladders, you get to go back to square one and start all over.

Unfortunately, that is not the politically correct view we should have. We should be empathetic and understand that most of these people are here contributing to the U.S. economy (supposedly doing jobs “normal” Americans refuse to do and would rather sit out collecting on welfare and extended unemployment), but I am not sure I buy that argument.

And then we are supposed to be welcoming of those young people whose parents brought them here illegally more than five years ago and are between 16 and 30 now because they weren’t responsible for their plight, their parents were.

With all due respect to what are probably righteous and upright individuals, but sorry but that is equine fecal material. Of course, we can’t apply the “law” to you because it wouldn’t be “fair”. That is part of the problem with our society today: We are carving out so many exemptions to applying the law that it no longer applies to anybody. And that really burns me.

You see, I happen to be one of those people who firmly believes that the law – any and every law – should apply to everybody. It shouldn’t matter what race, religion, ideology, color, economic status, wealth or whatever. When it comes to the law, we all should be equal before it. Is that what we have now? Not only no, but HELL NO! and that is wrong.

The easiest place to start is the federal tax code, particularly the income tax portions of it for both individuals and corporations. The code is so riddled with exemptions, deductions and tax credits (most tailored for specific special interest groups, rich and poor) that it is not surprising few Americans do their own taxes. They go out an hire someone professing to be a professional who has studied and understands the intricacies of it, or buy a computer software program that promises the same.

I know, and understand, all the various reasons given for all those exemptions, deductions and tax credits, but they are wrong. They are wrong because they make some pigs (oops, people) more equal than others, to borrow a cliché from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

It doesn’t matter what the law is, you will see that it has been tailored to impact one group while leaving another group unaffected. You see this in all sorts of regulatory law and administrative law where the regulations and rules only apply to individuals or corporations that meet certain criteria. Don’t meet the criteria, and then the law doesn’t apply.

Sorry but that is bovine scatology.

So, these people going around the country making a big deal that they have no papers? Ok, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where are you? Got a group that is making it easy for you and are in violation of the rules you are supposed to enforce. Oh, that is right; our President (you know the man who is constitutionally empowered to enforce the laws of the United States) has told you not to enforce that law. It seems that he either disagrees with the law as it stands … or he has some other reason (like trying to buy votes of the Hispanic community – please, people, don’t sell your souls and your votes so cheaply).

I didn’t know that we could pick and choose what laws we wanted to obey. Hey, do you think that is a great idea? Hell, why have any laws then at all. Let’s just let our hair down and enjoy the anarchy. I mean that why should we let government control any of our activities? Hey, progressives, I need to hear from you on this. Why should government tell us what to do on anything? Why should government be allowed to regulate any of our behaviors? If we want to go out and kill someone, Hell, it is our choice, where does the government have any business in it.

Heck, if we want something, aren’t we just allowed to take it?

I know I am being sarcastic here, folks, but it seems to me that when we stop applying the law to all, and only apply the law selectively, then we are drifting into deep trouble.

Yes, I know prosecutors will tell you all over the country that they and the court system is overwhelmed and that they can’t prosecute every case of a broken law. They plead for prosecutor’s discretion. Seen far too much of that in my years of covering court and putting court news in the paper. Plea bargains are fine, so are suspended sentences, but when you are prosecuting a person for a seventh offense DUI, or fifth time for driving while suspended, or the umpteenth time for assault, battery or burglary … or armed robbery or violations of stock exchange regulations, then it is time to reexamine your priorities. As prosecutors, they need to really get out there and explain why some laws are “good” and need to be enforced and why some laws are “bad” and shouldn’t be on the books.

However, I know that a) that takes too much work and b) it is easier to just game the system.

I guess, if this is what the American people like, or at least are willing to tolerate, then I should, as Pappy used to say, “Go back in the teapot.” I just wish more people would say it is time for this crap to stop.

Enforce the law, or repeal it and let us take the consequences.