Archives for posts with tag: Supreme Court

The plaintiff in this week’s DOMA (“Defense Of Marriage Act”) case that hits the Supremes this Wednesday had $363,000.00  stolen from her by the government because, and only because, she was gay.  No other reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

You see, Ms. Windsor (an early computer scientist with IBM) and her partner got married legally, and their marriage was recognized by the State of New York. But the Feds don’t recognize such unions, and after her wife died, she was obliged to fork over a third of a million dollars that she would not have had to pay had she been a straight married woman. Think of it as a “Gay Tax”.

If you are a Republican who believes in lower taxes and smaller government, you cannot also support DOMA, because it imposes unjust taxes on certain citizens, and is a result of Big Brother governmental intrusion into our private lives. If you are a Repub, therefore, and  support DOMA, you’re a hateful, hypocritical bigot,

If you are a Christian whose church has tax-empt status  and you  support DOMA, you’re a hateful, hypocritical bigot who is making someone else pay your bills for you. Look up “usury” in the Bible and see what it says.

If you are a Libertarian and  support DOMA, you’re a  hateful, hugely hypocritical bigot.

If you are black and support DOMA, you’re you’re a  hateful, hugely hypocritical bigot who has no memory of anything that happened prior to this century. Read up on the Civil RIghts struggle, slavery, and such.

No matter who you are in our country, this writer is pretty sure you don’t like the idea of Uncle Sam jacking people out of thousands of dollars. Unless, of course, they are part of a group that you don’t like, in which case you’re OK with it.

Which makes you a hateful, hypocritical bigot.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Mr. Blunt and Cranky well recalls the outrage amongst the Raging Righties in Their Tightie-Whities when ObamaCare “forced people to buy a product they don’t want”. This rant went all the way to the Supreme Court, where it got smacked down with little ceremony. Not that this mattered a whit to the Righties, who still claim that the government should  not be allowed to require citizens to purchase products that they may not personally choose to buy.

Funny, isn’t it, that when the topic turns to guns, then it’s OK for the government to force you to buy a product against your will? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/16/16987214-georgia-towns-law-requires-gun-ownership?lite 

Yes, that’s right: many of the same screechers who were all up in arms about having to buy insurance are perfectly OK with having to buy a gun. Even in our modern world, that is hypocrisy of the highest order.

The Blunt and Cranky family has insurance and guns, and freely chose in both cases to acquire the articles. No one had to compel us to make the purchases, so you might say we don’t have a dog in this fight. But you’d be wrong. We are Americans and care deeply about the nation, so unlike some folks, we give a s*** about justice for our fellow citizens.

And in the interest of that justice, this writer offers a seemingly obvious thought: regardless of the product, the government either may or may not compel you to purchase it. Period. If Big Brother can make you buy something you approve of, he can make you buy something you don’t approve of. Damn the politics, and the lobbyists, and the BS Facebook memes, what’s legal in one case is legal in another.

We are a nation of laws, like it or not. If you’ll let The Man tell you to do Thing One, then you gotta let The Man tell you do Thing Two.

Disagree? Then you’re a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Mr. B & C

As stated in a previous Schrödinger’s Court post, we cannot really know what is happening inside the Supreme Court, because their deliberations are (mostly) private.  From the way the “box” has been shaking and rattling of late, we know something is going on inside. It seems to be at worst (in the words of Miracle Max) “mostly dead”, and perhaps at best somewhat alive. Time will tell.

Having said that, Mr. Blunt and Cranky has noticed that there is a new box in town, created by this Court: let us call it “Schrödinger’s Cash”. Like the Court, we cannot see what goes on inside the box, but can see what happens outside of it as result of what is happening inside (yes, he knows that the physics analogy is breaking down here). The Court did not say that it was building a secretive new world of quasi-legalized Congressional and Presidential bribery, and indeed may not have intended to do so, judging on its writings. But that is what has been created by their Citizens United ruling.

In a virtual box made out of loopholes, hundreds of millions of dollars flow in and out; from and to hidden people in hidden places, beholden to hidden organizations with hidden agendas.  A few people are trying to open this box, and so far getting nowhere. Because, really,  the questions of what the box is, how big it is, where it is, how much is in it, and what is happening  in there are as opaque to us as are the most quantum of mechanics.

Secrets beget secrets: that is not a new observation, of course. And now we see the get of a secretive Court, and the part of the resulting spawn that hasn’t slithered its way inside the box is observably vile and corrupt. Leaving us to wonder, just how much more revolting is the part that is hidden? Pretty darned, one would expect.

This writer would like to end the Schrödinger-esque experiment by opening the box. He figures that would kill off whatever slimy critter lives therein.  After which he’d borrow a VW Quantum from a mechanic, and crankily run the box over, smashing it to bits so that it could never again be closed.

Mr. B & C

In college, Mr. Blunt and Cranky studied many wondrous topics suitable for inspiring beer-fueled bull sessions. Among them was the thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s Cat: oversimplified, it postulates that if a cat is in a box and cannot be seen therein, it may be alive or dead (or both). The only way to find out for sure is to open the box. While the box is closed, one may project whatever one likes on its surface, and no one can prove the projector to be wrong.

To an allegory addict like this writer, the most obvious parallel is the judicial branch of the United States Government: is it every bit as partisan as the other two branches, or is it still at least somewhat fair and impartial? Put another way, are the courts dead or alive? Alive, if they function impartially, dead if they have strayed from the vision laid out in the Constitution.

There are those who say that the box has been long since opened and the modern court already found to be dead: they point to Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United as “proof” that the court majority is a load of right-wing Repub ideologues, set on the destruction on everything post-1852. There also those  (some on the left, some on the right) who argue that no box opening has occurred,  and we cannot know for sure; but man, they do not like what is likely inside.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky thinks the lid is still down on the box. He further thinks that when it is opened (AKA when the Obamacare decision is announced), we will find the “cats” of Schrödinger’s Court  either on life support, or turned to Zombies – Schrödinger’s idea that one can be both alive and dead sounds rather like today’s zombie chic.

Zombies make for entertaining graphic novels, but they would not make good jurists. Here’s hoping the courts are merely comatose, rather than undead.

And here’s regretting that we have been reduced to hoping for something so pathetic as a barely-alive judiciary.

Mr. B & C