Chief Justice John Roberts is a "Player," not an "Umpire!"

 During his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts spoke continually of "seeing" himself as an Umpire, calling legal balls and strikes, rather than a player affecting the outcome of the game.  That concept no longer seems applicable, given his actions in a number of his opinions since becoming Chief Justice.

To be fair, Justice Roberts never promised to "be" and umpire but continually referred to how he saw himself...at least during the period of his confirmation.  On that basis it isn't possible to say he testified falsely or even that he didn't mean his testimony to be truthful. 

But perhaps his testimony provides both a cautionary tale and evidence that we should parse the statements by and sentences of those who testify under oath very carefully.  Perhaps even more importantly, the questions posed should be written carefully so they might require answers that are transparently unequivocal.   

In Judge Robert's case the proper follow-up question should have been, "...and do you, yourself, testify that this is the manner in which you will perform, if confirmed, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, sir?"

That question was never asked.  It should have been.  And that points out one of the great failings of almost all politicians when on camera, in public view, or campaigning:  they don't listen.  If the listen, they hear what they want to hear and often they don't listen at all because they are already thinking about their own next question or statement.

Almost all politicians  end up like "fence-post turtles" (found from time to time in farming country) seen upside down on top of a fence post:  they sure didn't get there on their own,  they're totally useless, and they have no idea what to do next to help themselves or others.

What most Judges have in common is the tendency to forget they aren't God.  They are part of a system that should be honored.  In Judges' cases, they aren't superior to the other parts of Government and need to remember that they are (or SHOULD BE) limited to their assignment...and that is to point out truthfully and accurately failings in our Justice system and in written laws.  It is Congress and/or legislatures that have the responsibility to change or correct the laws under which we live, and not for any court to provide a "do-over" or a "correction." 

Our Supreme Court is "supreme" only over other courts.  It is NOT supreme to the legislature, even though it has the power to rule that a law passed by Congress violates our Constitution; it can stop the application of the law, but it CANNOT and should not ever CORRECT what it (the Court) sees as an error by the Legislature or Congress.  

The Supreme Court of the United States is empowered to LIMIT actions by the Chief Executive, the Congress, and of the States to act in ways contrary to the United States Constitutional requirements.  It is NOT empowered to REWRITE laws; that is for other branches of government.

It is profoundly unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts and other members of the Court all to often seem to forget their own limitations in favor of a narcissistic temptations to act as (or in place of) God.

Our Founding Fathers hoped that they were creating a governing entity that divided power in such a way the abuse of power would be prevented.  Unfortunately, they apparently (falsely, as it turned out) presumed that elected officials would honor their oath(s) of office and if not, that the people would exercise the power to remove them.

The Founding Fathers did not foresee (and perhaps could not foresee) the elimination of moral conscience and the removal of God and the Ten Commandments from public life.  And so we have riots, looting, assaults, disrespect and disowning of "law and order" and the police that would provide that and a "silent" (so far) citizens wonder in the quiet of their homes where the U.S.A. into which they were born has gone, and if it will ever return.

And Chief Justice Roberts now bats clean-up calling his own balls and strikes with no umpire in sight.

This Fall's election doesn't really matter...

It can be argued that this Fall's election is either the last chance to save America or that it is already too late.  These two possibilities have absolutely nothing to do with ideology.  They are based on simple financial considerations.

Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit.  Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem.  Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.

All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.

One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government.  You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.

One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election.  It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.

In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility.  At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars.  All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President.  Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.

Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020.  Why?  Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever.  As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government.  Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving.  As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist.  If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them.  It will not be pretty.

But one thing will be for certain:  who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.

Chief Justice Roberts: is HE the smartest guy in the room?

Our Constitution contemplates three co-equal branches of government with competing interests being forced to co-exist in order to accomplish anything.  Considering the distrust our Founding Fathers had in government generally, it is not surprising that this arrangement did not, does not, and never will be terribly efficient.  But then, Jefferson was know to believe that eventually government becomes the enemy of individual freedom, so this attitude was certainly no surprise...and the truth of the underlying concept should be ignored at our peril.

Not surprisingly, there have been attempts by Congress ... and the President ... to make the Supreme Court join in a partnership against the third branch of government.  The President does this through the power to appoint new Justices as vacancies occur and assiduously attempt to divine the ideological bent of each and every person considered...with a remarkably low percentage of success when all are taken into consideration.

But until now each Justice once ensconced on the bench has evidenced a sharp mind and a distinct ideological vision of whether the Constitution was clear when written, remains clear today, is meant to cover all facets of life in America, contains commands or merely suggestions.  If in their legally restrictive view, they can see the Constitution agreeing with their view of what they would like it to say and mean, they will do...and have done...so.

Every Justice respects the others, even in the heat of intense disagreement.  They understand the confines of their considerations and as some would say, "they play by the rules."

However, now enter Chief Justice Roberts.  Either he disdains the "rules" or just doesn't understand that narcissism doesn't become any member of the Court.  Justice Kennedy is a swing vote.  But his decisions are always on very close call analysis of the law and what he sees as "justice" in accordance with the Court's purview.  He does not see himself as an Editor or Proof-reading aide to Congress or the President, with the obligation to save themselves from the consequences of foolish behavior or malfeasance..."mistakes" in laws have consequences, and those who make the mistakes are not to be saved from the consequences,..of either law or the electorate.

But Justice Roberts seems to believe that he is an adjunct of Congress...with the additional prescience to know what Congress means, even if they clearly write something into a law that is totally at odds with his vision.  For SCOTUScare, he knew that Congress meant tax, even though they wrote "fee."
And earlier this week he just knew that Congress did not (could not) mean that just because that they had written into the ACA a provision that subsidies would only be available to those who applied for coverage through STATE operated centers, that Congress didn't mean it.  How Godlike; how dictatorial: forget the words...the law says what I decide it says.

An inept Congress and President certainly appreciates this kind of assistance...this time.  But suppose Justice Roberts at some point decides that any clear wording an some law that comes up for review cannot be what Congress really wanted?  I wonder if the President and Congress will be so appreciative then?

Chief Justice Roberts needs to be taken out back by his colleagues for a "come to Jesus" moment before he destroys the Institution of the Supreme Court of the United States as a primarily legal institution and leads it to a subservient tool, albeit with a run-away, out of control Chief, of either Congress or the Presidency.

No longer Checks and Balances on Congress by SCOTUS

Laws no longer mean what they say.  Congress no longer need concern itself with careful and accurate writing and wording.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will plug the breach, intuit the "real" intent of Congress while ignoring the actual wording of the duly passed statute, and save the day.  Of course, there is a consequence for this service: SCOTUS has now re-affirmed its move from co-equal branch of Congress to a second rate arm of Congress. We have ceased to be a nation governed by laws and now are dependent on a political class that continues to fund the courts as a sap to many who wish to continue to delude themselves that there is a check and balance against Congress. Anyone with a brain recalls how Congress "crowed" about the condition of creating a State Healthcare program as a prerequisite to getting Federal Funding. They tried to blackmail the States and it didn't work, so now they went to their underlings, the Supreme Court, to absolutely legislate from the bench and eliminate holding Congress responsible for its actions. "Umpires" indeed...if so this is the Black Sox Scandal with the Umpires bought off instead of the Players.  Does anyone question whether SCOTUS' budget request will now be granted in full?

There is a serious question of the legitimacy of any government structure when the laws mean nothing and can be interpreted as a politician wishes, instead of obeying the clear reading of words written and voted upon.  This is the result of the political class coming to adopt the Bill Clinton plea of "It depends on what the meaning of is is."  So many laughed as the absurdity of that comment, even as it turned out to be legally effective...and so we began to slide down the slippery slope of making honesty and truth and consequences immaterial in the American political world...and have also just made them immaterial in American life generally:  now it is apparently acceptable to narcissistically focus on getting "free" stuff even as we all know that someone is paying for it...as long as that someone isn't "us."  How delusional...and how clearly designed to ultimately destroy our country.  Khrushchev will turn out to have been right when he claimed we would destroy ourselves from within...he is chuckling in his grave right now.  Deservedly so.

Obamacare and the Supreme Court: any good options?

There was a reasonable argument from the very beginning that the Mandate in Obamacare made the whole Act unconstitutional.  And the line of questioning recently by the Supreme Court Justices suggest that they see the same problem.  But...that is only the beginning of the morass.  If they see the mandate as unconstitutional, what is the next step?...and why?  Whats the problem, you ask?  Well, there are two follow-up directions to determine if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional:  it that mandate severable from the rest of the act, or not.  If it is, then the rest of the Act could continue to stand.  If not, then the whole Act must also be ruled unconstitutional.

The Court in the past has bent over backwards to sever parts of bills, and they will undoubtedly look to do the same here.  But there are considerable problems with this, however.  And those problems go back to the clear language of Congressional deliberations prior to and construction of the final ACA.  Specifically, the original draft provided for a severability clause; it, as most bills do, indicated that if for any reason a portion of the bill were to be ruled unenforceable, the rest of the the bill could stand and be severed from the failed portion.  However, Congress removed that clause.  And, in addition, the Congressional Record shows that the Democrat majority which passed the final bill both understood and agreed that without the mandate the bill would be a financial disaster.

So, both logically and logistically, it would seem that Congress intended that the entire bill should and would fail if the mandate failed.  Ah, but enter the illogical and thoughtless process that so pervades our Capitol and its inhabitants:  as it passed, some desirable things were tacked on as a quick, expedient way to get them passed when it was suspected that they would not be enacted on their own merits...and then consider that some of the provisions in the Act are actually desirable, such as the elimination of limits on benefits and raises in premiums after purchase in response to developed claims.

The clear...and neat...way would seem to not severe the mandate and rule the entire bill unconstitutional as the Congress clearly intended.  That way, Congressional negotiations could begin immediately to formulate a way of re-establishing those particular insurance rules that most people would agree should be re-enacted and thus preserved.  And I earnestly hope that will come to pass...but in the meantime, the spectacle is absolutely riveting.

Today's America leaves me exhausted

I had to stop writing blogs for awhile.  Focusing on the idiocy of the political and the educational world in particular left me depressed and drained.  There are real problems.  None of them are incapable of being solved.  But no one wants to eliminate them unless they can garner some personal or ideological gain...and under no circumstances do they want to "fix" anything if it involves diminishing in any combination their power or wealth.

Today I read that the SAT scores hit a new low this past year.  And the first comment by the testers was that no one should worry because it was due to more "students" (whatever that means these days) were taking the test than ever before and to the increased "diversity" of the pool taking the test.  Huh?  Right...and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.

Our Government is to blame for this idiocy.  The entire Federal Government, including Congress, every President, and the Supreme Court.  Because it all goes back to an unwillingness (or inability) to accurately evaluate and then design a way to correct the results of racial prejudice.

Rather than recognize that the in-equality of the past needed to be corrected substantively, the Government forces determined instead to institute the appearance of equality, rather than make it a fact.

For the most part, life has consequences...at least it used to.  It was results that counted, not excuses.  If you failed a test, you flunked.  If you did that enough, you got "left back a grade" and some actually left school at the earliest permissible age because they just didn't want to study...or couldn't.  Schools were for learning.  So were Colleges and Universities.  Your performance got you entrance and progress and a degree.  The degree meant something...it vouched for your achievement.

But, instead of focusing on the opportunity for all to learn and thus achieve according to that achievement, the Government dictated that minorities were now to be granted entrance, and degrees because of their minority status rather than their competitive achievement.  The decision was to make the world look as if all was well and, in fact, guarantee that minorities would have the appearance of success whether it was earned...or not.

This has had enormous consequences to our nation...well, actually, no longer a nation but a country.  Because the damage is multifaceted.  First, minorities have not been helped by the program.  Everyone, including the minorities, knows that the "achievements" are bogus...or at the very least, are suspect...regardless of the piece of paper.  The same goes for hiring, due to Federal requirements that once again throw out achievement in favor of appearances.  If people want all to strive for knowledge and achievement, you must make the opportunity equal...but you must require the equal achievement of learning and ability on an equal basis as well.  To act as the Government has done is to subtly (well, maybe not so much) suggest that minorities actually cannot compete...at least not on an equal basis.  How totally insulting, demeaning...and stupid.

But that is only the start of the damage.  All who have grown up in this atmosphere of selective granting of artificial status see that it ISN'T achievement that is rewarded...and hard work and study is not the key to a better life.  They have watched as consequences of non-performance or under-performance have been either eliminated or lowered.  So...they demand the same.  And, in the prevailing sense of "equality" they have been granted the same "pass" to avoid being left back in school, or denied admission to college, or denied their diploma just because they didn't do the work.

Students today will, it appears, not have to learn how to write cursive because, I am told, they all use computers or "text" or some such.  I have no idea what they will do if the power fails, or someone sets of a neutron bomb that takes out all the cell towers and crashes the power grid.  I suppose it will inspire a whole new set of cave paintings.  And I refuse to even consider how they will sign their names to any legal documents...I suppose there wont be any need for them, as no one will be held to whatever "thought" was a binding agreement.

Young people coming out of school at any level today already can't add or subtract without a calculator or some sort.  If a scanner breakes in a store, the clerks cannot tell you what to pay if you are buying more than two items...and if the scanner malfunctions, have no concept from the illogic of the inaccurate total that it is, in fact, inaccurate.  No wonder people find it hard to get jobs...they think their piece of paper means something while they are functionally both illiterate and untrainable except for the most mundane of tasks.  Yet they insist on benefits, pay, and treatment as "entitled."

So of course the SAT scores are down.  Why bother to work to learn all those things that get you higher scores; they don't matter.  These poor disillusioned souls have been led, trained and indoctrinated to expect that achievement not only doesn't matter...it isn't even to be considered.

The Government, the Educational (so-called) community, and all forms of authority have determined that thou shall not say "no" to anyone...even parents are prevented from requiring and enforcing their own children's upbringing.

No wonder the United States is populated in this century by narcissists.  It is how they have been raised.

Obamacare and the Courts: an Opportunity

Obamacare is, of course, on its way to being guest of honor of the Supreme Court of the United States.  While some see this as just one more case, I believe it has the possibility of being a moment of renewal,in our country's history; there is the possibility of a regeneration of, and re-dedication to the Constitutional restrictions on Federal Power, particularly when in opposition to States Rights.

Prior to Roosevelt ascending to the throne, the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional all attempts by the President and/or Congress to extend Federal control over States Rights. Much was made, albeit briefly, of Roosevelt's defeated attempt to pack the court by increasing the number of Justices. But generally ignored is the fact that over the course of his presidency, he nominated all 9 justices serving at the time of his death in office.

The result of his long tenure was that he nominated Justices that were in favor of his Federal extension of power and over-riding States Rights. That is how, after a number of defeats, the New Deal Legislation that started down the path of over-reaching Federal Power over all Americans, including the diminution of States Rights, succeeded.

That change was in defiance of "stare decisis" and much approved by a Democrat Congress (and President).

Why would there be any problem if, as they consider the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court of the United States were to recognize the departure of the Roosevelt Supreme Court from stare decisis and correct that departure by correcting the course of Constitutional Law back to that originally set by the Founding Fathers?

Indeed, such may be exactly what saves our country from continuing down the path of rejoining the europe that was abandoned in 1776 by Americans, only this time rejoining the democratic socialism that is the European Union of today.