Does the Supreme Court Follow Law … or Politics? (Obamacare, Gay Marriage and the US Constitution)

Supreme CourtAmerica’s Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has again saved Obamacare and, excoriated by Chief Justice Roberts, declared gay marriage a Constitutional right. Justice Scalia said in dissent that these decisions show that “words have lost their meaning” and that the Court prefers some laws over others. Re gay marriage, he accuses the Court of usurping Congress.  What are we to think?

Lets consider: When the Constitution was signed in 1787, it did not empower the Supreme Court to review and decide Constitutional cases as a lot of lawyers and some elderly citizens are aware. An oversight, or wisdom? We know not. But 16 years later, the Court appointed itself to that position in Marbury vs. Madison. The case is famous for its empowerment of the Court; its details are usually unmentioned. But they are interesting …

Marbury was a pesky, little liked local Justice of the Peace. James Madison was Secretary of State and a future President. But unfortunately, the law from what we can tell, favored Marbury in the dispute. For Madison to prevail, a reinterpretation of the law was required. And to reinterpret the law, the Supreme Court needed authority that the Constitution had not provided.

Chief Justice Marshall and his cohort then awarded themselves the supra-Constitutional power, reinterpreted the law and found for Secretary of State Madison. (Some things never seem to change …)

And if one stops to consider, ever since then, the Constitution has been replaced by the Supreme Court. (Reality Sucks?)

We are told (quietly) that the GOP, while publicly reviling the Obamacare decision, is in fact, relieved. It fits, declarations of repeal have rung hollow from the outset. so parse all this, what do we have?

Well, the Constitution is silent on healthcare and marriage. The despicably-drawn ‘Affordable Care Act” (written by public school grads?) exceeds Constitutionally awarded Federal authority we think and is gobbledygook besides, so far as we see. No matter, Chief Justice “Humpty – Dumpty” Roberts’ words mean exactly what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less as Justice Scalia claims. Obamacare is safe in Roberts’ hands. Whether or not the nation is safe, is to be seen.

Gay marriage is now a Constitutional right, by decree since it is nowhere in the constitution. Neither does it exist in Scripture, old law or even in comic books. It is a social neologism. Homosexual folk have every right that the rest have; but no more than that. They can freely contract as they wish as can we all. But marriage is unavailable to them because it is a unique contract based in reproduction of the species; as they cannot reproduce, that contract is unavailable to them. Just as a partnership between doctors or lawyers cannot include a non-doctor or a non-lawyer; folk who are simply not qualified for that particular contract.

By assigning a Constitutional right to gay marriage, the Court has made a joke of the Constitution. The real but unmentionable issue is the subsidies for married folk in the Tax and Social Security and other laws. These were to help motivate people to reproduce and raise kids. Now they will be due homosexuals who will not reproduce, negating the original purpose of the subsidies.

We note too, that the Social Security, healthcare and other subsidies now due homosexual spouses have been underfunded even without these new ‘mouths to feed.’ Where is the additional money to pay homosexuals to be found? We are anxious to discover that … few seem to have been interested in it so far.

We read that Governor Bobby Jindal suggested just “get rid of the Court.” Well, that will require some though, but perhaps he has a point.

Advertisements

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Government, Social Issues, Supreme Court and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Does the Supreme Court Follow Law … or Politics? (Obamacare, Gay Marriage and the US Constitution)

  1. Michael says:

    The supreme court no longer has a purpose it can easily be replaced by the president. And one wonders what purpose congress now has. Surely we could save a lot of money by eliminating all the extra poll followers and just stick with the executive branch who we all know will pass laws and find out what they say after.

    • atimetoshare says:

      Maybe we should have a king. Oh, I forgot, we do!

    • Jack Curtis says:

      It is so, and all this appears to satisfy the majority of voters, too …

      • penniewoodfall says:

        No, not in our British Museum please.
        Yes, one cannot help but have a sneaking regard for her majesty as she is a human after all….I for one would have retired. I am no royalist…. though I see that ‘the people’ like her and presumably support her.
        Still, when all is said and done, I would rather have her than your numerous ‘celebrities’
        🙂

      • Jack Curtis says:

        As would I, given a choice. Supposing though that her somewhat desperate longevity is an attempt to screen off Charles, I must wonder how we will see this upon his assumption of office …

  2. penniewoodfall says:

    For your interest….or not
    When Arabs Think The Apocalypse Is Near Because The US Legislated Same-Sex Marriage

  3. penniewoodfall says:

    When Arabs Think The Apocalypse Is Near Because The US Legislated Same-Sex Marriage http://wp.me/p1jt7T-3aw via @eliefares…..

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Perhaps the indignation over what is really a redefinition of ‘marriage’ would be of more service applied to the Supreme’s now shamelessly usurping legislative authority? With the Supremes aping Congress, who will impose the Constitution at need? Quis custodiet …

      And in the ‘reality sucks’ department, none have mentioned the budget impact of awarding existing child production subsidies paid regardless of child production. The decision widens the government’s deficit. How will that be addressed? (Silence)

      We go loudly and unthinkingly from one news emotican to another, repelled or salivating on cue. It seems unlikely to end well.

      • penniewoodfall says:

        Sorry, Got held up !
        I like your style…. common ground is what is needed in this world.
        Funny thing is, I do believe that the younger generation will somehow figure it out.
        I do believe that, and that is why I support them how I can.

        I have spent most of my life….

        The rest is to give as much as I am able to support the future generation….
        After all, it is them that will have to deal with the realities of life.
        In a curious sense it has not a lot to do with us.
        All, we can do is prepare the soil……without too much cynicism.
        I do detect a lot of cynicism from you.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        “A cynic is wot I washes me ‘ands in!”

        I hope to be realistic rather than cynical. Not to expect too much, not to fool myself more than the minimum. To see what is there whether or not it is what is wanted. An elusive goal for one of us. And finally, not to lose a sense of humor about it all.

        And I am an optimist in spite of all (probably genetic). But one sans rose-colored glasses …

        If that and/or my writing appears confused, it probably is. But no more so than is unavoidable.

  4. penniewoodfall says:

    hA HA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s