The U.S. Supreme Court's Abominable Bias: Limiting Government Power To Help The Vulnerable

[meow2u3]

March 30, 2012 |
The Supreme Court is so full of it. The entire institution, as well as its sanctimonious judges themselves, reeks of a time-honored hypocrisy steeped in the arrogance that justice is served by unaccountable elitism.

My problem is not with the Republicans who dominate the court questioning the obviously flawed individual mandate for the purchasing of private-sector health insurance but rather with their zeal to limit federal power only when it threatens to help the most vulnerable. The laughter noted in the court transcription that greeted the prospect of millions of the uninsured suddenly being deprived of already extended protection under the now threatened law was unconscionable. The Republican justices seem determined to strike down not only the mandate but also the entire package of accompanying health care rights because of the likelihood that, without an individual mandate, tax revenue will be needed to extend insurance coverage to those who cannot afford it.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/154767/the_u.s._supreme_court%27s_abominable_bias%3A_limiting_government_power_to_help_the_vulnerable


My opinion is that the Supreme Court, especially the Fascist Five, have made themselves judicial tyrants. If they come up with another 5-4 special favoring the powerful at the expense of the little guy, this will prove that this court is no longer credible and impartial referees concerning the rule of law, but rather corrupt to the core, in bed with criminals in high places, and possibly even criminals themselves.
They'd better be careful or else face a serious, widespread backlash from people who have had enough of their corruption.

[LiberalLoner]

1. so what power do we have to resist?

Certainly no LEGAL power to resist the fascist five.

[Igel]

2. Underlying the arguments are different definitions.

They're difficult definitions to discuss. They tend to make people uncomfortable.

There are two sets of definitions of words like "right," "liberty," and "freedom." Nobody discusses them. In part this is because people know so little about how to argue that they can't participate or even follow. In part it's because people can't track the implications of changes in the definitions, what's at stake beyond their own families or wallets that they can't do so without severe conflicts of interest. In part it.

"It helps me. It's a right."

"I have a problem. I want to be free from the problem. Freedom is Constitutional."

Thing is, every side argues likes this. "It helps me. It's a right. It provides ..." education, food, health care, freedom from offense, fewer restrictions on acting as I see fit, more income.

"I want to be free from my problem. My problem is..." income inequality, an inability to pay for healthcare, trouble providing for my family, consequences of my actions over the last 20 years or over the last 3 months, offensive actions or words by state or private actors, restrictions on my actions ..."

With every definition of "right" or "freedom" certain problems or entitlements or options are restricted or reduced or entirely eliminated. Somebody's ox is going to be gored. When we deal with definitions we start realizing that we all want the definitions to make sure that the oxen belong to us and those we empathize with are secure and safe while those we dislike have maximum and even gratuitous ox-gorage.