High Court Goes Gay; GOP Frets

Letter: High court goes gay; GOP frets
By Tony Bender on Jul 12, 2015 at 1:12 a.m.

Whew! Man, a guy takes a week off and look what happens.

SCOTUSI’m still sorting this out. The gist, I guess, is that America now has gay health care. I haven’t reviewed the fine print but, as I understand it, you may now marry the doctor of your choice.

Many Republicans are outraged, enraged and deranged by the way nine Druids in Washington circumvented the Constitution. Just like that time they pitched pennies in the hallway to decide the winner of the 2000 presidential election.

You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to know how wrong it was to make a decision in that manner. These things should be decided by a field goal in the waning seconds of overtime. Or that rock/paper/scissors thing.

Continue reading

SCOTUS Decides Vaccine Debate

SCOTUSReading the Daily Kos earlier today I learned that the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled, in 1905, that individual liberties when confronted by government regulated immunizations were denied for the greater good of the society. It is interesting to read from the opinion of first Justice Harlan’s for the Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (copied below). It isn’t just about the decision upholding immunization but pay attention to the subtext of this ruling from 1905 and compare it to the way the Supreme Court is operating today. You can get a good idea of the difference from the final paragraph of Justice Harlan’s opinion:

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state.

Continue reading

Arming the Corporations

We the PeopleDon’t you think there is entirely too much discussion in the followup of the Supreme Court’s obscene debacle concerning Hobby Lobby? Me too but it does suggest that there is a lot of meat in what SCOTUS shyly refers to as a limited ruling. The thing that has me shaking my head, however, isn’t the crassness or stupidity of the court or the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby, but rather the regular folks that are defending and supporting this expansion of corporate power as if it was going to make their lives better. It isn’t. But just like everything Obama does being reviled, no matter how good for the country it might be, so too do the duped Americans who must support anything their distant masters tell them to. So don’t look behind the curtain and one day you’ll wake up and wonder where your Democracy has gone.

Continue reading

The Corporate Veil

corpEver since Citizens United, there has been a controversy in this country around the idea that corporations are people and money is speech. The singular inequity here is that corporations, if people, are not required to take the good with the bad, as actually living, breathing people do. Corporations are protected welfare queens playing with peoples lives on a rigged game board where the corporation always wins.

Alex Park, writing in Salon, offers this interesting view of the corporation with the underlying suggestion that it is a key reason why the Supreme Court would never rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, and if you think about it, why Hobby Lobby should have never pursued the issue.

That separation is what legal and business scholars call the
"corporate veil," and it's fundamental to the entire operation.
Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it's in question. By
letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious
rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked
a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not
truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made
responsible for its debts and other burdens.

Continue reading