To be honest, I'm conflicted on this. While I can't imagine that the law is constitutional, what Justice Roberts said, in effect, was, "We're not your bitches. We're not going to get into a political shit pile just to bail your sorry asses out. Congress: you broke it, you fix it". I can see it as the supremes punting. This is a similar approach to what blog brother Borepatch says. The supremes reduced it to a tax, "Own it, Nancy".
On the other hand, to have the famous "swing vote" justice, Kennedy, go hard line constitutionalist and say, "this whole thing is a fetid, stinking piece of unconstitutional crap" and later in his writing, "it's a steaming pile of Justice Roberts" tells you that not everyone thinks that refusing to deal with it was a wise choice. (I admit I made up much of Kennedy's writing, but not his tone. DOJ - this is called "satire". Look it up.)
Being serious for a while, what I think really happened is that the Supremes pushed our existing cold civil war, or open source/underground civil war, which ever you call it, a little closer to going hot.
I worked with a guy several years ago who said, "America's next civil war will be between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', when they are led to believe they have a right to everything the 'haves' worked all their lives for".Maybe a better way to say that is "between the makers and the takers".
Remember the old saw about the four boxes of freedom: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box? It is - remotely - possible we can fix this with the ballot box, if enough people get out to (1) give mittens a mandate beyond the few hundred votes that fraud can give in a given state and (2) the same wave sweeps the Senate and the House. Because all the stupid party knows or cares about is their power, we really need another one: (3) we whip them all like rented mules until they restore some sense. It's also possible today's ruling guaranteed getting numbers 1 and 2. If the people really are 60-40 against Obamacare, those 60% would probably walk through fire to vote him out.
From what I read on other blogs and in comments, a lot of people are ready to go for the last option.
For those new around here, I've not sworn loyal to any party, but as fiscal deficit hawk, a small "L" libertarian and conservative I don't have much in common with today's left. The two parties are two faces of the same ruling class. They both are continually aggregating power, they both are prone to cronyism with their favored donors, they both are the problem.
Yep. Time to bring it on. The sooner it starts, the sooner it gets over, and *maybe* after all the rioting, and fighting, and death and destruction the *IS* coming, we can build a better republic.ReplyDelete
Or the Moose-slimes can nuke a few of our cities, and we can start over from there.
Whatever is coming, it aint gonna be pretty.....
What better way to sell an ideology than present as an alternative candidate one who is only 98% as bad? And people jump for it, as the lesser of two evils, without considering that they have implicitly sanctioned 98% of the evils. Thus setting the stage for the next Hegelian move.ReplyDelete
Voting in new masters every few years won't change the plantation - never did, never will. It only pacifies those who perpetually look to the next election without realizing the game is fixed. Even the most incorrigible gambler wouldn't play at a casino where the house always wins, yet that is what voters do.
"No matter who you vote for, the government is always elected" Twain
Been there, done that - FINISHED with voting
Looks like someone is scraping your blog. Link in the next comment.ReplyDelete
Here's the link. Using two comments to avois the spam can.ReplyDelete