Tag Archives: supreme court

Political Rants

Harm vs. harm.

No denying that last week  was a big week in the world of Supreme Court jurisprudence. While I am no legal scholar, here are my two-cents on a few of the decisions:

Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court decided that the protections associated with marriage can no longer be denied to gay couples. About freaking time. It always struck me as ironic that we should forbid marriage to a group of people who seem to want it more than anyone else. Though I’m happy with mine, I am no firm believer in marriage as an institution. I think its only value – and this is my opinion, of course – is that it enables you to enjoy certain benefits granted by the government – tax advantages, visitation rights, property rights, etc. That’s the way things work; that’s the way our society is arranged. Given all that, couples of all sorts should be allowed to marry.

Eloquent as always, Justice Scalia.Marriage equality is seen by some evangelical Christians as a threat to their beliefs. Those who confer marriage licenses in some official capacity as well as those whose businesses serve the wedding market want the option to deny service to gay couples. Religious liberty statutes are cropping up everywhere. So, my question for these folks is, let’s consider the potential harm on either side. For the evangelicals, if gays can marry, their forfeit is being outraged and offended; it may affect their mood around the dinner table at Christmas. On the other hand, for gay couples, being denied the right to marry means not being able to share your life with the one you love, tend to them when they’re sick, build a life with them, etc. Far greater harm, I would argue.

Glossip v. Gross. Apparently the sight of a death row inmate writhing in pain for an extended period of time was not enough to convince the majority on the court to rule this ad-hoc medical procedure known as chemical execution unconstitutional. Justice Alito basically told the defendant-inmates that they need to identify an alternative method by which they may be done to death; otherwise, this method is good enough. Once again, thank you, Dubya Bush, for appointing this sorry piece of work; and thanks to your father for appointing the even sorrier Justice Thomas.

Enough bloviating for one day. Time for the mattress.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

The week that was (#47).

Big week in news, both domestically and internationally. As is my habit, I will comment briefly on a couple of items, run off at the mouth, and probably write way too much than is good for anyone. But what the hell – here goes.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The debate over the state versions of this legislation has focused on the opportunity for discrimination against LGBT patrons of businesses in the relevant states, and understandably so. Still, I can’t help but feel the media outlets and activists are burying the lead on this issue. There appears to be some correlation between the people pushing this legislation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which provides model, usually conservative legislation to state representatives.

Whether or not ALEC is involved, these RFRA-like bills appear to build on the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court last year. This is a broader effort to extend religious freedom protections to corporate “persons”. You can guess the implications. Hobby Lobby can assert their religious reservations to including birth control in their employee health plan. If RFRA applies to corporate “persons”, they can claim religious exemptions to all kinds of regulations, including health, safety, and environmental laws. Something to look out for.

Expect to hear from Mr. Cartoon Bomb this week.Iran Pact. A framework agreement on Iranian nuclear development was arrived at on Thursday. This will be the subject of a great deal of hand-wringing, even garment rending, and some full throated protests from the usual folks. There is a strong impetus in the United States towards war with Iran. It is not a popular option amongst the American people at large, but pundits and politicians appear to savor the idea. None of them would suffer in the event of a war, of course, so their clamoring comes at a very low potential cost.

Frankly, I am skeptical that we as a nation can even begin to abandon our animus towards Iran. A generation of politicians have built their careers on this obsession. Whatever shape the final agreement takes, Congress will be against lifting sanctions. (Of course, they would oppose it simply on the principle that Obama is in favor of it.) Even so, the agreement is deeply rooted in the assumption the America calls the shots, America enforces global order, and America can dictate terms, threaten, and attack at will.

My own feeling is that the whole nuclear question is just a flimsy excuse, portrayed as a crisis, to isolate Iran for the unforgivable crime of “stealing” their country back from us in 1979. If they don’t have that issue, they’ll find another.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

To care and care not.

The Affordable Care Act went before the Supreme Court again this week, subject to a suit by a Koch brothers-funded right wing organization. The point of contention this time is some wording in the bill that suggests, in isolation from the rest of the bill, that only States can establish exchanges, thereby calling into question federal subsidies for coverage obtained through the federal exchange. Of course, the bill was structured to allow for the States to opt for having the feds set up an exchange if they choose not to do so. Badly drafted? Perhaps. But any bill the size of the ACA is bound to be full of technical errors, contradictions, etc.

Will they crash the clown car? Time will tell.Now, technical issues like this have historically been corrected by an act of Congress. This was the case with many major pieces of legislation, such as Medicare. But because our Congress is ideologically driven and dysfunctional in the extreme, this is not even a remote possibility. So it is left to the courts, thanks to the determination of many on the right to hobble and destroy the ACA, as well as many thousands of families who depend upon it. It’s manifestly obvious that disallowing subsidized coverage through the federal exchange will dramatically drive up the cost of health insurance in the affected States, crashing the system and throwing 9 million subscribers into chaos. Just as bad, it will initiate a death spiral of rising rates and canceled policies that will affect many millions more.

So what will it be? Will the Supreme Court knowingly throw the country into chaos? Remains to be seen. It just amazes me the extent to which the Republicans will undermine so quintessentially a conservative idea as the ACA – a market-based solution if ever there was one – just to get the better of this very middle-of-the-road president. They are willing to throw the economy under the bus at every turn. They could bury this problem with a very simple piece of legislation, but that will never happen. The ACA is a point of obsession for them, like Benghazi – it’s a talisman for Obama, and as such, it must be whacked repeatedly.

Lord knows, I loathe defending the ACA. But it’s the law of the land, duly passed and signed, and letting it implode will affect many, many lives.

Netanyahu. Just want to briefly acknowledge the utter stupidity of Netanyahu’s address to Congress. Personally, I think he was more convincing with the cartoon bomb.

luv u,

jp