Sunday, April 08, 2012

Judge Napolitano On President Obama’s Rhetoric Projected At The Supreme Court - Incomprehensible

I’m on a rant about this healthcare bill.  It’s important for a much larger reason than face value.  In so many ways the dynamics surrounding the passage of this bill and the political and legal wranglings after its passage signify what is wrong with public service in this country.  How political parties have truly embraced anything-goes behavior in order to gain an upper hand in the game of controlling the money bubble that is flowing into Washington.  The outlandish behavior between parties that then encourages similar outlandish behavior from their supporters has reached levels unimaginable.  We see this in the endless commentary for and against this healthcare by politically-motivated pundits who really could care less about what is actually in the bill.    The mob cheering and jeering for its team has reached levels I have never witnessed.  Just recently when sanitorium Santorum, was readying to fire a gun at a shooting range, a supporter yelled to pretend it was Obama.    What kind of person could even think this type of thought?   Let alone believe it is acceptable to yell this at a political event?   For all of his shortcomings as a leader this country needs, this is a human being with a wife and two daughters.  It’s one thing to critique the politics but it’s quite another to wish personal harm on a father and husband or any human being.  Is your mouth connected in any way to your brain?   Politics, being a game of control, truly engenders mob behavior.  Believe me, the mob can take many forms.  Obama has his mob as well.  Their form of controlling dissent is much more covert.  We’re more educated than you, so anything we do is based on our intellectual superiority. 

People in this country have become truly crazy over partisan politics.  C-r-a-z-y.   But what has legitimized this behavior is the behavior of politicians who find new ways to manifest their insanity.  We even had Gingrich race-bating his way to victory in South Carolina.   Is this 2012 or 1862?  Our society has seemingly been set back a hundred years by politicians and corporations.  Both political parties are morally-bankrupt but the Republicans are in a league by themselves in their outright insanity.  Literally.  The partisan Democrats hide behind the self’s perception of intellectual  superiority that belies an insidious  corruption.   A perfect example is this healthcare bill that is more corrupt than anything I can think of that has been passed under A Republican White House.  But clearly not as corrupt as a multitude of bills passed under Clinton and Algore, another example of insidious corruption hiding behind a perception that academic intelligence equates to strong leadership.  We hammered on this myth with the Herbert Hoover example back in 2008.   While Hoover didn’t personally cause the Great Depression, he was part of the culture of corruption in Washington that contributed to it. 

In some regards, I think all of the political wranglings of our day are irrelevant.   The world is going to change so drastically in coming years that I seriously doubt we’ll never see the full implementation of anything politicians are doing today.  In other words, the money bubble of billions of dollars that elites and corporations are spending today is going to have a long term return on investment of negative consequences.  That said, one can’t live their life based on tomorrow‘s expectations so today is today. 

We have talked about judicial review quite a few times on here.  This is not a constitutional authority granted  to the court.  But it is not forbidden either.  In other words, the courts granted it to themselves.  In fact, we wrote that both Congress and the Executive branch of government have the ability to also invoke the process of constitutional review as a check against the Supreme Court.  All three branches have this ability to check against each other.  I have actually penned on here that the Congress should take up constitutional review to invalidate the corrupt Supreme Court decision on corporate personhood.  Unfortunately, that will likely never happen until macro circumstances change because both political parties are registered corporations who survive and thrive through corporate personhood. 

People need to understand the Supreme Court is not the law of the land.   It is not the final decider.  George Bush is.  Haha.  Seriously, it is a check in a system of checks.  But, those checks are meant to work both ways.   In other words, the President could legally challenge any Supreme Court decision through constitutional review.    Constitutional review is the basis for the President Bush legal team’s legal opinions  regarding the constitutionality of water boarding and other issues in their war on terror.   I don’t cite their decisions as any source of truth but simply as an example of constitutional review within the executive branch.  My point is that constitutional review is not the sole claim of the courts as almost everyone seems to believe. 

There are a multitude of avenues that could be taken when spats arise between branches of government or between states and the federal government or between the people and either levels of governments or whatnot.  But they are seldom invoked.  Most obviously, that includes passing amendments to the Constitution or amending existing law to make it constitutional as agreed to by all branches of government.   The system is imperfect, especially in today’s world when the corruption of money and self-interest is so prevalent in all three branches, but it is working as designed as far as the Supreme Court having the right to review and even strike down the healthcare bill.  There may be influences involved in the courts that shouldn’t be but then those same interests helped Democrats craft this horrible piece of crony, corrupt legislation.  Umm, by the way, I’m one of those people who wants healthcare for all Americans.  Who believes it is a human right.  But, how can anyone other than a party hack, who only cares about their team winning, support a bill that is so blatantly corrupt and crafted in secrecy under the duress of massive lobbying by for-profit interests?  As we noted at the time, a ten page addendum to Medicare would have allowed Americans to buy into an existing structure at cost without creating a whole new 2500 page bureaucracy based on corruption and massive special interest money.  But, that most obvious of options didn’t enrich the Democrat’s corporate masters. 

President Obama’s rhetoric, as shown in the Napolitano video link below, is really quite incomprehensible.  His characterization of ruling on this case as judicial activism really is preposterous.   (’s comments on his rhetoric here.)  Courts interpret law and applicability to cases.  That’s what they do.   What the hell else are they supposed to do?  Play Yahtzee all day?  Judicial activism, as he attempts to characterize this, is when courts don’t interpret law but make law.  That is clearly not the case here.   They are interpreting the constitutionality requiring every citizen to buy for-profit insurance to enrich predatory corporations mandated by the force of the state.   That most certainly is a valid constitutional issue to rule upon.  While legal wording surely wouldn’t entail my brutal remarks, that, my friends, is fascism.   The comingling of corporate power and money with government as defined by this healthcare bill.

Any ruling against universal healthcare is not the end of the world.   A new plan could be drafted quite easily be it an addendum to Medicare or offering Americans access to Congress’s plan or whatever.  It need not be some enormous new bureaucracy that would be nearly impossible to pass Congress again. 

This on the other hand is the kind of dishonest, shallow, unreasoned, trash journalism not based on law that serves absolutely no purpose other than cheerleading for President Obama.  That’s a constant problem.  So many engaged in party politics and their intellectually-outsourced mob supporters view politics as a game and their team should win regardless of whether they are abiding by the rule of law or not.  It’s for reasons such as this that we have a rule of law.  So the rest of us don’t need to put up with the opinions of people’s incessant mob behavior.

It makes me nearly hurl to watch Murdoch’s monstrosity creation of Faux News in this video segment but Napolitano is generally a very reasonable person.  On this issue he is clearly very reasonable.  This public attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court and-or the public by President Obama is highly unusual and without merit beyond attempted control.  By the way, personally, I completely disagree with lifetime judicial appointments that Napolitano seemingly defends for the same reasons I put up that last post about perceptions of self and the human condition’s self-deceit, control, fear and unsubstantiated beliefs.  Lifetime appoints may be virtuous were human beings not human beings.  It’s sort of like that free market nonsense.  That would be great were we have evolved to some level of nobility, truth and virtue with every intent.   All free markets do is allow psychopaths to run roughshod over those not willing to destroy their fellow man.  It rewards those most willing and capable of doing harm.  In other words, it’s Social Darwinism or survival of those most willing to destroy everyone else for the benefit of the self.

UPDATE: I have received comment that constitutional review is not actually available to branches other than the judicial branch.   That is completely false.  I did not say overturn court decisions.   But the Supreme Court does not have a granted constitutional power of constitutional interpretation.  This power is granted to all three branches of government.  Judicial review is not a constitutional power.  It is an extra constitutional power the court granted itself.  It is tradition to defer to this extra constitutional self-granted power.   That’s all it is.   Were the Supreme Court solely granted this unchecked power, they would have theoretical control over any check over the other two branches.  That is simply not the case.    Judicial review is a grant the court has given itself.  A grant that has no basis in powers granted under the Constitution.  In matters of constitutional interpretation, the ability exists to challenge Judicial review.  I learned of constitutional review in my studies courtesy of a constitutional professor. 

posted by TimingLogic at 9:58 AM

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home