Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court of the United States’

Obamacaremageddon: The English Language Wins, We Lose, and It Is a Tax Increase

June 28, 2012 3 comments

Well, the Court agreed with me that you can’t regulate inactivity.  That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, but this is the Supreme Court after all.  Yep, the Obamacare ruling came down by the Supremes today, and everyone is either super-excited, forlorn, or unsure.  You can put me somewhere between forlorn and unsure.  The ruling stinks because it maintains legislation that will join Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a giant blackhole of entitlement suck that we literally can’t pay for.  It will also result in rising premiums and less care, while having no impact on rising healthcare costs.  And “conservative” justice John Roberts joined the lefty minority to bring the law home.  All of those things are bad.

But there are some potential goodies in there too (hence the lengthly dissent of the libs on what should have been considered a victory).  First, the individual mandate failed under the Commerce Clause.  Why is this important?  Because it shows Congress can’t regulate whatever the hell it wants by simply arguing it involves “interstate commerce.”  It also proves that I was right about it being an unprecedented overreach by Congress by trying to include inactivity in something that can be regulated.  And I like being right.  Yes, I know, it still passed constitutional muster under Congress’s taxing authority.   That’s true.  And the benefit to that is it gives the Republicans a HUGE talking point with an election coming up.

Remember this?

Uh, no George, it’s not a tax increase.  I’m serious.  George, don’t you know who I am?  Seriously, it’s NOT A TAX.

Oh, wait, sorry.  It is, ah, a tax.  And it’s going to be frickin’ HUGE.  And you know who it’s going to disproportionately impact?  That’s right. The middle class.  Why?  Because high-rollers like me already have health insurance, and while it’s only going to get more expensive under this lovely bill, I can probably still afford it.  But what about the middle class?  They either need to pay the increasing premiums, or get penalized taxed.  So the Prez is a big liar and the voters he needs are going to be most impacted by his lie.

What’s another positive?  Well, maybe it will keep me from having to hear about all the “politicians in robes” from the left, since the Chief Justice  decided to play for the other team on what is probably the biggest decision the Roberts Court will ever make.  You know what you never see?  One of the four libs switching sides.  Just kidding.  We’ll all be hearing about Citizens United in about 10 minutes.

So what have we learned?  We learned that the Commerce Clause doesn’t allow for the regulation of inactivity…which those of us who took English class in high school already knew.  We learned that the Supreme Court will identify something as a tax, even if the law’s proponent specifically argues that it’s a penalty.  We learned that the Chief Justice is more worried about how his court is perceived by the media than he is about actually making good decisions.  And finally, we learned that the President is a huge liar, who rammed through the largest tax increase in history while telling everyone it wasn’t a tax increase.


U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Requiring Workers to be Legal. Left is Confused.

May 26, 2011 1 comment

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law which allowed for the suspension or revocation of a business’s license to do business in Arizona if the company was found to be intentionally employing illegal immigrants.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which obviously has some significant members that like cheap labor, challenged the law, arguing that it is preempted by federal law.  For those of you out there who are aren’t boring, “preempted” simply means the federal government controls the issue completely, thereby leaving nothing for the states to do.  Here, the feds had enacted their own law that punishes businesses that knowingly employ illegals with civil or criminal sanctions (money damages or jail time).  The federal law also expressly prohibits state laws from doing the same thing.  Thus, preemption.  However, the federal law also expressly allows states to impose their own sanctions “through licensing and similar laws.”

The majority, made up of the so-called “conservatives” on the court, ruled that Arizona’s law, which instructs courts to suspend or revoke the licenses of Arizona businesses that knowingly employ illegals, clearly fell within the federal exception allowing a state to issue sanctions through its “licensing” laws.  To that I say: Hooked on Phonics works.  The majority also upheld Arizona’s law that required each employer to confirm the immigration status of potential employees by using the E-verify system.  E-verify allows an employer to send information supplied by the employee to the federal government via the internet, and then be told whether the employee is able to be legally employed.

This was a beneficial decision because it will allow Arizona to try and put an end to illegal immigration by targeting its catalyst: employers.  It also gives every other state a template to use in their own legislation.  Finally, it was also an easy decision, because the Arizona law does exactly what the federal law said it could do: impose sanctions through its business licensing laws.  Of course, three of the four “liberals” on the court sided with the Chamber of Commerce; although not because they like big business (the fourth lib, Elena Kagan didn’t hear the case).

I’m not going to bore you with the details of the three dissenting opinions.  Let me just say that the justices had to go through some serious contortions of law and the English language to even approach well-reasoned decisions.  Their “legal” reason for trying to strike down the law: while Congress may have specifically made sanctions through “licensing laws” an exception to federal preemption, Congress didn’t actually mean it.  The real reason why they wanted to strike down the law: it increases the possibility of a business discriminating against someone of non-European heritage (despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws).  Oh yeah, the law also makes it harder for illegals to get jobs.  And without jobs, the illegals may go back to their countries of origin, thereby making it more difficult for community organizers to get them registered to vote so that they can vote for Democrats.  [Places broad brush back into bag].

Bottom line: good decision.  The easiest, and cheapest, way to combat illegal immigration is to go after the businesses that employ them.  And since the federal government has no interest in enforcing its own immigration laws, while at the same time turning a blind eye to cities like Chicago that blatantly advertise themselves as “sanctuary cities,” someone had to do something…and Arizona’s on the front lines.  Oh, and the law clearly falls into the federal exception.  So no “activist” judges here.  Which is good.

33,000 inmates ordered released in California. I blame public education.

May 23, 2011 1 comment

$578 million. I wonder how many criminals it can fit?

With today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision, I have yet another reason to be thankful for leaving California.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court ordered the release of 33,000 inmates in California, due to continued violations of “inmates’ rights to adequate care for their mental and physical health.”  In other words, the prisons are overcrowded.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to analyze the decision, or give my opinion on whether the Court made the correct ruling.  I’m not going to go into the ideological breakdown of the judges, or the nitty-gritty details of the law at issue.  Finally, I’m not going to respond to the pot-heads who will inevitably argue that there wouldn’t be overcrowding if drugs were legalized.  Instead, I’m going to address this:

California Gov. Jerry Brown said he ‘will take all necessary steps to protect public safety.’

(…Except build a new prison so we aren’t forced to release 33,000 felons).  It goes without saying that “public safety” is certainly a purpose of any government.  In fact, I would imagine everyone would agree that it’s a primary purpose of government.  Unfortunately, this purpose has been diluted in many states because public safety has to increasingly compete with unnecessary human interest projects that are forced down our collective throats by do-gooders and/or liberals.  In other words, California can’t pay to house its criminals because it spends too much friggin’ money on crap.

Gigantic example of the crap: public education.  California is $15.4 billion in debt, and an astonishing one out of every four dollars spent goes to the education system.  Who can forget the $578 million Robert F. Kennedy Community School in Los Angeles?  The Los Angeles Unified School District spends $11,357.00 per pupil!  Keep this cost in your head as you read this statement made by Doug Nielson, a government and economics teacher at Coalinga High School:

‘If we stick to our ideologies, our children are going to suffer. When somebody says well, extending these taxes is a tax increase, you’ve got a mindset there that says the dollars are more important than the kids. And they can’t be. We can’t afford to do that. You can’t have first-class teaching on a Third World budget.’

This is the complete lunacy that we face with the public education system.  “Third World budget?”  The United States spends more per pupil than any other nation in the world.  And for what?  Is there any question that private schools can do a better job, at less cost? While saving money for the government to keep felons off the streets?

It’s in this way that liberals have won.  People no longer seriously question why the government is spending $11,000.00 per student.  Heck, most of the people complaining about the 33,000 inmates being released won’t even remember that $578 million of tax-payer money was used to build a school.

At some point, every community needs to answer a basic question: What is the role of government?  Do you want more cops on the the street and criminals in prison…or do you want your government to spend $11,000.00 per pupil at the public schools?  The government can’t afford to do everything, and if you don’t decide on what our taxes are paying for, somebody else will.  Today in California, the Supreme Court made the decision.

%d bloggers like this: