Archive for the Supreme Court Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Is A “Strategic Default” Of A Mortgage Now A Moral Imperative? (February 28, 2011)

Posted in Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Economics, Housing, Kleptocracy, Law, Society, Supreme Court, TARP on February 28, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

S          “You have heard of them.  A ‘strategic default’ is a default by a person who could make the monthly payments on the mortgage yet elects to cease making the payments because the property is underwater financially.”

D          “There are a flood of them today.”

S          “A strategic default may be de rigueur today.  Look at the law.  Start with the indoctrination process in law school.  Young law students are taught the theory of ‘efficient breach’ which counsels one to breach a contract if breaching the contract is worth more than performing the contract.  That is defined as ‘efficiency.’  The students who answer obediently get on the law review, clerk for the Supreme Court and make millions representing banks, big businesses and insurance companies.”

D          “And assist in running them into the ground.”

S          “That’s the plan.  They don’t even understand ‘efficiency.’  In practice, the party breaching the contract is not spawning a more efficient use of global resources.  The breaching party simply does not want to pay or perform and usually has far more money and can overwhelm the non-breaching party in court.  The party not receiving payment or performance loses big and usually has little judicial relief.”

D          “With a few exceptions, the legal system seems to exist to protect and serve the interests of the wealthy and the well-connected. I’ll take my direction from no one other than the MBAs at the MBA (Mortgage Bankers Association) who recommend defaulting on your mortgage if it is not working for you.  The banksters decided not to pay the mortgage on the MBA office building in D.C. (Washington, D.C.), even though the group had the funds to pay.  The banksters strategically defaulted.”

S          “They are indeed an example for all.  When the government bribed and bailed out the banks and other institutions, some contended that the government could not breach the contracts providing for unwarranted and illegal bonuses.  How un-American.  The government should have disregarded every contract and required the banksters to bring suit.  How American.”

D          “Allowing the banksters to file suit would allow them to file in a sympathetic Republican Federal District Court and possibly steer the case to a receptive judge.”

S          “Always a risk in the legal game.  However, before the banksters brought suit, their legion of lawyers would remind them that they could confront defenses and counterclaims.  In court, the government could assert a dozen affirmative defenses and also counterclaim for fraud, deceit, perjury, conspiracy, embezzlement, racketeering, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, obstruction of justice, etc.  Some of the banksters would not file suit which is the least expensive and, yes, the most efficient way of reaching a just resolution.”

D          “Seems that the courts are stacked against the public.  Nonetheless, there is a small chance that an independent judge might hear some of the cases and hold that the bonuses are illegal.  An affirmative award against the banksters is improbable but not impossible.”

S          “Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ever intended to bring criminal charges against the criminals.  We seem at times to be alone in a lawless world with millions of laws on the books.  We in America have moved from a democracy to a kleptocracy.”

D          “And no one to throw the book at them.  Except that the law and morality are clear.  Homeowners are morally obligated to default on the payment of their mortgages if the property is underwater financially.  The government is morally obligated to default on the payment of the bankster’s bonuses.  In today’s amoral America, a strategic default is both an economic necessity and a moral imperative.”

S          “Perhaps a provision should be added to Title 18 of the United States Code making it a crime not to strategically default if the property is underwater financially.  Not to strategically default is so un-American.  And inefficient.  We just can’t have that.”

D          “Strategically defaulting immanentizes the eschaton.”

S          “Indeed.”

. . .

Mortgage Bankers Association Defaults:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/mortgage-bankers-association-strategic-default

Home Sales Data Is Overstated:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158452087956150.html

“Three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”  Charles Ferguson upon receiving the Oscar along with Audrey Marrs for the Best Documentary for the movie “Inside Job.”

“Almost everyone counted publicly each and every single day of the event known as the ‘Iran hostage crisis,’ yet no one is counting publicly the days that have passed since September 15, 2008 without a single major criminal indictment of the banksters and their ilk who caused the financial crisis that continues to plague this country today.”

[See the “e-ssay” titled “1000 AUSAs (February 9, 2009).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do as I do not as I say

Mortgage Bankers Association: Strategically Default Today

Free $1000 an hour legal advice:  Strategically Default On Your Mortgage Today

Efficiency uber alles

Efficiency is Inefficient

If your property is underwater, should you plant seaweed in the front yard this spring?

Leave A Comment »

Boys and Girls: Providers and Producers (January 31, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Health Care, Law, Society, Supreme Court on January 31, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

M1          “We don’t even know what drives us.  That may be just as well.  Sociobiology, whatever that is, drives us.  It seems simple.  Men seek producers; women seek providers.  Males are looking for good breeders.  Females are looking for good providers.  Some guys are fixated on hair or eye color because, in their subconscious eyes, hair or eye color signals a fecund woman.”

M2          “Even in this age of feminism or post-feminism or whatever age we are in, girls still first pass through the bad boy phase as part of their emancipation from the home.  The journey can be self-destructive or amusing, protracted or passing, but it is a phase.”

M1          “A friend said that they survived the ordeal painlessly yet still hold their breath in case there is a relapse.”

M2          “Based on first hand evidence, fourteen is a four letter word.”

M1          “So once free of the home bonds, they subconsciously hunt for someone who will protect if not provide for them in the new home.  An alliance makes financial sense because few today can hunt and gather enough to support a one wage earner cave.  Pairing off with a strong partner also protects her from threats emanating from the pack itself.”

M2          “They are also looking for sturdy producers.”

M1          “The timeless hunt for good breeding stock with a good stock portfolio.”

M2          “That’s about it.  But here’s the irony I witness in the court room.  When the matrimonial alliance goes asunder, as a general rule riddled with multiple exceptions, the concerns flip.  Men are preoccupied with money; women are preoccupied with the kids.  Men are concerned with what was provided; women are concerned with what was produced.”

M1          “I’m aware of one or two fights over money.”

M2          “Vicious, protracted and often irrational wars.  And often tussles over the kinder.  I know guys who have given up every other interest and pursuit and recalibrated every aspect of their lives to focus on the needs of their kids after the divorce.”

M1          “The 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon kid swap.  Yet the generalizations are the starting point of wisdom.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Men seek producers, Women seek providers.  When things go asunder, Men pursue plunder, Women protect kinder.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to use audited financial statements and certified medical records?

This Birth Control Rig Is Paid For

If you don’t believe in evolution, can you embrace Social Darwinism?

A kid from Sacramento, California is America’s Health Care Czar – Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy

Leave A Comment »

Incite, Sarah, Indict? (January 10, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Crime/Punishment, Elections, First Amendment, Guns, Health Care, Law, Press/Media, Society, Supreme Court, Tea Party on January 10, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

R          “You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

S          “So why not indict her?  She incited and directed others to kill and targeted the targets by first and last name and address.  She created a mindset and a market for death.  She legitimized killing.  The specific nature of the killer’s mind and his motives are still emerging.  Maybe he did not do it for her or for some specific political purpose.  Nonetheless, he took her specific message and tactics to heart.”

R          “Perhaps her twisted comments about death panels and the like confused a twisted and confused mind.  Others stridently proclaim they have not heard anything inflammatory, yet he heard the shrill dog whistle.”

S          “Her comments were one of the legal, moral and proximate causes of the death and maiming in Arizona.  Look, she took down the targets on her website recently which is an admission of guilt.”

R          “A subsequent remedial measure?”

S          “What about the bull’s eyes?  Listen to others who now opine that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.  The political discourse has not changed course one degree in recent years.  The entreaties to kill have simply reached their predictable and inevitable outcome.  Why is everyone now so shocked and stupefied?  What happened was intended.  It was only a matter of time.”

R          “During the 2008 and 2010 elections, a few commentators noticed that she promoted and encouraged violence against specific candidates.  Her threats of violence against specific candidates were and are not protected by the First Amendment and were and are clear violations of provisions of Title 18 when they target federal officials or occur on federal property.”

S          “She is white and connected, so she will be given a pass.  U.S. Attorneys expend considerable tax dollars prosecuting some harmless jaywalker on federal property who has the misfortune to be non-white and unconnected.”

R          “The Supreme Court decreed that corporations are legal persons.  The nattering news network is a legal person.  Persons can be indicted.  Another option is to indict the network, the president, the board of directors and the pitch men and women on tv.  We need to return to personal responsibility as a governor of behavior.  Law plays a role.”

S          “White.  Extraordinarily well connected.  And capable of getting a U.S. Attorney fired.  Same story.  Same outcome.  Those in power get a pass.  Carte blanc, the White Card.”

R          “Her vitriolic rants against a sitting President may be her undoing.  Title 18 criminalizes threats against a sitting President.  The grand irony would be to watch on YouTube after one of her tirades as her Secret Service protective detail turns and cuffs her for direct threats against the President.”

S          “That might go viral.”

R          “America sports a billion laws and yet has become such a lawless nation.  In the absence of personal responsibility and without some rules and the rule of law, affairs can and will get worse.”

S          “So why not simply allow a dozen jurors to decide?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “In The Land Of Fury And The Home Of The Fearful (November 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Incite, Sarah, Indict

Incite, Sarah, Indict Sarah

There oughta be a law; no, there are laws but there oughta be some law enforcement.

What happens when you take an arrow out of the quiver, nock it with care, draw back purposefully, release while slowly exhaling and then look up to see that you have hit the bull’s eye?

I was walking across a bridge one day and saw a man standing on the edge and about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”  “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”  He said, “Like what?”  I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?”  He said, “Religious.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”  He said, “Christian.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”  He said, “Baptist!”  I said, “Wow!  Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”  He said, “Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”  I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him over the edge.

Leave A Comment »

One Gun Per White Adult Male? A Flintlock Musket? The “One Man, One Gun” Decision (October 4, 2010)

Posted in Constitution, Guns, Law, Society, Supreme Court on October 4, 2010 by e-ssay.org

.          The Supreme Court ruled today that states can limit the ownership and possession of guns to one and only one gun for each White adult male.  In a closely followed case challenging the state statute limiting gun purchases to one gun per month, a majority of the Supreme Court, adopting a ‘strict constructionist’ and ‘originalist’ analysis, held that each White adult male in 1787 possessed one and only one gun – a flintlock musket.  That fact and circumstance underpinned the Founding Fathers understanding of and the language in the Second Amendment.  That historical fact is the benchmark for the strict constructionists/originalists.  The case is being heralded as the “one man, one gun” decision.

.          Supreme Court commentators note that the majority – Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy – issued one of the few completely honest opinions of their judicial careers.  For reasons that are not elucidated, the majority departed from their tendentious jurisprudence and displayed rare doctrinal integrity consistent with their “strict constructionist/originalist” analysis.  The “strict constructionist/originalist” analysis looks at the state of affairs when the Constitution was adopted in 1787.

.          The dissenting opinion of the minority – Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan – notes the generally accepted conclusion of all reasonable men and women that there are fundamental disagreements about the state of affairs in 1787 that undermine the basic assumption of the “strict constructionist/originalist” worldview.  The dissenters note that rational regulation is allowed and contend that the Second Amendment read in concert with other Amendments and protections allows more than just Whites, and more than just adults, and more than just males to own and possess more than just one gun.

.          Some commentators note that this interpretation of the Second Amendment allows and may now require states to regulate gun ownership and possession diligently to protect the right to keep and bear arms.  The regulation is necessary so that a White adult male is able to own and possess one but no more than the one flintlock musket as mandated by the Second Amendment.

.          One commentator observed that those in the West typically possessed a pistol on their hip and a rifle in their scabbard.  Pictures were offered in support.  However, although there was land to the west, there was no West in 1787.  And there was no rifled barrel.  Thus, consistent with the analysis of the majority, a White adult male in the West also is limited to one flintlock musket.  The commentator notes that the decision will be construed by some liberal activist judges in the Ninth Circuit (an area that includes some of the West and all of the West Coast states) who maintain a more dynamic and pragmatic view of Constitutional interpretation.  Those who believe in a “living Constitution” recognize that society and technology change and develop over time.  These judges likely would allow residents of the West and West Coast to own and possess two guns, one pistol and one rifle.  Commentators agree that such a decision by the Niners surely would be overturned by the Supremes.

.          In an interview, a local sportsman, Norm Smith, Jr., who is included among the named plaintiffs challenging the state statute, commented to reporters:  “I’ve thought a lot about this, but the lawyers wouldn’t listen to me.  I was saying to Norma the other day, she’s my wife, that they should not look at things in 1787, the year the Constitution was adopted, or in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was adopted.  The Amendments, now she agreed with me on this, at least the first Ten Amendments are not really our Bill of Rights because the Amendments are only limitations on the government not an enumeration of individual rights.  The individual rights are already out there.  At the founding of our Great Republic, a flintlock musket was of course a manual not an automatic weapon.  With the flintlock musket, a man could trigger one shot but then had to reload; there was a short break before the next shot which gave him time to reflect even if he was frantically reloading.  The weapons did not represent the threat to the populace that weapons represent today.  What if Congress finds that there was and is a human right to be free of excessive violence in society grounded in one’s fundamental liberty interests that existed in 1787?  What if a 28th Amendment is adopted to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all private ownership of weapons?  No one can assert a claim pursuant to the 18th Amendment today because of the passage of the 22nd Amendment.  The 28th Amendment would become the test of constitutionality.  That outcome would not be good.”

.          Mr. Smith continued:  “Now I am a responsible sportsman who stores my guns in a locked safe and uses them carefully in the field.  Under the worst case scenario before the decision in my case was issued, I feared that the law could be construed to require me to choose between Jack O’Connor’s favorite caliber, the .270, and my dad’s choice, the .300 H & H Magnum, he’s Norm, Sr.  And Elmer Keith’s celebrated .44 Magnum is now illegal except maybe on the West Coast of all places, so they say.  I just didn’t realize that the Second Amendment limits me to one and only one flintlock musket.  Who would have known?  However, when you think about it, they are right.  The average White guy around 1791 only had one flintlock musket.  That’s the way it was; that’s the way it is.  That’s the law.”

Bumper stickers of the week:

Be careful what you aim at because you just might hit it

Gun control means missing your target

An armed society is a polite society . . . and a dangerous one at times

Leave A Comment »

Balls and Strikes and Perjury: America’s Pastimes (August 23, 2010)

Posted in Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Society, Supreme Court on August 23, 2010 by e-ssay.org

. . .

K          “Hear about the perjury charges against the retired baseball pitcher Roger Clemens for lying before Congress?”

J          “Is that an offense or a sport?”

K          “His sport was throwing balls and strikes and pitching and batting.  As far back as 1998, I suspected that some if not most of the home run leaders were juiced on steroids.”

J          “Seems so.  A player who was not juiced may not have gotten off the bench.”

K          “Do you recall when John Roberts testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005?  He swore to three duties – to tell the truth, to tell the whole truth, and to tell nothing but the truth.”

J          “When he was trying to get on the bench.”

K          “Right.  He told the Committee that his job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.  He knew all along that he would be a tendentious ideological technician for the reactionary right and misled the Committee.”

J          “Sounds like perjury on steroids.”

K          “To say nothing of the tobacco company executives who lied before Congress.  Seems that everyone in power gets in power and stays in power by fibbing a little.”

J          “Roberts should be aware enough to realize that his decision to close the front doors of the Supreme Court says more about him that any of his written decisions to close the doors of the Supreme Court.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Roger lied, but no one died

Clemens?  What about the tobacco company executives?  What about Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Cheney, Bush et al.?

Leave A Comment »

Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010)

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, First Amendment, Perjury/Dishonesty, Politics, Supreme Court on February 15, 2010 by e-ssay.org

“In Citizens United, five of our good friends at the Supreme Court decreed that a corporation is a legal person entitled to the First Amendment safeguards amended to the Constitution.  A legal ‘person’ is defined differently in different situations.  The typical ‘person’ is a living, breathing and sentient citizen not a corporation.”

“As I recall, a nautical vessel is also a legal ‘person,’ yet it cannot bring or maintain a lawsuit for instance.”

“Exactly.  A corporation is also a legal person, yet not one that is entitled to the full panoply of constitutional safeguards.  The decision in effect subordinates the First Amendment rights of living, breathing and sentient citizens to the financial interests of corporations.  The case reveals all the sins and crimes of the Court.  Alito recused himself in an earlier case involving a claim for punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case because of his ownership of substantial Exxon stock.  All of the justices also have substantial stock in the very corporations they now have vested with extraordinary power.”

“There is no way to avoid the conclusion that they sought to influence the political debate and protect their corporate benefactors.  And those who decry ‘judicial activism’ are not decrying this blatantly activist and tendentious decision.”

“Roberts testified before the Senate that he would be an umpire.  He is changing the scores before reporting them and making decisions to benefit his bank account.  He rejected the very precedents he promised to uphold.  As I recall, his testimony was under oath.  You can check on that.”

“I think it is perjury to lie under oath to the Senate.  Or it was in the past.”

“The House could bring articles of impeachment for misconduct.  At a minimum, the Senate could require him to testify and explain his earlier testimony.  The proper separation of powers is jeopardized when an individual is allowed to lie to the Senate about what he will do after he is confirmed by the Senate.”

“There was a Senator Exon decades ago and there will be a dozen Senator Exxons in coming days.”

“Law in America today is a groundless and amoral ideological game.”

(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010).)

[See the “e-ssay” dated October 20, 2008 titled “Contemporary American Political Parties 101“ noting that the Republicans “10.  Win” and the Democrats “10.  Lose.”  See also the “e-ssay” dated February 20, 2006 titled “Perjury, The American Way.”]

(“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”  Howard Zinn 1922 – 2010)

Bumper stickers of the week:

The best democracy money can buy.

We the corporations . . .

Leave A Comment »

Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010)

Posted in Elections, Political Parties, Politics, Society, Supreme Court on January 25, 2010 by e-ssay.org

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.  Bill/Melinda and Warren are still playing at the margins.  Now is the time to get off the sidelines and get into the game.  Funding vaccines is commendable in particular because preventive medicine is the exception in our society.  However, the body politic is sick.

The Supreme Court recently decided that democracy is a commodity to be sold in the market place to the highest bidder.  The United States of Exxon (USE).  You need to join the bidding.  The next presidential election will cost over a billion dollars.  Now is the time to invest $50 – $100 million dollars into each of six senatorial campaigns this year and elect half a dozen senators who commit to occasional independent thinking.  Political activities are not as tidy or as pretty as traditional charitable giving.  However, at this time, your country needs aid.

Bumper sticker of the week:

The best democracy money can buy.

Leave A Comment »

The Double Ought (00) “Decadent Decade” (January 4, 2010)

Posted in Afghanistan, Bailout/Bribe, Bernanke, Bush, China, Congress, Debt/Deficits, Economics, Federal Reserve, Foreign Policy, Greenspan, Health Care, Housing, Iraq, O'Bama, Presidency, Supreme Court on January 4, 2010 by e-ssay.org

1999:  No major wars yet percolating problems in a dozen venues; budget deficit surplus of about 236 billion dollars, although Bush inherited about a 5.7 Trillion dollar National Debt; and a boiling but unstable and slowly cooling economy.

The decade that threatened to come in with a bang sauntered in with only the traditional fire works.  Y2K may have been such an epic universal non-event because everyone realized that it was a real deadline that could neither be disregarded nor overlooked.  It was not Y2.001K.  Problems were timely addressed in a timely manner in time.  That was not the attitude for the remainder of the decade.

An outwardly non-descript and largely unknown bumbling scion who had been shepherded by others for their own purposes through an uneventful life was appointed by the Supreme Court to run things.  The ship of state sailed uneventfully for a time.  A written invitation to impending disaster delivered to and disregarded by the White House in August, 2001 was honored in September, 2001 by a quartet of airships.  The course of action was simple.  Know who we are and remain faithful to who we are.  Stay our course.  Redouble our vigilance and redouble it again (and redouble it one more time).  Too many in power and influence in the country lost their heads.  Leadership was non-existent.

A perfect storm.  An obscenely incompetent President, a flagitious and arrogant vice-President, a smug, bungling and petulant Secretary of War/Defense (Rumsfeld), hamstrung Secretaries of State (Powell and Rice), a mendacious Secretary of the Treasury in the second term (Paulson), a marginal Attorney General (Gonzales) and their ilk were not the Dream Team.  The damage they inflicted in the decade will take decades to repair.

Bush proclaimed that WeMaD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and almost everyone joined in the madness.  No one ever made a compelling case for the invasion of Iraq.  The national press (WP, NYT and so many others) yearned for war, any war, just give us a war with photo ops and film at eleven.  The major television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, Faux) were thrilled and went wild with glee.  It was a time, the only time, to watch their coverage non-stop to bear witness in real time to the folly and the madness.  The few dissenting voices (Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder’s Washington Bureau, Terry Gross and guests with NPR/Fresh Air, Walter Pincus with the WP and a few dozen other courageous individuals) did not reach a wide audience.  They were voices in the darkness.  The Iraq quagmire is the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

Deficit spending and economic looting became the national pastimes.  Almost everyone involved in directing and controlling the economy (Reagan, Gramm and Rubin in earlier decades with the assistance of Bush, Greenspan, Paulson, C. Cox, Geithner, Summers and others in this decade) almost without exception (Brooksley Born and a few others) were committed to undermining the American economy at every opportunity for the benefit of a few.  One must concede that they succeeded handsomely.  Although they are domestic economic terrorists, their activities never became the subject of the vaunted “war on terror.”  No one ever made a compelling case for the bribery and bailout of Wall Street.  Bernanke* remains the enigma, the outsider and the ultimate insider, who did not recognize what was obvious before and after he became Chairman in February, 2006 and disregarded the advice of his colleague Edward Gramlich.

The first African-Irish-American was elected President.  There were a few things they did not tell him before he got elected that he learned quickly after he got elected.  He re-nominated Bernanke* to run the Federal Reserve which may be the only option given the limited economic talent in America.  His appointments to date are adequate, yet the administration is still seeking traction and direction.  Health care is becoming his domestic economic quagmire.  Although it is not really the job of the government to provide jobs and/or homes, the populace wants a job to go to during the day and a house to come home to at night.

About the House.  And the Senate.  Congress could be declared a natural disaster area.  The Republicans are useless, the Democrats are not particularly useful.  Forty-five percent of Americans respond to and are motivated by fear and loathing; the Republicans know and stoke their base.  The Republicans may make great strides in the November elections.  The party committed to destroying government may again be given that opportunity.

The nine members of the Supreme Court are more myopic and narrow-minded than just about any other Court in the history of the Republic.  The Court sports two religions (with one exception), two schools (with one exception), and two (mas o menos) schools of thought (with a few exceptions), yet it has two women, too.  The war at the Court and for the Court continues.  O’Bama may have an impact, although the impact of the economy on O’Bama’s future will greatly impact his impact on the Supreme Court.

The profit-maximizing universities in America should be part of the solution, but they are part of the problem; they may be more accurately described as part of the process and the processing.  They recruit, train and drill the next McNamaras and Rumsfelds.  To their credit, they adhere to a thirty-year business plan rather than the three-month strategy pursued by other businesses.

The information made public in the National Intelligence Reports over the decade patiently and exhaustively chronicles the decline of America’s role in the world after six decades of preeminence.  America has done much wrong during that time, yet America has done far, far, far more good, often with resentment and usually without thanks.  On balance, everyone is better off with the United States as the dominant superpower.  This is China’s century.

Now:  Multiple wars, battles, skirmishes and police actions with two major foreign base camps (Iraq and Afghanistan); massive and growing deficits and about a 12.3 Trillion dollar National Debt; zero private-sector employment gain and zero economic gain for the average family over the decade; and no industry to inflate other than the federal government industrial complex.

[See the “e-ssays” dated Jan. 5, 2009 titled “The Millennium to Date”; dated October 6, 2008 titled "A Bleak Day:  The Trillion Dollar Tragedy"; dated September 29, 2008 titled "Futile Efforts"; dated May 4, 2009 titled “Picking the Supreme Beings”; dated May 14, 2007 titled “Term Limits”; and dated Jan. 30, 2006 titled “Greenspan’s Legacy:  Apres moi, Le Meltdown.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

The Recession is Over.

The Recession is Over; Let the Depression Begin

Halcyon Ano Nuevo

Leave A Comment »

Picking the Supreme Beings (May 4, 2009)

Posted in Supreme Court on May 4, 2009 by e-ssay.org

Justice Souter is leaving the Supreme Court to pursue loftier pursuits (hiking, reading, apple core eating).  Every Justice on the current Supreme Court served on the federal courts of appeals.  Almost everyone today on the federal courts of appeals who is not on life support keeps an updated catalog of Supreme Court robes and bling-bling in the right hand drawer of his or her desk.  They all have mastered the requisite arrogance and condescension.  The current Supreme Court is myopic, disconnected, ideological and unaware of the challenges confronting ordinary citizens in their daily lives.  What the Court needs today is a real live practicing lawyer and an intellectual.  Those requirements may require two openings.

Bumper sticker of the week:

Equal Justice For Some Under Law

Leave A Comment »

The Millennium To Date (January 5, 2009)

Posted in Congress, Presidency, Supreme Court on January 5, 2009 by e-ssay.org

When presented with a defining challenge this Millennium, each branch of government failed.

2000 – Judicial.  Eight years ago, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore decided that it not the voters will decide who is to be President.  The Supreme Court elected to appoint the President and preempt the voters.  The court issued a special decision to benefit one person.  An unprecedented decision has set a bad precedent.  The composition and ideology of the Supreme Court is even worse today.

2001 – 2003 (and continuing) – Executive.  Bush and Cheney came into office committed to invading Iraq.  After being warned in a daily briefing in August, 2001 that “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.,” no one thought to interpret the report to suggest that Bin Laden was determined to strike in U.S.  Bush left for Crawford to clear bush and brush.  When 9/11 occurred, the pretext for invasion arose even though neither Iraq nor any Iraqis were involved in the planning, implementation or funding of the 9/11 attacks.  His decision to invade lit a fuse that will be seen to have triggered the start of World War III.  Now Bush/Cheney are seeking to rewrite history to suggest that the intelligence that they and others actively distorted was provided by others.  For its part, Congress cravenly went along enough to provide Bush with political cover.

2007 – Legislative.  The Bailout/Bribe Bill was predictable and predicted.  Scare the public and you can get anything.  Paulson appointed himself King, raided the fisc, and gave money to fiends and former colleagues.  The Debt is exacerbating intermediate and long term economic problems in ways that the business and economic commentators do not seem to understand.  Bush more than any other person is responsible for the “Bush/Greenspan/Gramm Depression.”  Nonetheless, Congress has been a co-conspirator and an economic enabler.

One hopes that Clio is taking careful notes.

Bumper sticker of the week:

Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism.

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.