Supreme Dork

Yesterday, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of Obamacare.  In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that 'Established by the State' does not necessarily mean 'Established by the State.'  You see, that could ruin the law as it is currently being executed.  Well, let's pause there.  If the law is badly or ambiguously written, shouldn't it be returned to the Legislature to correct it?  No, apparently not.  Instead, the majority of the Court ruled that the law as the Obama administration has chosen to implement it (which has been modified from the law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2012) is just fine.  Justice Scalia put it this way:

 

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that ‘[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.’

 

The majority assumed the role of legislature and made the law conform to how the Executive Branch implemented it, not how the Congress (badly) wrote it.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is Constitutional and must be allowed in all states, the democratic decisions of those states be damned. Chief Justice John Roberts, who yesterday was in favor of judicial legislation, wrote a strong dissent:

  

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Thus the Roberts’ Judicial Doctrine is that ‘legislating is acceptable when I am in the majority but a horrible breach when I am in the minority.’ You can’t have it both ways. Either you rule on the law as written or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.

You Are What You Say You Are

On the heels of Bruce Jenner announcing that she is actually a woman named Caitlyn, we have Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black despite no black ancestors.  However, Rachel does have a dash of Native American which is more than Elizabeth Warren or Ward Churchill can say.   It is amazing how many whites want to claim membership in minority groups.  Why?  I thought whites had all the privileges.  Well, sure, Ms. Warren was able to give herself a boost in getting hired by Harvard by being a minority but at what price?  Now she is an Indian who is terribly repressed.  She isn't?  What of Rachel?  Pictures of her in youth show a very white girl with blonde hair and freckles.  As for Caitlyn, aren't white men at the top of the food chain?  Why would anyone opt to be demoted to the less privileged sex?

Some of these people are gaming the affirmative action system that was put in place in the wake of civil rights movement of the 1960s.  As for Rachel and Caitlyn, they are in denial.  There are facts on the ground that they have both refused to accept.  Our society has reached the point where it is wrong to correct them.  That might be judgmental.  It could hurt their feelings.  A few years ago, Oregon declared a woman to be a man, which resulted in the pregnant man story.  Well, he wasn't a man.  He was a bearded lady but that would hurt his/her feelings.  He/she wanted to be viewed as a man.  Biology is no longer a valid basis for determining gender.  Nor, it would seem, is it a valid basis for determining race.  We have reached 1984 about 30 years after Orwell predicted.  Male is female, white is black, surrender is victory.

Warriors of the Wasteland

It is 2019 and the nuclear war that wiped out most of civilization was 9 years ago. Those who remain are either desperate refugees in search of some remaining pocket of civilization or the Templars. The Templars are a death cult who seek to exterminate survivors so that the earth will be purged of all humans. The Templars wear white and drive vehicles that look vaguely like moon buggies that are armed with ridiculous weapons. Being a death cult, there are no women among them and they are described as homosexuals. In fact, there is a sodomy scene in the movie!

Into the mix comes Scorpion, a former Templar who now roams the roads with no particular purpose beyond survival. Of course, he soon takes the side of the refugees and fights his former comrades. If not for the frequent intervention of Nadir the Archer, Scorpion would have been slain. Scorpion also has a mechanical prodigy as an ally. This blond 10 year old is not only a genius at customizing Scorpion’s car but also an amazing combatant with a slingshot.

The movie is a bad Road Warrior knock-off. This is an Italian post-apocalyptic film with an all Italian cast except for Fred Williamson. Fred plays Nadir, an archer who fires explosive-tipped arrows. Guns are fairly common in the setting so it is unclear why he had decided to be an archer. Well, he does look cool. The car battles are a pale imitation of Mad Max.

Of note, I had seen a bit of this on late night TV 20 years ago and thought nothing of it. However, I recently saw Mad Max: Fury Road at the Alamo Draft house. The Draft house always has an applicable clip show before featured movie and it so happened that Warriors of the Wasteland (1983) was prominent. Well, I better check that out and write a review. It is available on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLkz0tJCzxc

I'm Batman!

If Bruce Jenner had come out and declared that he was actually Bruce Wayne, otherwise known as Batman, we would laugh.  If he pressed the point too long, his family would seek psychiatric help.  Instead, Bruce has declared that she is Caitlyn.  That is laudable, even brave according to many.

Being inclined toward libertarianism, I am not bothered by Caitlyn's choice.  It is her life.  Live it how you wish to live it.  What troubles me is the reaction of our culture to it.  Norms are a thing of the past.  Marriage shall be a compact of two (or more?) loving individuals.  An English woman married a dolphin!  Birth certificates will list parent 1 and parent 2 rather than mother and father.  There are even calls to remove the baby's gender from the birth certificate.  A tiny minority is not demanding just tolerance, but codification of its desires into the law.  A dictatorship of the minority. To many, my failure to openly embrace this transformation of societal norms is akin to hate speech.

 

At this rate, what will be the cause in 20 years?  What modern practice will turn out to be oppressive and discriminatory?  What civil right yet remains?