RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen,
Ordinarily I do not post about matters in current news propaganda because those matters are chosen by Commies subverting the nation so she cannot defend herself. Today is an exception. There is news: SCOTUS has ruled on the case of King v. Burwell.
The ruling stabs the hearts of very many. Anger is high because the ruling shows antinomianism rampant, seemingly beyond check.
Steven Hayward at Power Line posted under title Behold, The Supreme Court’s Magical Warp Field Generator and I commented, with edits here, as follows:
The ACA is the fault of Congress, meaning, of a very large number of voters. So it is Congress’ responsibility to fix, delete or replace it. It should be deleted and not replaced because the fundamental wrong is subjecting medical practice to the insurance industry just as the fundamental wrong in education is subjecting pedagogy to union contracts, which is to say: public-private criminal organizations.
So, disappointment in SCOTUS for showing — not initiating, just showing — that legal practice is subject to antinomianism. OK, that is lawyers’ problem. They want to go there? They will take the consequences. (So will the rest of us, willy-nilly, but we are not in the guild and have not guild leverage within the guild, as lawyers do.) But the ACA is not lawyers’ problem, it is voters’ problem.
What should happen is lawyers, as voters, and as leadership from their professional responsibility as citizen-lawyers, should attack the ACA full frontal and in the flanks all at once, massively, full-spectrum, not this dribble in piecemeal to be chopped to pieces.
I doubt lawyers will do that because they are afraid of lefties and enamored of ease, just as teachers, doctors and clergy are, the other, but one, components of a society’s leadership.
This is voters’ problem.
Randy Barnett at Instapundit posts under title The Pressure Now Shifts From Republicans In Congress To Republican Presidential Candidates To Save Us From Obamacare and I commented as follows:
Randy, after the last big ruling, the Chief siding with the lefties on grounds of a tax rather than a penalty, you said that ruling would make the law easier to challenge. Did it? What have you done to that end since then?
IANAL, but I am very disappointed in you guys who are still sitting on your hands, oh yes, writing a lot and cluck clucking, but using your resources to attack, including the public bully pulpit? Not that I see.
My guild, clergy/educators, long since deserted the nation and they only have a bully pulpit of ever diminishing size. I am ashamed of them, my guild, and long since deserted them to focus on raising a generation of intelligent patriots. And I have done that.
But your guild, you have money, time and energy and you have platforms and means that can actually attack bad actors and you do not use them, or you use them in pitifully trivial skirmishes. The big fights you talk about endlessly and intelligently but without moving to contact. That tells me you are afraid of the lefties, as were and remain my guild.
Well, that leaves no one left to lead, does it not? At least no civilians.
Commies are exerting every ounce of will and muscle they can, especially energized by their court today, to rampage across the land, to spend, terrorize and waste her wealth and heritage. Thoughts of riots, firing squads, ax, fist, hammer and acid attacks — and guillotines — are coursing through their fevered, febrile minds. They are looking for their DeFarge to signal, commence and guide a genuine Reign of Terror. They mean business, too, they are serious. The referent now is not 1984 Dystopia, it is 1793 Paris.
Anyone who thinks it is up to others to save them is a randy poltroon.
Iowahawk, 25JUN15: No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it’s nothing compared to Washington DC’s low opinion of you.
Randy Barnett again posts at Instapundit under Yuval Levin’s title King v. Burwell And The Law, and, with edits here, I commented:
ACA may have improved health insurance markets for health insurers but it has not done so for the insured or for doctors. And there is dispute as to whether the intent of ACA was to improve health care markets or to engineer a whole society according to a preconceived assumed utopia. I think it was the latter, just given the actual outcomes (hardly utopic) to date and the known presumptions and predilections of ACA’s creators. Also, intent never is the only variable in either an act or its consequences.
Still, the legal question posed in this post is apposite. It forces the awareness that law cannot enforce itself. It does, at best, give merely an indication of how things should go, ideally, at a moment in history. Law cannot make things happen, regardless of its intent. Only people making and/or administering the law — or not — can do that. And there, in that dimension of life, is the phenomenology on which the Chief seems to me to have based his reasoning and his expression.
In other words, I think he is right. And he is saying, OK you want to/say you want to improve health care markets and this is how you think/say you can/will do that, fine, have it your way, hot ‘n dirty. Sort of the same reasoning so many have regarding black and other extorting rioters: you want to live like fools and dogs, have at it!
This affair, along with today’s festivities, illustrates St. Paul’s truth regarding the incompetence of law to accomplish freedom. It also illustrates my Andover-Yale-Harvard friend’s remark, decades ago, that the law is an ass.
Update 1: The Blindness Of The Ideologically Bound.
Update 2: Sultan Knish: No More Mr. Nice Conservative
Update 3: Spengler: To Defeat Iran Deal, Republicans Must Admit To Mistakes In Iraq
Update 4: Kurt Schlichter: Liberals Use PC Words Because They’re Convenient To Them. Here Are Words To Use Instead
Update 5: Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman: The Next [Supreme Court] Justices
Update 6: Globalization of commerce is not globalization of government. Globalization of government is DOA. Here, though not fully written out, yet, is a framework for what the future likely holds: Three Brothers [nation states] Doctrine to replace Containment Doctrine.
AMDG – VICTORY
