Elisberg Industries
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like
Decent Quality Since 1847

Courting Disaster

7/1/2014

0 Comments

 
There are times when words actually do fail -- but that doesn't mean you don't try.

When the Supreme Court voted to give an "exception" to businesses who say they have religious conflicts over aspects of the Affordable Care Act, it pretty much pulled away the curtain that only-just-barely kept the public from seeing those five men operating the big giant head of Oz.

I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional expert, so my opinion on legal matters here means zero.  Then again, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an expert.  And her scathing, expansive, 35-page dissent spoke volumes.  Granted, many if not most Supreme Court decisions have dissents, so that by itself doesn't prove anything.  But what I think the visceral power of her words does is express what even non-lawyers can see clearly.

And what they can see is that the simple, small "exception" is anything but, and opens the door to any business to pick-and-choose what they don't like in this law -- and if this law, why not any other law?  (What is it about contraceptive devices that puts them above other laws, after all?)  And it opens any religion to pick-and-choose what parts of any law they find goes against their beliefs.  (What is it about contraceptive devices, after all, that puts them above other laws?)  And it opens any individual to pick-and-choose what parts of laws they as individuals believe they only need follow -- for who's to say why one's person's personal religious belief is more valid than another's, even if that belief is limited to a single person?  And what is it about...well, you know...

I'm sure that the majority members on the Supreme Court love to try and suggest that this is just a "limited" decision -- something they've loved doing ever since Bush v. Gore, when they trampled the rationality of the Constitution.  But pure logic and common sense says otherwise.  Then again, if common sense was actually operating, this decision wouldn't have passed as "law."  Are Americans supposed to seriously believe that a contraceptive device is Constitutionally more meaningful, seriously, than anything else in health care?  A blood transfusion?  Vaccinations?  A heart transplant?  Anything?

"Startling breadth" is the phrase Justice Ginsberg used in her dissent.

Seriously.  Where are all those "originalists" on the Supreme Court who supposedly, they insist, only believe in what the Founder Fathers intended and wrote in the Constitution.  Apparently, these justices think that intrauterine devices and the morning-after pill were part of the original intent.

This was a legal decision based on "law" the same way the Pope makes pronouncements based on scientific research.

I understand conservative Supreme Court judges wanting to support their personal principle.  But living your life based on personal principle is worlds different from setting Constitutional law for everyone.  

And I understand conservative Supreme Court judges wanting to support their personal religious beliefs.  But that's why God created houses of worship.

If Supreme Court judges want to jerry-rig the Constitution to fit their personal principles and religious beliefs, the minimum we should expect from them is that they at least try to make it seem less obvious -- if only for the sake of putting on a good show.  After all, you never want to see the special effect given away and puppet strings, it ruins the illusion.

I am sure that there will be members of the religious right who'll say that this disappointed reaction is all just sour grapes from liberals and sane, rational humans who don't like a Supreme Court decision.  But this isn't a case of not "liking" a decision -- it's a case of seeing the illogical, problematic conflicts which the decision causes by saying it is merely "limited" in scope, when it can't be anything but the opposite.

Ultimately, this is such a conservative thing to do.  We don't like that Bill Clinton was elected president -- let's impeach him.  We don't like that Barack Obama was elected president -- let's insist he's illegitimate.  We don't like that black people are voting -- let's restrict the rules when polling booths will be open.  We don't like that the law allows women to get abortions -- let's make it as difficult as possible to get those legal abortions.  We don't like that President Obama signs Executive Orders, even though the fewest in 117 years, even though more than half as few as Ronald Reagan signed -- let's threaten to sue him.  We don't like the Affordable Care Act -- let's allow people to individually block whatever parts the want.

So much for the "Party of Law and Order."

Would that all laws were such that we could pick and choose what parts of laws we must follow, based solely on our religious belief.  Imagine that world.

There is a religion I know that believes "red" is the color of the devil, and it is morally wrong to stop at intersections.  Well, okay, I don't actually know of such a religion, but I wouldn't put it past someone starting it tomorrow.

There is a religion I know, though, that believes conservative decisions by the Supreme Court are the work of the devil, and it is morally wrong to follow them.  Oh, okay, again, no, I don't actually now of such a religion, but I wouldn't put it past someone starting it today.

What if you're a Quaker or some other pacifist religion that's against war or -- hey, Thou Shalt Not Kill.  Why can't they now not pay taxes that go to the military?

Y'know, my feeling is that if the owners of a private business are against abortion, they shouldn't be forced to have one.  And they also shouldn't be forced to perform one.  But if they choose to actually hire American citizens as they're employees, they should stay out of their employees bedrooms and lives and provide them the opportunity to live them as they see fit.

If you provide an employee with a birth control device, there is nothing in the law that says it must be used. Maybe they want to have the birth control device to keep on their shelf as a reminder of the evil of its ways.  
 What the employee does with it is their own personal choice.  In the end, I thought that's what conservatives so dearly loved.  Supposedly.  The whole "Era of Personal Responsibility."

Yes, yes, I know.  That's as naive as thinking conservatives actually believe in small government and fiscal responsibility.  Under Ronald Reagan, after all, the Godfather of Modern Conservatism, the national debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the federal government expanded by 60,000 federal workers. It's getting more clear that conservatives believe in government as big and vaginally invasive as possible that passes any law, as long as they approve.

It's the Supreme irony.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
    Picture
    Follow @relisberg

    Author

    Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. 

    Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, and two best-selling novels, is a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and was for
    the Huffington Post.  Among his other writing, he has a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel.  As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.



    Picture
           Feedspot Badge of Honor

    Archives

    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Animals
    Audio
    Audio Land
    Books
    Business
    Chicago
    Consumer Product
    Education
    Email Interview
    Entertainment
    Environment
    Fine Art
    Food
    From The Management
    Health
    History
    Huffery
    Humor
    International
    Internet
    Journalism
    Law
    Los Angeles
    Media
    Morning News Round Up
    Movies
    Music
    Musical
    Personal
    Photograph
    Piano Puzzler
    Politics
    Popular Culture
    Profiles
    Quote Of The Day
    Radio
    Religion
    Restaurants
    Science
    Sports
    Tech
    Technology
    Tech Tip
    Theater
    The Writers Workbench
    Tidbits
    Travel
    Tv
    Twitter
    Video
    Videology
    Well Worth Reading
    Words-o-wisdom
    Writing

    RSS Feed

© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2023
Contact Us    About EI    Chicago Cubs
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like