My, my! What a week for the demonstration of arrogance in government!<\/p>\n
We began with the “defense” of Obamacare, now called by Scalia and taken up by a congressman as SCOTUScare, where we were treated to the nonsensical “thought” of the Chief Justice that since congress intended something, and it’s clearly UNCLEAR what it intended as it was passed in the dead of night with no one reading it, while we were told the nonsensical “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”, we must now create law to save it. This despite the fact it is pretty obvious to any even casual observer that congress <i>now<\/i> is against Obamacare, and only the rearguard actions of the likes of Harry Reid has saved it from complete congressional disfavour.<\/p>\n
Now we find there is yet another<\/em> “fundamental right” hidden in the constitution lo these many years. It seems to be the right to “marry”. Note that it is only “fundamental” if you are gay; no mention is made of whether you still have that right if you are 10, or want to marry your sister. Or mother (Oedipus lives! But maybe only among the Greeks.) I thought we learned our lesson about creating “rights” out of whole cloth in Roe vs Wade<\/em>. Apparently not.<\/p>\n One has to also question whether there is also a “fundamental right” to marry, say THREE women – simultaneously (I know, I know – it boggles the imagination, but “It could happen!” as Judy Tanuta use to say<\/em>). Or men. Or perhaps we ought to have a platoon wedding, seeing as guys in a platoon are closer than husbands and wives – at least in a combat deployment. So temporary marriage. Because otherwise it would affect “our sense of self”.<\/p>\n ?How about if you want to marry your dog – to fulfill yourself, of course. It sounds “strange” but then it sounded strange to consider homosexuals as “married” before. So anything is possible. And knowing lawyers, it really won’t be long. I understand the call for polygamy has already been made.<\/p>\n Pshaw! you say. Not so fast. The legal “argument” made by Kennedy is SO sloppy, SO not anchored in any law, that it opens the way for all manner of things.<\/p>\n ?And what of the Tenth Amendment. Let’s apparently simply overlook that. Just pay no attention to that.<\/p>\n Things are going to be changing. But probably not for the better.<\/p>\n My, my! What a week for the demonstration of arrogance in government!<\/p>\n We began with the “defense” of Obamacare, now called by Scalia and taken up by a congressman as SCOTUScare, where we were treated to the nonsensical “thought” of the Chief Justice that since congress intended something, and it’s clearly UNCLEAR what it intended as it was passed in the dead of night with no one reading it, while we were told the nonsensical “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”, we must now create law to save it. This despite the fact it is pretty obvious to any even casual observer that congress <i>now<\/i> is against Obamacare, and only the rearguard actions of the likes of Harry Reid has saved it from … Continue reading