Rule by edict

imageOur current system of governance is extremely corrupt, and the people who thrive in such a system are third and fourth-rate humans. We devote our national treasure to making weapons and attacking other places to steal resources. That is our primary function. The president and the congress are sold on this enterprise and lead the charge.

Bribery is at the center of our politics. I have seen people write with some pride that those who are getting the most bribes ought to be held up for praise. I am not kidding.

Over the years I’ve come to question everything that was drilled into me in my youth, about noble men and women and high ideals and sterling institutions above suspicion of corruption. But when bribery is at the center, private wealth concentration is the source of real power. So all government institutions are in play. It is all for sale. We cannot have huge concentrations of wealth and democracy at once. They cannot coexist.

The Supreme Court is as susceptible to coercion by private power as any other government enterprise. I should have seen it in 1964, when Earl Warren allowed his name to be used in the cover-up of the public execution of the president. I impugned higher motives to him, never wanting to think that he was merely part of the corruption. But he was. Johnson may have threatened him, but his status as a man above politics should have exempted him from the bullying. It did not.

We are taught to believe that the court is the legitimate final voice in matters, and that when it decides a case, that’s the end of it. Further, because these nine judges are termed for life, we are taught to think that they are above politics and bribes, and so are not corruptible.

But if everything else is corrupt, how can they be exempt?

We were witness to political theater where it was made to appear that a real public debate about the Affordable Health Care Act was going on in a six-month stretch back in 2009. It was all scripted. The bill that WellPoint executive Liz Fowler wrote passed intact. It coerced us to buy health insurance from private concentrations of power and wealth, the health insurance cartel (also known as AHIP). It was also written to subsidize this cartel.

Part of that bill allowed for expansion of Medicaid, a sweetener to help this toxic brew go down easier. But the Supreme Court, the mullahs, threw out that part.

Question: if the court is corrupt, like the president and the congress, was their role scripted as well? Was that case also part of the Kabuki Theater? I would say probably so. Most likely the President and the congress knew in advance that placing Medicaid expansion in the bill would be later jettisoned.

But wait … there are surprises. ACA is threatened as a lower court has ruled (Halbig) that the subsidies to the insurance cartel are not legal in the 36 states that did not set up exchanges. It does appear that various interests are wanting to tear down that part of the bill, but the reasons are not clear. I do not know that this is a scripted move or a tempest in a teapot. At stake are billions in the pipeline to AHIP, and incidentally, access to the health care system for perhaps five million people who cannot otherwise afford it.

Again, the mullahs decide, and since they have already ruled the mandate and the subsidies legal, the best bet would be that they will continue to allow the system as designed by Fowler to function. The case is based on the actual wording of the law, so Fowler may have screwed up, but I doubt that such trifling matters will get in the way of the subsidy.

I have suggested here before that there is nothing about the Court that places them above suspicion of corruption. The Constitution is a flawed document, but it was not written to allow judges the final say over the other two branches. That power was usurped early on in Marbury, so it is not legitimate anyway.

Among the many reforms needed in our land is an easier process of overruling the mullahs when they step out of line, as they so obviously did with Citizens United, for instance. It should simply be easy for the president and the congress to overrule the court when it overreaches. CU was so obviously flawed that is should have been shot down that day, but our system does not self-correct.

Bringing down the mullahs would yield chaos, you say? No. Just uncertainty, and a court less willing to stick its nose in places. Some good things, as Roe V Wade, have come down by court edict over the years that we assume government by edict to be a good thing. It can benefit us, but it is a two-edged sword. We live in a time of extreme corruption in our institutions. In that situation, government by edict is a dangerous way to live.

14 thoughts on “Rule by edict

  1. I see you have riled up your fatalist friends who still believe in the Democratic Party, come hell or high water. These core Party regulars admit to knowing all about those horrible things you write about, yet choose to ignore, cash their checks, chat about mindless minutia while drinking “fair-trade” imported beverages, and vote again for the same crap. This is the kind of “heart rot” that eventually takes down every socio-political system ever devised. So, in a twisted sort of way these parasites eat away at the corrupt support system that keeps a Baucus, a Bush or a Clinton in power — and a roof over their flunkee heads. It’s the “Three Little Pigs” all over again, except they started in the brick house, left it, retreated into the stick house, then the straw house, and are now about to be eaten but could care less. God’s will, no doubt.


    1. I was thinking as I dealt with them (and I am talking about Conner, Talbot and Pogie, Turner and Nameless Range), that they are not civil towards people who do not meet them on their level, and a kind of attack mode takes over and I become an object of scorn. Without anyone telling them to do so, they are acting out the gatekeeper role. They represent that barrier on the center-right side of the Democratic Party that says “this far, no further.”

      I’m kind of tired of it but have an idea how to carry on writing here and keep it fun. More tomorrow.


  2. Maybe they’re auditioning for FEMA camp security jobs when the shit hits the fan and the next mass roundup begins — again. They seem to be aware that a witchhunt is brewing. By putting their authoritarian cred on display now it might buy them a pass for formerly being, or sounding, “liberal.” Is that Pavlov enough?


  3. There will be a circular firing squad today of epic proportions as the full ramifications of senator Walsh’s self destruction unfold. Getchya popcorn ready.

    Steve, we can’t all be purists making a living defending the environment and spending our every waking hour putting everything and anything through the litmus test. All due respect because I do follow your work and appreciate what you do, but your attitude is presumptuous to say the least. If the republicans or any third party wheels out the corpse of Bob Kelleher to run for office again I would certainly be willing to vote against the democrats.


    1. Oy vey. Again with the voting. Is that our only tool as citizens? If so, we’re fucked.

      Steve is merely a citizen activist and does not get paid for that. He attempts to inject accountability into a otherwise corrupt system by demanding that agencies and politicians obey the law. When they don’t, he and others like him initiate lawsuits demanding lawful behavior, and usually win because the lawbreaking can be demonstrated before a judge.

      Got a problem with that? Politicians do, which is why they are so busy trying to make lawsuits illegal. They also use the news and entertainment media to make it appear that engaging in such activity as Steve and his compadres do is a frivolous behavior. It is voting that is frivolous, and voting is where they want you to spend your time.


  4. I don’t think the system of “judicial review” is necessarily corrupt or inherently flawed, but it is somewhat a house of cards. I believe President Roosevelt demonstrated one way to openly bring the Court to heel with threat to pack it with more justices during the depression era disputes over legality of work projects and regulation. He at least outwardly threatened to bring the sort of chaos you refer to and they backed down. I’d think the supreme. Court and their clerks have very big files at the NSA.


    1. Judicial review, per se, is not in the constitution and is by definition a usurped power. However, in and of itself it is a useful tool if there is a counterbalance to it so that the other two breaches can slap the judges down when they get out of line.

      Citizens United is the perfect example, as contrary to their own self-imposed codes of behavior, they sought out this suit and went outside its dispute boundaries so that they could impose their system over the prior one on the entire nation. the old system was flawed but theirs is utterly and easily corruptible.

      Obama said in his SOTU how wrong the ruling was, and typical of a Democrat, managed to suck up the energy against it and make sure it went nowhere. But a ruling as outlandish as that should be held up for counterbalancing review, where a simple vote of either house or a presidential order can stay it until there is unanimous consent. As it is, they rule and it settles and until they die (and at such a times as we have an honest president) and are replaced by better judges, again, we’re fucked. That’s a deeply flawed system.


      1. Well it’s flawed in the sense that individuals are flawed and exhibit corrupt behavior, I’m not sure there is a governmental system that is not susceptible to corruption. Sometimes as a whole it works as designed as you refer to above with groups that demonstrate unlawful behavior before a judge and their grievances are redressed.


        1. All human systems are subject to corruption, and corruption always exists to some degree. Any accountant worth his salt will tell you that if you design a financial system with doorways, people will use them.

          But the US at this point of time is extremely corrupt so that few of our institutions function well, all are led to some degree by psychopaths, liars and crooks, and good people are intimidated into silence at every point possible. This is “pathocracy,” and the reason we are in it is murder and bribery – that is, moles embedded themselves in the system after World War II, many allied with German SS and US OSS, and started threatening and murdering their way inside everything. McCarthyism represented a removal of thousands of dedicated public servants, driven from government by coercion. 11/22/63 was merely the public coming out of the entrenched forces, a debutante ball of sorts.

          And yes, you’re right, that we can still get a day in court on minor matters of public policy, but do note that it is the thrust of Burns and Baucus and Tester that the law be written to eliminate the ability of people to take the agencies to court. That’s a timber lobby goal, and is bipartisan.


        2. True enough, but why start at World War 2? I don’t think the US was probably any less of a ‘pathocracy’ through the 1800s and up to that point. The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798?


          1. Those forces are always with us, and honestly, all countries need them to survive. What we did was institutionalize them in 1948, and OSS, coupled with 40,000 or so Nazi’s brought in under Paperclip, soon began to exert their presence. Ike warned us about them, timidly, as he left office.

            There’s a difference between having sin-eaters work the shadows of life, and having psychopaths actually running the country. There have been so many murders now, so many black ops, that I don’t see recovery without collapse of some sort. That’s the only thing that redeemed Germany and the Soviet Union. Collapse and rebirth.


  5. Abe,
    Sorry you feel that way. FYI, I have never made my living defending the environment, and have been 100% volunteer for over 20 years. I do what I can.

    If you have evidence, any evidence at all, contrary to my opinion, please, do share. If you disapprove because you think I’m doing something that I have no right or authority to do, well, then please be more specific. If you simply don’t like my style, then please get in line. And if you think everything is okay, no need for corrective action, you certainly needn’t trouble yourself with anyone’s thoughts or actions you find objectionable. Why not just put it on cruise control and enjoy the ride?


  6. Thanks Abe. Now that we’ve got that cleared up, there’s the not-so-small matter in Gaza. Hospitals, schools and now the U.N. are bombing targets hit in the past few days by Israeli war criminals.

    It may interest some to know that Israel helped Hamas get on its feet early on with cash and spies as a “counterbalance” to the PLO.

    Another “freedom fighter” project gone terribly bad — or more likely near-perfect execution with “pinpoint accuracy” in a long game of the extermination of Palestine and its indigeneous people. When will Americans wake up to the fact that none of this is accidental or the handywork of bungling bureaucrats? What you’re seeing is the plan, and has been the plan all along, and we’ve been in on it for a long, long time now. The recent lone no vote in the U.N. was truly another milestone in American exceptionalism. Professional (criminal) courtesy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s