Our 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.