If there’s a “Fans of Fantasyland” club, a majority of Supreme Court Justices ought to sign up for membership — and quickly. The next meeting is convening in the Through-the-Looking-Glass building over on Jabberwocky Blvd.– and these days it’s getting mighty crowded in there.
With their twin, delusional doozies last week — King v. Burwell (upholding Obamacare) and Obergefell v. Hodges (federalizing fake marriage) — the High Court’s majority confirmed: recognizing reality ain’t their strong suit.
In King, the Supremes once again rescued the Affordable Care Act from itself, decreeing that legislation conveniently means something other than what its text literally says.
Patriot Post‘s Nate Jackson summarizes this monstosity:
The language of the law [Obamacare] restricted subsidies to people purchasing health insurance on state exchanges. When 34 states declined to serve as vassals of the federal government, Barack Obama decided to issue subsidies on the federal exchange as well. Some 27 states challenged that “interpretation” of the law … Unfortunately, six black-robed despots agreed that lawlessness should stand.
Obergefell? Five of nine justices transmogrified the matrimonial union, appealing to a document — the U.S, Constitution — which nowhere mentions it, nor grants them jurisdiction over it. Presto-change-o, wave of the judicial wand, in all fifty states the millenia-enshrined institution of marriage now includes two men or two women; they even left room for the old-fashioned man/woman paradigm, awful decent of ’em.
Expandingly, this era’s tack has become: when language is involved — concrete words – meaninglessness prevails. A corollary of this absurdity, regarding the law and those rules that make society tick, is: lawlessness. No stable words equals no stable law. Hereafter, with the release of this oh-so-twenty-first-century decision, there can be no doubt the nation’s top Court has exuberantly bought into an Alice-in-Wonderland worldview of the way things are.
“Words no longer have meaning,” Justice Antonin Scalia snapped in his scorching King dissent.
National Review‘s Kevin D. Williamson puts it thusly (resorting to inescapably garbled prose, because these decisions are inescapably garbled):
In the matter of the so-called Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law must not say what it in fact does say because it would be better if it were not to say what it says and were to say something else instead. In the matter of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court rules that the law must say what it does not say because it would be better if it were to say what it does not say instead of what it says. Which is to say, the Supreme Court has firmly established that it does not matter what the law says or does not say — what matters is what they want.
Humpty Dumpty’s puckish two cents: ” When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
It’s our “living and breathing” judicial Fabulists interpreting a “living and breathing” Constitution while doing their best Carnac the Magnificent send-up: reading the minds and intentions of Congress and our Founders to either shrink or expand the definitions of the “plain text” they wrote. The result? A pair of you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me rulings with gigantic, and likely detrimental, impact on U.S. policy and American citizens’ lives. And ominous precedent for future judicial branch mischief.
So, one can only conclude the Court’s majority also are exuberantly down with Rachel Dolezal’s claim to her “black” persona, even though she’s a Caucasian in every quantifiable way — historically, congenitally, conspicuously. But what does all that matter? She feels she’s African-American. She says she’s one. Black, don’t you know, suddenly includes white.
And “Caitlyn” — that is Bruce — Jenner? Ginsberg, Kagan, Roberts, most of the Justices must be gushing over him/her, although from stem to stern, inside and out, by every measure that matters, he is male. Again, the demonstrable data? Irrelevant. Jenner claims female status. Fantasists swoon. Discussion wrapped.
And so America, as well, increasingly gets a pass on the way things actually are, in what has long become a deepening and troubling habit of reality-denial by our leaders, celebrities, society in general.
Check that; let me qualify the last statement: it’s merely a temporary pass granted. The facts of life, you see, aren’t just an embarrassing topic red-faced parents discuss with their adolescents, or a popular 70’s sit-com. The facts of life — ie, reality — are also a remorseless task-master which always come a-callin’ when, finally, circumstantial critical-mass is reached.
Novelist Philip K. Dick spells it out as concisely as anyone: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Think: the smart-alecky college student, insolently insisting on his independence from mom and dad — until the money runs out half-way thorough the semester. Or the relational, familial and civilizational chaos that ensues after several decades’ insisting that “sex” and “gender” are gossamer social constructs to be cast aside at will. Or the economic cataclysm inevitably following generational
overspending, overtaxing, bread-and-circuses fiscal diversions and court-enabled word-games.
Think: a Supreme Court which repeatedly violates its oath to ” support and defend the Constitution of the United States “; to apply the law — not spitball it, alter it, contort it according to the day’s popular fads or their pet preferences.
We’re not just talking about an emotionally troubled, former superstar-athlete or ditzy civil rights’ activist; a creepy reality-TV topic or amusing talk-radio bait. These characters carry the title “Mr or Madame Justice”. They’re supposed to serve as final stop-gap against anti-constitutional loopiness. Instead, we find out they’re throwing in with it.
It’s a scenario staggeringly worthy of the Caitlyn Jenner/Rachel Dolezal generation.