THE FALLACY OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
I got in a bit of trouble one time in a newspaper column I wrote when I called the Supreme Court justices "politicians in black robes." A reader accused me of being "disrespectful to the high court."
This came to mind the other day when by a 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court uphold forced health insurance on most citizens, though many politically connected corporations and organizations have been given waivers from it.
You should study the list of corporations, organizations and so-called "non-profit" groups that have been granted exemptions from the so-called "Obamacare."
The government and courts must be the best friends of the insurance industry and many states have forced auto insurance as well. Too bad the government doesn't try to force some people to work and to be productive citizens if it can force these other things.
A reader challenged me on the comment that the courts are a part of government and judges have a conflict of interest when it comes to cases in which the government is a party.
"We have an independent judiciary," the reader told me.
"Is that so?" I asked. "Who nominates the Supreme Court justices? I asked.
"Well, the president," came the reply. Is the president "political?" Of course.
"Who approves the Supreme Court nominations?" was my next question. "Well, U.S. senators," came that reply. Are U.S. senators political? Of course.
I mentioned that the Supreme Court justices and federal court judges are paid by the federal government, get their health care and other benefits from the U.S. government, will get their retirement from the U.S. government and all of this hardly qualifies them as independent of the government.
They have a special interest in advancing and upholding the apparatus that sustains them in their positions as well as financially.
By the way, the U.S. Supreme Court justice is paid $223,500 a year plus generous benefits, and the associate justices each are paid $213,900 a year plus benefits. Some will argue that is much less than many medical malpractice attorneys make and that is probably true. Not a bad job for life.
Our legal system, in my opinion, is not about promoting Miss Liberty and Miss Justice whose statues were once atop many county courthouses.
Our money---when it was real money, had the likeness of Miss Liberty on it. Those were he days before we started putting the faces of dead political presidents on paper currency. I dare not call it "money."
Our legal system today is far and away more about protecting and furthering the power of government over citizens.
The health care law, most of which was upheld by the justices who are supposed to be protecting the rights of citizens, simply is a boon to keeping a dysfunctional medical industry going.
It's like taking a business in trouble and that is failing and using the force of law to provide it more customers who in some cases don't want to be customers.
One of the best things that would help correct some of the attitudes and practices of the medical industry would be to put it on notice that automatic revenues were not guaranteed. The federal law guarantees more revenue to the system regardless of its quality.
The Obamacare, as some call it, gives our ailing medical system more money without having to earn it by improving standards and by improving overall patient care.
I believe we should be back to the drawing board with our entire medical system, not reward it with more money through the coercion of citizens forced to pay for something some of them don't want or need.
How does forcing millions of additional of Americans to pay for health care give the medical industry any incentive to improve itself?
We hear much from critics of Obamacare that it is "socialized medicine." We already have largely socialized medical care in this country. It's hardly free enterprise when the government greatly restricts through licensing and regulation who can participate in medicine and hospitalization. A doctor once told me the medical system "has one of the best closed shops going."
Consider these points:
---Literally millions of Americans enjoy health care paid for by the taxpayers, some of whom can't afford medical insurance themselves. These include military personnel, federal, state, county and local government employees.
---Millions more are involved in various government programs including medicaid, indigent care, etc.
---Many hospitals are owned by local governments or if they are not, are often owned by non-profit organizations that are not taxed the way other businesses are taxed. This, especially, with the fees some of those who work inside the hospitals make.
---It would be hard to find any doctor who did not learn in a state or county subsidized educational facility.
---It would be hard to find a doctor or other health care professional who was not helped along the way with federal or state loans, scholarships or other help from the taxpayers.
---Hospitals and doctors are licensed by government. It is virtually a closed shop. Licenses reduce or eliminate outside competition. Unless you meet the government criteria, you cannot compete in the system.
I say these things only to show we are already way over our heads in government involvement in health care.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds most of the law that says most people will be forced to pay into a system that most public opinion polls show the public is upset with due to high medical costs, long waits in emergency rooms and an attitude of "you are lucky to get in."
The U.S. Supreme Court failed us. Chief Justice Roberts let much of the controversial law stand because fining people who do not want to go along as cattle is really a "tax." Does that make sense to you? The Supreme Court is involved in politics up to its neck.
The Supreme Court is no longer about protecting citizens from the coercion of big government, but protecting big government from the rights of individual citizens.