Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (778366)	4/4/2014 3:11:07 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1577030

I really don't know why I waste time posting to a tool like you but here goes… +++ commondreams.org Published on Thursday, April 3, 2014 by Esquire The American Government Is Open for Corruption by Charles P. Pierce banned Grant Schreiber • 19 hours ago Move On and other Dem groups will try to rally around this decision for D votes . Pretend the D's will be better. Do you feel good now? Giovanna banned • 11 hours ago "Move On and other Dem groups will try to rally around this decision for D votes . Pretend the D's will be better. Do you feel good now?" _________________________ Absolutely. It's unfortunate, but people will buy into it, too, in spite of the Democrat's abysmal record. The theater played out in this current McCutcheon decision is the same one we see played out in Congress. As long as enough partisan votes are secure to insure the desired outcome, then no one need cross “the aisle”. In this case, since it was a fait accompli that the five Republican justices would rubber stamp this abomination, the Democratic justices get to appear to take the supposed high ground, which, right on cue, prompted the predictable hosannas of vindication from the tireless supporters of political “Lesser Evilism” on behalf of the Democrats. It is therefore worth asking ourselves what we think would have happened in this case had there only been four Republican justices on the court instead of five. In other words, does anyone honestly believe that had there not been five Republican justices to secure the desired outcome on behalf of the capitalist class that one of the supposed “left” justices would not have aligned with their counterparts on the “right”? To honestly answer this question, it’s instructive to look back on the fig leaf of legal legitimacy that SCOTUS bestowed upon Obamacare’s mandate that forces the public to purchase private health insurance. As I recall, prior to that SCOTUS “decision”, liberals, despite conceding all of Obamacare’s numerous “flaws” (“it’s a first step in the right direction!”), were worried sick that the five Republican justices would intentionally thwart their guy Obama, and find the mandate “unconstitutional”. I also recall thinking at the time that, in spite of the Court’s Republican majority, there was NO way this mandate was going to be deemed unlawful, even though it clearly should have been. To deem the mandate unlawful would have pissed off the legislation's intended beneficiaries, the parasitic health insurance cartel, and that simply was NOT going to happen. Sure enough, guess which member of the esteemed Republican justices crossed the metaphorical aisle to find Obama's purchase mandate constitutional? That’s right. It was the ultra-right, Bush-appointed, neoliberal/corporatist Chief Justice John Roberts. Of course, shock ensued from both Republican and Democratic constituencies, with both sides wondering how Roberts could possibly have aligned himself with the "enemy" Obama’s “socialist” health care legislation. Now, I don’t pretend to know whether Roberts drew the “short straw” or simply decided to “take one for the team”, but there was simply NO way Obamacare was going to be found unconstitutional. One of the Republican justices was going to have to cast the deciding vote to give legal cover, once again, to the hallowed profit system, because, after all, as with this latest McCutcheon ruling, preserving the profit system and protecting its elite beneficiaries is what all of these rulings represent. From the President, to the Congress, to the Supreme Court, protection of the profit system is Job One. One would only be shocked by Roberts’s decision regarding Obamacare if one didn’t clearly understand how, why, and for whom the "justice" system functions. Regardless of party affiliation, SCOTUS will always validate on behalf of the capitalist ruling class, which OWNS both parties. Anyone who thinks that this McCutcheon decision would have gone any other way had there been five Democrats on the court as opposed to four wants to pretend that the Supreme Court functions as a neutral arbiter of justice, instead of as a corrupt tool of imperial capital. Dream on.