02 February 2011

i'm becoming confused

[click image]


I am no good at federal law. I never liked all their fussy rules. I you didn't use the exact weight paper with the precise color backing and the precise number and placement of staples on your precisely-worded pleadings, not only did the judges never see them but the clerks declared them not there at all and you were officially erased. Bad enough you had to do all that, but then, on top of it all, and we're talking DECADES ago, the San Francisco Federal Court Clerk's office was in the midst of celebrating its complete victory over heterosexuality. A gay guy had risen through the ranks and ended up hiring ONLY gay men for that office. You would go with your world-shaking problem, all fervently and hand-wringingly produced just so, endure the hushed ambiance of those exalted precincts to enter the Clerk's office. There would be three or four pinheads playing grabass back there, behind the intimidating counter, amid the exalted files, one of whom eventually deigning to come take your masterpiece to stamp or to wrathfully shred in your face, depending, and then you had to negotiate the hushed precincts again to make your break for the tumble of the city streets again before you screamed.

Anyway, it used to be that when a judge declared something unconstitutional, it would cease while people appealed. This may never have been the case with Federal Law... I just can't remember... but I think, actually, it has always been the case in America, the judicial branch being the last refuge for the abolishment of perfidies, and respected by peon, official and oligarch alike throughout our history. If the appropriate judge nixes it on these grounds, it grinds to a halt until it has reached the end of its travels through whatever appeals system applies. I know they've turned ordinary Superior Court judges into eunuchs, but is there no end to it? If it has ever been so in federal courts, and I think it has, it is no longer:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's health care law has too much momentum for one judge to stop it.

Most insurers, hospital executives and state officials expect they'll keep carrying out the overhaul even after a federal judge cast its fate in doubt by declaring it unconstitutional.

"It's still the law of the land," said William Hoagland, vice president for public policy at health insurer Cigna. "We'll continue to proceed with its requirements, and (the ruling) will not slow that down. We have no other choice until this thing is resolved one way or the other." Insurers spent millions to block passage of the law.

[They spent even more millions getting it passed, but, shhhh....]
Maybe it was never mandatory, but people took it seriously, did not proceed while under the pall of this proscription, but maybe all that has finally just slipped the bonds of my mental conditioning and I shouldn't bring it up at all.

It's goddam unquestionably unconstitutional, and if you'd thought maybe it wasn't, TWO federal judges have already declared it unequivocally so, even against their personal wishes. YET the great edifice of profit no matter who it kills looms so high it blots out the sun.

I mean, if you had ANY question about the insurance oligarchs being displeased in the least by this "healthcare reform", here is your answer. They are avid for it. They are determined to have it. They are not going to be denied.
love, 99


  1. Medicare has withstood constitutional challenges, hasn't it?
    Medicare for All!!

  2. My position, to the letter... but they are winding up for Medicare for None.... I look at it this way: The way things are going, we're going to be past caring about things as piffling as Medicare before they yank it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.