Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
The debt reduction “super committee” was a failure by any measure, not only because it failed to agree, but more importantly, because it was designed to fail. It was a purely political organization, whose decisions were to have nothing to do with the underlying facts, but only be a series of political compromises and power plays.
The super committee could have “succeeded,” if that word even can be used, only if one party had held a majority in the committee, in which case, decisions would have reflected the wishes of that party.
Which brings us to the United States Supreme Court.
The Washington Post
Health-care case brings fight over which Supreme Court justices should decide it
By Robert Barnes, Published: November 27
Just a little more than an hour after some House Democrats recently demanded an inquiry into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethics, Senate Republicans stepped up the pressure on Justice Elena Kagan to take herself out of the court’s decision on the health-care reform act.
The process repeated itself a few days later. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) called for the release of more documents about Kagan’s role as President Obama’s solicitor general; the liberal group People for the American Way came out with another broadside against Thomas.
Accusations about both justices, from the left and the right, show no signs of dissipating now that the Supreme Court has said it will review the constitutionality of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Arguing about which Justices may or may not have conflicts of interest is like arguing about which religions are best or worst. It’s a ridiculous exercise based on phony arguments leading to a pack of lies.
You have seen images of Lady Justice. Here she is on the lamp posts outside the United States Supreme Court.
She is blindfolded to demonstrate justice being meted out dispassionately and impartially, to indicate judges should be ruled neither by their hearts nor personal beliefs, but only by the law. She holds scales which symbolize how facts for and against each claim are weighed evenly. And she carries a sword to demonstrate her power and ability to cut through to the truth.
That is our even-handed, apolitical Supreme Court, devoid of interest conflicts.
Would that it were so. In truth, the U.S. Supreme Court is no less political, no less conflicted than the Congress or the President.
Consider the “Appointments Clause” (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) which states: “ . . . he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court. . . “
Being appointed by the #1 politician in America, subject to the consent of the #1 political body in America, guarantees the appointed Justice will be a highly political creature, which in turn guarantees he/she will be neither dispassionate nor impartial nor without conflicts. Forget the blindfold and the scales. The United States Supreme Court is nothing more than another, highly partisan “super committee.”
And consider the Senate hearings, where each nominee swears he/she has no prior thoughts, ideas, convictions, beliefs or prejudices about anything in the world. To hear them testify, they each are blank slates, having lived apart from humanity, and acquiring no leanings of any kind.
So, the process begins with the nominators denying any political motivation and the nominee lying right along with them, and no one believing any of them — the theater of the absurd.
Perhaps the one difference between the Supreme Court and the super committee, and it is an important difference, is the lifetime appointment. Surprising to many, this nowhere is mentioned in the Constitution, which says only that Justices may hold office “during good behavior.” No Justice ever has been removed for “bad” behavior, though this theoretically is possible.
Which brings us back to the biggest case of the year: The health-care law’s individual mandate, requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance beginning in 2014 or pay a penalty. The Court will decide if the provision is constitutional, whether it can be severed from the rest of the law and whether the penalty is a tax.
A dispassionate evaluation of underlying law will have little affect on the decisions, which ultimately will be based primarily on political motivation. Republican-appointed Justices will tend to lean toward the Republican desire to get rid of so-called “Obamacare,” while Democrat-appointed Justices will lean toward retained the law: Purely political decisions masquerading as even-handed law.
The fact that Justice Roberts agrees with Justice Alito an astounding 96% of the time while agreeing with Justice Ginsburg only 65% of the time (Justice agreement) is not an accident, nor is it a reflection of underlying facts. It reflects the lack of dispassion.
So ignore all the moaning a bleating about which Justice should recuse. None will and none should. They all are what they are: Lying politicians.
Let the games begin.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports