–Guess: Who on the Supreme Court are the “arses” who decide against consumers?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the Gap.

Imagine a case coming before the Supreme Court, in which the decision either could go for business or for consumers.

If I told you the decision was 6-3 in favor of consumers, guess which three Supreme Court justices voted against consumers.

You get just one try at this. That should be enough.

Justices: Dentists can’t decide who whitens your teeth
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 3:22 p.m. EST February 25, 2015

WASHINGTON — Dentists can make your teeth sparkling white, but they can’t decide who else can, the Supreme Court said Wednesday.

The justices ruled 6-3 that a North Carolina state board dominated by dentists acted illegally by excluding non-dentists from the business of teeth whitening — a business that had been offered at reduced rates in shopping malls, spas and stores.

To be sure, dentists generally aren’t among the upper .1% we often castigate for wanting to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. But this is a case of one business wanting to offer a service to the public, more cheaply than another business does.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said state boards composed mostly of active market participants run the risk of self-dealing.

“This conclusion does not question the good faith of state officers but rather is an assessment of the structural risk of market participants’ confusing their own interests with the state’s policy goals,” he said.

In short, if a business wants to whiten teeth at a lower price, which would take business away from dentists, you can’t have a government board, composed of dentists, preventing the public from saving money.

Here is the answer to the title question:

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented. They held that the dental board was properly administering state licensing requirements.

Get it? “Properly administering state licensing requirements.” One can almost hear the “harrumph, harrumph” from these law-and-order types. So long as the dentists followed regulations, who cares whether their own self interest trumped the public’s interest?

A federal appeals court agreed that the board had acted as a group of private practitioners, not as a state agency.

During oral arguments in October, that appeared to be a problem the majority of justices would not brush aside: Why should dentists who profit from teeth whitening get to push non-dentists who offer less expensive services out of business?

“Is this party, this board of all dentists, is there a danger that it’s acting to further its own interests rather than the governmental interests of the state?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. “And that seems almost self-­evidently to be true.”

Well, ye-s-s-s-s. Do we really expect a businessman to vote impartially about whether to lose his customers to another business? According to Alito, Scalia and Thomas (Oh, my!), there’s no problem, so long as “state licensing requirements” are followed.

No, Mr. Bumble, the law is not an “arse.” Rather, judges who lack sense interpret the law senselessly — they are the arses.

That is why the same arses gave us the “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” the “McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission” and the “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby” decisions. It’s their pattern.

Arses, all.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Federally funded, free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


3 thoughts on “–Guess: Who on the Supreme Court are the “arses” who decide against consumers?

  1. I’m not so sure they are mere arses. Following your logic, isn’t their position simply buttressing the barriers to entry the super rich strive to maintain? So ironic to hang it all on regulatory administration……


  2. Every once in a while Justices Scalia and Thomas do the right thing, but Justice Alito can be depended on to support entrenched power 100% of the time. If you’re a corporation, you get whatever you want. If you’re a government, you get what you want if corporations don’t object. If you’re a person, you get whatever corporations and governments leave you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s