–Justice Scalia’s perfect response and reasonable interpretation

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.

When told that deciding against the government in the the ACA (Obamacare) case before the Supreme Court (King v. Burwell) could result in the loss of health care insurance for more than 7 million Americans, Justice Antonin (“Money is speech”) Scalia gave the perfect conservative response:

“If the only reasonable interpretation of a particular provision produces disastrous consequences in the rest of the statute, it nonetheless means what it says.”

Could he have said it any better?

Here is a translation of his majestic, soaring words.

“I am rich, and the people who put me here are rich. I personally have the best health care insurance in the world, and I can access the best doctors in the world. So can all my friends.

“I neither was selected nor paid to worry about what happens to the ordinary people of America, as a result of my decisions. I was selected and paid to defend the rights of the rich and powerful.

“So long as I do that, I will continue to take free vacations with the rich and powerful. Those are my people, not those ‘tired, poor, huddled masses,’ you bleeding-heart liberals love to bleat about.

“I don’t know a single, poor person, and I don’t care to.

“I am called ‘Justice,’ but it is not my job seek justice, but rather to read the words, and if I can find some way to make them comport with what the rich people want, I will rule accordingly.

“I am a conservative, bought and paid for.”

This “Justice” indicates that so far as he is concerned, the ONLY reasonable interpretation will cause disastrous consequences for the poor. For him, there are no other reasonable interpretations.

Strangely, other Supreme Court Justices do find other reasonable interpretations. But, if Scalia wears conservative blinders, who provided them?

Challenge to Health Overhaul Puts Obscure Think Tank in Spotlight

WASHINGTON — In the orbit of Washington think tanks, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is an obscure name with a modest budget that belies its political connections to conservative titans like the Koch brothers.

But the institute, a libertarian research group, enjoyed a coming-out of sorts on Wednesday, as the lawsuit that it organized and bankrolled — challenging the Affordable Care Act — was heard by the Supreme Court.

The case has the potential to end federal insurance subsidies for some 7.5 million people in 34 states.

Until now, the 31-year-old think tank was probably best known as a strident critic of what it calls “global warming alarmism.” It has also been a ceaseless advocate for small government.

It has teamed up with state attorneys general to challenge an array of Obama administration regulations on financial, air-quality and other issues.

Ah, that beautiful Libertian troika at work: Small government (aka reduce benefits to the poor) no global warming and no pollution control. It’s hard to top the Libertarians for modern enlightenment.

The institute said its positions are “developed independently and are not influenced by the views of donors.

Those donors include conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, Dunn’s Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking in Florida and the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, Exxon Mobil, General Motors, Verizon and many other major corporations.

Thank goodness all those Libertarian, anti-poor, anti-health, pro-wealth positions are not influenced by people who are known to throw their money away.

Note to “Justice” Scalia: Next time you speak about “reasonable interpretations,” tell us how we should interpret your free ride on Dick Cheney’s Air Force Two jet to a duck hunting vacation — a vacation hosted by a party to a case coming before you.

You refused to recuse yourself for a clear conflict of interest.

Let us know what the “reasonable interpretation” of that should be.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

P.S. More Scalia right-wing “twist-the-law-to-suit-my-political-agenda”:

Here’s What Scalia Said About Obamacare Last Week. It’s Not What He Said 3 Years Ago.
Posted: 03/09/2015

While many principals in this saga have engaged in “motivated reasoning” — that is, starting with a preferred political outcome, then crafting logic to fit it — Scalia is becoming famous for it.

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 “–Justice Scalia’s perfect response and reasonable interpretation

  1. There’s a good way to test the legitimacy and broad applicability of Justice Scalia’s response and those who follow the idea that specific words in legislations mean just what they say when viewed narrowly, and not what they it could mean if viewed in context. When the Constitution was enacted, corporations as we know them today did not exist and they were not mentioned. They did exist when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted after the Civil War but still, they were not mentioned. Thus, by the narrow interpretation favored by the Federalist Society, there is no way to argue that Congress ever intended corporations to have the rights and privileges of citizens or persons until the Court decided that they do. The complete body of corporate law that is based on the idea that corporations have those rights and privileges is without Constitutional basis. Five will get you nine that Scalia wouldn’t take that position.


  2. Conservatives speak:

    This Week In Crazy


    Senator Who Cited Snowball In Climate Change Debate Cites Scripture To Back Himself Up

    Senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, became the object of global ridicule recently when he sauntered onto the floor of the world’s greatest deliberative body with what he declared was persuasive evidence climate change was a hoax. In his hands was a snowball.

    In his recent book on climate change, which he titles The Greatest Hoax, he assures readers that the scientists — which he refers to as “alarmists” throughout the book — can be ignored because a greater Authority has already spoken.

    “I take my religion seriously,” Inhofe writes. “[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains.”

    Justice Scalia Once Again Repeating Right-Wing Media Talking Points In Health Care Challenge


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