This often happens to me. I start down a thought road, planning to talk about one thing, and then I get off on a different road. As Sherlock Holmes described it, I follow the thread where it leads. I had planned to talk about this weeks refusal by the Supreme Court to issue a writ of cert to hear Gee v Planned Parenthood, but I got interested in Justice Thomas’ dissent.
Understandably, he is upset at the refusal of the Court to hear the case. There are those who believe that his dissent is rooted in ideology, and it may be. Clearly, he hates abortion and would vote to overturn Roe v Wade faster than a Michael Cohen news story gets on the air. But he does make a valid point – the jurisdiction and duty of the Court, as intended by the Framers, was to resolve questions such as this case asks. Especially when there are differing opinions as to what is going on with a given law in the lower Courts.
There once came a time when the economic situation was chaotic. A long war had drained national resources and there was an overabundance of land and property available for speculative deals. To that end, numerous banks began making speculative loans backed up by literally nothing. The overextension of easy credit along with declining prices of non-land goods was causing a great deal of concern. And when the crap hit the fan, all hell broke loose.
Banks panicked and began calling in loans and foreclosing on the properties.
And then the politicians got involved…
The recent FBI report on the Clinton eMail investigation is… well.. since both sides are claiming “victory” in it, you know that it is most assuredly not victorious for either side. What is it? At the end of the day, it’s a graywash that in no way, shape or form addresses the real issue.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Ohio could go ahead with it’s purge of Voter rolls, as it did not violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This, naturally, has set off a firestorm of accusations that “Republicans are suppressing the vote!” and screeching that the Trump Supreme Court is dangerously (politically) right and therefore he should be impeached or unelected or catch the Ebola. Anything.
The resulting ruling in the case gives us a great view of the political influences at work on the Court. You might think that the Court can easily answer a question, “Is this legal under this law or not?” The problem comes in when two things happen. First, Congress writes a law is that both mandates that something be done, and at the same time makes exceptions to that mandate (think the Affordable Care Act). Second, when the policy question of “Why did Congress make this law?” enters into the discussion. Once the Court is debating policy, it’s open season on the whole enterprise.