A Nation of Expedients

Result-oriented expedients, that is. Whether manifesting in special pleading pronouncements of Hate, or what plain words definitely do not mean, America is Earth’s prodigy of unprincipled expediency.

The country’s judicial performance in this regard is particularly scintillating. As time may pass and components exchanged, our supreme tribunal retains its six sigma precision in rendering exquisite rationalizations for predestined results. And that is why only those at the legal profession’s apogee are considered for appointment to this panel. Not, obviously, for their knowledge of or fidelity to the constitutional framework. But rather selection is premised on how florid (or opaque as the occasion may demand) their prose in veiling true intent from the dull stares of a flummoxed citizenry. Because soaring sententious rhetoric always finds refuge in cozy penumbras. And that is where jurists discover what is constitutional and what is not. It’s a process quite beyond the reckoning of the hoi polloi, and thus something best left unexamined. Think of the Supreme Court as the constitution’s SPLC: Trust us, we’re the experts.

Though one man has made an admirable career of exploding this black-robed Hindenburg with a formidable array of barbs and mockery. I’ve always found Antonin Scalia to be a romantic anachronism. The kind of stubbornly immovable thinker that if nominated today couldn’t hope to sniff the air of that office. He simply hasn’t grown over the course of his tenure, as so many of his craven conservative peers. Oh the cocktail parties he must have missed. Of course one of those peers, John Roberts, is about to see his calendar blossom with invitations in the wake of his latest capitulation. Perhaps the memories of which will offer some solace in surveying the cultural wreckage of his winter.

So how fitting that these two antipodal conservatives should form opposing ranks in the now concluded struggle over a very liberal piece of legislation. Although fait accompli is a more apt description of the proceedings. You will recall Roberts’ previous immaculate resuscitation of the affordable care act in 2012. The cringing calisthenics deployed at that time should have dispensed any notion that he would permit injury to Obama’s showcase. His unfaltering allegiance along with the embarrassingly coquettish Kennedy and four potted liberal plants made the entire exercise little more than choreography. Though, as per custom, Scalia added tart ridicule to our latest sip of hemlock.

For readers not aware, the question before the court was as prosaic as can be imagined. The law stated that people qualify for handouts when purchasing insurance on an exchange “established by the state.”

Not established by the federal government.
Not established by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Not established by Tolerance and Inclusion.

The point is reiterated multiple times throughout the text. It would have been particularly amusing had congress appended the qualifier “and yes we actually mean ‘by the state’ John Roberts, you mincing faggot.” Yet you may be assured that verbiage would have only necessitated additional dance steps in the majority opinion, not a different outcome.

Because the problem with those words is only about a third of the states have erected exchanges. Thus a finding for the plaintiffs would leave many nibbling mice sans their government cheese. And since Roberts’ occupational assignment is to protect the work of liberal executives, and certainly not to be influenced by mere words on paper, he found himself again in the role of crafting another meticulous rationalization. Let’s hope the herd again agrees to swallow it whole. Scalia did not.

Speaking beside a stoic Roberts, Antonin loosed a fusillade of righteous ridicule that will, after all, accrue to nothing aside from another piquant entry in our Chinese museum exhibit. It concluded as follows:

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.

And while always worthy for their aesthetic alone, Scalia’s dissents are now mostly just mordant “fuck yous” to lackeys speeding left into the distance. But if there is some beauty remaining in the misshapen visage of this decaying society, it is in those recalcitrant rebels who never grew an inch.


32 thoughts on “A Nation of Expedients

  1. “The law stated that people qualify for handouts when purchasing insurance on an exchange ‘established by the state.'”

    Now all we need is a statement from Obama to the effect that “l’etat, c’est moi.”

    “The cringing calisthenics” and other stylings made me laugh.

  2. ” the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
    Perhaps Scalia was making not so veiled reference to S.B.1070, the Arizona state law governing immigration, gutted by the Supreme Court in their decision, with Scalia again in disssension. In this unfavored law the Court found it propitious to engage in equally “cringing calisthenics”, not to blurr what was stated and intended, but to put in evidence what was neither stated nor intended.
    Heads I win; tails you lose.

    • He certainly had some recent hypocrisy in mind. Many of his dissents make pointed reference to nearly exact logic applied in opposite directions from the majority in different decisions.

      It’s simply a performance to conceal the obvious trip from A to B.

      Where to go, where indeed? I’m thinking and walking and walking and thinking and…well, here I am!

  3. The left went two for two with the “conservative” supreme court. This decision is actually far more relevant to our purposes than the healthcare law. Racial “disparate impact” theory survives review. I presume the NBA is facing full dismantlement.

  4. It’s like the Supremes have a running Mortimer and Randolph-style wager, to see far they can mock the justice system before angry mobs finally show up with pitchforks and torches. Why anyone recognizes their legitimacy anymore, is beyond me.

    • Once you’ve jettisoned justice before the law for social justice, legitimacy is asserted not conferred. And as for those angry mobs, pitchforks and torches are no match for racist.

      This is turning into quite the rout, isn’t it?

    • There will be no angry mobs. Only morbidly obese consumer-bots, gorging their way to a glorious, multicultural tomorrow. I have given up hope of anyone “waking up”. If they haven’t yet, they won’t.

    • Even before I opened the link, I had a premonition that that was the video you were referring to – there was a link to it at Heartiste’s blog. And this video at the same site is just as bad. Just watch the bit from 1:20 to 1:50.

    • I would advise buying a gun and getting a carry permit. But in this climate, shooting a black that is pummeling you will lead to arrest and possible indictment.

  5. Pingback: Juridical Newspeak | Unthinkable Thought

  6. Rob: It is not with tongue in cheek that I assert (with no fear of successful contradiction) hate is a critical and adaptive faculty. And thus the reason our enemies want it monopolized for themselves. But mine is typically kept at such ample volume that either of those videos would cause wasteful spillage.

    NR: That is the intended restraint placed in all our minds. No matter what any words on paper may say, whites do not have stand your ground protections. No more than they have freedom of speech or association; a functional 10th amendment; or the right to exist as a discrete people.

    If you want anything of life to remain after an encounter, you are effectively obligated to flee black predation at any cost. And if flight is physically impossible, and your defense is a success…that’s when the hate crime trial commences.

    If Savapolous had killed Wint in the course of the latter’s attempted quadruple homicide, the Justice Department would have had only one question: did the homeowner at any point say ******?

  7. And now homosex marriage. Too bad Kennedy will expire from old age before he comes around to making it mandatory.

    The lesson being: the more layers of bureaucracy and sinecure that exist between the citizen and sovereignty, the far less of a share he will enjoy.

  8. It is something of exotic wonder to learn that the 146 year-old 14th Amendment mandates a novel marital institution that would have been considered abomination by every single party to its original ratification. And that we as a country have been operating outside constitutional bounds for all these generations since. That is until just today when Anthony Kennedy’s sure hand returned the ship of state to proper alignment.

    The ego required to make such pronouncements is truly something to be examined as a potential energy source for intergalactic travel.

      • That was good for a guffaw. Though it illuminates how thoroughly wretched was that “reconstruction” era (that being a period pristinely free of government reconstruction) amendment. The constitution has come to mean whatever five liberals say it does, though the 14th in particular has made the exercise an always easy chore.

        By the way, the WordPress admin console has been turned into a celebratory rainbow. May all of their 1.3 children one day wave it.

  9. immaculate resuscitation

    Nice play on immaculate conception, meaning I believe that saving Obamacare with a miracle, sui generis. However your quote of the language of the statute erroneously has “State” transcribed as “state.” This is part of the crux of the case. Normally in the usa, State, capitalized, means one of the 50 sovereign states, each is a state such as France or Germany is a State. NJ is legally equivalent to Poland, but it voluntarily ceded its foreign policy (and more) to the federal government. The USA is not a State, like Ireland, but is a state like Great Briton, or the EU, a confederation of States.

    The Constitution does not even give the USA police powers, a normal adjunct of statehood. For most of our history there were no federal crimes except treason because there was no positive federal law outside of patents trademark, counterfeiting, tariffs.

      • When you use quote marks you misrepresent or mistake what you are purportedly quoting:

        H. R. 3590—58
        (d) REQUIREMENTS.—
        (1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental
        agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

        not “established by a state” unless you do not know the difference.

  10. Good article on where we are now.

    In political terms the situation is utterly unsustainable. There are something on the order of 100 million white conservatives in America. They effectively have no political representation, and the corporate-government-media axis has largely written them out of respectable society. That’s a lot of water in the tub looking for a crack. If one is found I think the republican party will simply evaporate with shocking rapidity. Remember, only two weeks ago the confederate flag was nothing more than a symbol for sneering by effete northeastern liberals.

    Things are moving very briskly now, and most on the left–flush in perpetual victory–have never experienced a cultural bear market. Their margin accounts are highly extended. As a result, an opportunistic and ruthless new political movement could reap many tears of ambrosia.

    I’m not predicting it–but I’m imagining.

    • Also, those white conservatives form the backbone of American society. They are the police, the Junior, mid-staff and non-commissioned officer corps of the military, they man the critical industries. Imagine, just imagine, if we said no. If we had an effective political movement that decided to use “direct action” to bring the country to its knees. The mandarins and the oligarchs have no idea the level of rage out there.

      Personally, I pray for economic collapse. It would hurt, but it is the only catalyst I can see for an effective right wing movement. The only thing holding this rotten edifice together at this point is free money. The evaporation of such would lay bare the contradictions and failure of our society.

      • The problem with trying to get those folks involved in direct action is those are the people that do their jobs out of a sense of honor, and duty, however misguided that may be. I don’t think you could get enough of them to not do their job. Not to mention with the way the police have been getting their pee pees slapped in the media they would be reluctant to take another black eye. I would be all for it, I just don’t know how to convince those types that this is what needs to happen. Any suggestions? I would be more than happy to give it a try.

      • The free money is what keeps the animals somewhat at bay… What prevents the white middle class from actually standing up for itself is fast of losing what they have, from being economicallyruined by the powers that be… with the left seeing no resistance they may finally push too far, too fast, and the white tax payers supporting this parasitic abomination will finally realize there’s nothing left to lose and act… we can only hope and do our best to help

  11. The four potted plants would probably be quite comfortable with Obama suspending the Constitution, dissolving the Congress, postponing elections indefinitely, ruling by emergency decree, burning books and declaring all opposition to be outlawed hate speech, Not that the Supreme Court would be relevant in such a circumstance, but they would have no opposition to their own disappearance.

  12. Too many whites are cowed, brainwashed, poorly educated, or shamed into silence and going along and getting along. The left is smart in how they have taken over the universities and media in addition to their political power grabs. The one promise of the internet is alternative media–like this here–the various memes that circulate among middle class whites on facebook (every family has seen them), and the like. It’s meager now, and it may not be enough. We need self consciousness to restore the nation, not wimps like Jeb, Rubio, etc., or the house conservatives at National Review.

  13. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/06/28) | The Reactivity Place

  14. Pingback: traiteur rabat

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s