1409 Hunting With Scotus

The Justices of the US Supreme Court have cancelled their planned hunting trip.  It’s not that Scalia doesn’t want to be seen with Cheney in public again.  It’s not even that Thomas can’t get a hunting license without a photo i.d.  It’s just that they’ve had a better idea.

First some background. Last year, the justices decided there were too many people, especially wrong minded people.  People who, say, didn’t believe that money equals speech.  People who think Arizona went overboard with its proposition 100 which bars holding people here illegally without bail.  And people who are still whining about putting G.W. Bush in office in 2000.

So here’s what they did:  they ordered catalogs for themselves and their clerks and other staff members.  Eddie Bauer, LL Bean… you know… outdoorsy kinds of things.  Some got subscriptions to Guns & Ammo.

Some of justice Thomas’ staff approached him and asked why they were getting this mail. Justice Thomas said nothing.  So they did the next best thing, they went to justice Antonin “Tony Ducks” Scalia who informed them they’d be going hunting.  Thinning the population. Performing a great service for their country.  And they’d be joined by at least four and possibly five or six of the judges.

Justice Sotomayor declined. Because she’s relatively new, she said she didn’t have enough accumulated vacation time.  Justice Ginsburg declined and said her arthritis acts up in the cold and damp.  And with Tony Ducks on board there were bound to be accidents.

So the hunting trip is off, the subscriptions have been cancelled and the catalogs un-subscribed from.

But overpopulation remains a problem high on the court’s agenda.  So they figured out a new plan.

There is a grammatical oversight in the Affordable Care Act that could end some federal subsidies to the holders of health insurance.

“We can use that,” said one justice speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to announce a decision before it’s published, “to get more of those useless poor people dead and in pauper’s graves early.  They’ll stop burdening our health care systems. They’ll stop moaning about income inequality. And best of all, they won’t be able to vote.”

He continued:  “...those who can’t get that socialist insurance will be forced more deeply into poverty and have to spend so much time working their three part- time minimum wage jobs they won’t have the energy to pester us with their frivolous complaints.”

Another justice was unhappy with the pre-decision and even more unhappy that the Guns & Ammo subscription was cancelled.  “My nephews liked to read it when they came over to visit.  I try to encourage them to read.”

Shrapnel:

--Got another “free gift” offer.  No thanks.  Some of us would rather pay for stuff people want to give us.

--As newspapers are cutting back, the Boston Globe announced it would soon start printing a stand alone business section.  One more well- edited voice is welcome in an era when most get their financial news from radio flakes and wobbly- thinking websites.

--One radio voice that is not trying to sell you books, advice or get rich schemes is closing down.  The Wall Street Journal report, heard on many stations, will be shutting of the mic at the end of the year.  You can only think “yeah, right” when the Journal says radio no longer fits its core business.

I’m Wes Richards.  My opinions are my own but you’re welcome to them. ®

Please address comments to wesrichards@gmail.com

© WJR 2014

815 Fair and Balanced

815 Fair and Balanced

That’s Fox News’ Orwellian motto, but that’s not what this is about, mostly. This is about the State of the Union Address and two speeches that came after it.

The President is required to report to Congress once a year. He can do that any way he wishes. Smoke signals, a coffee klatch, a memo, an e-mail. Most presidents chose the speech. It’s called “The State of the Union Address.” It’s delivered to a joint session (not a joint meeting,) of Congress. Others attend as well: Friends, family, Supreme Court Justices if they’re not in a snit, that sort.

The speech is supposed to tell Congress (and the rest of the American People) what the President thinks is the condition of the country and to outline his legislative program. It’s basically a campaign speech.

In recent decades, the television networks have given a member of the opposition party a chance to respond. So when the President is a Democrat, as now, a Republican gets to rebut. But the rebuttal has to be prepared before the address is given, so it’s become another campaign speech.

Even so, the President is speaking as President, fulfilling a constitutional obligation. The opponent is speaking as politician.

This year, we had the pleasure of two opposing speeches, one from the hapless Paul Ryan (Republican Party-WI.) Boilerplate sloganeering delivered in a Charlie-Rose-Like semi trance. The other from Michele Bachman (Tea Party Party-MN.)

Anyone can comment on the content of a Presidential address. And almost everyone does (so you won’t find that here even though the see-saw his tipped to the right.) And Bachman certainly has the same right to speak out as everyone else. But TWO rebuttals? To a constitutionally-mandated Presidential address?

The first question is “why is any counter-speech necessary?” Broadcasting’s “fairness doctrine” with its implied suggestion of “rebuttal” has long been dead and the right wing is leading the fight to keep it that way.

The second question is “why did party leaders not find a way to stop a faction of its members from speaking until the next day or the day after... what were they afraid of?”

The third question is “why did anyone carry the Bachman speech in the first place?”

The fourth question is “who are you kidding, Michele,” when you say you were merely speaking to a meeting of like minded individuals?

When commentator Chris Matthews later called her a “balloon head,” he was insulting balloons.

Shrapnel:

--Speaking of Rupert Murdoch’s Foxes of Television, a group of rabbis has taken a big ad blasting the Fox News Channel in general and Glenn Beck in particular. And what paper did they use for the ad? Why Rupert Murdoch’s Wall St. Journal.

--Egypt is a finger in the dyke. If they don’t get their act together, previous trouble in the Middle East is going to look like a walk in the park, even though the protests are about internal issues and not international relations. Uncle Hosni needs to get his head out of the sand and do some serious reforming.

I’m Wes Richards. My opinions are my own but you’re welcome to them. ®
Comments to wesrichards@gmail.com
© WJR 2011