If the first and most important role of government is to befuddle the governed, I’d have to give them a well done. The idea of serving constituents, being honest, and doing the right thing are, as near as I can tell, viewed as quaint, outdated ideas—like shoes that need button hooks and multiple petticoats.
For example, our Postmaster General, who claims to be all about saving money, has been running advertisements honoring the men and women who work for the US Postal Service. I’m always for supporting the folks who actually do the work, but if they’re understaffed and overworked, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the money on people and equipment. My brother believes that the reason we can buy “Forever Stamps” is because the delivery takes so long.
Even more egregious is our Supreme Court. The authorities of the Supreme Court are enumerated in the Constitution, way down in Section III, with revision by the 11th Amendment (sort of, kind of, but not too much). The sweeping powers that the Supreme Court has now assumed are not distinctly described in the Constitution. Apparently, over the years, the attitude has been that “If nobody can convince the world that the Supreme Court can’t, then the Supreme Court can and will and don’t you forget it.”
Apparently, a candidate for the Supreme Court must first receive Mitch McConnell’s approval, regardless as to who is president or which party controls the House, the Senate, or the entire Congress. Next, the candidate must answer various questions according to what Mitch and his cronies want to hear, without any regard for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Case in point. Several Supreme Court Justices “have signaled” their predisposition regarding various sensitive issues such as abortion. Now, my thought has always been that the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, should set the example for the highest standards.
I was wrong.
If I were called for jury duty and “signaled” my predisposition to a certain issue, I would be dismissed for cause. It wouldn’t even require a pre-emptive challenge. I would be out of the courthouse and on my way home in a heartbeat.
However, the members of highest court in the land can “signal” with complete impunity their personal opinions even before a case on that issue is before the court.
It’s a weird system.
sfnowak 