Sunday, February 14, 2016

Justice Isn't Blind When She Weighs the Objective Facts of Any Matter Before Our System of "The Rule of Law"

This is probably a cliche of the first order here. Who in their right mind still thinks justice is blind here? If it were why would ideological affiliation of any judge matter, let alone the masters of the appeals system?

No, where we really start getting into the Twilight Zone of our loosely based notion of political reality is that your vote counts now because the ideology of the guy at the top spot will determine the ideology of the monkeys flinging the feces of what has become of our appeals system. And it gets even better. The guy currently sitting at the top spot has no right to nominate a replacement because there is only x number of months left in his current term of office.

And what do the idollators of the ideology not currently holding the top office say? He has no right to do such a nomination with a new election so close; his previous entitlement to representing the will of the people having gone more or less stale now that another vote is drawing near. And of course, even if he does have the right, those that hold their own, potentially stale, majority mandate in the Senate deem it their right to tell the President to stick that nomination where the sun don't shine; and all without any cause determined from the due diligence of hearings of substance on a replacements qualifications. Nice.

This might least give some, however meager, reaffirmation of the importance of voting were it not for the further consideration that, despite the protestations of both major parties of their differences, they serve at the behest of the same general community of "Big Money." Vague though both parties try to be on how they will actually govern once in office, they will give major lip service to one or more hot button cultural issues because "Big Money" generally doesn't give a shit about those. They are not usually where the levers of power pivot from so why should they? You do, however, and throwing you that bone costs them dearly only on occasion; something they can pass along to you as increased costs most of the time in any case.

This is also why, when hearings on court appointments do occur, the potential judges questioned also remain fairly vague on how they might view various aspects of both cultural, as well as economic, issues are concerned. They can claim independence from the ordinary cliches of Liberal or Conservative this way while still being ideologues underneath it all.

The bottom line here is that your vote can, at times, make a difference on the balance of ideological power that gets expressed via the judges in our major courts of law. The perniciousness of what's going on in parallel, however, remains obfuscated. This is so because you are, in effect, also voting to accept the fact that we are exactly not a nation ruled by the rule of law. It is in fact rule by those most clever in making sure their ideology holds sway at ever level of not only the creation of law, its bureaucratic administration, but its system of settling disputes in deciding interpretations of both the agreements made under it, but also in adjudicating all aspects of when the rules are broken outright.

Battle Begins Over Whether Obama Or Next President Should Fill Scalia Seat