Skip to content

New Fall TV Season Begins With First Episode of The Supreme Court Show

The Supreme Court begins its new Fall season today with a very controversial and dramatic episode, in which those with a weak stomach may want to change the channel. For instance, should the court allow or deny protesters their say at military funerals? It’s too bad such a clear issue has to be made so complex. If the cemetery or funeral home is on private property, then of course the protesters can’t be allowed to protest the funerals, unless the owner of the property says yes. If this is a “public” cemetery, or publicly owned and operated (by the state or local government), then of course the protesters have every right to protest and exercise their First Amendment right of free speech — that’s on public (i.e. everybody’s) property. If the community at large doesn’t like that, then they’ll have to privatize the property.

Hmmm, let’s see, what other issues are the brilliant Supreme Intruders going to hear about today? There is a case asking whether Arizona state income tax credits for people who donated to scholarship organizations violated the “Establishment Clause” simply because some of the organizations happen to be religious organizations. Of course it doesn’t violate the so-called “Establishment Clause,” because that state income tax itself violates the people’s right to their earnings and their right to their property and wealth not be taken from them. Also, some people are viewing a “tax credit” as state money that is being given to a resident or organization, which even Chris Matthews of all people said that it is not the government’s money, it is the individual’s money in the first place. And people have a right to donate to whomever they want. The State has no right to decide who gets a “tax credit” and who doesn’t, because the State has no right to confiscate anyone’s money. The whole system’s screwed up, and all of these issues are made to be increasingly complicated because the real issues of State violations of individual rights and property rights are never being addressed.

Another issue being heard by the High-And-Mighties is that of Arizona’s law against businesses hiring “illegal immigrants.” Whatever they decide, they probably will not recognize a businessman’s right to hire whomever he wants, and a Mexican’s right to work at the private Arizona business when the business owner is a willing and consenting employer. That employee-employer contract is a private contract, and it’s nobody else’s business. It is doubtful that a court with a monopoly in the administration of “law and justice” will recognize anyone’s inherent rights of freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract, and it is doubtful that as long as the society has a government-run education system that a majority of the population will ever understand such rights.

But thank God the newest invader, Elena Kagan, has to recuse herself from several cases because of her conflicts of interest, having been the Obama Solicitor General arguing cases on Obama-Dictator’s behalf. In fact, why doesn’t Elena Kagan recuse herself from all the cases, as she has no idea what the Founders’ ideas of Liberty and individual rights are all about, and doesn’t agree with the idea of natural rights, that all human beings inherently have an inalienable right to one’s own life and Liberty, from which such rights include the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others. These natural rights are recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and are the reasons why we don’t allow theft and trespass. Kagan doesn’t believe that individuals have those inalienable rights, and that is why she’s as dangerous as Obama.

Let’s hope for a cancellation of this awful show, The Supreme Court Show.

Published inUncategorized