The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part III

In yet another decision, Justice Kennedy joined the 4 liberal justices (Kennedy is mostly a liberal) in a decision involving the Fair Housing Act of 1968. That Act made it illegal to discriminate in housing on the basis of race. However, in another 5-4 decision, the Court said that it was illegal to have a "disparate impact" in housing, even where there is no evidence of actual discrimination. You see, according to Kennedy's logic, after lower courts found that "disparate impact" was part of the law, the Congress had various opportunities to pass legislation making it clear that, no - we never included "disparate impact" in the law - and we meant it.

But in the Bizarro world in which we now operate, the failure of Congress to act means that Congress did act. Let's just hope that the first new low-cost housing goes up in the neighborhoods occupied by the wealthy liberal democrats.

With a government completely out of control, the last hope to call them to task is the "Fourth Estate," the media. But the mainstream media is now part of the left-wing, politically correct "the ends justify the means" establishment. So do not look for today's media to concern itself with an "imperial" presidency, or a runaway Supreme Court.

The 6/26/15 lead editorial in the New York Times called both the 2012 challenge to Obamacare (the penalty vs. tax issue), as well this recent challenge as being "legally frivolous." So frivolous that 4 Justices dissented the first time and 3 dissented this time. The Times said the current challenge to the law was "fabricated...out of thin air." Once again, the Times made no mention of Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the law, who publicly said that the purpose of limiting the subsidy to the State exchanges was to encourage the states to establish their own exchanges. Yet the Times claimed that such an interpretation was "preposterous." If you just read the mainstream media you would not even know the name Jonathan Gruber. You would not know or understand why an issue even exists. (The LA Times editorial was not substantially different.)

There is insufficient time, and space in this post, to discuss the 5-4 decision declaring gay marriage to be a Constitutional right. What I do wish to point out is that one mainstream newspaper has already declared that they would "no longer accept" and print letters to the editor or op-ed pieces opposing gay marriage. And there you have it with the mainstream media's approach to presenting all sides in the marketplace of ideas. You see, our President has told us that "global warming" is settled, and those holding opposing views are anti-science (even if they are scientists). Gay marriage is the law of the land; anyone opposing it must be a bigot and a hater - so their voices need to be shut down. If you oppose abortion it is because you hate women. If you believe in the right to bear arms... Well, you get the point. Or do you?

You see, I am not sure that my liberal friends do get the point. I am not sure that they are concerned with the damage done to our liberty, and to our system of government, by these cases, simply because they agree with the outcomes. The ends justify the means. I am not sure my liberal friends who constantly mock Fox News understand the very real service that that news outlet provides - challenging runaway government power the way the mainstream media used to do.

This is just the beginning. We will see many cases where the new Constitutional right to gay marriage conflicts with the First Amendment Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Did you see how quickly governments and retail stores moved to take down and remove from their shelves all confederate flags, or items depicting those flags. Which side will you be on when the next move is to take down the American flag - the Stars and Stripes - because some feel it is a symbol of racism, and oppression and imperialism. Are you confident that the line will always be drawn where you think it should be drawn? Or maybe, just maybe, we are better off sticking to fundamental principles.