Justice Scalia and Originalist Doctrine

The "Originalist Doctrine" is an idealism that does not address the very real hurdles that modern Americans have today to solve problems through the legislative process.

There are historical (read: deep-seated, ingrained, institutionalized) reasons for this sad state of affairs that pre-date Justice Scalia's birth.

But, the reality is that Benjamin Franklin's democratic "republic if you can keep it" set up for us 240 years ago is broken. And, its broken-ness has only been exacerbated by the disastrous SC/Scalia decision on "Citizens United."

While in a perfect world, the courts would not be used to create law, it came to that reality long ago. Citizens United, which undermines citizen democracy, will only make it more likely that courts will be forced to play a central role in order to remedy legislative and executive branches that becomes less interested in the concerns of common voices; and more in favor of those able to fund campaigns.

If Scalia's idealism was intended to correct our democracy back to using the legislative process most frequently, he (along with many other originalists) may have inadvertently produced the opposite effect.

Sorry Presidents

G.W. Bush says "I am sorry" for:

• Having 9/11 happen on my watch.
• Having the financial meltdown start on my watch.
• Having gas prices go to almost $5/gallon on my watch.
• Having the real-estate market meltdown start on my watch.
• Starting a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
• Failing to get Osama bin Laden and saying I wasn't too concerned about it.
• For not punishing a country (Saudi Arabia) that did have something to do with 9/11.
• Declaring "Mission Accomplished" long before the job was done (and still not done).
• Being responsible for the death of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
• Being responsible for the maiming of thousand American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
• Failing to address the increasing number of Americans without health insurance.
• Increasing the militarization of America (Police State) a/k/a The Patriot Act.
• Spending $800+ billion taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street and banks.
• Creating a Third-Reich-sounding "Department of Homeland Security".

The reality is that Bush has never apologized for anything. And, it's not because he's never been asked. My guess is that it's either in his MBA training to not look back (or at least to publicly admit mistakes if you do); or he has no capacity for introspection and the subsequent personal growth that comes from it. In either case, I pity him for his inability to evolve personally.


Barack Obama says "I am sorry" for:

• Not starting another war, killing thousands of American soldiers and innocent civilians.
• Not starting another war, maiming thousands of U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians.
• Providing healthcare for more Americans, even if unappreciated by the uninsured.
• Not driving up gas/heating prices from launching a war that was not necessary.
• Killing Osama bin Laden (and several others) leftover from G.W. Bush regime.
• Reducing gas prices from $4 to below $2. You're welcome, petroleum-lovers.
• Increasing US oil production to its highest ever (is this drill baby drill?).
• Giving go-ahead to take-out Somali pirates who took over U.S. ship.
• Keeping economy from spiraling out of control (saved capitalism).
• Increasing wind and solar power utilization (+273%).
• Reducing unemployment to near historic average.
• Putting a floor under US housing market.
• Wall street market up over 100%.
• Petroleum imports down 62%.
• New car MPG up 19%.
• Rebounding 401(k)s.
• But you still suck?

Next time you see a liberal, thank them for their centuries-long struggles to incorporate humanism and sanity into ideas on "the General Welfare":

• Graduated Income Tax
• Family Medical Leave
• Consumer Protections
• Second Bill of Rights
• Anti-monopoly Laws
• Eight-hour work day
• Five-day work week
• Same-sex marriage
• Women's suffrage
• Highway System
• Social Security
• Labor relations
• Public works
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Abolition

Much of these "socialistic" ideas were stirred around in the late 19th century, but were brought to fruition in the 20th century. 

And, if you can imagine, one proponent of many of the early 20th century liberal victories was a fundamentalist Christian (William Jennings  Bryant), who was a Democrat! Sacrilege!

You see, back then, Christians actually followed Jesus' admonition to help the "least of these" among us. And not to just be shills for a party that tickles their theology to "win" their vote. 

Bryant was in favor of helping the common man, using government to protect the vulnerable from a laissez-faire capitalism run amok and that was steamrolling the average American worker for maximum corporate profit. Sound familiar?

How non-College-educated Americans are Disadvantaged

Both American political parties are near-sighted. Maybe, one more than the other. But, they've both abdicated on their responsibility to ensure that gutting the Rust Belt did not leave people hanging out to dry - to fend for themselves (a process ongoing for decades). 

 
Smart policy would have been to incur the short-term expense (read: higher taxes) to help our fellow Americans improve their skills/education to be more competitive for the more affluent jobs. This strategy would have paid for itself many times over in terms of increased productivity, more tax revenues, less need for social welfare, etc. 
 
Instead, the unemployed were left twisting in the wind, which has been far more costly to them and us -- productivity lost and not replaced by higher productivity jobs; and higher cost to taxpayers to supplement their lost income (Medicare, SS, food stamps, etc.) because we're not monsters towards our fellow citizens (at least, I hope). 
 
To add insult to injury, the same negligent politicians delivered to their corporate masters by making it easier for foreign educated workers to fill the void of high-tech jobs and other intellect-oriented professions. 
 
From there, you can question who advocates policies more conducive to bootstrapping American workers to be competitive. As someone who reads legislation and watches our supposed deliberative congressional bodies, I know that one party is far less interested in asking about or solving these difficult problems. 
 
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure that out for themselves if they’re so inclined toward inquisitiveness. If you're honest, you'll discover the reality of the situation by watching for yourself (from the horse’s mouth) and not by being told "facts" from partisan publications and TV.