Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby





If you believe that God says it’s okay
That true believers should not have to pay
For what they think God might believe is wrong,
The Supreme Court is now playing your song.
They just declared that there is no restriction
On companies whose deeply-held conviction
Holds that some healthcare is a blasphemy
When it contributes to the infamy
Of birth control, effectual or shoddy,
As it pertains to any woman’s body.
 
Though SCOTUS must quote laws and precedents,
Companies have their faith as evidence,
Saying the source of all their legal grief
Is their unsourced but deeply-held belief
That if they do X, God will hold them liable,
Even if they can’t find it in the Bible.
As long as they declare they must obey
Whatever they say that their God will say,
Their wounded conscience can remain aloof
From anything resembling valid proof.
 
So if, for instance, I should make the claim
That the Creator (hallowed be His name)
Says every time girls fill a cavity
It also puts a stop to pregnancy,
My company can legally prevent your
Repayment for a filling, crown or denture—
And like a fervent Christian Scientist
I can be a medical atheist—
And righteously equate Hell’s deepest pit
With paying out a healthcare benefit
For anything with symptoms clear or vague—
The flu, the measles, chicken pox, the plague—
And say (while trying to suppress a grin)
“That’s why God put the sin in medicine.”
 
If this decision was religion-free,
And had no God in it, what would we see?
A legally illegal double-cross
That guarantees the right of some male boss
But not the rights of those that he oppresses—
Especially if they’re all wearing dresses.
The law, it seems, will always take offence
By women who exhibit common sense—
Who of their bodies claim sole ownership,
Declare their independence hip to hip,
And vow not to surrender their self-worth
But choose by whom and when they will give birth.
These simple choices still smack of sedition
To all the father figures of tradition—
They see their fragile social icecap breaking
When ovens want to take control of baking.
And since they can’t make women shake with awe,
They’ll make their bodies subject to the law.
If there’s a chance blondes, redheads or brunettes’ll,
Get pregnant, logic emulates a pretzel
And says that what their wombs will generate
Is a compelling interest of the state
And supercedes the owner of the womb
The way a silk dress supercedes the loom.

Forgive me if I hear these arguments
And think that their original intent’s
To limit women’s voices to lip-syncing.
Forgive me too for actually thinking
Male justices will never regulate
The male propensity to propagate
As long as all the female fields they’re seeding
Are never less than ripe for legal breeding.
It may not be sexual prejudice
But even if it ain’t, I bet you this:
Those kings who rule from their judicial palace,
They sure won’t pass a law against Cialis. 

The only thing supreme about these guys
Is their blind ignorance of all that lies
Beyond the bubble of their vanity—
What normal people call reality
And they call, with their voices full of terror,
Some pompous Latin synonym for error.
Their view of life’s as lifeless as that tongue:
It sees the coal but scoffs at the black lung.
The law to them’s no spirit and all letter,
And they’re so positive that they know better.
But what they know has sweet fuck all to do
With how this world’s lived in by me and you.
Their world’s a dictum written by a hack, 
Where real life’s just a footnote in the back.
Divorced from everything but the ideal,
They judge the menu but don’t taste the meal
And wash their hands of anything they sense
Might involve real hands-on experience.
There’s something frightened in them, I suspect,
That yearns to use the law to resurrect
That mythic era of the human race
When everyone shut up and kept their place.
It’s sad and yet kinda hilarious:
There’s nothing that defines cantankerous
Like five old coots yelling from dusk to dawn
“Get off my corporate-owned men-only lawn!” 

And when these judges talk abut the state
And how its interests must preponderate
All other interests and their rights curtail,
It’s clear the state is just another male
Who always wants to have it his own way;
And while he might let critics have their say,
He’ll never let a woman have a voice,
Never mind that odd thing she calls a choice,
Because to guarantee his own survival,
He must make sure that there’s a new arrival
Of citizens-to-be in great amount.
Thus giving birth is clearly paramount
And must supplant all rights social and sole
With one consummate governmental goal.
Which leads to this gigantic lunacy
Of twisted legal logic—QED:
A woman who lets no man impregnate her
Is worse than any terrorist or traitor.
That’s why the state always find feminism
A threat to sexual capitalism:
Since new consumers are compulsatory,
The state wants women pregnant.  End of story. 

What is it about women that scares men?
Why does testosterone fear estrogen?
Do some males think females were put on earth
To give them head while waiting to give birth?
To them, if you’ve been in a nail salon,
You’re secretly the Whore of Babylon.
I bet each time they father a girl child
They wish they could expose it in the wild
Instead of sharing money, name and home
With offspring who lack God’s Y chromosome.
And maybe that’s it—the whole male God thing—
That being male not only makes you king
But gets you droit du seigneur every day
On any pretty girl you want to lay. 

We’ve circled back to pure belief again—
This time beliefs particular to men,
Like “God made mankind with this one remit:
The female is what must and should submit.”
A major premise that unlocks the door
Which holds the answer that I’m looking for:
Like preachers fear the unrepented sin,
Like macho fears all things unmasculine,
Like misers fear the loss of all their dough,
What men fear most is women who say no. 

So now they’re passing law after dumb law
(Designed to stick in every female craw)
Which never take an axe, but only whittle
The tree of liberty, little by little,
Until they find the toothpick underneath
With which they’ll pick their smug paternal teeth.
It’s sad and galling and self-evident
People like this will never be content
Till women are just walking ovaries
Who cannot  legally do what they please.
This case, and cases like it, are the start
Of their Ahabian stab at the heart
Of all that’s threat’ning to the Great White Male
So all these Moby Dickheads can prevail
Against the foe of our great polity:
The devil of female equality. 

Yes, women are the devil—and this vision
Informs the whole Hobby Lobby decision.
If I say God says X will cause abortions,
The law now goes through hoops, if not contortions,
To make sure, if I chant a holy song,
My corporate civil rights are never wrong.
Or not as wrong as any woman’s are—
Their rights are like a fishless sushi bar:
So wrong they’re nonenexistent.  So you see,
If I’m a male, then SCOTUS favors me,
And will support me, when I say my soul
Can't stand the sacrilege of birth control,
And any law that puts The Pill in play
Is one that I do not have to obey—
Thus letting me commit a perfect crime
Which can be summed up by this simple rhyme: 

My right to say “God thinks this law’s insane!”
Trumps women’s rights the way penis trumps brain.

 


Copyright 2014 Matthew J Wells

Sunday, April 6, 2014

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission




"Money is speech and speech must be protected.
All laws against it have to be rejected.
It doesn’t matter what amount you spend:
The right to spend is what we must extend
To everyone, no matter rich or poor,
No matter what that money is spent for.
As long as there’s no undue influence,
All cash is worth its weight in innocence."
 
That’s what the law’s become—what five tongues say:
The legal version of a Passion Play
Where Law and Justice are both fairly tried.
(And guess which one always gets crucified?)
To those with ears to hear, the truth be told:
Fairness has been nailed to a cross of gold;
And Justice, which is blind, seems deaf as well
When it equates a whisper with a yell
And always fails to mend a broken promise
And never says a word—like Clarence Thomas.

So, in the land of the financial free,
Where does that leave us?  With equality!
Since the law says all cash is tit for tat,
The poor man’s equal to the plutocrat.
A penny and a hundred dollar bill—
The GNP of England and Brazil—
They’re equal now under the Constitution
Since they’re defined by the word “contribution.”
Spend what you have.  How can it be a crime
When twenty million equals one thin dime?
If this was Bad Law Hoops?  Those five slam-dunked it.
If this was math class?  Then they all just flunked it.

 

Copyright 2014 Matthew J Wells

 

 

 

Monday, September 21, 2009

Somewhere, Howard Zinn is grinning.

In case you missed it? 'Cause, y'know, I did, And it's potentially huge:

Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s newly installed Supreme Court Justice, has a few words for corporations seeking protection under law.

You’re not people.

During arguments in a recent campaign-finance case — that may upend campaign finance law to allow more spending by corporations — Sotomayor suggested that the core underpinning of protecting corporations’ rights was flawed.


The Wall Street Journal has the details:

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."

The case she's referring to?

SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO.,
118 U.S. 394 (1886)

in which:

“Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of argument in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that:

“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law.”


Whether or not anything comes of it, it would be nice to see this "assertion" becoming a subject for debate in our current coporatocracy.

Sunday, July 1, 2007

If the Seattle School District decision had taken place in Germany in 1937

The Supreme German ReichGerichtshof declared on Thorsday that local communities cannot seek to resolve the Jewish Question through measures that take explicit account of a citizen’s racial background.

Voting 5 to 1, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Johann Scheisskopf, invalidated pogroms in München that sought to maintain racial diversity in the Fatherland by taking a Jewish applicant’s racial background into account as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Scheisskopf said such pogroms were “a fair and impartial method to achieve racial balance,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Reich Constitution’s guarantee of unequal protection under the law.

“The way to stop discrimination against the Jews is to stop discriminating against the Jews,” he said. This interpretation, the chief justice added, was “completely in the spirit of Braun v. Unterrichtsministerium,” the landmark 1924 decision that gave Jews, gypsies and homosexuals equal rights with Aryans.

Concurring with Chief Justice Scheisskopf were Justices Arschkopf, Douchekopf, Schweinkopf, and Antonin Vaginakopf. The lone dissenter, Justice Todeskandidat, was declared a Jew and sent to a resettlement camp in the East.

In a related 5 – 0 decision (with one Justice resettled), the Court ruled that the use of euphemisms to describe the so-called Final Solution is upheld by the new Reich Constitution, which is currently being rewritten by three men in a back room in Berlin. Declaring that “the way to utterly destroy the Jews is to stop saying out loud that we want to destroy the Jews,” Chief Justice Scheisskopf assured the Jews of Europe that they have nothing to fear from Hitler’s Germany.