Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Bazzo Says: Making it up as they go along

Bazzo Says:


Since last Friday, all we have read and heard in our media is that the United States Supreme Court upheld federal subsidies on healthcare and ruled that gays can marry in all 50 states, and the two escaped convicts are no longer on the run—one killed. Not one of these stories has any real impact on residents of New York (unless one lives near Malone), other than that we now live in a post-constitutional America.


Over the last two or three decades, our legislature and various governors have so screwed up the health insurance industry that to some, Obamacare actually seemed like a good deal. Also, as New York was one of the very few states to have already set up the Obamacare exchanges, the court’s ruling last week had little significance for us Empire-staters. This case had no bearing on any state that set up its own exchange. Our local media members apparently never got the memo.


The danger you face will be next year when the federal government lowers there funding for Medicaid, which is 100 percent of new enrollees. Most of the previously uninsured and some of the insured that lost their policies thanks to Obamacare, enrolled in Medicaid. We, in New York, have not felt that because the federal government has picked up 100 percent of the slack of new enrollees. Starting next year it goes down to 90 percent. We, as taxpayers, starting next year, pick up the difference. To offset the difference, as history has shown us, New York will start cutting back on its end of medical coverage and doctor reimbursement. This will surely lower the quality of care for Medicaid recipients. Big government is great.


As for the rainbow warriors in the media, well, four years ago, New York legalized gay marriage. Last week’s ruling meant nothing to residents of New York. The significant ruling was three years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that for federal benefits purposes, the federal government must recognize gay marriages in states that permit it. That is what equalized the status of homosexuals with heterosexuals in terms of marriage. So, in spite of the hoopla in New York media, Cuomo’s antics and your friend’s endless hyperventilating on Facebook, this is meaningless for us and 35 other states, other than, again, that we now live in a post-constitutional America. Big government is great.


As I have alluded to, what should trouble anyone who has any sense of law is these two decisions were not based in any law, but by feelings. (Look no further than the profile photos on Facebook to prove that.) Precedent has been set that nine lawyers in black robes can now make federal law based on their political opinions and raw emotions instead of the Constitution of the United States of America.


For example, the 10th Amendment states that issues not addressed by the federal government revert to the states. Seeing as marriage was around long before this nation, our Founding Fathers never addressed it in our founding documents. So, marriage is clearly an issue to be decided by the states.


Elena Kagan, a liberal member of the Supreme Court, nominated by Obama in 2010, admitted as much in 2009 when she was testifying before the Senate during her confirmation hearings to be solicitor general.


Justice Kagan, when asked by Sen. John Cornyn if she believed there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage, said:


“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

These are the words of Elena Kagan, who voted that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. What changed her mind? Maybe the constitution was edited and nobody bothered to tell us?


This is judicial activism on display and it should be condemned, not celebrated.


In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in dissent of the gay marriage ruling, said:


"If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation— who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the constitution. It had nothing to do with it."


He also wrote:


“But for those who believe in a government of laws, not men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”


Without any basis in law, words now mean what the Supreme Court says they mean, and our rights are decided by the nine lawyers appointed to the court. John Roberts is guilt of activism as well, as he basically re-wrote portions of Obamacare to enable it to pass constitutional muster. Laws are supposed to be made and changed in Congress, not by unelected members of the Supreme Court.


I think most Americans would agree with this, but so many are blinded by rainbow-tainted emotion to realize what has actually happened.


The one ruling—which came out the same day as the Obamacare verdict—that does have a dramatic local impact on us is the ruling in the case:  Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. This ruling in this case empowered the federal government more than the constitution ever imagined. 


This ruling held, according to the story in the American Spectator: "You can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization intended to discriminate. Instead—to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the Supreme Court’s four liberals in a 5-4 majority—you might have been influenced by “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping.”


This is significant to you and I because Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is in the process of nationalize local zoning codes. Westchester County is fighting the federal government in court as we speak so its communities can keep their right to practice their own local zoning codes. The Supreme Court’s ruling gives Washington, Dc control of the Town of Carmel’s zoning, if it so chooses to become involved. If the feds feel there are too many whites in Carmel and that real estate is too expensive, they can now force Carmel to build affordable housing and take away local control of zoning. And why? Well, because we all have a bit of “unconscious prejudice” that leads to “stereotyping.”


Where is that in the constitution?


This is a scary ruling for now it is only numbers that count. No other factor is relevant. If on one side of town there is a high percentage of low-income minorities living in a depressed real estate market  but on the other side of town the market is strong and there are fewer low-income minorities, that town is  now guilty of “unconscious prejudice.” That town can be sued and local taxpayers forced to foot the bill for the higher cost of building affordable housing in high-property valued areas.

In simple terms, the Supreme Court ruled that people who cannot afford to live in certain areas have the right to taxpayer-subsidized housing to enable them to live in areas they cannot afford.


The cost of goods and services are also higher in high income neighborhoods, so, if low income people cannot afford these costs, will the Supreme Court rule that taxpayers have to subsidize their purchases of cars, gas, electricity, food, cable bills, etc.? This is the power this Supreme Court has now granted itself and the federal government. 


I cannot afford a Mercedes or a house in the Hamptons, but I am hoping that in the coming years, taxpayers start buying me cars and housing.


This is insanity. This is liberalism. This is your modern day Supreme Court.


This is what I say. What say you?  


• John Roberts’s full-throated gay marriage dissent: Constitution ‘had nothing to do with it’



Guest Yorktown Supervisor Michael Grace Discusses The Issues Wednesday 9:30 p.m. Channel 74 July 1 & 8 (Yorktown)

Guest Peekskill Councilman Darren Rigger Discusses The Issues Wednesday 9:PM  July 1 channel 15 (Peekskill)


Yorktown News Website (http://www.youryorktown.com/)
Mahopac News Website (http://www.yourmahopac.com/mahopac)

LINKIN (ANTHONY BAZZO):http://www.linkedin.com
TWITTER (@BAZZOMANIFESTO): http://twitter.com/
FACEBOOK (THOMAS NEWMAN): http://www.facebook.com/


atom_taxi@yahoo.com (it is atom (underscore) taxi)
For immediate reply:  atomtaxi@aol.com
2007-2012 “In My Opinion” Columns On NCNLocal.com



No comments: