Those raisins really were Small Potatoes

Sure, Gay marriage is fine; as a libertarian, I see little or no governmental interest in discriminating against and restricting same sex couples from participating in the full legal right, dignity and respect that society grants those joined in the bonds of matrimony.  Simultaneously, I do not condemn, or even criticize, those who oppose same sex marriages based upon their religious faith.  Those folks are not bigots or haters, so long as they don't abuse or mistreat homosexual persons they encounter in life.

In my acceptance of the rights of gay to marry, I am joined by millions of other Americans.  Indeed, this societal preference for full civil rights for gay couples is so equitably fair that within the next few years a vast majority support by the nation's electorate is inevitable, in my judgment.

Instead of allowing democracy to craft public policy - as this cultural institution of a family's legal composition has been handled since the founding of our country - five unelected, unaccountable lawyers (for God's sake) have totally eviscerated the nation's Constitutional self-government - "... of the people, BY the people ...".

Nonetheless, vast multitudes of people have now hailed the Supreme Court as being the greatest moral and legal institution in all of recorded human history.  How incongruous - when all power of government to establish what is fundamental law resides in five unaccountable persons, these titans of wisdom - self determined by the way - have appointed themselves America's rulers-for-life, or better known as: "We don't need no stinkin Legislature".

Hey, the Divine Right of Kings is a swell gig, so tell me, who, with an ego as large as Justice Kennedy's, would turn down the chance to become one of the immortals - his name eternally to be spoken of in reverence as the Great Emancipator!

Yes, how incongruous for millions to be celebrating their complete disenfranchisement.  American democracy, the liberty of 320 million citizens to chart our own governing principles, seems worth a year or two to reform a marriage code that was in place for the entire 230 years of our collective self-governing experience.

It should be a self-evident truth to every celebrant of this declaration of judicial supremacy - when judges can create, all rights by simple fiat (by their wise words scrolled on parchment to be handed out to their subjects), they therefore must have identical powers to take all those same civil rights from us by their identical whim.  Who can still assert that judicial powers are checked or balanced in our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government?

A few weeks ago a state trial judge in New York  presided over a day long hearing on whether captivated jungle animals are entitled to the full array of human civil rights enshrined in our nation's Constitution and legislatively enacted statutes.  Oblivious to the indisputable truth that our nation that adopted the Constitution knew the difference between a human being and a baboon, this arrogant jurist's disdain for the democratic formulation of public policy was on full display.  Now, don't get me wrong, I work tirelessly to strengthen animal protection laws by interacting with my representatives in Congress who speak for us all on such matters of national policy.  This New York Judge decided she was in charge, and legislators were as useless as stinkin badges!

Such a coup de'tat by judges seems incomprehensible to all freedom loving citizens who believe in representative self government. Most assuredly, when animals are deemed entitled to be awarded civil rights by a court of wisdom (not law), soon it is likely judges will feel empowered to remove and deny civil rights to pre-born children, with no allowance for legislative or executive consultations.

An Expensive Raisin in the Sun ...

... is a pernicious poke in the eye of freedom and democracy.  Yesterday, the Supremes invalidated the 1937 federal law - on the books for 78 years - that empowered the USDA literally to drive a truck uninvited onto a raisin farmer's real property, park that vehicle, stuff the bed and haul away as much of his annual crop as the Raisin Administrative Committee deemed necessary to prop up retail raisin prices to the level of profitability demanded by the raisin oligarchs on this Committee.  For full legal reasoning see, Horne v. USDA, decided 6/22/15; (Mr Horne is a third generation family farmer in California's central valley who had the courage to bar entry to the USDA trucks at his private road gate).  Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts; sole dissent by our presumably wise Latina Justice. This decision once again reversed (and if possible, embarrassed) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lower court decision in favor of this rape of our nation's consumers of raisins.  Talk about non-accountability in government employ - I remember reading not too long ago that this most progressive of Circuit Courts gets upheld by the Supreme Court less than 50% of the appeals taken to nation's highest tribunal.

So, with that overview stated, here are the most salient points to ponder as concerned citizens wanting our Constitutional Republic to be restored to its original contours of limited government, with freedom and justice for all:

NEWS FLASH TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT:

As Justice Roberts admonished these legal dullards in his cogent opinion - the 5th Amendment precludes the federal government from seizing w/o. just compensation a person's car, identically as it does that same individual's private home.  Now, I know that many legal concepts are not always objectively obvious in the proper application of governing law.  That said, how is it conceivable that the San Francisco based court - two hundred thirty-nine years after our nation's founding - determined that despite the clear language of the 5th Amend, the feds can take absolutely everything I own with total impunity, but not my dwelling?  Has legal scholarship fallen so far in our law schools, or are these judges just blinded by their ideology.

NEWS FLASH TO THE SUPREME COURT:

Irrespective of the federal government's obligation to pay fair market value for a raisin farmer's produce, when the exclusive purpose of that purchase is to artificially increase super market store prices of raisins - a criminal conspiracy if undertaken by two or more growers in a private sector transaction - that USDA program is not a taking for a legitimate public purpose/use.  Indeed, it is Soviet style price-fixing to the substantial detriment of all American consumers.

NEWS FLASH TO THE CONGRESS:

When the USDA acts in concert with a price-fixing oligarchy of raisin conglomerates to screw the American consumers out of millions of dollars annually, where is the populist legislation to prohibit this outrage against free market competition?  Where are the great champions of the working middle class?  Where is Hillary, where is Bernie Sanders where even is the guy we elected twice to protect us from the deprivations of those evil 1%? (Conglomerate Raisin  producers are billionaires, in case you wondered whether they made campaign contributions to both political parties)

 I guess President Obama, who mandated a vigorous defense of this communist style central planning disaster, might need to check his constitutional law scholar credentials at the grocery counter next time he goes shopping for affordable healthy foods for the working class kids in charter schools he supports equally strongly.