BLUEgrass

'Tis the Season of Judicial Activism

Whether it’s the Terri Schiavo case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing gay marriage, or threats of a “nuclear option” in the Senate, it seems that the judicial branch and what our friends on the right deem to be a plague of “activist judges” is in the crosshairs of the conservative movement.

 As I understand it, one of the primary arguments regarding the dangers of this “judicial activism” is that these judges too often overturn the “will of the people.” Thankfully, our president is standing on principle and doing his part to eliminate this danger to protect the people and their will.

 I have to confess, though, that that Supreme Court decision Monday regarding the medicinal use of marijuana has left me a bit confused. Who was it that appealed to the Supreme Court to undermine 11 states who have passed legislation allowing the use of marijuana to alleviate pain and suffering?

 I guess they like those judicial activists when they agree with them. 

Here's an "F" for the FCC

While BG is busy listening to NPR on her way to work, I must confess that I’m probably listening to Howard Stern.  Before you start cursing me, just know that this guy has arguably taken over for Larry Flynt, another of our noble citizens (insert tongue in cheek now), as the champion of the First Amendment.  Say what you will about Stern, but the guy did his best to get Bush unelected and he has raised many valid points about the Federal Communications Commission’s seemingly contradictory policies (apparently Oprah gets away with “f-bombs” on her show but Stern doesn’t).

That’s why I read with great interest today Fox’s decision not to air an ad during the Super Bowl featuring a two second peek at 84 year old Mickey Rooney’s bottom (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-01-07-super-ad-booted_x.htm).  Trust me, I have no great interest in seeing Mr. Rooney’s buns and, truthfully, I don’t have a real problem with Fox’s decision not to air the commercial.  As I see it, it’s their company and they can decide their standards.

The problem I have is with this fear of the FCC that seems to now govern many decisions made by those who control the “public airwaves.”  Remember those ABC affiliates who opted not to show Saving Private Ryan for fear of FCC fines?

I’m all for standards and public discussion of what is and isn’t decent, especially as a new parent.  I’m just starting to feel that this post “wardrobe malfunction” crackdown is going a bit too far.  I can’t seem to keep it straight anymore… which party is continually complaining about government intervention in our personal lives?  Apparently, this administration thinks I’m wise enough to make my own decisions about my social security withholdings, but I’m not wise enough to make my own decisions about what I watch and listen to.  Hmm.

-Donkey Beef

This Tort is Too Tart

Much has been made of this President’s ambitious second-term agenda with particular attention rightfully being paid, as BG does eloquently in “Toying With Our Future”, to social security “reform” (in this context “reform” is the GOP’s politically expedient term for “privatization”).  But, there’s another sort of “reform” that the Bushies have on their radar screen that, like efforts to privatize social security, could have a major impact on all of us.  A debate about medical malpractice “reform” (in this context “reform” is the GOP’s politically expedient term for “restrictions”) is on the horizon.

The real issue is not whether our health care system needs to be changed and improved.  Who would argue that doctors aren’t being squeezed by medical malpractice insurance rates?  Who would argue that the average consumer, like you and me, isn’t being squeezed by skyrocketing health insurance rates?  Assuming the intent behind this looming “tort reform” is the protection of both doctors and the average consumer, the real issue is just exactly how to “reform” the system in ways that benefit both.  The problem is that it’s just not safe to make that assumption when it comes to this administration.

The GOP and this President like to toss around terms like “frivolous lawsuits” and “greedy trial lawyers” when talking about this issue.  In cahoots with their friends in the insurance industry, they’ve skillfully crafted the debate thus far to make us think that the answer is to place limits on what the average consumer can receive should she choose to file a lawsuit.  The problem is that when that sort of “reform” has been implemented there is virtually no evidence to suggest that it has worked (for abundant information check out the Center for Justice & Democracy’s section on Medical Malpractice at http://centerjd.org/medmalindex.htm).  In fact, there are plenty of examples of states who have limited citizens rights in medical malpractice cases only to see health insurance rates continue to rise.  Doesn’t that sound like a great prescription for “reform” – fewer rights in court and continually rising costs at home?  The fact is that this so called “tort reform” won’t be reform at all without taking a good, hard look at the insurance companies (the term gouging comes to mind).

As usual with this regime, the deeper we dig into an issue the messier it gets.  It seems pretty clear that the intent here is to start a smoke screen, find some scapegoats, and reward big business once again at the expense of the rest of us.  Let’s hope the Democrats fight.

-Donkey Beef