Word Police

Washington State has taken another step in its effort to out-nanny New York State. The word police are out in full force to make sure the state legislature becomes totally gender neutral. Words such as “fireman” and “policeman” were found to be offensive and banned from the legislature as far back as 1983, but that was not enough.

In this latest effort, terribly offensive words such as “freshman” and “watchmen” have been eliminated, protecting all from serious injury. However, new ground is being broken with the elimination of not-so-obviously offensive words such as “penmanship”.

How could we have survived so long being bombarded by these harmful words? We are finally coming out of the semantic Dark Ages that have been “keeping our legal terms anachronistic” and replacing them with neutered words that “respect our current contemporary times”.  It’s a shame our intelligence doesn’t get such respect.

Liz Watson, a National Women’s Law Center senior adviser, tells us: “Words matter…This is important in changing hearts and minds.” Ahhh…”changing hearts and minds” – how quaint – or should we say anachronistic?

In an attempt at preventing the word police from banging down your door, it would be wise to refrain from using several other words that may soon be found to be offensive: mandolin, Mandella, German, humane, mention, manager, and so many (oops, there’s another one) more. The list is endless and it may become necessary to hire more word police, but that would at least help lower unemployment.

One has to wonder, though, why “mandate” is not yet on the list since it’s already been replaced with “tax” by the Supreme Court.

David J. Hentosh

What Goes Around Comes Around

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Obamacare elated many on the left. It is being viewed as a validation of the government’s mandate (tax/fine) for universal health care insurance, but the manner in which the case was decided very well may end up being more consequential than the actual mandate (tax/fine).

The desire, or demand, for immediate political results often overlooks long term consequences. The precedent set by the Supreme Court in re-defining a mandate as a tax/fine does not apply only to left-leaning mandates (taxes/fines). When the right once again controls the White House and/or Congress, the use (or abuse) of a mandate (tax/fine) will then be in their hands.

Perhaps those obtaining an abortion can be fined/taxed/mandated for having done so. Voter ID could very well find itself being mandated/taxed/fined as well as carrying proper immigration papers. Proof of paying income taxes could be mandated (taxed/fined) before even being allowed to vote, and registering to vote, of course, could easily be mandated/taxed/fined as well as refusing to vote.

Those on welfare or unemployment could end up being forced by a mandate/tax/fine to take any job the government deems proper, while food stamps could be mandated/taxed/fined to be redeemed only at designated establishments for designated items. Obtaining welfare, unemployment or food stamps could be dependent upon passing a mandated/taxed/fined drug test. Reproduction could be mandated/taxed/fined in order to obtain a marriage license or keep one valid.

If challenged, any of those mandates/taxes/fines can be twisted and re-defined by a politically sympathetic Supreme Court and shoe-horned into agreeing with the Constitution. Precedents are double-edged swords.

One has to wonder if Supreme Court Justice Roberts realized this. It is obvious many on the left have not recognized these consequences. They are far too busy spiking the political football and relishing Obama’s cherry-picking of laws to enforce – another precedent that will surely come back to haunt them. When that occurs, the outrage will be deafening and the currently ignored “common good” will become important again.

David J. Hentosh

Mandate = Tax = Mandate = Tax

One could probably argue that a tax is actually a form of mandate. It doesn’t seem to have been included in any dictionary or thesaurus as such, but following the synonym tree may eventually reach a branch that contains “mandate”. The reverse, however, has never been considered in the same way – until now.

The Supreme Court has redefined “mandate” as “tax” even after President Obama and his attorneys assured all that it wasn’t. The Supremes’ backs must surely be aching after bending so far to uphold the Obamacare “Mandate/Tax”. The decision is stunning in its “nuance”.

Will this now be considered a tax increase or will “mandate” continue to be substituted in reference to Obamacare? Will voters recognize that taxes have been increased (by the Supreme Court no less) and that a precedence has been set for further “mandates” from this administration – or any administration – concerning almost anything? Will we be paying a federal income tax or federal income mandate?

The path a slippery slope takes is always surprising. It should come as no surprise, however, when the health insurance many now obtain through the company they work for is no longer offered. Why should it be? It is included in your taxes mandates and you’ll only get the coverage the government deems necessary. Obama’s promise of being able to keep the coverage you have was just a “nuanced” explanation.

Publishers of dictionaries and thesauruses are now scrambling to print new and improved versions, sure to also include Obama’s nuanced definition of “illegal” and “law”. Perhaps their stocks will rise as private insurance company’s stocks fall. It’s all so very taxing mandating to think about.

David J. Hentosh

Supreme Court Kick-starts Immigration Reform

The comprehensive immigration reform promised, yet undelivered, by Obama may have actually begun taking shape with Thursday’s Supreme Court decision. The direction it provides, however, is not one Obama will be happy with.

From the LA Times

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.

The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.

Thursday’s decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on employers.

Read more here:  Supreme Court Ruling

DJH

Supreme Court Opens Pandora’s Box in California

The sweeping social experiment that California has embraced over the years has now reached a peak that, conversely, could prove to be its bottom. Following a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, tens of thousands of prisoners in California are to be released due to overcrowding which the court says has caused “needless suffering and death”. There was no consideration given to the “suffering and death” of the victims of those prisoners.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy rationalized this move by saying the court had no choice because prison overcrowding has “fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements”. The ruling not only ignores the option of giving prisons more time to fix the problem, it ignores a federal law designed to limit the power of federal judges to release prisoners. It seems the notion of “Supreme” has gone to the heads of five judges.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the ruling “staggering” and “absurd”, predicting that “terrible things are sure to happen” because of it. That, obviously, is much too forward thinking for the majority of five who seem oblivious to any consequences. They are just proud to be so “progressive” and see no danger.

Proving to many that the ruling is absurd, the ACLU totally agreed with the judgment. The director of the ACLU national prison project said: “reducing the number of people in prison not only would save the state taxpayers half a billion annually, it would…lower recidivism rates and create safer communities”. Following this logic, communities would be even safer if all prisoners were released and the state could save all the money it spends on prisons – and there would be no recidivism because there would be no prisoners.

Pandora’s Box is now open in California and the social experiment is in full swing. The Supreme Court has given us a taste of its ideology that will surely surface again when illegal immigration comes before it and amnesty is granted. Some of those released prisoners will end up getting a double-dip of the Supreme Court’s idea of “justice for all”.

David J. Hentosh