Stidmatt

The Supreme Court made a terrible decision yesterday, ruling that employers are allowed to deny access to birth control to their employees.

This idea is that forcing an employer to pay for the birth control of their employee as part of their health insurance is forcing the business owner to violate their religious beliefs.

The first problem I have with this is very simple. If a Quaker is opposed to war they have to still pay taxes, and 1 in 8 of their tax dollars will go to military, despite it being a long held religious conviction that war is against the word of God. Quakers do not get a 12% tax reduction because of their opposition to war. This is unequal treatment under the law.

My second major problem with this is that this is not the employer deciding whether they personally will or will not get birth control. That is their body and their choice. The issue here is that as part of employment, the United States has reached a compromise that employers provide health insurance for their employees as part of employment, in lieu of a Medicare for all scheme. Birth control is a form of health care. Period. The employer doesn’t get to dock an employee’s pay because that employee decides to use their money one way or another. They have paid that employee for work and at that point the only other person who has any legal right to say how that individual spends their money is their lawfully wedded spouse if they are in a community property arrangement. If that employee decides to use their income to buy condoms or an IUD, it is none of that employer’s business, and they should have no say.

This decision is so highly unethical, that it is saying that employers have a legal right to say what employees may or may not use their income to do. As part of the contract of employment that employer is obligated to provide health insurance. That is the compromise the United States reached when we could not get enough Senators on board to back Medicare for All. Part of that compromise is that health insurance needs to be all encompassing.

This idea that the employer is paying for health insurance is also a half truth, because there is a small but very real reduction in cash wages when employers provide benefits to employees, and that employee is paying some of that cost by slightly lower cash. That’s just how such things work in microeconomics. At that point the business owner is forcing the purchases of their employee because of some religious hang up because of that amount the cash wages are necessarily being reduced by benefits, which is forcing their religion on the personal purchases of their employees. Any individual who forces their religion on another is violating the first amendment.

Fuck it, health care is a human right. Birth control is a human right.

Fuck this shit.

I’m so fucking tired of these Republicans trying to jam their religion down my throat. I am so fucking tired of these prudes telling me what I can and cannot say. I feel like we are still living in Salem, Massachusetts during the Salem Witch Trials with this bullshit.

I’m fucking angry.

Birth control is a human right. Comprehensive sexual education is a human right.

People deserve to understand their bodies.

People deserve to have control over their bodies.

If you have a problem with that you can suck my dick.

It is my belief that President Obama almost became a Supreme Court justice. This is because that if Hillary Clinton had become President 3 years ago, he would have been the most obvious pick to replace a resignation during Hillary Clinton’s term. It is likely RBG would have retired by now given that she is in her late 80s, to ensure her seat would not be appointed by a Republican in case Hillary Clinton were to lose, and because of this, Barack Obama would have been the obvious candidate to replace her.

Now, it is true that a President going on the Supreme Court is an unusual circumstance, but I  think this is because having a former President who is young enough to be a long term pick is very rare.

• So, in 2017 when Hillary Clinton would have become President, Barack Obama was 56, Bill Clinton was 71, and Jimmy Carter was 93. Obama was the only President young enough to be truly worth appointing.
• In the reality we live in with Donald Trump became President in 2017 George W. Bush was 71, and George H.W. Bush was 93, so neither were likely picks for the Supreme Court.
• In 2009 when Obama was elected, Bill Clinton was 63, and Jimmy Carter was 85. Carter was too old to be considered, and Clinton was 10 years older than the average SCOTUS appointment. Bill Clinton could have been appointed, but President Obama of course went with Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan who are 8 and 14 years younger than him. The last SCOTUS justice who was appointed when he was over the age of 60 was Harry Blackmun in 1970. Since 1980 the average age at appointment is 52. Presidents want to appoint Justices who will last, which is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest justice when she was appointed in the last 50 years.
• When George W. Bush entered office in 2001, the youngest living former Republican President was his father at the age of 77.
• When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1993, the only living former Democratic President was Jimmy Carter who was already 69.
• No living former Republican Presidents were living and under the age of 60 either in 1981 or 1989.
• When Jimmy Carter was elected, only Nixon and Ford were still living.
• When Nixon was elected in 1969, there were no living former Republican Presidents.
• When John F. Kennedy became President in 1961 the only living Democratic President was Harry S. Truman who was 77.
• When Dwight D. Eisenhower became President in 1953, the only living former Republican President was Herbert Hoover who was 79.
• Herbert Hoover was the only living former President through the terms of both Harry S. Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
• Calvin Coolidge was 57 when Herbert Hoover became President in 1929. William Howard Taft was on the Supreme Court.
• In 1921 when  Warren G. Harding was elected he appointed William Howard Taft as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who was 63 years old. Taft is currently tied with Levi Woodbury as the 4th oldest Supreme Court pick in American history, behind only Charles Evan Hughes (1930-1941), Horace Harmon Lurton (1910-1914), and Lewis F. Powell Jr. (1972-1987). He was tied with Levi Woodbury (1845-1851). He was the second oldest pick at the time, and a fairly unusual choice. The only time since then where there has been a living former President young enough to be seriously considered as a SCOTUS pick was Bill Clinton in 2009.
• There were no living former Democratic Presidents in 1913.
• Theodore Roosevelt was the only living former President in 1909. He was 51 years old. I believe he was not picked because he had major ideological differences with William Howard Taft. This deserves an article of its own.
• Grover Cleveland was the only living former President in 1901. He was 64. He was also a Democrat, whereas Roosevelt was a Republican.
• Benjamin Harrison was 64 when President McKinley became President.
• Benjamin Harrison had no living former Republican Presidents when he was elected in 1893.
• Rutherford Hayes was alive when Grover Cleveland was elected in 1885, but he was 63.
• Both Presidents Grant and Hayes were alive, and both were 59 years old when James Garfield became President in 1881. President Garfield was able to appoint one Justice. President Arthur was able to appoint two Justices as well, meaning that even  though these two Presidents served for only 4 years they were able to appoint a third of the Supreme Court. President Grant was going on a world tour when all three of these appointments were made, and Garfield had defeated Hayes in the primary of 1880. Party lines were not as strict as they are today, and it doesn’t take a lot of explanation to see why they would not offer a Supreme Court position to a former political rival.
• There were no living Republican or Whig Presidents in 1869.
• John Tyler was the only living Whig President when Abraham Lincoln entered office in 1861. He was 71 years old. The Republican Party was founded on the ashes of the Whig Party.
• Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, and Martin Van Buren were alive when James Buchanan became President in 1857. Pierce was 53, Fillmore was 57, and Van Buren was 75. James Buchanan chose to appoint Nathan Clifford instead who was 54. Buchanan opened his Presidency by recalling all of Pierce’s appointments, so Pierce was an unlikely pick. Millard Fillmore had run against Buchanan in the 1856 election as the Know Nothing candidate, so he was also an unlikely pick for the Supreme Court.
• After Fillmore had run as a Whig in 1852 it was unlikely Pierce would select him in his one Supreme Court pick. Martin Van Buren was 71, so an unlikely choice.
• John Tyler was the only living Whig President during the terms of both Taylor and Fillmore. Fillmore had one pick in 1851, at which point John Tyler was 61, so an unlikely choice.
• John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren were the only Presidents when James K. Polk was elected in 1845. Van Buren was 63 and Adams was 78, so they were unlikely choices.
• John Tyler had no Supreme Court appointments.
• Andrew Jackson was 70 when Martin Van Buren was elected President.
• Andrew Jackson was a significant break from earlier Presidents, and all of his predecessors were over 60 when he was elected President.
• All living former Presidents were over 60 when John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were elected President.

Looking now at all of American history it becomes clear that the real reason we have had only one President appointed to the Supreme Court is because it is highly unusual to have a former President of the same Party as the current President who is young enough to likely last for a significant amount of time. The only times in American history a former President has been 63 or younger, of the same party as the new President, not a former political rival of the new President, and alive are as follows:

• Bill Clinton in 2009 at 63 would have been older than any other appointment since Nixon.
• Calvin Coolidge in 1929 at 57.
• William Howard Taft in 1921 was 63.
• Ulysses S. Grant was 55 in 1877.
• Fillmore was 57 in 1853.
• Pierce was 53 in 1853.
• John Tyler was 59 in 1849.

That’s the entire list.

Now just imagine… if Obama was a Supreme Court Justice he would have been able to push through many of the policies he proposed to congress which were defeated, things like:

• Fighting voter ID laws
• The DREAM ACT
• High speed rail
• Health care access
• and many, many more policies which were defeated in Congress

Just imagine for a minute, what that would have looked like.
Splitting 5-4, Supreme Court Grants Alabama’s Request to Restore Voting Restrictions

Might makes right. If someone isn’t doing well, then it is inherently their fault.

Social redistribution is counter to both of these ideas.

Military spending backs up the idea of might makes right.

If my actions impact someone else, that means I was more mighty, hence in the right.

Civil rights are contrary to the idea of might makes right and radical self responsibility.

This also explains why military aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia is good and economic development aid in the form of mosquito nets is bad. Giving weapons is part of expanding our might. According to conservative logic these other countries should have built economies which build those systems. They dont necessarily need to be privately funded. Case in point: bank bailouts are good, stimulus checks are bad. Bailouts of large companies increase might of the few, who can then  continue to support your campaigns, increasing your power, which follows might makes right. Widespread stimulus spread opportunity around, reducing your overall advantage, violating might makes right.

This also explains why Republicans will NEVER propose a law to protect private retirement accounts from many ways employers fuck over their employees, such as not letting you change your retirement strategy after you set up your account. Such a law would violate personal responsibility because in the Republican worldview you should have done your research and gotten a better contract in the beginning, even if you were a 22 year old first generation college graduate. They also will continue to say social security OASI is bad, but never propose a better plan because it would be the government regulating private contracts, which violates personal responsibility.