SCOTUS AND HOT CHICKS

 

(How to Change the Conservative Justices Opinions on Contraception, Women, and Abortion!)

The clue to how to change conservative justice(s) opinions on abortion, contraception, and women’s rights lies in their vote on a recent decision by the court.

That case was: Riley v. California in which the court ruled unanimously that police needed warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.  I, along with many others, attribute this apparent contradiction on limitation on police power to the fact that all of the Supreme Court justices, including the conservative five, have and use cell phones.  Their aids use cell phones and therefore, they understand the need for privacy.

Based upon that peek into how they think and rule, I make the following suggestion.

We need to get the old white men on the court hooked up with some really hot young chicks of child bearing age.  They should also be professional women; no, not that kind of profession.  I mean women who work in business or finance or industry who are single mothers trying to support a family and need their reproductive rights protected.  Or, they could be unemployed single mothers not wanting anymore children.  Or, they could be women who are trying to survive with their family on minimum wage and cannot afford another child or health insurance.

Perhaps if they were as familiar with the plight of women, who are not the wives of Supreme Court Justices, as they are with cell phones, they would think differently when they rule that companies can discriminate against a woman on religious grounds.  

KEEPING IT SIMPLE

 

 If you are an elected official of the of the U.S. government or an employee, it is ILLEGAL to use that position and power to request or demand something FOR YOURSELF  be it money, a favor or thing of value from anyone.  It could be something like money or A PROMISE OR THREAT TO DO SOMETHING.  It doesn’t matter if you or they or both or neither got what they want.

If you seek or receive something to benefit the U.S., that is legal and what our ambassadors do all the time FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COUNTRY, NOT A POLITICIAN.

The Better “Final Solution”

The “Final Solution” was the term used by the Third Reich under Hitler which was designated to be used for the extermination of the Jews.  The Jews needed to be exterminated as the “scapegoat” for Germany’s problems and the economic drain on German society.

The decreasing and eventual elimination of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and aid for veterans is the Republican Party’s “Final Solution” in the tradition of Ayn Rand.  The Republicans view the poor, sick, elderly and veterans as no longer having productive lives.  These other citizens, the Republicans believe, are the cause of the economic strain on society caused by the programs supporting them.  These other citizens paid for these programs with tax dollars from their years of work, service or, in the case of veterans, to their death for our country.

There is a “Final Solution” that would be beneficial to the Republicans and those they want dead and gone.  It would be a win, win solution.  They need to pass laws that make euthanasia legal for those who are terminally ill, economically not viable or have the desire to not be slowly starved to death medically or financially.

The tax dollars needed to support these “others” will be greatly decreased or no longer be wasted on programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or veterans.  Those tax dollars could be used to decrease the debt caused by the tax breaks on the wealthy and endless wars.

Is there less morality in allowing the suffering of these our citizens to continue while we blame them for the trillions of dollars in debt that continues to mount under this and past administrations?  Is it not the decent thing to allow them to free themselves with dignity from a  slow agonizing life and death?

A final solution, not by governmental economic starvation; but with human dignity would seem preferable.

Some would object to euthanasia on moral grounds.  Let their arguments be heard as long as they stop imposing THEIR “final solution” upon our fellow citizens.  Can they support one “final solution” and oppose the other “final solution” without hypocrisy?

Is euthanasia the better “final solution”?