The U.S. Supreme Court decided some big things this week. BIG THINGS. The same-sex marriage debate is finally over. News flash: It’s legal. The Obamacare debate is finally over. States that haven’t set up health care exchanges can eat their federal government defying words, because now that very same bureaucracy can officially, legally, even though it already has, set up an exchange in those states in lieu of what’s missing.
Actually, those two debates will probably never be over.
Just like the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in Roe vs. Wade didn’t end that debate.
Americans just love to talk about social and ideological sides way too much. They love to hate the other side, and they certainly enjoy being the “authority” in a heated discussion. This winged friend of yours is no different. I love being American this month, and boy do I have a big beak.
Go civil rights! For everyone. Except for people on death row, of course. The court essentially decided, 5-4, that one of the three items in the druggy death cocktail inmates are lethally injected with doesn’t have to be FDA approved.
Apparently, a substitute drug that’s supposed to put inmates in a coma before the painful drugs that do the actual killing get injected doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to. It’s a substitute because some drug manufacturers refuse to provide the original for lethal injections. It’s a moral thing. The Supreme Court, though, said it’s good enough.
So Supreme Court justices: What does constitute “cruel and unusual punishment?”
And although I don’t always agree with that court’s decisions, I won’t ever go the Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, now running for president, route. He basically called a court designed to interpret and solidly define the often legalese-convoluted words that make up this nation’s legal system “lawless.”
“The court’s views are radically out of step with public opinion,” Cruz told NPR.
FYI: The decisions it makes aren’t supposed to mimic public opinion, which can often be uninformed on all things law-based. Which, Mr. Cruz, is a good reason its justices shouldn’t be elected (he’s advocating that they should). Can you imagine an elected court making decisions, not based on the actual laws, but based on money and lobbyists? That’s the job of the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial branch.
And while big things, BIG THINGS, were announced by the highest court in the land, which is also the check for the legislative and executive branches of our government, the Santa Barbara County grand jury announced the end of its year’s worth of reports.
What big things did they announce, you ask? Well, nothing really. But, the year’s topics included a rather blasé account of Guadalupe’s financial situation, a rundown on the county’s ebola preparedness, and evaluations of the county’s jails.
Not to worry folks: The grand jury “is confident that the infectious disease preparedness plans established by” the county’s public health department “are adequate and ready for implementation when needed.”
First of all, I feel like if and when it will be needed is never (although, I may have just stuck my orange, gross-looking claw in my beak). A more pressing epidemic in this county would be hungry children.
And don’t get me started on Guadalupe: The grand jury report didn’t give any information that added to the knowledge already out there. The city pretty much put everything out on the table months before the report came out, so it kind of seemed like a waste of time and electronic space. The grand jury concluded: “Guadalupe continues to have ongoing financial problems.” No way! Was that why the city put three measures on the November 2014 budget to increase its revenue?
But it also went so far as to call the city’s answers to the financial situation a “continual shell game.” That’s harsh.
For the jails: “Overcrowding continues to be an ongoing issue at the Main Jail.” Is that why we have a $120 million jail project in the works?
The reports require responses, but other than that, they have no teeth. Nobody gets slapped on the wrist, even. The jury reported that Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown didn’t consult his facility heads on the annual budget, which sounds like it would be an important thing to do. And while the county’s required to respond to that finding and the recommendation that those facility heads be consulted, really, nothing happens if things don’t change.
Next year, though, I’d like to see them tackle hunger, poverty, jobs, and high unemployment. If we’re going to talk about things we already know about, lets take on those topics that will make a difference in the lives of county residents. And on the topic of hunger: The Santa Barbara Independent reported that Montecito resident and all-around famous and fun dude Jeff Bridges (love him, by the way) wants to make sure no kid in Santa Barbara County goes hungry.
But—you guessed it, Northern Santa Barbara County—all the work he’s doing is in the Santa Barbara area.
So I’m officially inviting you up to Santa Maria and Lompoc, Mr. Bridges, because I’d like to make sure you see through on that promise of yours.
The Canary wants everyone to give back. Send comments to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jul 2-9, 2015.
