Ultimate Irony
When “Supreme” Court Justices
Selected with a contrived agenda
Occupying the “Highest” Court in the land
Typically, making “ethical” decisions
In one shape form or another have to
Hire personal attorneys to defend them
Against (get this) “ethical” violations
Over poorly written vague ethics codes
Accountable to no one or no body
Billionaire bought or leased foxes
To guard the millionaire’s henhouses
Which is why the Supreme Court is
Part of the “criminal” Justice system
Where this should have stopped
Nope
First item on the docket
Remove the word Supreme
It’s arrogant and meaningless
If Supreme decisions are overturned
Regarding half the population
There is nothing supreme about them
Rather a malignantly malleable court
Which does nothing to raise the
Collective consciousness or guide
Bipedal earthling artists towards such
Either supreme court or supreme being
Fosters fanatics like supremacists
My way or the highway type thinking
Trouble for some reason is
People like the word supreme as in
Highest in rank or authority
A linguistic abdication of responsibility
From the thought of questioning
Whatever is being considered supreme
To many, supreme is like ice cream
The concept of it sounds very tasty
However it causes the brain to freeze
Bringing inquiry to a screeching halt
What if instead of a court at all
Supreme, district, county, federal, trial, appellate, state, etc…
( WOW, that puts a whole lotta people judging others)
( In a country supposedly following the words of that Jesus fella
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.)
There was a way to guide humans
Towards evolutionary enlightenment
Which would seem to be why we are here
Into both seeing the error of our ways
Then guiding us towards better ones
The distraction controversial contemplation
Is to (get this) add more Justices…..hmmmmm
(How does that definition of insanity go?)
Adding four more nudniks with unearned assigned
Monikers of “honorable” when it doesn’t fit the bill
Why stop at four, why not twenty four, yet people
Not beholden to belligerent billionaire backers
All sorts of people to get a humanistic balance
Of what is in humanity’s actual best interests
Drug addicts, homeless, disabled, teachers,
Rape survivors, clerks, migrants, veterans,
Transgenders, police officers, mechanics,
Entrepreneurs, depressed and anxious, etc.
The true face of America to guide Americans
“I write to expunge the darkness so
That someday light may shine through”
– Angelo Devlin
Looking at the world through a windshield. 
I like that you’re suggesting everyone inherently knows what is right (ethical). Do you think it’s possible for one person to possibly know better or have more insight into what is ethical than another person? Or do you think everyone has equal access to “superior” discernment about right and wrong?
Do you think there is such a thing as right and wrong or good/bad? If everything is morally relative then having any ethics is impossible. I’m guessing from what you write that you think there is a natural harmony that emerges when people are allowed to flourish.
To have functional anarchy, we would need to have a society of highly ethical people who don’t need constraints or guidelines to tell them what is right and wrong because they would instinctively know it. From either too much constraint or too much affirmation of vulgar desires, we descend into chaos and violence and people don’t develop (emotionally, intellectually) past the age of 2, they use their “adult” bodies to wreak havoc and harm on others.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are so many answers, or none at all. Comes down to a subjective perspective, in each now moment. Like the person “stealing” bread to feed their family. A Sophie’s choice of dichotomous ethics. Not taking the bread to have one’s family starve is not very ethical.
Besides, ethics (good/bad) is a word the Collective made up. Unintentionally challenging the users as to ranking what is “superior.”
Doug Stanhope points out that all laws are church laws (10 Commandments) as sort of do as I say not as I do set of rules.
A functional anarchy (I like that) wouldn’t even need highly ethical people, just a situation of everyone looking out for everybody else by oddly enough looking out for themselves.
If everyone made sure all were housed and fed, ethics would take care of itself.
Thanks for reading and responding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point. Thanks for helping me clarify what I think. I equated ethical with looking out for everybody, so I understand better why you don’t use the word ‘ethics’ so that it can’t get confused with something else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Btw, most of the content listed in the 10 commandments are found in every ‘religion’ and philosophy across the globe, regardless of belief in God or not. The inherent survival of the planet requires love thy neighbor as thyself (exactly what you say). Funny that no one would actually need that instruction if we never wrote them down.
Evolution as a whole is based on altruism.
LikeLiked by 1 person