Senators should not intentionally set out to make the American public stupid, or to validate invalid ethical constructs. Thus this explanation of his current proposal from Sen. Rand Paul needs to be derided, and should also cause concern for anyone who thinks it’s important for the Republican party to find some leaders who are trustworthy. Paul, in the course of pushing his stillborn, grandstanding plan to use a constitutional amendment to require government bigwigs to live with the same health care laws they impose on the rest of us, said this to The Daily Caller:
“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too. See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”
See, the fact that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional using a highly-controversial legal distinction in no way suggests that he personally “likes” it, and anyone who thinks that is what judicial opinions, especially Supreme Court Opinions, mean is shockingly ignorant of the judicial system, the legal system, the law, the role of judges in society, the Constitution, and by extension, pretty much most of the principles that give government, management and leadership any integrity or competence. The fact that such an anyone has risen to the level of U.S. Senator goes beyond shocking to terrifying.
Perhaps, you say, the libertarian Senator was just engaging in a rhetorical flourish, and isn’t really under the false impression, which would and should get any high school civics student an F, that whether or not a judge likes the effect of particular legislation is the decisive factor in whether he or she concludes that it passes Constitutional muster. The statement is irresponsible and dishonest, then: if so, Paul is intentionally misleading the public about how judges not only do their jobs but are ethically obligated to do their jobs, and thus he is undermining public comprehension and trust. A judge who strikes down a law that is constitutional because he or she dislikes it is legislating; a judge who approves of a law he knows or believes is unconstitutional because he personally will benefit from it or “likes” it should be impeached. To do this is allowing conflict of interest to override the rule of law. A judge whose personal interest in a law will affect his consideration of its lawfulness must recuse himself from that process.
Paul’s statement sparks the query: is this how he reasons as a Senator? Is he incapable of the most basic qualification of statesmanship, the ability to oppose a measure or a political ally that he personally “likes” in order to do what he knows is right, and in the best interests of the nation? Is Paul’s personal calculus on laws he considers primarily determined by what benefits him personally? If not, why does he assume such an unprofessional, self-centered and unethical approach by others, especially a distinguished jurist like John Roberts? In fact, I am close to 100% certain that Justice Roberts loathes the Affordable Care Act in principle and effect, but believed, for reasons that will be much debated until the extinction of our species, that it was not in the best interests of the nation for the Supreme Court to over-turn the entire law on the basis of the troubling “individual mandate.”
If not based on ignorance, and not an intentional effort to mislead the public, then the only remaining motivation for Senator Paul’s statement is vengeance. If true, that may be the worst of all. Judges and Supreme Court justices must be able to perform their complex analyses of the law and render objective decisions without fear that vindictive ideologues without a working comprehension of the legal system will use their positions in Congress to pass measures aimed at punishing those jurists for not following the “right” political playbook. Even the suggestion of this likelihood from a U.S. senator raises the stench of attempted intimidation of one branch of government by the other, a breach of the separation of powers.
As is often the case in the Ethics Dunce category, the lingering question left by Paul’s threat is whether he is an Ethics Dunce, or just a plain, ordinary, garden variety dunce….the kind, unfortunately, which increasingly gets sent to Congress.
I have my suspicions.
_________________________
Pointer: Althouse
Facts: Daily Caller
Graphic: Wendy Thomas Russell
Ethics Alarms 
Sen. Paul’s rhetoric aside, I do support a law that applies to all of the people without exception, under the principle that equality under the law affords inequality of liability under the law only to those who break the law.
So do I. Not the issue, however.
And, as conservative as I am (yes, I know Rand Paul is a libertarian), I would have to vote for him being you’re garden-variety dunce. Heard him on Fox and Friends this morning and obviously had the same reaction you did…Yeah, that’ll work SO well.
Another way that Rand Paul is behing dishonest is that no such amendment is needed in order for Chief Justice Roberts to fall under the requirements of Obamacare. Justice Roberts, and everyone else, is required to have healthcare. Anyone who works for the Federal Government and gets the healthcare plan provided to Federal employees as part of their compensation package satisfies their requirement to have health insurance.
Perhaps Paul is confused over the specifics of the law he is being critical of. Back when HR3200 was being debated, it had a “public option” that individuals could have bought into if they lacked their own insurance. It would have been purchased via your tax forms on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay. There was discussion back then to require that the public option be the federal health insurance plan that federal employees were allready a part of. The Democrats seemed ok with that and were willing to include it, at which point the Conservatives balked. I supported the idea that the public option should be the same plan that all government employees can partake in.
But because HR 3200 was poisoned with so many lies about death panels and other such falsehoods, the public option went away and was replaced with the statewide exchanges that exist in the law that passed.
So I am not sure what Rand Paul is trying to accomplish with his desire to compell Justice Roberts “gets Obamacare” too. It is probably just popular rhetoric that tea party folks will embrace without questioning it because Rand Paul is a big hero amongst a substantially sized group of tea party/libertarian types who are unlikely to question what he says because of his rock star nature in that political group.
Man, I have mixed emotions about this. I would like to think that Paul is just using Roberts as an example for the “layman’s understanding”….everyone should be treated equally under this disastrous financially destroying grub worm bill….no one ever asked me “hey what do you think about the government getting deeper into the medical profession, playing doctor and all that?”…….oh I feel the old BP rising…where’s that aspirin….
Did anyone stop to think that he might just be making a point about the elitism of present day officials and an ethics point about “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? Indeed, if the professional politicians who have snowballed our gigantic extra-constitutional federal monster had to live with the consequences of their own actions, maybe such a law (or amendment) would stand as another guard at the gate of freedom.