Getty Images
I'm sure when the dust settles, there will be a series of amusing pieces noting the most over-the-top reactions to this morning's Supreme Court ruling on health care, but some early nominees are already in the running for some kind of ignominious award.
For example, Rep. Mike Pence (R) of Indiana, a 2012 gubernatorial candidate, told his colleagues behind closed doors that the high court decision is comparable to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Pence apologized soon after.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), meanwhile, didn't just say something outrageous in the heat of the moment, as some kind of emotional outburst -- he put his nonsense in writing.
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional," the freshman lawmaker said in a statement.
First, a five-member majority is not "a couple people." Second, as many members of the United States Senate should probably realize, it's the Supreme Court's job to determine a law's constitutionality.
And third, a strange, self-accredited ophthalmologist may like to believe "the whole thing remains unconstitutional," but fortunately, it's not up to the junior senator from Kentucky to make such a declaration.
Leave a Comment:
Bringing shame to the Democratic stronghold of Louisville, KY, witness the Senate's most dickish little Senator, Rand Paul.
(OK, KY's a dumb red state, but I needed to let everybody know, Louisville's OK and pretty cool.)
I think Pence's comments are more telling and more important. What the world would be like if everyone knew this is how Republicans think.
So's Lexington. Any little basketball unpleasantries between the two towns, notwithstanding.
Ha, per this picture "It's this big" ...
Oh, I don't know. There are examples where any person who can read can plainly see that the Supreme Court has made an error. His phrasing leaves him slightly vulnerable to your criticism, but I think Senator Paul gets a pass, on this one. Corporations are people now, and corporate money is speech now, and a President was appointed in 2000 by blocking the vote count, due to convoluted decisions which defy clear intent and expression of the Constitution, to name three familiar examples.
Gary
I almost took you seriously.
I guess it's appropriate that two of the dumbest members of the New John Birch Society in Congress should be making stupid comments. I can't wait for the reasoned arguments from the other members of "bag o' hammers" caucus.
I thought it was the "box of rocks" caucus. :)
No No it is the drooling mindless idiot clown car caucus.
What's with this alternate reality stuff? I understand the view of, "I disagree with the bill and want to elect Romney so it can be repealed." That makes sense. That's how elections and our democratic republic are supposed to work. But, "I disagree with the bill and therefore our Supreme Court doesn't get to decide what's constitutional?" Dear goodness you're doing it wrong.
I mean, I was all braced for a 5-4 decision striking down the law (or at least the mandate part), and I'd have questioned the partisanship of the court, sure. But I do realize that's the law of the land, and their interpretation is de facto the deciding factor in what we all must consider to be constitutional or not. If I disliked their decision that much, I could advocate a different position--like single-payer--or advocate amending the Constitution.
...But I wouldn't be saying that the Court is somehow not the Court anymore. In what universe does that even work? Is Rand playing Calvinball?
Well, by Randywandy's logic, we can just dispense with the Supreme Court's silly fictions about corporations being people and money being speech.
You've put your finger on the a basic difference between the far-right and everyone else. For contrast, the Citizens United ruling is not popular among most of the people who are aware of what that decision entails. There are arguments about whether the case was correctly decided, whether corporations have rights and whether money equals speech, and what can be done in the short and long terms to either work around or negate the ruling. But what most people do not do is to assert that the entire proceedings were fundamentally illegitimate merely on the basis of a disagreement with the ruling. It's a very different matter on the right. For them, legitimacy is a matter of whether the outcome is the one they desired. It's not only an alternate universe, but a different (and lower) level of moral reasoning.
To the 14th amendment, now please add Article III to things Rand Paul believes are unconstitutional.
Impeach John Roberts.....3...2...1
pass the popcorn
If President Obama gets to pick the nominee to replace him, both as a Justice and as Chief, I'd still be OK with that. Even after Roberts' brief flirtation with sanity today...
;-)
Follow-up question for Sen. Paul: "Why?"
Follow-up to the follow-up: "Is there a person or persons in our current system of government whose job it is to determine what is and is not constitutional?"
Follow-up to the follow-up's follow-up: "Are you one of those people?"
Follow-up, take 4: "Why are you still talking?"
Rand Paul is a blithering idiot. However, aside from this ad hominem, we have to be clear on the possibility of reasonably disagreeing with the Supreme Court.
A strict legal positivist would say: "The law is whatever is legislated by the proper procedures, and anything is constitutional if the Supreme Court says it is." But I don't think we want to take that stance.
Consider, e.g.: SCOTUS rules that, say, torture is constitutional. Do we all say: "Well, we think it isn't, but now that SCOTUS has spoken, we have to accept that it is."? I don't think so. Therefore it's legitimate to disagree with SCOTUS. But one must separate the legal finality of a decision from ideological disagreements.
Remember: only in certain religions is there an authority whose pronouncements are beyond error and to doubt them is heretical. And even there, one wonders how that theology fares in light of forced admissions of past errors, such as the Earth orbiting the sun (a former heresy) and so on. Similarly for the Supreme Court: slavery was once constitutional, with the only debate before the Civil War before the court was whether a law mandating the forced arrest and return of escaped slaves is constitutional (I forget the name of the case, I'm not a legal scholar by profession.) So, constitutionality is legally binding but not an ahistorical truth. The law is not natural science.
Enough of this seriousness. How about we agree to condemn, in this case, INACTIVIST JUDGES! I call for impeachment. Of everyone. Queen of Hearts style, in true know-nothing fashion.
One RedState blogger Erick Erickson essentially said that Justice Roberts "was willing to destroy his reputation with conservatives' in order to keep the Supreme Court out of political fights. The utter hypocrisy of SCOTUS needing or wanting a conservative reputation is ludicrous. If we can not expect SCOTUS to be apolitical, it is time to redefine separation of powers, and who we want to serve in that capacity.
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be constitutional does not make it so." I'm surprised he didn't go on and say "it's only so when I say it's so."
Oh, and I really think there should be a caption contest for the picture of the constitutional expert from Kentucky.
Clearly, he's just trying to indicate the size of his... mmm, let's keep this PG, I guess:
brain?
heart?
;-)
...conscience.
I didn't realize that he's a self-accredited ophthalmologist.
That would fall right in line with the Ayn Rand approach to things. Why do we need the government to certify and license people. Let the marketplace decide.
I'm sure when he goes for hear surgery, he'll use a self-accredited heart surgeon.
I suppose it would be wrong of me to hope so?
;-)
Oh my goodness, good wittle wibewals will disapprove!
Oh please pick him for Veep Mittens!!
Hey Rand Paul
I wish for once just once one of those overpaid newsreaders would ask when the "Government Takeover "talking point is spouted .
Excuse me Mr. Idiot spokesperson Rand , Explain to me how exactly it is a "Government Takeover"
It would probably sound like that guy that Chris Matthews cornered with appeasement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR2_8D7tYxk
In this rare instance, I actually agree with Rand Paul.
Yes, the Supreme Court has said that individuals have a Second Amendment right to bear arms. Yes, the Supreme Court has said that money = speech and corporations are people. Therefore, until we get a new Supreme Court, we have to live by those incorrect decisions.
But yes, in those instances and others, the Supreme Court has decided that things that should have been declared unconstitutional were not, and vice versa.
So while it's true that five Supreme Court justices get to decide whether a law is treated as constitutional, as Rand Paul suggested, five Supreme Court justices can be wrong about whether it is actually constitutional.
Granted, CJ. And, given that the Court has reserved the right, through history, to reverse itself when it finds that it had earlier been mistaken, that it can be wrong is indisputable. But, but, but... are you actually saying you agree with Sen. Aqua Buddha that the Court actually was wrong to find this law constitutional???
Oo
You may disagree with the Supremes (and lord knows I do) but they are the final arbiter of the Constitution and only THEY can reverse themselves. So yes, this is the LAW and it IS constitutional.
So now Rand Paul wants to Amend the Constitution to have a Royal Supreme Court to overturn the stuff the originalists oppose?
Yes, there are things I don't like in SCOTUS, too. Spreading the dissatisfaction in all directions. Whoopie, America, the land of differing opinions!
Actually, Rand Paul's using the same argument that the South made during the Civil War. Those states claimed they had the right to decide what is or is not constitutional under the US Constitution and could unilaterally reject federal laws. We know how that argument ended.
If they try for a repeat performance, just let them go this time.
Tempting. There are no slaves to free, so no real moral argument against letting the South go. There is a small problem in that Southern-fried right-wing ideology has metastasized and spread to the whole country since the Civil War (calling into question who really won), so there are a few other states outside the South that might want to join the new Confederacy. But if it could be limited to just the states of the old Confederacy, why not? That's where the core of all our problems lie, so good riddance if we can manage it, just so long as those who wish to cross sides are free to do so.
Look at me, writing about this as if it were a serious proposal. What an idiot.
This is the same nonsensical reasoning that tea party pundits use regarding the outcome of federal and state elections:
The election outcome is only valid when their candidate is voted into office, and court decisions are only valid when their argument is upheld.
since he works in an environment in which being on the short end of a 55-41 vote means you win, i could see where he might be a little confused when being on the short end of a 5-4 decision means you lose.
Rand Paul makes me wonder if dope smoking really does damage your brain.
It's all part of the tea party mindset:
If a judge overturns a decision or nullifies a piece of legislation generated by progressives, the he/she is a righteous warrior defending the U.S. Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, blah, blah, blah.
If the same judge was to rule against a conservative position, then he/she is an "activist judge" who needs to be removed from the court ASAP.
To demonstrate their commitment to our sacred U.S. Constitution, many conservative pundits and politicians strive to eliminate those Amendments that conflict with their ideology, simply ignore other sections that they find inconvenient to honor, and to pick and choose which SCOTUS rulings they deem worthy to uphold.
Any constitution is only as good as the people who enforce and interpret it. If the Tealiban is allowed to enforce and interpret as they see fit, then it will actually be just a piece of paper.
It's the Tea GOParty mindset. They're right. No matter what.
I went to the senator's official website and filled out the form where you can ask him a question. This is what I typed:
Please explain to Senator Paul that his disagreement with the Supreme Court does not mean their decision is unconstitutional. While he was able to create his own board accreditation for his medical specialty, he does not get to decide what is constitutional especially when it pertains to the Supreme Court's decisions.
Rand Paul continues to confirm he is merely a pimple on the butt of the elephant.
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional," the freshman lawmaker said in a statement.
What he said is true, but that is not what happened. If five people on the Supreme Court declare it to be constitutional then it is most definitely constitutional.
What does he think the Supreme Court does anyway? lol . Wish people would stop electing morons.
Rand Paul
Please read Article III of the Constitution. It will tell you what the function of the Supreme Court is.
Also, give Marbury v. Madison a read sometime when you're on the can, Senator, instead of just wanking over your Ayn Rand photo album.
(Wow. Do I ever have a nasty streak.)