September 23, 2013

"My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too."

Said Rand Paul (not modeling orthodox notions of what judges are doing when they decide cases):
"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."
If only judges had a personal interest in the outcome of their decisions...

22 comments:

traditionalguy said...

If he equal treatment of the law notion prevails, then the unions and the Federal workers get equally screwed too. That is the end of the reason for political parties.

Rand has stopped preaching and gone to meddling.

Larry J said...

Yes, if this shit sandwich is good enough for the ordinary citizens of America, it's good enough for the "ruling class." Let them live under the laws that they pass and maybe, just maybe they'd do a better job of it.

LarsPorsena said...

It's sort of like the Pottery Barn rule 'You break it,you buy it'.

You make it(legislation), you live under it.

rehajm said...

Rules for thee, not for me.

Carol said...

Hmmm, Ann raises the question of disinterestedness. Surely they can't be disinterested in every single issue. Hasn't the court ruled on other things that affect them, like federal taxation?

Pete said...

But if their interest in the matter becomes too high, don't we expect them to recuse themselves?

Pete said...

But if their interest in the matter becomes too high, don't we expect them to recuse themselves?

Jeff said...

Ann's clearly trying to say that Roberts isn't responsible for ObamaCare; his only job was to rule whether or not it was constitutional. But Roberts' opinion holding that it was is so preposterous that it's clear he was acting as a legislator and not a judge.

This was not a close call. It's true that in finding ObamaCare unconstitutional the Court would be adopting a different view from it has seen things for the past several decades, but that's only because they have been ignoring the clear text of the Constitution for so long. I mean, Wickard? Lopez? Seriously?

Jeff said...

Ann's clearly trying to say that Roberts isn't responsible for ObamaCare; his only job was to rule whether or not it was constitutional. But Roberts' opinion holding that it was is so preposterous that it's clear he was acting as a legislator and not a judge.

This was not a close call. It's true that in finding ObamaCare unconstitutional the Court would be adopting a different view from it has seen things for the past several decades, but that's only because they have been ignoring the clear text of the Constitution for so long. I mean, Wickard? Lopez? Seriously?

Big Mike said...

If only judges had a personal interest in the outcome of their decisions...

Are you trying to say they never do? Is it inconceivable?

Leit Bart said...

I'd put it this way: "If only Supreme Court justices were subject to their rulings." Except I can't think of a single decision they are not governed by, other than the Obamacare decision. They are certainly not subjected to the brunt of Obamacare.

But meh. A few of O-Care's effects might trickle up to the elite justices. Maybe Roberts will be bombarded with intrusive questions like, "are you sexually active? If so, with how many people, and are those people women or men?" when he goes to his podiatrist. O-care requires every health provider to ask these questions, regardless whether they are relevant to treatment. Perhaps Sotomayor will be forced onto the scale and weighed just like the masses when she goes to her dermatologist. Maybe Ginsburg's married housekeeper will give her the nearly-impossible task of figuring out whether the housekeeper is eligible for a premium subsidy.

But let's talk about cases in which the judge has a personal interest in the outcome. Suppose a judge is gay, in a long-term relationship, and he is to decide whether his state's gay-marriage ban is constitutional. Does he have too much of a "personal interest" or is it just enough?

RecChief said...

Are you saying that judges don't have an interest in the cases before them? What, we have robots deciding law now? Please don't insult my intelligence by making the assertion that judges' decisions are not colored by their experiences, prejudices, and so on.

PatHMV said...

I continue to be perplexed at this idea that because of Obamacare, federal employees, unlike most other full-time employees of large employers, should no longer be allowed to have their employer subsidize their coverage.

In fact, the Obamacare law required that federal employees' health coverage meet all the same requirements as any other health coverage. But there was a glitch with the statute allowing for the federal government to pay part of their health premiums, and so the Obamacare coverages proscribed would not qualify. And so the "exception" being found simply allows the federal government to continue to pay the employer's portion of the health insurance coverage, despite the inconsistency between the PPCA (or whatever that acronym for Obamacare is) and the older statute authorizing payment of the employers' share of health insurance premium.

At least that's my understanding of it all. I've asked several times in several forums for somebody to point out if my understanding is wrong, and have yet to have anybody do so. Much as I can't stand Obamacare, I'm disappointed in my fellow Republicans for pushing this particular theme.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, why shouldn't federal workers be equally screwed too? Why should they be treated better than everyone else in the country?

Listening to an WSJ video today on the IRS (where apparently a spreadsheet of targeted organization was found, and some of the reasons for the targeting were that they were critical of Obama or that they wanted to reduce the government), and the question of Lois Lerner, at the heart of this scandal, came up. They couldn't determine whether or not she was still on paid vacation (aka leave) or not, so had to assume that she had, and had not been fired yet.

Imagine a similar employee in any real business, and ask yourself whether they would still be employed, after engaging in obviously illegal behavior, and then invoking the 5th Amdt. so as not to speak about it to government authorities. Almost assuredly, they would have been fired the day after invoking the 5th.

So, why do we give these federal employees so many nice perks? Such as:
- good pay (esp in the lower ranks, but even in the professional ranks like attorney Lerner). Often much more than they would earn outside govt.
- almost ironclad job security. Often very hard to fire, even for cause.
- forgiveness of student loan debt. (apparently after making a specified number of payments - which are often reduced for one reason or another).

The federal civil service was designed to provide us with a non-partisan, non-ideological work force. It has seemingly failed miserably at that, esp. as evidenced by some of the scandals we are seeing these days. And, the Obama Administration has seemingly made it worse, implementing essentially ideological tests in hiring of at least top level career employees (esp. in the DoJ under AG Holder, where certain LS activities effectively prevent being hired, while others make it much more likely). As a result, the senior career employees are becoming ever more radicalized towards the left.

Michael K said...

I think it is an excellent suggestion and the GOP legislators and staff need to adopt it. Obamacare is a mess and allowing it to begin will be as effective as blocking and maybe more so.

The IT aspect of it will collapse first.

pduggie said...

disinterest in this case is a privilege.

Am I better able to neutrally decide if African-Americans are oppressed in a particular case because I'm white and can't suffer their oppression. Or less able?

Ficta said...

It seems to me that Paul is pretty clearly impugning Roberts disinterestedness in the original decision. I think he's correct about that.

Crimso said...

Marbury v. Madison

Michael K said...

"Suppose a judge is gay, in a long-term relationship, and he is to decide whether his state's gay-marriage ban is constitutional."

That, of course, is the story of the Prop 8 case in California. The judge in federal court announced AFTER he had ruled it unconstitutional, that he and his lover were getting married. His conduct of the case was outrageous.

Gahrie said...

The excuse that the Establishment uses when discussing these issues is seperation of powers. The Executive branch operates the enforcement arms of the US government, and enforcing such laws upon the Legislative branch would neuter the Legislaive body.

At this point...who could tell the difference?

Leit Bart said...

At @patHMV,sorry to tell ya' -- but if one spouse in your household is covered by paying only 9.9% of his employer premium (calculatedly by his total household income gross)? Then he gets no subsidies for his wife and children. Period. But, hey, at least they're exempted from the O-Care penalty, too.

Mark Trade said...

Well, it is fair to say that Justice Roberts "likes" the legislative branch, isn't it? He bends over backwards to let Congress do what it wants. Everything in a command economy is okay as long as there is an "or else" clause that fines a person if they decide not to obey it.