Rand Paul Thinks SCOTUS Healthcare Decision Just Like Slavery, Compares It To Dred Scott Decision
It’s not exactly breaking news that the perennial Republican Presidential Candidate and father of modern-day libertarianism, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) detests government. Nor is it breaking news that the apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree with Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY). For Senator Paul, government is a living, breathing monster who will come to your house in the middle of the night, steal your child, give him/her to George Soros, and redistribute their blood to poor minority neighborhoods across the US. For heaven’s sake, the man is named after the very author attributed to libertarian philosophy (Ayn Rand did, however, defy her own literary logic and used medicare and social security when needed)! It can be said that Ayn Rand’s thinking was quite idealistic and doesn’t work when actually applied to solving and combating modern-day ails, like ensuring the health of an electorate. John Galt may have talked a huge game in Atlas Shrugged about rejecting the “collectivist agenda,” but I’m betting he’d be first in line to sign up for a plan that ensured his kid with a pre-existing condition wasn’t denied the right to live. Then again, Ayn Rand’s fictional ”John Galt” is probably a nauseatingly hypocritical Republican Senator with guaranteed healthcare for life.
// ]]>
Sen. Rand Paul likes to pride himself on being a constitutional scholar, but from previously suggesting that Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution to opposing the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters because Paul thinks massive segregation is “the hard part about believing in freedom,” the Tea Party ophthalmologist Senator may want to focus on eye exams and leave the constitutional thinking to the constitutional scholars.
Notwithstanding, Senator Paul wrote an op-ed blasting the Supreme Court’s decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act. The Senator, who’s known to support horrific measures but in a wonky and very philosophical way, likened that decision to others protecting slavery and Jim Crow.
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.
Think of how our country would look now had the Supreme Court not changed its view of what is constitutional. Think of 1857, when the court handed down the outrageous Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans were not citizens. Think of the “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which the court later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education. (Think Progress)
Let’s face it, here: the Supreme Court can be federalists when they’re bored or feel like it just as Republicans can be all against big government when they’re bored or when a black guy beats their white war hero. But how one can arrive at the conclusion that protecting millions of Americans from certain medical bankruptcy, preventing bureaucratic insurance vultures from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is a fictional fantasy that not even Ayn Rand herself could concoct. But while we’re on the topic of slavery, once good thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it prevents Americans from being slaves to their jobs just because of the health benefits they offer.
Sign up to have all the AddictingInfo you can handle delivered directly to your email here!
Michael is a comedian/VO artist/Columnist extraordinaire, who co-wrote an award-nominated comedy, produces a chapter of Laughing Liberally, wrote for NY Times Laugh Lines, guest-blogged for Joe Biden, and writes a column for MSNBC.com affiliated Cagle Media. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook, Youtube, and like NJ Laughing Liberally Lab, Seriously, follow him or he’ll send you a photo of Rush Limbaugh bending over in a thong
Related posts:
If you liked this article, share it:
