A partisan take on Obamacare

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

A partisan take on Obamacare

Postby Ragorn » Tue May 17, 2011 4:49 pm

http://www.slate.com/id/2293875/

In District Courts where Obamacare has been challenged, every single judge appointed by a Democrat has found it constitutional, while every single judge appointed by a Republican has struck down part or all of it.

I wonder which factor is more at play here.... that these judges were appointed BECAUSE of their individual interpretations of the Constitution, or that these judges hold interpretations based on the political party they support.

As with most issues of law, I'm particularly interested to hear Corth's take.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: A partisan take on Obamacare

Postby kiryan » Tue May 17, 2011 6:50 pm

I think its important to consider the forest as well as the trees. We have had some highly contentious issues come before the court where there are clear partisian lines. The bulk of the courts work... I think is politically independent and based on the blind rule of law.

Yet because of these issues, there is increased attention on the politicizing of the court. In montana, the governor vetoed a law that would put the political affliation of the judge on teh ballot and in Iowa I think they fired all three Iowa supreme court justices for ruling for gay marriage. In wisconsin the unions came damn close to making a conservative justice pay for the anti union bill.

I think its obvious that there is a combination of judges being appointed for a pattern of rulings (and beliefs) that favor the president's political ideology as well as judges who are basically going to look to the party's position for their position on the subleties of law. If we believe the judiciary is an independent institution free from political influence, this is a big fuking problem. If we look at it as a check and a balance against the other branches of government, then what you have is a slow deliberating body who is re-elected fairly frequently, a fast changing executive branch and an insulated judiciary who rarely changes. Each has a different perspective and dynamic that aims to result in balance and the best of results and the slow march of the "law" in tune (or a bit behind) the general feelign of society.

the root problem here... is not really the judiciary in my opinion. its the lack of cooperation, the winner takes all attitude in the legislative body and executive branch and the electorate and as a result of squabbling children, the "adults" have to step in and decide. The only problem, the adults were appointed by the children. Neither side has any respect for the rights of their opponents constituencies and as such, all power is being targetted for take over and eventual use to destroy the enemies.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: A partisan take on Obamacare

Postby Corth » Tue May 17, 2011 9:15 pm

Well I can't really give you a legal analysis because I don't know anything about this particular case and the governing statutes and caselaw.

I can say that at a gut level it is very clear to me that the judges often put their personal beliefs ahead of the law, perhaps unconsciously. As a lawyer, if you know what you are doing you can construct a plausible legal argument in favor of almost any position. At some point the role of a judge shifts from interpreting the laws, to actually making them. This is one of the reasons I am somewhat uncomfortable with judicial power. All things being equal, it would seem to me that elected officials are in a better position to make laws than unaccountable judges with a lifetime tenure.

Healthcare is a great example of how lawmaking should be left to legislators. Democrats took a beating in the midterm elections, largely for what was perceived by many as a flawed healthcare plan and the strongarm tactics used to get it passed. That's accountability right there. Republicans are trying to elect politicians who will repeal Obama's healthcare plan, and Democrats are trying to elect politicians who will defend it. Democracy in action. So imagine that healthcare wasn't passed by Congress and signed by the President, but rather was imposed upon the people by a court. A constitutional right to healthcare (healthcare a la Roe v. Wade). Now, instead of directly trying to elect politicians to influence the legislation, you are trying to elect politicians who will appoint the right judges. This politicizes the bench - which gets you to ideologically biased decisions in the first place.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest