Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed health care legislation
(The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and the President of the United States has signed it in to law -- it is the will of the people, the voice of the majority of elected representatives, the duly enacted law of the land. Conservatives have instituted a number of law suits (mostly emanating from Republican controlled states) to have the law declared unconstitutional. On the assumption that some federal judge may come along and do just that, I wonder if the judge and the decision will be challenged by the conservatives in the same way that they have challenged Judge Walker's decision in the same-sex marriage case.
Will the judge who declares the statute unconstitutional be described as Judge Walker was by
Rush Limbaugh as "a political activist wearing a black robe"? Will he also say that "The federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people" in the United States, as he claimed in respect to California? Will there be the same general cries of "thwarting the will of the majority" and the creation of a judicial tyranny?
Will they investigate the background of the judge as to his existing insurance coverage, his health history, his past employment with or representing insurance companies or his investments in them? Will he be charged with "bias" as a woman did on Fox News asking where was the evidence to support the Judge's made-up factual findings about the equality of child-rearing between heterosexual and same sex couples? (For starters, I would suggest she might consider looking at the evidence that was adduced at trial).
No. There will be no charges by conservatives of thwarting the will of the majority, decrying judicial activism, searching the private life of the judge to discredit him or impugn his integrity. Crowds will not take to the streets with obscene signs and dire warnings of the death of democracy. Rather the judge will be praised for his fairness and commitment to the Constitution and the goals of the Framers as they were envisioned at the moment the last signature was inked on the parchment.
Why would all of the usual labels spew out over the same-sex marriage decision and not one declaring health care legislation unconstitutional? The answer is simple: Conservatives hate the first and love the second. Plain and simple. It is activism if they do not agree; it is upholding the Constitution if they do. A reminder: Courts have the right and duty to declare a law invalid when it conflicts with the Constitution. There is no proviso stating "so long as the Conservatives agree with the decision". That language appears nowhere in the great document.
Andrew F. March: Civil Unions for All! Why the Government Should Get Out of the 'Marriage' Business
Gays are not being "stripped" of a right. They are asking that a new right be created. If the activist judges succeed in creating this new right, then there will be a movement to abolish all government recognition of "marriage". This would be a rational resolution of the matter that I would support.
HATE.
You are just suffering from the disease of righteousness. You are blind to your bigotry regardless of whether you can see it. WE certainly can.
Should a Federal court declare sections of the health care act unconstitutional I can guarantee that some of those who are praising Judge Walker will be denouncing the judge who issues that decision.
In striking down Prop 8, the court was "thwarting the will of the majority". There are times that this can be the right thing to do, but it is still thwarting.
Judge Sarokin wrote: "It is activism if they do not agree; it is upholding the Constitution if they do."
Sort of like Daley and others concerning the decision in McDonald?
Judge Sarokin wrote: "There is no proviso stating "so long as the Conservatives agree with the decision". That language appears nowhere in the great document."
Agreed. Nor is there a proviso stating "so long as the Progressives agree with the decision". ,
Side bar... the Canadian Declaration of Rights does do something similar in a non partisan manner by virtue of containing the infamous "notwitstanding clause". Thank heavens no such clause exists in our Constitution.
"Hey if the court hadn't gotten active, I would have won."
Arguably Marbury v. Madison was an early example. Certainly Dred Scott was.
The gay marriage debate involves a minority attempting to enforce its re-definition of a cultural, religious, and legal tradition on the majority. It involves no Constitutional issues, since the idea of personal sexuality or family formation is not addressed by the Constitution.
I would agree with the statement that race is an arbitrary difference between people and therefore outlawing interracial marriage is unconstitutional. I do not believe that gender is an arbitrary difference that merits the same handling.
An argument, if employed, would not survive rational basis scrutiny. In order for the proponents of Prop 8 to prevail using the rational basis standard, it is necessary for them to assert what you are really doing is providing special benefits to heterosexual couples in order to encourage a more permanent bond so as to provide stability for the issue of the union. Such an argument could well survive rational basis scrutiny because it can not be argued that the provision for these special benefits are over broad in that they benefit childless couples. However, intermediate scrutiny is not so generous concerning the reach of a statute and Prop 8 would surely fail if that level of scrutiny is employed.
Shall we also go back and examine the Judges involved in that wonderful case in Florida that saddled us with GWB?
I personally find this reprehensible to start accusing judges of not being able to separate their own personal views from the rules of law. Starting down this path can have no good ending.
Just because fascists CAN put something on the ballot, then run reprehensible TV ads spouting untruths, twisting voters into doing something unfair...............THEY DO.
And of course, courts do not review ballot measures --- PEOPLE bring the court challenges
Also, as a judge I'm sure you can point to the specific article or amendment to the Constitution that allows the federal government to mandate that we plebs buy anything.
Regarding Prop 8, it's the same argument. Please point out any reference to marriage what-so-ever. If it's not mentioned that right is reserved to the state and the majority of the state has spoken.