Published: March 31, 2012
Recommend
comments (158)
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
Share
CloseDiggRedditTumblrPermalink For anyone who still thought legal
conservatives are dedicated to judicial restraint, the oral arguments
before the Supreme Court on the health care case should put that idea
to rest. There has been no court less restrained in signaling its
willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.
Related in Opinion
More on Health Care »Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (158) »
This should not be surprising. Republican administrations, spurred by
conservative interest groups since the 1980s, handpicked each of the
conservative justices to reshape or strike down law that fails to
reflect conservative political ideology.
When Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were selected by the Reagan
administration, the goal was to choose judges who would be eager to
undo liberal precedents. By the time John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito
Jr. were selected in the second Bush administration, judicial
"restraint" was no longer an aim among conservatives. They were chosen
because their professional records showed that they would advance a
political ideology that limits government and promotes market
freedoms, with less regard to the general welfare.
There is an enormous distinction to be made between the approaches of
the Roberts court and the Warren court, which conservatives have long
railed against for being an activist court. For one thing,
Republican-appointed justices who led that court, Chief Justice Earl
Warren and Justice William Brennan Jr., were not selected to effect
constitutional change as part of their own political agenda.
During an era of major social tumult, when the public's attitudes
about racial equality, fairness in the workings of democracy and the
dignity of the individual proved incompatible with old precedents,
those centrists led the court to take new positions in carrying out
democratic principles. Yet they were extremely mindful of the need to
maintain the court's legitimacy, and sought unanimity in major
rulings. Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 landmark case that said states are
bound by Supreme Court rulings, was unanimous. So was Katzenbach v.
McClung, the 1964 case upholding the constitutionality of parts of the
Civil Rights Act under the commerce clause.
The four moderates on the court have a leftish bent, but they see
their role as stewards of the law, balancing the responsibility to
enforce the Constitution through judicial review against the duty to
show deference to the will of the political branches. In that respect,
they and the conservatives seem to be following entirely different
rules.
That difference is playing out in the health care case. Established
precedents support broad authority for Congress to regulate national
commerce, and the health care market is unquestionably national in
scope. Yet to Justice Kennedy the mandate requiring most Americans to
obtain health insurance represents "a step beyond what our cases have
allowed, the affirmative duty to act, to go into commerce." To Justice
Stephen Breyer, it's clear that "if there are substantial effects on
interstate commerce, Congress can act."
Likewise, Justice Scalia's willingness to delve into health care
politics seems utterly alien to his moderate colleagues. On the
question of what would happen if the mandate were struck down, Justice
Scalia launched into a senatorial vote count: "You can't repeal the
rest of the act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate
to repeal the rest." Justice Breyer, by contrast, said firmly: "I
would stay out of politics. That's for Congress; not us."
If the conservatives decide that they can sidestep the Constitution to
negate Congress's choices on crucial national policies, the court's
legitimacy — and the millions of Americans who don't have insurance —
will pay a very heavy price. Chief Justice Roberts has the opportunity
to avoid this disastrous outcome by forging even a narrow ruling to
uphold the mandate and the rest of the law. A split court striking
down the act will be declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law.
And if that happens along party lines, with five Republican-appointed
justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the
court will mark itself as driven by politics.
More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/the-roberts-court-defines-itself.html?hpw
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment