Monday, August 02, 2010

Marburying Obamacare

Remember the federal judge who took it upon herself to swat away parts of the Arizona immigration law this week? Well, there are other federal judges, too, and they like to play as well:

A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia's challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit which argues the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.

The new law is a major cornerstone of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda and administration officials have vigorously defended it as constitutional and necessary to stem huge increases in costs for health care.
I try to be intellectually consistent about these things -- I didn't like the intervention against the Arizona law and I don't like this move any better. We are supposed to have separation of powers in this country, along with checks and balances that prevent any of the three branches of government from gaining an advantage.

At this point, it's awfully hard to see any real check on the judiciary. I'm not sure it does any good to complain about it -- Marbury v. Madison has been in place for over 200 years now. Still, it makes me uncomfortable when federal judges play God, even if we have enabled such behavior for centuries.

8 comments:

K-Rod said...

But the Judge didn't strike down parts of Obamacare.

Refusing to dismiss the challenge doesn't seem quite the same as actually changing Arizona legislation.
A judge having such line-item-overrule power can drastically change a law and its intent.

Bike Bubba said...

I'm comfortable with judges striking down laws, as long as the rationale are truly in the Constitution. Too often, especially in the Warren court (Roe), they were not.

Swiftee said...

The diff is that Obamacare's mandate is clearly unconstitutional, while the opposition to AZ's law hinges on what might, maybe, happen even though the law explicitly prohibits it.

Moonbats love to claim "apples and oranges" when they are getting spanked in debate, but this is the genuine article.

K-Rod said...

Well, Swiftee, you realize Obamacare might not be unconstitutional if you think "regulate interstate commerce" is the same as "mandate commerce".

Never underestimate the ability of a Liberal Fascist to rationalize; especially when it comes to the definition or redefinition of words.

Swiftee said...

That's true, KR, but since this is a blog written by and for conservatives, I'm making an intellectual argument and skipping over the brain bruisingly ignorant leftist POV.

K-Rod said...

And since this is not a lefty blog, there is not much of a need for us to mock them, unless they rear their liberal talking points.
Refreshing indeed!

So our intellectual argument stands, as usual.

Nice to see you post here, Swiftee.

Mr. D certainly has some solid POVs! And 'teh liberals' here are not as stupidly rabid as they are in other blogs...

K-Rod said...

Mr. D, any comment on the differences in these decisions as I have expressed?

Mr. D said...

K-Rod,

I do understand the distinctions and my guess is that the challenges to the constitutionality of Obamacare could work on two separate levels -- the right of Virginia to make its own laws, and defend same, along with the question about mandating interstate commerce.

Where I have heartburn is that federal judges seem to have untrammeled power. If it were up to me, I'd give a lot more deference to the will of the legislature, even when the decisions a legislature makes are wrong-headed. I get to vote on the performance of my legislators. It's more of a philosophical observation, I guess.