- 901
This whole UnAffordable Care Act mess should make one thing clear:
Elections DO matter.
Especially as it relates to filling the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court.
So far, the score is 2-1. Three federal judges have issued their opinions on whether the individual mandate comports with the constitution. Two have said yes, one has said no. A fourth (Florida) may rule any day and is expected to tie the score at 2-2.
All 3 judges have had the same copy of the law. Yet, we get different opinions on whether it is constitutional.
Do the 2 judges who said it is constitutional have anything in common? Why yes, Virginia, they do. As it so happens, both were appointed to the bench by Democratic presidents (the Clintons).
The one judge to say no so far was appointed by, you guessed it- a Republican president.
But the law is the law, right? They all are applying the same constitution, right?
Well, not really.
Here's the way the law actually works. Judges review the facts - not the law. Then they get a gut feeling for which way the case should come out. Then - this is where it gets good - then they instruct their law clerks to "go find me some law that supports this position."
In other words, the law comes last, not first. And the way the law works, both sides typically have viable arguments to support either side.
More than anything else, this particular case shines a light on the extraordinarily political aspect of the judicial branch.
Warning: If Obama gets another S.Ct. appointment, especially if due to the loss of a conservative, it will get very, very nasty.
BTW, Biden himself is the one who started this whole mess by "Borking" one of the most imminently qualified individuals ever appointed to the Supreme Court. Joe - you're an ***.
Elections DO matter.
Especially as it relates to filling the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court.
So far, the score is 2-1. Three federal judges have issued their opinions on whether the individual mandate comports with the constitution. Two have said yes, one has said no. A fourth (Florida) may rule any day and is expected to tie the score at 2-2.
All 3 judges have had the same copy of the law. Yet, we get different opinions on whether it is constitutional.
Do the 2 judges who said it is constitutional have anything in common? Why yes, Virginia, they do. As it so happens, both were appointed to the bench by Democratic presidents (the Clintons).
The one judge to say no so far was appointed by, you guessed it- a Republican president.
But the law is the law, right? They all are applying the same constitution, right?
Well, not really.
Here's the way the law actually works. Judges review the facts - not the law. Then they get a gut feeling for which way the case should come out. Then - this is where it gets good - then they instruct their law clerks to "go find me some law that supports this position."
In other words, the law comes last, not first. And the way the law works, both sides typically have viable arguments to support either side.
More than anything else, this particular case shines a light on the extraordinarily political aspect of the judicial branch.
Warning: If Obama gets another S.Ct. appointment, especially if due to the loss of a conservative, it will get very, very nasty.
BTW, Biden himself is the one who started this whole mess by "Borking" one of the most imminently qualified individuals ever appointed to the Supreme Court. Joe - you're an ***.
I hope not!
