Judicial Activism on Health Reform

[groovedaddy]

A ruling by a Federal District Court judge in Florida that the entire health care reform law is unconstitutional was a breathtaking example of judicial activism and overreach.

Editorial
Judicial Activism on Health ReformPublished: February 1, 2011
Recommend
Twitter

E-Mail

Print


Reprints

Share
Close
LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. A ruling by a Federal District Court judge in Florida that the entire health care reform law is unconstitutional was a breathtaking example of judicial activism and overreach.

Editorial Series
Health Care
It is hard not to believe this decision was driven at least in part by ideology. At one point the judge, Roger Vinson, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, gives a gratuitous bow to Tea Party conservatives by citing the original Boston Tea Party in a discussion of opposition to unlimited governmental powers.

Judge Vinson is way out on a limb in attempting to throw out the whole law, a primary goal of the Republican Party. Two federal district judges nominated by Democratic presidents have concluded that the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional. Two judges nominated by Republican presidents, including Judge Vinson, have found the mandate unconstitutional. But the other Republican-nominated judge, Henry Hudson, acted with restraint in a case in Virginia. Although Virginia’s attorney general asked him to invalidate the entire law, he invalidated only the mandate because of a tradition that courts eliminate only problematic parts of a law, not the entire law.

Judge Vinson acknowledged that he was deviating from this practice, but he argued that this is an atypical case in which the individual mandate is so “inextricably bound” to the remaining provisions that it cannot be severed. He may well be right that the mandate is essential to guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions because it will force healthy people into the insurance pools and thus keep premiums down. But his argument seems stretched past the breaking point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02wed2.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

[Ozymanithrax]

1. So let people with preexisting conditions die in the gutter...

Got the message judge.

Sounds like he has set up an Arizona style death panel.