Difference between revisions of "RECONFEB22011"
From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with '*Editorial Board, "Judicial Activitism on Health Reform," The New York Times, February 2, 2011 [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02wed2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion] If that l…') |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 17:44, 9 February 2011
- Editorial Board, "Judicial Activitism on Health Reform," The New York Times, February 2, 2011 [1] If that link doesn't work click here.
GC: Judge Vinson's ruling on Obama's Health Care law is judicial activism.
P: While one other judge overruled a portion of the law and two other upheld it, no one has invalidated the whole law based just because one portion being invalid. P: There is a tradition that courts eliminate only problematic parts of a law, not the whole thing. P: Judges that violate this tradition can be considered "judicial activists".
Counter argument (from judge's decison):
- C: Invalidating the whole law was justified.
- P: The lack of a severability clause in the legislation implied that Congress meant that the individual mandate was crucial to the law.
- P: The law won't work without the individual mandate.
IC: The judge's defense of his decision is flaw. P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate. P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue.
