Difference between revisions of "RECONFEB22011"
From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
GC: Judge Vinson's ruling on Obama's Health Care law is judicial activism. | 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: 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: 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". | + | :P: Judges that violate this tradition can be considered "judicial activists". |
| − | Counter argument (from judge's decison): | + | :Counter argument (from judge's decison): |
| − | :C: Invalidating the whole law was justified. | + | ::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 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. | + | ::P: The law won't work without the individual mandate. |
| − | IC: The judge's defense of his decision is | + | :IC: The judge's defense of his decision is flawed. |
| − | P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate. | + | ::P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate. |
| − | P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue. | + | ::P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue. |
*Conn Carroll, "Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal," The Foundry: Conservative Policy News, Heritage Foundation, Februrary 1, 2011 [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/01/morning-bell-another-victory-on-the-road-to-repeal-3/] | *Conn Carroll, "Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal," The Foundry: Conservative Policy News, Heritage Foundation, Februrary 1, 2011 [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/01/morning-bell-another-victory-on-the-road-to-repeal-3/] | ||
| − | |||
GC: Judge Vinson's ruling was justified(A) and will be a blow to the law(B). | GC: Judge Vinson's ruling was justified(A) and will be a blow to the law(B). | ||
| − | A | + | :A |
| − | P: Vinson is in agreement with another judge that the individual mandate violated the | + | ::P: Vinson is in agreement with another judge that the individual mandate violated the constitution. |
| + | ::P: Vinson cites the adminstration's own language about the severability issue. | ||
| + | ::P: Congress intentionally removed the severability clause from an earlier draft of the legislation. | ||
| + | :::(Note: In writing this up you need to show how the severability issue supports the judge's decision to invalidate the whole law.) | ||
| − | + | :B | |
| − | + | ::P: Many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law, including 26 of 50 states, which is extraordinary. | |
| − | + | ::P: The House already repealled the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same. | |
| − | + | ::P: The timing of the decision in relation to these events suggest it will contribute to the demise of the law. | |
| − | |||
| − | P: Many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law, including 26 of 50 states, which is extraordinary. | ||
| − | P: The House already repealled the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same. | ||
| − | P: The timing of the decision in relation to these events suggest it will contribute to the demise of the law. | ||
Revision as of 18:15, 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 flawed.
- P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate.
- P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue.
- Conn Carroll, "Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal," The Foundry: Conservative Policy News, Heritage Foundation, Februrary 1, 2011 [2]
GC: Judge Vinson's ruling was justified(A) and will be a blow to the law(B).
- A
- P: Vinson is in agreement with another judge that the individual mandate violated the constitution.
- P: Vinson cites the adminstration's own language about the severability issue.
- P: Congress intentionally removed the severability clause from an earlier draft of the legislation.
- (Note: In writing this up you need to show how the severability issue supports the judge's decision to invalidate the whole law.)
- B
- P: Many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law, including 26 of 50 states, which is extraordinary.
- P: The House already repealled the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same.
- P: The timing of the decision in relation to these events suggest it will contribute to the demise of the law.
