RECONFEB22011

• 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.