RECONFEB22011

• Editorial Board, "Judicial Activism 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 unjustified judicial activism. 1

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.

2

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.

In the New York Time editorial, "Judicial Activism on Health Reform," the author argues that Judge Vinson's ruling on Obama's Health Care law is unjustified judicial activism. The author gives two main arguments for this claim and then refutes a counter argument. First, no other judge has gone so far as invalidating the whole law. Second, there is a tradition in jurisprudence of only invalidating parts of laws. In going against this tradition, Judge Vinson may be seen as a judicial activist.

The author reconstructs Judge Vinson's justification in order to argue specifically against it. Vinson's decision is supported by two arguments: First, the law did not have a severability clause in the law and, second, it won't work without the indiviudal mandate. But the author argues against this view by suggesting that Congress might have passed the law without the clause. After all, the individual mandate was not a popular part of the law. Second, the other judge who invalidated the individual mandate said he couldn't determine Congresses intent on this issue, implying that Vinson shouldn't be able to either.

• 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.