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 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.