Recently, the United States Supreme Court drafted and published one of our Nation's most important decisions when it upheld the controversial health care law which President Barack Obama promised to deliver to all Americans during his presidency.
It's a potential victory for Obama and all who wanted universal health care. And putting aside the fact that many thought it couldn't be done, how it got done says more about how our legal system worked properly than most are willing to accept.
Obama had a most unlikely ally in this fight, Chief Justice John Roberts. Known as a conservative's conservative, Roberts broke political rank and actually drafted the majority opinion that now allows the government to continue implementing the health care law, which doesn't take full effect until 2014.
In authoring the majority opinion, Roberts found himself in strange company, i.e., the Supreme Court's notorious liberal group - Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Upholding the law, he wrote: "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance." He noted, "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."
He added: "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."
Yes. "Conservative" John Roberts wrote that. But how could he write that and still be a (gasp) conservative?
Well, he explained that his permissive interpretation of the federal government's power in this case is explained in part by a general reticence that the Supreme Court has "to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders." He noted from prior case law that proper respect "for a co-ordinate branch of the government requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if the lack of constitutional authority to pass the act in question is clearly demonstrated."
In a sense, Roberts' refusal to engage in judicial activism, his honoring of prior precedent, and his conservative attachment to the rule of law (all things that conservatives wish for when they ask for a judge) turned him into a (gasp) liberal.
But not really. What he actually did was more significant than that. He was a courageous jurist. He read and followed the law. And he stayed out of politics. Nothing more. Nothing less.
John Roberts shattered the liberal and conservative stereotypes that we too often live within our legal system. He acted as a courageous judge who showed us all how our three branched system of government is supposed to work.
Automobile Appraisal Expert Witnesses For Litigation Common Types of Bail Bonds Tips for Selecting the Best Legal Staffing Agency Judgment Debtor Exemptions And Timelines
0 comments:
Post a Comment