Since the idea of reconciliation entered the minds of congress as a way to pass the Health Insurance bill there has been raging debate on the constitutionality of the bill.  Not for the way it was imposed on the American people but for what it imposed.     We could argue all day about parts of the bill but one Judge in Florida had made  a very clear and somewhat wordy argument for the unconstitutional nature of the individual mandate.

Since Judge Vinson issued his ruling the Department of Justice has already issued an appeal.  As you read Judge Vinson’s ruling you are amazed by the depth to which this man researched one of the most important issues of our time.   It took this judge 78 pages to decide 2 items.   What people don’t realize is that it was a split decision.  The reality is that the matter of the individual mandate due to the governments own contention on its importance to the legislation.  Striking down that mandate would hollow out the law entirely.  Not being able to sever as most court decisions can do makes this law useless.  But let’s take a minute to reflect on the governments win.

Judge Vinson ruled that the Medicaid expansion forced on the states by this law was constitutional.  The states contended that the law would create a new and much larger class of people covered by medicaid.  This being an unfunded mandate would place undo strain on the coffers of the individual states.  The judge ruled that there would be no coercion on the part of the government due to the voluntary nature of Medicaid.  I don’t see anyone applauding this decision.  But say that the government can’t force you to buy health insurance and you get labeled a Tea party judge and a nut.  read more »

The guys in the South Dakota legislature appear to be having a little fun at ObamaCare's expense.

Five of them have introduced a bill that would require every adult over the age of 21 to buy a gun.  Specifically, a gun that is "sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense".  After taking effect on January 1st of next year, it would give everyone six months to go out and buy the hogleg of their choice.

Of course it's not a serious bill in the sense that they want it to take effect, rather that they are trying to prove a point.

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

You have to admire the simplicity here. 

Point out the absurdity of the ObamaCare individual mandate by being absurd...and to use guns to do it with, just to antagonize the folks on the left a little more to boot.  read more »

In referring to our form of government, Alexander Hamilton once said, “Here sir, the people govern”.  But given the actions of some of the more arrogant members of our judiciary, there seems to be room for doubt.

In 2000, the people of California approved a statewide referendum defining marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman, but in 2008 their state supreme court threw out that law (by a four to three vote of the court).  So in November, 2008 voters approved a state constitutional amendment to overturn their supreme court’s decision and again take control of the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in over thirty states have done.

It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses.

A few weeks ago, federal district Judge Vaughan Walker gave us the latest example of contempt for popular sovereignty by overturning California’s state constitutional amendment.  It’s only the latest round of what has been an ongoing battle with activist judges.

The problem is that we have too few real judges in our country, and far too many would-be judicial oligarchs who see themselves as the “supreme” branch of our government, rather than just one of three.  It’s the product of a philosophy that sees our constitutional structure as an eighteenth century anachronism, rather than the law of the land.  read more »

It's not often that you look to the usually dull world of the judiciary for great quotes, but sometimes you get surprised.  In this case however, the person in question is no surprise.

And in this case it's Chief Justice John Roberts who comes through with what we'll call the "quote of the week" in the course of his questions for Solicitor General Elena Kagan during the Court's hearing on a key campaign finance / free speech case this week, (Citizens United vs. the FEC).

Roberts was aggressively questioning whether restrictions on corporate and union campaign spending infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech...and not getting a satisfactory answer from the Solicitor, which caused him to state:

"We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

Right on.

Of course, something as dull to most people as a case about campaign finance law is certain to be drowned out by the goings on around health care this week, so all the more reason to highlight Mr. Roberts.

Here's hoping that, (with the replacement of O'Connor w/Alito), they can get McCain-Feingold overturned.

***

"Quote of the week" runner-up?  "You lied" - Joe Wilson (R-SC)

As if the fear of big-brother needed to be underlined any further among conservative Christians, we have just that by way of  New Hampshire judge ruling ordering a home-schooled girl to spend some time attending a public school due to the "rigidity" of her mother's religious beliefs.  He suggested that the girl needed to broaden her horizons and consider other worldviews.

Excuse me, but it seems to me that the instruction of children when it comes to beliefs and a "worldview" is the sole prerogative of parents and has nothing whatsoever to do with government.  Or at least that's the way it used to be...and that Americans expect it to be.

But here you go...

The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.

On Tuesday, the girl, Amanda Kurowski, started fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H., under court order. Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.

Imagecolumn: 

With a newly minted sixty-vote Democrat majority in the US Senate, the approval of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is all but assured.
But what isn’t assured is that it won’t cost the Democrats something before all the dust settles.  And that’s up to the Republicans.

Do they have what it takes to make her positions on hot-button issues so toxic that the Democrats from “purple” or “red” states who support her will find themselves in political hot water back home?
Her record represents just such an opportunity.

Before becoming a judge, Sotomayor was a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), even serving as the Chairman of its Litigation Committee.  And there we get a glimpse of some of the issues she was willing to lend her support to.

On abortion: On two separate occasions, the PRLDEF filed briefs arguing that taxpayer dollars must be used to fund abortions and further argued that restrictions on abortion were analogous to slavery.  They also argued against such modest abortion restrictions as parental notification or waiting periods on abortion.  read more »

In her bid to pooh pooh conservative fears (brought on by her judicial record) that she can't be relied upon to apply the law, instead of being a judicial activist, Sotomayor vowed "fidelity to the law" and told the Senate that she had not advocated for policy since she became a judge.

Of course, "advocating" for policy isn't necessary when you can "set policy", as she herself admitted that the Court of Appeals does.  And presumably she would know, since she's on the Second Circuit for the Court of Appeals.

In her statement to the Senate, she said:

"In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court."

Now go back and reread that statement and you'll notice something very important.  "...my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statues according to their terms and Congress' intent..."  read more »

Well, the ballot boxes have barely been put away in California and the gay marriage crowd is now looking to that state's liberal, activist high court to overturn the will of the people.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Attorney General on Monday urged the state Supreme Court to consider whether a gay marriage ban passed by voters this month was legal.

 read more »

By now, we've all heard about the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House taking off for vacation without taking action on our nation's dire energy problems. Most notably, bringing up for vote the ending of the congressional ban on offshore drilling.  read more »

Some good news from the Supremes yesterday:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Bush overstepped his authority when ordering state courts to review the death sentences of dozens of Mexican nationals on death row.