More Liberal Judicial Activism
The liberal Center for American Progress has posted an annotated “rebuttal” to Judge Vinson’s decision in the Florida multi-state lawsuit – and to get a clue as to its overall thrust, readers need only examine its first page. CAP refutes the notion in the ruling that “this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation…in fact, it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system…” In fact, CAP argues that “[Judge] Vinson is wrong” to assert that the legal case centers on a discussion of federalism and the role of government, because the law is “already providing benefits to millions of Americans” – and claiming that other principles (i.e., the Constitution) should interfere with people obtaining these alleged benefits demonstrates “a reckless disregard” for these individuals.
Judges, just like Members of Congress, take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, not to provide benefits to individuals. For the Center for American Progress or other liberal groups to claim that judges (or anyone else, for that matter) should disregard constitutional principles because the health care law provides does alleged good for some individuals demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the rule of law. After all, should the crimes of someone like Bernie Madoff be ignored if such an individual donates all their ill-gotten gains to supposedly worthy causes? This type of reasoning – ignoring constitutional principles to help certain individuals perceived as being worthy of additional aid – represents a pernicious form of judicial activism that many may reject.
On a related note, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley – a self-declared supporter of “national health care” – published an op-ed in this morning’s USA Today refuting the notion that Judge Vinson’s ruling qualifies as judicial activism, and pointing out that Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for not including a basic severability clause in the health care law, despite the significant questions about the individual mandate’s constitutionality: “The charge of activism sounds like the lament of every bad gambler after being discouraged from playing a high-risk hand.”