The Judicial Republic?
A Mandate On Trial
- Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional | The Nation
The individual mandate is not a threat to fundamental liberties. - The 4 Best Legal Arguments Against ObamaCare - Reason Magazine
Why the president's sweeping health care overhaul should be struck down by the Supreme Court.
A Branch Too Strong
After the decision in 2000 that handed George W. Bush the Presidency, the idea that America was becoming a "Judicial Republic" entered my mind. In 2010, when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as people, but not the responsibilities, that notion only grew.
The current case regarding the "Individual Mandate" of the Affordable Care Act seems to settle to me that our judiciary has become not only too powerful, but too political. I believe that should the mandate be overturned, there will be chilling effect. Significant legislation along the lines of the New Deal or the Civil Rights Act; like a living minimum wage, will be unlikely to be proposed.
The path to this has been a path of resistance. It may have started with Brown v Board of Education, this decision, which in a sense made segregation unconstitutional may have been the legal leg for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts to stand on.
The next group to have rights extended to them, through decisions like Gideon and Miranda,were the accused. The idea of making trials more fair, and allowing the accused the rights to be free from interrogation without representation could have been seen by reactionaries as an attack on their notion of justice.
Finally, women got a modicum of rights over their bodies. Griwold v Connecticut while a privacy case, gave women some rights to contraception. Roe v Wade, which gave women the ultimate over their own bodies, may have been the final straw to set reactionary forces and their plans into effect. This case is likely the unintentional result of a lengthy plan that had as its goal a case that could finally overturn Roe.
The case of the Individual Mandate may be an electoral "wake up" call to the long-term goals of those who have made slowing down, if not rolling back progress, The next president will likely be able to nominate one, if not two Supreme Court justices. With cases coming up regarding states' right's in regards to immigration, perhaps with the same connotation that term held 150 years ago, and challenges to a state's right to sanction marriages, a right delegated to the states by the Constitution. The power of this "Judicial Republic" may only grow. The question becomes, will we work to constrain it, or make sure that it's power is used to move America towards greater equality.
The Path Of Justice?
- Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. - Gideon v. Wainwright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. . .the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. - Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. - Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Court held that . . statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney. - Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. . .the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,. . .
