ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on April 5, 2012

Fairness is what is required.

What was going on in the media that President Barack Obama should explain his remarks about the United States Supreme Court Justices, made it quite clear that the Justices were being deliberately drawn into politics in an election year.

The Justice Department has been confronted, "after a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain its position by Thursday at noon." Fox News, 04/05/12.

The ultimatum was for the Attorney General to expand on what the president said in his speech regarding the Affordable Health Care Act, which was before the Justices for some kind of adjudication, whether the whole law was constitutional or not; and some would assume that the Justices had several options in making a decision, either to throw the whole "thing" out or to allow parts of it to remain.

However, it looked as if the panel of judges were more interested in judiciary powers and that of the Executive branch of the government; and that the president was prejudging the Supreme Court for an unfavorable outcome of the health care case before them.

Yet, what the president was talking about was that it was an election year, and the Act has become a fodder on the political campaign trail, as candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race were saying that they would repeal it.

Now, the Court has been more on the conservative side in many of its decisions in recent years, and that it would be a mistake for it (Court) to permit any outside influences to interfere with the decision on the health care issue.

In other words, fairness was what the president was referring to, on the part of the Justices and nothing else; and if they should be cautious of that fact. "President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the law and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

Of course, siding with a political view would be unprecedented, under the circumstances, because the law has been passed by a Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress, and to repeal it, as the Republican candidates were threatening to do, would be unconstitutional.

The furor of the panel of judges was stemming from whether the Justices had the power to overturn the health care Act, and the Attorney General has responded by saying that the "Courts have final say,"

Meaning that the president was not arguing about the powers that the three branches had under the constitution; but rather about the strict caution that should be used to reach a verdict in the case.

For any entity, therefore, to initiate any type of controversy at a time, when the country was saddled with enormous fiscal problems would be inconceivable and uncalled for. Besides, the Justices have so much to do already, and to drag them into the 2012 presidential election campaign would not be in the best interest of the country.

Pitting the Justices against President Obama should not be one of the objectives that the nation needed to resolve the many issues facing it.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.