![]() |
| Guess what, little girl? I voted down the Public Option. |
Perhaps there are legitimate discrepancies between the Health Care Law and the Constitution, such as its interpretation of the national government's role in Interstate Commerce--this was Justice Hudson's ruling--but I am inclined to doubt that the sudden calling into question of the law is purely for the purpose of upholding the Constitution. Are there political motives involved in the various cases that have been brought before Circuit Courts throughout the country? You betcha. In the wake of the Midterms of 2010 which produced a overwhelming Conservative victory in Congress, there has been much talk of repealing the law by newly-elected republicans. If the law was brought before the Supreme Court, it would erase the necessity for policy-makers in Washington to propose a repeal of the law and wade through all of the inherent complex political processes. Knowing this, Republican Congressmen such as John Boener have been quick to express their support to the rendering of the decision.
Unfortunately for supporters of the law, the way in which the original bill was written eschewed contingencies such as a Severability Clause, which would mean that parts of the law, if proved illegitimate, could be throne out without destroying the integrity of the law as a totality. This means that if part of the law is called into question, the entire law (or at least most of it--some provisions such as insurance regulations would presumably be unaffected) could be thrown out. As a supporter of the law, I really don't want this to happen.

No comments:
Post a Comment