In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


White House Accuses Fla. Judge of Political Agenda

President Obama has not been shy about trespassing the boundaries between the executive and the judiciary branches, memorably scolding the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union about their decision allowing corporate spending in campaigns.

Today, Stephanie Cutter, a veteran Democratic operative who has been put in charge at the White House of making you like the health care bill, launched a personal attack on the Florida federal judge who struck down the health reform bill yesterday.

In her comments on the White House Blog, Cutter clearly suggests that “Judge Vinson” – he’s too contemptible to have a first name – is pursuing a conservative ideological agenda by “overreaching” and engaging in “activism.”

Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching.   The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.  And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision.

This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has  consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk.

Under today’s view of the law, seniors will pay higher prices for their prescription drugs and small businesses will pay higher taxes because small business tax credits would be eliminated. And the new provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying, capping or limiting your care would be wiped away.

We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.

The bold effect on the last sentence is hers.

The White House is within its right to criticize the decision. About half the Supreme Court will as well, though whether it will be almost half or a little more than half is unclear.

What’s unfortunate, in the nascent Era of Civility that I thought had fully gripped the White House, is the ad hominen criticism of a federal judge.

8 thoughts on “White House Accuses Fla. Judge of Political Agenda”

  1. Ah, the ‘punish your enemy’ meme raises it’s ugly head again. Daring to rule against the Prez’s pet mandate, this judge is to be commended.

    The WH spokesperson has once again brought Seniors into the Obamacare mix as if this fiasco will be beneficial and is loved by all us old fogeys. Fixing the ‘doughnut hole’ in the prescription plan could be a simple matter of special legislation and doesn’t require a massive takeover by the Gov’t.

    Memo to WH: Obamacare slashes our Medicare benefits and we don’t like that.

    1. I agree with SRDEM.

      Those who are retiree’s are about have EARNED the right to that money and to Medicare/caid access. Now the lib’s will simply kill it with the flick of a pen. Sheesh and its being led by a pro-Arab, asexual professor and his lobster-eating-million-dollar-hotel-living-transcontinental-travelling wife

  2. Tired old NPR was talking this morning about how we shouldn’t fret, the Patriot Act was declared unconstitutional by lots of judges, too, and we still got that.

  3. Pingback: The Main Issue in the Obamacare Decision | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Comments are closed.