Does the Supreme Court opine on judicial matters, or have they become extensions of their political parties? How does this “change” affect the most recent Supreme Court decision; the decision on nationalized healthcare?
The general consensus is that the chief justices will vote along their party lines. President Obama has argued that overturning the most recent decision involving health care would be a prime example of judicial overreach.
The issues are relevant and significant. Should the justice system be politically independent? Should the Supreme Court become another political gridlock of Democrat vs. Republican issues?
The reason this ruling by the Supreme Court is so important is that the underlying issue is one rooted in our Constitution: “Does the Department of Justice (part of the Executive branch) recognize that courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike down federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” Many political experts argue that the answer is yes.
More importantly, this Supreme Court ruling is so important because, if this national healthcare law goes through, it would place an individual mandate on everyone to buy health insurance, something that violates the Commerce Clause, which is explicitly in our Constitution. If the Supreme Court rules that individual health care mandates are Unconstitutional, they will be forced to eliminate it. Obama’s administration, however, argues that it does not violate any Constitutional rights.
The votes are in, but we will not know the outcome until June, at the earliest. From now until then, the justices will be writing opinions that support their positions that they have taken, which many expect will go along with their political affiliation. This is what many supporters of ObamaCare fear, as the democratic Supreme Court Justices are the minority.
Many people have suggested that this is the most important Supreme Court ruling of the past decade, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out!