Here President Bush attempts to strangle Judge Silberman for being insifficiently loyal to conservative causes.
Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the federal appeals court, cast the deciding vote as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld, 2-1, the constitutionality of the controversial individual mandate. The mandate, which is almost certain to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the linchpin of President Obama’s health-care insurance law that requires most individuals to purchase insurance coverage or be fined.
You can hardly have more impeccable conservative or Republican credentials than Silberman. He served in the Nixon administration, was appointed by President Reagan to the court and is a Federalist Society stalwart as well as a favorite judicial scholar of the political right. An appeals judge shouldn’t be praised for doing his job, which is deciding cases based on the law and the Constitution rather than political loyalties or ideological bias. Unfortunately, political loyalties and ideology is how the press, partisan groups, elected officials and, it must be said, too many judges, do think cases are decided, and that belief grievously harms faith in the justice system and trust in the rule of law.
It is very likely that Judge Silberman finds the individual mandate philosophically repellent, but he decided that Supreme Court precedent dictated upholding it. By doing so, he also upheld the integrity of the court system, which can use some upholding.
Personally, I think allowing the Government to dictate what products we have to purchase is frighteningly unconstitutional, and I do not trust Congress to use the expansion of government power this represents wisely or judiciously. Still, Silberman is right: the Supreme Court opened this door, and they will have to close it. I hope they do. Meanwhile, the U.S. legal system is a little more trustworthy after Silberman showed that one judge, at least, puts principle, fairness and integrity over political loyalty. In the current hyper-partisan environment, that qualifies as heroism.
May it spread far and wide.
Ethics Alarms 
It frankly would have been better for them to try to pass a single-payer system. This is just a giant kickback to the corrupt, monopolistic insurance companies.
Sure—might as well bankrupt the country directly without all the distractions.
Um…..what? Single payer systems are considerably cheaper than all other alternatives. Well…at least all other alternatives that allow the poor to have decent health coverage.
I guess you can argue that it would be better to deny the poor access to adequate health care in exchange for less cost to the government. Hey, when they die, there’ll be even less poor taking advantage of federal assistance programs. It’s a win-win.
Yeah, that’s a good solution…reduce the quality of care for everyone, bankrupt the country, and tax everyone through the nose. It’s worked out so well in England, too, as long as you call all the nightmare news accounts of people not being able to get timely care “exceptions.”
A nation with a 15 trillion dollar debt cannot afford to take on another giant entitlement. Apparently some are willing to cripple the economy, defense and the future over health care. Here’s a deal—when the political culture shows that it is willing to make tough budget choices and be honest about them, I’ll support single payer. Without that (and cost control measures) it’s suicide.
If the government wants to provide health insurance on a serious needs-tested basis and couple it with measures to control abuse of the system and soaring costs, fine.
It’s worked out so well in England, too, as long as you call all the nightmare news accounts of people not being able to get timely care “exceptions.”
The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to play that game, there are plenty of horror stories in the US about denied care as well.
A nation with a 15 trillion dollar debt cannot afford to take on another giant entitlement.
We already have taken on the giant entitlement through Medicaid, Medicare, and tax exempt medical spending. This isn’t taking on a new entitlement, it’s rearranging the existing entitlement.
If the government wants to provide health insurance on a serious needs-tested basis and couple it with measures to control abuse of the system and soaring costs, fine.
It’s pretty much impossible to keep costs contained AND limit membership. If you want the former, you have to give up the latter. I know, you want it faster, cheaper, and with higher quality, but normally those things are mutually exclusive.
Good example of avoiding the politics. Need more people making these judgements. Not easy, but right.