They may see their duty, fully within the proper scope of their constitutional role, as further considering the impact of the statute on the balance of power between the tri-partite branches of the federal system.
_______________________________________________________
Yes, and also I wonder if the SCOTUS may consider just how this rotten sausage was made: by locking one party out; by ignoring the very public opposition to it; and by passing it at midnight on Christmas Eve. Never has there been such deception, payoff and corruption in the passing of a bill that I know of. I hope the judges are concerned with that aspect.
Yes, and also I wonder if the SCOTUS may consider just how this rotten sausage was made: by locking one party out; by ignoring the very public opposition to it; and by passing it at midnight on Christmas Eve. Never has there been such deception, payoff and corruption in the passing of a bill that I know of. I hope the judges are concerned with that aspect.
_____________________________________________
Very good point. The lawlessness of the administration and the Democrats in getting the thing done, the wanton disregard for the will of the people certainly undermines their argument and may lend weight to concerns for checks and balances. I wonder why these issues do not appear to have been argued by the Appellants in the Obamacare case. As an attorney for over 20 years, my best guess is that attorneys usually appreciate that judges at all levels are very reluctant to overturn legislative acts based on procedure. To begin with, judicial review of legislation always has a presumption of validity of the statute, ordinance, regulation as a starting point. You might say the bias is built in. It could be argued that a bias towards deference to legislative acts is, itself a judicial expression of regard for the separation of powers.