This guy teaches law?
The Huffington Post has an article up by Adam Winkler, supposedly a UCLA law professor (no, he didn’t play the Fonz on Happy Days). The article is entitled “The Courts, Not Congress, Are the Biggest Threat to Obama’s Agenda“. His point;
Monday’s federal court decision declaring key provisions of the health care law unconstitutional was not just a major setback for President Obama’s signature piece of legislation. It was also a reminder that the courts are an even greater threat to his agenda than the new Republican majority in the House.
Crucially, it was a wake-up call for the president to jump-start his stalled judicial nomination process.
Now, I’m no lawyer, but wouldn’t it make more sense to write legislation that’s Constitutional? It seems to me that Winkler is telling Obama to appoint judges who don’t understand the law and that the law is a pliable entity which the President can bend and shape to his will, instead of the other way around.
I dunno, if my kids were at UCLA Law School, I’d be jerking them out of there in a hurry if I found out that one of their professors is a peawit who thinks that the law is a political journey.
Category: Legal, Liberals suck
Seems to me that ruling on the Constitutionality (or not) of a law is EXACTLY the judiciary function as set forth in Article III and the checks and balances as well.
Granted, the President appoints judges (and Senate confirms them) based on their agenda, not necessarily based on qualification (Elena Kagan, anyone?) but there comes a point where even some base qualification and knowledge of the law and the Constitution becomes necessary.
Right, Mr. Winkler?
The district courts support liberal agendas so much that when they actually do something like this, and put the brakes on…we end up bewildered that the law actually worked in our favor, and the liberals screech like a cat that got its tail stepped on.
I agree completely.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to know how absurd it is to blame the courts; anyone with logical instincts should come to the same conclusion.
As a lawyer, this law is constitutionally offensive. The courts get enough blame (some deserved, some not) but this one should not be pinned on the Courts.
Judges do not write law, and yet, we have judges creating De Facto law. Perfect example is Roe V. Wade. Argue the merits of it all you want, but the end result is that abortion now became legalized, just as surely as if the legislature had created the law. (Before you go screeching about it, I cite this just as an example)
Continuing the example you see an extreme inconsistency with legislative efforts to limit, or “contain” abortion have met judicial hurdles, where as Gun “Control” laws are given a free pass, and they are part of the SECOND amendment. The recent DC gun ban being revoked are the sole exception, but there too you see a law that makes owning a pistol almost insanely hard, and laws about where a person can purchase a firearm are strange, and very hard to get around. comparatively, the OK laws on the restriction of abortion were thoroughly struck down. Certainly inconsistent.
What’s appalling is that this Tenured Faculty Person is apparently blind to the fact that the most significant precedent cited (and differentiated) in Judge Hudson’s opinion was Wickard v. Filburn (1942(- the WORST, most destructive, most shamelessly activist decision in the history of the Supreme Court: the one which effectively destroyed the Constitution’s limits on the overweening power of the Federal government.