The true process of judicial review

I’ve had the opportunity to read through my colleague’s thoughts on Healthcare.  While well meaning, this post unfortunately reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial process.  The Supreme Court does not merely “decide” when to determine whether or not an act of Congress is constitutional or not.  There is a carefully-developed process.  This process was carefully developed to ensure that the Court considers only those issues that most demand its attention.  The Court, first and foremost, cannot consider the constitutionality of comparing proposals.  First, Congress has to actually pass a law that is then signed by the President.  Then, lawsuits are filed on the district court level challenging the constitutionality of the act.  Decisions are made in those suits which are then appealed to one of several courts of appeals.  The court of appeals then passes judgment on the wisdom of the district court of opinion.  Generally, the case only makes it to the Supreme Court if the appellate courts disagree.  This process takes time, but is important to ensure that the Supreme Court’s time is dedicated only to issue upon which there is true disagreement.  In this case, as the “Obamacare” case has worked its way through the judicial process, various appellate courts have disagreed on the constitutionality of this law.  This is a valid reason for the Supreme Court to consider the case.  If the appellate circuits were to agree on the constitutionality of this law, then there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to consider the issue.  It may seem that this case is convenientttly designed for political purposes, but this is, in fact, a accurate reflection of judicial review of an act of Congress as our founders intended – through carefully-orchestrated judicial review.  While I agree that at its core, politics underlies nearly all decisions of every branch of government, this case seems to be following a course that is typical of all important legislation.  It would be unfair to judge that the Supreme Court is scheduling this case differently merely for political purposes. 

A new concept - “Lobbying” the Supreme Court

Decisions made by the United States Supreme Court often go unnoticed, and it is even more rare that the American public is either aware of or engaged in the process the Court uses to come to it’s decision. Last week was an uncommonly historical week as much of the nation found itself enthralled in the details of the Court’s three days of oral arguments regarding the various aspects of the “Obamacare” healthcare legislation. Today, something perhaps even more rare and historical occurred – the President of the United States openly lobbied and pressured the Court to decide in his favor in these cases. It is not unusual for the public to be well aware of a President’s opinion regarding the constitutionality of legislation being reviewed by the Court – especially when it is legislation that was championed by that President or his party – but President Obama’s bold statements, made during the course of the Court’s deliberations, are nearly unparalleled. One can’t help but be reminded of Franklin Roosevelt’s “court packing” proposals and wonder what President Obama has in mind next. At the very least, he gives easy fodder to those who claim he will stop at nothing to promote his agenda.

Of course, such discourse with the Court is not unheard of for this President. In his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama famously called out the Court for the Citizen’s United decision involving campaign finance. Many referred to Obama’s comments in 2010 as a significant breach of decorum. The comments famously led Justice Alito to mouth “not true”, giving both political parties ample ammunition for criticism.

What’s concerning about these actions by the President is that they reflect an overall lack of limits in the extent to which the President will reach to push his agenda. Not since Franklin Roosevelt has a President been so willing to step out of the bounds of the separation of powers and actively attempt to lobby the Supreme Court on pending matters. At the very least, it seems distasteful and disrespectful to call out the Court regarding a pending matter. At worst, it shows the intent of a President who believes that his ideals are more important that the boundaries set forth by the Constitution. If the Court does, indeed, decide against Obamacare, the President’s reaction to such a decision will be very telling regarding his opinion of the system of checks and balances put in place by our founding fathers.

Recreating the Housing Crisis 101

The left continues to believe that the housing crisis was created solely by the big, bad, banks (and let’s admit, in part it was) at no fault of the poor, innocent consumers who bought in way over their heads (but let's also admit, it was largely the responsibility of the borrowers to not take out loans they knew the couldn't afford).  Despite unprecedented government intervention to make up for the unparalleled poor decision-making (and at times, out-right lying on mortgage applications) committed by millions of American borrowers, many on the left claim that the government’s bailout of those who borrowed way over their heads is “too little.”  A recent commentary on MyDD.com makes this very claim, and supports a recently-proposed “Compact for Home Opportunity” which proposes, among other things, requiring Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to reduce the principal on loans that are underwater.  The compact also proposes that those seeking home ownership and those in financial crisis be provided more counseling on the matters.  Such proposals, and blogs such as MyDD.com, which openly support them, can be easy to gloss over.  Certainly, the idea of allowing people to take out loans they know they can’t afford, then simply forgiving a large portion of the principal of those loans is silly, right?  Apparently not.  It is striking just how much traction these proposals gain as an increasing number of Americans expect the government to take care of them in all aspects of life and to bail them out of any trouble they cause for themselves.  This is yet another example of the left pandering to those who wish to continue to make poor decisions, and then turn to the government to “protect” them.  Such proposals would merely ensure another future housing crisis.  No matter how much counseling is provided to potential borrowers and those in crisis, if the precedent is set for a government-mandated principal reduction, then borrowers will be encouraged to again borrow far over their heads, with the knowledge that the government will again bail them out of the results of their poor decisions.  At some point, our society has to send a message that we are all responsible for our own decisions – whether they result in accumulation of wealth or in debt.  Somehow, I was unable to find any such proposal in the Compact for Home Opportunity or this blog in support thereof.

Complete Seperation

The piece in the New York Times brings many questions to light as to what the founding fathers really meant by the separation of church and state.  The authors shows both sides of the argument well.   Here he states there are many well educated people on both sides of this debate.
Many people believe there must be complete separation of the two institutions.  Though how can there be without discrimination happening to those who believe.  I do not believe that one can speak of their values without them being based in something.  If you are a religious person, your values are going to be based in your church.  How then do you separate the two?
This issue is interesting to me also because we have chosen to send our child to private school.  Our religious beliefs are so important and such a central part of our lives that we do not want our children to grow up with a world view that is to be void of the beliefs we hold near to us.
The author was able to catch my attention because most pieces I have found say there must be complete separation, not just a "wall of separation."  This article is written for those of us who believe there is room for "church" in the "state."

Fox Business News: Why we can't afford the payroll tax holiday

Last week, Fox Business News addressed the issue that few politicians have the nerve to discuss.  The $10-Billion-a-Month 'Holiday' this County Can't Afford explains the lunacy behind addressing mounting debt by piling more debt on the Social Security system.  As explained by Fox Business News, members of Congress have taken the opportunity of an election year to give the American people a "holiday" from payroll taxes - by reducing the payroll taxes paid by workers from 6.2% to 4.2%.  Sound great!  More money in our pockets on payday and less to the government.  What this article describes that your elected officials aren't telling you is the cost of this "holiday."  The reduction has to come from somewhere and this "tax break" takes money, of all places, out of Social Security - to the tune of $10 billion per month.  Americans, especially of our generation, should be outraged.  In a time where bankruptcy of the Social Security system is a very real concern, our elected politicians decide to give us an election year "gift" by robbing from our future - working to ensure that the system itself may not be available for our generation at retirement.  Fox Business News goes on to explain options for much more effective tax cuts that would have an actual benefit to the economy without adding billions to the national debt every month.  Our generation is too interested in short-term gratification and not engaged enough in holding our politicians to task on preserving our future. We should take more time to become educated on issues such as these and not let politicians pull wool over our eyes during an election year. 

My Political Idealology

I was raised to believe in the importance of voting.  When I was young, I would go to the voting booth with my mom and watch her "pull the lever" every time elections took place.  When I was 18 and able to vote for the first time, it was a big deal in my family.  I remember my parents taking me to breakfast afterwards to celebrate.  The other big influence I had was my Papaw.  He retired from the U.S. Army after serving in WW II, Vietnam War, and the Korean Conflict.  Though we didn't share the same political views, he always taught me that you did not have the right to complain about our government unless you participated in the election of the people who ran the government.  That thought has stuck with me more than most.
Growing up in a small town in central Texas, most of my political experience was from the right side of the isle.  I still am a conservative voter today.  In my 20's my husband attend law school at Georgetown University.  We lived and worked in Washington D.C.  There my conservative leanings became stronger.  Since having my two children, I feel I have become even more conservative, especially fiscally.  Our children are 7 and 4, and we already take them to vote with us.  I also talk to our 7 year old about politics on a level she can understand.