Skip to comments.Judge Wilkinson Hints that Overturning Obamacare Would Be a Mistake
Posted on 05/03/2012 1:17:18 PM PDT by AtlasStalled
J. Harvie Wilkinson, the federal appeals judge from Charlottesville, Va., long has carried a contrarian streak.
* * *
And last month, receiving the Federalist Societys Lifetime Service Award at Georgetown University, Judge Wilkinson hinted that the high court he nearly joined should think twice before striking down the symbol of everything contemporary conservatives revilethe health care overhaul President Barack Obama signed into law over near-unanimous Republican opposition.
* * *
The framers envisioned not only individual rights, but democratic ones that could impose duties upon the individual, he said. We are neglecting the code of personal responsibility that has long been the source of our national strength, he says, echoing language in the Affordable Care Act requiring citizens to carry health insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Here’s a fundamental democratic requirement ~ that funky old judges who’ve lost touch with their conscious selves have an obligation to resign or walk in heavy Interstate traffic ~ whichever comes first.
WILKINSON IS A BRILLIANT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR.
This blogger not so much...
If the remarks were in context I doubt there’d be this animosity to the judge, by thoughtful people anyway.
( I couldn’t find the speech online)
Judge Wilkinsons Unethical Op-Ed
By Ed Whelan
March 12, 2012 1:58 P.M. 0Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states: A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. (Emphasis added.) Yet Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has somehow seen fit to pen this New York Times op-ed in which he publicly comments on the merits of the pending Supreme Court challenge to Obamacares individual mandate and on the merits of the pending cases seeking the judicial imposition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Among other things, he opines that striking down Obamacares individual mandate would imbue judges with unprecedented powers and that the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are political, not constitutional.
Well, fortunately Harvie hasn’t got a say in the matter.
Not true. Snowe (RINO-ME) was the R vote that got it out of committee.
No where EVER did the founders indicate they wanted citizens to be FORCED to buy ANYTHING.
Lying sack of crap judge.
His “personal responsibility” definition sure does NOT match MINE!!!
his first job after clerking was associate professor, 1973-78 — is “associate” an error for “assistant”
very odd to go from a tenured law school professor (associate) to being an editorial page editor at a regional newspaper.
Was he assistant professor for 5 years and failed to get tenure? The time span would fit.
His three years as an editorial writer before joining the Reagan administration raises questions—he must have been a fairly political type guy rather than an academic?
His being attuned to the political may be coming out now in his take on Obamacare.
Sounds like Reagan grabbed a dud—failed academic, newspaper editorializer, bureaucrat
then federal judge
I thought the Federalist Society were on our side, so much for that stupid thought.
Screw this pantywaist.
He has been a very strong conservative on the Court of Appeals, especially in WOT cases and abortion cases. He was often said to be on the short list for SCOTUS during the Bush administrations.
You have a duty to cover your own health care, and only with the insurance we make you get, no other way. Apparently the judge hasn’t read Alexis deTocqueville’s Democracy in America, especially the section on Pg. 93 in my paperback edition that differentiates between centralized power and centralized administration.
“Personal responsibility” is something else if it is mandated.
The only way his stupid argument of “personal responsibility” works is to assume the government controls our lives and funds all of our services.
Since this is not the case his ridiculous premise boils down to a typical liberal BS utopia con job. He’s just knee jerking the fact that the left WANTS to run the healthcare industry to control us and thus whines about us not being in their system because they supposedly pay for a lot of it.
I have a simple solution for gonvernment: stop paying the medical bills for free-loading morons that don’t care about personal responsibility.
Then stop regulating the hell out of insurance companies and let them sell us products ala cart and across state lines.
“The framers envisioned not only individual rights, but democratic ones that could impose duties upon the individual, he said.”
My Con Law prof never mentioned anything about that BS. And I never missed a day of classes.