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 Society’s 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 revile—the 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 ...
Anyone who spells Harvey as Harvie has got to have some hang-ups
If Wilkinson cared so much about the “code of personal responsibility,” then he would advocate for the elimination of the Obamacare provision that forces private insurers to cover preexisting conditions.
Can't.
Pay.
For.
It.
Harvie.
It's not a code of personal responsibility if one has to be compelled to do it by force of law.
A responsible person will do it because it is the right thing to do.
"The source of our national strength" has been the reliance on individualism, not an over-reaching government in Washington telling someone in Peoria how they should live.
-PJ
NO Republicans voted for it and he had to BUY OFF some Democrats to get this turkey passed.
And he sold it on lies and then lied in his address to Congress and was miffed when someone called him out AS A LIAR.
Well thank God we have Alito instead of him!!
The individual mandate takes away power completely from the states and gives it to the government (unlimited Government). Thus taking away all our freedoms.
Near-unanimous?
Baloney. No Republican in the House or Senate voted for this bill. Snowe voted to get it out of committee but she didn’t vote for it.
Hey Harvie. A FREE People are allowed to make their own choices, even when the so called "intelligentsia" such as yourself deem it a "mistake", so shove it up your ass [your honor]!
Further the government has no right to create commerce just so that it can then regulate it.
Even more further, this violates thousands of years of established contract law. Any party that is coerced or forced into a contract against their will automatically makes any contract null and void.
Wilkinson, James Harvie III
Born 1944 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on January 30, 1984, to a seat vacated by John Decker Butzner, Jr.. Confirmed by the Senate on August 9, 1984, and received commission on August 13, 1984. Served as chief judge, 1996-2003.
Education:
Yale University, B.A., 1967
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 1972
Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1968-1969
Republican candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia, 1970
Law clerk, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Supreme Court of the United States, 1972-1973
Associate professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 1973-1978
Editorial page editor, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 1978-1981
Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1982-1983
Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 1983
We could save taxpayers money and increase productivity if we did away with the welfare state and demanded more PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY from citizens and non-citizens alike.
Hence why so many of us have been trying to get sex induction and gay brainwashing out of the schools.
Oh, right, personal responsibility only can be used against conservatives, not for them. Forgot the golden rule of standards for liberals - if double standards were removed, they'd have no standards.
One should be responsible for his own health care bills. How's that for "personal responsibility"?
How can you get through Ambulance Chasers school and NOT KNOW THAT DIFFERENCE?
. . . mistaken to say the founders sought to disable the national government from attempting to solve national problems.
This is social justice idiocy. He cannot back that statement up from the historic record. In order for transfer payments from one individual to another to be constitutional, they MUST be in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. FDR for instance did not ask for an amendment for Social Security because he knew it would fail.
Obamacare is totalitarian. If it’s enacted, Americans cease to be free people.
Go F yourself Harvie. Your point is intellectually vapid, and inherently inconsistent. Personal responsibility is what individuals decide to embrace, not what the government imposes. Further, if put to a national ‘democratic’ vote, Obamacare would not survive. It has never been put to a ‘democratic’ vote, and was forced down the throats of the American people by a temporary ideological majority that used every political favor and trick in the book to impose this upon us.
Your attempt to frame your argument in terms of fundamental principles is also pointless and indefensible. If taken to its ‘fundamental’ conclusion your argument holds that the government should be able to impose ‘democratically’ upon us rules dictating any and every aspect of our lives that it deems an issue of ‘personal responsibility’.
Well done!
Bravo Zulu!!
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 Wilkinson’s 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 Obamacare’s 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 Obamacare’s individual mandate “would imbue judges with unprecedented powers” and that the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are “political, not constitutional.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/293222/judge-wilkinson-s-unethical-op-ed-ed-whelan
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!!!
Interesting:
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.
Problems sovled.
“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.
Gaydar is going off the charts. :)
But We the People KNOW ...ObamaCare has NOTHING to do with “healthcare” and everything to do with bureaucratic perpetual Ivy League employment machines telling each of us every little thing we think , do and spend all our lives.
“...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.”
But that’s no fun at all!!
Oh yes. It’s right there in Amendment 10a isn’t it?
“Accept the duties I impose or it is off to the Gulag with you!”
What an effing monster.
As mandated by mob rules and or judicial fiat?
I would think if this black robed argument was correct then what the judge actually refers to is better termed "collective responsibility" versus the historically accurate and legitimate "personal responsibility"
This judge seems to be another leftist preaching about government granted collective salvation under a regime devoid of God; a regime devoid of individual rights; and as such, a regime devoid of the self determination premising the very choices that establish personal responsibility's existence...
It is quite simple to point out the judge's detour from reality by asking a simple question: If an individual cannot decide to be irresponsible THEN how can responsibility be considered personal?
Getting something out of committee isn’t necessarily support.
Recall when the Republicans made the Democrats vote down their own bill to reinstate the draft while Bush was President.
If the female dog did not vote it out of committee it wouldn't have happened. Why would you vote something out of committee if you don't support and know it still might pass. That is the difference.
1 Peter 5:8 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”
Rip that “Award” away from him!
The very propose of the Constitution of a free republic is to limit government to preserve individual liberty. You know so that “majorities” can’t vote that liberty away with whatever burden of taxation or “forced service” they like.
If this man is a “judge” he is a truly sick example.
“This judge seems to be another leftist preaching about government granted collective salvation under a regime devoid of God; a regime devoid of individual rights; and as such, a regime devoid of the self determination premising the very choices that establish personal responsibility’s existence...
It is quite simple to point out the judge’s detour from reality by asking a simple question: If an individual cannot decide to be irresponsible THEN how can responsibility be considered personal?”
Outstanding way of putting it! This bares repeating to every leftist and “moderate” alike. This “judge” is off his rocker, and need to have that fake award ripped from he who believed men have the right to simply vote away the rights of other men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.