Activism To The Absurd

Judges research debates in the Houses and Senates for one reason only: to ascertain what is commonly referred to as "legislative intent."

Legislatures are, by definition, comprised of "law-makers." So, it makes sense of any prudent judge to read through the proceedings in an effort to determine the exact meaning and intent of a bill before it became law.

Legislators are almost always very choosy about their language during floor debates precisely for this reason: they hate vagaries as much as we do when it comes to statutory language. Lawmakers are also aware that there is a presumption standing behind any bill they pass: they knew precisely what they were doing when they deliberated the matter and then voted, up-or-down.

Fair and impartial application of the law is sacred and honorable; that's why we, as a society, demand that our judges exercise scholarly wisdom as we bring our grievances to court.

Here's a hypothetical example of how and why a judge may review the journals of a legislative debate. Let's assume that a legislature is deliberating a bill about deer hunting. The bill passes and is signed into law.

Months later, state wildlife officials charge a hunter with shooting and killing a moose under provisions of this new law. Problem is, this particular state has no law on its books proscribing moose hunting.

So the judge would read through the Journals of each chamber to see whether or not the killing of a moose was discussed in the debate.

Our hypothetical judge finds that several members of the House, and one in the Senate, specifically addressed the moose question. One member of the Lower Chamber, without challenge or objection, even went so far as to specifically exclude moose hunting, reasoning that the state's herd of moose deserved the state's protection to propagate.

The offending hunter, consequently could be brought to trial.

Now comes Federal Appeals Court Judge Roger Vinson. He declared ObamaCare unconstitutional the other day in his courtroom in Pensacola, FL. Judge Vinson arrived at his decision by reading through the Congressional Debates from last fall.

The judge ruled national health insurance reform violates the Interstate Commerce clause of our US Constitution. He arrived at this point of his reasoning after reviewing the Congressional Record, in which a few GOP Congressman, during debate, asserted that if government can "regulate" health care, government can also "regulate" what people  should eat-- like broccoli and carrots.

Of course most of the broccoli and carrot crops, indeed, cross state lines on their way to the grocery shelves -- ergo the implementation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. It would have been worth a chuckle or three if Judge Vinson had let the matter rest at that point, but he went further: if government dictates the kinds of fresh, healthy produce that people can eat, there would be no need for ObamaCare because we'd all be healthier!

I paid pretty close attention to the entire debate surrounding health care reform; perhaps I was sleeping when the GOP Gang whipped out their broccoli & carrots arguments.

I'll let you make up your own mind about Judge Vinson's reasoning, but I, for one, am not amused by his less-than-clever argument which confuses apples and oranges on one of the most important public policy questions of the day.

Opponents of health insurance reform set out on a Mission to find a most-favorable court in which they could plead their case.

They struck pay dirt with Judge Vinson.