Private: Judicial Nominations Crisis and Its Reach

Beyond needing judicial nominees confirmed to erase rising judicial vacancies, the Obama administration needs its judicial picks approved to help bring balance to a federal bench that is skewed heavily rightward, Tapped's Jamelle Bouie maintains.

Citing yesterday's ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson, appointed by President Reagan, allowing a legal challenge to proceed against the administration's landmark health care reform law, Bouie writes:

The key words here are "Reagan appointee." Besides being ridiculous, one of the side effects of the GOP's war on the judicial nomination process is that the federal judiciary remains slanted in favor of conservative ideas. Between Reagan, Bush, and George W. Bush, Republicans have had 20 years to put their stamp on the federal judiciary, and it's been successful. Liberals still have a chance to counteract that, but it depends on a more reasonable GOP (highly unlikely) or an administration willing to fight Republican obstruction on judicial nominations (slightly more likely).

Although Judge Vinson wrote that his rejection of the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, brought by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, was not touching upon the constitutional questions involved, he did reveal sympathy for the argument that the reform's individual mandate is constitutionally suspect. The individual mandate provision of the health care reform law requires people to purchase health care insurance or pay a tax.

In what The New York Times called a "foreboding ruling for the Obama administration," Judge Vinson called the individual mandate unprecedented. "Of course, to say that something is ‘novel' and ‘unprecedented' does not necessarily mean that it is ‘unconstitutional' and ‘improper.' There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim."

As noted during a press conference call yesterday, three other federal courts have issued decisions in lawsuits challenging the health care reform law, and all have supported the law. Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, and author of an ACS Issue Brief on the individual mandate, noted that the recent ruling by a federal judge in Michigan flatly rejected the argument that the individual mandate exceeded Congress's constitutional authority. Audio of the press call, which was hosted by ACS and the Center for American Progress, is available here.

[image via The White House]

Importance of the Courts