June 30, 2010

Democrat: It's wrong to push through sweeping changes on a narrow, non bipartisan basis

Sheldon Whitehouse (D- Rhode Island) appears to be making the argument that the mark of an acceptable judicial opinion that overturns laws is not whether it is grounded in law but that it is bipartisan and not passed by narrow margins, comparing Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade favorably to cases like Citizens United, or McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Considering that the Democrats just rammed through a bill vastly expanding government control of our health care, completely reordering one sixth of our economy, and solidly opposed by a majority of the people without a single Republican vote by the narrowest margin possible, this appeal to bipartisanship comes off very hollow.

So, apparently, the judicial branch should think about bipartisanship and large majorities, rather than whether the law justifies their rulings, but when the political branches act, if they have the power, they should not worry about compromise or working with the other side of the aisle.