Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Activist judge: Sam Sparks rules against Texas anti-choice law

Federal Judge blocks parts of Texas anti-choice law

I agree with the ruling on the merits. Women should have the right to choice an abortion or continue a pregnancy and give birth to a child without government interference.

I realize that the Supreme Court disagreed with that, but any ruling that gets us closer to what's best is probably good.


All throughout the ruling he makes political comments against the Texas law. He makes clear his determination advance his agenda. While he is mindful to remain in the legal sphere, it is a political decision nonetheless.

This ruling is simliar to Judge Vinson striking down the entire Affordable healthcare act.


We need an independent judiciary that won't take sides in the political debates of the day. That is part of what you give up when you accept a lifetime appointment. Your opinion doesn't matter anymore. Except now, we have people barely trying to conceal their politics, if at all.

Judges should be using their knowlege of the Constitution, the Supreme Court jurisprudence, and their analytical judgement of the law to decide cases. Determining whether someone has standing shouldn't be political it should be time-tested and fair. Each ruling should be a document we can trust regardless of ideology.

Of course we all have ideology. I'm a true liberal. Another might be a true progressive (leftwing) or a true conservative (right wing). But being a judge means, all three of us agree on the process and a determination to be intellectually honest.

Take Judge Vinson's ruling, if he had struck down the individual mandate and left the rest of the law standing (as the 11th circuit Appeals did subsequently), his ruling would actually have helped President Obama and Democrats. That's because there would be a roadmap to instituting the new law, and an excuse for Democrats to jettison the most unpopular part of it. Plus Republicans might be forced to work together to replace the mandate with something better.

I'm saying the Judges' ideology prevented that. It took a Clinton judge to rule against the mandate in a way that actually helped the law. Again politics. I wouldn't doubt that Judge Frank Hull (female Clinton appointment) ruled against the mandate and in favor of severability as a political compromise. THIS IS ALL WRONG!

In this case, Sparks seemed more interested in the political issue, and using his power to advance that as far as possible. The worst thing he did was actually legislate from the bench.

Part of his order is that the word "solely" be struck from the law in a strangely worded section concerning punishment if a doctor didn't advise a pregnant woman of all that the law requires.

By taking "soley" out, it changes the meaning of the statute. That's not Judge Sparks' job. He should determine whether that section is permissable or not. He's not supposed to change it to what he thinks works better.

The Judge should have granted an injunction, and ordered the Texas government to fix the law to make it Constitutional or leave it dormant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a partisan Democrat and like the back and forth.

It's just there really should be official score-keepers who don't get involved.

Sort of like the referee in John Robert's Congressional testimony.

Pro-lifers wouldn't want Sparks to be the referee.

Pro ACA healthcare advocates wouldn't want Vinson to be the referee.

For now, we have to accept that the judiciary is political, and fight for judges on our political side.

The problem is no one agrees with their political party all the time. What then?

Bush v Gore.

No comments: