It is generally considered by criminal defense attorneys that the longer the deliberations take, the better their chances are of getting their client off, and the jury coming back with a not guilty verdict. Now then, let me ask you another question; does this is same theory hold true with the Supreme Court? When they are deliberating does the amount of time they spend on something correspond to their decision, or outcome of the case? Is it the same or similar in theory to that of what criminal defense attorneys know to be the case based on statistical history of such?
Now then, right now the Supreme Court is deciding the ObamaCare case, and they're going to determine if it is unconstitutional. Those of us that understand the Constitution realize that from a strict sense, it doesn't have a chance of being upheld, but we also know that the Supreme Court is made up of political appointees, and the Supreme Court probably doesn't want to hear cases which are so controversial that it could start riots or fighting in the streets. In this case, if the court decides ObamaCare is unconstitutional, or that parts of it are, there are political implications and we are in an election year.
It would seem to me in this case that the Supreme Court would wish to draw out the process to make it look as if it was a hard decision even though it is rather cut and dry when it comes to the constitutionality of this case. Further, the political appointees that have come from Democrat administrations would probably rather not rule against The Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, as they will feel as if they have deeply betrayed their party and political affiliation.
To make matters worse, both sides of the aisle are expecting a certain verdict, and the Supreme Court will be criticized either way. For instance, political pundits like myself will criticize them if they allow the non-Affordable Health Care Act to remain intact, and folks on the other side of the political spectrum will complain if they nix the law. The Supreme Court is in a no-win situation, as far as popularity contests go, but the highest court in the land is not supposed to be a popularity contest, it is supposed to deal with constitutionality of the cases which are brought forth.
This is why these justices are able to serve for life, so that they can remain above the fray of politics, and not be pushed around by political rhetoric. Still, the reality is they are still human, and they are influenced by the media, the politics in Washington, their love of country, and their own personal views of how things should be in a perfect world. This will be interesting. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Politics and Economics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق