The Policy of the Supreme Court on Immigration and Healthcare

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Court to Weigh Arizona Statute on Immigration,” shows what every conservative supposedly dreads, an activist court injecting itself into major policy decisions. In addition to immigration, the Court will also be deciding the fate of President Obama’s healthcare law and ruling on Texas legislative maps that could affect the balance in the House of Representatives.

The Court’s situation has been compared to the titanic struggle between President Roosevelt and the Court in 1936 when major elements of the New Deal were struck down. Whether President Obama is in for a similar fate remains to be seen.

Frankly, it doesn’t look good for the President. The Court has taken a decided turn to the conservative side, and it would take a bold decision to uphold his individual mandate, the key component of the healthcare package. As to immigration, the President may be in for a better fate. The supremacy of the federal government over the states is a long-standing element of our legal system, and these appeals to the 10th amendment fly in the face of precedent.

However, it seems to me, regarding the Texas redistricting, the Court should heed the 10th amendment. To fail to do so would impose top-down control over what has traditionally been a local process.

Ideally, the Court should try to bridge the polarism and divide between the Democrats and Republicans on all these issues, but doing that would take “Solomonic” wisdom.