Robert Barnes’ opinion in “The Washington Post” titled, “How the Roberts court could save Obama’s health-care reform” argues that Chief Justice Roberts’ court has a major role to play in influencing implementation of Obama’s health-care reforms. The article further stipulates that in order for Obama to fulfill his domestic achievements, he must uphold the signature from the conservative court which is headed by a Republican elected judge. Despite the fact that the writer bases his argument on previous happenings, I totally disagree with him. Firstly, Roberts is a professional judge who is guided by the ethical principles embedded in the Constitution. Although Obama voted against the confirmations of the Supreme Court, he was playing his role as the President (Robert 25). Thus, Roberts should not exercise his grudge by refusing to sign the approval of health-care reforms. All the five judges from the Democrats and Republicans should put their personal interests aside and endorse the reforms.
The writer argues that the administration of Obama is planning to convince the justices on the broad power of Congress such as regulating interstate commerce as well as mitigating national interest. In my opinion, this is nothing but the truth. Everyone serving the public should prioritize national interest and work in favor of the public. This understanding will enable the concerned justices to endorse the health-care reforms.
According to the Barnes, Roberts is less interested in federalism than his predecessors. This makes him not recognize the absolute power of Congress. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Roberts will have to write his opinion (Stolberg 56). The opinion will entail the commerce clause on the Constitution that deals with the issues of healthcare, insurance as well as interstate markets. A close look at the contents of this clause, it touches on some sensitize sectors of American economy. Thus, I think that Roberts will not be stupid to refuse to sign the health- care reforms as he knows very well the implications of such a failure (Maggie 60). This will affect the American healthcare. As a president, Obama plans to accomplish his manifesto such as those in health-care reforms. Thus, if other stakeholders such as the chief justice fail to play their role, everyone will be affected negatively something that will not auger well.
Roberts is responsible for maintaining Supreme Court’s reputation. Thus, although health- care reforms are sensitive, he is bound to comply with law and professionalism. Decisions of the court should not be politicized at any case. Earlier, a 5 to 4 ruling that resulted in the appointment of majority Republican judges led to a perception that Democrats were losers in the game (Maggie 28). Based on this ruling, the writer argues that this would facilitate partisan and division based on ideologies. I disagree with this perception in that the division should not arise regarding the rulings. It is true that the two major parties may have differing ideologies. However, it is important to understand that these ideologies should not hinder domestic developments such as health-care provision. Although the Democrats lost, this should not be used as a reason to derail health-care reforms.
In the constitution, Congress is given power in the commerce clause. This allows Congress to regulate commerce internationally. However, there are cases where the court has exceeded its powers entrenched in the commerce clause. For instance, in 2005, there was a federal disagreement as whether Californians should be allowed to continue growing marijuana for medical use or not. This placed Chief Justice between a rock and a hard place in making the final decision (Maggie 124). This shows that the judge has a major role to play in influencing health-care reforms. In my own view, the court should sign, give their own opinion and leave the rest to the implementers of the reforms which are the major focus of the President. Indeed, Obama is not working to accomplish health-care forms for his own gains. Although it will be one of his achievements, Americans will be the main benefiters. Thus, nobody should deny them their rights. The ruined relationship between the President and Chief Justice Roberts should not hinder health-care reforms.
Both Congress and Obama have a unified purpose of developing a stable national economy. Moreover, Americans have a single market. Hence implementation of the health-care reforms will have a unified goal (Stolberg 19). Some individuals have a perception that one side is benefiting more than the other. This is wrong as the two sides should work to facilitate national development. Kennedy argues that by denying any government power to deal with the concerns of the public, one is committing a heinous crime. A government should be given complete jurisdiction in order to steer its development plans for the benefit of the public. In my opinion, I think that Roberts will sign the bill for the simple reason that he has to employ professionalism in his work (Maggie 24). The Constitution protects any individuals in case one is forced to do something as a result of arbitrary power. Therefore, Obama as the President is not in a position to force Roberts and his fellow justices to sign the health-care reforms. Roberts cannot deny Obama an opportunity to meet the needs of the public. Kennedy noted that when the government acts in excess of its power, it places liberty at stake (Reid 14). Thus, by Congress declining to endorse health-care reforms, they will be putting liberty of the publics at stake. They will be denying the majority their rights to enjoy improved health care.
The commerce clause has been faced with various challenges in its implementation. Both upper and lower court justices had disagreed on several issues that needed to be reviewed. The main aim was to limit Congress on its absolute power on commerce which includes the health- care. As the Chief Justice, Roberts has to make a difference. He should understand that commerce clause entails different laws (Robert 63). Thus, he should give preference to health-care reforms. This is simply because the President has set mechanisms to reform the sector. Internal challenges within Congress should not hinder implementation of Obama’s health-care reforms. Different in ideologies between the two dominant parties dictates how the court approaches the healthcare issue. Thus, the writer maintains that the court is going to ensure that healthcare reforms are not accomplished by Obama. In my opinion, I think that the court should look at the context and benefits of such reforms and forget their differences for a while.
In conclusion, Congress has powers to make decisions concerning implementation of health-care reforms. Chief Justice Roberts should use his wisdom of the law and put aside his personal grudge with Obama. Congress should also support the health-care reforms. Indeed, conservative justices should be comfortable and try to uphold challenges facing health-care law instead of upholding Obama’s mission to reform health-care.