Comparative Analysis Obamacare

Short Paper #3: Comparative Analysis On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or commonly called Obamacare, into law. The law was the largest overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since 1965 (wikipedia.com). Through the legislation, Americans have easier, more affordable access to health insurance. At the same time, though, there were many mandates and subsidies that required a new tax to be implemented. The tax and mandates’ constitutionality were in question. The Supreme Court was challenged with deciding whether or not the mandates and tax in the law were constitutional. Also, there were extensive movements by average American citizens to oppose or support the law in

A model that best describes the motivations of Supreme Court justices would be the legal model. In the legal model, the judge looks at the facts of the case, the text of the constitution, legislative intent, and precedent, as opposed to other models where personal views would be taken into account. After considering all of these factors, the judge will make their decision. It is clear that in no part of the model is there a factor for their own personal preference. According to the legal model, when a Supreme Court judge analyzes the PPACA, he or she would look more into depth about cases that had occurred in the past, and read more into the Constitution, specifically the commerce clause (Wikipedia.com). The Supreme Court justice would not be motivated to make decisions based on public opinion either. Unlike Mayhew’s electoral connection, which stated that Congressman are constantly thinking about getting elected (Mayhew), Supreme Court justices are appointed and serve for life. This means the judges’ minds are focused on the constitutionality of the law instead of whether or not their decision is popular. They look at the PPACA with a very open view and attempt to judge the case based off its legal implications instead of biased personal or public opinions. On the other hand, the

A Supreme Court justice, with the abundant resources of a full-time staff challenged with researching the cases they are handling, would have much more quality information about the PPACA than the average American citizen. They are able to have their staffs look up all of the relevant information regarding health care, previous rulings, who would be affected, and how it ties into the Constitution. Being educated individuals, working in Washington, the staff members have the experience and political knowledge to know biased and unbiased information. Also, the information that the Supreme Court justice receives would likely come from a very reliable source versus the American public that often times receives and retains information from a biased source. The most important information pertaining to the Supreme Court justice would whether or not the law contradicts the Constitution, as compared to the average American citizen only looking out for one’s self and the interest of their particular party. Supreme court justice is encouraged to find information regarding the constitutionality of the case through very professional, non-biased sources. They are looking at being impartial. The average American citizen, in contrast, is looking for