The decision of a three judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday in favor of the Obama health reform law was yet another reminder of something important for all of us - don't try to predict how federal judges will vote on a certain case.
Two of the three judges that heard this challenge were put on the bench by Republican Presidents - one by Ronald Reagan, the other by George W. Bush.
The Bush judge was Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated for the appeals court by in a batch of controversial - and seemingly very conservative - judicial selections.
At the time, Democrats were hotly opposed to Sutton's nomination and others selected by Mr. Bush, as his choices were held up in the Senate for over two years before Sutton was finally approved by the Senate.
"I believe his legal views lie far outside the mainstream and that his presence on the Federal bench could do serious harm to the values about which our Nation deeply cares," said Sen. Joe Lieberman back in 2003.
"Mr. Sutton has devoted a significant part of his legal career to advancing an extreme vision of federalism," Lieberman said in explaining his opposition.
But on Wednesday, Sutton did not seem like an ultra-conservative-judicial activist, as he joined in voting to uphold the Obama health reform law, saying simply, "the government has the better of the arguments."
That applied to maybe the most controversial part of the law, whether Congress can punish people for not buying health insurance - for inactivity in terms of commerce.
"A short history of decisions in this area shows that the Court has given Congress wide berth in regulating commerce," Sutton wrote in his own opinion, sure to make some of his former supporters in the Senate choke a bit as they eat their breakfast today.
"If Congress has the power to regulate the national healthcare market, as all seem to agree, it is difficult to see why it lacks authority to regulate a unique feature of that market by requiring all to pay now in affordable premiums for what virtually none can pay later in the form of, say, $100,000 (or more) of medical bills prompted by a medical emergency," Sutton wrote.
The Bush judge concluded his partial-concurrence-partial-dissent with an interesting thought - should the courts really determine the future of the Obama health law?
His answer - maybe not.
"Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples’ political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility."
It was a reminder that the heated debates over the direction of both policy and judges can sometimes miss the mark - by a lot.
Obviously, this case is far from over, as rulings are still to come from three judge panels on the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits.
Those could well surface in the weeks ahead, as we keep moving down the road to a time when this matter gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.
