The courts as political players

Sara Rosenbaum

doi:10.1186/s13584-019-0300-1

Abstract

Courts are political animals; as a result, they strive not only to carry out their assigned role in national governance but also to balance that role within the political and social system in which they operate. Sperling and Cohen offer an elegant, in-depth analysis of how these institutional interests have helped shape decision-making by the Israeli Supreme Court in a health policy context. In doing so, the authors tell a universal story, one with enormous resonance in the U.S.

Highlights

Main text If asked whether courts are political animals, any lawyer – probably anywhere in the world -- with any feel for the judicial system in which he or she operates likely would smile at the question
There are judges like United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who have overcome astounding odds to serve at the highest level
In December 2018, in Texas v United States, a single federal judge sitting in Fort Worth, Texas, acting against all rational legal reasoning, ruled unconstitutional the nation’s entire 2010 health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Summary

Introduction

If asked whether courts are political animals, any lawyer – probably anywhere in the world -- with any feel for the judicial system in which he or she operates likely would smile at the question. Correspondence: sarar@gwu.edu Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, 2175 K. This case possesses all the dramatic elements of those examined by Daniel Sperling and Nissim Cohen in their penetrating analysis of the politics of Israel’s Supreme Court in the context of health care policy.

Results

Conclusion