La. Supreme Court candidates say Roberts correct

Advocate staff photo by RICHARD ALAN HANNON  First Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Toni Higginbotham, left, and Jeff Hughes, second from left, visit with attorney Marty Maley, right. First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Duke Welch is in the background, following the Republican Party of East Baton Rouge Parish forum Tuesday. All three judges have announced candidacy for the Louisiana Supreme Court. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by RICHARD ALAN HANNON First Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Toni Higginbotham, left, and Jeff Hughes, second from left, visit with attorney Marty Maley, right. First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Duke Welch is in the background, following the Republican Party of East Baton Rouge Parish forum Tuesday. All three judges have announced candidacy for the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Three GOP candidates for the Louisiana Supreme Court told a room full of Republicans on Tuesday that while they don’t support the new national health-care revamp, the U.S. Supreme Court was correct in finding the law constitutional.

Overturning the Affordable Care Act, which many critics call Obamacare after the president, would have amounted to “judicial activism” for unilaterally negating a law that majorities in both houses of Congress approved, agreed 1st Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Toni M. Higginbotham, of Baton Rouge; Jeff Hughes, of Walker, and Duke Welch, of Baker.;

The three members of the 12-member appellate court in Baton Rouge have officially announced they are running for the 5th District seat on the Louisiana Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Chief Justice Catherine “Kitty” Kimball, of Ventress.

All are Republicans. First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge John Michael Guidry, a Democrat from Baton Rouge, also is a candidate but did not appear before the Ronald Reagan Newsmakers Luncheon, sponsored by the Republican Party of East Baton Rouge Parish.

Woody Jenkins, head of the parish Republicans, told the approximately 45 people attending the luncheon forum that judges are unable to discuss issues that might come before their court. But, by discussing the recent controversial health-care decision and other federal cases, the candidates could show voters how they view complex legal issues, Jenkins said.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been the target of much criticism in the conservative community for joining the more-liberal members of the nation’s highest court and providing the deciding vote that found the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

Though each Louisiana Supreme Court candidates voiced problems with specific findings in the June 28 opinion that Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority, all three agreed legally with the ultimate decision.

Hughes said, “Even though we all may not be in favor of Obamacare, in this case, it was passed by Congress. It is not the job of judges to change or overturn a law that has been passed by the legislature unless there is a constitutional reason.”

“He did what he thought was right,” Welch said. “If I could explain it to you in a really simple way: Justice Roberts says just because you don’t eat broccoli, the federal government can’t make you eat broccoli. But if the federal government chooses to tax you for not eating broccoli, they can.”

“The message from the court is that, ‘We’re not going to rewrite health care. It’s not our job. Legislature, you take this and you decide,’” Higginbotham said, adding that Republicans need to follow up and elect candidates committed to overturning the health-care program.

“We need to do whatever we need to do to have Congress repeal it,” Higginbotham said.

Kimball announced she would retire after 20 years on the court. Her last day on the job will be Jan. 31.

Gov. Bobby Jindal called a special Nov. 6 election for the 5th District seat on the state’s highest court. If no candidate wins outright, the runoff election would be held Dec. 1.

Candidate qualifying will run Aug. 15-17.

The state Supreme Court’s 5th District includes Ascension, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana parishes.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (13)


1) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/07/2012

DMJ's comments and the amen from the peanut gallery remind me of a former governor of Texas' comments on a totally different subject. BOTH comments have a very similar theme. The ex-governor caught a lot of flak for telling a woman rape wasn't all that bad, if you know you're going to be raped, well, just lay back and enjoy it. I'd rather not, thank you just the same, statists.

2) Comment by potkcalb - 11/07/2012

Well said DMJ.

3) Comment by DMJ - 11/07/2012

Nimby, nothing will change in November, as I'm sure you know. Even if Romney wins and the Repubs take the Senate, they'll need 60 votes to overturn it. Not going to happen. Besides, why would Romney want to overturn a law based on his own law he implemented while governor of Massachusetts? Sure, he'll campaign on repeal, but he'll change his tune closer to November. He is Mitt Romney, after all. The law stands. It's going to stand. What we should be asking our elected representatives to do now is work TOGETHER to make the law function - cover more people, bring costs down. When we achieve one of those, we assist with the other. And Phil, the federal government already does tax unemployment benefits (at a higher rate than Mitt Romney pays, by the way).

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/07/2012

The problem you have when dealing with anarchists is t... well, there is no prorblem, you just ignore their blathering

5) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/07/2012

The problem you have when dealing with socialists / statists is they are quite okay with a court decision which favors their outlook on life and they cannot understand why those who truly understand the limited duties of government are not willing to accept ANOTHER violation of everyone's rights. Healthcare is not a right.

6) Comment by nimby? - 11/07/2012

ex-louisianian , no one has lost , yet . the people will decide in November whether this will stand or not ....

7) Comment by ex-louisianian - 11/07/2012

I have an easier explanation: you lost. Roberts's strategy was so brilliant, displayed so much legal finesse, that he couldn't convince Baron Scarpia, I mean, Antonin Scalia to adopt it. But it's all the same, since what is really needed is universal Medicare, like the type Taiwan and Australia have.

8) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/07/2012

@Phil, oh, I see, let's take a very bad thing and allow it to worsen.

9) Comment by GoldenSage - 11/07/2012

Maybe, cooler heads need to prevail. Only time will tell.

10) Comment by phil - 11/07/2012

Of course there is always another angle to look at. Now that we know the federal government can tax us for not doing something or not buying something, how about taxing people who are able to work but do not work because they are just lazy and also collect government benefits. I like that idea.

11) Comment by GoldenSage - 11/07/2012

I don't support ObamaCare, but what Roberts did might have been a shot to Obama. It cut Obama off before he could circumvent the denial of his Obamacare. Obama and the White House were ready to implement ObamaCare one way or the other. And like before, if Obama would have done this, Congress wouldn't have done anything. By treating the mandate as a tax, maybe now Congress will act. The ball is now in Congress' hand, not Obama's. So, part of me disagree with the decision by Roberts, and a part of me thinks it might be Roberts' way of getting back at Obama... give the ball to Congress, not Obama. We can only hope Congress will act, and also, that Obama is defeated. Anybody But Obama.

12) Comment by MissCotillion - 11/07/2012

These three put the RINO in RINO. JeffHughes, I know nothing about, but the other two I know well. Welch and Higginbotham are so very nice, friendly, and charming. Absolutely warm and lovely. But both are so dumb, and so liberal. Have lunch with them, but for heaven's sake don't vote for either! Toni is especially dumb.

13) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/07/2012

It's now official. What I have been preaching for decades is now proven to be accurate. There's no real difference between the two political parties, a candidate with an (R) after his/her name is not the good guys after all. This should open some eyes, but , then again, maybe not.