Moorpark College Health Care Utilization in Homeless Youth Article Review I agree with your statement that legal decisions constrain court holdings and tha

Moorpark College Health Care Utilization in Homeless Youth Article Review I agree with your statement that legal decisions constrain court holdings and that laws should reflect moral codes. However, what happens when people have different moral codes? Can we really determine which side is “right”? For example, in the case of healthcare in the U.S., there debates about the viability of health insurance;whether it should exist to help people pay off medical bills, or whether it should be demolished because of the overpriced medicine and emergency costs. First of all, I will second question and wait to see what you have to say about that. Second, regarding the first part of your post, I see your point, and the ERA is a good example of it, but suppose someone replied to you like this: ‘I agree wholeheartedly that legislation should reflect the changes of public opinion and general American culture…that is why we have regular elections.But [says this hypothetical critic] it is not the job of courts to drag the democratic process where it doesn’t want to go, or isn’t ready to go yet.As uplifting as the language and ideals of cases like Brown or Obergefell v. Hodges might have been, they are examples of the courts forcing the law to jump ahead of democracy, with nine judges (in Brown) and five judges (in Obergefell) deciding what hundreds of millions of Americans were ready to have…and that sounds like a serious problem…’How might you reply to this kind of criticism?