tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post1915231660025310517..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Florida Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law UnconstitutionalWilliam A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-26923821261323029722011-02-02T15:23:01.680-05:002011-02-02T15:23:01.680-05:00ObamaCare After Judge Vinson’s Ruling
"I gat...ObamaCare After Judge Vinson’s Ruling<br /><br />"I gather from the press accounts that [Vinson] entered a declaratory judgment—a declaration that the law is unconstitutional--not an injunction. If you don’t comply with an injunction, you’re in contempt of court. By contrast, you can “violate” a declaratory judgment with impunity. But in practice parties do not defy DJs. The reason is that, once a DJ had been entered, the person who got it can go back to court and get an injunction automatically, on the basis of the DJ. A DJ is often used against the government, because the court does not want to suggest that the government has to be threatened with contempt. The idea is: I (judge) know that you (government official) will comply once I tell you what the law is; I don’t have to order you to comply.<br /><br /> If he had entered an injunction, the US would immediately have sought a “stay pending appeal.” That means the injunction can’t be enforced while the case is on appeal. The US would seek the stay from him; if he denied it, from the 11th Circuit; if the 11th Circuit denied it—which would be inconceivable, in this case, in my view--from the S. Ct. Technically, a DJ does not have to be stayed, because it doesn’t require the US to do anything. But my guess is that the US will seek a stay anyway, just to make things clear. There is a risk that if the US seeks a stay, and the court of appeals says “we’re not granting a stay, because you don’t need it, since this is only a DJ” then that will be portrayed as a loss for the US."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82547/injunction-junction-whether-vinsons-decision-blocks-the-law" rel="nofollow">The New Republic</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-after-judge-vinsons-ruling/" rel="nofollow">Cato</a>viatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210255358385745222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-44319193900824130212011-02-02T15:04:56.286-05:002011-02-02T15:04:56.286-05:00Democrats Made Huge Mistake Not Putting Severabili...Democrats Made Huge Mistake Not Putting Severability In ObamaCare<br /><br />"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell asked liberal constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley Tuesday if the Democrats made a mistake not writing a severability clause into the law. Turley surprisingly answered, "It was a colossal mistake"<br /><br />"the Democrats really laid themselves open in how they drafted this act. Judge Vinson is not, you know, totally out of line in saying that severability was put at issue when they did not include the clause. The interesting thing is the severability clause was in an earlier draft of the legislation and was removed."<br /><br />"The question of severability in the legal sense will play an important part of the appeals process, up to the Supreme Court sooner or later. The bigger question will be whether President Obama and his party will have any political severability from Obamacare if the Supreme Court overturns it on an expedited review."<br /><br />"Obama injected himself into the Court's politics when he foolishly decided to admonish them during his 2010 State of the Union address. As a result, Justice Samuel Alito joined Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in not attending this year's SOTU.<br /><br />As all you need are four Justices to hear the case, it seems almost a metaphysical certitude one of the remaining six will join Alito, Scalia and Thomas especially as this is going to be a political issue whenever the Court chooses to hear it."<br /><br />"If they decide to tackle the inevitable sooner rather than later, the White House and its Democratic allies will face two outcomes: either a fired-up electorate like in 2010, or massive egg on their faces and … a fired-up electorate. There will be no severability from ObamaCare either way."<br /><br /><a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/02/lawrence-odonnell-democrats-made-huge-mistake-not-writing-severabilit#ixzz1Cpk7s7d5" rel="nofollow">Noel Sheppard</a>viatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210255358385745222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-53846490492457788422011-02-02T14:02:57.090-05:002011-02-02T14:02:57.090-05:00As I correct in "assuming" an injunction...As I correct in "assuming" an injunction would be forthcoming if The Anointed One disregards the judge's ruling and continues with His fiasco?95BSharpshooterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10757806090270175757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-25288085349714135292011-02-01T23:44:42.808-05:002011-02-01T23:44:42.808-05:00Thank you for sharing this. I am hoping this is t...Thank you for sharing this. I am hoping this is the beginning of the end for Obamacare, although we have a long way to go to unravel a bill that had been rushed through so quickly. But knowledge is power, as pointed out by <a href="http://www.uproothealthcare.com/about/the-author" rel="nofollow"> Deane Waldman, MD MBA</a> in his book, Uproot U.S. Healthcare: To Reform Healthcare, which contains eye opening facts about how we arrived at such a 'sick' place in our system with empowering ideas on how to fix it.audreygeddeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774928331391531323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-72730700068439042272011-02-01T16:06:50.078-05:002011-02-01T16:06:50.078-05:00I read the ruling, and I am amazed at how well lai...I read the ruling, and I am amazed at how well laid out and thorough the judge's argument is. However, what is the consequence for the Executive branch if they choose not to obey the federal judge's ruling, and continue to implement ObamaCare? I understand they need to request - and be granted - a stay to legally continue with its implementation. However, the Administration is posturing and commenting as though this did not rule the law "void" and that they will "continue on the same path", thus disobeying the federal law.<br /><br />Rush Limbaugh suggested that one of the plaintiffs needs to, after a certain interval, ask Judge Vinson to rule the Executive in contempt if they don't obey the ruling. <br /><br />My question is: Should Obama, the Executive, choose - as his spokespeople currently state - to disregard the ruling and continue implementing ObamaCare, and disobey the law, would that be a "high crime and misdemeanor"? Is contempt of federal court a misdemeanor - or a high crime?DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-82683191270060057942011-02-01T09:48:56.992-05:002011-02-01T09:48:56.992-05:00"Today’s decision should be a major source of..."Today’s decision should be a major source of concern for the Obama administration for at least five reasons.<br /><br />First, the parties involved. This case involves a majority of the states (26), and the National Federation of Independent Business. If not completely unprecedented, the very fact that more than half the states marched into federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into the category of “beyond any recent memory.” The sheer magnitude of the parties involved guarantees that the courts on appeal will pay particular attention to this case."<br /><br />"Second, the case creates a very bad trend for the administration. Those courts which have taken the time to more fully develop the record in the case, and to have more briefing and hearings (Virginia and Florida), have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. This is important because, contrary to the White House spin, litigation is not a scoreboard. It is not enough to say that you have won some and lost some. Some district court wins “count” more,"<br /><br />"Third, the case strikes down the whole of Obamacare based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate"<br /><br />"The fourth problem for the Obama DOJ: Judge Vinson’s decision is thorough, well-reasoned, and likely will be very persuasive to appellate judges, and eventually Justices, who review the case. He was judicious, ruling against the states on the spending clause claim and for them on the Commerce Clause."<br /><br />"The fifth problem, the Judge granted declaratory relief to the parties, which includes 26 states. Because the entire act was struck down, the future requirements to expand Medicaid programs will be suspended, at least as to these 26 states, and these states will be relieved of their obligation to make plans for such expansion in the immediate future."<br /><br />Robert Alt is a Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. <br /><br /><a href="http://blog.heritage.org/author/ralt/" rel="nofollow">Heritage Foundation</a>viatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210255358385745222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-57316106523630174722011-02-01T08:53:31.181-05:002011-02-01T08:53:31.181-05:00Judge Vinson's footnote #30 on page 76, hoists...Judge Vinson's footnote #30 on page 76, hoists prez Erkel on his on petard. Seems in '08 pE argued against the very mandate he now champions. pE continues to fulfill the base politician's stereotype - a person w/o actual principle, but an insatiable drive/need to excercise power over the lives of their fellow citizens.photofellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199281673817974610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-53042839622144532562011-02-01T04:36:50.777-05:002011-02-01T04:36:50.777-05:00Judge Vinson’s Decision Has NOT Been Stayed;Obamac...Judge Vinson’s Decision Has NOT Been Stayed;Obamacare “Dead in its Tracks”<br /><br /><a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/31/judge-vinsons-decision-has-not-been-stayedobamacare-dead-in-its-tracks/" rel="nofollow">Clarice Feldman</a>viatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210255358385745222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-55720402077529925692011-01-31T20:50:52.315-05:002011-01-31T20:50:52.315-05:00Judge uses Obama’s words against him
“I note that...Judge uses Obama’s words against him<br /><br />“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday."<br /><br />"The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/" rel="nofollow">The Washington Times</a>viatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210255358385745222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-33198733148072685972011-01-31T20:22:20.023-05:002011-01-31T20:22:20.023-05:00"Judge Vinson found that there was no need fo...<em>"Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived." - Prof.. Jacobson<br /><br />"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void." - Judge Vinson</em><br /><br />Sounds to me, from just the quotes above, that the injunction is unnecessary, as the entire Act is now declared "null and void." That means that the law is dead, and can only be made "alive" by a higher court ruling - or am I reading this wrong? (Apparently many in the media (e.g ABC and Wash. Times) are interpreting the ruling as "...just business as usual - no injunction means it is alive!....")DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-20724500376837982792011-01-31T19:49:42.264-05:002011-01-31T19:49:42.264-05:00My question is why he didn't put an injunction...My question is why he didn't put an injunction in place? The mandate hasn't started yet, but other portions of the law are in place already. The states still have to work towards getting the pools in place if there is no injunction. We are still paying the taxes are we not?Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-9389111805927168512011-01-31T19:46:08.362-05:002011-01-31T19:46:08.362-05:00Clearly, this is all Palin's fault.Clearly, this is all Palin's fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-38297530137804666282011-01-31T19:40:21.463-05:002011-01-31T19:40:21.463-05:00Excellent ruling!!! I am personally amused that t...Excellent ruling!!! I am personally amused that the 0 Administration has said this is "judicial overreach." They really have audacity, those leftists. They wrote the book on "overreach"! <br /><br />From what I have read thus far, the judge seems to have laid out clearly his reasoning, his justifications in law and precedent, and conclusions. Where is the "overreach" in this cogent outline?<br /><br />@Tom Nally: I believe his apology was because of the Orwellian name of the Act; it appears unseemly to make such a ruling - on the surface. I do not read in his statements that he is apologizing for logically breaking the ruling down to explain what and why he made the ruling.<br /><br />Again, these leftists have audacity, by the boatload!DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-13232409452683754112011-01-31T17:34:54.064-05:002011-01-31T17:34:54.064-05:00Linked you on my post:
It's interesting that ...Linked you on my post:<br /><br />It's interesting that ABC Radio News (2 p.m. PST newscast) has the story WRONG, saying that only a portion of the law is undone. Not that I am SURPRISED!<br /><br />http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/01/federal-judge-strikes-down-all-of-obamacare-will-obama-comply/UNCOVERAGEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742983923253470212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-38831867693304035662011-01-31T17:24:39.221-05:002011-01-31T17:24:39.221-05:00The group he is apologizing to is not the defendan...The group he is apologizing to is not the defendants but the Congress that passed the act. <br /><br />Its a CYA on the part of the judge for telling his Congressional betters that they got it wrong. He probably wishes to avoid any 'fit for office' inquiries.Tucanae Serviceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935170696138248693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-15140238348217118462011-01-31T16:59:59.847-05:002011-01-31T16:59:59.847-05:00Does the Supreme Court still read election returns...Does the Supreme Court still read election returns?gshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17953008291916883288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-75233753295434974992011-01-31T16:59:58.789-05:002011-01-31T16:59:58.789-05:00so any ObamaCare actions taken by the adminstratio...so any ObamaCare actions taken by the adminstration are illegal going forward ?The Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09554055593581812426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-65778471704819718992011-01-31T16:48:30.844-05:002011-01-31T16:48:30.844-05:00Unlike Tom Nally, I, for one, am pleased to discov...Unlike <b>Tom Nally</b>, I, for one, am pleased to discover the existence of a judge with the humility to apologize for undoing something, even if the "something" turned out to have been a colossal waste of time.49erDweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09386245801517422226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-34819563562201161022011-01-31T16:42:21.761-05:002011-01-31T16:42:21.761-05:00I'm delighted about the ruling, but disturbed ...I'm delighted about the ruling, but disturbed that the Judge felt he had to apologize -- apologize! -- for declaring it unconstitutional. Good grief, Judge, don't be a freakin' wimp! You don't have to apologize for taking a stand on individual liberty.Tom Nallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368797876137523500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-6285588330574905422011-01-31T15:33:27.149-05:002011-01-31T15:33:27.149-05:00As I understand it the law is null and void unless...As I understand it the law is null and void unless and until the ruling is overturned on appeal. What a relief!Tom E. Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13425789987903796346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-44784592111492667852011-01-31T15:09:26.694-05:002011-01-31T15:09:26.694-05:00"Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional ..."Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that."<br /><br />Funny which one of those clauses is in parentheses. I bet someone could write a book about that.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03253563035867167801noreply@blogger.com