Judge Vinson to Obama Admin: "You Didn't Really Need Clarification and You're Probably Acting in Bad Faith, So Now You've Got Just Seven Days to Appeal, Chumps."
Remember on another thread how some were arguing that Vinsons ruling was only binding in his district?
Then Obummer asked for a clarification of the ruling 2 and a half weeks later as a stalling tactic?
Well to all of you.
Judge Vinson says "Hows my ass taste now?"
District Court Judge Roger Vinson has issued his ruling on the Obama Administration's "motion to clarify" his order striking the entirety of ObamaCare as unconstitutional.
The 20-page order (PDF)http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com...stay+order.pdf says that the judge has had enough pussyfooting around, it's time to **** or git. To that end, (1) he meant it when he said that ObamaCare was unconstitutional, (2) it was unlawful of the Obama Administration to continue implementation despite his order, and (3) as an act of judicial grace, he'll construe this bull**** motion as a request for a stay, but only on the condition that the Administration files an expedited appeal within seven days:
From the "clarification"
While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import. Accordingly, I will attempt to synopsize the 78-page order and clarify its intended effect. To that extent, the defendants’ motion to clarify is GRANTED.
So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared
unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.” [FN6]
[FN6] The defendants have suggested in reply to the plaintiffs’ response that the reason for the delay was due to the fact that my order “required careful analysis,” and it was only after this “careful review” that the defendants could determine its “potential impact” with respect to implementation of the Act (see doc. 164 at 11). This seems contrary to media reports that the White House declared within hours after entry of my order that “implementation will proceed apace” regardless of the ruling. See, e.g., N.C. Aizenman and Amy Goldstein, U.S. Judge in Florida Rejects Health Law, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2011, at A01 (quoting a senior White House official).
“A declaratory judgment cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings, but it has the same effect as an injunction in fixing the parties’ legal entitlements . . . . A litigant who tries to evade a federal court’s judgment --- and a declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice --- will come to regret it.” Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh, 620 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir. 2010). If it were otherwise, a federal court’s declaratory judgment would serve “no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” See Public Service Comm’n of Utah, v. Wycoff Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 237, 247, 73 S. Ct. 236, 97 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1952). For the defendants to suggest that they were entitled (or that in the weeks after my order was issued they thought they might be entitled) to basically ignore my declaratory judgment until “after appellate review is exhausted” is unsupported in the law. [FN5]
...for example, applied a statute that precluded single-judge district courts from enjoining an Act of Congress; but that statute was repealed by Congress thirty-five years ago, in 1976. The defendants’ selective quoting from those cases --- to suggest that the federal government may simply ignore a declaratory judgment by a district court until the appeals process has fully run its course --- borders on misrepresentation.
For example, my declaratory judgment, of course, only applies to the parties to this litigation. The State of Michigan is one of those parties. However, a federal district court in Michigan has already upheld the Act and the individual mandate. See Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Can (or should) I enjoin and halt implementation of the Act in a state where one of its federal courts has held it to be Constitutional?
At this point in time, and in light of all this uncertainty, it would be difficult to deny the defendants a stay pending appeal. Nonetheless, in light of the potential for ongoing injury to the plaintiffs, the stay should be in place for as short of time as possible (months, and not years), as discussed immediately below.
[...]
As both sides have repeatedly emphasized throughout this case, the Act seeks to comprehensively reform and regulate more than one-sixth of the national economy. It does so via several hundred statutory provisions and thousands of regulations that put myriad obligations and responsibilities on individuals, employers, and the states. It has generated considerable uncertainty while the Constitutionality of the Act is being litigated in the courts. The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be. And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and judgment and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal.
It should not be at all difficult or challenging to “fast-track” this case. The
briefing with respect to the general issues involved are mostly already done, as the federal government is currently defending several other similar challenges to the Act that are making their way through the appellate courts
Well, there you go.
No more delaying.
Does Obummer go to the 11th circuit or do we cut throw the crap and have the Supreames decide this?
Didn't Congress pass this? An unelected judge undermining Congress..
From what I remember, you were part of that conversation along with Nold. ( the guy that expects the Democrats and Independents to vote for him) Charts, graphs. Didn't we read the same constitution at the beginning of the new Congress? I am sure it is on Youtube.
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
"Federal Judge with Medical Industry Investments Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional."
Meanwhile, President Obama challenged all the opposing governors to come up with a better plan a few days ago. So far...
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.
Really?? it's took Obama and the dem's over a YEAR to pass a HI bill... and you think the gov's will have a written answer in a few days??Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Meanwhile, President Obama challenged all the opposing governors to come up with a better plan a few days ago. So far...
You are a ****ing joke!
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
There you go again.. Sucking on the gov't tit --getting gov't state health insurance and still complaining...
You should refuse it..
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
I don't get govt state health insurace... I'm not on medicaid, or healthy NY... $200 an hour for all that stupidity and ignorance? What a deal!
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Oh, Your not on your wife's state health insurance policy..
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
no... and if I was, it's independent health... it's not goct or state health insurance...
Ignorance must be bliss huh?
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Just so you know,
The gov't employees have the same insurance as everyone else- Independent Health, Community Blue, Univera, United Health care
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
What does this:
Have to do with this?
In one comment your talking about PRIVATE insurance companies... in the other your accusing me of being on a govt run plan like Medicaid... think before you type!
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
What does it have to do with it?
Let me put it in Dougman terms.. I am just pointing out your discrepancies and hypocrisies
You demonized government workers but played the Signorelli parapraxis. You slip and omitted that fact that your wife worked for the government but criticize others.
In addition, for months you vilified the new government health care (ObamaCare or whatever) and what does your wife receive---.. Government Healthcare..
Now, What is government healthcare?
It is a medical policy given to a government worker of which they choose a plan (yes-- like your own plan) called Independent health, Community Blue, Univera.. Ask any city, county, state and federal worker
Government employees do not get medicaid..
Seems like people take a stance without knowing the facts. So I have to educate.. YA..
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
Now.. that being said..
I don't want to continue to confusing you and others.. You can probably ask any gov't workers here like 4 Music etc..
Medicaid recipients are all enrolled or supposed to be enrolled in these PRIVATE health insurance plans-- Yes, independent health, Community Blue etc.
I hope this helps.. Maybe this is why America is confused.. They think it is all medicaid of the past..
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
They had the ideal plan ready to go. It was the "Republican Party Of No" that dragged things out over that year. They're also the reason we wound up saddled with a barely effective compromise.
And the Republican Governors have also had all that time to come up with their own plan. Remember "Repeal & Replace?" That oft-repeated campaign slogan that got them elected? That directly implies they had a plan ready to go. Isn't it strange that they still have no idea what they're replacing it with? You're the joke, Doug.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.
They have a plan.Remember "Repeal & Replace?" That oft-repeated campaign slogan that got them elected? That directly implies they had a plan ready to go. Isn't it strange that they still have no idea what they're replacing it with? You're the joke, Doug.
But since it doesn't include Da gubermint control you so desire.
you might have missed it.
Read and learn(if possible). http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote