January 31, 2011

Update: Obama Admin Must Halt Implementation and Current Enforcement, Absent a Stay Which Has Not Yet Been Granted
— Gabriel Malor

This question has come up a few places. I've also seen incorrect media reports that Judge Vinson's decision declaring all of ObamaCare unconstitutional "will have no instant effect on implementation." This is probably fueled in part because "senior White House advisors" are apparently saying that implementation will continue while the lawsuits play out.

That is incorrect, at least for the moment. The law is unconstitutional and that ruling is binding on the parties. Not just the 26 plaintiff states, mind you, as I've also seen erroneously reported. All parties to a lawsuit are bound, including and especially the defendants, that is, the U.S. departments attempting to implement ObamaCare.

That means that at this moment all parts of the law are unenforceable, including the guaranteed issue rule, the preparations for the exchanges, the minimum standards, the Medicaid expansion, the FSA adjustment, the 1099 debacle, and, of course, the individual mandate. The Obama Administration risks a contempt order if it attempts to continue to impose any of these ObamaCare requirements on the states.

Now, don't get too excited. The Administration will, I guarantee it, be seeking to stay Judge Vinson's order pending appeal. At the moment, there is no order on a stay and the District Court's docket is closed for the day. So, at the earliest we're not looking at Judge Vinson taking a crack at their stay motion until tomorrow. And if he denies the Administration stay motion, they'll seek it from the 11th Circuit. The appellate court will very likely grant it, given the disparate court decisions so far and because the stakes are so high. I can't imagine that the Administration would have to go so far as the Supreme Court to get a stay, but any way it happens, they're going to get one eventually. I guarantee that too.

That, by the way, is what happens next. First comes a stay motion, then the appeal notice. At which point the stay motion will be resolved and the case will be set for briefing. Briefing could take up to six months or longer. And it could be even longer until the case gets set for oral argument (which, in a case like this it certainly will be). After that comes a decision a good year down the road. Then possible en banc review and only then a petition to the Supreme Court. So this is a long process. We're talking years.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:38 PM | Comments (145)
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Then possible en banc review and only then a petition to the Supreme Court. So this is a long process. We're talking years. Posted by Gabriel Malor at 06:38 PM New Comments Thingy All the more reason to be sure to defeat Obama in 2012. Otherwise, the SCOTUS in the next four years, at some point, becomes an appendage of the Socialist International.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 31, 2011 01:40 PM (tJjm/)

2 I'm glad you cleared this up. When I heard the judge wasn't stopping implementation, I wondered if Osama Obama had finally achieved his goal of a nation in which unconstitutional is constitutional and mere laws cannot stop him.

A ruling that says "they can't do this, but they can do it anyway" is far beyond the limits of common sense.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 31, 2011 01:44 PM (Ulu3i)

3

Didn't MK-ultra say that the judge did not invoke an immediate stopping of the program because the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014?

Basically, the law's unconstitutional, but a stay's already been informally granted.

Help me out, Gabe.

Posted by: The Q at January 31, 2011 01:45 PM (AXHCj)

4 The salad tossing media spinning things the way they want them to be versus how they are?  The deuce you say!!

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 01:47 PM (olKiY)

5 The real positive impact of this decision is, it makes the political position of Obamacare evermore unsustainable. As long as the GOP makes the cry to stop it its rallying cry, the pressure to either scrap or radically modify it will continue to increase.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 31, 2011 01:47 PM (tJjm/)

6 I don't know, I think the states have a good argument that the status quo is the only way to go until it's decided one way or another because there's great damage that will be done if the thing goes forward. Plus, it will be a continuing constitutional violation. The government will not be harmed by delaying enforcement. Therefore, the states should prevail.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2011 01:47 PM (QxSug)

7 Man is this ever a clusterfuck.

So now in 20 some states there is no 1099 requirement?  What happens if I mail my taxes in without them? 

What happens if I mail them without the 1099 form, and then a stay is granted?

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 31, 2011 01:48 PM (7lYL3)

8 The Judge did not issue an injunction because he presumes the feds will abide by his declaratory judgment that it's unconstitutional - no injunction necessary.
After all, it isn't as if Obama would ignore a law he disagreed with.
HAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: real joe at January 31, 2011 01:49 PM (w7Lv+)

9

Didn't MK-ultra say that the judge did not invoke an immediate stopping of the program because the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014?

Basically, the law's unconstitutional, but a stay's already been informally granted.

No. That's what happened in the other case where the individual mandate was found unconstitutional. But that's not what happened here. Here, the judge issued a declaratory judgment holding the entirety of the law unconstitutional. He also noted that the defendants cannot implement a law that has been found unconstitutional.

As a result, unless Obama gets a stay of the decision (which he will; he just hasn't yet), ObamaCare is dead.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 31, 2011 01:49 PM (XVaFd)

10

In the end, there will be only....

 

Wait, it's the end.  There is only chaos!

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at January 31, 2011 01:50 PM (sJTmU)

11 "Stop In The Name of Love" was always my favorite song by the Supremes.

Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 01:50 PM (ihSHD)

12 Got it. Thanks Gabe

Posted by: The Q at January 31, 2011 01:51 PM (AXHCj)

13 Thanks, Gabe. You can't keep an unconstitutional law going just because the god-king needs it to make him look good. I also think that this is equivalent to a stay of execution. As the policies are implemented, the states and the private institutions are damaged.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2011 01:51 PM (QxSug)

14 So now in 20 some states there is no 1099 requirement?  What happens if I mail my taxes in without them?

Didn't you read the post? The order is binding on all the parties. That includes, duh, the defendants (including the IRS). So no 1099 requirement in any state. . . at least until the Administration gets a stay. Which they will.


Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 31, 2011 01:52 PM (XVaFd)

15 i think he'll get the stay....just like rahm got back on the ballot....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 01:52 PM (eOXTH)

16 The government will not be harmed by delaying enforcement.

Therefore, the states should prevail.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2011 06:47 PM (QxSug)

Thats a good point.  This Law, which is Unconsitutional, CHANGES the status quo from existing, Constitutional Law...

Why approve a Stay when the Harm would come from implementation, not NON implementation?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 01:53 PM (AdK6a)

17 If Obamacare really dies this quick then they were right after all, it really did save money.
Those funny little dhims.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 31, 2011 01:53 PM (HBqDo)

18 ontherocks and they'll spin it that way too......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 01:54 PM (eOXTH)

19 FUCK YOU, MADISON, AND YOUR FUCKING SEPARATION OF POWERS!

Posted by: God-Emperor Barky O the 1st at January 31, 2011 01:55 PM (STZ9e)

20 Thanks, Gabe.....

Posted by: FU52 at January 31, 2011 01:55 PM (BSVaa)

21

The news is just too good today.

Its making me nervrous...what will the bad news be?

Posted by: Max Power at January 31, 2011 01:56 PM (q177U)

22 So if they can't get a stay to we get an ABBA song?

Posted by: Gary at January 31, 2011 01:56 PM (KUjSN)

23
and they'll spin it that way too......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 06:54 PM (eOXTH)

I'll live with that, literally and figuratively.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 31, 2011 01:57 PM (HBqDo)

24 Its making me nervrous...what will the bad news be?

Don't worry about it. You won't escape it anyway.

Posted by: Yellowstone Caldera at January 31, 2011 01:57 PM (STZ9e)

25

Its making me nervrous...what will the bad news be?

Posted by: Max Power at January 31, 2011 06:56 PM (q177U)

Well.... theres this little place called Egypt...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 01:57 PM (AdK6a)

26 So we're gonna be taxed and build a bureaucracy that may violate the Constitution, but we need to proceed for...what reason exactly? We're going to go through a massive waste of money on something that may well disappear in a puff of smoke?

Seems to me there's more of a case to freeze this thing rather than dig the hole deeper.

Posted by: nickless at January 31, 2011 01:58 PM (qdtoY)

27

I'm sure right now our meme makers in the MFM are sifting through Judge Vinson's garbage trying to find some dirt on him--he left a lid on a water bottle he threw in the recycle bin, he tore off a mattress tag, he mixed darks with whites, something anything.  And they will of course be looking for some kind of connection to that Wicked Witch North of the Great Right North, Sarah Palin.  Perhaps he went on an Alaskan cruise with his wife, perused her book in a Barnes and Noble, or indulged in a fresh not farm raised salmon for dinner. 

Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 01:58 PM (ihSHD)

28 As a "constitutional scholar" shouldn't Obama have seen this coming?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 31, 2011 01:58 PM (T0NGe)

29 Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 06:58 PM (ihSHD)

You're very good at this.  We could use people like you.

Posted by: MFM at January 31, 2011 01:59 PM (VuLos)

30 Party?!  I'm bound to stay!

Posted by: Dang at January 31, 2011 02:00 PM (TXKVh)

31 So no 1099 requirement in any state. . . at least until the Administration gets a stay. Which they will.


Posted by: Gabriel Malor


What I mean is ...........

Let's say that I e-file my fed taxes tomorrow, but on Thursday the 11th circuit says OK, here is a stay.  What happens to me?  Am I in non-compliance?

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 31, 2011 02:00 PM (7lYL3)

32 As a "constitutional scholar" shouldn't Obama have seen this coming?

He only reads emanations of penumbras.

Posted by: nickless at January 31, 2011 02:00 PM (qdtoY)

33 As a "constitutional scholar" shouldn't Obama have seen this coming?

What was Pelosi's answer on constitutionality again?

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 31, 2011 02:00 PM (STZ9e)

34

Seems to me there's more of a case to freeze this thing rather than dig the hole deeper.

Posted by: nickless at January 31, 2011 06:58 PM (qdtoY)

Yeah, isn't this like the Arizona Illegal Law?  Where the Judge stopped implementation of the law, as being Unconsitutional... even though it is going up through the Court System?

I'd think they would be more likely to postpone implementation...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 02:01 PM (AdK6a)

35 Let's say that I e-file my fed taxes tomorrow, but on Thursday the 11th circuit says OK, here is a stay.  What happens to me?  Am I in non-compliance?

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 31, 2011 07:00 PM (7lYL3)

The 1099 requirement is for This years taxes, not Last years taxes.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 02:02 PM (AdK6a)

36 tuned into Mark Levin for one moment.  Had to turn him off, thought he would have a stroke over this!

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 02:03 PM (p302b)

37 Gabe - When you say Obama will get the stay, do you think that because that is the way it would go under established law and precedent, or because you think the courts will bend over for Obama no matter what established law says?

Posted by: gebrauchshund at January 31, 2011 02:03 PM (iYwUw)

38

The 1099 requirement is for This years taxes, not Last years taxes.

Posted by: Romeo13


Ahhh ok, I thought it was for this year.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 31, 2011 02:03 PM (7lYL3)

39 So are we going to hire a bunch more bureaucrats and fire them if this gets overturned?

Posted by: nickless at January 31, 2011 02:05 PM (qdtoY)

40 Great, you rethuglicans would rather have my several close friends die on the streets than oppose this maverick judge's decision.

Obama already promised his bill would save 100000 dollars isn't that enough?!

Posted by: Kelley at January 31, 2011 02:05 PM (BP6Z1)

41 Are you serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS???!!!!

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at January 31, 2011 02:05 PM (tJjm/)

42 I think we shouldn't act hastily until we've heard from a Wise Latina™.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 31, 2011 02:06 PM (STZ9e)

43 This is the fucking hill the Democrats went up and died on come November.  And it's the same damn hill we- my missus and I- are going up to die on to take back.  Over my goddamned dead body will they control the life and death of my children.  God damn.

Posted by: Truman North at January 31, 2011 02:07 PM (8ay4x)

44 So they only got half of what they wanted according to fox but, the libs according to shep are calling this "judicial activism" yet the republican they interviewed said this goes far beyond just this bill as it would give the government powers to control this and more.

Didn't even realize this was like handing them the keys.

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 02:08 PM (p302b)

45 The longer this takes to get to the SCOTUS, the longer the uncertainty for business and the longer the economy drags.

Posted by: EnemyoftheStatist at January 31, 2011 02:08 PM (+/kur)

46 So what happens if the executive branch merely ignores this ruling and goes ahead regardless?  You think Holder's DoJ would stand athwart Obama?  You think any high level political appointee would balk?  You think the career civil service types would dig in their heels?

I'm serious.  And before anyone glibly throws around "Second Amendment remedies," how would we deal with the administration simply going ahead?  I believe impeachment's a nonstarter.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 31, 2011 02:08 PM (/3g5y)

47 Okay, so should Obama be defeated, could the next admin just sort of give up defending this? Like CA justice dept re prop 8?

Posted by: Randy at January 31, 2011 02:09 PM (D0PNd)

48 @42 Not sure if you're serious... But in case you are: (ahem) HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Posted by: Secundus at January 31, 2011 02:10 PM (hf9Ds)

49 The longer this takes to get to the SCOTUS the greater the opportunity for a SCOTUS Justice to die and be replaced by Obama.

Posted by: davidt at January 31, 2011 02:11 PM (9Pzy7)

50

So what happens if the executive branch merely ignores this ruling and goes ahead regardless? 

 

Unfortunately, I can totally envision this happening.  I think there could be a revolution over this too.  The people getting violent, though, will be those on the left.

Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 02:11 PM (ihSHD)

51 Gabe - When you say Obama will get the stay, do you think that because that is the way it would go under established law and precedent, or because you think the courts will bend over for Obama no matter what established law says?

It's not that it's Obama. Any president/Congress could get a stay on this one. 

The requirements for a stay are the same as for an injunction: (1) the proponent's likelihood of successon the merits; (2) the likelihood the proponent will suffer irreparable harm absent astay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other partiesinterested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.


Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 31, 2011 02:12 PM (XVaFd)

52 Fake sock.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 02:12 PM (SJ6/3)

53 Posted by: Secundus at January 31, 2011 07:10 PM (hf9Ds)

--That one wasn't, but read the first couple of posts by "Kelly" in the latest flaming skull thread.  Serious, and seriously stoopid.

Posted by: logprof at January 31, 2011 02:12 PM (BP6Z1)

54 Virginia has already petitioned to bypass the appeal court and go right to the SC.

Posted by: tarpon at January 31, 2011 02:12 PM (g0QB8)

55

The longer this takes to get to the SCOTUS the greater the opportunity for a SCOTUS Justice to die and be replaced by Obama.

 

You can bet your life on it!

Posted by: Lunatic Lefty at January 31, 2011 02:13 PM (ihSHD)

56

Posted by: Beldar at January 31, 2011 07:06 PM (nZ/rx)

Couldn't this also go straight to the Supremes? From Wiki...

By petition for "certiorari before judgment," which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a lower appellate court by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."

As this is gonna spend a buttload of money, seems that its of an imperitive public importance.... so Supremes "could" hear it immediatly if they wished?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 02:13 PM (AdK6a)

57 Hopefully on of the dark justices dies instead.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 02:14 PM (SJ6/3)

58

--That one wasn't, but read the first couple of posts by "Kelly" in the latest flaming skull thread.  Serious, and seriously stoopid.

 

Teh Stoopid is a pre-existing condition for which there is no cure!


Posted by: Obama Healthcare Death Panels at January 31, 2011 02:14 PM (ihSHD)

59 Dammit, I thought we had a live one there. Oh, well. Thanks, logprof.

Posted by: Secundus at January 31, 2011 02:15 PM (zb/D1)

60 60 Hopefully on of the dark justices dies instead.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 07:14 PM (SJ6/3)

Next in Line: Ginsberg.

Posted by: The Grim Reaper at January 31, 2011 02:15 PM (BP6Z1)

61

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 31, 2011 07:12 PM (XVaFd)

Question then becomes, what "harm" and to whom, will there be if there is NOT a Stay?

Can't it be argued that trying to spend bucks implementing somthing which may very well be overturned, is more harmful, than delaying implementation?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 02:15 PM (AdK6a)

62 Take the latina dyke first.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 02:16 PM (SJ6/3)

63

Scalia, please don't die.

Posted by: madamex at January 31, 2011 02:17 PM (ice9D)

64
It's not that it's Obama. Any president/Congress could get a stay on this one. 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 31, 2011 07:12 PM (XVaFd)

Let me just say I'd rather not see Obama get a stay of any variety between now and '12 IYKWIMAITYD.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 31, 2011 02:18 PM (HBqDo)

65 Romeo, I don't think courts count financial matters as 'harm'.

Posted by: Secundus at January 31, 2011 02:18 PM (hf9Ds)

66

So this is a long process. We're talking years.

If you like saving 3000% on your premiums blame the Republicans for taking all of that back.

Posted by: Barack Al Aqsa Obama at January 31, 2011 02:19 PM (iWZN8)

67

Look, all you idiot wingers, obviously there is a finite number of resources and money available to allocate for State Run Medicine.  You all claim to love America.  Well, I think you all should do your patriotic duty and die so that those of us who embrace Obamacare receive the benefits (since you all claim to hate it).  Not only will you go on to meet your reward in your so called Heaven, you will allow those of us who are smarter, more informed and more evolved to enjoy our rightful place here on earth. 

So go on--get it over with!

Posted by: Killy at January 31, 2011 02:19 PM (ihSHD)

68 68 Romeo, I don't think courts count financial matters as 'harm'.

Posted by: Secundus at January 31, 2011 07:18 PM (hf9Ds)

Hmmmm.... they do for deciding Standing all the time...

And as this forces States to spend more money on Medicaid and such...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 02:20 PM (AdK6a)

69 As a lowly and ignorant Dentist I need to ask a question. Since this is going to the Supreme Court one way or another, Why can't they just go there now and get this over with?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 02:20 PM (0GFWk)

70 Judge Vinson has made his order.  Now let's see him enforce it.  Last time I checked, I was the Commander in Chief, not Judge Soon To Have A Heart Attack, Slip In The Shower, Or Inadvertently Exercise His Second Amenedment Rights.

Posted by: Prezidizzle Obizzle at January 31, 2011 02:21 PM (xy9wk)

71 So does this mean that the huge post Obamacare passage increase in my health care premiums will also be halted? 

Posted by: havedash at January 31, 2011 02:21 PM (pQJ1M)

72 The new Loose Smack thread is fucked up and has no comments box.  Anyone else getting that?

Posted by: logprof at January 31, 2011 02:21 PM (BP6Z1)

73

For even more yuks at the pharaoh's expense, "birth-certificate billboards inch their way toward D.C."

Posted by: RushBabe at January 31, 2011 02:22 PM (urYpw)

74 ace should lay off the heroin when posting, what a fuckup.

Posted by: robtr at January 31, 2011 02:24 PM (hVDig)

75 Someone check on Ace. He tried to start a thread and F&*%ed it up.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 02:24 PM (SJ6/3)

76 logprof,  I am getting the messed up comments-thingy too.

ALERT!  Someone fix it!!

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 31, 2011 02:24 PM (Fo83G)

77

I can already see Obama blaming the Republicans for the fact that Obamacare costs so much. 

"My healthcare plan was affordable, covered everyone and would have saved us all a lot of money.  Because the Republicans have so vehemently fought against it, money is being spent that would otherwise have gone to Grandma's new pacemaker and blue pills for everyone.  Unfortunately, we are having to waste precious funding allocated for actual patient care to defend our bill in court from spurious, political, right winged attacks.  The opposition from the far right wing has been uncivil and racist.  We are spending money on lawyers instead of the doctors that Obamacare would have reimbursed for quality health care for all." 

Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 02:24 PM (ihSHD)

78 Cut me Mick.

Posted by: Keef at January 31, 2011 02:25 PM (SJ6/3)

79 75 The new Loose Smack thread is fucked up and has no comments box.  Anyone else getting that?

Posted by: logprof at January 31, 2011 07:21 PM (BP6Z1)

Yeah, all sidebar and no comments, not even a Men's Room.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 31, 2011 02:25 PM (HBqDo)

80

Ace has a new post up.

   He's an html ninja.

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2011 02:25 PM (iWZN8)

81 Anyone else getting that?

Posted by: logprof at January 31, 2011 07:21 PM (BP6Z1)

I figured it was a new feature. I will not speculate on connections between Loose Smack and loose HTML

Posted by: 141Driver at January 31, 2011 02:25 PM (DXa7u)

82  As a lowly and ignorant Dentist I need to ask a question. Since this is going to the Supreme Court one way or another, Why can't they just go there now and get this over with?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 07:20 PM (0GFWk)

They could if the defendents would agree to it. The democrats don't want to do that though because they still beleive that the longer the bill is out there the more people will like and depend on it and the harder it will be for the supremes to tank it.

Posted by: robtr at January 31, 2011 02:26 PM (hVDig)

83 If you had not stopped Obamacare, that thread would not have been DOA.

Posted by: Kellee at January 31, 2011 02:27 PM (BP6Z1)

84 hey could if the defendents would agree to it. The democrats don't want to do that though because they still beleive that the longer the bill is out there the more people will like and depend on it and the harder it will be for the supremes to tank it. Posted by: robtr at January 31, 2011 07:26 PM (hVDig) OK thanks.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 02:27 PM (0GFWk)

85 Am I up yet? ....Oh wait, this was Gabe that posted this...Never mind.

Posted by: On-a-hair-trigger-for-comparing-Ace-to-Charles-Johnson at January 31, 2011 02:27 PM (jp117)

86 That is one fucked up new thread.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 02:27 PM (olKiY)

87

For even more yuks at the pharaoh's expense, "birth-certificate billboards inch their way toward D.C."

...don't you know that a god doesn't have, or need a birth certificate...

Posted by: havedash at January 31, 2011 02:28 PM (pQJ1M)

88 Loose Smack: Loose Change "Documentarian" Arrested For Sale of Heroin

 

Yup, that thread's all screwy.  The Bitch set me up!

Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 02:28 PM (ihSHD)

89

I figured it was a new feature. I will not speculate on connections between Loose Smack and loose HTML

 

That, because you don't reall know what...dude!

Posted by: Truther geetin' smacked up at January 31, 2011 02:28 PM (SwkdU)

90 AoSHQ - It's Smart! It's Military! It's Blog!

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2011 02:28 PM (iWZN8)

91 Well, the usual suspects are showing their Washingtonitis. Now Hugh "I Heart Mitt" Hewitt is saying Romney is immune from attack on Masscare because, see, Obamacare is unconstitutional and Masscare isn't. So presumably if Hewitt could be persuaded Obamacare was constitutional, he would be fine with it? Hewitt to Romney: "I can't quit you."

Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 02:29 PM (ODJgp)

92

That the Obama Administration will ignore this ruling is pretty much a given, come to think of it. They will stop setting up Obamacare when they are forced to stop. If you stop them one place, they'll continue everywhere else. It will be like trying to block a flow of liquid mercury - breaks up into dozens of tiny balls that scurry around the blockage.

Not to mention, the large coordinated demonstrations, and the distribution of shameless talking points to politicians and the media.

And I think they will lose anyway. And further expose themselves to the general public in the process.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at January 31, 2011 02:30 PM (w41GQ)

93 Yup, I can see the MFM now questioning this strategy of the Republicans to overthrow Obamacare--"Where's the wisdom in that?"  "And how much are their efforts going to cost?  Money that could be better spent on healthcare."  You just wait.

Posted by: runningrn at January 31, 2011 02:30 PM (ihSHD)

94 It is astonishing that there is no severability clause. Who is responsible for that whopper of an omission?  A bunch of disagreeable politicians? First year law students are taught that any major contracts need severability provisions in most instances.

Posted by: KOS-Addled Lawyer at January 31, 2011 02:31 PM (xs5wK)

95

Does this mean the takeover of student loans is also on hold?  Unintended consequences of making Obamacare a Christmas tree of pet projects?  How much popcorn is required?

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 31, 2011 02:32 PM (3KzyI)

96 That the Obama Administration will ignore this ruling is pretty much a given, come to think of it.

Gives good ammo to the House GOP to defund it, though.

"Why should we waste this money, Mr. President, if your unconstitutional plan is overturned?"

Posted by: nickless at January 31, 2011 02:33 PM (qdtoY)

97

OT: Did anyone watch hardball with Chris legthrob?

He said twice that Obama doesn't have a long form birth certificate

Posted by: robtr at January 31, 2011 02:35 PM (hVDig)

98 First, he destroyed his party for the sake of his ideology. Now he is setting up a civil war, at least in words.

Is there any scenario in which he can get a political win out of all this? I concur with the Krauthammer: the times they are a changin, and the judiciary knows it.

Posted by: PJ at January 31, 2011 02:37 PM (QdxaI)

99 76 For even more yuks at the pharaoh's expense, "birth-certificate billboards inch their way toward D.C."
______

I didn't realize they were migratory.

Posted by: Anachronda at January 31, 2011 02:41 PM (NmR1a)

100 97 It is astonishing that there is no severability clause.    Posted by: KOS-Addled Lawyer at January 31, 2011 07:31 PM (xs5wK)   Feature, not bug.  They really thought that no one would take this whole thing apart, because of the "pre existing condition coverage" and kids on your insurance till 26 thing... which is why they did not put in the Severability clause.   It would also protect things like the 1099 part from Court involvment... as to strike that down in court, they would blow up the whole bill.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 02:41 PM (AdK6a)

101 So Obama was either right in 2008 or he's right now.  His being right  one of two times seems unlikely. There must be a third option.

Posted by: kansas at January 31, 2011 02:45 PM (4FGpb)

102 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:41 PM (AdK6a)

Didn't they find themselves in a position just before Christmas 2009 that they couldn't make any changes in the Senate bill because of Scott Brown's election and they ended up ramming this pos through the House while knowing this provision could tear down the whole fucking thing?

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 02:53 PM (olKiY)

103 So what happens if the executive branch merely ignores this ruling and goes ahead regardless?

Blatantly in disregard of a court order?  Then I'd say that the Republican House doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

Atom Bomb.

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2011 03:00 PM (GTbGH)

104 If they were to obey the stay,  could there be any possible IT danger as thirty thousand implementer bureaucrats played spider solitaire simultaneously?

Posted by: Buck O. Phive at January 31, 2011 03:00 PM (HwIdb)

105 so they gave away snowballs in hell.  NY times said this could take two years so, by then, it will be a fait au compli and very difficult to reverse.  So it will rest with the congress/senate to repeal it and the prez will veto it so, essentially, it's not a win.

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 03:11 PM (p302b)

106 they are essentially counting on the fact that you republicans/conservatives are boy/girl scouts and always do the right and honorable thing.   They know you won't do anything ever to hurt the country and they know you can't possibly think in terms of dastardly acts, so they have you right where they want you.

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 03:13 PM (p302b)

107 The Times is a contra indicator.

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2011 03:14 PM (GTbGH)

108 A hearty FU goes out to the AARP.  Sell outs.

Posted by: Lemon Litten at January 31, 2011 03:19 PM (0fzsA)

109

 So this is a long process. We're talking years.

 

Sadly, the economy won't bounce in any legitimate way until ObamaCare is off the books.

Posted by: Lemon Litten at January 31, 2011 03:22 PM (0fzsA)

110 I detest the AARP.  I keep getting notices from them to "sign me up" with their little membership card with my name on it, and I rip the letter up and cut the card up in little pieces, put it back in the postage-paid envelope and whip it right back to them.  Jagoffs.   

Posted by: Theresa D at January 31, 2011 03:24 PM (2hQbY)

111 I detest the AARP.  I keep getting notices from them to "sign me up" with their little membership card with my name on it, and I rip the letter up and cut the card up in little pieces, put it all back in the postage-paid envelope and whip it right back to them.  Jagoffs.   

Posted by: Theresa D at January 31, 2011 03:24 PM (2hQbY)

112
Zombie Reagan Strikes Back
PG_13  78 min  -  Action | Adventure | Fantasy   -  31 January 2011 (USA)

Director: Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum
Writer: Judge Roger Vinson
Stars: 26 States, 48% Patriotic Americans, Zombie President Ronald Reagan

President Obama’s health care takeover just fought the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution won.

Vinson ruled the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, violated the Commerce Clause. He found that mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the bill, so the entire bill is unconstitutional. Vinson, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, made clear his opposition to the bill came from its gross violation of the Constitution.

Today’s ruling raises several significant points. Vinson’s decision comes just a month after District Judge Henry E. Hudson of Virginia ruled the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional. Although Hudson found that requiring citizens to buy health insurance or face a fine “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power” in December, his ruling applied only to that provision. That repeal fight, led by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, hoped to see all of ObamaCare ruled illegitimate. Today’s ruling grants their wish. Either or both rulings will inevitably be decided by the Supreme Court, but the process could take years.

Which raises another point: Elections have consequences. Judge Vinson was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Although Republicans have appointed their share of poor judges over history (do the names Earl Warren or John Paul Stevens ring a bell?), the most radical judges at all levels of the judiciary have received their patronage courtesy of the Democratic Party. In 2008, the American people elected a president who stated the Constitution “represented the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” Twenty-eight years earlier, they elected a president with a clear history of supporting constitutional boundaries for government. Ronald Reagan’s believed America represents a “shining city on a hill,” while Barack Obama continually expounds upon “our tragic history.” The views of a president, however charismatic of likable he appears on manipulated media, will continue to affect every level of our government even after they pass away. America can be happy the man who appointed Judge Vinson loved the Founders, their system of government, and the concept of liberty. Reagan’s most famous speech on the subject of socialized medicine leads me to believe the Gipper is up there smiling at today’s ruling.

The most important factor raised by today’s ruling is one that has been apparent for months, but must be confirmed again and again: The American people have rediscovered the Constitution, and the entire Republican Party had better follow suit. Contrary to what hacks on both sides of the aisle say, the Tea Party movement did not begin inside the Republican Party or as a reaction to Barack Obama. The origins of the Tea Party go back ideologically for decades, and proximately they go back to the days of George W. Bush. For his admirable personal and presidential attributes, his free-spending fiscal record alarmed a growing segment of the country, resulting in the loss of Congress in 2006 and the presidency two years later. Obama’s pell mell rush toward debt crisis and insistence on foisting socialized medicine on a country that did not want it burst the dam of public disapproval at the elites’ irresponsibility. The Tea Party was born — and it scared both parties silly.

Also rated: DELICIOUS.

Posted by: sickinmass at January 31, 2011 03:25 PM (1rflU)

113 Nothing here but a racist Republican judge, move along now.

Did we tell you about Herb Life?

Posted by: NY Times Editors at January 31, 2011 03:28 PM (JpFM9)

114 Update: Obama Admin Must Halt Implementation and Current Enforcement, Absent a Stay Which Has Not Yet Been Granted


Yeah ... just as they had to do when the judge did away with their insane off-shore drilling moratorium. They turned around the day after and issued a new one.

Gabe, I understand that you are going by what the law and what American governing tradition would say, but it's been made perfectly clear, day after day after day, that this administration does whatever the fuck they want to do.  That's how ObamaCare got passed in the first place, in direct and massive opposition to Congressional rules, the Constitution, American legislative tradition and the simple concepts of decency and integrity.

These leftists and their Indonesian have nothing but contempt for us and our nation and are more than happy to push everything to failure.  It's what they live for.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 31, 2011 03:48 PM (N49h9)

115 I've often heard on here "how could he be a constitutional law professor" well I think now we know.  I've been told by several lawyers that it is iron clad and will stay as law no matter what and long after he's gone.  They said it is "nothing short of brilliant" and the people I've consulted are experienced and from both parties and independents.


Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 04:02 PM (p302b)

116 I've often heard on here "how could he be a constitutional law professor" well I think now we know.  I've been told by several lawyers that it is iron clad and will stay as law no matter what and long after he's gone.  They said it is "nothing short of brilliant" and the people I've consulted are experienced and from both parties and independents.


Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 09:02 PM (p302b)

Why would you talk to one lawyer, much less several?

Give them a ten dollar retainer and they will give you 10000 reasons its total crap.

Posted by: Oldcat at January 31, 2011 04:05 PM (z1N6a)

117 This decision is the GOP platform and litmus test for 2012. It is a pretty frakking clear decision that makes fence-sitting frakking impossible. So say we all.

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2011 04:08 PM (n0WLs)

118 What if the Senate passes repeal of EbolaCare and Ebola signs it? I mean, it would be historic.

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2011 04:14 PM (n0WLs)

119

curious, just so you know, Obama was not a constitutional law professor.   He was a lecturer.   Big difference.

Also, I don't know who you've been getting your info from, but nothing is iron clad.  This will go to the SC, and they will be the deciding factor on whether this will go forward.   This isn't the only case against the bill that they will have to decide.   They will probably hear the VA case first.

Another thing.  If this law was so freaking brilliant, someone should have read it all the way through before they passed it.   You can't say the mandate is not a tax and then when you get to court say it is.  Hell, I would imagine most of your friends can't tell you what is and what isn't in the bill.    FAIL.

Your lawyer friends are NOT SC justices, and how many of them are constitutional lawyers?   

And, I don't believe for one minute that a true conservative attorney would tell you the law is iron clad.   Not one that had read the entire bill, and understood every ramification of it.   That's just not possible.  

Posted by: Steph at January 31, 2011 04:23 PM (AkdC5)

120

Oh, one more thing.   It looks like the judge used Obama's own words against him in the ruling.   Even the sob that signed the law into effect knew the bill was unconstitutional.

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“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 the 78-page ruling Monday.

Posted by: Steph at January 31, 2011 04:27 PM (AkdC5)

121 Gabe, thanks for this nifty little analysis.

Posted by: Peaches at January 31, 2011 04:47 PM (zxpIo)

122 Let's not forget - the ObamaCare bill also included the Federal takeover of student loans.  If the whole bill was vacated, that student loan takeover goes down the drain with it and private student loans become legal again.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 04:50 PM (rsLQZ)

123 Steph, just remember that Ms. curious is the one who has all the moonbat/liberal friends that she really should get rid of but refuses to.  I'm not surprised that people she knows/associates with have told her that this is completely Constitutional and perfectly fine for all of us idiotic conservatives who "just don't get it."

Curious, I'm not the first to say this, but you really need to associate with some different people and don't believe everything they tell you.

Also, I call bullshit on any conservative lawyer (if there really is such a thing) saying that Obamacare is ironclad.  The constitutional violations are pretty clear.  Now will the SC see that?  It's going to be up to one judge to decide, considering the wise latina, the old crone, the lunatic and the idiot make their decisions strictly due to their own political beliefs, not what is actually Constitutional.

Posted by: Geronimo at January 31, 2011 04:53 PM (Uxxoc)

124 What if the Senate passes repeal of EbolaCare and Ebola signs it?

I'm guessing he'd do a lower profile "pocket veto" if repeal passes the House and Senate.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 04:59 PM (rsLQZ)

125 re: 125.  Exactly Purple Avenger.  The house of fraud crumbles totally.

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 31, 2011 05:03 PM (3KzyI)

126 Let's not forget - the ObamaCare bill also included the Federal takeover of student loans.  If the whole bill was vacated, that student loan takeover goes down the drain with it and private student loans become legal again.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 09:50 PM (rsLQZ)

Damn!  I forgot all about that.  It's hard to keep a handle on all the shit in "ObamaCare" ... there's so much of it, and totally unrelated to health care or anything.

Thanks for the reminder, PA.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 31, 2011 05:07 PM (N49h9)

127 How did Thailand get this particular reputation, and why on earth are they encouraging it?

Posted by: 18-1 at January 31, 2011 10:03 PM (bgcml)

They got the reputation because it is true.  They kept the reputation because...seriously, a lot of folks are into that shit.  Asia is a wonderful yet f*cked up place.

Posted by: In Exile at January 31, 2011 05:08 PM (5HVYj)

128 I've been told by several lawyers that it is iron clad and will stay as law no matter what and long after he's gone. They said it is "nothing short of brilliant" and the people I've consulted are experienced and from both parties and independents.

Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 09:02 PM (p302b)

A lawyer once told me I don't have to pay taxes because the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. I think some of his clients are in prison.

Seriously, if Obamacare is constitutional, what isn't? I'm not kidding, what can they NOT force you to do if they can force you to purchase a private product solely because you're alive? Does that make ANY sense at all?

If the courts do approve this in the end, it's time for everyone to shake hands, it was a nice run, but it's over at that point.

I do wonder how many of your expert friends have even read the damned thing. Even the people who passed it didn't read it.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 31, 2011 05:18 PM (bxiXv)

129 How the fuck would a judge stay enforcement of his decision holding that the fucking law is unconstitutional? To do so would be to order that the government may continue to act unconstitutionally while an appeals court decides the issue de novo.

Posted by: Oliver Wendell Holmes at January 31, 2011 05:26 PM (KDScs)

130  Well Olly, unlike you, a (good) judge can admit he might be wrong.

Posted by: Fred Z at January 31, 2011 06:38 PM (VcU/s)

131 So, does this also mean the nationalization of school loans and other 'side' shows attached to Obamacare go away?   Inquiring minds would like to know... 

Posted by: drfredc at January 31, 2011 09:06 PM (puRnk)

132

At the end of the day, after all is said and done, the only purposes which that Obamanation Legislation will serve will be that, in a wastebasket, it will make a good doorstop, or an enterprising entrepreneur could sell it as a 100% satisfaction guaranteed cure for insomnia. Hell, it won't even make a good boat anchor, because that is the only condition under which it will ever have a chance of floating.

Geezez, what a huge waste of time and the taxpayers' money. Shyster, schlock Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen should be billed for it. Serously.

When Pelosi et al put that amateurish Obamanation together, either they were so arrogant that they didn't bother to consult competent attorneys, or they retained extremely incompetent attorneys who made blunders in that legislation that a reasonably astute, first-year law student at a top-ranked law school would have picked up on immediately.  It would be an understatement to say that the dimwits who put together that 2,000-page pile of crap were lazy, sloppy, careless, sleazy and incompetent.

Posted by: Brian at February 01, 2011 01:01 AM (sYrWB)

133 Makes no sense to grant a stay if a notice of appeal has not been filed. But, when in Rome, I guess ...

Posted by: Tonawanda at February 01, 2011 03:07 AM (bN5ZU)

134 Our Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner.... in 1798. A healthcare MANDATE signed by John Adams and ratified by the founding fathers of this nation.

Posted by: elle at February 01, 2011 04:22 AM (PBFny)

135

Gabe!  Good post.

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 01, 2011 04:39 AM (/g2vP)

136 What would a conservative physican say? Bill Frist says implement the mandate. Also interesting to note that John McCain, Mitt Romney, Orin Hatch, Tommy Thompson and a host of other Republicans supported health insurance mandates at one time. For it before they were against it.

Posted by: elle at February 01, 2011 06:52 AM (PBFny)

137 "Our Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner.... in 1798. A healthcare MANDATE signed by John Adams and ratified by the founding fathers of this nation."

If this were such a great argument, don't you think DOJ might've relied on it?  This program was a tax and those taxed had to engage in particular activity in order to be taxed: unlike the individual health insurance mandate, it wasn't imposed on everyone simply for existing.  It raised revenues that were then spent by the government: it did not compel people to buy a good or service from a private party.

And finally, Congress has express plenary authority over maritime law.  Seamen have always been different, as they are historically treated as essentially wards of the admiralty courts.

Posted by: Dave J. at February 02, 2011 06:18 PM (DCQ0q)

138 Our Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from sailor’s pay, altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - zayıflama hapı - ozon yağı and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner.... in 1798. A healthcare MANDATE signed by John Adams and ratified by the founding fathers of this nation. 

Posted by: pete at February 05, 2011 12:41 AM (45SgX)

139 iPad Video Converter supports users to playback the converted files on other portable devices as: iPod, iPod Touch, iPod Touch 2, iPod Nano, iPod Nano 4, iPod Classic, iPhone, iPhone 3G, Apple TV, PSP, PS3. iPad Video Converter is a great software for iPad lovers to convert videos to iPad with super fast speed and high quality. Its easy-to-use interface makes iPad to videos conversion routine very simple. And also it can keep the original quality of video files. Mac iPad Converter is so far the best Mac iPad software, which is specially designed for Mac iPad users to convert video to iPad with super speed and high quality. Video Converter for iPad software can supports apple's iPod, iPod nano, iPod touch, iPod classic, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, Apple TV, and the latest iPad. Many other media players and mobile phones are also supported.

Posted by: iPad Video Converter at March 22, 2011 05:03 PM (TbE7f)

140

I found a hot place to share with you, there are lots of High quality  designer handbags with low price are all here!^_^
Wow, I would like to recommend a very good place for you,There are so many fashion items you need and all the big brand you love on =======^_^(mygoodbag)^_^==========

Like: Louis Vuitton Chanel Gucci Burberry Chloe Hermes Prada Fendi etc.There are all in http://www.cheapshoesmarket.com/ and http://www.topmbtshop.com/.

Posted by: fhhdhgdabc at April 07, 2011 12:23 AM (6234x)

Posted by: lee alline at April 12, 2011 05:18 PM (p0x/n)

Posted by: qusai at May 10, 2011 08:18 AM (ihk4k)

143 Wie Sie Dateien auf konvertieren m4r? M4R Converter kann Ihnen die beste Antwort. Mit M4R Converter k?nnen Sie Konvertierung verschiedener Video-und Audioformate zu M4R Format wie AVI, MPEG, WMV, MP4, H.264, AVCHD, MKV, RM, MOV, XviD, 3GP, WAV, WMA, RA, M4A, MP3 Und so weiter. Keine Angelegenheit sind Sie ein Veteran oder Anf?nger sind, k?nnen Sie Ihre eigene iPhone Klingelton. Hier ist eine Anleitung zeigt Ihnen, wie Sie Dateien auf M4R umwandeln und einen iPhone-Klingelton.

Posted by: km at May 26, 2011 08:35 PM (4h5aZ)

144 In our daily life, we pay more attention to our dress-up and life taste. In 2011 summer, we don't need to worry about it because summer clothing is always stylish and charming. However, we often feel annoyed in winter because those winter coats in general are heavy. Thus, we cannot show our personality and style during the winter time. However, when the canada goose label comes into our sights, we know that everything would be all right. It is because Canada goose clothing can bring us a stylish and charming look even under the brutal conditions.(yang)

Posted by: canada goose at June 15, 2011 06:46 PM (+Yddc)

145

Radiiis a unique lifestyle brand designed to reflect each individual's unique personality from the feet up. With futuristic designs and materials, each Radii shoseexudes confidence for the ambitious forward-thinkers of the world. The Radii straight jacket  combines fashion forward buckle and zipper detail with enticing color and design schemes.

Posted by: radii at July 10, 2011 11:37 PM (5OFrB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
155kb generated in CPU 0.07, elapsed 0.1126 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0425 seconds, 332 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.