W.H. charges 'activism' in ruling

Politico44 ^ | 01/31/11 | MATT NEGRIN & MJ LEE

[OldMissileer]

I’d also like to hear them actually counter the judges reasoning behind his decision rather than just whine that others disagree.

They won't. They will lie...lie...lie. The sheep who follow them will never read the judge's findings and if they try they will not comprehend it. They are blindly stupid and, like treacle out of a beaker, will parrot the lies that will flow out of the White House and Obama's mouth.

[higgmeister]

Democrats unswervingly intend to rule by judicial fiat but when a judgment goes against their wishes they cry foul!

[allmendream]

Writing law, like enforced busing, is “judicial activism”.

Striking down a law, in total, that has run afoul of Constitutional principles is the function of the judiciary.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

I don’t know if anyone has made this point but judicial activism is when judges EXTEND law to areas not passed by congress. It was our framers intent that they NEGATE law.

In the absence of law, people retain their liberty.

[SteveH]

The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s 'individual responsibility' provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain."

Roll this one back for me...

So the uninsured have been overpaying for their health insurance that they cannot afford to pay for, and the health care law addressed that issue by charging the uninsured billions of dollars to pay for something else?? when the uninsured can't afford what they have committed to paying in the first place???

Yeah huh, I got it now!

Hey Democrats, listen up! Pass an 'Italian Sports Car Act' in wit an 'individual responsibility' provision which is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by po' folks like me widout Testarossas who cannot pay for the Testarossas they obtain.

After passage, please defend aforsaid Act on my behalf by railing against those activist judges guilty of judicial overreaching should they rule against the Italian Sports Car Act.

While you are at it, I would not mind it if Democrats passed an 'Victoria's Secret Escort Babe Act' too. Us po' folk gotta have those basic necessities and some of us just can't afford all dat we so desperately, desperately need. OK-- oh wait a sec, while you're at it, throw in a '60-inch Flat Screen TV Act' too, yeah, that's the way I wanna roll!! Rite, yeah dat be dayyumm sswweeeetttt, huh

[OldMissileer]

>>Vinson allowed the law to stand while it is being appealed by the Obama administration.[9]<<

that part sucks.

Whithin his ruling he declared the entire law void and that since it was void he did not have to order it stopped.

[noinfringers2]

The real definition was in that my finger hit the wrong key; didn’t intend to devise a new word.

[noinfringers2]

The real definition was in that my finger hit the wrong key; didn’t intend to devise a new word.

[Windflier]

"A senior administration officials said the judge's analysis of the ruling was “odd and unconventional”...

Yes, the clear intent and meaning of the US Constitution would be considered "odd and unconventional" by the leftists in Obama's administration.

[yield 2 the right]

That is okay, just making sure ;>)

[Califelephant]

"...The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s 'individual responsibility' provision is necessary..."

In other words, the mandate IS constitutional because it's "necessary" in order for Obamacare to function. That's the essence of their argument. We'll see what SCOTUS says.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

I hate reading resumes like that. It makes me feel like such a slacker.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’”

You can tell those really are Obama's words by the way the grammar is so screwed up. He must have said that before he got a really good teleprompter.

[Windflier]

>>Vinson allowed the law to stand while it is being appealed by the Obama administration.[9]<<

that part sucks.

It's also completely incorrect. Per Judge Vinson's ruling (see page 75), Obamacare is null and void, unless, and until a higher court rules otherwise.

[jessduntno]

“I hate reading resumes like that. It makes me feel like such a slacker.”

Heh heh ... they’ll dig something up on the poor guy ... you’ll be hearing something nasty in 3...2...

[agooga]

“A WISE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY WOULD IMMEDIATELY COME FORWARD WITH A SUBSTITUTE.”

100% agree. And a good bill at that, one that really brings down costs.

[catnipman]

“This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion,”

Hope this is the argument they make before the supreme court!

[catnipman]

“Today’s ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s ‘individual responsibility’ provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.”

DECADES, hey? DECADES of Supreme Court precedent. DECADES of Supreme Court precedent specifically regarding the individual mandate? Wow. You don’t suppose Stephanie is just making this stuff up do you? Nah. Clearly this legal eagle has done some cracker jack legal research to back her statements.

[catnipman]

“Today’s ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s ‘individual responsibility’ provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.”

ROTFLOL!

DECADES, hey? DECADES of Supreme Court precedent? DECADES of Supreme Court precedent specifically regarding the individual mandate? Wow. You don’t suppose Stephanie is just making this stuff up do you? Nah. Clearly this legal eagle has done some cracker jack legal research to back her statements.

BTW, wonder if Stephanie will get to represent the Obammunists before the Supreme Court? If so, you reckon her arguments before the court will be:

1. This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion.

2. This ruling is a plain case of judicial overreaching.

3. The ruling was odd and unconventional.

4. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s ‘individual responsibility’ provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.

5. A good deal of the judge’s analysis is built on sort of, rhetorical conjecture.

6. The judge put all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk.

7. We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism should be upheld

8. The government has already ignored the federal court and have proceeded with implementing a null and void law anyway.

[Mr. K]

HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

That’s so fu-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

no waitaminnit waitaminnit waita-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ha ha ha ha ha