Posted on 01/31/2011 12:19:37 PM PST by blog.Eyeblast.tv
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has ruled that Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. The decision in a nutshell is this: the individual mandate is unconstitutional and it is not severable, therefore, the entire act must be declared void.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.eyeblast.tv ...
Thank you very much. We’re not out of the woods yet, but the Creator has just made my day by providing brainy Judge Vinson to rule on this. Yay!
Strike 2 - Florida follows suit
Who's next?
BUT, just like the former limp-wristed judge, he denies injunctive relief!!! How in the HELL can something be Unconstitutional, yet no injunction awarded??!!!
Why the H is it still in force?
When some judge deems something for homosexuals they at least make an attempt to wave their hands and dictate from the bench immediately.
Why the H is it still in force?
When some judge deems something for homosexuals they at least make an attempt to wave their hands and dictate from the bench immediately.
Ping!
“yet no injunction awarded??!!!” Something involving an appellate court overturn?
I was and stil is hopng that it goes thorugh. Piven clowen theory in reverse.
Now what happens...?
Why then bring it up for repeal, if it’s unconstitutional?
It will take months before it is heard by the SCOTUS, just in time for the 2012 elections.
They may also decide not to hear it, leaving the lower court’s ruling.
What’s more is Kagan will need to recuse herself.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but even I knew a LOOOOOOONNNNNNNG time ago, that this was an Unconstitutional bill.
What a complete waste. The democrats put their entire life’s savings into this.....
As a matter of fact, that's going to be the funny part, reading the dissents(sp?), as it is in plain English, in the Constitution, that this sort of thing isn't among the enumerated powers.
I think it has something to do with a potential overturn in the appellate court, but I was hoping somebody who knows what they’re talking about would contribute on that issue.
An injunction stops behavior. In this case, the judge could not enforce an injunction for two reasons: 1. the law does not take affect until 2014 so he can’t stop behavior that hasn’t even started (no one has been forced to participate in Obamacare yet). 2 He ruled the entire 2700 pages unconstitutional, so in effect the law doesn’t exist, therefore no need for an injunction.
Thanks for the ping.
Makes me proud to be a Floridite.
Which part is the complete waste? Do you think the ruling will be overturned or that SCOTUS will refuse to hear it?
You are a *really* good teacher!
Like most laws, it is up for interpretation, like Roe V. Wade. If SCOTUS rules on the appeal, it will be done so under the original premise; The Commerce Clause. Which frankly, is so full of loop holes, it would make a sponge jealous.
If they agree with this ruling, (which I doubt they will) it will go back to the Legislature. Then, what? Who knows?
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.