Posted on 02/01/2011 9:18:24 AM PST by Signalman
Here is my take on it...
This decision may even be broader. The Commerce Clause has been bastardized via The Roosevelt Admin via what they did to that poor farmer, i.e. that he even couldn't not participate in commerce because in doing so he influenced commerce.
Didn't this Judge even Slap Down this mess and make this ruling up for review?
That is what I glomed from listening to Mark last night as he read from his decision.
Am I correct? Is this the potential victory I think it is?
LoL good for them. While the rest of us ignore his outlawed law.
If the people in this country rise up against the Brown Clown, he better leave while he can .
Yeah, it’s so broad that it is totally dead Jim...for now.
Since I look upon him as an enemy agent...Outlaw.
Yes..If the Republicans do not Impeach him right away they are just as guilty of violation of their Oath.
Let the layoffs begin. There is no money for salaries so everyone beavering away to implement the law won’t be paid for work that is illegal.
And right here before groundhog’s day to boot
Here is the text of the Judge’s opinion regarding the request for an injunction:
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers
are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .
since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
Laws mean nothing to this guy, unless he is using them against political enemies.
Laws mean nothing to this guy, unless he is using them against political enemies.
>>...but also ruled that there is a presumption of severability.<<
What an idiot. His bias is clouding his judgment.
-——26 states are a party to this ruling-——
It has been noted on FR that the constitution requires that matters between the states and the Federal Government (executive branch) must be settled by the Supreme Court.
That being so, of what value is the unconstitutional ruling by an inferior court?
I thought Florida fell under the 11th circuit?
It is the law of the land until appellate review says otherwise.
It does - brain freeze.
To ultimately prevail, they must live
As of yesterday... THIS BILL IS DEAD!!! The judge even made sure that even an appeal for a “stay” on his ruling would not change his ultimate decision that the bill is Unconstitutional on its face and is therefore “VOID”! Obama’s only option is to push it to the Supremes. Otherwise, any further action on this law is considered a criminal action and is subject to contempt of court charges. Not sure why Fox News is not getting it?
And just in time for the Supreme Court who can finally put a stake through the heart of OBotCare, which is mostly scheduled to take effect in 2013 and later.
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.