Posted on 02/02/2011 4:29:50 PM PST by Kaslin
The decision by federal judge Roger Vinson striking down President Obama's signature health care law effectively ends ObamaCare unless some higher court overturns it.
In spite of this overwhelming rebuke of the law, some Birkenstock-wearing legal analysts are trying to argue that Vinson's ruling could be ignored by the administration.
That's why this week's action by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is so significant. Van Hollen has taken the proper step of following the law, which now says that ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety, relieving Wisconsin of any obligation to follow it.
It is the responsibility of every state attorney general in the nation to follow Van Hollen's lead, and halt any actions to implement this unconstitutional law. To do otherwise will open states up to legal liability.
The earthquake-like impact of Judge Vinson's ruling and Van Hollen's appropriate response is obvious; unless Vinson's ruling is either stayed or overturned, the nation is now free from any compulsion to follow the dictates coming out of Washington on this issue.
Instead of accepting continued implementation of the law from Washington, all states should join with the American people in demanding that Barack Obama cease and desist from ignoring the federal court and continuing any actions that implement this invalidated law.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Obama is all about crisis.
Levin was just talking about this on the radio. He said that the 26 states should immediately go back to court for a contempt order against the administration if they continue to try to implement it.
Court rulings are only for the little guy, not The One. Geez. /sarc
Watch the administration bribe states that don’t file for contempt and punish those bringing suit.
Remember when Bush was President, and any and all court rulings where the word of law and they practically formed an Oligarchy. All of a sudden any Judge not in MuBarack’s pocket is just an outlying racist teabagger that can be overturned in a friendlier court.
I have a question. If the administration continues down the path they have indicated (ignoring the ruling), and is found in contempt, who exactly would be the target (oops, there’s that word!)
Will some lowly aid be fined/imprisoned?
Can we sue our own states for ignoring the federal judge’s ruling that 0bamaCare is unconstitutional?
In other words, if you live in a liberal state, can you sue the state if they start implementing 0bamaCare?
Let’s sabotage this horrorific Rube Goldberg unconstitutional legislation!
I wonder if Obama is secretly glad. Now, like Clinton, he won’t have Obamacare around his neck in 2012, but looked like a big hero (to his supporters) by trying oh so hard to implement it. Knowing the media will possibly give him a pass for being so “stupid” as to have no severability. Just s thought.
Well, it’s here. Our generation’s version of the Dred Scott decision is working its way through the judiciary. The question before the court: does the federal government have the authority to do whatever it choose to do, or are there limits on federal power?
God help us.
“Here I sat all this time, submerged in my ignorance, thinking that we had to sit and wallow in our unhappiness until the 2012 election cycle to vote for new leadership. An Obama advisor reportedly told the New York Times that, “Mubarak’s time has run out.” Well, Mr. President I believe there are approximately 40 - 60 million American citizens, or more, who feel the exact same way about your leadership and the direction in which you have taken the United States. The only thing that remains a mystery at this point, is where to get those wonderfully printed, illustrated brochures that were found in Egypt on how to “protest effectively.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/obamas_logic_on_egypt.html
“Here I sat all this time, submerged in my ignorance, thinking that we had to sit and wallow in our unhappiness until the 2012 election cycle to vote for new leadership. An Obama advisor reportedly told the New York Times that, “Mubarak’s time has run out.” Well, Mr. President I believe there are approximately 40 - 60 million American citizens, or more, who feel the exact same way about your leadership and the direction in which you have taken the United States. The only thing that remains a mystery at this point, is where to get those wonderfully printed, illustrated brochures that were found in Egypt on how to “protest effectively.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/obamas_logic_on_egypt.html
"The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.
(5) 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.)
>Can we sue our own states for ignoring the federal judge’s ruling that 0bamaCare is unconstitutional?
Per the Eleventh Amendment, states have sovereign immunity against being sued unless they voluntarily waive this protection.
If a state waives immunity, the case will first be heard in US District Court (federal court system).
“Can we sue our own states for ignoring the federal judge’s ruling that 0bamaCare is unconstitutional?”
It’s a slam dunk as long as you don’t get a liberal judge.
But, since we have no controlling legal authority according to the White House. He’s going to make the Republicans impeach his illegal alien Kenyan ASS.
How about the state attorney general?
I’d say being held in contempt of court is an impeachable offense.
One of the marks of a dictator is to use the law to get his way and ignore the law when it doesn’t.
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.