Posted on 02/03/2011 7:25:27 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) will push to fast-track Virginia's challenge of the federal health care overhaul to the nation's highest court.
Cuccinelli said the uncertainty caused by various court rulings about the constitutionality of the health care law makes expedited review a necessity.
"Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional," he said in a statement. "Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest."
In December, a federal judge in Richmond ruled portions of President Barack Obama's health care plan unconstitutional. Another judge, this one in Florida, ruled Monday that the entire law is unconstitutional. Two other courts have upheld the act.
Virginia's lawsuit is scheduled for hearings in an appellate court this spring. But Cuccinelli's petition seeks to leap-frog that process to take his case directly to the Supreme Court. It is a highly unusual move, and one the court rarely grants.
"We did not make this decision lightly," Cuccinelli said.
The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track
However, I will note one thing: Vinson actually said that an injunction should not be necessary -- not that a declaratory judgment is functionally equivalent to an injunction.
But, the AG is a politician. I would expect him to exaggerate a bit.
The Patriot in me wants Obamacare killed ASAP.
I don't think we can lose with a quick ruling, whichever way they decide.
Obamacare gets struck down and for the next two years we run against a President and a party whose signature act is unlawful and un-American.
Obamacare is upheld and we spend two years saying "It's now or never. This Obamacare scheme will bankrupt us and undermine our society and we have one last chance to head it off by electing a new President and a new Senate majority."
Either way we run against Obamacare and win. Supreme Court action keeps the issue fresh, it doesn't make it go away.
Whoops, my bad. Vinson did actually say that.
He was citing "Committee on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008)".
He also added: "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" (Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 D.C. Cir. 1985)
But, here's the problem: he is assuming that the Obama administration will obey the law. The same administration has been cited for contempt for disobeying an injunction against the moratorium on offshore drilling, so I don't have any confidence they will "honor" a declaratory judgment.
And from what I can find, despite the presumption of abiding by the declaration, there doesn't appear to be any penalties for doing so. I'll check those decisions and see if there is.
Clyde Roger Vinson is a senior FEDERAL judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
I don't know what Roberts and Alito have done to justify you busting on them.
They seem like solid Constitutionalists to me.
I keep hearing how its going to cost a lot of money to repeal Obama”care”...? Again, who’s fault is that?
Yes, I know that. I was simply responding to the original posters question about whether a state judge could rule a federal law unconstitutional.
You'll note that in the part of my posting that you snipped out, I pointed out that he was a judge in the northern district of FL.
Think of it like a slasher movie. Unless you shoot the slasher, behead him, and then set his corpse on fire you can be pretty sure he'll pop up again while the credits are rolling and claim at least one more victim, if not give rise to a whole 'nother sequel.
I have to ask - Why then would 26 states be involved in a lawsuit that would serve them no purpose?
I think this impacts each state involved. It was a Federal judge and per his ruling the law no longer exists. It cannot exist in one district and not another.
In fact, the more I look into this, a Federal judge issue the ruling as representative of the Federal government en toto: The law no longer exists.
A common misconception, but that is not what happened. Bush v. Gore was filed in FL state court, with a final decision eventually coming from the Supreme Court of the State of Fl. The US Supreme Court is the first appellate court for cases of final judgment from the respective state Supreme Courts. IOW, when a state case is resolved by the state Supreme Court, the next level of appeal is not the federal Circuit Court, it's the Supreme Court.
Remember, there was another case filed by Bush in District Court, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, that did move through the "normal" (but expedited) appellate process, eventually heard and decided by the Supremes.
America has no laws. Laws only apply to the little people. Obama - brought to you by Hollywood, the news media and ALL of TV. Keep watching TV because it keeps Obama in power. Fox is no better.
In many, many of the Supreme Court rulings I have read, the Court expresses the wish for legislative action to resolve actions ... a legislative repeal would render the judicial decisions moot. There is no reason for a legislator not to participate in the resolution of an issue legislatively rather than depend on judicial intervention.
No, although they will have opportunity to file briefs on the matter, and the Court will take those briefs under advisement, the State doesn't enjoy any kind of "veto" power.
That's not entirely accurate. It's enforceable law on the litigants party to the case - in this instance, the federal government and all 26 states. However, it - as a district Court decision - is only binding precedent in that District Court. In fact, other District courts in the same Circuit are not bound by Vinson's opinion. To them, and to all other District Courts, Vinson's opinion would be seen as persuasive, non-binding opinion.
The question about what it (Vinson's ruling) compells the federal government to do (or not to do) is a remarkably complicated one. I was (and am) a bit puzzled myself, and I have practiced law for more than a quarter century. I was heartened to hear every one of the esteemed law professors in yesterday's Senate hearings say the same things - it's complicated, and they haven't yet come to a conclusion. When I hear Randy Barnett say the same thing I would say, "I don't know", it feel pretty good.
What makes it so confusing? There are two other existing District Court opinions that came to the exact opposite conclusion on the exact same question of law, and on the exact same federal statute. My guess is that the fedgov will seek a stay of Vinson's ruling in the next several days (they have 14 days by FRCP), and that stay will most probably be granted by the 11th Circuit.
Judge Vinson's ruling is in no way limited to the confines of his district or even the 11th Circuit. It is binding on the litigants, one of which happens to be the US government. The government cannot now argue in any court against any other litigant (excepting the regular appeal process) that Obamacare is valid. It cannot go to court to force anyone to pay taxes due under Obamacare. It cannot sue any state for compliance. It cannot punish any state or private party for noncompliance because it can't defend the punishment in court.
The unconstitutionality of Obamacare is now res judicata (a thing decided). The US had an opportunity to litigate the matter and it lost. That's it. They can't do it again. Their only remaining hope is on appeal. More than one litigant can make the same argument and generate different results, but once the federal government loses it can't try again. It is bound, not just in the 11th Circuit but everywhere. As far as every court in the country is concerned Obamacare is void and cannot be used as the basis for any decision unless and until some appellate court revives it. The government will still be bound even if the 4th Circuit overrules the District Judge in the Virginia case. Obamacare is dead unless the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court says otherwise and neither is particularly likely to. The 11th Circuit is almost certain not to and at the Supreme Court everything depends on Anthony Kennedy.
The feds can ignore the Florida ruling and continue spending money on bureaucratic preparations to implement Obamacare as long as Congress permits it. There's nothing Judge Vinson can do to stop them. In fact, there is nothing he could do to enforce an injunction either (the executive has all the guys with guns). But the courts will stymie any effort to make anyone comply with Obamacare. That pesky due process thingy makes it very hard for the government to make anyone do anything without judicial cooperation. Obama can't have much fun playing all by himself and Congress may very well put a stop even to that.
Judge Vinson's ruling was a shock to the DC establishment and almost nobody has yet grasped its full implications. Give them a couple of weeks; they think very slowly. As usual, Rush is miles ahead of them.
On another point, you don't need an injunction to get a contempt order. You can get a contempt order before there is any judgment at all. Try going to court in the middle of a case and telling the judge you won't comply with any order he ultimately issues. Take a toothbrush; you'll be staying in the lockup overnight and maybe longer. If he wants to Judge Vinson can certainly issue a contempt citation on a showing that the government is failing to behave in accord with his judgment. He could even issue a show cause order sua sponte demanding that the government appear before him and justify it's behavior. There wouldn't be much point, but he could do it. The main effect would be to give Republicans in Congress ammunition as they try to postpone all implementation of Obamacare until after a final ruling from the Supreme Court on its constitutionality.
The bottom line here is that the Obamacare just collapsed. It may not be dead but it's comatose and likely to remain so until after the 2012 election when voters can smother it once and for all. As an added bonus we just may get some Supreme Court precedent that will help restrain the government and restore some of the constitutional limits on its power.
Bingo. And at the time I read that in the decision, I was wondering how 'tongue-in-cheek' he meant it!
Of course, as I'm typing this, Rush is speaking about the Contempt citation that was just issued by Judge Martin Feldman regarding the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium ruling from last summer, so of course Vinson didn't really expect Obama to comply with THIS ruling... but unlike Obama, Vinson exercised proper restraint... for now!
Judge Vinson's ruling is in no way limited to the confines of his district or even the 11th Circuit. It is binding on the litigants, one of which happens to be the US government. The government cannot now argue in any court against any other litigant (excepting the regular appeal process) that Obamacare is valid. It cannot go to court to force anyone to pay taxes due under Obamacare. It cannot sue any state for compliance. It cannot punish any state or private party for noncompliance because it can't defend the punishment in court.
The unconstitutionality of Obamacare is now res judicata (a thing decided). The US had an opportunity to litigate the matter and it lost. That's it. They can't do it again. Their only remaining hope is on appeal. More than one litigant can make the same argument and generate different results, but once the federal government loses it can't try again. It is bound, not just in the 11th Circuit but everywhere. As far as every court in the country is concerned Obamacare is void and cannot be used as the basis for any decision unless and until some appellate court revives it. The government will still be bound even if the 4th Circuit overrules the District Judge in the Virginia case. Obamacare is dead unless the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court says otherwise and neither is particularly likely to. The 11th Circuit is almost certain not to and at the Supreme Court everything depends on Anthony Kennedy.
The feds can ignore the Florida ruling and continue spending money on bureaucratic preparations to implement Obamacare as long as Congress permits it. There's nothing Judge Vinson can do to stop them. In fact, there is nothing he could do to enforce an injunction either (the executive has all the guys with guns). But the courts will stymie any effort to make anyone comply with Obamacare. That pesky due process thingy makes it very hard for the government to make anyone do anything without judicial cooperation. Obama can't have much fun playing all by himself and Congress may very well put a stop even to that.
Judge Vinson's ruling was a shock to the DC establishment and almost nobody has yet grasped its full implications. Give them a couple of weeks; they think very slowly. As usual, Rush is miles ahead of them.
On another point, you don't need an injunction to get a contempt order. You can get a contempt order before there is any judgment at all. Try going to court in the middle of a case and telling the judge you won't comply with any order he ultimately issues. Take a toothbrush; you'll be staying in the lockup overnight and maybe longer. If he wants to Judge Vinson can certainly issue a contempt citation on a showing that the government is failing to behave in accord with his judgment. He could even issue a show cause order sua sponte demanding that the government appear before him and justify it's behavior. There wouldn't be much point, but he could do it. The main effect would be to give Republicans in Congress ammunition as they try to postpone all implementation of Obamacare until after a final ruling from the Supreme Court on its constitutionality.
The bottom line here is that the Obamacare just collapsed. It may not be dead but it's comatose and likely to remain so until after the 2012 election when voters can smother it once and for all. As an added bonus we just may get some Supreme Court precedent that will help restrain the government and restore some of the constitutional limits on its power.
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY OF U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES v. MIERS 542 F.3d 909 (2008)
It's a bit convoluted, but I think this is what happened:
As to Ms. Miers's testimony, the court framed its decree as a declaratory judgment. But Ms. Miers acted in compliance with the instruction of President Bush,"
So, I don't see this citation as being an obvious precedent. The situation is quite a bit different. It wouldn't be the first time a citation would be incorrect: I remember a citation in US v. Miller that was just completely wrong: the Court took the words out of context and interpreted them completely contrary to the original decision.
The statement from Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan is here:
It's a footnote to this statement:
At least where the authority for our interjection into so sensitive a foreign affairs matter as this are statutes no more specifically addressed to such concerns than the Alien Tort Statute and the APA, we think it would be an abuse of our discretion to provide discretionary relief.
And here's the statement I believe it references:
What does it all mean? I'm not sure. I need to spend more time reading through the entire decision and ones that have cited it to understand. But, I've run out of time today.
If you have the time, I'm be curious what you find.
I beg to differ. Vinson is a federal judge, and has ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. The law cannot be unconstitutional for just one district of the country. If it's unconstitutional, then it's dead for the entire US.
His ruling is also unequivocal that the federal government is henceforth enjoined from implementing Obamacare, unless, and until a higher court rules differently.
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.