If the Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional, then it's struck. There's no need to hold a vote.
A state judge cannot rule a federal law is unconstitutional. That's the job of a US District Court judge (first), then usually a panel of US Circuit Court judge (second, on appeal), and finally the Supreme Court.
And now...in Florida, since the HC Bill has been proclaimed unconstituional in that state -- should Florida's senators even vote (and have a countable vote)on something that is not applicable in their state? It seems to me that they can hardly approve/support or vote to repeal the bill that has been deemed unconstituional in their own state.
Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area. However, since he declined to issue an injunction, there are no penalties if the Obama administration decides to ignore him.
If the legislation is first repealed by Congress (which is unlikely), the FL senators will have the same opportunity to vote on it.
Thank you. I reposted the question in a reply before I saw your response. Now it all is a little more clear to me, LOL. Glad there are experts on here.
FALSE. He is a Federal Judge and his ruling of UNCONSTITUIONALITY" takes precidence over the other 3 rulings.
February 1, 2011
Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue
RUSH: "....So if the administration goes to the appeals court with a stay request that's actually good for us, that's the point. The state of play legally right now is that a federal court has voided the law. It's unconstitutional, right now, immediately.
The administration thus has to go to the appeals court to stay that ruling in order to continue its implementation pending a final decision by a higher court. That's the point. They request a stay, they are acknowledging the judge's ruling. And then they have to make an argument for a stay. Now, if you are preparing to call this program and say to me, "Hey, blowhard, two other federal judges said it is constitutional." If you're wondering what I would say, should I get disrespectful phone calls like that, let me take a brief time-out and come out and explain in detail. For example, if a New Castrati gets through to Snerdley, "Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, you sound so confident, you sound like you know it all, but we know that two other federal judges have said this law is constitutional. What about that?" Mr. New Castrati, it means nothing. Your two other rulings mean nothing. And I will explain why in mere moments.
RUSH: Here's the answer to the question that I knew I'd get and I still might get it from the New Castrati. "Well, we have two other federal judges who said that Obamacare is constitutional. What about that? What about that? What about that?" Here's the true answer. Don't doubt me. It means nothing. Here's why: If even one court rules that a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter that two courts haven't. This is pure logic, folks. If one court -- just one, this Judge Vinson -- rules that a law, any law, is unconstitutional, the regime does not have the ability to choose between court decisions. It can't say, "Well, I'm gonna ignore Judge Vinson. I'm gonna go back. We're gonna obey and deal with these other two."
[]They can't do that. The regime must comply with federal court rulings. Isn't that what the libs tell us, by the way? Those two decisions are of no consequence because they don't prevent the government from acting. We have a ruling here that in its scope supersedes those two. This decision voids Obamacare. This decision throws it out. This decision prevents the federal government from acting. This decision prevents the federal government from implementing the law. So, as a matter of legal recourse, the regime needs to get that resolved. It cannot say, "We don't care what the court says." It cannot say, "We're gonna rely on the decisions that we like."
So we all know where this is headed. It's gonna be up to the Supreme Court to sort out the divisions among the lower courts, which it will do when it eventually rules. In the meantime, the executive branch is not free to pick and choose or sort them out. It must comply with a decision striking down the law. The legal experts are guessing next year the case will be in the appeals court and SCOTUS will take it up in 2012. That's just people guessing as to the timeframe of this. My point is that the regime has to deal with the federal decision voiding its law. In the other cases, they didn't have to take any action. No action was needed because the courts didn't rule that way.
Courts just ruled on various aspects, but it did not prevent the regime from acting. This decision does. Now, the Republicans in the House and Senate must be ready for the Supreme Court to take an opposite position. I'm not saying they will, and I hope to God the court doesn't. But you have to assume that. It's like in golf, you have to assume the opponent's gonna make the putt. You just have to assume the other side is gonna perform to its max. You just have to assume that in preparing your strategery. The Republicans in the House and Senate, as a matter of strategy here, must be ready for the Supreme Court to overturn Judge Vinson. That's why, in the meantime, they must continue to pursue repeal of the whole law.
None of this, "Well, there are parts of it that we like." They got cover now: A judge has said the whole thing is unconstitutional, so ditch the whole thing, defund the whole thing. No deals, no negotiations. Kill it. Now, this is counterintuitive to certain Republican leaders that spent years and years up there making deals and looking for common ground, but this is not an occasion to look for common ground. This is an occasion to build upon a decision that rules the fundamental building block of Obama's reason to be president: Unconstitutional. Don't misread this and conclude that for PR and political reasons they'll do something weak or something else. It would be disastrous for them to the party and mostly the nation. A golden opportunity awaits!
Done. Vinson is a Federal District Court Judge.
"Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area."
Normally, yes, but not in this situation. Since 26 states joined the suit in total, they are ALL sharing in the decision.
"However, since he declined to issue an injunction, there are no penalties if the Obama administration decides to ignore him.
You need to go read page 75 of the decision. The Judge specifically pointed out that his ruling had the same effect of an injunction and therefore it wasn't necessary to issue the separate order. Defying the decision would definitely be subject to a possible contempt citation. The only question I have is when/whether any of the parties will choose to go back to Vinson and ask for that contempt ruling.
Clyde Roger Vinson is a senior FEDERAL judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
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.
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.
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.