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!
Vinson is a US District judge in the northern district of Florida.
All the other judges ruling on this issue so far are also US District judges. Their rulings apply only to their own districts. That's the way that the federal court system works.
District Court opinions may be cited as precedent by other districts in rendering their own rulings. But, they don't automatically apply to the rest of the country.
If an ruling is appealed, it usually goes to the Circuit Court: in this case, it's the 11th (GA, FL, and AL). If the ruling is sustained, the scope expands to those states. It only becomes effective nationwide if the Supreme Court rules on the issue, and they rarely take a case unless there is a disagreement among Circuit Courts.
Stop repeating Rush's (or anyone else's) talking points and do some research for yourself. You might learn something.