Posted on 02/18/2011 2:17:10 PM PST by Nachum
Late Thursday, February 17, the Obama Administration filed a incredibly odd and almost insulting “Motion to Clarify” the judgment in the case it lost against 26 states and the NFIB in the Obamacare litigation in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 10-cv-00091 (N. D. Fla.)(Judge Vinson). With this motion, the Administration has now stated officially that, notwithstanding the Judge’s declaration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) as unconstitutional, the Administration does not interpret the Judge’s order as requiring the Administration to cease carrying out the unconstitutional ACA. The “Motion to Clarify” does not explicitly seek reconsideration of Judge Vinson’s judgment declaring the ACA unconstitutional, nor does it seek a stay of that judgment; it simply says the Federal Government will not be following the Judge’s judgment declaring the ACA unconstitutional unless the Judge issues another order stating to the Government that the Judge did, in fact, anticipate its judgment to have immediate injunction-like effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
I think the correct statement would be:
The President or Occupant of Our White House Thumbs His Dictatorial Nose at The American People!
Is the current administration simply incompetent? Or, are they just applying subtle threats, gangland style? Or, is it something else? ...very strange.
Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional to people with common sense.
DOJ must have missed this part of the ruling:
(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, 456U.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 declaredby 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 isnot necessary.
“DICTATORS recognize no law but their own.”
Mussolini was a dictator who ended up with a big hangover.
Is there anything or anyone Ears doesn’t thumb his nose at?
So how are they able to get away with not following these instructions?
I wonder which judge will be the first to find the administration in contempt of court ?
Well, Obama ignoring the obvious again when he doesn't like it.
ACA unconstitutional, nor does it seek a stay of that judgment; it simply says the Federal Government will not be following the Judge’s judgment
How many days did it take for Vinson's ruling to take effect? ...12 days have past. Heehee. And we see the OBummer admin didn't ask for a stay, instead they choose to be in contempt of court.
After the judgment there is no law and there fore an injunction maintaining the law pending appeal can not be
Judge Vinson's ruling was on 31 January.
I believe that there was an automatic stay of the ruling for 14 days. Those 14 days were up last Monday and so the Administration is now in violation of the judge's orders. The Administration's motion should have filed last week and I'm quite surprised that it wasn't. Another slap in the face of Judge Vinson.
But the Government will appeal. I think they have 30 days to do so. But the real question is whether they will ask for a stay of the ruling or just offer a motion to reverse it. Those are different things. Read the article. The author infers that they cannot ask for a stay of the ruling. If so, that would be very good for our side.
Pinnnnnnnnnngggggg.
The courts are only necessary when they are owned. Impartial court rulings need not be acknowledged.
Interesting take on the rule of law.
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.