Posted on 02/23/2011 4:36:13 PM PST by dont_tread_on_malik
This tussle in Florida over the “clarity” of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional is further unfolding. From the tone of Vinson’s comments on the matter, the DOJ’s push for the ruling to be clarified is not sitting too well with him:
(Excerpt) Read more at 21statelawsuit.com ...
I went back and reread it. It appears that the judge already gave the DOJ 2 1/2 weeks when the DOJ should have replied within 2 weeks. The judge is allowing them 3 more days to wrap it up. This administration was supposed to respond within 2 weeks and was late. The DOJ SHOULD know the rule of law/order here, but to them it must be some sort of informality or suggestion.
But; that's just me. Others think that one parent of US Citizenship is okay with them, and we don't want to have race riots, so it's gotta be swept under the rug.....
I support the judge’s ruling and hate to throw a little legal cold water, but here goes.
1 This was a single federal district judge, and other district courts have given the opposite ruling. Therefore, I wouldn’t expect everyone nationwide to follow this ruling. Everyone knows the various appeals courts will have to rule, and probably the Supreme Court, before this is resolved.
2 Because you have officials as far away as the Alaskan governor saying they WILL follow this ruling, it is normal for the Admin. to ask for a clarification of the judge’s view of his ruling’s effect.
3 The Admin. figures that IF the judge says he has shut down Obamacare nationwide, the appeals court will probably suspend that order right away until it has time to review the case. This is a good strategy because right now they don’t have any injunction to appeal.
4 The judge knows all this that is why he only gave the PLAINTIFFS (the guys on our side) three days to respond.
5 The judge may surprise you and decide not to issue an injunction, recognizing the court of appeals will want time to review this. Or he may see an injunction as the logical next step but he knows the circuit court will reverse him, and that will be seen as an Obamacare victory.
6 All the talk about armed men and courts having no power is nonsense. we have a very sophisticated legal system and everyone involved knows the fat lady will not be singing until well down the road. This preliminary maneuvering is normal.
"Presumably, under this logic President Palin won't defend ObamaCare in court. Of course, President Palin won't veto a repeal of ObamaCare, either."
Hat tip to Just One Minute.
someone should file a Birth Certificate case in his court...
There is no injunction. “Functional equivalent to an injunction” is not an injunction. That is how it is being argued, and that is how Judge Vinson wrote it.
If he didn't know that the admin would not take it seriously, than he was being very foolish. I think Judge Vinson knew what he was doing, and didn't want to have the amount of personal directed pressure put on him that issuing an injunction would cause. So he wrote the decision the way he did and kicked the can down the road.
His ruling changed nothing. The Health care law is still being enforced, and will remain enforced until and unless a specific injunction is issued, and most likely until the USSC says stop.
To pretend otherwise is a bit of self delusion. Something that we as a nation in general and conservatives in particular can not afford to do.
Again, Judge Vinson knew exactly how the fedgov would react to this, and what would happen to him if he did issue an injunction. In a way, he was very brave even doing the half measure that he did.
Actually as President he has the responsibility and authority to do just that,
Mind pointing out just where in the Constitution is the clause that gives the President this authority? I always thought that was what we had a Supreme Court for, to INTERPRET the law, and decide its Constitutionality. If Obamalamadingdong can do this what do we need a court for? Oh. yeah, the Constitution says we have to have one......but he'll just say that's unconstitutional, too, won't he?
Actually as President he has the responsibility and authority to do just that...
Beg to differ, but it is not the place of the Executive branch of our government to interpret the Constitution. That is the sole jurisdiction of the Judicial branch. It's the Legislative branch's responsibility to make the law.
Obama's job is to enforce the law -- not to decide what is law, and what is not.
Gee. Coulda fooled me...
This is going to be GOOD.
Our Congress and President think the constitution is dead and they don’t have to yeild to the Judicial Branch anymore in regards to that old piece of paper. They have progressed to be citizens of the world - the smart people - who can dictate their will as they deem serves their power and interests.
There are never any conquences for their crimes and arrogance which makes them bolder in their egos and their treason.
Uh....that would be “...low-fat, low-calorie short ribs...” that we know all the “right folks” eat....LOL
trapped_in_LA wrote:
<<
Amazing as it seems, Presidents in the past have frequently ignored federal court rulings. Look at Lincoln’s history and how he ignored USC rulings about confederate POW’s. Also look at the oath of office that they take, “... will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. It doesn’t say as interpreted by the Federal courts, he is responsible for that interpretation and if he see’s it differently than the courts it is his responsibility to act accordingly. And up until FDR they did on occasion act against the courts view of the matter.
>>
***********************************************************
But that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. How can the judicial branch be considered a co-equal branch of government as it pertains to separation of powers if the executive branch (president) has the authority to just ignore any federal court rulings it doesn’t agree with or like? That would make the executive branch more powerful than the judicial branch, no?
Williams wrote:
<<
I support the judge’s ruling and hate to throw a little legal cold water, but here goes.
1 This was a single federal district judge, and other district courts have given the opposite ruling. Therefore, I wouldn’t expect everyone nationwide to follow this ruling. Everyone knows the various appeals courts will have to rule, and probably the Supreme Court, before this is resolved.
>>
***********************************************************
Actually, the Virginia federal court also ruled that Obamacare’s individual mandate provision is unconstitutional. And let’s not go discounting the huge significance of the Judge Vinson’s ruling here... Unlike the other trials that were thrown out, there were 26 states that signed on to the Florida lawsuit.
Mind pointing out where the court has the authority to declare something unconstitutional in the constitution? You won’t find it because it is not there, the first USC made it up! The judiciary was never envisioned as a co-equal branch of government by the founders as they pretty much reserved that for the legislative and executive branches not a bunch of unelected judges.
It use to be the states that had the power to stop an out of control federal government by having the ability to leave if they didn’t like what was going on. The civil war put an end to that and basically put us on the path to a strong central federal government.
“That would make the executive branch more powerful than the judicial branch, no?”
The constitution when written only really considered the legislative and executive branches as co-equal. You don’t see anything in there about the courts having the kind of power that they have assumed. So the answer to your question is yes.
trapped_in_LA wrote:
<<
Mind pointing out where the court has the authority to declare something unconstitutional in the constitution? You won’t find it because it is not there, the first USC made it up! The judiciary was never envisioned as a co-equal branch of government by the founders as they pretty much reserved that for the legislative and executive branches not a bunch of unelected judges.
>>
***********************************************************
Ok, so if that all were true, then why do we even have a U.S. supreme court? You are the first person I’ve ever heard claim that the founders never envisioned the judicial branch as a co-equal branch of government.
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.