Posted on 01/31/2011 12:06:59 PM PST by Marty62
Edited on 01/31/2011 12:19:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Updated: Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
Published : Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
(NewsCore) - A Florida federal judge ruled Monday in a 26-state challenge to the national health care law that the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance by 2014 or suffer a penalty is unconstitutional, Fox News Channel reported.
Excerpt, see myfoxdetroit
I think she's one of the fair interviewers. At least she knew all along that the ruling would attack the lack of a sever-ability clause. You know that her husband supports and sometimes works for Sarah Palin, right?
We need to send Judge Vinson Valentine’s Day cards!
“He’s concerned over whether ANYTHING might be out of the reach of Congressional regulation if you accept the Gov’ts notion that even NOT participating in the health care industry constitutes “economic activity.””
Contrast SCOTUS case _Raich_, where reducing demand in illegal interstate commerce was deemed to affect interstate commerce therefore the act which reduced the demand could be prohibited by federal law.
I think the prospect of a fair & open market deserves a chance.
I recall the VA ruling on this as being dissed as a non issue by the WH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GMB1bt58ck&feature=player_embedded
A republican appointed judge made it not real or effective in stopping ObamaCare.I wonder what the WH response will be now.
Thanks very much for the link.
Don’t read too much of their name-calling. Those Marxist-haters are the same ones that go after Sarah Palin, TEA Party patriots and conservatives. They’re broken records of hate and utter stupidity.
From the decision:
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act . . . Injunctive relief is an "extraordinary" and "drastic" remedy. 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."
In other words, Judge Vinson's finding of unconstitutionality stops the whole thing in its tracks. If the Obama Administration attempts to continue to implement the Act (which can no longer be called a law, as it has been struck down in total by a Federal judge), then I would imagine the plaintiffs would go right back to Vinson who would at that point issue an injunction.
I would certainly think that any President who cavalierly ignores the lawful order of the Judicial Branch is just begging for impeachment proceedings in the House. Judge Vinson has just said that Obamacare is not a valid law. Therefore anybody, up to and including Barack H. Obama, who tries to implement it from today until at least an appeals court rules on Vinson's opinion is acting outside lawful authority.
If Obama wants this law to stand, he will have to play the game by the rules as they are, not how he wants the rules to be. That means he will have to obey Judge Vinson's order.
Isn’t Stevens a liberal?
Kagan will have to recuse.....think about that.Now smile.
As Greta stated Vinson’s ruling was air tight.
What I want to know is doesn’t the Appellate Court need cause to review the ruling. If no cause can be shown then the ruling should stand on it own.
I am sorry! I was thinking Kennedy.... Stevens retired last year.
I scanned the decision and got the impression he wanted to laugh at Wickard v. Filburn as well as Raich.
Somewhere
I hear
a cackle
Yep
Hillary is cackling at this
Kagan..... hehehehehehehe
Happy happy Joy JOY!
Would you like to expound on this a bit? It is not obvious.
I understand the severability issue. But a simple injunction would certainly be appropriate if you are correct. I'm betting that the reason that there is no injunction is because the Judge believed it would have been immediately appealed and overturned pending blah, blah, blah.
The judge making a ruling on the case is Unconstitutional. Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution states “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This case can only be ruled on by SCOTUS because it involves at least one state.
You can’t order injunctive relief for a law that on it’s face doesn’t exist. He declared the HCRA law in it’s entirety unconstitutional. Thus, it doesn’t exist. Thus, no injunctive relief is required.
The Feds are going to have to head to the 11th Circuit (or the SOTUS)to get a stay of the lower court’s ruling to keep the law theoretically intact.
Poster alancarp addresses that above at #212
“The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” ..., and “drastic” remedy.... 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.
“... 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 is not necessary.”
212 posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 3:11:40 PM by alancarp
I’ll be watching Greta’s show tonight.
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.