But is the ruling binding? I mean, did he put a stay on the mandate.
According to another report, the judge did not put a stay on the mandate because he said it was unnecessary, since the entire act was unconstitutional.
No, he said no injunction was necessary because he knew the federal gov’t would follow the law, and the he was determining that the HC law is void.
What an sucker! If they’d followed the law we’d never have this piece of crap law!
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson wrote.
My exact question. We’ll have to wait and see.
He doesn’t have to put a stay on it. By ruling it unconstitutional it is DEAD. Now the appeals court may grant supersedeas to suspend the judgement while the upper courts rule on it but I doubt it.
“But is the ruling binding? I mean, did he put a stay on the mandate?”
No stay. But the Obammunists have already announced they will ignore the fact that the law has been declared null and void and continue to implement it anyway!