Judge uses Obama’s words against him

The Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2011 | Stephen Dinan

[Kaslin]

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.

Judge Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could fall within the Constitution — including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

[Iron Munro]

[Iron Munro]

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

Not so.

The judge is essentially enjoining the administration from implementing Obamacare.

The following is excerpted from commentary entitled "Obamacare Fails" at the blog Cato@Liberty:

Excerpts from the opinion:

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.

What’s more, it appears that the Obama administration must seek intervention from a higher court if it wants to keep implementing ObamaCare. Even though Vinson declined to issue an injunction forbidding the administration to implement the law, he did so because of:

"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”…”declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction”…Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

In other words, absent intervention from a higher court, HHS must now sit on its hands.

[Iron Munro]

As it now stands, the federal government cannot implement Obamacare, unless, and until, some higher court reverses the lower court ruling.

As it now stands, the federal government cannot LEGALLY implement Obamacare, unless, and until, some higher court reverses the lower court ruling.

[phockthis]

gee darn

[Windflier]

Good point. And may I add that, unless, and until some higher court reverses the lower court ruling, that We The People can LEGALLY ignore any and all mandates of Obamacare.

[susannah59]

This is the lawsuit that Texas' AG had signed onto.

I heard today that which state AG took the lead in this suit had been very carefully considered, since that determined in which court the suit would be filed.

It seems the decision made was a sound one.

[mojitojoe]

Tough. If that happens, then it’s up to we, the people to revolt and refuse to cooperate or participate in any way, shape or form with Obamacare. JUST SAY NO!

[Ken522]

Current composition of the court The judges on the court are:
# Title Judge Duty station Born Term of service Appointed by
Active Chief Senior
22 Chief Judge Joel Fredrick Dubina Montgomery, AL 1947 1990–present 2009–present — G.H.W. Bush
9 Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat Jacksonville, FL 1929 1981–present 1989–1996 — Ford[1]
19 Circuit Judge J.L. (James Larry) Edmondson Atlanta, GA 1947 1986–present 2002–2009 — Reagan
23 Circuit Judge Susan Harrell Black Jacksonville, FL 1943 1992–present — — G.H.W. Bush
24 Circuit Judge Edward Earl Carnes Montgomery, AL 1950 1992–present — — G.H.W. Bush
25 Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett Miami, FL 1939 1994–present — — Clinton
26 Circuit Judge Frank M. Hull Atlanta, GA 1948 1997–present — — Clinton
27 Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus Miami, FL 1946 1997–present — — Clinton
28 Circuit Judge Charles R. Wilson Tampa, FL 1954 1999–present — — Clinton
29 Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. Birmingham, AL 1962 2004[2]–present — — G.W. Bush
30 Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin Macon, GA 1955 2010–present — — Obama
— Circuit Judge (vacant - seat 4) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
10 Senior Circuit Judge James Clinkscales Hill Jacksonville, FL 1924 1981–1989 (none) 1989–present Ford[1]
11 Senior Circuit Judge Peter Thorp Fay Miami, FL 1929 1981–1994 (none) 1994–present Ford[1]
13 Senior Circuit Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch Atlanta, GA 1920 1981–1996 (none) 1996–present Carter[1]
15 Senior Circuit Judge R. Lanier Anderson III Macon, GA 1936 1981–2009 1999–2002 2009–present Carter[1]
20 Senior Circuit Judge Emmett Ripley Cox Mobile, AL 1935 1988–2000 (none) 2000–present Reagan
[edit] List of former judges

[therightliveswithus]

This is classic

[Oceander]

Judge Vinson’s opinion is rather well-written and is worth the read, notwithstanding its 78 pages.

I particularly liked the footnote where he gently pointed out that the defendants essentially tried to lie to the court about the holding in the Supreme Court case of Raich, at footnote 16: “By paraphrasing Raich here rather than quoting from the decision the defendants have attempted to obscure the importance of ‘activity,’ ....” That’s the judicial way of saying “I caught you red-handed telling lies.”

[Lmo56]

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’”

If the WH blasts this ruling, every conservative pundit on cable news should use the above quote to put them in their place ...

[unkus]

Good work! Thanks.

[Lmo56]

From the ruling [and this is CLASSIC]:

"On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was "necessary and essential" to the Act as drafted, it is not "necessary and essential" to healthcare reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other [Constitutional] ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do."

[CottShop]

[[Ok I get that this was “reported” but the judge issued a declaration that the law IS void. Unless that ruling is stayed or vacated, how can the executive branch legally continue to implement this?]]

They didn’t have a constitutionally legal right to enact obamacare/mandates i nthe first place- but that didn’t stop them for one second- the constitution and law is meaningless to them- they just threw it out there- prepared to enact it, and hoped soem liberal judge would side with htem by legislating from the bench like thwey always do

[factmart]

That means the insurance companies do not have to keep the 26 year old babies on their parents insurance starting tomorrow!

Poor babies!

[CottShop]

[[Because the individual mandate does not come down on our necks until 2014, thus there is no urgent need to issue a restraining order.]]

Sure there was an urgent need- hte mandate is unconstitional and thus ILLEGAL, and thus a restraining order should have been issued to send a CLEAR message to those who are in office who feel they can lord it over us any way they want, that our judicial system WILL NOT put up with their ILLEGAL crap (srry for cps- just stressing the key points)

What good is the legal system IF the legal system doesn’t declare that an ILLEGAL act is ILLEGAL? IF it’;s ILLEGAL, then those enforcing something that is illegal, are acting illegally.

Yes, obamacare won’;t take effect for awhile if ever- but the point is that our courts are here to protect we the people against illegal activities/unconstituional activities regardless of whom they are committed by

[goldi]

But even if the supreme court does rule in favor of the mandate, the people have to let the politicians know that they don’t want a mandate and they don’t want this particular bill, and if it’s going to be forced down their throats, they have to let the politicians know they will be doing something else for a living.

[ctdonath2]

Stop gloating guys. The fight is still on. Chicago politics doesn’t give up that easy.

Important bit at the end:

“White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling. “There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.”

Shades of “the court has rendered it’s verdict, now it may enforce it.” (Famous quote of one president telling SCOTUS to f* off.)

Stay sharp people.

[TexasCajun]

Those were the words of an Obama speech that the judge quoted, not the words of the judge.

I realize that, sorry I didn't seperate the two comments that made you think the quote was from the judge.

[Kaslin]

Of course the fight is still on. We can not stop until we the people have won the fight