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 ...
What is it about its “unconstitutional” the Justice Department doesn’t understand?
I hope he finds them in Contempt; as he CLEARLY told them the Ruling was in essence an Injunction, and they thumber their noses at him and are continuing to implement Obamacare. The hiring of more than 15,000 more IRS people in the Budget, to handle the Obamacare ramifications, CLEARLY shows they could care less about what the Judge told them. Likewise, when Holder/Obama decided that DOMA is Un-Constituitonal, they are FLAGRANTLY and BLATANTLY telling the Courts that The Messiah will decide what Constituional means.
This:
unconstitutional
Indian name="Types with Fists"
So they can understand the health crimes bill but not Judge Vinson’s entirely logical & legally correct ruling?
Basically, the law does not nor did it ever legally exist. It may exist in fact, but not legally.
Thus, it’s unenforceable.
It’s like going to Vegas, getting bombed & waking up married to a stranger. You go to court, plead you were not of sound mind, judge rules the marriage annuled.
It never legally happened.
You don’t then have to go out & get a divorce. There is no marriage to disolve.
Very much the same type of legal effect here. As a matter of law, the health crimes act does not exist.
Pretty simple.
The communists party is in control of America. Civil War on the way.
His first decision was clear as air.
Their delay tactics are going to start to bug the judge.
One wonders what an irritated Federal judge might say and do in response to incompetent counsel.
It’s like going to Vegas, getting bombed & waking up married to a stranger. You go to court, plead you were not of sound mind, judge rules the marriage annuled.
It never legally happened.
You don’t then have to go out & get a divorce. There is no marriage to disolve.
Then the problem comes down to child support...
Somebody gots to pay.
just another ruling/law for his highness to ignore.. laws and rules are for the little people.. Moochelle says “Let them eat short ribs”..
Good for Judge Vinson, he’s a man of few words when he knows he’s being stroked, a three day extension is too much though:)
Put out an arrest warrant on Holder and Obama
Let's get it on. It will sooner or later come down to this. Every day these commies get a bigger stronghold. The time is NOW.
So now we officially have two words whose meanings are not understood in Washington DC: “is” and “unconstitutional.”
We these kids you have to use small words and speak street talk.
Laz would hit it. Not a problem.
Let's get it on. It will sooner or later come down to this. Every day these commies get a bigger stronghold. The time is NOW.
Later
Hurrah Judge Vinson! Courage you have and will need, as the regime comes at your ruling legally and I’d assume illegally; eg., harassment, IRS and threats... I pray for no Arkansaside.
Everyone should be aware that key people opposing the socialization of USA are going to be pressured, including life threatening measures. There are many score hundred billion dollars of foreign money, transferred out of USA, coming back to fund these many faceted efforts. IMHO...
The Obama regime already said:
"The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.
(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, 456 U.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 declared by the court" (Scalia, J.)
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.