Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: traditional1
"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 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.


The Marxist Muslim Kenyan is giving a big middle finger to Judge Vinson. Filing a motion to clarify 2 and half weeks later after already stating publicly they are not going to follow his ruling. A pattern is emerging with the Obama admin and his contempt for the law.[see contempt with another judge over drilling ban]. Hopefully Judge Vinson doesn't fark around and finds them in criminal contempt.

Judge Vinson's injunction:

(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.)

20 posted on 02/23/2011 5:21:39 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their Moonbats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Electric Graffiti

Re: federal officers will adhere to the law

With Zero in charge, this cannot be assumed. The Court will be required to establish unusual requirements and specifications on the gov.


35 posted on 02/23/2011 6:06:22 PM PST by Nobel_1 (bring on the Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson