Thread: DOJ loses gamble with US District Judge on Health Care Ruling

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

My comments blue.


The real issue here isn't activist judges, it is a man who now occupies the whitehouse who sees himself as a King rather than a president. A president understands and respects the American system of government that has checks and balances built into it in order that tyranny won't be allowed in.

------------------------------

Obama has already indicated his hostility toward court decisions he doesn't like, but more than verbal hostility has transpired since Obama's State of the Union speech, which found an obviously roiled Judge Alito mouthing responses to the president's antagonistic and historically unprecedented dress down of the high court.

Indications are the high court, along with the entirety of the judicial branch of government, may be facing more than a verbal showdown as the Obama administration is determined by any and every means to salvage its end goals, particularly its health care plan, from the counterattacks of the judiciary.

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled the individual mandate central to the implementation of Obama Care is illegal. If Justice Vinson's ruling stands, it would make the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill null and void.


Vinson wrote:

"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's ruling, along with one which was delivered by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, means it is probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will make the final decision about the constitutionality of ObamaCare. So far the auguries do not bode well for its fate.


Regardless, it has been noticeable that the Obama administration has paid no particular mind to the Vinson decision. On the contrary, the WH has ignored the ruling, proceeding as if it never happened, hell bent on continuing the implementation of Obama Care.

As Mark Levin and others have noted, the president is in contempt of court by continuing to implement a law declared unconstitutional. In fact, while the rest of the real estate market languishes, the boom in Washington, D.C. continues unabated, due in a large part to the need for office space for the multitudinous agencies, some 159 in number, mandated by the health care bill.


It's worth noting the disregard for judicial rulings concerning the Health Care bill has been paralleled by the Obama administration's quiet ignoring of the judicial decisions overturning the moratoriums on drilling for oil.

But perhaps the most ominous sign the judicial branch of our government may be in danger of being entirely overridden by the executive branch of our government is the recent decision by the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that part of the act is unconstitutional.

In one fell swoop, the Obama administration has abrogated to itself the role of the judiciary and has thereby announced to the judiciary the executive branch will decide whether or not to uphold the decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court.


The Obama administration has basically executed a coup against the judiciary and due process of law by taking to itself the duties of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

if the administration can decree a given law as unconstitutional without the evaluation of its constitutionality or non-constitutionality residing in the hands of the judiciary, the process of judicial review is unnecessary. Worse, the entire system of governmental checks and balances is completely wrecked. The executive branch would reign as supreme arbiter of law. Law would be what the executive branch deems law: law by decree, by fiat.



American Thinker: Courting Disaster


America will follow it's new King.


King Obama. He is going to get himself impeached if he continues with his confusion about the powers he has in his office as the PRESIDENT.

He only THINKS he is the King.

I wonder if these people said the same things with the way that Bush handled Gitmo or the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by States Rights

Word play. No he really isn't tell them to appeal his ruling, but if they don't they can no longer continue implementing Obama Care. So it all depends on how you understand the wording. Sure they don't have to appeal it, but it's DOA, KIA,etc. if they don't

It's not word play at all.

A poster asked if the judge has the power to mandate someone appeal a decision and I pointed out that he's not doing so.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I wonder if these people said the same things with the way that Bush handled Gitmo or the Patriot Act.

I don't know.


Though I find it strange that the left, after harshly criticising and accusing Mr. Bush of acting like a King or a dictator, rushes to copy, even far outdo Mr. Bush. They say imitation is the "sincerest form of flattery."


Why would the left make such an effort to copy Mr. Bush ?


Of course they'll never admit to it. They accused him of what they have now become.

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Whatever else happens, I hope to see this healthcare bill struck down in its entirety. I have no insurance and refuse any. I'm not going to be forced into purchasing or getting any just because these twats in Washington say so. Fuck them.

I dislike the individual mandate as much as you do. But. Do you want to return to 45% to 55% of premiums paid spent on direct benefits? Do you want to return to kids off their parents insurance at 21? Do you want to return to insurance companies denying coverage due to pre existing conditions? Do you want to return to lifetime maximums?

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Whatever else happens, I hope to see this healthcare bill struck down in its entirety. I have no insurance and refuse any. I'm not going to be forced into purchasing or getting any just because these twats in Washington say so. Fuck them.

You must be ok with OTHERS paying for your hospital bills IF, you get seriously ill, or have an accident, like a car crash, that was your fault.

It's people like you that make my own health insurance higher than it would be if us insured did not have to take up you guy's slack. Thanks! You da man, or perhaps "leech" would be more appropiate.

NOW, if you cannot afford the outrageous rates or medical bills, perhaps under Obamacare you will finally pay your share. Or pay your way, instead of allowing us Libs to take care of you. Which we don't mind, mind ya, even if you are a Con.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

I don't know.


Though I find it strange that the left, after harshly criticising and accusing Mr. Bush of acting like a King or a dictator, rushes to copy, even far outdo Mr. Bush. They say imitation is the "sincerest form of flattery."


Why would the left make such an effort to copy Mr. Bush ?


Of course they'll never admit to it. They accused him of what they have now become.

I think you'll find that Obama is not that far to the left when you look at how close his foreign policy is to Bush.

Also, his economic policies are more corporatist than socialist.

Originally Posted by States Rights

The judge said "sure you can continue implementing Obama Care until an appeals court rules, you have 7 days to make your appeal" or words to that effect.

Part of the issue appears to be that Vinson doesn't have a very clear picture of what the practical implication of his ruling should be and thus it's best to kick the whole thing down the road to somebody else as soon as possible:

For example, my declaratory judgment, of course, only applies to the parties to this litigation. The State of Michigan is one of those parties. However, a federal district court in Michigan has already upheld the Act and the individual mandate. See Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Can (or should) I enjoin and halt implementation of the Act in a state where one of its federal courts has held it to be Constitutional? In addition, many of the plaintiff states have publicly represented that they will immediately halt implementation of the Act in light of my declaratory judgment, while at least eight plaintiff states (as identified by the defendants in their motion and reply) have suggested that, in an abundance of caution, they will not stop implementing the Act pending appeal. In addition to these apparent disagreements among the plaintiff states, there is even disagreement within the plaintiff states as to whether the implementation should continue pending appeal. For example, while the plaintiffs (a group that includes the Attorney General of Washington) have requested that I enjoin the defendants from implementing the Act, the Governor of Washington has just filed an amicus brief specifically opposing that request (doc. 163). At this point in time, and in light of all this uncertainty, it would be difficult to deny the defendants a stay pending appeal. Nonetheless, in light of the potential for ongoing injury to the plaintiffs, the stay should be in place for as short of time as possible (months, and not years), as discussed immediately below.

Originally Posted by netzen2010

I dislike the individual mandate as much as you do. But. Do you want to return to 45% to 55% of premiums paid spent on direct benefits? Do you want to return to kids off their parents insurance at 21? Do you want to return to insurance companies denying coverage due to pre existing conditions? Do you want to return to lifetime maximums?

Nope. I'd rather see insurance companies be done away with completely. I hate the industry and everything it stands for. It's nothing but usury and a frivolous ponzi scheme.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

You must be ok with OTHERS paying for your hospital bills IF, you get seriously ill, or have an accident, like a car crash, that was your fault.

It's people like you that make my own health insurance higher than it would be if us insured did not have to take up you guy's slack. Thanks! You da man, or perhaps "leech" would be more appropiate.

NOW, if you cannot afford the outrageous rates or medical bills, perhaps under Obamacare you will finally pay your share. Or pay your way, instead of allowing us Libs to take care of you. Which we don't mind, mind ya, even if you are a Con.

FIRST! Slow your roll bucko. I don't leech off anyone. I pay into the bullshit healthcare system as it is already and I flatly REFUSE to take anything from it. SECOND! I pay for my own hospital bills in full if/when I do have to go. You assume much but don't have a clue as to who I am and where I stand. To be perfectly honest with you, I despise the healthcare system in its entirety. I have nothing to do with the rise in healthcare costs seeing as I PAY MY WAY! I DON'T TAKE ANYTHING FROM IT! You would do well to not assume anything of me.

SO! Call me a leech again.

Don't presume to think you know anything about me because you obviously don't know shit. You have no clue as to who I am and what I do or don't stand for. Don't fucking call me a con again.

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Nope. I'd rather see insurance companies be done away with completely. I hate the industry and everything it stands for. It's nothing but usury and a frivolous ponzi scheme.



FIRST! Slow your roll bucko. I don't leech off anyone. I pay into the bullshit healthcare system as it is already and I flatly REFUSE to take anything from it. SECOND! I pay for my own hospital bills in full if/when I do have to go. You assume much but don't have a clue as to who I am and where I stand. To be perfectly honest with you, I despise the healthcare system in its entirety. I have nothing to do with the rise in healthcare costs seeing as I PAY MY WAY! I DON'T TAKE ANYTHING FROM IT! You would do well to not assume anything of me.

SO! Call me a leech again.

Don't presume to think you know anything about me because you obviously don't know shit. You have no clue as to who I am and what I do or don't stand for. Don't fucking call me a con again.

Sorry, we just assumed you are one more leach on the system, we do not know who you are. We do know you cannot be too bright if you think the average Joe can pay his own health care. Most BK's are caused by health costs. The cost of health care has quadrupled since 2000, so I am glad you are independently rich beyond all expectations, because that is what it would take if you were in a major accident or have an extended illness or crippling disease. Of course, you are rich, or you couldn't afford health care w/o insurance. I applaud your industry and do not doubt your veracity.(insert jerking-off motion here)

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Whatever else happens, I hope to see this healthcare bill struck down in its entirety. I have no insurance and refuse any. I'm not going to be forced into purchasing or getting any just because these twats in Washington say so. Fuck them.

I don't wish it on you, but what would happen if you had a car accident, or if you suddenly developped symptoms of testicular or liver cancer?

Would you keep your bravado? Or would you sneak into the emergency room to get other people to pay for your care. . .which would probably be a diagnosis, basic stabilization, and not much more?

I also hope you do not have a wife or a child depending on you for their health care!

Originally Posted by Greenbeard

Part of the issue appears to be that Vinson doesn't have a very clear picture of what the practical implication of his ruling should be and thus it's best to kick the whole thing down the road to somebody else as soon as possible:

Do you really understand what you said here? He said that Obama Care was unconstitutional. How is that kicking it down the road?

Originally Posted by States Rights

Do you really understand what you said here? He said that Obama Care was unconstitutional. How is that kicking it down the road?

He issued a stay of his own ruling on the condition that expedited appellate review be sought to resolve the vast uncertainty he acknowledges his ruling has caused. How is that not kicking the can down the road?

If the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, it means the next wave of Universal health care will need to be financed by taxes. This is what the GOP was hoping to avoid when they proposed the individual mandate in 1993.
Universal Health Care isn't going away, people still need health care, the US system of employer provided health care is still falling apart at the seams, all this does, if it stands, is force a different financing scheme.