Can Obama Continue to Implement Obamacare Without A Stay?

[Publius1787]

This is from page 75 of the Judge Vinson ruling on Obamacare. It is the part that deals with the injunction after he deems the whole law unconstitutional. What Does it Mean? Oh, and I messed up the poll. Replace "and" with "an".

A) No Injunction is Necessary Because a Ruling of "Unconstitutional" is by Default and Injunction.

B) No Injunction is Granted and Obama May Continue to Implement the Unconstitutional Law

C) Dont Know

D) Other

Page 75. Vinson opinion

(5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.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 theExecutive 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. onJudiciary 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 declaredby the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.

 

[Publius1787]

I would love to hear Bfgrn's explanation of his vote on the above poll.

 

[jillian]

are you really still on this subject?



stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

 

[Sheldon]

I took one semester of constitutional law in high school, so I'm in no way a great legal mind, just going off what I remember.

I think what muddies this issue is that two other courts at the same level came to the opposite conclusion on the exact same statute. I'm convinced this thing is bound for the Supreme Court.

So the ruling applies to the parties in the case, in this case the 26 states and the Feds. And the precedent is binding only in the relevant district. But if (imo, when) a stay is filed, which the Feds have two weeks to do, then enforcement of it is put on hold--but the law is not repealed. An important distinction I think.

And then there's the fact that the statute in question won't even be enforced until 2014 anyways.

As I see it in this case, unless the appeals courts reach a consensus of unconstitutionality and the Supremes don't take it, or the Supremes do take it and then strike it down, it's not an unconstitutional law that state and Fed governments would be in contempt for continuing to enforce.

 

[M14 Shooter]

stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

Speaking of looney tunes...

Aren't you presuming the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts?

 

[jillian]

stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

Speaking of looney tunes...

Aren't you presuming the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts?

i presume what i presume.

but that has nothing to do with this putz once again saying that somehow there's a stay on enforcement.

he's already been educated.

as for loon... i don't know... you tell me what loons think.

i'll wait.

 

[M14 Shooter]

stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

Speaking of looney tunes...

Aren't you presuming the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts?

i presume what i presume.

Yes.
You presume the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts
How does that make you, according to your standard, less looney than Publis?

 

[jillian]

Speaking of looney tunes...

Aren't you presuming the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts?

i presume what i presume.

Yes.
You presume the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts
How does that make you, according to your standard, less looney than Publis?

respond to the rest of my post. don't cherry pick.

i'm not a loon because i actually know that the process requires that the cases now go to their respective circuits and then to the supreme court. i also know, unlike the pathetic o/p you seem intent on defending, even though he's a moron, that there has been no stay of enforcement.

you want to tell me how things work in this type of situation? really?

now respond to the rest of my comment.

i'll look forward to the loony toon pov.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i presume what i presume.

Yes.
You presume the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts
How does that make you, according to your standard, less looney than Publis?

respond to the rest of my post. don't cherry pick.

You didn't answer my question:
How does that make you -- according to your standard -- less looney than Publis?

i'm not a loon because i actually know that the process requires that the cases now go to their respective circuits and then to the supreme court. i also know, unlike the pathetic o/p you seem intent on defending, even though he's a moron, that there has been no stay of enforcement.

And yet, you still presume the law is constitutional.
You claim you are not a loon, and yet your actions, according to your standard, say otherwise. Your actions carry the weight here; your words to the contrary lessen the effect not in the least.

 

[Sheldon]

stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

Speaking of looney tunes...

Aren't you presuming the law is constitutional even though its been struck by co-equal courts?

i presume what i presume.

but that has nothing to do with this putz once again saying that somehow there's a stay on enforcement.

he's already been educated.

as for loon... i don't know... you tell me what loons think.

i'll wait.

So the 26 states in the suit can still enforce the law while it's going through the appeals process, they don't have to wait?

 

[Toro]

are you really still on this subject?



stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

Pubes 2.0 has an obsession, it seems.

I wonder when Ravi is going to see him off?

 

[Yurt]

i may be wrong, but i believe federal district courts only have jurisdiction, eg power, in their districts. so even if this judge issued an injunction, it would only apply in his district. and a fed app court, only has jurisdiction in its district....only the scotus has national jurisidiction over both state and federal courts.

is that right jillian?

 

[Missourian]

I think stay or no stay, this ruling gives the House Republicans a convincing reason to defund Obamacare until the mandate and severance issued are settled.

 

[Publius1787]

are you really still on this subject?



stupid poll, too... presumes the law is unconstitutional even though its been upheld by co-equal courts.

poor loony toon.

It only takes one federal judge to rule a law unconstitutional. The president must then request a stay from a higher court or shut the law down all togather until after the appeal (If the appeal is in his favor). I dont care if a million judges rule the law unconstitutional. It only takes one judge! You know you really are making a fool of yourself. You didnt know that it only takes one federal judge to strike down a law? You would have the President pick and choose which court orders he is to follow? Sorry, it doesent work that way.

 

[Publius1787]

i may be wrong, but i believe federal district courts only have jurisdiction, eg power, in their districts. so even if this judge issued an injunction, it would only apply in his district. and a fed app court, only has jurisdiction in its district....only the scotus has national jurisidiction over both state and federal courts.

is that right jillian?

No federal court has a 26 state jurisdiction. It doesent matter if a million judges say its constitutional. It only takes one federal judge to strike down a law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius1787 is a reactionary home who contravenes law in pursuit of his own desired agenda.

However, the Republican Congress can threaten to go "lets shut down the government" route over defunding Obamacare, and then face the American's public wrath as in the nineties. Americans want right of center government, not conservative posturing that cuts of their access to government. They will punish the GOP if we are stupid enough to try this failed policy yet again.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius1787 is a reactionary home who contravenes law in pursuit of his own desired agenda.

However, the Republican Congress can threaten to go "lets shut down the government" route over defunding Obamacare, and then face the American's public wrath as in the nineties. Americans want right of center government, not conservative posturing that cuts of their access to government. They will punish the GOP if we are stupid enough to try this failed policy yet again.

What are you talking about?
Who are you responding to?
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Oh, your just trolling around and spamming from place to place with nonrelated junk in order to hyjack the topic of threads? Ok. Glad you cleared that up. Carry on.

 

[Missourian]

Publius1787 is a reactionary home who contravenes law in pursuit of his own desired agenda.

However, the Republican Congress can threaten to go "lets shut down the government" route over defunding Obamacare, and then face the American's public wrath as in the nineties. Americans want right of center government, not conservative posturing that cuts of their access to government. They will punish the GOP if we are stupid enough to try this failed policy yet again.

Good grief, Fake Jake...give it a rest...nobody's buying it.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius1787 is a reactionary home who contravenes law in pursuit of his own desired agenda.

However, the Republican Congress can threaten to go "lets shut down the government" route over defunding Obamacare, and then face the American's public wrath as in the nineties. Americans want right of center government, not conservative posturing that cuts of their access to government. They will punish the GOP if we are stupid enough to try this failed policy yet again.

Good grief, Fake Jake...give it a rest...nobody's buying it.

No no! I like it when someone accuses me of something followed by a rambleing of nonsince. Leavem be! Of course I'm being facetious.

 

[whitehall]

It was the first time a federal judge ruled on the entire law and it stands as unconstitutional. Why is that so difficult to understand? Apparently democrats could put it on a fast track to the Supreme Court but for some reason they refuse to do so. Could it be that they are afraid of a possible supreme court decision or are they hoping for a miracle of hope and change? The only thing that is holding the administration together is the loyalty of the mainstream media.