Can Obama Continue to Implement Obamacare Without A Stay?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Publius1787, Feb 3, 2011.

?

What Does Judge Vinson's Injunction Ruling Mean?

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

    60.0%
  2. No Injunction is Granted and Obama May Continue to Implement the Unconstitutional Law

    20.0%
  3. Dont Know

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Other

    20.0%
  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011
  2. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    I would love to hear Bfgrn's explanation of his vote on the above poll.
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    are you really still on this subject?

    :cuckoo:

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

    poor loony toon.
     
  4. Sheldon
    Offline

    Sheldon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,215
    Thanks Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    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.
     
  5. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    Speaking of looney tunes...

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

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    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.
     
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    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?
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    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. :thup:
     
  9. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    You didn't answer my question:
    How does that make you -- according to your standard -- less looney than Publis?

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  10. Sheldon
    Offline

    Sheldon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,215
    Thanks Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,330

    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?
     

Share This Page