Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Not at all. But dream on, Pubic. President Obama will almost certainly serve two terms, and you fellows are doing all that you can to make that a certainty.

 

[grunt11b]

Let me guess, you would then have Palin on a white horse ride into the oval office and take command of county?

It didnt take long for someone to spam and troll their way in to this thread in order to make a compleatly non-related comment. Do you ever think before you post? When a topic is presented do you immediatly speak of someting compleatly different every time you post? What is the reason for your willful ignorance? Are you blinded by you hate for conservatives so much that you lose your presence of mind and are unable to hold a relevent arguement? Any credebility that you think you have is demolished by your above comment. It shows alot about you and the manner you respond to debates in this forum. Please stop spamming in my thread.

No, I have just been stuck in a snow storm the past few days and find it fun to piss off tools like you who get so upset over some of the things people say to you on the internet. My favorite on this site is people like you who try to act so intelligent with words like "compleatly" sound it out buddy ahahah nice try kid

You're worthless, your ideology is worthless, every one of you are worthless, all that you people have ever caused this nation was a great economy and our sovereignty, and you still just don't get it. I forgive you though, your ignorance comes from colleges where progressive professors are left to run amok, instead of logical fact base colleges where history and facts prove other wise. It's not your fault you're a dumbass, it's just the situation you are in ...........Dumbass.

 

[Publius1787]

Umm.... because the judge issued a stay on the order. You're an idiot though Congrats.

No he didnt! Whats your source?

 

[Publius1787]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

No. You can impeach any president who defies a court ruling and continues a law after it has been deemed unconstitutional. Your inability to read makes you the moron in this case. Go back to the op and read it. Slowly though. I dont want you to hurt yourself.

 

[jillian]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

he is a maroon...

a lower court decision is meaningless ...

he is also ignoring the courts that have upheld it.

it has to be painful to be that delusional.

 

[jillian]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

No. You can impeach any president who defies a court ruling and continues a law after it has been deemed unconstitutional. Your inability to read makes you the moron in this case. Go back to the op and read it. Slowly though. I dont want you to hurt yourself.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT STRUCK DOWN THIS LAW.

NO COURT HAS STAYED ITS ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL.

Are you just trolling? Or do you actually believe the stuff you spew?

 

[Publius1787]

to hold someone in contempt, they have to have violated a court order.

What court order did the president violate, nutbar?

he refuses to stop implementing the bill.

no one has stayed enforcement of the law.

It hasn't been a bill since it was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Do you need a link?



as of right now, two district courts (the lowest fed cts) have upheld it, two haven't. Each of those decisions will go to their respective circuit courts of appeals for review. Then they will go to the supreme court.

Why would anyone stop implementing it?

Because you don't like it?

read the descision in the op!!!!!!!! A ruling of unconstitutionality is a default injunction! Why cant people read??????!!!!! Why do I keep giving these people information and they ignore it and make fools of themselves???? WHY?

FROM THE JUDGE HIMSELF: p 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 thefederal 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 officersare 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&#8221 (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.

 

[Greenbeard]

States have different powers. If they act pursuant to their own laws, rules and regulations (and their own Constitutions), they might very well be free to "voluntarily" implement the ACA's provisions.

A state-administered PCIP is authorized by federal legislation and funded with federal money. A state Medicaid expansion requires federal authorization (again, because the FMAP comes from the feds). Exchange planning conducted by state employees whose FTEs are covered by federal money authorized in the ACA are not magically distinct from the ACA. The same is true of revisions to the state rate review process. If they choose to return (and perhaps refund) the money and disband the federally funded risk pools, then they'll indeed be disentangled from the law and can pursue or not pursue the policies in the ACA without regard for the legislation's actual legal status.

What I'm wondering here is: until they do that, are we going to pout about them, too?

 

[Yurt]

no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...

and you can ignore that on one thread and create another troll thread, but there still has never been a court that stayed enforcement of the law.

my understanding is that a court order can stay enforcement of a law, i've seen it done numerous times, for example death penalty cases, the gay marriage laws....

 

[Yurt]

obama is not in contempt of anything. there is a SPLIT in the courts, nothing will change with the law unless scotus makes a decision or congress changes the law

 

[Publius1787]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

he is a maroon...

a lower court decision is meaningless ...

he is also ignoring the courts that have upheld it.

it has to be painful to be that delusional.

Legally THAT DOES NOT MATTER! It only takes one federal judge. Thats it! And if lower court descisions are meaningless then there would be no need for their existance.

 

[jillian]

read the descision in the op!!!!!!!! A ruling of unconstitutionality is a default injunction! Why cant people read??????!!!!!

no. a preliminary finding of unconstitutionality by a district court is not a 'default injiunction'. the string cite you rely on contains only one case that even implies that is a DC Circuit case. That case has no binding authority on any other district. It is also inapplicable to the instant matter as it doesn't deal with constitutional construction. it deals with whether harriet miers had to turn over papers.

thanks for playing.

 

[jillian]

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

he is a maroon...

a lower court decision is meaningless ...

he is also ignoring the courts that have upheld it.

it has to be painful to be that delusional.

Legally THAT DOES NOT MATTER! It only takes one federal judge. Thats it! And if lower court descisions are meaningless then there would be no need for their existance.

see, now i'm done playing with you because yuo don't know what you're talking about. so i assume you're just trolling and i can't be bothered, nutbar.

 

[jillian]

no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...

and you can ignore that on one thread and create another troll thread, but there still has never been a court that stayed enforcement of the law.

my understanding is that a court order can stay enforcement of a law, i've seen it done numerous times, for example death penalty cases, the gay marriage laws....

absolutely. and no such order was issued here. isn't that what i said in the post you replied to?

 

[Dr Grump]

, instead of logical fact base colleges where history and facts prove other wise. ...........Dumbass.

I suppose you want ID taught as science, too?

 

[geauxtohell]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

We have a winner here!

Hi, you have received -3 reputation points from Publius1787.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
False logic.

Regards,
Publius1787

 

[Publius1787]

read the descision in the op!!!!!!!! A ruling of unconstitutionality is a default injunction! Why cant people read??????!!!!!

no. a preliminary finding of unconstitutionality by a district court is not a 'default injiunction'. the string cite you rely on contains only one case that even implies that is a DC Circuit case. That case has no binding authority on any other district. It is also inapplicable to the instant matter.

thanks for playing.

My God it must be wonderful to be so ignorant. The link IS THE JUDGES OPINION! This is undesputable, irrefuntable, and undeniable. Once a federal judge has deemed a bill unconstitutional the executive must cease implementation of that law! A LOWER COURT IS NOT PRELEMINARY! IT IS FINAL UNTIL AFTER THE RULING OF THE NEXT APPEALS COURT UNLESS A STAY IS GRANTED WHICH IN THIS CASE HAS NOT HAPPENED! It only takes one judge to do this! If a million ruled it constitutional and one ruled it unconstitution then the president must abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality and appeal it to a higher court. AND A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS AN INJUCTION AS THE JUDGE HIMSELF STATES IN HIS RULING! Why do english speaking people have so much trouble reading english?

 

[jillian]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

We have a winner here!

Hi, you have received -3 reputation points from Publius1787.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
False logic.

Regards,
Publius1787

lol.. has this idiot called anyone 'sis' yet?

and i think my +1051 made up for his -3.

and the loon got negged for trolling.

 

[Publius1787]

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?

We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings. By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.

We have a winner here!

Hi, you have received -3 reputation points from Publius1787.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
False logic.

Regards,
Publius1787

I love it how people get so butt hurt over reps. How about you reply to my post? http://www.usmessageboard.com/3281340-post64.html

 

[The Hatter]

Invoking common sense, I'm going to have to vote no on this question.