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

[syrenn]

How about those 26 states all file for state wide exemptions?

 

[jillian]

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

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

yes they should.

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

yes they should.

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

A wacko? hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims.

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.

 

[jillian]

yes they should.

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

A wacko? hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims.

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.

I'm not a self-proclaimed anything. I earned my title.

how 'bout you? logic sure as hell isn't your strong suit.

as for levin... he's a wacko... and anyone who's really an attorney knows that and he should be ashamed of himself.

and i don't debate losers.

real simple. if someone has a point to make, i stay around.

if they're a pathetic troll like the o/p, i stay as long as it takes to figure out they're not worth talking to.

same reason i'd never debate *you*. nothing to be gained by trying to teach pigs to talk.

I have a particular aversion to wasting my time on people who are both ignorant and nasty.


you know... like you.

 

[Liability]

It's a little bit like me posting Michael Moore. The difference is, your side expects its radical lunatics to be taken seriously.

Wrong again multiple times in one short post. You set land speed records.

It is nothing like Michael Moore. Moore is a pontificating gasbag with no expertise other than, perhaps, the making of documentaries in the realm of one-sided propaganda. Mark Levin, by contrast, has expertise in the areas he discusses, namely the law and government, but primarily in law.

I would agree that the disgusting blob also known as Michael Moore is a lunatic. But there is zero valid basis for your suggestion that Mark Levin is one, too. In fact, he's not. You may not care for the things he says nor for his manner of saying them, but that's a very different issue. He happens to be able to support his arguments quite ably and honestly. Nothing "lunatic" about him.

In short, you are merely repeating your original baseless and unsupported fallacious argument. We get it. You don't like Levin and he gets under your skin.

You may not realize it, but it is pretty apparent that your REAL problem with Levin is that you lack any ability whatsoever to logically refute his positions and contentions.

Funny stuff. Thanks for the laughs.

No.

He's a me-too bandwagon radical. The fact that he has a state-system law degree and that he agrees with you ideologically doesn't make him a genius.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You've been listening to an idiot.

Wrong again. I have instead been listening to Mark Levin who --despite your desperate urge to repeat your baseless and unsupported blather -- is nothing even remotely akin to an idiot. He is, instead, as I correctly noted, more likely a genius. He, unlike you, happens to be a genuine expert.

You have no substance to support any part of your position; thus you are reduced to mindlessly repeating your invalid empty claim. And repeating them as you do still doesn't make them any less untrue nor does it put your lack of logical ability on any sounder footing.

In short, you have failed again. And you will always fail at least that badly when you try to foist of your unsupported empty opinions as facts.

 

[Cuyo]

Wrong again multiple times in one short post. You set land speed records.

It is nothing like Michael Moore. Moore is a pontificating gasbag with no expertise other than, perhaps, the making of documentaries in the realm of one-sided propaganda. Mark Levin, by contrast, has expertise in the areas he discusses, namely the law and government, but primarily in law.

I would agree that the disgusting blob also known as Michael Moore is a lunatic. But there is zero valid basis for your suggestion that Mark Levin is one, too. In fact, he's not. You may not care for the things he says nor for his manner of saying them, but that's a very different issue. He happens to be able to support his arguments quite ably and honestly. Nothing "lunatic" about him.

In short, you are merely repeating your original baseless and unsupported fallacious argument. We get it. You don't like Levin and he gets under your skin.

You may not realize it, but it is pretty apparent that your REAL problem with Levin is that you lack any ability whatsoever to logically refute his positions and contentions.

Funny stuff. Thanks for the laughs.

No.

He's a me-too bandwagon radical. The fact that he has a state-system law degree and that he agrees with you ideologically doesn't make him a genius.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You've been listening to an idiot.

Wrong again. I have instead been listening to Mark Levin who --despite your desperate urge to repeat your baseless and unsupported blather -- is nothing even remotely akin to an idiot. He is, instead, as I correctly noted, more likely a genius. He, unlike you, happens to be a genuine expert.

You have no substance to support any part of your position; thus you are reduced to mindlessly repeating your invalid empty claim. And repeating them as you do still doesn't make them any less untrue nor does it put your lack of logical ability on any sounder footing.

In short, you have failed again. And you will always fail at least that badly when you try to foist of your unsupported empty opinions as facts.

Yes, "Mindlessly repeating [my] invalid empty claim."

Nothing like what you're doing.

 

[Liability]

yes they should.

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

A wacko? hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims.

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.

Jilly has demonstrated (in the past) an ability to discuss legal matters in an intelligent fashion. I don't doubt that she is an attorney. In her field, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she's a talented attorney.

But when it comes to her political ramblings intersecting with the law -- such as Mark Levin has been discussing -- she permits her political bias to cloud her thinking. Then, she resorts to the kind of juvenile behavior she is quick to condemn in others. It's pretty pathetic.

The fact is, Mark Levin is a noted legal scholar. He heads a conservative legal foundation which has been active in taking on important (and thorny) legal issues of our time. One can agree or disagree with some of his legal opinions, which is very common in legal debate. But to dismiss his position in the facially fallacious manner of pretending that he, himself, is worthy only of invective and dismissal is quite obviously an invalid manner of discussing his contentions.

Jilly, in THIS matter, has proved herself to be both petty and unpersuasive

And now that I have said that, she is very likely to come back "swinging" again with more ad hominem blather directed at me and/or Mark Levin and/or anybody else who sees what she's been doing. Ho hum.

 

[Liability]

No.

He's a me-too bandwagon radical. The fact that he has a state-system law degree and that he agrees with you ideologically doesn't make him a genius.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You've been listening to an idiot.

Wrong again. I have instead been listening to Mark Levin who --despite your desperate urge to repeat your baseless and unsupported blather -- is nothing even remotely akin to an idiot. He is, instead, as I correctly noted, more likely a genius. He, unlike you, happens to be a genuine expert.

You have no substance to support any part of your position; thus you are reduced to mindlessly repeating your invalid empty claim. And repeating them as you do still doesn't make them any less untrue nor does it put your lack of logical ability on any sounder footing.

In short, you have failed again. And you will always fail at least that badly when you try to foist of your unsupported empty opinions as facts.

Yes, "Mindlessly repeating [my] invalid empty claim."

Nothing like what you're doing.

You're right. It's not.

YOU made an empty claim. YOU keep repeating it. YOU offer nothing (as in not a single thing) to support your claims.

By stark contrast, all I have done is note that you are making empty claims. I have also noted that (unlike you and contrary to your claim) Mark Levin is not just an attorney, but Constitutional scholar. Unlike you (but very much like Judge Vinson), Mark Levin appreciates the need to support his contentions -- and HE did so. You have YET to even try.

So, yes. Your claims ARE indeed empty and baseless. Your purported "argument" is invalid since it premised on a fallacy. And by virtue of the fact that I have based my rejection of your position on such grounds, unlike you, I have supported my claims.

It's ok to admit what you have done to this point, Cuyo. You can rectify it. It's not too late. Just try SUPPORTING your claims by reference to facts and with regard to some kind of logical syllogism. But, based on what I have seen of your posting history, I suspect you will, instead, deflect, change the subject or evade doing any such thing as might support your claims.

 

[Cuyo]

Wrong again. I have instead been listening to Mark Levin who --despite your desperate urge to repeat your baseless and unsupported blather -- is nothing even remotely akin to an idiot. He is, instead, as I correctly noted, more likely a genius. He, unlike you, happens to be a genuine expert.

You have no substance to support any part of your position; thus you are reduced to mindlessly repeating your invalid empty claim. And repeating them as you do still doesn't make them any less untrue nor does it put your lack of logical ability on any sounder footing.

In short, you have failed again. And you will always fail at least that badly when you try to foist of your unsupported empty opinions as facts.

Yes, "Mindlessly repeating [my] invalid empty claim."

Nothing like what you're doing.

You're right. It's not.

YOU made an empty claim. YOU keep repeating it. YOU offer nothing (as in not a single thing) to support your claims.

By stark contrast, all I have done is note that you are making empty claims. I have also noted that (unlike you and contrary to your claim) Mark Levin is not just an attorney, but Constitutional scholar. Unlike you (but very much like Judge Vinson), Mark Levin appreciates the need to support his contentions -- and HE did so. You have YET to even try.

So, yes. Your claims ARE indeed empty and baseless. Your purported "argument" is invalid since it premised on a fallacy. And by virtue of the fact that I have based my rejection of your position on such grounds, unlike you, I have supported my claims.

It's ok to admit what you have done to this point, Cuyo. You can rectify it. It's not too late. Just try SUPPORTING your claims by reference to facts and with regard to some kind of logical syllogism. But, based on what I have seen of your posting history, I suspect you will, instead, deflect, change the subject or evade doing any such thing as might support your claims.

You're almost there. Tell me just a little more, and you'll get me to concede that Mark fuckin' Levin is some kind of genius.

He's a nutter. I've listened to him, and I can't see how anyone can listen to that kind of dreck for more than 10 seconds.

You're entitled to your opinion - But it is, in this case, wrong.

 

[Liability]

Yes, "Mindlessly repeating [my] invalid empty claim."

Nothing like what you're doing.

You're right. It's not.

YOU made an empty claim. YOU keep repeating it. YOU offer nothing (as in not a single thing) to support your claims.

By stark contrast, all I have done is note that you are making empty claims. I have also noted that (unlike you and contrary to your claim) Mark Levin is not just an attorney, but Constitutional scholar. Unlike you (but very much like Judge Vinson), Mark Levin appreciates the need to support his contentions -- and HE did so. You have YET to even try.

So, yes. Your claims ARE indeed empty and baseless. Your purported "argument" is invalid since it premised on a fallacy. And by virtue of the fact that I have based my rejection of your position on such grounds, unlike you, I have supported my claims.

It's ok to admit what you have done to this point, Cuyo. You can rectify it. It's not too late. Just try SUPPORTING your claims by reference to facts and with regard to some kind of logical syllogism. But, based on what I have seen of your posting history, I suspect you will, instead, deflect, change the subject or evade doing any such thing as might support your claims.

You're almost there. Tell me just a little more, and you'll get me to concede that Mark fuckin' Levin is some kind of genius.

He's a nutter. I've listened to him, and I can't see how anyone can listen to that kind of dreck for more than 10 seconds.

You're entitled to your opinion - But it is, in this case, wrong.

As I said. You have nothing.

Take away your pitiable reliance on the fallacy you are attempting to use and what's left is starkly revealed:

You are completely unable to even BEGIN to refute ANYTHING Mark Levin has said.

 

[Dr Grump]

I just love it how the ignorant try to think they have the 'win' on the educated. It never fails to amaze how the uneducated right-wing whackos are always belittling the educated. Bit like short man's disease.

Liability - Levin is a bona fide whackjob...the fact you spruik him just adds weight to the argument...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

A wacko? hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims.

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.

I'm not a self-proclaimed anything. I earned my title.

how 'bout you? logic sure as hell isn't your strong suit.

as for levin... he's a wacko... and anyone who's really an attorney knows that and he should be ashamed of himself.

and i don't debate losers.

real simple. if someone has a point to make, i stay around.

if they're a pathetic troll like the o/p, i stay as long as it takes to figure out they're not worth talking to.

same reason i'd never debate *you*. nothing to be gained by trying to teach pigs to talk.

I have a particular aversion to wasting my time on people who are both ignorant and nasty.


you know... like you.

You're full of shit and you know it. You are a self proclaimed attorney for the simple fact that no one on this board has made that proclamation on your behalf.

Truth be told you refuse to debate me simply because I would wipe the floor with your goofy ass.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

A wacko? hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims.

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.

Jilly has demonstrated (in the past) an ability to discuss legal matters in an intelligent fashion. I don't doubt that she is an attorney. In her field, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she's a talented attorney.

But when it comes to her political ramblings intersecting with the law -- such as Mark Levin has been discussing -- she permits her political bias to cloud her thinking. Then, she resorts to the kind of juvenile behavior she is quick to condemn in others. It's pretty pathetic.

The fact is, Mark Levin is a noted legal scholar. He heads a conservative legal foundation which has been active in taking on important (and thorny) legal issues of our time. One can agree or disagree with some of his legal opinions, which is very common in legal debate. But to dismiss his position in the facially fallacious manner of pretending that he, himself, is worthy only of invective and dismissal is quite obviously an invalid manner of discussing his contentions.

Jilly, in THIS matter, has proved herself to be both petty and unpersuasive

And now that I have said that, she is very likely to come back "swinging" again with more ad hominem blather directed at me and/or Mark Levin and/or anybody else who sees what she's been doing. Ho hum.

I respectively have to disagree with you because I doubt she's an attorney. Attorney's don't run away when asked to provide evidence of claims and she has done that on numerous occasions. If I had the time and/or the desire I could show examples, but anyone that follows this board already knows this to be true and she has acknowledged as much in her earlier response to me.

 

[Dr Grump]

A wacko? hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims.

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.

I'm not a self-proclaimed anything. I earned my title.

how 'bout you? logic sure as hell isn't your strong suit.

as for levin... he's a wacko... and anyone who's really an attorney knows that and he should be ashamed of himself.

and i don't debate losers.

real simple. if someone has a point to make, i stay around.

if they're a pathetic troll like the o/p, i stay as long as it takes to figure out they're not worth talking to.

same reason i'd never debate *you*. nothing to be gained by trying to teach pigs to talk.

I have a particular aversion to wasting my time on people who are both ignorant and nasty.


you know... like you.

You're full of shit and you know it. You are a self proclaimed attorney for the simple fact that no one on this board has made that proclamation on your behalf.

Truth be told you refuse to debate me simply because I would wipe the floor with your goofy ass.

I know for a fact she is an attorney. She works in court every day of her working week.

In the 9 years I have been on this board I have not seen anybody come close to kicking her arse on points of law.

I have seen her have vigorous debates with informed, intelligent righties that have been interesting and informative.

Yourself, Liability and the OP starter do not fit into that category.

You know, trying to belittle somebody's bona fides because they:
1) know what they are talking about
2) disagree with your POV
3) have years of knowledge on the subject to back up their POV

does nothing to enhance your POV.

You do realise that the only people who agree with the likes of yourself and Liability and all others that question her education are just the peanut gallery? To those of us who agree with her POV and the political neutrals, you guys just reinforce the neocon, whackjob stereotype we have of you....

Shouting from the roof with a bunch of sheep as your audience doesn't mean you're right, it just means you are appealing to the lowest common denominator on your side of the argument. Hardly compelling...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I just love it how the ignorant try to think they have the 'win' on the educated. It never fails to amaze how the uneducated right-wing whackos are always belittling the educated. Bit like short man's disease.

Liability - Levin is a bona fide whackjob...the fact you spruik him just adds weight to the argument...

What evidence do you have that "Levin is a bona fide whackjob"?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm not a self-proclaimed anything. I earned my title.

how 'bout you? logic sure as hell isn't your strong suit.

as for levin... he's a wacko... and anyone who's really an attorney knows that and he should be ashamed of himself.

and i don't debate losers.

real simple. if someone has a point to make, i stay around.

if they're a pathetic troll like the o/p, i stay as long as it takes to figure out they're not worth talking to.

same reason i'd never debate *you*. nothing to be gained by trying to teach pigs to talk.

I have a particular aversion to wasting my time on people who are both ignorant and nasty.


you know... like you.

You're full of shit and you know it. You are a self proclaimed attorney for the simple fact that no one on this board has made that proclamation on your behalf.

Truth be told you refuse to debate me simply because I would wipe the floor with your goofy ass.

I know for a fact she is an attorney. She works in court every day of her working week.

In the 9 years I have been on this board I have not seen anybody come close to kicking her arse on points of law.

I have seen her have vigorous debates with informed, intelligent righties that have been interesting and informative.

Yourself, Liability and the OP starter do not fit into that category.

You know, trying to belittle somebody's bona fides because they:
1) know what they are talking about
2) disagree with your POV
3) have years of knowledge on the subject to back up their POV

does nothing to enhance your POV.

You do realise that the only people who agree with the likes of yourself and Liability and all others that question her education and just the peanut gallery. To those of us who agree with her POV and the political neutrals, you guys just reinforce the neocon, whackjob opinion we have on you....

Shouting from the roof with a bunch of sheep as your audience doesn't mean you're right, it just means you are appealing to the lowest common denominator on your side of the argument. Hardly compelling...

Your credibility is worthless. She shied away from every challenge I've raised. An attorney indeed.

 

[gekaap]

You didnt read the OP did you? A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BY DEFAULT AN INJUNCTION! This portion of the court ruling is sourced, linked, highlighted, typed in red, underlined, and in bold in the OP of this thread. HOW COULD YOU MISS IT? READ IT! I'm tired of explaining the same stuff over and over again. I hate it when people make comments on topics they dont know about in threads they refuse to read when all the subject has already been explained in the op.

I read the OP. What YOU fail to understand is that the court does not issue an injunction in such a case is not because the ruling itself has injunctive authority and power. Think of this as a professional courtesy. The judiciary is presuming the integrity of the executive branch to do the right thing without the need for issuing an injunction. Of course, this does not always happen, and last November when DADT was ruled unconstutitional the court issued an injunction (though they injunction was put on hold by the appellate court when the Justice Dept. appealed the case). Therefore, it did not issue one. However, in order to maintain a case that there has been violation of a court order, an actual injunction would have to be issued.

This reminds me of a case I read about 6 years ago, maybe longer. Basically, something along the lines of a defendant's failed suppression motion in district court was overturned in circuit court, and the defendant appealed the after conviction. Somewhere along the way he was supposed to be released from prison because his conviction was supposed to be overturned, but the lower court refused to cooperate. Going back to the appellate court, he petitioned for mandamus, and while being granted the appellate court refrained from issuing the writ, noting that it presumed the lower court would have the integrity to honor the higher court's ruling. The higher court promised to issue the writ if the lower court continued to refuse compliance, but only if it became necessary.

So, what we have here is the judiciary presuming that the executive branch will do the right thing, and act in accordance with the court's ruling. However, this professional courtesy being violated does not establish a case for the non-compliance with a court order. If the President makes the unfortunate and highly unprofessional decision to ignore it, then the court will have to take the step of actually issuing the injunction.

Of course, the President also has the option of appealing the ruling, and requesting a temporary relief from any injunctive prevention of applying the law while the case is on appeal.

 

[jillian]

Your credibility is worthless. She shied away from every challenge I've raised. An attorney indeed.

no one's shied away from anything.

i don't 'debate' stupidity.

you can make yourself feel better by ignoring that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your credibility is worthless. She shied away from every challenge I've raised. An attorney indeed.

no one's shied away from anything.

i don't 'debate' stupidity.

you can make yourself feel better by ignoring that.

What you don't do is provide evidence when challenged. Now you can spin it anyway you want counselor, but the facts are the facts.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

yes they should.

on what basis?

levin's a wacko

I didn't watch the vid of levin as when I see his face i get the strange urge to punch things.

I think that they should sue the admin if they (administration) don't halt anything related to that law immediately until the S.C. gets to decide on the case. Once part of a law is deemed unconstitutional the entire law is supposed to end.

If they win they win if they lose they lose. Eitehr way they should stick to their convictions on it and use the power of the constitution, through this Judge's decision, to stop a law they don't like.

EDIT: And no I dont want to impeach obama through this......i'd rather vote him out in 2012.