Vinson issues stay of his own ruling

[Greenbeard]

That's a bit amusing:

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday issued a stay of his own ruling against the Obama health care act, allowing the law to remain fully in effect while being appealed, eventually to the Supreme Court.

The Florida case is one of two in which judges have found a central provision of the law unconstitutional. But it is the only case in which a judge struck down the entire law, and suggested that implementation should halt during an appellate process that could stretch for two years.

Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, who ruled on Jan. 31 that the entire law was invalid, issued the stay without a specific request from the Obama administration. The Justice Department, which represents the administration, had asked Judge Vinson to clarify his January ruling, which the judge had characterized as the “functional equivalent” of an injunction to suspend the law.

Apparently he wrote his ruling against the law with the assumption that 1) it would halt implementation, 2) it would immediately result in a stay being issued by someone else, resuming implementation, with the ultimate practical result that 3) implementation would never actually cease.

Since, to his annoyance, that didn't happen, he granted the administration a stay of his ruling today without them asking him for one. So nothing has changed, except the handful of governors who wanted to use Vinson's decision as cover for ceasing implementation (some of them in contradiction to independent legal opinions offered by their state governments) no longer have that cover.

 

[jillian]

I can't believe a federal judge is so ignorant that he thought the determination of one district court would automatically stay the implementation of a federal law.

 

[Greenbeard]

He does seem a bit bewildered in his "clarification" by what the implications of his ruling out to be.

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.

 

[The T]

Whatever the case? He gave Obama 7 days...or face a huge problem.

He is holding Obama in contempt. The judge is pissed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a bit amusing:

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday issued a stay of his own ruling against the Obama health care act, allowing the law to remain fully in effect while being appealed, eventually to the Supreme Court.

The Florida case is one of two in which judges have found a central provision of the law unconstitutional. But it is the only case in which a judge struck down the entire law, and suggested that implementation should halt during an appellate process that could stretch for two years.

Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, who ruled on Jan. 31 that the entire law was invalid, issued the stay without a specific request from the Obama administration. The Justice Department, which represents the administration, had asked Judge Vinson to clarify his January ruling, which the judge had characterized as the “functional equivalent” of an injunction to suspend the law.

Apparently he wrote his ruling against the law with the assumption that 1) it would halt implementation, 2) it would immediately result in a stay being issued by someone else, resuming implementation, with the ultimate practical result that 3) implementation would never actually cease.

Since, to his annoyance, that didn't happen, he granted the administration a stay of his ruling today without them asking him for one. So nothing has changed, except the handful of governors who wanted to use Vinson's decision as cover for ceasing implementation (some of them in contradiction to independent legal opinions offered by their state governments) no longer have that cover.

What an interesting interpretation of the facts.

He issued his ruling, and the government demands a clarification, arguing that it would be impossible to follow his ruling because he was not clear about what is, and is not, permitted. He then issues the clarification, and also gives the government 7 days to appeal before they are required to cease and desist.

How exactly did you follow that train of logic to the leap that he expected someone else to issue a stay? Or that he is annoyed because the government did not immediately listen to him?

 

[Trajan]

wow, back from the dead!Missed you!

hows that implementation going long term going term thing GB?

 

[driveby]

It took the government weeks to ask for clarification?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you surprised the government is slow?

 

[Greenbeard]

How exactly did you follow that train of logic to the leap that he expected someone else to issue a stay?

I arrived at it by reading what he wrote today:

To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure.

[...]

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.

 

[driveby]

Are you surprised the government is slow?

But this is even beyond BP oil spill slow, christ......


What i really think is that this is just this administration giving the middle finger yet again.........

 

[The T]

It took the government weeks to ask for clarification?

They're dragging their feet in an attempt to get so many onboard with the law it can be then argued that it cannot be repealed.

It's a typical Statist tactic, and why we are in such a welofare state of affairs...

Obama knew that the Judge rendered the law ineffective...moot...UnConstitutional...Obama is really pushing his office towards Impeachment by ignoring these other branches of government...

 

[The T]

Are you surprised the government is slow?

But this is even beyond BP oil spill slow, christ......


What i really think is that this is just this administration giving the middle finger yet again.........

And they are.

 

[The T]

Are you surprised the government is slow?

But this is even beyond BP oil spill slow, christ......


What i really think is that this is just this administration giving the middle finger yet again.........

it's a STALL with no real legal recourse...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How exactly did you follow that train of logic to the leap that he expected someone else to issue a stay?

I arrived at it by reading what he wrote today:

To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure.

[...]

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.

Let me attempt to explain to you how the courts work. The judge hands down a ruling, and you have three basic choices. You can follow that ruling, appeal it, or ignore it.

The feds are handed a sound defeat on the PPACA, and told that the entire law is unconstitutional. They are obviously confused, dither around for a few weeks, and go back to the judge and ask him to clarify his ruling.

Excuse me you honor, Judge Vinson, sir. We seem to have some trouble understanding English, and have also lost our rule book on court procedures. We think that when you said that the law was unconstitutional what you meant was that we could still force the other side to do things our way. Could you please tell them that for us, because they seem to think it means they do not have to do it.

Then you, in your unsurpassed understanding of the legal system, take his annoyance at having to deal with a motion that should never have been filed with him in the first place, as him expecting someone else to have magically issued a stay, even though no one asked for one.

Just because the DoJ wanted to stall and let the appeal go up through a circuit they believe would be more favorably disposed toward a ruling in favor of the PPACA does not mean they are not bound by this decision.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you surprised the government is slow?

But this is even beyond BP oil spill slow, christ......


What i really think is that this is just this administration giving the middle finger yet again.........

Pretty much. The decision was pretty clear when he handed it down. He did not issue an injunction because the decision made the entire law unenforceable, and the DoJ was hoping that the whole thing would disappear. Stupid of them, in my opinion.

 

[Greenbeard]

Excuse me you honor, Judge Vinson, sir. We seem to have some trouble understanding English, and have also lost our rule book on court procedures. We think that when you said that the law was unconstitutional what you meant was that we could still force the other side to do things our way. Could you please tell them that for us, because they seem to think it means they do not have to do it.

To repeat what's already been posted in this thread, Vinson himself admitted that the vast uncertainty created by his ruling (the implications of which he acknowledges--by pointing out he has no idea what the status of the law should be in Michigan--he still hasn't fully thought out yet ) would make it "difficult to deny" a stay.

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.

Couple that with the fact that you now have state-level legal opinions (like the one issued by the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency) suggesting the ruling has no force outside of the 11th circuit. Very clear cut.

As in his original ruling, his logic eats itself. His order was "clear and unambiguous as it could be," yet a stay and expedited appeal are necessary--and therefore the stay is granted--because no one has any idea what the ruling means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Excuse me you honor, Judge Vinson, sir. We seem to have some trouble understanding English, and have also lost our rule book on court procedures. We think that when you said that the law was unconstitutional what you meant was that we could still force the other side to do things our way. Could you please tell them that for us, because they seem to think it means they do not have to do it.

To repeat what's already been posted in this thread, Vinson himself admitted that the vast uncertainty created by his ruling (the implications of which he acknowledges--by pointing out he has no idea what the status of the law should be in Michigan--he still hasn't fully thought out yet ) would make it "difficult to deny" a stay.

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.

Couple that with the fact that you now have state-level legal opinions (like the one issued by the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency) suggesting the ruling has no force outside of the 11th circuit. Very clear cut.

As in his original ruling, his logic eats itself. His order was "clear and unambiguous as it could be," yet a stay and expedited appeal are necessary--and therefore the stay is granted--because no one has any idea what the ruling means.

So, his decision, and the conflicting decisions, create uncertainty. Are you trying to argue that there has never been uncertainty, or conflicting decisions, before? That the government, for the first time in history, had to decide between following conflicting court orders?

If so, I will simply point to DOMA, which the Supreme Court has already ruled constitutional. They also ruled that strict scrutiny did not aplly to that law. Nonetheless, a district judge in California decided to apply strict scrutiny, and rule that DOMA is unconstitutional. Did the government dither and wonder how to reconcile the previous Supreme Court rulings with that of the District judge? Did they file for a clarification of what that judge actually meant when he said that DOMA is unconstitutional?

So, tell me again, what is your point? Do you rally have one, other than you are completely ignorant about the judicial system? Is that why you posted a thread that obviously belongs in the Law and the Justice System topic in Healthcare?

Judge Vinson was not upset that no one else issued a stay. He made a ruling that actually forces the government to take the damn case out of his court, and they will do so. They wanted to dither around and keep it out of the 11th Circuit, now they cannot.

Remember how you told me I have not read the whole law, and I did not understand it? (Something I completely agreed with by the way.) You cannot take one judge's ruling on a motion he should never have had to deal with and jump to conclusions about what it means. If you actually want to actually discuss this decision on its merits, you might actually take the time to think that he issued an order granting the governments request for a stay, even though they never requested one.

You are completely unqualified to discuss what is, and is not, going through Judge Vinsons's mind. Stop trying, you just look stupid.

 

[Greenbeard]

So, tell me again, what is your point? Do you rally have one, other than you are completely ignorant about the judicial system? Is that why you posted a thread that obviously belongs in the Law and the Justice System topic in Healthcare?

Get a grip, chief, you're coming a bit unhinged.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, tell me again, what is your point? Do you rally have one, other than you are completely ignorant about the judicial system? Is that why you posted a thread that obviously belongs in the Law and the Justice System topic in Healthcare?

Get a grip, chief, you're coming a bit unhinged.

Thank you for admitting you have no point.

 

[GWV5903]

The obvious issue is the WH & the DOJ do not want it to reach the SC quit so fast, all of this dribble about Vinson's ruling is useless, he achived what he set out to do, put it in front of the SC as fast as possible. Like it or not, Obamacare will more than likely end up in the trash can....