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

[jillian]

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

someone needs to tell him that just because a state brings a legal challenge to a law doesn't mean the state 'overturns' it. states don't have authority to overturn federal law.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

Whining? You mean mean laughing.

I find your posts too stupid to reply too. Other people, who actually know the law, have responded to your silly points.

 

[The Hatter]

Why isn't this crap in conspiracy theories? Or at least the Romper Room.

Magic double super secret phantom default injunctions. Where do they come up with this shit?

 

[xotoxi]

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.

Can't he just pardon himself?

 

[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....

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

my bad, i thought the first sentence stood alone, by law, you meant the health care law....

 

[Publius1787]

We have a winner here!

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

Whining? You mean mean laughing.

I find your posts too stupid to reply too. Other people, who actually know the law, have responded to your silly points.

You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them.

Oh, and other people who know the law? Like whom? I think the judges opinion is as clear as day itself.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Whining? You mean mean laughing.

I find your posts too stupid to reply too. Other people, who actually know the law, have responded to your silly points.

You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them.

Oh, and other people who know the law? Like whom? I think the judges opinion is as clear as day itself.

Why do people insist on making fools of themselves in public forums. If this was a place where people knew everybody's real names etc, I be there would be a lot more circumspect debating going on.

You are an idiot.

You do realise that judges from all over the place make these decisions every day, right? And that if what you said WAS true (in case you haven't figured it out yet, we've been trying to tell you it's not) then the judicial system would be in gridlock because they would be over ruling each other left, right and centre.

So there are two explanations. You are either a troll. Or you are stupid.Take your pick...

 

[geauxtohell]

You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them.

Oh, and other people who know the law? Like whom? I think the judges opinion is as clear as day itself.

I replied before I figured out that you were stupid.

I'll let you figure out the posters on here who actually know what they are talking about.

*hint* *hint* They are the ones that are discussing technical details.

But hey, keep holding out for that impeachment.

Just don't hold your breath.

 

[Liability]

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.

Nonsense, Jilly. Nonsense. You need to rethink that "logic."

The Judge himself stated (quite clearly and with case law authority backing up his words) that there was no need for him to order a "stay" of any further enforcement of the law.

Page 75 of 78
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefen joining 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 the Executive 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. on Judiciary 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 declared by 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 is not necessary.

Health Care Ruling by Judge Vinson

So, Jilly, unless you care to try to refute the Judge's legal analysis (and good fucking luck; you'll need it), you could just as easily admit that he has a valid point. And you should.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Nonsense, Jilly. Nonsense. You need to rethink that "logic."

The Judge himself stated (quite clearly and with case law authority backing up his words) that there was no need for him to order a "stay" of any further enforcement of the law.

Page 75 of 78
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefen joining 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 the Executive 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. on Judiciary 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 declared by 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 is not necessary.

Health Care Ruling by Judge Vinson

So, Jilly, unless you care to try to refute the Judge's legal analysis (and good fucking luck; you'll need it), you could just as easily admit that he has a valid point. And you should.

Having a valid point and it being applied to law are two different things...I don't see Jill mentioning the validity of the points he was making. you?

 

[jillian]

You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them.

Oh, and other people who know the law? Like whom? I think the judges opinion is as clear as day itself.

I replied before I figured out that you were stupid.

I'll let you figure out the posters on here who actually know what they are talking about.

*hint* *hint* They are the ones that are discussing technical details.

But hey, keep holding out for that impeachment.

Just don't hold your breath.

Actually, I wish he would hold his breath.

 

[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.

Nonsense, Jilly. Nonsense. You need to rethink that "logic."

The Judge himself stated (quite clearly and with case law authority backing up his words) that there was no need for him to order a "stay" of any further enforcement of the law.

Page 75 of 78
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefen joining 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 the Executive 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. on Judiciary 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 declared by 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 is not necessary.

Health Care Ruling by Judge Vinson

So, Jilly, unless you care to try to refute the Judge's legal analysis (and good fucking luck; you'll need it), you could just as easily admit that he has a valid point. And you should.

Having a valid point and it being applied to law are two different things...I don't see Jill mentioning the validity of the points he was making. you?

Liability's funny. He thinks it impresses people to call me 'jilly', like that somehow is going to make me take him seriously.

and as you stated, we weren't discussing the merits (or lack thereof() of the judges' decision. we were educating the imbecile troll o/p on when someone can be held incontempt.

i think liability needs to learn to read with comprehension.

 

[Liability]

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.

Nonsense, Jilly. Nonsense. You need to rethink that "logic."

The Judge himself stated (quite clearly and with case law authority backing up his words) that there was no need for him to order a "stay" of any further enforcement of the law.

Page 75 of 78
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefen joining 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 the Executive 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. on Judiciary 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 declared by 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 is not necessary.

Health Care Ruling by Judge Vinson

So, Jilly, unless you care to try to refute the Judge's legal analysis (and good fucking luck; you'll need it), you could just as easily admit that he has a valid point. And you should.

Having a valid point and it being applied to law are two different things...I don't see Jill mentioning the validity of the points he was making. you?

Oh please. Jilly is capable of some sound arguments, but your defense of her in this matter is undertaken where she fails to even try to make a sound argument. What she SAID, Dr. Grump, was "no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota... "

If you think that means something other than HER making the claim that Judge Vinson's order does not stay enforcement of the Obamacare law, then I suppose I'd need to hear how you come to that conclusion.

And she doesn't merely make that contention either. She says, in effect, that one is an idiot (or an "idiota" whatever the fuck she might mean by that) for believing differently than what she is maintaining.

I notice that Jilly (I call her Jilly by the way because it's shorter, and she has never objected, until today, to my knowledge) NOW claims that she "wasn't" discussing the MERITS. But, of course, the truth is: yes she was discussing the merits of that point.

The MERITS of the matter which was under discussion (i.e., whether or not the Judge's declaratory judgment works as a "stay") was exactly what she was dismissively discussing when she noted her contention and suggested that anybody who was arguing to the contrary was an idiot.

IF Jilly cares to try being a bit more honest, there is room to debate whether Judge Vinson's analysis on THAT point is legally correct or not. But her position is neither self-evidently true nor is it true that folks who disagree with her views are "idiots" or "idiota."

It's actually pretty straightforward. Either Judge Vinson's discussion of the effect of his declaratory judgment serving as a "stay" is right or Judge Vinson is somehow mistaken on that point.

I'm not as "civil" as Jilly, but I'd suggest that one is not an "idiota" for accepting Judge Vinson's legal analysis. One need not be an idiot for disagreeing with him, either. But as long as there's room to debate that point, it is plainly silly of Jilly to "argue" her position the way she did.

 

[Cuyo]

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

You posted Mark Levin. This is proof positive that you're an idiot.

You cannot recover from this. Levin-idiocy is fo-eva.

 

[Liability]

And one more point stemming from the contention that Judge Vinson's declaratory judgment serves as a stay:

Assuming for the moment that Judge Vinson is correct, and the declaratory judgment voiding the Obamacare law in its entirety does serve as a "stay," then there is nothing either "trollish" nor necessarily irrational about discussing what happens if that stay is ignored by the Obama Administration. One enforcement method for a violation of a "stay" IS a contempt proceeding.

Once again, there is plenty of room for debate. Good points can be made (and in other arenas, some of them have already been made) on either side of that issue. But, since there IS valid room for debate, the claim that the 'trolls" are "ignorant" and need "educating" is really just a supercilious way of dismissing their entire argument without bothering to defend your own side of the debate. To couch your "argument" in that form is not even remotely a valid form of argument. That's for sure.

 

[Liability]

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

You posted Mark Levin. This is proof positive that you're an idiot.

You cannot recover from this. Levin-idiocy is fo-eva.

Nope. YOUR argument is lazy nonsense.

In actuality, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar. He is a sound legal analyst. He is not remotely an "idiot." In fact, he is probably a genius in a literal sense.

What YOU are saying Cuyo (in a very juvenile manner) is that you disagree with Mark Levin. Whoopity doo. You're allowed to disagree. But the BASIS for your disagreement is not so much as even stated by you. Mark Levin (like Judge Vinson's decision) spells out the basis for HIS side of the argument. You just engage in a very superficial fallacy. Sadly, this tends to paint you as looking like the idiot.

 

[Cuyo]

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

You posted Mark Levin. This is proof positive that you're an idiot.

You cannot recover from this. Levin-idiocy is fo-eva.

Nope. YOUR argument is lazy nonsense.

In actuality, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar. He is a sound legal analyst. He is not remotely an "idiot." In fact, he is probably a genius in a literal sense.

What YOU are saying Cuyo (in a very juvenile manner) is that you disagree with Mark Levin. Whoopity doo. You're allowed to disagree. But the BASIS for your disagreement is not so much as even stated by you. Mark Levin (like Judge Vinson's decision) spells out the basis for HIS side of the argument. You just engage in a very superficial fallacy. Sadly, this tends to paint you as looking like the idiot.

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

 

[Liability]

You posted Mark Levin. This is proof positive that you're an idiot.

You cannot recover from this. Levin-idiocy is fo-eva.

Nope. YOUR argument is lazy nonsense.

In actuality, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar. He is a sound legal analyst. He is not remotely an "idiot." In fact, he is probably a genius in a literal sense.

What YOU are saying Cuyo (in a very juvenile manner) is that you disagree with Mark Levin. Whoopity doo. You're allowed to disagree. But the BASIS for your disagreement is not so much as even stated by you. Mark Levin (like Judge Vinson's decision) spells out the basis for HIS side of the argument. You just engage in a very superficial fallacy. Sadly, this tends to paint you as looking like the idiot.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Cuyo]

Nope. YOUR argument is lazy nonsense.

In actuality, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar. He is a sound legal analyst. He is not remotely an "idiot." In fact, he is probably a genius in a literal sense.

What YOU are saying Cuyo (in a very juvenile manner) is that you disagree with Mark Levin. Whoopity doo. You're allowed to disagree. But the BASIS for your disagreement is not so much as even stated by you. Mark Levin (like Judge Vinson's decision) spells out the basis for HIS side of the argument. You just engage in a very superficial fallacy. Sadly, this tends to paint you as looking like the idiot.

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.