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

[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...

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

Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxllLkYwrAI&feature=related[/ame]

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
This guy isn't interested in debate. He is only interested in the sound of his own voice and shouting other people down.

Yeah, Levin is a great American and a great example of trying to get things right... More like a great example of somebody who only cares about ratings and uses his bullypulpit to discern right-wing talking point....

A whackjob he is, a whackjob he remains.....

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Dood... He's an idiot. Perhaps not in the sense of low IQ's, bad reasoning skills, etc, but I've listened to his program and it's nothing more than extremely partisan, reactionary shock-jockery. There's nothing of substance to be seen. Everything the Democrats do is wrong. The black POTUS is Satan. Progressivism is the worst evil ever seen by mankind. Derkha Derkha mull sherpa herp-a-derp CONSTITUTION! He sounds like "The T," who I've suspected actually is Mark Levin. There's no actual connections made, it's just a bunch of shouting.

Like I said, an idiot. No I can't "Prove" it in black and white, so maybe it's just my opinion, and you're welcome to your own. But if your opinion is that he's anything but a loon (either genuine or manufactured), then your opinion is wrong.

 

[Publius1787]

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...

Wow! Just wow! It doesent matter if a million judges rule this law as constitutional. It only takes one federal judge to rule a law unconstituional. THATS IT! This is fact. It is beyond debate. Ask any lawyer or judge in the United States.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Your out of your mind! THERE IS NO LAW TO DELIVER AND INJUCTION FOR. This ruling is final until a stay is granted or after an appeal! To date no stay has been granted. Every day Obama fails to stop implementing Obamacare is the equivilant of braking his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. For three days now he has defied this court order. You do not get to defy a court ruling without a stay!

 

[Publius1787]

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.

The day you work for presidential administration, practice constitutional law, own your own legal foundation, and pass the bar exam as levin has, is the day you can claim that Mark Levin, A LAWYER, is the day you can claim that Levin has no credebility.
Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx

 

[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.

The day you work for presidential administration, practice constitutional law, own your own legal foundation, and pass the bar exam as levin has, is the day you can claim that Mark Levin, A LAWYER, is the day you can claim that Levin has no credebility.
Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Landmark Legal Foundation

He's an idiot. If you listen to him and think he's brilliant... Well sir, that makes you an idiot as well.

 

[Dr Grump]

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...

Wow! Just wow! It doesent matter if a million judges rule this law as constitutional. It only takes one federal judge to rule a law unconstituional. THATS IT! This is fact. It is beyond debate. Ask any lawyer or judge in the United States.

No. All he has done is state in his opinion it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.

 

[gekaap]

Your out of your mind! THERE IS NO LAW TO DELIVER AND INJUCTION FOR. This ruling is final until a stay is granted or after an appeal! To date no stay has been granted. Every day Obama fails to stop implementing Obamacare is the equivilant of braking his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. For three days now he has defied this court order. You do not get to defy a court ruling without a stay!

I am neither out of my mind, nor is there any court order. Why are Republicans always looking to impeach Presidents, so much so they strain reason into absurdity? Why not confront him in the political arena, fight him on his merits or lack thereof.

 

[gekaap]

No. All he has done is state in his opinion it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.

Actually, this is not true. I'm afraid you don't understand how the procedural factors come into play.

When a person sues the government claiming that a given law is unconstitutional, they are the ones with the primary burden of proof. When a court rules against that person, they are in essence saying that the person bring suit has not fulfilled their burden. Another court can hear a similar case, and subsequently decide that the plaintiff has fulfilled their burden and then decide the law is unconstitutional. The fact that another court of equal level held differently does not negate the ruling of unconstitutionality.

The thing is that the ruling itself does not have any power to compel action. An injunction preventing the government from enforcing the law has to follow in order to compel action. The question does not have to be taken to the Supreme Court. But usually, the government will appeal such a ruling, and that appellate process might end up going to the Supreme Court (or it might not).

 

[Dr Grump]

No. All he has done is state in his opinion it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.

Actually, this is not true. I'm afraid you don't understand how the procedural factors come into play.

When a person sues the government claiming that a given law is unconstitutional, they are the ones with the primary burden of proof. When a court rules against that person, they are in essence saying that the person bring suit has not fulfilled their burden. Another court can hear a similar case, and subsequently decide that the plaintiff has fulfilled their burden and then decide the law is unconstitutional. The fact that another court of equal level held differently does not negate the ruling of unconstitutionality.

The thing is that the ruling itself does not have any power to compel action. An injunction preventing the government from enforcing the law has to follow in order to compel action. The question does not have to be taken to the Supreme Court. But usually, the government will appeal such a ruling, and that appellate process might end up going to the Supreme Court (or it might not).

Thanks...I guess what I was trying to convey to our friend was that just because this particular judge made his ruling doesn't mean that is the end of it and his ruling is now law...

 

[NYcarbineer]

They should just pass the bill the GOP is putting up to let states opt out of the mandate. Then the constitutional question is settled, plus, the bonus is,

the individual states would have to fuck over their in-state insurance companies by taking away the big pile of business they get from the mandate, while still leaving them obligated to cover anyone and everyone with pre-existing conditions!

 

[gekaap]

I don't see how an opt out will satisfy any constitutional question. If the health care bill is unconstitutional as an over reach of the government's powers, including a state level opt out feature won't do anything to satisfy that alleged over step.

 

[Liability]

Levin happens to be correct for the same reason that the Judge's ruling doesn't require (or logically even call for) the issuance of any "stay." A federal Judge has just voided the Obamacare law. A law determined to be unConstitutional is no law at all. It is legally a nullity. It is void ab initio.

Now it IS also true that the Obama Administration is not obligated to "take this lying down." They can, by Golly, APPEAL! But until and unless they do appeal and get a higher court to stay the effectiveness of the lower Court's ruling, as of this moment there is no longer any Obamacare law.

I believe the Administration will appeal. I have no idea if a higher Court will then "stay" the effectiveness of the Judge's ruling which declares the Obamacare law a legal nullity. But, let's say that they DO stay the effectiveness of the Judge's Declaratory Judgment. At that moment, it would become lawful (once again) to take Executive and Administrative actions to put the law slowly into effect.

But, in the end, the higher court might well affirm Judge Vinson's ruling. At that point, the law becomes (again) just a nullity. This sets the stage for SCOTUS action. They could issue another stay of the Circuit Court's ruling.

Alternatively, the Circuit Court COULD, in theory, reject the legal analysis offered by Judge Vinson and REVERSE. Fair enough. But that too would likely set the stage for the SCOTUS to provide the definitive ruling.

Who wants to bet that ultimately, once the SCOTUS decides this thing, the Obamacare "law" is going to get voided?

I am predicting that the final judicial word on the Obamacare law will affirm the determination just made by Judge Vinson on pretty much exactly the basis upon which he rendered his decision.

 

[Liability]

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...

No. He's actually not. Thae fact that all you andd your ilk are capable of doing is mindlessly repeating that unsupported (and unsupportable) bogus claim is evidence enough that he's on the right side since YOU disagree with him.

You can stand on your head and fart nickels out your ass for show, but you are clearly not able to refute anything Levin has said on this topic. I doubt you can do it relative to anything he says.

You guys are the bona fide whacks.

 

[Publius1787]

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...

Wow! Just wow! It doesent matter if a million judges rule this law as constitutional. It only takes one federal judge to rule a law unconstituional. THATS IT! This is fact. It is beyond debate. Ask any lawyer or judge in the United States.

No. All he has done is state in his opinion it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.

WOW! I usually refrain from calling people direct names but you are a moron. EVERY JUDGEMENT IN EVERY FEDERAL COURT TO INCLUDE THE SUPREME COURT IS CALLED AN OPINION! Are you telling me that if the Supreme Court Delivers an Opinion of "unconstitutional" on a particular matter the President of the United States does not need to abide by it because its called an opinion? Thats crazy talk! http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html . ALL RULINGS ARE OPINIONS!!!!

 

[Publius1787]

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

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

The day you work for presidential administration, practice constitutional law, own your own legal foundation, and pass the bar exam as levin has, is the day you can claim that Mark Levin, A LAWYER, is the day you can claim that Levin has no credebility.
Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Landmark Legal Foundation

He's an idiot. If you listen to him and think he's brilliant... Well sir, that makes you an idiot as well.

Nothing like an unfounded, unreferenced, and unsourced, opinion like yours to kick up a debate. I would ask on what grounds do you make this assumption but then again your only going to answer back with more name calling.

 

[Publius1787]

Wow! Just wow! It doesent matter if a million judges rule this law as constitutional. It only takes one federal judge to rule a law unconstituional. THATS IT! This is fact. It is beyond debate. Ask any lawyer or judge in the United States.

No. All he has done is state in his opinion it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.

WOW! I usually refrain from calling people direct names but you are a moron. EVERY JUDGEMENT IN EVERY FEDERAL COURT TO INCLUDE THE SUPREME COURT IS CALLED AN OPINION! Are you telling me that if the Supreme Court Delivers an Opinion of "unconstitutional" on a particular matter the President of the United States does not need to abide by it because its called an opinion? Thats crazy talk! FindLaw: Cases and Codes: Supreme Court Opinions . ALL RULINGS ARE OPINIONS!!!!

What? No response?

 

[BrianH]

So Obmam did it all?
None of the congresspersons from those 26 states voted for it?
Any of them re-elected last nov?

I personally believe they were either bought out or black-mailed. It was too coincidental that they didn't have enough votes a week before the vote and then all-of-a-suddent had enough to pass.... very suspicious IMO.

 

[BrianH]

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.

That's a new one coming from the left who doesn't even pretend to be great defenders of the constitution. What part of the constitution are conservatives unraveling?

Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome. Heck, one Conservative painter has Jesus handing it to the founding fathers.

What are the Conservatives unraveling? The ability of government to collect taxes and support the general welfare. The only thing the right seeks to uphold, is military spending. And even there they screw the pooch. They want a conquering military..not a defensive one.

They are not not unraveling the ability of the government to collect taxes, they are simply asking that the government not tax as much as the left wants to tax. It's a typical routine of both parties. The democratic party favors more taxes, the republican party favors less. As far as unraveling the constitution, it seems the left strives more to abolish and regulate constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment.... As far as conquering military, let's not forget that Truman(democrat) got us involved in Vietnam and South Korea immediately after WWII, JFK (democrat) got us more involved in Vietnam, Johnson (Democrat) took us to war in Vietnam, Clinton (democrat) took us to war in the Balkans in 1993. This notion that conservative republican presidents are the only one's who get us involved in war is ridiculous.

 

[Martin35]

A single judge gave a opinion ruling, he rulings are not equivalent to a ruling required to nullify a Congressional statute or Presidential implementation regardless of public sentiment.
Our system of laws are cumbersome in this regard not at all simplistic.
From the day this law was proposed it was known it would eventually see a Supreme court ruling by all the courts members.
Socialism is not a easy thing to sell to a people with aspirations of personal achievement, some of those dreams are unlimited,,, laws of this type are only the beginning of social restrictions for accumulating wealth,,, legally.