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

[goldcatt]

I can't believe this bullshit thread is still active.

The OP is an idiot. First of all, no State has "found" anything let alone 26, it's a Federal statute and a Federal question. The states file, they don't decide. Basic, bare bones jurisdictional issue there not to mention preschool level counting, and the OP blows it.

There have been 4, count 'em, 4 rulings in Federal District court on the health care law. Two found the law constitutional. The VA North judge found the mandate portion unconstitutional, properly partitioned it and issued no injunction since it doesn't even go into effect for 3 years and the Feds had already signaled their intent to appeal. This is the correct way to handle it, BTW, by law and precedent. The FL judge found the mandate portion unconstitutional and again, specifically declined to issue an order for an injunction.

Only orders are binding and actionable. This is one of the system's limitations on the powers of the judiciary, that only a direct order can engender contempt. I can't believe a self-professed constitutional "expert" doesn't know something that childishly simple, or that a self-professed "libertarian" would want to remove that limitation and give judges the unlimited power to cite those who simply disagree with their opinion.

But go ahead and try if it's that important to you. It would be funny to watch.

All 4 courts that ruled are on the same level, none of them can bind or overrule the others. So at this point basically it's just as constitutional as it is unconstitutional and vice versa until and unless we hear from the higher courts. That's a little simplified, but pragmatically how the situation is right now. *shrug*

The VA case will likely be the first to be heard on appeal since it's in the 4th's rocket docket. This issue has a long, long way to go before it can be resolved. My advice to you, Pubis, is to wipe the spittle off your monitor, grab a cold one and relax a little, sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Mini 14]

I'm sure its already been pointed out, but just in case.....

Its 28 States now, not 26.

 

[Mini 14]

Oh.....one other note:

Popular opinion is that this will skip the Appellate Courts and go straight to SCOTUS on the fast track.

Carry on

 

[goldcatt]

Oh.....one other note:

Popular opinion is that this will skip the Appellate Courts and go straight to SCOTUS on the fast track.

Carry on

That would also be unconstitutional. Which only goes to show the state of education in this country if that is, indeed, popular opinion.

But never fear, they picked VA North and the 4th as one of their test cases for a reason. It'll be shot up the line as quickly as possible. This particular judge in FL might have to wait for his chiding, but the VA case is the properly handled one anyway.

 

[Mini 14]

Oh.....one other note:

Popular opinion is that this will skip the Appellate Courts and go straight to SCOTUS on the fast track.

Carry on

That would also be unconstitutional. Which only goes to show the state of education in this country if that is, indeed, popular opinion.

But never fear, they picked VA North and the 4th as one of their test cases for a reason. It'll be shot up the line as quickly as possible. This particular judge in FL might have to wait for his chiding, but the VA case is the properly handled one anyway.

uhm.....no it isn't.

It is rare (VERY rare, actually), but it has been done before (precedent exists).

How could it possibly be unconstitutional????

The Appellate Courts exist to reduce the case burden on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS maintains the power to hear ANY case it wants, and their ruling is final.

I agree with the popular opinion here, that the SCOTUS will call the case directly, and issue the ultimate verdict as time is of the essence in this case. That being so, the appellate ruling would be immaterial and insignificant.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

If this happened, I'd laugh myself silly.

 

[Liability]

I can't believe this bullshit thread is still active.

The OP is an idiot. First of all, no State has "found" anything let alone 26, it's a Federal statute and a Federal question. The states file, they don't decide. Basic, bare bones jurisdictional issue there not to mention preschool level counting, and the OP blows it.

There have been 4, count 'em, 4 rulings in Federal District court on the health care law. Two found the law constitutional. The VA North judge found the mandate portion unconstitutional, properly partitioned it and issued no injunction since it doesn't even go into effect for 3 years and the Feds had already signaled their intent to appeal. This is the correct way to handle it, BTW, by law and precedent. The FL judge found the mandate portion unconstitutional and again, specifically declined to issue an order for an injunction.

Only orders are binding and actionable. This is one of the system's limitations on the powers of the judiciary, that only a direct order can engender contempt. I can't believe a self-professed constitutional "expert" doesn't know something that childishly simple, or that a self-professed "libertarian" would want to remove that limitation and give judges the unlimited power to cite those who simply disagree with their opinion.

But go ahead and try if it's that important to you. It would be funny to watch.

All 4 courts that ruled are on the same level, none of them can bind or overrule the others. So at this point basically it's just as constitutional as it is unconstitutional and vice versa until and unless we hear from the higher courts. That's a little simplified, but pragmatically how the situation is right now. *shrug*

The VA case will likely be the first to be heard on appeal since it's in the 4th's rocket docket. This issue has a long, long way to go before it can be resolved. My advice to you, Pubis, is to wipe the spittle off your monitor, grab a cold one and relax a little, sit back and enjoy the ride.

The Florida Judge, Judge Vinson, elected not to issue any injunction upon the ground, clearly stated by him, relying on case law, that since he had found the mandate portion to be unconstitutional and since that portion was not able to be validly severed from the rest of the law, the entire Obamacare law was unconstitutional. That being the case, and on the legal assumption that Federal parties would comply with a judicial determination (in this case the complete voiding of the Obamacare law), there was no need for any stay.

I highlighted part of GC's analysis because she is mistaken there. And, again, she's also wrong in (implicitly) saying that Judge Vinson voided ONLY the mandate portion of the law. That's incorrect. He very clearly ruled that the entire law was unconstitutional.

I'd be curious to know the legal theory relied upon by the Administration that justifies any efforts of any kind to put any part of a voided law into effect until and unless Judge Vinson's ruling is either stayed or reversed.

Furthermore, it is quite possible for the SCOTUS to take this case directly, now. I have no reason to believe they will. But that's different than saying that they cannot. Yes, they can.

According to court rules, petitions to bypass appellate review are granted only in cases that are of "such imperative public importance" that they require changing normal procedures.

Virginia to seek expedited Supreme Court review of suit over health-care law

In fact, one of the most famous times the SCOTUS granted an EXPEDITED review was in the Nixon case. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690 (1974)

AG Cuccinelli's application will be made, he maintains*, based upon Supreme Court Rules, Rule 11:

SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES
..Part III. Jurisdiction on Writ of Certiorari

Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment

A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).

See, SUPREME COURT RULES - Rule 11

________________
* 020311_HealthCare_Expedited

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's the mandate that's being claimed is unconstitutional. If you can opt out of a mandate, it's not a mandate.

 

[The T]

Oh.....one other note:

Popular opinion is that this will skip the Appellate Courts and go straight to SCOTUS on the fast track.

Carry on

That would also be unconstitutional. Which only goes to show the state of education in this country if that is, indeed, popular opinion.

But never fear, they picked VA North and the 4th as one of their test cases for a reason. It'll be shot up the line as quickly as possible. This particular judge in FL might have to wait for his chiding, but the VA case is the properly handled one anyway.

uhm.....no it isn't.

It is rare (VERY rare, actually), but it has been done before (precedent exists).

How could it possibly be unconstitutional????

The Appellate Courts exist to reduce the case burden on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS maintains the power to hear ANY case it wants, and their ruling is final.

I agree with the popular opinion here, that the SCOTUS will call the case directly, and issue the ultimate verdict as time is of the essence in this case. That being so, the appellate ruling would be immaterial and insignificant.

What the plan is by Obama, and the Statists is to press on and get people ensconced in the new law so far that it will be argued that it cannot be repealed due to the numbers of people enrolled.

For the Obama administration to put their noses in the air and just state that the Judge is just an activist, and plod on ignoring the ruling is just cause to put the Obama administration under close scrutiny.

Let us hope that the several States and their State's Attornies that are plantiffs are paying attention, and do move to hold Obama in Contempt of the ruling AND the Constitution istself.

 

[gekaap]

That would also be unconstitutional. Which only goes to show the state of education in this country if that is, indeed, popular opinion.

Untrue. The constitution grants the SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction in any case that involves a question of federal law. Statute provides for various procedural methods to appeal to the SCOTUS, including from district court, from state courts, and even appealing a case that is currently in appellate court and has not yet been decided.

 

[Liability]

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.

It's the mandate that's being claimed is unconstitutional. If you can opt out of a mandate, it's not a mandate.

If you can't grant yourself an opt out, it remains a mandate.

And if you can't nevertheless opt out without being fined (or worse) then it is absolutely still a mandate.

fuck. This stupid Administration can't even get its story straight on whether it is or isn't a tax.

 

[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.

It's the mandate that's being claimed is unconstitutional. If you can opt out of a mandate, it's not a mandate.

The arguments that keep being presented is that it is an overstep of the federal government's powers. If that is true, then no state level opt out measure will satisfy the alleged over step of power. The action still comes from the federal government, so it would still be unconstitutional.

 

[The T]

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.

It's the mandate that's being claimed is unconstitutional. If you can opt out of a mandate, it's not a mandate.

If you can't grant yourself an opt out, it remains a mandate.

And if you can't nevertheless opt out without being fined (or worse) then it is absolutely still a mandate.

fuck. This stupid Administration can't even get its story straight on whether it is or isn't a tax.

Indeed. The opt-out MUST be applied for and it's only good for a year from what I read. And just look who's asking for opt-outs...the very same folks that supported this abomination to begin with.

~Go figure

 

[Terral]

Hi Publius:

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

The answer is 'No.' Because Americans are unaware: Even an illegal alien foreign national squatting in the White House is NOT supposed to have any legislative agenda. Our three-tiered Federal Govt includes a Legislative Branch (House and Senate) that creates laws, an Administrative Branch that enforces the laws and a Judicial Branch that applies those laws to individual cases. Obama's job as the highest law enforcement officer in the USA is to ENFORCE laws like the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (wiki), which he is ignoring completely!

If Obama really wanted to create a single job, then he would do something about his 20 Million Man Illegal Alien Labor Pool! The people to hold accountable for ObamaCare are your elected representatives in both houses of the corrupt congress who are supposed to be providing 'Congressional Oversight' to ensure the Obama Administration enforces the rule of law.

The whole US system is imploding, so throw stones at Obama if that makes going down the toilet feel that much better ...

GL,

Terral

 

[The T]

Hi Publius:

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

The answer is 'No.' Because Americans are unaware: Even an illegal alien foreign national squatting in the White House is NOT supposed to have any legislative agenda. Our three-tiered Federal Govt includes a Legislative Branch (House and Senate) that creates laws, an Administrative Branch that enforces the laws and a Judicial Branch that applies those laws to individual cases. Obama's job as the highest law enforcement officer in the USA is to ENFORCE laws like the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (wiki), which he is ignoring completely!

If Obama really wanted to create a single job, then he would do something about his 20 Million Man Illegal Alien Labor Pool! The people to hold accountable for ObamaCare are your elected representatives in both houses of the corrupt congress who are supposed to be providing 'Congressional Oversight' to ensure the Obama Administration enforces the rule of law.

The whole US system is imploding, so throw stones at Obama if that makes going down the toilet feel that much better ...

GL,

Terral

Doesn't mean that those involved shouldn't call these people on their ignorence to the LAW.

It's high time these people be called out for what they are doing, and that means doing as they damned well please while telling the American people to essentially go to hell.

 

[Cuyo]

Hi Publius:

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

The answer is 'No.' Because Americans are unaware: Even an illegal alien foreign national squatting in the White House is NOT supposed to have any legislative agenda. Our three-tiered Federal Govt includes a Legislative Branch (House and Senate) that creates laws, an Administrative Branch that enforces the laws and a Judicial Branch that applies those laws to individual cases. Obama's job as the highest law enforcement officer in the USA is to ENFORCE laws like the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (wiki), which he is ignoring completely!

If Obama really wanted to create a single job, then he would do something about his 20 Million Man Illegal Alien Labor Pool!

That's not the topic, and it's probably the most retarded analysis I've ever heard; Kicking out 'Illegals' will 'Create jobs.' It thwarts even the most rudimentary forms of economic thinking.

An individual, regardless of their legal status, is a provider *AND* a consumer. By your theory, we ought to be able to 'Create jobs' by throwing out citizens just the same.

 

[Rozman]

Interesting the media didn't even touch this story for a second.If this was the Bush administration and it happened the liberal media would be screaming for impeachment.

 

[Cuyo]

Interesting the media didn't even touch this story for a second.If this was the Bush administration and it happened the liberal media would be screaming for impeachment.

Bullshit. There were articles of impeachment introduced against Dubya and the mythical 'liberal media' didn't even touch that.