Wrut Ro Raggy (0-Care content)

[mrsleeve]

Contempt? How have they ignored it? Are you suggesting that by not dropping all their appeals and rolling over at the first sign of trouble they are somehow doing something illegal? If you were in a hard-fought court case over something to felt passionately about that didn't go your way, would you NOT appeal?

Appealing a case is NOT contempt and it is NOT ignoring... c'mon man, I know you are smarter than that.



The SCOTUS didn't call out shit in the SOTU because the court doesn't say anything during the state of the union. They just sit there and listen.

And the first 2 judges who ruled said is WAS constitutional. Currently the score is 2-2.

God knows if if the conservatives passed a law that you felt passionatly about and agreed with, you'd be defending that to the nth degree if the Democrats tried to challenge it in court.

As much as you want the law to bend to you're own will, it doesn't

NO WHEN THE 0 Called out the SCOUTS last year in the state of the union remember we had a thread about this. When he called them to the mat about campaign contributions.

And well the 1st 2 upheld the law, there for nothing needs to be done about it and they can continue on with their agenda. Well when found unconstitutional that requires some kind of action weather it be cease and desist or appeal, not just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Like I said my position was based on some ramblings form my law teacher in HS, it was long time ago and I may be remembering wrong

[joshh]

The entire thing is pointless. We already know this will end up with the SCOTUS. Anything that happens before that is just burning the daylight.

[Need4Speed1299]

Everybody new this years ago. The real question is, will they "halt implementation of pieces?" LBJefferies has a good point though, it is an addiction program so to say.

[gwb72tii]

The legal procedures are the same in this case or any other. If a law is on the books it stays on the books until all appeals are exhausted OR a judge orders an injunction. You may not like it, but that's how it is. Tough shit.

Also note that the purchase mandate has not gone in to effect yet and will not go in to effect until 2014, so an injunction is unlikely for a law which currently does not apply.

And what exactly is "despicable"? Appealing a ruling you don't agree with? It happens hundreds of times every day.

this is patently not true
when the court rules a law null and void, it is in fact, null and void
the administration can ask for a stay of the ruling pending appeal, not the other way around.
as it stands, obama care is toast, until and when a higher court overturns this court
THAT is how it works

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^

Thank you that's what I thought. Nice to know I am not crazy

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^

Thank you that's what I thought. Nice to know I am not crazy

[CorvallisBMW]

this is patently not true
when the court rules a law null and void, it is in fact, null and void
the administration can ask for a stay of the ruling pending appeal, not the other way around.
as it stands, obama care is toast, until and when a higher court overturns this court
THAT is how it works

That would be true IF the Supreme Court had ruled against the law. But since it was merely a district judge they do not have the power to 'null and void' a federal law IIRC. Since 2 previous judges had ruled in favor of the law, and Judge Roger Vinson chose not to issue an injunction, it seems very clear that he intended, on purpose, for the law to remain in effect until the Supreme Court makes it's ruling.

"Conservatives have long decried an imperial judiciary engaged in undemocratic acts of judicial activism. For a single district court to freeze implementation of one of the most significant (for good or ill) new laws in decades -- particularly when other, similarly situated courts have disagreed, and when the legislation itself retains the support of the democratically elected Senate and president -- would be activism on a breathtaking scale."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/0...iref=allsearch

[gwb72tii]

That would be true IF the Supreme Court had ruled against the law. But since it was merely a district judge they do not have the power to 'null and void' a federal law IIRC. Since 2 previous judges had ruled in favor of the law, and Judge Roger Vinson chose not to issue an injunction, it seems very clear that he intended, on purpose, for the law to remain in effect until the Supreme Court makes it's ruling.

"Conservatives have long decried an imperial judiciary engaged in undemocratic acts of judicial activism. For a single district court to freeze implementation of one of the most significant (for good or ill) new laws in decades -- particularly when other, similarly situated courts have disagreed, and when the legislation itself retains the support of the democratically elected Senate and president -- would be activism on a breathtaking scale."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/0...iref=allsearch

Other Federal courts can rule on constitutionality of any law, not just SCOTUS. Vinson is a federal judge in a federal US District court. The defendant has the right to appeal, and Obama will certainly appeal. But the judge's ruling is THE ruling until its reversed by an upper court, such as the US Court of Appeals, then SCOTUS. Or in rare cases the appeal can be directed to SCOTUS, bypassing the US Court of Appeals. But for the law to remain in effect, the admin HAS to ask for a stay.

But, for now, the law is dead.

Thankfully.

AND BTW - to your cnn quote (unbiased?). It doesn't matter what other lower courts have ruled. That's why the judiciary is set up the way it is, with levels of authority that have the power to overule or modify lower court rulings. This current ruling is in effect until its overturned.

[CorvallisBMW]

Two district judges have ruled in favor, and two have ruled against. Why do you think the ones who ruled against the law get precedence? And why, if Judge Vinson had intended on the law being struck down immediately, did he not make that order in his ruling or order file a cease & desist?

[gwb72tii]

there is no cease and desist necessary
when a law is ruled to be unconstitutional, it is no longer a law
what is now going to happen is the states that brought the lawsuit are going to stop implementing the law, and many already have.
the admin will be forced to ask for a stay to force the states to continue implementing the law. Obam cannot put this on ignore as he is trying to do.

An interesting lesson in civics if nothing else.

And the judge's ruling is spot on imho, the the commerce clause does not give the fed govt the right to control, thru law, inactivity, which obama care tries to do.

[CorvallisBMW]

Two other judges have ruled that is is constitutional, so why does this ruling take precedence over the others since they were all at the same district level? Serious question.

[mrsleeve]

Two other judges have ruled that is is constitutional, so why does this ruling take precedence over the others since they were all at the same district level? Serious question.

I thought I explained this


Since they upheld the law, there for nothing needed to be done. Now that this judge has ruled it Unconstitutional something must be done.

The fact that there are conflicting rulings is why it will end up in the hands of the SCOTUS

[gwb72tii]

ok, here's another serious question
if the court decides the commerce clause does rule in this case, that the government can force you to buy a commercial product called health insurance, where is the limit from that point forward?
require me to buy a piece of shit GM volt?

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^

Or how about an evil gun ????

[mrsleeve]

Here we go

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204879004577108504067291714.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

WASHINGTON—Supreme Court arguments over President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul will stretch over three days, beginning March 26, the court said Monday.

A typical case is allotted an hour for argument, but the court scheduled five and a half hours for the health-care case, reflecting how novel some of the questions are and the importance of a dispute that could define the limits of federal power for decades to come.

The main part will take place on Tuesday, March 27, with a two-hour argument over the minimum-coverage provision, which starting in 2014 will require most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Challengers argue that Congress lacks the power to impose such a requirement, while the Obama administration maintains that it does under its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, levy taxes and enact any "necessary and proper" laws.

At the March 28 morning session, the court will hear a 90-minute morning argument over which portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as the health law is titled, can survive if the individual-insurance mandate is struck down. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta—the only one of four federal appeals courts to find any portion of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional—held that the balance of the law can stand.

The government, however, argues that if the individual mandate falls, so too must the requirement that insurance companies take all comers and the ban on surcharges for pre-existing conditions. Those two provisions, the government says, are only feasible if the insurance pool is expanded to include younger, healthier people whose premiums will balance the costs.

The challengers, including 26 Republican-controlled states, contend that if the individual mandate goes, the entire Affordable Care Act must also be thrown out.

A one-hour session is scheduled for the afternoon of March 28 to hear those states' claim that provisions expanding the Medicaid program are unconstitutional. The states say Congress can't force them to spend more on Medicaid. The Atlanta court rejected that argument, holding that states knew that Washington could change the terms of the Medicaid program when they joined it and remain free to withdraw from Medicaid entirely if they prefer.

A less-discussed issue is to be argued first, for one hour on March 26. The question is whether the entire case needs to be shelved because of a federal law requiring taxpayers to pay their assessments before challenging a levy's legality. One federal appeals court, in Richmond, Va., found this law applies to the Affordable Care Act.

That court found that the penalty for noncompliance, which is to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service along with individual tax returns, was similar enough to a tax to fall under the provision. Both the Obama administration and the challengers disagree, but the Supreme Court was sufficiently interested in the question to schedule a hearing anyway and hire an attorney to present the argument.