Posted on 02/01/2011 12:08:08 PM PST by Libloather
U.S. Democrat Sees Health Law Surviving Repeal Move
Published February 01, 2011
Reuters
WASHINGTON – A leading U.S. Senate Democrat said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul will likely survive an effort by Senate Republicans to repeal the year-old law.
Senator Charles Schumer told reporters that there is enough support in the Senate to keep the healthcare law intact. All 47 Senate Republicans have backed a bill to repeal the law. But that falls short of the 60 needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the 100-member Senate. Republicans may try to offer the repeal, which pass the House on Jan. 19, as an amendment to an unrelated airline safety bill as early this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
Good points - it would be fun indeed to see his pet project thrown back at him.
I think he’d look silly either way - if it was repealed and he had to veto it AND especially if he signed it. He’d do the Kerry thing - he was for it before he was against it. And would be great fodder for the election on how much money it cost the taxpayers for him to play around with this bill.
Concerning this abomination of a “health care” monstrosity I have the same attitude as the man who received a phone call from an attorney saying that his mother-in-law had died and he was appointed executor of her estate. “What do you want me to order for the disposition of her remains, embalming, burial or cremation”, he was asked. “Take no chances, order all three”, came the reply.
He speaks with forked tongue,lets see
According to the articles I've read, the 11th Circuit is considered to be conservative.
They can say were for it before they were against it...that will make them sound real bright....
They can say were for it before they were against it...that will make them sound real bright....
Not by the Supreme Court. We need to shoot this thing, drive a stake through it, and then burn its corpse.
“What do you want me to order for the disposition of her remains, embalming, burial or cremation”, he was asked. “Take no chances, order all three”, came the reply.
~~~~~
ROFLOL--- best yet! I may have mixed up my threads, but if so...it was worth it to see your reply!
Ah, but there are 25 states who are parties to the suit, so it extends beyond just his district.
I haven’t seen any stay, and he did not say the govt could proceed. (if you have a link to the stay that would be a good read). I would think that Drudge would have a siren going if a higher or appellate court had stayed his order already.
Also, the argument for saying that indeed the law was voided is centered around the separability issue. The Judge did not object to portions of the legislation, he ruled against it in its entirety.
I understand and agree with how challenges to it might progress through the courts.
At this point, pending further successful challenges I think a reasonable person would agree that a Federal judge voided the law. In other words, the current state is that the law (OK for the involved parties) is voided. If you and I were in a suit and the judge wrote this sort of ruling, siding against me or my party, then I would NOT proceed until appeal or stay is granted. At this point I’d be dead in the water. I’m just sayin’ ;-)
I’ll stick with the statement that he voided the law. We can ‘argue’ the extent of the impact ;-)
REM: I am not a lawyer but I (have to) deal with them a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit
Although it will be going to the 11th circuit, which Judge hears the case is anybody’s guess right now.
Where did you get the info. that a Senate vote could be within hours? Just wondering.
Okay, Chuckie; you can fund it with your own money, then, as if the Republican House does their elected duty, funding will not be coming from taxpayers. Likewise, DE-FUNDING of the EPA, NEA, NPR, FCC, ACLU, ALL Czar positions, etc., etc. should be now moving forward at lightspeed in The House.
No. The Republicans should push for repeal FULL STEAM AHEAD. We do not know what tricks they may pull at the Supreme Court level. If SCOTUS say's it's constitutional and reverses the lower courts, the legislative branch is all we have left!
NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE IN. NEVER SURRENDER.
I respect the judge but I think he (Judge Nap) is only technically correct about the impact (district only).
REM: I don’t know how many states the judge has jurisdiction over. What is his district, actually.
We have to keep in mind that 25 states were part of this suit and he ruled in THEIR favor as well, not just those or the one in his district.
Just like DADT had ONE federal judge rule, the same with this.
We’ll see.
If it was any Republican President the press would be howlilng for full compliance with the court’s order nationwide.
Lastly — right now the law is ruled unconstitutional, and the Constitution covers all 57 (sic) states, not one Federal court district. A federal law that is unconstitutional cannot be enforced, legally, in any state.
Until the judge is overrules or his order stayed, his ruling is in effect.
IMHO ...
They better start worrying about my reaction when they destroy the world’s best healthcare with their frickin’ social engineering, because this is not just principle with me they are threatening the health if not literally the lives of me and those I care for.
Multiply me by tens of millions.
Concerning SCOTUS.
It is just a feeling based on bits and peices I have read, but we need to keep an eye on the dems. My gut is telling me they want to take out Roberts and/or Thomas.
They are throwing darts waiting to see if one will get picked up by the wind.
Their way of stacking the court.
Thanks.
Also been concerned about this...so hopeful info. Seems a no-brainer, they will appeal for a stay.
Vote in the Senate on this anti-freedom abomination now and every month until the election. Get the anti-America, anti-America losers on record. We will not forget, you traitorous, unconstitutional freaks. We will not forget.
Perhaps you can explain the differences in the words:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/013111healthcareruling.pdf
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.
I think it hinges on the words "declaratory" (granted) and "injunctive" (denied). The judge is making a statement that the government should... but has declined to tell the government it must abide by his ruling, pending appeal.
I am not a lawyer but I (have to) deal with them a lot.
I suggest that you ask one of them about the scope of a district court decision. I don't think it matters if a state is party to the suit, because then a state could "shop" for a more favorable district instead of facing a district court judge in their own state.
“Is there a procedure for ‘contempt of Court’ for the Legislative Branch?”
There’s the Honduran solution:
http://www.as-coa.org/article.php?id=1726
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.