Posted on 02/01/2011 12:08:08 PM PST by Libloather
“But Vinson explicitly denied the motion for an injunction against Obamacare. He instead chose to make only a “declaration”, and effectively said the government “should” honor it.”
You appear to have missed the connection between these two. He denied the motion for an injunction because it was superfluous. Why order people to obey the law if you’ve explicitly made clear that the law REQUIRES federal officials to adhere to his ruling?
Put another away, if he’s going to assume that these federal officials are going to break the law anyway, what good would an injunction do? Officials that thumb their nose at their legal obligations aren’t going to suddenly become upright law-abiding citizens simply because a judge has issued an injunction.
For Just lurking, KEYS words below are “GRANTED” the plantiffs motion. The States sued, and they won, and the montion is granted...for 28 states or so.
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
Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 Page 77 of 78
Page 78 of 78
28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered
separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”
unconstitutional.
DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011.
/s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON
Senior United States District Judge
Case No.:
Yes, the judge didn't think that an injunction was required, because he expected them to abide by his declaration. Comments from the Obama administration have made it clear that he was wrong.
Put another away, if he’s going to assume that these federal officials are going to break the law anyway, what good would an injunction do? Officials that thumb their nose at their legal obligations aren’t going to suddenly become upright law-abiding citizens simply because a judge has issued an injunction.
In the legal world of obfuscation, there's a significant difference between "declaratory relief" and "injunctive relief". A declaration really just lays the groundwork for further action (i.e. the impending appeal). Violation of an injunction invokes real penalties: sanctions, fines, and even prison.
Frankly, I wish the judge had issued the injunction. But, he didn't.
Unconstitutional MEANS its against the law. As such, there had better be no more law breaking for awhile, or at least until the Appeal by Obama and Holder, and as part of that Appeal, there may be a Stay on Vinson’s Judgement, OR NOT.....
The fact that this has been NO APPEAL by the WH, tells us they’re scared S...tless of the consequences if they DO APPEAL. Its a LOSE LOSE situation....especially since the JUDGE Quoted Obama in his ruling.
Here comes Congress and their Supeona power to the rescue....buy some popcorn and watch...
“And immediaterly begin acting as if this is a done deal, because it’s been ruled unconstitutional.”
Not if the likes of Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan get their hands on it...
No, the key word here is DENIED, as in "denied as to its request for injunctive relief".
An injunction would have stopped the implementation of Obamacare in the northern district of Florida, because violation would have triggered sanctions, fines, and even prison terms.
The request for declaratory relief was granted. The judge seems to think that was sufficient, but from what I can tell, there are no penalties for disregarding it -- because it's simply a declaration for the purposes of challenging it on appeal.
Stop choosing the words you want to believe and read the entire thing.
“Frankly, I wish the judge had issued the injunction. But, he didn’t.”
Actually, I think a 2-step process is better politics. The judge has given the administration a chance to do the right thing (along with essentially a “fair warning” that he expects his declaratory judgment will be followed not ignored). Only the most leftist extremists are going to be cheering on the administration as it flagrantly violates the law. Especially in light of the shenanigans used to pass the law in the first place, even fence-sitters are going to be thinking “Wait, isn’t there ANY rule of law around here? You mean these clowns think they can ignore public opinion AND the courts? That’s SCARY.”
So I’m guessing that any blatant efforts to keep implementing/enforcing the law will quickly result in aggrieved parties seeking redress from Judge Vinson at which point he then CAN issue an injunction that immediately imposes consequences for such law-breaking. In my book, it’s just a matter of time since I think we all have long ago figured out we’re dealing with a lawless administration.
“The fact that this has been NO APPEAL by the WH, tells us they’re scared”
These guys were too clever by half. They were sure that if they just rammed the bill through, the politics would work in their favor. The Republicans wouldn’t dare try repeal what they expected to be a popular law full of goodies. And in light of the freight-train-sized hole past SCOTUS decisions had blown in the limitations imposed by the Commerce Clause, progressives might be forgiven for assuming there’d be no way in hell this would be ruled unconstitutional.
But having overreached so much, they now have triggered a judicial backlash, if you will. If they defend the law, there’s now a big risk that SCOTUS will rule in such a way that it significantly binds their ability to just enact any old social legislation they feel like. They’re definitely between a rock and a hard place. AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW....
and then pi$$ on it
the Attorney General of Wisconson has just declared.....
Judge Vinson has confirmed the conclusion I reached when this law was enacted. Congress is free to reform health care, but it must do so in a Constitutional manner. It simply does not have the authority to require people to either purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
Now, we wait to see if the federal government has finally gotten the message. If they don’t get the message, and decide to appeal the case, as they did when they lost in Virginia, my colleagues and I will continue our fight to defend the Constitution and protect the people of Wisconsin from this unconstitutional law.
Florida has also declared that they will not implement the law. According to Florida Governor Rick Scott, “”We are not going to spend a lot of time and money with regard to trying to get ready to implement that (law) until we know exactly what is going to happen.”
ObamaCare is not law, and thus, will not be implemented.
Until the Supreme Court rules against it, or Congress repeals it, Obamacare is the law. No matter how much you keep repeating this falsehood, it won't become true until one of those things happens.
Individual states can choose to ignore the law. But, they are making the choice to do so: not because the law has been repealed or voided.
If the Obama administration is smart, they won't pursue those states, because if the states prevail in any court decision, the scope will be expanded. There have been several cases where the federal government has declined to do so because they feared an expansion of the scope of the decision that went against them.
Most likely, the Obama administration will ignore this as much as possible. Without an injunction, there's no penalty. If they can prolong the appeal process long enough, one of the conservative Supreme Court justices will retire or otherwise leave the Court, and give Obama the chance to try to appoint a justice that will tip the balance in his favor.
I hope you are right. Frankly, I'd like nothing better than to see members of the Obama administrations frog-marched into jail for violation of an injunction.
But, it goes back to my original point: As long as they avoid the northern district of Florida, I don't think the judge can do anything. Jurisdictional rules generally require that the plaintiff file in the district in which he/she resides (there are exceptions). So, unless a plaintiff in the northern district of Florida can demonstrate injury by implementation of Obamacare, he/she won't have "standing".
Its amazing looking at this from a “mile high”.
How the heck they thought they could ram this down the throats of half the population, in a democracy no less, is astounding. Put everything aside, this shows either the mental maturity of a 5 year old kid... or the actions of a Communist Thug Dictator.
Breathtaking that this could happen in America.
With this desperate line —”Until the Supreme Court rules against it, or Congress repeals it, Obamacare is the law. No matter how much you keep repeating this falsehood, it won’t become true until one of those things happens”-—
What part of Unconstitutional doesn’t LurkO understand ?
Desperate times for ObamaBots, when they can’t see or read the writing on the Court dockets, because they just can’t handle the TRUTH.
Look, idiot. I'd like to see ObamaCare torpedoed as much as anyone. But unlike the idiots like you, I have some inkling of how the federal court system works.
When Judge Vinson declared the law unconstitutional, it was only slightly more significant than you and I declaring the law unconstitutional.
Because he didn't grant the request for an injunction, absolutely nothing is REQUIRED to happen. All his declaration did was set the appeal process in motion.
As someone else has noted: maybe he will decide to issue an injunction when it becomes clear that his declaration is being ignored. If he does, things will get interesting, because the scope of his jurisdiction is limited and the government will likely avoid him instead of risking the penalties of violating an injunction.
For the rest of the US: until that appeal process is completed, no one is obligated to stop implementing Obamacare. It gives states a rationale to resist a bit more, but it opens them to retaliation by the federal government.
Idiot to justlurking —— I apologize for referring to you as an ObamaBot, but you were confusing me, by souding like one and repeating their talking points.
When Judge slams down the Gavel, and says “I find for the Plantiff”, its law. Untill such time as an Appeal is filed and a reason for the Appeal is stated in the Appeal.
Until such time as an Appeal is submitted by Obamabi and company, the health care bill is dead, for the 26 states that won the Judgement in Court.
If ANY attempt is made by the Federal government, to try and enforce the Health care act in those 26 states, can result in the state Attorney General(s) going back to court and hauling in the Defendant’s lawyers, and ask what the Hell are you doing ignoring my Judgement and violating the law ? ?
And since the Florida Judge already filed the proper paperwork, he can find the Defendants in violation of his Court order, and be found in Contempt.
That’s what I mean by “Healthcare is Dead”, what do you mean by “no one is obligated to stop implementing Obamacare” ? Which as it stands today, is unconstitutional in a Federal Court.
If Judge Vinson’s ruling is of no consequence, why would an Appeal all the way to the Supreme court be necessary, to overturn the lower federal court ruling ?
I don't have talking points. I do my own research. You're the one that is repeating talking points.
When Judge slams down the Gavel, and says “I find for the Plantiff”, its law.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. I've explained it over and over, but you are deaf. So, I'm not going to waste my time and do it again.
Until such time as an Appeal is submitted by Obamabi and company, the health care bill is dead, for the 26 states that won the Judgement in Court.
No, it's not. The only place that this judgment could be expected to be effective is the Northern District of Florida. It doesn't matter that the other states participated in this suit: they don't get to shop for a judge in another state. They'll have to get a ruling in every district in their own state (or their respective Circuit Court on appeal).
If ANY attempt is made by the Federal government, to try and enforce the Health care act in those 26 states, can result in the state Attorney General(s) going back to court and hauling in the Defendant’s lawyers, and ask what the Hell are you doing ignoring my Judgement and violating the law ? ?
Until a federal court judge issues an injunction, no such thing will happen. Vinson explicitly denied the request for an injunction.
And since the Florida Judge already filed the proper paperwork, he can find the Defendants in violation of his Court order, and be found in Contempt.
Not without an injunction.
That’s what I mean by “Healthcare is Dead”, what do you mean by “no one is obligated to stop implementing Obamacare” ? Which as it stands today, is unconstitutional in a Federal Court.
In one particular US district court, in Northern Florida. Another US district court in Virginia has only ruled part of the law unconstitutional.
If Judge Vinson’s ruling is of no consequence, why would an Appeal all the way to the Supreme court be necessary, to overturn the lower federal court ruling ?
Vinson's ruling could be overridden by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal (which is the next step before the Supreme Court). And by granting the motion for declaratory relief, that's effectively all he has done: provide a basis for the inevitable appeal.
Without an injunction, this decision has no teeth. Even with an injunction, the Obama administration could easily avoid it by avoiding the Northern District of Florida -- Vinson couldn't do anything unless a plaintiff in his district could show injury, and thus gain "standing".
Well justlurking, lets continue the education (mine)...you’re on a roll here....
How different would be any decision via an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal .... IF ..IF they agreed with the Florida Federal Court ?
Would the decision be broader in scope, and cover more than a “District” ?
Yes, that's correct. It would expand the scope to all of FL, plus GA and AL.
However, unless the Circuit Court issues an injunction, we'd still be in the same situation as now: the Obama administration could ignore the ruling with no consequences.
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.