Posted on 03/03/2011 10:02:40 AM PST by jazusamo
Florida judge wants an end to DOJ foot-dragging on Obamacare
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/03/florida-judge-wants-an-end-to-doj-foot-dragging-on-obamacare/
But like I said earlier, I would take anything from Politico with a grain of salt. Politico is left wing
Michelle Malkin Bump! :)
Shep Smith just spinned it as a victory for 0bama
“Only in the 26 states. Chris Christie can’t say the ruling will help New Jersey even though he didn’t submit a brief?”
I’m not sure I understand. If you’re asking me if we would have a federal law that only affects 26 states, the answer is no. Example: a federal law that mandates all working citizens contribute to SDI taxes applies to all 50 states and the US territories (and some US citizens that work outside the US). You’ve asked a question that requires a very messy answer to cover all the bases. The short answer is no. The feds can’t mandate only some states and some US citizens comply with Obamacare (remember, some of the plaintiffs in this case are private citizens, insurance companies, as well as state governors). One state involved is Michigan. The Michigan state appeals court has ruled that parts of Obamacare ARE constitutional. This is a procedural mess, but the Justice Department has to use the Florida case to get this resolved in the USSC. That’s not what they wanted. They would have preferred the Michigan case b/c they won that appeal. The USSC can take both the Michigan case and the Florida case into account to resolve conflicting Circuit court rulings. No matter what, the Justice Department is “married” to their argument that Congress passed Obamacare on the premise it is a tax and not based on the Commerce Clause. The JD just can’t explain that away. Sorry I couldn’t give you a clean easy answer. :(
This is a very cursory review of the 11th Circuit; people with more expertise should weigh in
Judge Dubina - Bush appointee 1990
Judge Tjoflat - Ford appointee 1975
Judge Edmundson - Reagan appointee 1986
Judge Black - Bush appointee 1992
Judge Carnes - Bush appointee 1992
Judge Barkett - Clinton appointee 1994
Judge Hull - Clinton appointee 1992
Judge Marcus - Reagan appointee 1983
However, you have to be careful because Judge Black had a district court appointment by Carter during his administration. Lots of these judgeships are confirmed in batches, with home state senators being crucial in appointments.
So, on paper, per the active judges, it would appear GOP 7 judges and the RATS 4 judges.
Among the senior judges (part-timers, in effect), they are often given a slot on a 3-judge panel to rule on a constitutional matter of this magnitude. Of the 5 senior judges, 3 were appointed by GOP presidents Nixon and Ford, and two by Carter.
So, taken together, the initial glance is 10 GOP-appointed judges and 6 Democratic-appointed judges.
NRO did an in-depth review of the 4th vs 11th circuits which would govern the Virginia and Florida district court appeals, respectively. I remember that the 11th circuit is MUCH more favorable to ruling Obamacare unconstitutional than the 4th circuit.
Again, this is cursory info from a happy non-lawyer.
Malkin was saying in the piece linked above that libs were celebrating it as a victory but she and Morrissey pretty much shot that down.
Going to be interesting to see what comes of this next Friday. :)
“This ruling butchers the Obama Administration.”
Vinson’s original ruling butchered Obamacare. The administration is content to ignore Vinson’s rulings and dare the Judge to find the Admin in contempt.
This recent ruling just says “I don’t want to take on the Ogabe Administration alone” *punt*
There’s no requirement they have to appeal his ruling.
Vinson will have to make the hard choice and start putting people in jail.
Shep’s right on this one.
Also see post# 101 by sheikdetailfeather and #107 by jazusamo
the judge is saying stop delaying and get this up to the supreme court quickly.
Something which the left does not want.
obama has ignored the judge yet again and when obama was asked about this he said he was not willing to have health care be the same as it was , basically saying to hell with the judges and constitution
Someone should call Smith on that.
LOL going to crap isn’t it.
The rats in WI fled and now do not know what to do.
Meanwhile the middle east has gone t crap while he just wanted Egypt which that too is in turmoil LOL.
Oil going through the roof.
health care gone to crap.
unions do not have as much power as they thought.
and now the GOP is saying “WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR BUDGET, GIVE IT AND SHOW IT”
Still it must be more entertainment tonight at the white house for fat arse MO to stuff her face
26 states were parties to the suits which means the ruling is applicable to all 26 states, weather or not they are in his “district” or not.
All that being said i find the judges addition in telling our States to continue to implement this “law” for the next 7 days reprehensible.
If the Federal courts are the masters of the Federal Constitution then there is no and can never be any Federal Constitution. Merely the arbitrary discretion of the Federal Government. Which would make us no different then the United Kingdom, who is without a real Constitution.
out of curiousity but why do you watch Shep smith.
He is way too liberal and way of of mainstream America.
I’ve never had the chance to ask anyone that question as no one I know watches him so again this is out of curiousity as ot why anyone watches shep smith
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court" (Scalia, J.)
"The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.
So what makes you so sure the Obama administration is going to follow another ruling by this Judge?
Which Court of Appeals would it go to? And what is the feeling how they will rule?
I just happen to hear him, that doesn’t mean I watch him. Of course everyone knows he’s a liberal. And I got my remote control handy if I want to mute him
Thanks, it was helpful!
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.