Sigh...
Issue a stay or else something may happen to your family.
It was only a matter of time.
Sickening.
Thats Right!!!!
Why do I feel we’re so screwed?
7 days is March 10, 2011. so that means it is not unconstititional or is it unconstitional so he wants fast track to Supreme Court. Maybe Vinson is fed up with Odumbo wanting a clarification so he said okay you want to play dumb. I will let the aapellate court determine how damn stupid are your lawyers.
I look forward to the end of next week.
What happens if they don’t appeal in 7 days?
Is there ANYONE not willing to cave in to this LAWLESS administration???
Check Obama/Holder/Sebielius.
Can’t get out of this one A-holes.
“The stay means implementation of the law can proceed pending the administration’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit”
Obama has been implementing Obamacare with a middle finger to Vinson’s ruling.
He was threatned. His next step was to start putting Admin officials in jail.
Sounds like he’s forcing The Messiah’s hand here, in that he’s giving them 7 days to Appeal; otherwise, I believe he will render a Contempt ruling, along with a Cease and Decist on Obamacare, whereby they can no longer NOT stop implementation.
This means the Obama minions threatened him or his family with their lives.
The rule of law is GONE in this country.
Awesome!!!! Vinson is a tough cookie that has just painted those idiots into a corner...
I’m not seeing the pony in the pasture here. :(
By issuing a stay, isn’t Judge Vinson saying that the force of his original ruling was to halt implementation, even though the regime was proceeding.
I think this is a definite win for the good guys!
FLORIDA JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA TO SEEK EXPEDITED APPELLATE REVIEW OF HIS RULING THAT HEALTHCARE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ordered the administration to seek an expedited appellate review within the next week of his January 31 ruling that favored arguments by 26 states that the law’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty was unconstitutional.
The Obama administration has said previously it would appeal the ruling and continue implementing the law, which includes provisions allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ healthcare insurance and prevents insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions.
While Vinson and a federal judge in Virginia have ruled against the law, a cornerstone of Obama’s domestic agenda, judges in several other states have dismissed challenges. The case is expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
No the story is a little wrong the judge said the stay was pending the 7 day apeal to an expedited ruling which is a good thing otherwise if they don’t want to go with the 7 day thing then it can’t be implemented at all.
The article has been added to with more info:
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Thursday that implementation of the health law can proceed — but he gave the Obama administration just seven days to file an appeal.
Vinson issued a stay of his own Jan. 31 ruling that declared the entire health care reform law unconstitutional. He chastised the government for not interpreting that ruling as an immediate injunction to stop implementing the new law.
But in a twist, he said he interpreted the Justice Department’s request for clarity as a motion to stay, which he granted.
“Because the defendants have stated that they intend to file a subsequent motion to stay if I were to ‘clarify’ that I had intended my declaratory judgment to have immediate injunction-like effect (which I just did), I will save time in this time-is-of-the-essence case by treating the motion to clarify as one requesting a stay as well,” Vinson said.
Vinson criticized the Justice Department for not following normal procedure and requesting a stay.
“It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify,’” Vinson wrote.
Vinson is trying to push the government into quickly resolving the case, requiring them to file an expedited appeal to the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court. In his ruling, Vinson repeated what he has said previously — that “the citizens of this country have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible.”
“That was nearly eleven months ago,” he wrote. “In the time since, the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and the legal arguments refined. Almost everyone agrees that the constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward.”
Vinson’s actions mean the legal cloud over nationwide efforts to implement the law’s varied and complex requirements — from the establishment of state health exchanges to plans for Medicaid expansion and a new wave of consumer protections in the insurance market — is likely to remain for a while.
The administration has said it would press on with implementation, but two states — Florida and Alaska — have halted plans to do so, citing Vinson’s ruling. Others have moved ahead more cautiously or expressed concerns about the legal uncertainty.
Vinson walked a tightrope in his January ruling between not issuing an injunction — which has a very high legal bar, particularly for it to apply to the entire law — and achieving the results of an injunction. It’s rare for a district court judge to bar enforcement of a federal law.
The case before Vinson has the highest profile of several lawsuits against the health care overhaul. The suit was brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, and Vinson is the only judge to throw out the entire law.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled the law’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance unconstitutional, but upheld the rest. Three other judges have upheld the entire law.
Several other challenges have been thrown out on procedural grounds.
The rulings have taken on a partisan tone: The two district court judges who ruled against the law are Republican nominees and the three who have ruled in its favor are Democratic ones.