Here comes the judge, here comes the judge!

[Yonivore]

I think the Obama administration has pissed of one Florida judge named, Roger Vinson...

Barry and gang asked for clarification and, they got it.

While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import. Accordingly, I will attempt to synopsize the 78-page order and clarify its intended effect. To that extent, the defendants’ motion to clarify is GRANTED.

[synopsis snipped]

So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared
uncons utional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. 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.” [FN6]

[FN6] The defendants have suggested in reply to the plaintiffs’ response that the reason for the delay was due to the fact that my order “required careful analysis,” and it was only after this “careful review” that the defendants could determine its “potential impact” with respect to implementation of the Act (see doc. 164 at 11). This seems contrary to media reports that the White House declared within hours after entry of my order that “implementation will proceed apace” regardless of the ruling. See, e.g., N.C. Aizenman and Amy Goldstein, U.S. Judge in Florida Rejects Health Law, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2011, at A01 (quoting a senior White House official).

The judge also was not amused by the lie told in the request for clarification...

“A declaratory judgment cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings, but it has the same effect as an injunction in fixing the parties’ legal en lements . . . . A litigant who tries to evade a federal court’s judgment --- and a declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice --- will come to regret it.” Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh, 620 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir. 2010). If it were otherwise, a federal court’s declaratory judgment would serve “no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” See Public Service Comm’n of Utah, v. Wycoff Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 237, 247, 73 S. Ct. 236, 97 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1952). For the defendants to suggest that they were en led (or that in the weeks after my order was issued they thought they might be en led) to basically ignore my declaratory judgment until “after appellate review is exhausted” is unsupported in the law. [FN5]

[FN5]The defendants have claimed that “[i]n other declaratory judgment cases, pending appellate review, ‘the Government has been free to continue to apply [a]statute’ following entry of a declaratory judgment.” See Def. Mot. at 4-5 (citing Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S. Ct. 554, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1963); Carreno v. Johnson, 899 F. Supp. 624 (S. D. Fla. 1995)). Quoting from Mendoza-Martinez, the defendants further claim that “‘a single federal judge’” is not authorized to “‘paralyze totally the operation of an entire regulatory scheme, either state or federal, by issuance of a broad injunctive order’ prior to appellate review.” See id. at 5. The two cited cases are plainly inapposite for the reasons identified by the plaintiffs. See Pl. Resp. at 4-5. Mendoza-Martinez, for example, applied a statute that precluded single-judge district courts from enjoining an Act of Congress; but that statute was repealed by Congress thirty-five years ago, in 1976. The defendants’ selective quoting from those cases --- to suggest that the federal government may simply ignore a declaratory judgment by a district court until the appeals process has fully run its course --- borders on misrepresentation.

While granting the motion for clarification, (before granting the 7 day stay in order to allow the administration to get their together and appeal), he acknowledged the administration's tactics for what they are, a delay.

For example, my declaratory judgment, of course, only applies to the parties to this litigation. The State of Michigan is one of those parties. However, a federal district court in Michigan has already upheld the Act and the individual mandate. See Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Can (or should) I enjoin and halt implementation of the Act in a state where one of its federal courts has held it to be Cons utional? In addition, many of the plaintiff states have publicly represented that they will immediately halt implementation of the Act in light of my declaratory judgment, while at least eight plaintiff states (as identified by the defendants in their motion and reply) have suggested that, in an abundance of caution, they will not stop implementing the Act pending appeal. In addition to these apparent disagreements among the plaintiff states, there is even disagreement within the plaintiff states as to whether the implementation should continue pending appeal. For example, while the plaintiffs (a group that includes the Attorney General of Washington) have requested that I enjoin the defendants from implementing the Act, the Governor of Washington has just filed an amicus brief specifically opposing that request (doc. 163).

At this point in time, and in light of all this uncertainty, it would be difficult to deny the defendants a stay pending appeal. Nonetheless, in light of the potential for ongoing injury to the plaintiffs, the stay should be in place for as short of time as possible (months, and not years), as discussed immediately below.

[...]

As both sides have repeatedly emphasized throughout this case, the Act seeks to comprehensively reform and regulate more than one-sixth of the national economy. It does so via several hundred statutory provisions and thousands of regulations that put myriad obligations and responsibilities on individuals, employers, and the states. It has generated considerable uncertainty while the Cons utionality of the Act is being litigated in the courts. The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be. And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and judgment and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal.

It should not be at all difficult or challenging to “fast-track” this case. The
briefing with respect to the general issues involved are mostly already done, as the federal government is currently defending several other similar challenges to the Act that are making their way through the appellate courts. Furthermore, the legal issues specific to this case have already been fully and very competently briefed. With a few additional modifications and edits (to comply with the appellate rules), the parties could probably just change the caption of the case, add colored covers, and be done with their briefing.

So, against my advice, he gives them 7 days to or get off the pot.

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court.

I don't think he's going to be receptive to any more nonsense from Barry and Eric.

[ElNono]

So, it's exactly what I said it would happen... judge ordered to comply... now the government will file a motion to stay pending appeal...

Vinson is actually pissed because his little game didn't play out. He was expecting the government to seek a motion to stay right away, which could have been denied by the court of appeals as there was no actual injunction. Now that the judge specifically specified an injunctive relief, the basis for an appeal is clear.

His little game backfired, so no surprise he's pissed off about it.

[CosmicCowboy]

So, it's exactly what I said it would happen... judge ordered to comply... now the government will file a motion to stay pending appeal...

Vinson is actually pissed because his little game didn't play out. He was expecting the government to seek a motion to stay right away, which could have been denied by the court of appeals as there was no actual injunction. Now that the judge specifically specified an injunctive relief, the basis for an appeal is clear.

His little game backfired, so no surprise he's pissed off about it.

Bull . They were intentionally slow playing the appeal on this ruling and fast playing the other positive rulings they got. This was clearly a slap.

[ElNono]

Bull . They were intentionally slow playing the appeal on this ruling and fast playing the other positive rulings they got. This was clearly a slap.

Does it surprise you? I called this back when he made the ruling. This is going to be a long process. None of this really matters anyways since it's going to be decided either by the SCOTUS in due time, or some arrangement in Congress before then. In the meantime expect more lawyer shenanigans and delays.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think the Obama administration has pissed of one Florida judge named, Roger Vinson...

Barry and gang asked for clarification and, they got it.


The judge also was not amused by the lie told in the request for clarification...


While granting the motion for clarification, (before granting the 7 day stay in order to allow the administration to get their together and appeal), he acknowledged the administration's tactics for what they are, a delay.


So, against my advice, he gives them 7 days to or get off the pot.


I don't think he's going to be receptive to any more nonsense from Barry and Eric.

So the states have to still comply with implementing obamacare.. I'm glad a federal judge now is actively involved in the politics of the issue.. this should forever end your constant ing about judicial activism because this is probably the most blatant example that we have seen to date.

[Wild Cobra]

Any lay person should understand the intent of the cons ution does not allow lawmakers to force people to buy a products they don't want.

Uncons utional. Period.

[boutons_deux]

ok, so where does the Cons ution say citizens, too poor or too uncivil, have a right to receive medical care from tax-payer funded facilities free of charge?

If they are free to go without health insurance, then society is free to let them rot in pain and die uncared for.

[Wild Cobra]

ok, so where does the Cons ution say citizens, too poor or too uncivil, have a right to receive medical care from tax-payer funded facilities free of charge?

If they are free to go without health insurance, then society is free to let them rot in pain and die uncared for.

That's not my point. I said people cannot be forced to buy a service they don't want. How can they cons utionally require me to buy health insurance?

Government can force you to buy car insurance because driving is a privileged. Right or wrong, that's how we legally accept driving.

What is your position? That it is a privilege to live?

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's not my point. I said people cannot be forced to buy a service they don't want. How can they cons utionally require me to buy health insurance?

Government can force you to buy car insurance because driving is a privileged. Right or wrong, that's how we legally accept driving.

What is your position? That it is a privilege to live?

healthcare is a right..and you must pay for it so others don't have to..

[ElNono]

Justice Department: Speed up health care case
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 3/9/11 1:04 PM EST Updated: 3/10/11 8:54 AM EST

The Obama administration has asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite consideration of the health care reform law — the second step in a process set in motion by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.

Vinson ruled in January that the entire health care law was uncons utional. The administration waited until late February to file a motion for clarification – a delay that drew the ire of Vinson, who responded by staying his ruling but ordering the administration to file its appeal within seven days and to request expedited review from the 11th Circuit.

The administration filed the appeal Tuesday and later asked for the fast-tracked review.

“Expedition in this case is particularly warranted because of the district court’s unprecedented severability ruling, which presents issues that the federal government has not previously addressed in appellate briefs and covers numerous provisions of the Act already in effect,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

The Justice Department proposed that its appeal brief would be due April 18. The 26 states and National Federation of Independent Business would have a month to respond. The Justice Department’s final response would be due June 1.

Brad Joondeph, a Santa Clara University professor who is following the suits, said the schedule could lead to oral arguments in late June or early July.

----------------------------------------------------

I guess we're looking somewhere at the end of the year for the SCOTUS taking up on this?

[LnGrrrR]

Any lay person should understand the intent of the cons ution does not allow lawmakers to force people to buy a products they don't want.

Uncons utional. Period.

Devils Advocate question: What part of the Cons ution prevents government from forcing people to buy a product?

[Wild Cobra]

Devils Advocate question: What part of the Cons ution prevents government from forcing people to buy a product?

There is no part that allows them too. Are you implying the government can do anything unless given limits?

Consider the 10th amendment as well.

[LnGrrrR]

There is no part that allows them too. Are you implying the government can do anything unless given limits?

Technically, yes. There's nothing "uncons utional" about them writing this law. The law itself might be (and probably is) uncons utional, but the act of writing it.

Iow, the Cons ution doesn't expressly forbid the government from preventing its citizens from forced purchases. Hence this court case.

That's the way I see it.

[Wild Cobra]

Technically, yes. There's nothing "uncons utional" about them writing this law. The law itself might be (and probably is) uncons utional, but the act of writing it.

That's just it. A claim was made the law is uncons utional, and in the end, the courts will agree.

Iow, the Cons ution doesn't expressly forbid the government from preventing its citizens from forced purchases. Hence this court case.

That's the way I see it.

Well, I'm definitely not up to a cons utional argument right now. Have to leave for work in 40 minutes. Besides, we've argued such ideas in the past. However congress often incorrectly uses the interstate commerce clause, and the 10th amendment has a specific meaning.

[LnGrrrR]

Not much of an argument WC, I agree the courts will most likely rule it uncons utional. Just arguing that, until the courts say so, technically it is cons utional.