Are you guessing? Or you asked some actual Canadians?
Did you ask those Canadians that can't afford to pay for healthcare in the US how they feel about their public system?
In effect, an injunction. So, we agree, the judge presumes the government is enjoined from further implementation of Obamacare without a stay of his ruling -- or, further, risking sanction by the court.
It'll get there if the government moves ahead with implementation.
I think Professor Jacobsen disagrees with you. What is it you think the government can continue until then?
The effect of an injunction would be immediate, and that's the difference, as I understand it, between an actual injunctive relief vs a declaratory relief. The lack of an actual injunction gives the government some time.
Yes and no. Don't forget that the ruling of other judges as far as declaring the law cons utional clash directly with Vinson's opinion. Ultimately, it's a ty position to be in for the States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Everything, really. It's the States that are allowed to ignore the law.
As long as the Judge doesn't formally request to cease and desist (which would invalidate the benefit of the doubt he gave the government), or the government files a motion to stay, the government isn't compelled to stop doing anything.
BTW, the States also have the option to request Injunctive relief anew if they sense the government is not going to comply with the court's decision.
Why don't you read them
Haven't you an understanding of how they arrived at that conclusion?
Frankly, it's not of that much interest to me. I'm satisfied with Judge Vinson's ruling and, quite frankly; I think it behooves those, in here, arguing there are two judges that say Obamacare is cons utional, to explain how they managed that seemingly [to me] impossible feat. If you can't, that's fine with me.
I don't care to wade through their rulings in an effort to find that. If you want to argue their rulings merit consideration, I think you should be prepared to argue why.
I've recounted all the relevant passages from Judge Vinson's ruling. You don't have to wonder how he finds the individual mandate both uncons utional and unseverable.
So to sum it up, a judge agrees with your side therefore you stop at that point and arent' concerned with any other view point. I suggest you stop asking other people to do your work for you..
So, you don't know how those two judges managed to make Obamacare cons utional.
I do and I'm not going to do your work for you. If you truly were interested you would read them..
All this to say the judge expects them to cease and desist by presuming they will adhere to the prior actions of government in such cases; and, that if they don't, he can then issue an injunction and find them in contempt?
So, he's effectively (as he said) enjoined them from proceeding with Obamacare.
You sure used a lot of words in order to come to the same conclusion.
I'm interested in how El Nono (and you if you care to) sees their ruling as being consistent with the Cons ution.
I don't work in here. If you want to argue their rulings counter Judge Vinson's, I think you should at least be willing to say how. It's okay if you can't. I understand.
On a side note Yoni most of the people who consider themselves as intelligent will review all sides of an issue before rendering an opinion. An informed person is just that. You choose to stop at the first instance when you stumble upon something that supports your position. You are not an informed person which renders your opinions weak and lazy.
I think you could at least admit that you don't care what they said because you are satisfied that one of four judges made a ruling that fits your world view..
You're lazy
I don't understand your reticence to counter Judge Vinson's rationale with that of the two judges being generally referred to as having found Obamacare cons utional.
In the preceding posts, I have posted relevant portions of Judge Vinson's ruling that support his (not my) opinion that Obamacare is uncons utional and inoperative. I've also posted the opinion of a Cornell Law Professor (not that carries any more weight than the opinions of some professor for another law school that agrees with your position but, at least I have).
You've done nothing but counter with insisting I read and discern, for myself, how two other judges managed to do what seems, from reading Judge Vinson's ruling, illogical.
You realize the other two judges did not support their findings as clearly and has Judge Vinson and, in fact, are completely undermined by his ruling.
And, if I were rendering my opinion, you'd have a point. I was merely repeating the opinion of Judge Vinson and a law professor who has much more of an ability to understand the ruling that do you or I.
Okay, so forget your two judges. Where's the flaw in Judge Vinson's understanding and citation of the cons ution and relevant case law leading him to his conclusion?
So, from what I'm reading, the two judges, Judge George Steeh and Judge Jude Moon, both found the government had authority to construe the Commerce Clause to compel U. S. Citizens to buy a commercial product.
That's novel and -- unlike the articles I used -- did not quote the relevant law or cases that supported their finding. I'm still looking for the actual rulings to see if the judges did, in fact, rely on any precedence in deciding this.
I would agree.
I have actually met an occasional informed conservative, but most tend to subs ute confirmation bias and unflagging trust in Fox "news" for common sense bull filters. They then wonder why, when they go charging off to show "them damn liberal commie traitor s" a thing or two in internet forums, they get their asses handed to them on a regular basis.
It's like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.
You are such an ankle biter.
Sorry reality doesn't fit your world view.
Quite the contrary. You just get pissy when you get called out.
It's cruel of me, I know, but you're such an angry pussy it's fun to do.
Also from Judge Vinson:
And, now that I've perused the two rulings from courts that held Obamacare cons utional, I still believe Judge Vinson has the best cons utional argument. They both declare the government has the authority to regulate commerce, under the clause by that name, but, neither answers the question of why not engaging in commerce is an activity that falls under the jurisdiction. They just say it does and, therefore, presto, whammo, it's cool.“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”
Also, both suits were rather limited in their impacts and both judges seemed to concede the whole matter was above their pay grade. Not very convincing, if you ask me.
Plus, I don't feel any more intelligent after having read them.
I've yet to meet an informed liberal. Period.
So, you give it a try, RG. Why are the two liberal judges right and Vinson wrong?
I knew there was a reason you were more irritable today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote