Reply With Quote
Did you read all of the opinions in their entirety to reach this conclusion?
I'm going to answer no for you.
You're pretty y about something the judge specifically addressed in his ruling and for which he cited case law as his justification for not severing the mandate from the rest of the legislation.
Here's a pretty good piece in the Wall Street Journal, if you care to educate yourself a bit...
The Cons utional Moment
Or, you could read Judge Vinson's ruling in which he explains the principle and cites the case law behind throwing out the whole damnable law.Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute—paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a "severability" clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was "essential" to the bill's goals and mechanisms and compared it to "a finely crafted watch." Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be "tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it."
So, bring it. Let's hear how the rulings of those other two judges is going to counter Judge Vinson; particularly when this comes before a right-leaning SCOTUS.The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. "Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended." Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability lause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate uncons utional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress' own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was "unclear" if the individual mandate had "solid cons utional foundation." See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress' failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.
...
Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act's health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself.
As the WSJ Article stated, "[Judge Vinson's] exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned."
That remains to be seen but, at the very least, his is a more cons utionally sound argument that whatever those other two judges slopped on paper.
Did you read all of the opinions in their entirety to reach this conclusion?
I'm going to answer no for you.
His blogger of the day didn't explain it to him so he is going to ingore the question.
Easier to pick on me than rebut Judge Vinson? I'm cool with that.
Easier to whine than admit you didn't actually read the opinions? I'm cool with that.
How did Vinson's opinion differ from the two judges who found the law cons utional?
Specifically.
You made the claim so I would assume you could back it up...
Probably the most likely outcome, in the end....whenever that is.
Could be awhile, but I just tell conservatives that Israel has it -- and since they know Israel is infallible....
Canadians love theirs. Just ask them.
Says who? You?
The ultimate cons utional interpretation of the commerce clause and all that stuff will be ultimately done by the SCOTUS. States already knew this when they filed the lawsuit. This is merely part of the process.
I have asked them, as I had family living there for a while. A lot of them do love it.
Did you ask them?
DarrinS flacks government by poll when it suits him.
When the results go his way, or DarrinS assumes they do, I should say.
Someone did.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august...hows_canad.phpA new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.
That was 2009. I'll look for something more recent.
If you have a poll showing they want to scrap public health care altogether, please post a link to it.
Thanks in advance.
It's the will of the people!
Something newer:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1882350/Conducted for the Canadian Medical Association, the Ipsos Reid survey shows 68 per cent of respondents “reject the idea that the federal government’s focus on the economy justifies delaying discussions to renew the health accord with the provinces.”
Doesn't sound like they want to scrap the system, does it?
Has the government sought a stay of Judge Vinson's ruling or do they plan to just ignore him and proceed in contempt?Says who? You?
The ultimate cons utional interpretation of the commerce clause and all that stuff will be ultimately done by the SCOTUS. States already knew this when they filed the lawsuit. This is merely part of the process.
And, there's already an xtranormal video explaining the liberal side.
Last edited by Yonivore; 02-01-2011 at 02:44 PM. Reason: Forgot the awesome YouTube!
You're an idiot.
Didn't Vinson address that?
He did, so why ask the stupid question?
Specifically, he found the federal government is prohibited from compelling a U. S. Citizen to purchase a commercial product and that if the Commerce Clause is construed to allow this, there is absolutely no limit to what the federal government could compel citizens to do.
Obviously, the two judges who found the law cons utional, disagreed. I'd like to hear how they squared the individual mandate with the Cons ution. Frankly, I don't need to know their rationale to disagree and, since I'm not going to be in a courtroom arguing against their side, I don't feel like investing the time to read their rulings but, you're welcome to explain it if you can. Can you?
Can you explain how those two judges arrived at a position that says it is cons utional for the federal government to force me to buy a commercial product?
Well, you could, you know, read the rulings like you said you did.
There's a process to this, which can take time.
The judge didn't order an immediate injunction, so the law can still be applied right now. At some point, the judge can submit a cease and desist order providing a time frame within which they must comply. If the Administration does not comply at that point, then the judge could issue an injunction and you'll get to the contempt of court part.
During that process, the Administration can request a stay to Judge Vinson, and, should the Judge decline, to the US District Court of Appeals, along with appealing the case.
Preparing the appeal will probably take some time, thus it makes no sense to file for a stay right away.
??? I don't know what you're talking about.
This is your standard case of interpretation of the cons ution and the powers granted by it, with different opinions at the federal level, which is important enough to require the SCOTUS attention. It's obviously magnified because it affects every American.
Vinson's ruling effectively halted the implementation of Obamacare until an appear unless the Government files for and is granted a stay. So, no, he didn't address that. I was wondering if anyone knew if the Government had filed for a stay today?
And, I don't know why that's a stupid question. The administration was saying yesterday that implementation would continue "apace," but, without addressing the obvious stumbling block that to do so would be in contempt of Vinson's ruling.
It's called interpretation, and it happens more often than what you think.
Thankfully we have an ins ution devoted to having the last word on it, called the SCOTUS, and this is where it's headed.
I think you're wrong on this. From what I understand, the injunction is unnecessary because the entire law has been ruled uncons utional. And, unless the government seeks a stay of Judge Vinson's order, they must cease and desist immediately.
I hope they don't.
Sorry, forgot the amusing YouTube. It's up now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
