I would use less words if you even pretend to understand what I've been trying to tell you for a few pages now. You keep arguing that the government must cease right now, and that's simply not the case. They have time to prepare an appeal and a motion to stay to go with it. During that time, and as long as the judge doesn't actually issue an injunction, they can still continue pushing to implement the law.
Did you read their opinions? That you agree with Judge Vinson ruling doesn't automatically mean that the interpretation from other judges just-as-qualified is somehow wrong or incoherent. As I said earlier, differing interpretations happen all the time, be it as part of the appeals process, or even after reaching the SCOTUS.
It's fine with me that your confirmation bias made you read and research thoroughly this specific ruling. I personally like to read certain rulings on a general basis, just to be informed. I really haven't tracked this case too much because I understand that all this stuff is fairly premature and that the final goal is to either force Congress to modify the law in a way where it's still workable without a mandate, or have a decision about it by the SCOTUS.
What part of that sentence do you not understand? Judge obviously believes his ruling is an injunction because, since none of the law survived his finding, there is nothing to enjoin.
That's not my opinion either. My position is informed by Professor William Jacobsen of Cornell Law [and a few others that I found while reading up on this ruling].
I'm not arguing they can't be wrong but, you've yet to provide me with the source that is informing your position that the government can just continue? And, if you're not a similarly credentialed law school professor, you'll excuse me if I don't give your opinion as much weight as that of people who study this for a living.
There's actually two rulings opposing and two rulings approving. It's not just Vinson against the world. And all 4 could be partially right or partially wrong. That's why this is headed to the SCOTUS.
That's another thing. It's four separate cases on four separate questions. I suspect the Florida case is the one that makes it to SCOTUS.
You're taking that out of context. "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" just as long as the government decides to abide by the judge's ruling, which the judge believes they'll do.
If the judge wanted to hand out an actual injunction, he would have done so.
I don't think they're wrong. I read some of those articles, and unlike you, they understand that there's still time for the administration to file an appeal and a motion to stay, before the judge actually rules the administration under contempt of court or actually issues an injunction.
Here's a resource you might find informative.
Health Care Lawsuits
Cases could be merged. This is also going to the court of appeals before it will reach the SCOTUS. There's a long way to go in this process.
Thank you, although I'm pretty sure it's early to waste time on this. Cases are going to the court of appeals. Some might be sent back to lower courts. Eventually, they'll reach the SCOTUS, and I'll probably read up on it then. The cases could look fairly different then.
, you're dense...
There is no question in my mind or that of Professor Jacobsen that Judge Vinson believes his ruling is a ing injunction and that the government has been functionally enjoined from continuing to implement Obamacare because, as he says, the Obama administration would be stupid to continue in the face of a long-standing presumption that the court's order is as good as an injunction.
So, show me a legal resource that says they are free to continue implementing.
I'll bet only one makes it to SCOTUS and that'll be the one that best poses the question of whether or not the individual mandate is cons utional and if it is severable from the remainder of the law.
I think the Florida case is that case.
Professor Jacobsen has an opinion over the ruling. That's fine, and I agree there will be consequences if the government takes too long or doesn't file a motion to stay or an appeal (or halts implementation). I think we all agree on that. I don't see where Jacobsen mentions that it has to stop right now though.
Tell me, why didn't the judge actually issue an injunction right now? Have you seen any announcement that Obamacare's implementation is being stopped? Why do you think Judge Vinson hasn't issued a contempt of court or an actual injunction yet?
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf
http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINION...YVGEITHNER.PDF
Unfortunately for you and Professor Jacobsen, these opinions have as much authority as Judge Vinson's ruling.
I think all the cases surround the same topic: the commerce clause and the powers granted by it. Will be an interesting case to follow once it gets there.
I think the whole "declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" thing is where it is said.
He said it wasn't necessary because his declaratory judgment achieved the same thing.
I also haven't seen anything where States are continuing to implement, either. The judge didn't order them to declare they were stopping, he just ruled it was uncons utional to continue and that his order was the functional equivalent of an injunction.
I suspect if it comes to the court's attention that Obamacare implementation has continued on a level that indicates defiance of his order, the government will hear about it.
Actually, they don't. No one is enjoined from any activity in those rulings. The cases were merely dismissed on to appeal.
He said it would achieve the same thing "with the presumption" that the government would comply with his ruling.
Now, the government hasn't announced they stopped anything. As a matter of fact, they stated otherwise. Why haven't the judge issued a new injunctive relief yet?
From here:
David Rivkin, a conservative lawyer in Washington who represents the plaintiffs, said that the 26 states that are party to the lawsuit are no longer subject to any of the law's requirements - unless the federal government obtains a stay of Vinson's order from an appeals court. White House officials firmly rejected that view. "Implementation will proceed apace," one senior White House official said in a background briefing for reporters.
So, why hasn't the judge issued an injunction yet?
I'm sure that if in a week or two we keep hearing this stuff and there's no stay motion filed, the Judge will renounce to the presumption it had, and compel the government to comply. You might not like it, but this entire procedural system takes time.
You asked for legal opinion that enabled the administration to continue with Obamacare. I provided what you asked. They're basically rulings on the same topic, and the persons that issued those rulings have as much weight as Judge Vinson.
Because saying it and doing it are two different things.
Have the States said that Obamacare implementation has proceeded apace? I suspect one of the 26 states will notify the courts if they're approached by the federal government in that respect.
And, if Obamacare is dead in the water that whole time, I'm cool with that.
No, they don't and you won't find a legal scholar anywhere that says either of those cases have any bearing on Vinson's ruling. And, I didn't ask for a link to the court's ruling. Show me a legal opinion that says those ruling do what you assert.
The government never said it was going to comply. As a matter of fact, they've said they're going to appeal the decision. Thus the presumption from the Judge is, at least, misguided.
States are in a very ty position right now. This uncertainty certainly is a problem. Especially when they get messages like this:
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 Cons utional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.
Well, the States are on a bind. If they stop and then the law is proven to be cons utional, then they could have to catch up in a hurry. If they don't stop, they could be wasting money if it's found uncons utional.
What do you think court rulings are, if not legal opinion?
They have the exact same authority as Judge Vinson's ruling as far as giving the administration a green light to continue implementing. Like I said, the problem here is for the States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And Vinson's ruling has received it's critique too if you bothered to look (which I don't think you have):
http://volokh.com/2011/01/31/the-wea...n-the-mandate/
Orin S. Kerr is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School
Now read Ilya Somin's refutation of Kerr's position...at the same website. Look, we disagree. We'll see who's right in the coming days as States either continue setting up the structure of Obamacare or, when 26 of them, relying on Vinson's ruling, put on the brakes.
I've read Ilya's take too, and as all the other opinions, they're just that, opinion. Even the district judge's opinions are just that, and subject to appeal.
We have an ins ution that handles the last word on opinions, and that's the SCOTUS. That's exactly why I don't see this ruling as anything different from the other ones. They're all headed the same way.
BTW, here's a somewhat better explanation of what I was trying to tell you:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...blocks-the-law
On the injunction question, it’s complicated, but it’s also kind of stupid, because in the end of course the government is going to be able to continue implementing the law.
I gather from the press accounts that [Vinson] entered a declaratory judgment—a declaration that the law is uncons utional--not an injunction. If you don’t comply with an injunction, you’re in contempt of court. By contrast, you can “violate” a declaratory judgment with impunity. But in practice parties do not defy DJs. The reason is that, once a DJ had been entered, the person who got it can go back to court and get an injunction automatically, on the basis of the DJ. A DJ is often used against the government, because the court does not want to suggest that the government has to be threatened with contempt. The idea is: I (judge) know that you (government official) will comply once I tell you what the law is; I don’t have to order you to comply.
If he had entered an injunction, the US would immediately have sought a “stay pending appeal.” That means the injunction can’t be enforced while the case is on appeal. The US would seek the stay from him; if he denied it, from the 11th Circuit; if the 11th Circuit denied it—which would be inconceivable, in this case, in my view--from the S. Ct. Technically, a DJ does not have to be stayed, because it doesn’t require the US to do anything. But my guess is that the US will seek a stay anyway, just to make things clear. There is a risk that if the US seeks a stay, and the court of appeals says “we’re not granting a stay, because you don’t need it, since this is only a DJ” then that will be portrayed as a loss for the US. Vinson’s little maneuver—I’ll enter a DJ, and I’ll suggest you have to comply right away, but I won’t make it an injunction—is just jerkiness, designed to put the government in an awkward position without Vinson’s owning up to what he’s doing.
I don't necessarily disagree. However, the question of the day is whether or not the federal government is, in any way, restricted from continuing to implement the provisions of Obamacare.
On that we disagree and you've yet to present a compelling argument to the contrary.
At first you tried to tell me Judge Vinson's order didn't mean injunction; that I was wrong. Then, when you apparently became convinced that I wasn't wrong about that, you started saying Vinson was wrong.
Okay, that's all well and good but, there are greater legal minds than yours and mine that also disagree on that very question. As I said, we'll see how it plays out over the next couple of days and weeks.
It isn't an injunction. Even if the judge 'presumes it should act as one', it isn't one. He could have issued an injunction if he wanted to do that.
Read what I posted above.
I don't disagree we'll see how it plays out. I'm pretty sure this is going straight to the SCOTUS.
So, as Judge Vinson said, his declaratory judgment was the functional equivalent of an injunction.
If the government proceeds "apace," the defendants will probably get an injunction without delay and, then, the government will seek a stay that's not guaranteed.
Sounds to me like the feds are in the crack, not the states.
Glad we agree.
It was basically maneuvering. As I stated, the government is not compelled to do anything since it's not an actual injunction.
Actually, if the States seek an injunction without delay, then the government has a reason to seek the stay on said injunction. Right now, they don't have a reason to seek such stay, since there's no actual injunction in place.
I still think the government might seek a stay to clarify the situation.
So, basically, it's exactly what I've been trying to tell you from page 3 onwards.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote