AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 9:58:37 GMT -5
It turns out that Rueters and MSNBC lied (again) yesterday in headlines that read "Florida Judge Refuses to Halt New Healthcare Law".
In reality, it was the harshest rebuke of an administration maybe ever. As a reminder, the Obama regime is has already been held in contempt on its failure to comply with another federal judge's order on its illegal oil drilling ban.
Judge Vinson said in part, "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.'
That's a federal judge BLASTING the President. In short, I was right in my initial interpretation of the ruling- and many of you were wrong. The law is clearly, and unambiguously unConstitutional unless a higher court overturns this judge's ruling, and the Obama regime will was planning to ignore the ruling-- pure and simple-- just like they did when they were held in contempt on their refusal to comply with a federal judges ruling on the oil drilling ban.
Judge Vinson "had expected the government lawyers to immediately seek a stay of the ruling. 'It was not expected' he wrote, '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."
He didn't expect them to sit around for two-and-a-half weeks and ignore his ruling, but that's what they did. So in effect what Vinson has done, he's issued a seven-day stay of his previous ruling -- in effect -- and if the regime does not appeal within seven days, it looks like the regime is gonna be forced to stop implementing Obamacare.
Now, MSNBC is saying that if the regime does not appeal in seven days the 26 states that sued can consider the law invalid. Um, if the regime doesn't (successfully, I might add) appeal this ruling-- NO STATE may implement the law. It will at that point be over, and national healthcare will be dead forever.
Oh, they'll never stop trying, but make no mistake-- politically, Democrats won't be in a position to try anything of the sort for generations. And in the highly unlikely event Democrats gain the majority again in my lifetime-- they won't stick their necks out for naiontal healthcare again like they did this time. Yea!!! We're one week away from the DEATH of ObamaCare!!!
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 4, 2011 10:03:27 GMT -5
Imagine if the average citizen ignored and/or refused to follow a judicial decision.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 1:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 10:15:34 GMT -5
Imagine if the average citizen ignored and/or refused to follow a judicial decision. Happens all the time. And at the next contempt court date the defending attorney will usually put forth something like "my client is putting in significant effort to comply" or some such statement... ( I spend too much time in civil court )
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 4, 2011 10:17:05 GMT -5
Happens all the time. And at the next contempt court date the defending attorney will usually put forth something like "my client is putting in significant effort to comply" or some such statement... ( I spend too much time in civil court )
A bench warrant for the offending parties arrest would be issued.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 1:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 10:20:58 GMT -5
Happens all the time. And at the next contempt court date the defending attorney will usually put forth something like "my client is putting in significant effort to comply" or some such statement... ( I spend too much time in civil court ) A bench warrant for the offending parties arrest would be issued. Only if the judge is so inclined. Still waiting for that arrest warrant for Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 4, 2011 10:26:27 GMT -5
Only if the judge is so inclined. Still waiting for that arrest warrant for Obama.
Not really. But if a judge, say a local one, issued a bench warrant for someone's arrest because that individual did not comply with the judge's orders, they would be arrested. This judge ordering Obama arrested would send a strong message that NO ONE is above the law.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 10:28:07 GMT -5
Realistically, there won't be a bench warrant for the President of the United States. But what will happen if the regime misses the deadline to appeal is that the law will be dead. No more appeals. No more opportunities. The hope of the regime was to delay the inevitable until the law was mostly implemented in all the states. I think they very frankly had hoped to IGNORE the ruling, and lawlessly proceed as if nothing had happened.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 10:35:56 GMT -5
Much as I'd love to see that- I don't think a judge has the authority to issue an arrest warrant for the President. Now, I don't think the President is above the law, but I have to say I would not want to see a judge have that authority.
Oh, it'd be fun to see the this President frog marched out of the west wing of the White House, there are a number of long and short term problems with that-- the immediate short term problem with it is that it's never happened before, and now we're going to have the first BLACK President arrested? I'm not merely concerned about political fallout- the judge would be unwise to even try it. I have lived in a city where there would be riots, and people would be killed.
A second serious consideration is 2012. This President is going to lose 49 states, and he might even lose Illinois. Do we want the next conservative President to face a situation where every crack pot lib tard federal judge (of which there are many) issuing bench warrants for the arrest of POTUS?
Once anything like this happens, there'll be no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
No, the President will just be held in contempt like he has been already- and he will continue to cement his legacy as one of the most lawless presidents since Nixon and Clinton.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 4, 2011 10:36:38 GMT -5
Only if the judge is so inclined. Still waiting for that arrest warrant for Obama.Not really. But if a judge, say a local one, issued a bench warrant for someone's arrest because that individual did not comply with the judge's orders, they would be arrested. This judge ordering Obama arrested would send a strong message that NO ONE is above the law. Bench warrants are pretty easy to get in a criminal case, but not in civil ones. You have to go through several steps of motion practice and hearings on contempt before a court can issue bench warrants in civil cases. But people disregard judges all the time. It drives me crazy, but it happens.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 4, 2011 10:37:04 GMT -5
Much as I'd love to see that- I don't think a judge has the authority to issue an arrest warrant for the President. Now, I don't think the President is above the law, but I have to say I would not want to see a judge have that authority.
Yeah, I agree. It would be a slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on Mar 4, 2011 10:37:24 GMT -5
It turns out that Rueters and MSNBC lied (again) yesterday in headlines that read "Florida Judge Refuses to Halt New Healthcare Law". In reality, it was the harshest rebuke of an administration maybe ever. As a reminder, the Obama regime is has already been held in contempt on its failure to comply with another federal judge's order on its illegal oil drilling ban. Judge Vinson said in part, " 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.' That's a federal judge BLASTING the President. In short, I was right in my initial interpretation of the ruling- and many of you were wrong. The law is clearly, and unambiguously unConstitutional unless a higher court overturns this judge's ruling, and the Obama regime will was planning to ignore the ruling-- pure and simple-- just like they did when they were held in contempt on their refusal to comply with a federal judges ruling on the oil drilling ban. Judge Vinson "had expected the government lawyers to immediately seek a stay of the ruling. 'It was not expected' he wrote, '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." He didn't expect them to sit around for two-and-a-half weeks and ignore his ruling, but that's what they did. So in effect what Vinson has done, he's issued a seven-day stay of his previous ruling -- in effect -- and if the regime does not appeal within seven days, it looks like the regime is gonna be forced to stop implementing Obamacare. Now, MSNBC is saying that if the regime does not appeal in seven days the 26 states that sued can consider the law invalid. Um, if the regime doesn't (successfully, I might add) appeal this ruling-- NO STATE may implement the law. It will at that point be over, and national healthcare will be dead forever. Oh, they'll never stop trying, but make no mistake-- politically, Democrats won't be in a position to try anything of the sort for generations. And in the highly unlikely event Democrats gain the majority again in my lifetime-- they won't stick their necks out for naiontal healthcare again like they did this time. Yea!!! We're one week away from the DEATH of ObamaCare!!! Go Paul.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 10:41:33 GMT -5
Only if the judge is so inclined. Still waiting for that arrest warrant for Obama.Not really. But if a judge, say a local one, issued a bench warrant for someone's arrest because that individual did not comply with the judge's orders, they would be arrested. This judge ordering Obama arrested would send a strong message that NO ONE is above the law. Bench warrants are pretty easy to get in a criminal case, but not in civil ones. You have to go through several steps of motion practice and hearings on contempt before a court can issue bench warrants in civil cases. But people disregard judges all the time. It drives me crazy, but it happens. I thought you said lower court judge's rulings really aren't binding on anyone?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 4, 2011 11:12:17 GMT -5
I thought you said lower court judge's rulings really aren't binding on anyone? No, she said lower court judge's ruling aren't binding on any other court. Which in this case means when this goes to the supreme court it won't matter at all what this federal judge said or ruled.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 4, 2011 11:15:53 GMT -5
Bench warrants are pretty easy to get in a criminal case, but not in civil ones. You have to go through several steps of motion practice and hearings on contempt before a court can issue bench warrants in civil cases. But people disregard judges all the time. It drives me crazy, but it happens. I thought you said lower court judge's rulings really aren't binding on anyone? No, we were talking about whether their findings are binding on any other court. If a lower court interprets a law a certain way (which they have to do all the time because the legistlature can't write a clear law to save their lives), no other court is bound to follow that interpretation. The person that is the subject of that lawsuit, however, is supposed to follow the order that resulted from the interpretation of the law. Court orders and precedent are like comparing apples to clocks.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 4, 2011 11:28:53 GMT -5
This judge ordering Obama arrested would send a strong message that NO ONE is above the law. A judge ordering Obama arrested would have to have balls the size of Texas.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,433
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 4, 2011 11:54:29 GMT -5
This judge ordering Obama arrested would send a strong message that NO ONE is above the law. A judge ordering Obama arrested would have to have balls the size of Texas.And a brain the size of a pea.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 4, 2011 12:21:15 GMT -5
The Obama regime is also currently derelicting their duty and placing themselves in contempt by openly and publicly refusing to support DOMA. Since DOMA is the law of the land, this is an impeachable offense. Articles of impeachment have already been raised in the House I believe...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 4, 2011 12:22:17 GMT -5
<<< A judge ordering Obama arrested would have to have balls the size of Texas. >>> ...well, everything IS bigger in Texas...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 4, 2011 12:23:30 GMT -5
<<< And a brain the size of a pea. >>> ...it's not the size that counts, but the motion of the... never mind...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 13:59:50 GMT -5
It wouldn't require any balls at all to issue the order. Judges aren't particularly accountable for their stupidity and most of them know it. The arresting officers would be the ones that neede the balls.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 14:02:50 GMT -5
More to the OT, this is a crushing blow to the Obama regime. This judge may not have issued a bench warrant, or held them in contempt-- which he had every right to do, but he did throw down the gauntlet. He has put a deliberately lawless administration on notice that they must file an appeal within 7 days, or they must comply with the order that finds ObamaCare unConstitutional.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Mar 4, 2011 14:37:59 GMT -5
This lack of appeal probably just slipped their mind and I'm sure they will comply with the 7 day limit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 1:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 15:41:06 GMT -5
So a judge now sets the time period in which something can be appealed? If the thing isn't appealed in seven days, then it can never be appealed?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 15:59:24 GMT -5
No, he cannot set the time period in which it can be appealed. They can appeal it anytime they want. What he did here today is say that they can no longer ignore the ruling. He didn't say so in so many words, but he made it clear that if they go on ignoring the ruling he can and will find the regime in contempt.
What he can do is issue a stay of his own ruling and he can set the time period for that-- which he did. He said basically, the ruling is on hold for a week. After that, the ruling that holds that the law is unConstitutional is the law of the land unless or until a higher court overrules him.
The Obama regime has been delaying because they know the inevitable outcome-- they're in a corner. It's a corner they put themselves in, but they're not coming out of the corner with ObamaCare in tact.
So, IMHO, ObamaCare is a few months- not years- from being declared unConstitutional by the full Supreme Court (assuming the 11th Circuit doesn't agree with Judge Vinson) will declare ObamaCare dead. This just speeds up the process. It says, "Hey, look guys- you have a week to appeal my ruling after which, I'm going to hold you in contempt if you proceed to ignore it".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 4, 2011 16:40:49 GMT -5
Texas AG agrees with me- judge will likely hold the Obama regime in contempt if they don't act within 7 days. www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/healthcare/health-care.htm<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4567154&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 4, 2011 22:10:28 GMT -5
Now, MSNBC is saying that if the regime does not appeal in seven days the 26 states that sued can consider the law invalid. Um, if the regime doesn't (successfully, I might add) appeal this ruling-- NO STATE may implement the law. It will at that point be over, and national health care will be dead forever. Oh, they'll never stop trying, but make no mistake-- politically, Democrats won't be in a position to try anything of the sort for generations. And in the highly unlikely event Democrats gain the majority again in my lifetime-- they won't stick their necks out for national health care again like they did this time. Yea!!! We're one week away from the DEATH of ObamaCare!!! This is not going to end until scotus no matter how bad you may want it to- meanwhile it will be implemented and the people are going to see the real benefits of it and will get on board. I see the worst case is that the mandate might get tossed-forcing insurers to raise prices-and as soon as that happens the public option will make a comeback-not a bad outcome. I am much less interested in this law than what Vermont and a few other states may do with a single payer set up- once it is a proven success it will move nationwide- which is exactly what we need- one nationwide risk pool and one insurer, giving Americans freedom of choice and piece of mind when it comes to health care-like the citizens of other countries enjoy. Why are you so against a national system anyway? You prefer the current economic/insurer/employer based rationing of care where the sickest among us have to lose everything before we can get help? You sound like an old fart on Medicare enjoying your nationwide government plan while shaking your fist at the darn neighborhood kids.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 5, 2011 11:57:41 GMT -5
Massachusettes: FAIL Tennessee: MEGA FAIL Canada: FAIL Britain: MEGA FAIL
There's a reason people don't want anything resembling ObamaCare. It's doomed to fail, and everyone except committed leftists know it.
So, much of your post is wishful thinking.
Up until this judge voluntarily put a stay on his own order, ObamaCare was unConstitutional and implementing it was a violation of the ruling in which as the judge pointed out, "the Constitution itself acts as an injunction". That is why the plaintiff's didn't need to seek an injunction, and that's why the judge didn't find the need-- it's outlined in his ruling which is 71 pages long.
My point is this: Obama has been dragging his feet because the regime has a strategy of lawless "inevitability". Go on as if nothing happened and count on what you're saying-- it's implemented, we're entangled, and we never recover, go back, or repeal it.
Here's the reality: The law has been found unConstitutional in a very well thought out, carefully reasoned, well articulated ruling, after ruling, after ruling. It's important to note that the first two rulings make the ENTIRE law unConstitutional because there's no severability clause, so we don't even need judge Vinson's ruling to find it unConstitutional in its entirety. The Supreme Court is in no hurry to hear this, and my guess is that the 11th Circuit will not overturn judge Vinson, and the Supreme Court will not, either. This law is doomed. I think that is precisely why they have been draggin their feet-- that's why they're banking on their lawless strategy to implement ObamaCare.
More reality: National healthcare, or anything resembling it is dead after this law is inevitably declared unConstitutional. Dead. It got rammed through once, but that woke us all up-- and we'll never assume Democrats won't jam through a policy two thirds of the public vehemently opposes again.
We know they will. The result is that it's going to be highly unlikely we ever make the mistake of putting Democrats in a position to do it again-- maybe ever, but Democrats are out of power for a generation. I think they can get used to a 1948 Republican-style minority for about the same period of time-- 42 years.
Democrats are so wildly unpopular right now, they are breaking record lows in the polls. They will lose the White House AND the Senate in 2012 by huge margins. Obama will be lucky if he carries Illinois where voters are fuming over a massive Democrat tax hike.
Even in the unlikely event Democrats gain power again, they won't do it promising ObamaCare, HillaryCare, or whatever else. And Democrats have wised up, too-- don't think any Democrat who wins office will trash their career like the 62 who lost their House Seats in the biggest election turnover in 70 years.
Chew on that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 1:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2011 12:20:47 GMT -5
And there will be a stay... the judge assumed their would be... it is not even close to decided...
The ONLY part being declared unconstitution is the mandate... if there was a severability clause, the whole thing would not have been deemed unconstitutional... and the Supreme Court has recently settled other issues by saying you don't need a severability clause, you need a specific Non Severability clause if it isn't severable... so the whole thing is not going to be thrown.
And the thing is, if the basis of the mandate being unconstitutional is the purchasing of a PRIVATE product... the fact is that the development of a true National PUBLIC OPTION... like many wanted in the first place... solves that problem...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 5, 2011 12:34:02 GMT -5
<<< And the thing is, if the basis of the mandate being unconstitutional is the purchasing of a PRIVATE product... the fact is that the development of a true National PUBLIC OPTION... like many wanted in the first place... solves that problem... >>> ...no, that's the other thing...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 20, 2024 1:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2011 12:34:42 GMT -5
I'm confused...
|
|