ObamaCare repeal FAIL

[Bfgrn]

While they may in fact rule on the case, It doesn't change the fact the the Obamacare is currently DEAD and the Court will be hearing the case on Appeal of its being dead.

It's amazing people have such conflicting views of the Court system. 1 court rules Dont ask dont tell unconstitutional and there was dancing in the streets.

My God, even your right wing authoritarian Fox mouthpiece judge agrees...

The judge goes on to point out that though all 2700 pages of the health care reform have now been declared unconstitutional, the government can still enforce them the judge did not sign an injunction to prevent enforcement. "That would have sent the federal government to an appeals court this afternoon."

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Judge Napolitano: Entire bill void but health care law can still be enforced - National Political Transcripts * Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-t...-care-law-can-still-be-enforced#ixzz1CujCBLME

 

[Chapdog]

And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.

This makes little sense to me. If you falsify on your tax return that you had insurance so as to avoid the penalty (of less tax return / or more taxes owed) you could be prosecuted under the existing tax laws which include jail time.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

My God, even your right wing authoritarian Fox mouthpiece judge agrees...

Wow, that was kind of funny. You see, your Washington post link and the Quote you posted actually supports what I am saying.

Vinson stopped short of granting an injunction, as the plaintiffs requested, to prevent the law from going forward while the case is appealed. He said such a step was unnecessary because of a "long-standing presumption" that the federal government adheres to rulings of this type.

He just said, He didn't need the injunction because he just ruled the entire law unconstitutional. No injunction was need to prevent the law going forward. I didn't mention it because that would be petty and redundant.

Now you are posting
"Devonia Smith, a retired marketing director whose online friends call her Dev, doesn't remember a life before her passion for politics" Who apparently does transcription for fun.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow, that was kind of funny. You see, your Washington post link and the Quote you posted actually supports what I am saying.


He just said, He didn't need the injunction because he just ruled the entire law unconstitutional. No injunction was need to prevent the law going forward. I didn't mention it because that would be petty and redundant.

Now you are posting
"Devonia Smith, a retired marketing director whose online friends call her Dev, doesn't remember a life before her passion for politics" Who apparently does transcription for fun.

OMG!!! How could I not know that Dev's qualifications preclude her from transcribing what Judge Napolitano said.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

OMG!!! How could I not know that Dev's qualifications preclude her from transcribing what Judge Napolitano said.

Now you know.. But either way, doesn't really matter what Judge Napolitano says. Your Washington Times Qoute confirms it. "He said such a step was unnecessary" He didn't have to write an injunction to stop the Law, the Law was already stopped.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

If it makes you happy. Judge Napolitano did in fact say the opposite of what Vinson said. Now, if you watch the Fox Show. The Ruling was just handed down mere moments ago and the Judge said he had not read the Brief yet.

 

[Bfgrn]

If it makes you happy. Judge Napolitano did in fact say the opposite of what Vinson said. Now, if you watch the Fox Show. The Ruling was just handed down mere moments ago and the Judge said he had not read the Brief yet.

I understand your point, but the reality is without the injunction the law will go forward and be implemented. You might want to consider that Vinson knew what he was doing in not ordering an injunction because he did side with the federal government on some of the law.

From the Washington Post article:

Even as he struck down the statute as a whole, Vinson rejected the plaintiffs' arguments against the part of the law that will expand Medicaid, the public insurance program for the poor and disabled that is jointly funded by the states and the federal government. The states contended that the expansion, to begin in 2014, infringes on their sovereignty. Vincent sided with the federal government, which argued that there is no infringement because states have the choice whether to participate in Medicaid. The Virginia case did not address the Medicaid issue.

If the plaintiffs prove right, the provisions that could be thrown in doubt at least temporarily include some that are already in effect, such as one prohibiting states from saving money by tightening their eligibility standards for Medicaid.

Also from the article:

David Engstrom, a Stanford Law School faculty member, said that he does not interpret the opinion as preventing the law from going forward. "The issue that the court has ruled on has been specifically contradicted by two other district courts," he said. "So, the idea that the Obama administration should somehow stand down from implementing the act, based on a fourth district court, doesn't have any basis in law."

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I understand your point, but the reality is without the injunction the law will go forward and be implemented. You might want to consider that Vinson knew what he was doing in not ordering an injunction because he did side with the federal government on some of the law.

I am not aware of any legal possibility of someone willfully continuing to execute a law that a Federal Judge has ruled unconstitutional. Why have a federal judge in the first place is no one is going to heed his rulings. He ruled the entire Act and all 2700 pages of it unconstitutional. There is no need to order an injunction to stop the implementation of a Law he just voided.

It stands to reason there is nothing to implement in the coming months and as such nobody cares, but as far as all other section of the Law. Uncapped insurance, Pre-existing coverage, spending provisions are all Null and Void until a higher court says otherwise.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

David Engstrom, a Stanford Law School faculty member, said that he does not interpret the opinion as preventing the law from going forward. "The issue that the court has ruled on has been specifically contradicted by two other district courts," he said. "So, the idea that the Obama administration should somehow stand down from implementing the act, based on a fourth district court, doesn't have any basis in law."

What David is Saying is that Obama is gambling that the law will get overturned eventually due to judicial confusion. But in that invites a Contempt of Court ruling. NOW that would be fun to watch.

 

[Bfgrn]

What David is Saying is that Obama is gambling that the law will get overturned eventually due to judicial confusion. But in that invites a Contempt of Court ruling. NOW that would be fun to watch.

The law will continue to be implemented, you can bank on it. One right wing federal judge in Florida will not be the final word. It will end up before the Supreme Court...Vinson's ruling guarantees it. And if his ruling stands, there will be nothing to stop what we should have had in the first place, what the American people want...a public option.

It never ceases to amaze me how much you folks on the right root for failure and seek to inflict punishment. 'Conservatism' today is really just authoritarianism.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[FuzzyBunny]

The law will continue to be implemented, you can bank on it. One right wing federal judge in Florida will not be the final word. It will end up before the Supreme Court...Vinson's ruling guarantees it. And if his ruling stands, there will be nothing to stop what we should have had in the first place, what the American people want...a public option.

It never ceases to amaze me how much you folks on the right root for failure and seek to inflict punishment. 'Conservatism' today is really just authoritarianism.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

You realize that your entire post is an oxymoron.
On one hand conservatives are authoritarians. Yet these authoritarians are fighting authoritarianism that seemingly Americans want.

Of course it going to continue implementing the law. Your constitutional Lawyer/Leader and President now has a history of pissing on the Law. Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court for Gulf Oil Drilling Ban

A search of the news doesn't bring up any Bush Contempt of Court rulings. So how does a President that not only doesn't follow the law, but actually is in Contempt of the Law square with authoritarianism and the notion we are a nation of Laws.

Prehaps we should just do away with the Law, being that it gets in the Way of what the "people" want

 

[Bfgrn]

You realize that your entire post is an oxymoron.
On one hand conservatives are authoritarians. Yet these authoritarians are fighting authoritarianism that seemingly Americans want.

Of course it going to continue implementing the law. Your constitutional Lawyer/Leader and President now has a history of pissing on the Law. Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court for Gulf Oil Drilling Ban

A search of the news doesn't bring up any Bush Contempt of Court rulings. So how does a President that not only doesn't follow the law, but actually is in Contempt of the Law square with authoritarianism and the notion we are a nation of Laws.

Prehaps we should just do away with the Law, being that it gets in the Way of what the "people" want

Ironic, you believe one or two judges you agree with should rule over America. What about the Federal judges in Michigan and Virginia who ruled that law is constitutional?

I guess the way an authoritarian would proceed is to wait for a judge to issue a rule he likes, and then expect swift punishment...

BTW, Vinson ruled on Monday, and Mitch McConnell forced a repeal vote in the Senate on Wednesday...maybe you should talk the Mitch...

 

[FuzzyBunny]

Ironic, you believe one or two judges you agree with should rule over America. What about the Federal judges in Michigan and Virginia who ruled that law is constitutional?.

Is that more or less ironic than you believing the other one or two judges?

What about them, everything I have read about them say their ruling were hurried and weak and in Judge Steeh case insane. He was the one the reasoned taking a nap is an economic activity that could be regulated by the federal government because the Choice to take a nap instead of working or shopping had significant effect on interstate commerce.

I wonder how that fits into your authoritarian world view.

I guess the way an authoritarian would proceed is to wait for a judge to issue a rule he likes, and then expect swift punishment...

If the law was legal and constitutional, chances are you wouldn't find a judge to issue a rule contray to what it is.

BTW, Vinson ruled on Monday, and Mitch McConnell forced a repeal vote in the Senate on Wednesday...maybe you should talk the Mitch...

I'll be sure to drop him a note

 

[Bfgrn]

Is that more or less ironic than you believing the other one or two judges?

What about them, everything I have read about them say their ruling were hurried and weak and in Judge Steeh case insane. He was the one the reasoned taking a nap is an economic activity that could be regulated by the federal government because the Choice to take a nap instead of working or shopping had significant effect on interstate commerce.

I wonder how that fits into your authoritarian world view.


If the law was legal and constitutional, chances are you wouldn't find a judge to issue a rule contray to what it is.


I'll be sure to drop him a note

Link??? No more excuses...

What it means is that it will end up before the Supreme Court. It is nothing new or novel, is it?

 

[FuzzyBunny]

Link??? No more excuses...

What it means is that it will end up before the Supreme Court. It is nothing new or novel, is it?

I'll give you links, but I don't want to hear you whine.

District Court Upholds Individual Mandate Against Challenge Filed by Liberty University

Michigan District Court Upholds Individual Mandate Against Challenge by the Thomas More Law Center

Mandate Challenge Could Prevail

there is about 50 more give or take. It you would like them all, I'd be more than happy to fulfill your wishes.

Has it occured to you that the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear the Case. By refusing to hear the case the Prior ruling stands.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll give you links, but I don't want to hear you whine.

District Court Upholds Individual Mandate Against Challenge Filed by Liberty University

Michigan District Court Upholds Individual Mandate Against Challenge by the Thomas More Law Center

Mandate Challenge Could Prevail

there is about 50 more give or take. It you would like them all, I'd be more than happy to fulfill your wishes.

Has it occured to you that the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear the Case. By refusing to hear the case the Prior ruling stands.

From your first link:

As should by now be obvious, no district court is going to resolve this issue definitively. All of these cases will next be addressed by federal courts of appeals. And there is a high likelihood that the matter will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court (a virtual certainty if even one federal appellate court strikes down the mandate). If the plaintiffs lose all the district court decisions, that could create momentum for the federal government that will be difficult to overcome. Court of appeals judges might hesitate to upset what would seem like an emerging judicial consensus. Such an outcome is, however, highly unlikely given the situation in the two cases filed by state governments.

I continue to believe that the Supreme Court is more likely to uphold the mandate than strike it down. But the course of the litigation so far shows that there is no consensus on the issue among judges and other experts, and that the plaintiffs have a much better chance of winning than many commentators (myself included) initially thought.

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

Here is an article by someone whose opinions I respect. He includes your author (Ilya Somin) and others.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/wonkbook_what_the_vinson_rulin.html

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I don't think I need to state the obvious that in all my posts I have always noted "until overturned by a Higher Court" If/when a higher court does overturn it. What we are talking about is today. What is the Law's status today.

As to your Ezra Klein, not bad. But the rebuttal yesterday to it in the same paper may shed some light.

Give me liberty or give me health care

The point Ezra misses -- by a country mile -- is that the threat to liberty, if any, comes not so much from the individual mandate itself, but from the other things Congress might do if it gets away with claiming authority for this measure under the commerce clause.

Fairly stated, this is the conservative constitutional argument: Health care for all is a good cause. But if, in the name of that noble goal, you construe Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly as to encompass individual choices that have never previously been thought of as commercial, much less interstate, there would be nothing left of the commerce clause's restraints on Congress's power. And then, the argument goes, Congress would be free to impose far more intrusive mandates. Judge Vinson suggested that Congress "could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," and that is hardly the most absurd or mischievous imaginable consequence.

A question I have asked has always brought liberal up short. This unlimited power you are so willingly giving Obama to wield for a noble cause, would you as willingly allow Bush the use of this power? If the answer is NO, then do not give it to Obama. what if Palin wins in 2012.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't think I need to state the obvious that in all my posts I have always noted "until overturned by a Higher Court" If/when a higher court does overturn it. What we are talking about is today. What is the Law's status today.

As to your Ezra Klein, not bad. But the rebuttal yesterday to it in the same paper may shed some light.

Give me liberty or give me health care


A question I have asked has always brought liberal up short. This unlimited power you are so willingly giving Obama to wield for a noble cause, would you as willingly allow Bush the use of this power? If the answer is NO, then do not give it to Obama. what if Palin wins in 2012.

WOW, you folks on the right don't even comprehend what the word 'liberty' means. Where were the cries of imminent danger from all the 'liberty loving' conservatives when Bush was shredding them in the name of 'security'?

There is one thing that has always been at the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals defend government helping people, conservatives defend government harming and killing people.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

 

[FuzzyBunny]

WOW, you folks on the right don't even comprehend what the word 'liberty' means. Where were the cries of imminent danger from all the 'liberty loving' conservatives when Bush was shredding them in the name of 'security'?

Tell me what liberty means to You...

I was not here for the crying and your dodging the question.

There is one thing that has always been at the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals defend government helping people, conservatives defend government harming and killing people.

Really... vacuous rhetoric.
So by your own admission you defend any unconstitutional act for benevolence. I wonder what else liberals would do for benevolence. The road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Of course that does explain the Democratic rule for the last 100 years.

Since you love qoutes:

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

 

[Bfgrn]

Tell me what liberty means to You...

I was not here for the crying and your dodging the question.


Really... vacuous rhetoric.
So by your own admission you defend any unconstitutional act for benevolence. I wonder what else liberals would do for benevolence. The road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Of course that does explain the Democratic rule for the last 100 years.

Since you love qoutes:

You can continue the bluster, but the reality is; the law will proceed, there will be appeals filed, and it will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

Vacuous rhetoric? I'd like to believe you are right, and I am wrong. But my experience, instincts and the rhetoric I continually and consistently hear from conservatives tell me I am right on. I have become more suspect of conservatives, not less over the years.

Whenever the subject turns to the Constitution, conservatives try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. Your op-ed uses the absurd and polarized argument to wield the Constitution as that weapon. It is always an inflated and dire fear, a negative of a right and a slippery slope.

What is liberty? To me it is freedom to do whatever I want, in the boundaries of the rights and liberties of others. It is not a sanction to harm or deprive others, or to use deception that steals from my fellow man. So liberty is both personal and it is communal, a self respect and a common respect for others. And a respect for the 'commons', the air, water, fish, fowl and soil that we all share.

'Liberty' is a key word in the seminal phrase that America was founded on. It is stated in the most clear and unmistakable statement of the intent, mission and whole of what our founder's intended their government to be. It is the pretext to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed later. Thomas Jefferson said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Those words in the Declaration of Independence not only are pretext to the Constitution, they are the standard and measuring stick all government action is judged on.

Health care is a right. It is written in Jefferson's words. Life itself is not possible without your health. We all have a right to affordable heath care and competent treatment. The bill that was passed, all these contortions, waste of time and money are caused by the 800 lb elephant in the room. Health care is NOT and never will be best handled by a market based system. The incentives of the insured and the incentives of the insurer are in direct conflict. And unlike being stuck with a bad car, TV or appliance, the insured's stake in the transaction is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

BTW, your Jefferson quote are powerful words. I suggest you find out what the context of those words are. Our founders were human, it is not unusual for even a founding father to use hyperbole to make an argument.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29