without a 'stay' order isnt the last fed court ruling law?

[hotatlboi]

No because an injunction against implementation was not entered.

That is what would have needed a stay.

So far, all you have are conflicting rulings, 2 judges have said it is constitutional, 2 have said it is not.

The administration is free to continue implementation until either a final ruling by a higher court, or an injunction is ordered.

 

[hotatlboi]

Well some state AG's may take that interpretation, but the administration has said they are continuing with implementation.

That just underscores how meaningless the judge's ruling was. People can't even agree on the legal meaning of it.

In the end, his ruling means nothing, and the fate of the law will be decided by higher courts.

 

[hotatlboi]

what i heard this morning on npr radio is a person or party 'with standing' will go back to the fed judge and ask for contempt order or maybe a cease and desist unless a stay request is filed by the DOJ

I actually hope that happens, because then an appeals court would almost certainly issue a stay and then it would be clear to everyone that implementation is still on for now.

 

[jackoroe]

No because an injunction against implementation was not entered.

That is what would have needed a stay.

So far, all you have are conflicting rulings, 2 judges have said it is constitutional, 2 have said it is not.

The administration is free to continue implementation until either a final ruling by a higher court, or an injunction is ordered.

There is no need to implement an injunction. Which part of unconstitutional don't you get? The president ignores the judges ruling at his own peril. Contempt of court is an impeachable offense. Read what the judge wrote. He's pretty clear on what was to happen next.

"...there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.”
“There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

Is the Obama administration above the law? - National Law and Politics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/law-and-pol...ma-administration-above-the-law#ixzz1CrUJaxUF

Now if Obama wants to go ahead, the 26 states suing need to move for a contempt hearing against the administration.

 

[hotatlboi]

Which part of unconstitutional don't you get?

The judge did not prove the entire law is unconstitutional. Not even close. He didn't even attempt to prove it. He basically said something like, "the individual mandate is not, here's why. Now that we know that, I don't like the rest of the law, so I'm tossing it all".

This ruling is just as political as Bush v Gore, it has no lasting legal value, and it certainly won't last long.

 

[Kulindahr]

The judge did not prove the entire law is unconstitutional. Not even close. He didn't even attempt to prove it. He basically said something like, "the individual mandate is not, here's why. Now that we know that, I don't like the rest of the law, so I'm tossing it all".

This ruling is just as political as Bush v Gore, it has no lasting legal value, and it certainly won't last long.

However idiotic it may be (and it is), that's still the ruling, and the government is bound by it under law -- until they get a higher court to negate that.

As I said elsewhere, pulling the mandate may leave the law as an economic mess, but there is no constitutional requirement for laws to make economic sense, so the judge has no rational grounds for linking the mandate with the rest.

 

[jackoroe]

The judge did not prove the entire law is unconstitutional. Not even close. He didn't even attempt to prove it. He basically said something like, "the individual mandate is not, here's why. Now that we know that, I don't like the rest of the law, so I'm tossing it all".

This ruling is just as political as Bush v Gore, it has no lasting legal value, and it certainly won't last long.

It's a judges ruling. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you follow and which you don't. He's ruled the law to be unconstitutional and that's where it stands. And I think if you look more closely at the two rulings your crowing about winning, that they were tossed for standing, not on any factual basis. There's a significant difference.

 

[construct]

One question--Was there a severability clause in the law?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ OOH!

Good one.

 

[construct]

no, there was not. there was one in the draft but it was removed before the final vote

Then the administration can't just sever the part that was ruled unconstitutional. The court could, but the administration can't.

 

[hotatlboi]

It's a judges ruling. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you follow and which you don't. He's ruled the law to be unconstitutional and that's where it stands. And I think if you look more closely at the two rulings your crowing about winning, that they were tossed for standing, not on any factual basis. There's a significant difference.

I'm not suggesting they defy the law. If the judge's ruling was tantamount to an injunction (that wasn't my understanding but let's say suppose that is the case) then they should seek a stay from the appeals court.

 

[construct]

Here is the answer. Repeal the current health care law. Then put everything back with a severability clause and without the mandate but with the requirement that every citizen to be able to show evidence of financial responsibility for their health care. Allow health savings accounts with a particular balance to count in place of private insurance. In this way, everyone is covered without requiring anyone to buy insurance.

There. I'm glad we got that fixed.

 

[hotatlboi]

Then put everything back

Unfortunately that's not possible.

Republicans will kill it through any means possible.

There's no way they would pass it again with just those modifications.

 

[construct]

Unfortunately that's not possible.

Republicans will kill it through any means possible.

There's no way they would pass it again with just those modifications.

Fair enough. Just do the tweaks instead. Besides the total repeal effort died in the Senate already.

 

[jackoroe]

Fair enough. Just do the tweaks instead. Besides the total repeal effort died in the Senate already.

There's no real reason to repeal a law that doesn't exist, is there?

 

[hotatlboi]

There's no real reason to repeal a law that doesn't exist, is there?

Don't be absurd. One district level judge is not going to have the final say. The legal process is far from over.

 

[construct]

There's no real reason to repeal a law that doesn't exist, is there?

Of course there isn't, but this law exists. The time for appeal hasn't passed.

By your logic, there was no DADT law to repeal because the Log Cabinners had won their case in district court. But you see, there was still a law to repeal, and they repealed it.

Now the Republicans are taking the tack of wanting to repeal particular provisions in the health care law. I'm merely suggesting a way to tweak the law to rid it of the mandate to buy insurance.