Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:

Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for 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.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985)

Originally Posted by randolph

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

The facts are now straight.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:



The facts are now straight.

Bottom line: the judge DID NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION. Now the facts are really straight.

[randolph]

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief". The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

So Congress is where the law must be straightened out.

The bill was written without the usual "separability" clause that makes it possible for a judge to rule on parts of a law that is challenged rather than on the entire law. This may or may not have been done deliberately (that is a separate discussion). Hence, the judge's ruling is on the entire law.

He could have chosen to STOP the law's implementation immediately by issuing an injunction. He did not. There are arguments among lawyers and talking heads about the judge's intent, but it is clear that however he may define various words, he did not enjoin the government from its immediate implementation of the law, which he could have done and which he could have made clear.

The Justice Department considers the ruling to be a declarative one that allows for the implementation of the law as the case makes its way higher, to the Supreme Court (remember, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014). Some of the states that have sued the federal government consider the ruling to be more than declarative, and are clamoring for the immediate halt to implementation.

It is notable that the judge has NOT changed his ruling. It would be easy for a state that thinks he ruled to enjoin the law and stop its implementation immediately to go back to his court and ask for him to make this clear. That has not happened, precisely for the reason I stated earlier. Judge Vinson is acting in accord with the spirit of the statutes and his judicial authority. He seems to be recognizing the absurdity of enjoining something that hasn't yet gone into effect (in other words, how can you stop something that hasn't yet started?). And, by virtue of his statement in the ruling quoted by Randolph earlier, he recognizes the political reality that there are provisions in the law that, to stop their implementation (e.g., the provision that disallows an insurance company from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition), would not only wreak havoc but -- he implies -- are probably constitutional (remember, this bill lacked the "separability" clause).

Vinson may be an "activist judge" -- as some proponents of the law have claimed -- but he surely is no dummy.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn?t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

But there are other companies that didn?t/don?t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don?t have to pay less with Obama care?

(I?m not sure if it shines through enough that I?m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.

The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don?t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

Why should the hospitals raise the cost of care per person? Sure, if there are more people coming to hospital, they maybe need more personal and room, but the new people pay too.
If you have standardized accounts, wouldn’t it reduce bureaucracy costs?
If everyone goes early enough to the doctors, the individual health problem would be less serious, the time could be reduced, chances of getting healthy again increase, costs and stay time per person could be reduced. (not waiting as long as possible because they fear the costs, or because they have no insurance and wait for an emergency)

The new tax. With any added cost it is always passed on to the consumer. Simple economics 101.

But there are other companies that didn’t/don’t pay the 150 per mouth, and with Obama care they have to? And employees, without that offer, don’t have to pay less with Obama care?
In this nation if you have less than 10 people working for you, you have no need to offer Heath care. SO you are almost right. Though with this bill most small businesses will be forced out, ether do to not being able to provide HCI (Heath care Insurance) Or the tax imposed on them for not doing so. Ether way they will be shut down. This needless to say leads to higher unemployment.
(I’m not sure if it shines through enough that I’m not from the US, and because of that I have no knowledge about Obama care)



The Chevrolet Volt? And only this one, or do they sell alternatives? I don’t know how it turns out, but it sounds like a try to rescue your car industry, save jobs, and boost economy. It could help you or harm you.

Well you could turn your car in to any car company that wanted take part. Toyoda, Honda, G.M. Ford. It was more an attempt to gt us out of the SUV and into Government approved cars. You know going green thanks to the lie of Global worming.
I had to look that up to make sure if I was right or wrong.
By the way I do not know how to do the reply where it splits up my rely inside your post. I did get it once only now seem I cant. SO my reply in bold inside of your.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

So let me get this "straight".
An injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. A declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of a injunction (sort of).
Since the law is not yet in effect, there can be no "relief".

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Originally Posted by randolph

The final determination will have to be made by the Supreme Court.
Also, since the law was created and passed by Congress and has become law, it is out of the hands of the Executive Branch. A judges ruling on the Constitutionality of the law would apply to the Congress not the Executive Branch.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The law is in effect. The initial stages are preparatory stages and our health care system is now being dismantled to make way for Obamacare. That needs to be stopped NOW.

Well both actually. The executive branch signed it.

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

[ila]

After reading the exchanges between Tracy and smc all I can think of is that too many lawyers have so screwed up the laws that it's impossible for the average person to be able to understand what has really happened. It's not just the most recent court decision on healthcare in the US, but laws in general. How can the public be expected to support or disagree with any politician when the wording of judgments and laws are so full of legalese?

I am certainly not a stupid person (and in fact consider myself to be quite intelligent), but I'll be darned if I can figure out what the judgment really is on the lates court ruling over US healthcare.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, the specific part of the bill,the part that requires everyone to have insurance is the part deemed by the judge to be unconstitutional. I does not go into effect until later. Since the bill is one piece, part of it cannot be extricated and allow the rest of the bill to stand. Consequently, the whole bill has to be looked at.

The judge cleverly used Obama's own words. The mandate that all citizens must participate is not separable from the bill. Therefore he said the whole bill must be struck down.