Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

We had full employment a few years back. True, alot of it was in the building industry. What pisses me off, is we gave billions to the banks so they could loan money to companies so they would hire more workers. The problem is that the companies aren't going to hire more workers unless there is more demand for their goods. So the money sits there while the bankers take huge bonuses with our money.
It's a backasswards situation. With all that money the government could have organized massive reconstruction projects (like WPA in 1930s) to hire the unemployed to build and repair infrastructure. Once people had jobs and income, they could buy more stuff causing the companies to hire more employees to meet the increased demand.
Seems simple doesn't it?
So why hasn't Obama implemented such a program?
Guess who really runs the country.

[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.

[desirouspussy]

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.

Ever considered becoming a comedian, Tracy?

[randolph]

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg.

I think that tingle was going the other way. Just a little worm tete to keep them going.
I seen a thing on Fox news, ( keep in mind I dont trust any news ) They ask people what they knew about Obama, and not person could think of any thing other than it was the guy they seen TV all the time. Uninformed votes is the biggest treat to this nation as a whole.

[randolph]

Here is an excerpt of the judge's conclusion:
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ?The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.?

The judge obviously was reluctant to rule it unconstitutional and realized there is an urgent need to have affordable health care in this country.

[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.

[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.

[scott441]

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.

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this. Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints. I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by scott441

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this.

Because doctors don't want a load of bureaucratic BS to get between them and their patients.

Originally Posted by scott441

Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints.

This is obviously full of emotion and devoid of any objectivity. To which no response will be heard.

Originally Posted by scott441

I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

[ila]

I would think that a lot of the resistance to any US universal healthcare is fear of the unknown. I've read and heard the debate in many different media and there seems to be a lot of fearmongering on both the pro and con sides.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I would think that a lot of the resistance to any US universal healthcare is fear of the unknown. I've read and heard the debate in many different media and there seems to be a lot of fearmongering on both the pro and con sides.

It goes against the Constitution. The government can regulate actions such as driving or commerce etc, but the government cannot regulate inaction, such as deciding not to buy health care.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

Once again, Tracy proves that Tracy will twist anything in an attempt to prove a point. This undoubtedly comes from the latest Rasmussen poll, released today (February 21, 2010).

Here's what it says on the Rasmussen Reports own page:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty percent (40%) oppose repeal of the law, including 27% who are Strongly Opposed."

Regarding Rasmussen, other pollsters who have never been accused by anyone of having a bias often speak of Rasmussen as being biased. Many news organizations -- also, not Fox or MSNBC, but ones that are not typically accused of having a bias -- will not cite Rasmussen polls because the surveys it conducts are automated (known as IVRs for "interactive voice response") rather than the kind of live telephone interview polls that are used by organizations like Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac University, and the major newspapers and television networks.

During 2010 election polling, some Rasmussen polls were revealed to have asked only self-identified Republican voters about congressional races. Do you think the Republican would come out on top in such polls?