The American Spectator : Judge Vinson Fails to Apply the Two-By-Four

Text Size

The Right Prescription

Judge Vinson Fails to Apply the Two-By-Four

By David Catron on 3.4.11 @ 6:09AM

Why did he stay his own ObamaCare ruling? Surely, not to reward the administration’s mulish defiance?

Like the farmer in that old gag about the proper management of mules, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson tried to be polite to the Obama Justice Department. On January 31, he ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional but stopped short of granting the plaintiffs in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services an outright injunction against further implementation. Instead, he awarded them “declaratory relief.” This, as Judge Vinson explained at the time, is the “functional equivalent of an injunction” because there is a presumption that “officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.” In other words, the judge was asking them nicely to halt implementation of ObamaCare until the appeals process had run its course. Vinson failed to realize, however, that he was dealing with a particularly vicious specimen of that famously stubborn beast — the government mule.

And the beast remained true to form. The Obama administration made no effort to halt implementation of the unpopular health care law. In fact, the President and his health care bureaucrats openly declared their intention to move briskly forward with their plans to foist ObamaCare on an unwilling electorate. Moreover, when two states announced that they would treat the ruling as an injunction unless and until a higher court overruled the decision, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had the audacity to present Judge Vinson with a motion to clarify: “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of this order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In effect, the DOJ asked Vinson to issue a stay against his own ruling.

The judge was not amused. In his request to the plaintiffs for an expedited response Vinson wrote, “Because I determined that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, it was also necessary to declare the entire statute void. The defendants have now, two and one-half weeks later, filed a motion to ‘clarify’ that order.” Florida’s memorandum in opposition called the motion a “thinly disguised request for a stay,” and asked Vinson to deny it. And this is what most experts expected him to do. Indeed, many legal scholars wondered aloud why the DOJ would deliberately provoke a judge with a well-deserved reputation for irascibility. As Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University, put it: “Having lost one game of chicken when it came to the severability of the mandate, the government is now challenging the same judge to back down on whether his decision is binding.”

However, instead of taking a two-by-four to the government mule in order to get its attention, Vinson did indeed issue a stay against his previous ruling: “After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.” This was not, however, an unalloyed victory for the Obama administration. The judge made his stay conditional on the Justice Department’s expeditious pursuit of an appeal to his January ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Noting that it is in the country’s best interests to have this matter resolved quickly he wrote, “[T]he stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court …” In other words, the Justice Department must file an appeal by March 10.

And the wording of Judge Vinson’s order makes it clear that he was not taken in by the pretext behind the DOJ’s motion: “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 …” He then “clarifies” key points in his original ruling: “The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that ‘essential’ provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void.” He then discusses what he meant to accomplish when he granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs: “This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction’ with respect to the parties to the litigation.” Finally, he points out what he did not intend: “It was not expected that [the administration] would effectively ignore the order… then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.’”

All of which begs the following question: Why, then, did he not apply the two-by-four?! It is already blindingly obvious that this particular beast does not respond to reason. This was clearly demonstrated by the utter contempt with which the administration treated Vinson’s January order. And such behavior is by no means limited to the various ObamaCare challenges. Even as the administration pressed Judge Vinson to force states to implement a health care law he had pointedly ruled unconstitutional, the President and his Attorney General declared their intention to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama and Eric Holder obviously believe that they, rather than the Constitution and the courts, are the ultimate arbiters of a law’s validity. And their behavior in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services suggests that they hold similar views concerning judicial rulings.

It is to be hoped that, having been given a second chance to comply with a ruling from the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, the Obama administration will depart from its usual pattern of mulish obstinacy. However, yesterday’s statement from the DOJ’s Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs contains an unmistakable note of defiance: “We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case.… There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act.” This is nonsense, of course. The only “clear and well-established” precedent associated with ObamaCare involves the stubborn refusal of the Obama administration to remain within its constitutional limits. Will this obstinacy end without a firm application of the two-by-four to the government mule’s occiput? We’ll know in seven days.

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.4.11 @ 6:22AM

The moral of the story?

America has a new criminal class. The politician.

They will lie, cheat and steal to get their way and there is now very little difference between many politicians and mafia bosses.

Nancy in NC| 3.4.11 @ 12:16PM

It is clear to me, and I'm sure most of the readers here, that this administration has given the tall finger salute to separation of powers on a number of occasion. I don't expect anything different in the future. When you feel you have the mandate to be dictator of the "free" world, why would a little thing like a judge's ruling stand in the way?

mames| 3.4.11 @ 1:42PM

Duh! Look at the unconstitutional activity they have been allowed to get away with already, MEDICARE-CAID, SOCIAL SECURITY, Federal Reserve, Supreme Court justices quoting foreign law to support their opinions and using a "living constitutional" view of THE Constitution. (never play poker with people who view it as "living" ) , departments at the federal level such as Education, EPA, Tobacco and Fire arms ( two legal areas by the way), Agriculture........ if our forefathers were here today they would have shot a bunch of them up against the white house walls. They were not as easily baffled by bullshit as our populace and press are. Not kidding.

da monk| 3.5.11 @ 8:54AM

Mames: Just what do you suggest what type of government, if any do you suggest for this place now called the UNITED (!) States ?

Robbins Mitchell| 3.4.11 @ 4:34PM

"America has no distinctly criminal class...except Congress"

~Mark Twain~

GavInTucson| 3.7.11 @ 12:16AM

One of my favorite quotes.

Mimi| 3.4.11 @ 7:05AM

The primary goal here is to get a higher court...District or SCOTUS to RULE on Vinson's decision on OBAMA-CARE. That he did with boldness and truth in his latest ruling to " CLARIFY! " Also he did the country a favor, by giving them a short 7 days!
The wayward, and ignorant " HOLDER " justice dept want Congress to supply them with more money...... Give me a break !

buckeyeman| 3.4.11 @ 9:53AM

The easiest way for Judge Vinson to move this case to the next level would have been to issue an injunction along with his initial decision. That Judge Vinson chose to disrespect his own decision by refusing to actually enforce it is but another squirt of lemon juice in the eye of all who love freedom and the rule of law. Who in their right mind could have ever thought that the Obamanites would simply walk away from their crime and honor the clear and obvious impact of the Vinson's ruling.

So now, AGAIN, he has refused to act as if the Obama regime is required to obey the same laws as the rest of us. Just another galling, grinding refusal of the forces of logic and lawfulness to deal effectively with leftists. This is just like all the parents I know who "discipline" their horrid spoiled brats by threatening one "time out" after another while the awful behavior continues and the imposition of any real discipline is forever put off.

Vinson is a COWARD. And please don't give me that chess game crap as if Vinson is a master of strategy. You split a log by striking it with force along the lines of its grain with a maul. You don't strategize it.

RCV| 3.4.11 @ 11:54AM

This is a tempest in a teapot. It is entirely routine for district courts to stay their rulings pending appeal in cases that have nation-wide impact. That's what the courts did in striking down DOMA and Porp 8. It was especially appropriate, given that Judge Vinson's ruling was in the minority of courts which have passed on the issue.

BackToBasics| 3.7.11 @ 2:31AM

To be consistent though, when such a "nation-wide-impact" law is in appeal there should also be an injunction aginst its further implementation until the appeal(s) have been finally ruled on.

This inconsistency leads to sloppiness in the law and this allows for the back-door implementation that Obam and Holder and company will settle for if they cannot get it straight out. Do you honestly believe that they will roll this back if ultimately the Supreme Court decides it is unconstitutional let's say 18 months from now when it is obvious that they are ignoring Vinson already?

BD57| 3.5.11 @ 5:24PM

The Judge who took on the entire premise of Obamacare and issued an excellent ruling in favor of those who care about constitutional limitations on government is suddenly a "coward"?

Please - take the bi-polar meds ....

Vinson issued a 7 day stay conditioned upon (1) Obama filing the anticipated appeal within that period; AND (2) requesting 'expedited' consideration.

Obama doesn't want "expedited" consideration of the appeal.

First, he thinks - with some justification - that the longer Obamacare is allowed to grind on, the less likely it will be that the Supremes will order that the entire thing be dismantled.

Second, he's hoping for more rulings similar to that he recently got (the commerce clause reaches 'mental activity,' choosing not to purchase insurance can be reached under the commerce clause because of the impact it has on everyone else, etc.") to marginalize Vinson.

If Obama fails to do both, then Vinson will be free to enter a formal injunction.

Which, btw - Obama will ask the 11th Circuit to stay ... and he might succeed.

Mimi| 3.6.11 @ 3:37PM

Interesting view... I just wish the darn law could be settled once and for all... IT is the one thing that has the economy in a strangle-hold! Take this BURDEN off our backs...The whole country suffers from the threat of this badly concocted legislation. By this President blithly allowing this to form and exist will be written in the HISTORY books 100's of years from now to then as the GREATEST blunder in political moves in the United States of America!!!

arlo price| 3.4.11 @ 7:11AM

The obamagedon PIMP thugocracy chugs along.....

Yo baby, I knows the tires are almost flat, just ignore it.

Let's ROLL !!!

NVA Patriot| 3.4.11 @ 7:33AM

I read the decision differently.

I think Judge Vinson is working to get the 5 votes needed to kill this on the Supreme Court. The game he's playing is legal to be sure but more focused on hilighting how Obama is taking the Judicial power away.

Judges are jealous to keep the enormous power they have. They won't cede it to Obama once they understand the 'power' game.

Vinson is forcing Obama to bend to the Judicial branch. Obama loses if he defies the deadline and he loses if he speeds the appeal.

If this game is chess, Judge vinson is playing 3-d and Holder is playing thug checkers.

John Navratil| 3.4.11 @ 9:27AM

NVA Patriot,

The administration has been held in contempt in New Orleans. What makes you think this will turn out differently? These guys are slow walking this thing as best they can. Don't expect the filing before 4:59 on the deadline day and expect delay upon delay thereafter.

Brian Mc| 3.4.11 @ 10:15AM

"Vinson is forcing Obama to bend to the Judicial branch." If this is the case; we're screwed. If, on the other hand, he is attempting to get the alien to bend to the Constitution of the United States of America, we have a fighting chance.

NVA Patriot| 3.4.11 @ 12:04PM

Ha Ha - good point, however the target of this effort by Judge Vinson is Kennedy I think - he's the swing - Kennedy is as inconsitent as it gets on the constitution and judicial philosophy

He's never inconsitent on preserving judicial power making Obama's court defiance an issue Kennedy won't put up with

These guys are playing a deep game and we're not even on the board as pons

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.4.11 @ 3:43PM

I'm sure glad you all understand this. It's beyond the common person like me who keeps wondering why things don't get done. "It's not done that way" and "There's a strategy here"--well... it just keeps us hangin' on, hopin' someone will end the pain. It's indeed all politics.

martin j smith| 3.4.11 @ 7:50AM

The administration has one week to appeal. This judge is like a father telling his teenage -adult children to shape up or ship out.

Tom Osterman| 3.4.11 @ 7:58AM

The administration's actions, like the actions of the Democrats in Wisconsin, have a simple explanation: they think they have the political muscle to get away with it, the rules (democratic procedure, laws, the Constitution) be damned. The question is, are they right?

idalily| 3.4.11 @ 4:15PM

Indeed.

Michael Kohlman| 3.4.11 @ 8:25AM

I thought Obama was dragging his heels to run out the judicial clock on this until after the election. Not good to have it declared illegal before next November. The counter was the states involved refusing to implement it, throwing a wrench into its advance if it is found legal. This sub-ruling however I think may be loser for the states. If the appeal is filed in time, as I read it, the cash strapped plaintiffs will have to begin costly implementation of a law that may eventually be thrown out. That could take beyond the end of the year. The final ruling could be a win-win for Obama. If he loses he can browbeat the House for trying to defund a lawful bill. If he wins, then he doesn't have that albatross around his neck in November. I think His Honor, for whatever reason, blinked. Another test will come when they ask for more time to appeal. The other two branches of government may at least be waking up to their increasing irrelevance. Let's hope it's not too late.

Michael Kohlman| 3.4.11 @ 8:28AM

Sorry, my comment should have read, "If he WINS he can browbeat the House for trying to defund a lawful bill. If he LOSES, then he doesn't have that albatross around his neck in November."

Donna| 3.4.11 @ 8:44AM

On a similar note, the Secretary of Interior is in contempt of a court ruling in not releasing drilling permits. We, the people are in big trouble with this administration and our constitution. Where are our elected officials? Where the hell is Issa??

YeloStalyn| 3.4.11 @ 9:26AM

Where are the officers of the court bringing this guy's ass before the judge for punishment? One of the very first principles that need be revived in this nation is not equality... but equality under the law. Politician, movie star, rich guy... they should be subject to the same strict adherence of the law as the lowest and poorest of us. If you are in contempt of a court, you should be punished. Peroid, end of story, wrap it up.

Sparky| 3.4.11 @ 10:09AM

Why didn't he use a two-by-four? Because he's playing a much smarter game. By giving the Obama administration only seven days to file a motion for expedited appellate review, he has fast-tracked this dispute toward its culmination. A brilliant move.

big bob| 3.4.11 @ 11:31AM

Amen. We are not hearing this and people are NOT getting it. It forces the hand of the White House and lays the ground for expedited rulings. He has boxed the man who would be king into a corner. This does NOT mean Obama will obey the ruling. That is for US to enforce. But the judge has not abrogated his responsibility, and he definitely answered BHO's illegitimate legal tactic. You go, judge!!!

mames| 3.4.11 @ 1:46PM

'should have done it in the first place.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.4.11 @ 3:57PM

Oooo! I just caught that. So he left 'em some rope. To hang themselves. Quicker.

Nightmare on Obama Street| 3.4.11 @ 10:46AM

Prediction: A constitutional crisis is brewing because when all is said and done, this administration considers itself as not bound by any separation of powers as spelled out in the constitution and will ignore even a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare. They are willing to roll the dice and defy the courts because they know that this is their last shot at being in power. Too many of the citizens are awake now or awakening to the danger to our Republic posed by these marxist democrats. It is going to get really ugly.

NVA Patriot| 3.4.11 @ 12:08PM

Hope your wrong and that enough people in DC will disobey Presidential orders sactioned by either the courts or legislature

The 'game' is over. They are tampering with the foundations of our country just as the blind IMAM tampered witht the foundations of the World Trade center in the 90's

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.4.11 @ 8:23PM

"They are tampering with the foundations of our country...."

Good point. The foundations of this country were "engineered" the way they were PRECISELY to keep this kind of behavior in check. If the other two branches of government collude to allow this to continue, it seems to me they make themselves illegitimate (refusing to uphold the Constitution which they are all sworn to uphold.) And if they refuse to put the brakes on this guy... well, where does that lead us? Into the streets?? I know one thing for sure, if the Supreme Court sides with the president, the sovereignty of states demands their dissent, and they should refuse (ALL OF THEM!!) to implement Obamacare.

Oh heck what do I know...

I'm sure there's a hole in that thinking somewhere.

darcy| 3.7.11 @ 3:39PM

Obama and his administration by officially refusing to enforce the laws of the land -- DOMA, in this case -- have declared that the oathes they took to defend the Constitution were meaningless, a mere formality to grant them the keys to the kingdom, to do with as they choose. Another example is the legal action taken against Arizona for its "arrogance" in designing a law, the purpose of which is to fill the void left by this White House in its failure to adhere to yet another of our national laws (and among the first purposes of government): border security.

Clearly, this administration holds our Constitution and our laws in contempt, the very laws that predicate its legitimacy. We are way late in seeking a remedy to this flagrant usurpation of power. It would be only fitting and proper that Obama's health care law should be declared null and void, for reasons of its unConstitutionality, let alone for the manner in which it was FORCED on an unwilling citizenry, and crafted in secrecy, the documents related to which just this day have been denied (hat tip to Philip Klein) by the White House to the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating this matter.

davelnaf| 3.4.11 @ 10:53AM

What do you expect from ACLU type lawyers in the Justice Department and from the Bamster? These people have been waiting in the wings for decades for their chance to redo the US in the image of their leftist fantasies. They are not about to heed to the law unless it suits them. They are realistic enough to understand that urgency and a do-it-any-cost attitude are winning combinations before November 2012 rolls around and voters quite likely throw the Bamster and his people out of office. In conjunction with this they want the “good things” in Obamacare made manifest to voters in order to give them something to think about before they do that. But, of course, that’s putting the best possible interpretation on what they’re doing in regard to Judge Vinson’s ruling.

Not to get too far off message, but anyone else noticed that the Bamster keeps his head up a lot now these days? His nose is so far in the air you can see he goes to some trouble to keep his nostrils well groomed. Pre-heads up incarnations of his public image has his head usually turned slightly down. The difference, as I mentioned, is very noticeable. Throughout 1996 and until he was reelected Clinton did the same thing—before that it had always been his habit to keep his head down. Is this another sign that the Bamster might be more than a little worried about his reelection prospects, just as Clinton was?

Habu| 3.4.11 @ 11:08AM

I believe that the Sun circles around the Earth before I would believe obama has an interest in the security of this countries hertitage. He has no real American heritage to relate to but rather simply to the polyglot Hawaiian and the Muslim Indonesian cultures. Perhaps, and I say perhaps, he is an American but that's or another time.

Allow me to state , since I am new here that there is nothing I like about obama, his policies or his international ennui or domestic socialism. That said, to the main point.

Judges are, as we know are creatures of one of three branches of the US Republic and as such were placed third in the writings of the Federalist Papers because their impotance was considered less significant than Congress or the Executive. Aside from the reinstitution of a strong Tenth Amendment I believe that the entire concept of judicial review needs to be heavily debated. A law is passed by Congress, signed by a president and then if challenged in the Courts, the votes of a simple majority can void that legislation. That was not the intent of the Judiciary when the Constitution was ratified. It is a usurped power that needs to be harshly reviewed.

Brian Mc| 3.4.11 @ 11:13AM

"They void that legislation"? I thought they voided the legality of it under the Constitution. I would consider this our last bastion against totalitarionism and mob rule.

NeilBJ| 3.4.11 @ 11:51AM

The last bastion of tolalitarianism and mob rule is a federation of sovereign states. Hitler in his quest for power argued against soverign states in "Mein Kampf."

Granting a branch of the federal government the power to decide on the limt of its own powers is a recipe for disaster. It cannot be denied that over the decades the power of the federal government has increased and we are no longer the country that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The fact that 26 states who were once sovereign have sued should be sufficient to overturn the health care law. It was the states that created the federal government to be subservient to them. They should have first say in what the federal government can or cannot do under the Constitution.

It is time for states to again assert their sovereignty.

Nunya| 3.4.11 @ 5:19PM

Neil, I agree completely. However, keep in mind that those who have gathered power around themselves in DC are not likely to volutarily give it up.

It was states asserting their sovereignty that started the Civil War, and since then the federal government has known no bounds--especially since the New Deal was enacted.

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me that those who advocate for bigger governement "for the poor" or "the children" or whatever, sow the seeds of totalitarianism, as Mr. Jefferson so aptly put it: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." And yet, they tell us that we are "heartless" or "don't care about the (fill in the blank)", etc., when we advocate for small government and low taxes.

As Mr. Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." ;-)

George S| 3.4.11 @ 11:39AM

They have been waiting 100 years for socialist health care. They have built the foundation with hundreds of legislators past and present, enacting hundreds of laws and fighting scores of legal challenges. Finally, they get that once in a lifetime alignment of the planets and get a marxist president with a leftist Congress. They fight a bloody battle against their own constituents to get that health care bill passed. The toll is staggering: over a thousand casualties in elected offices in federal, state and local governments, along with the ability to redistrict them out of power for generations. Yet the battle was worth it, for it would institutionalize The Left forever.

And now a single carbon breathing life form in a robe dare threaten the sacrifices of the brave leftists who gave their political lives for the cause?

Gods create their worlds in seven days; not bitch slapped into dismantling it. This is not going to end well. For somebody.

Oldefarte| 3.4.11 @ 12:24PM

As David's excellent editorial points out, they will continue to ignore any/all judicial rulings and/or wills of the people. This just illustrates/highlights the sadly insane fact of this country's utter STUPIDITY by its voters on 11/2/08 when he was elected, by granting to him the ultimate power of the presidency of the US. He and his diciples were given unlimited power to rule, and they have the military force to now carry out their political wishes/desires [and are in the process of doing same]. Nothing/no one can stop him/them, and they effectively five their collective FINGERS to the people of this nation when their actions are protested [as in this case and all others]. The one/only solution is either IMPEACHMENT or ELECTORIAL DEFEAT, and no court decision/judge/tea party members can thwart him/them except by means of the aforementioned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Habu| 3.4.11 @ 12:27PM

Brian Mc

Voided in terms of declaring unconstitutional a law passed in the constitutionally proscribed manner by Congress and the President. Five SCOTUS members can negate the will of the people. Nowhere in the Constitution was the Judicial branch given such authority....it was usurped.
As to you point of totalitarian/mob rule that is why we established a Republic and NOT a democracy. James Madison's Federalist #10 will aid in clarifying any confusion about that issue.

Simply , judicial review is in itself a prostitution of the Constitution and an overweening position by the Judicial branch.

Brian Mc| 3.4.11 @ 9:11PM

Correct me if I'm wrong. The Supreme Court can't step in unless instructed to do so. I never intended to mean they oversee the laws. But again, they will determine the constitutionality of a given law if someone throws a fit over same.

Jeremiah| 3.6.11 @ 5:47AM

Simply incorrect, habu. Before you start opining on Constitutional Law, you should check out the actual Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and perhaps the debates over the Constitution. (Note, I do not mention such degraded sources as, say, Harvard Law School, where professors have convinced themselves that Constitutional Law is whatever they want it to be.)

Let us say that Congress passed a law in the Constitutional manner that all Americans are required to subscribe to the Methodist religion - and then the president signed the same law. The courts would - and were expected to in the same sources I mentioned - void that law as being contrary to the Constitution.

Jefferson actually feared the power of the judiciary as written in the Constitution, noting that it was necessary that there be a final check on executive and legislative assaults on liberty, but fearing that, over time, the judiciary would become the most serious threat of all, thinking that it being the check of last resort, would lead it to pretend to supremacy over the other branches and establish an unConstitutional gov't. run by oligarchs. His answer was to appoint judges for a set number of years, such as 10. He absolutely opposed lifetime appointments. Other founders, in giving Congress the power to remove items from the jurisdiction of the courts, believed the legislative branch would jealously prevent judicial overreach. Congress has been notably impotent on that score.

On matters such as interfering with war powers, most founders flatly expected presidents to ignore any judicial rulings that touched on something that was obviously beyond their jurisdiction - and perhaps to order the arrest of the offending judges to the cheers of a grateful populace.

The robust Constitutional Republic the founders created bears as much resemblance to our modern government as the robust Czar Peter the Great bore to his weak, dithering grandson several times removed, Nicholas. If we are not very serious, now, the results for our great Republic could be the same as for Nicholas - but not for the reasons you stated. Your facts are simply wrong.

Habu| 3.6.11 @ 8:32PM

seek my answer to the huge lacuna in your Constitutional knowledge. (hint) They are posted here on this thread.
Best of luck ole chap.

Habu| 3.4.11 @ 12:30PM

Oldefarte

Yep, We the People got totally fooled by a dedicated socialist who managed to be a smoove dude on the hustings and a complete failure as POTUS

Wayne | 3.4.11 @ 12:43PM

Its not obstinacy, it is contempt. Obama is the legislature, executive and judiciary all wrapped up into one, and who is this judge to challenge that. He has no more intention to obey this judge than he does the judge who ruled against his stoppage of oil drilling in the gulf.

James Thomas| 3.4.11 @ 1:34PM

You apparently do not realize the importance of the stay being conditioned upon the filing of a request for an expedited appeal. I recommend that you go to marklevinshow.com and listen to Levin's opening comments on this case from yesterday's show.

GENE HAUBER| 3.4.11 @ 2:12PM

impeach now

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.4.11 @ 4:13PM

I'm with you. But apparently no one is sufficiently able to define "high crimes and misdemeanors"... or take the lead to impeach.

jolizoom| 3.4.11 @ 11:07PM

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.... And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

With 51 dems remaining, we would need to flip at least 10 of them. Any suggestions?

JP| 3.4.11 @ 3:58PM

If the President's administration refuses to comply with Vinson's court order, Vinson will allow the plantiffs to legally opt out until the Supreme Court decides the case. That's 26 states who will legally not have to lift a finger to assist HHS in its implementation efforts.

Habu| 3.4.11 @ 4:37PM

It's getting too close to the beginning of the presidential paddock walk to the racetrack for an impeachment, although it could happen. The Senate however would never convict, but he could be impeached, just not convicted. It's a two part process for removal, but a one stepper to impeach.

It would be a bit like impeaching the slowest kid in the grammar school though ...obama is just so far out of his league vis a vis America that it might be considered cruel and unusual punishment. He has certainly gained the executive stain that Jimma Carter could bleach out ..a nincumpoop idiot.

simon templar| 3.4.11 @ 6:09PM

Bear this in mind. If Vinson is the real thing..this will not be the end of this story. They are playing with fire here and they will get burned. What is at stake here is the very foundation of our federalist system and our check and balance system. I think Vinson knows this..this is not just another political tug of war and business as usual.

Dee See| 3.5.11 @ 2:08AM

--"Understand folks, the Rockefellers thru
outright control, to their TAX FREE 'charitable' (i.e. EUGENICS-driven) foundations, fronts and proxies, utterly control over 90% of everything that goes on in the American medical scene."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online listening)

---STILL not convinced? ----Just stay tuned!

And keep whispering as you watch it come down
"--YOU--genics"...

Mike Rogers| 3.5.11 @ 12:53PM

Time for the sovereign states to jointly and severally render this unconstitutional law void by passing state laws to that effect. This principle of Nullification was first applied in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, later applied to squash the fugitive slave acts, and recently used to kill the Real ID act.
Learn more about the legality and applicability of Nullification, by reading Dr Thomas Woods book of the same name, or by attending a Nullify Now! conference.
Check out www.nullifynow.com for the one nearest you.
Also refer to www.tenthamendmentcenter.com for lots of good background information.

John II| 3.5.11 @ 2:14PM

Great comments on a fine post.

Professor Obama and the national coven of degenerate and self-regarding statists to which he and his class belong are fast approaching a day of reckoning.

To me, the real issue of the nightmare America has been groping her way through for the past three years is a test of the sort Lincoln alluded to at Gettysburg: whether this nation or any nation dedicated to constitutional liberty "can long endure" in a world where the preferential leaning has always been toward thuggocracy.

If the good side wins this one, we'll have to remember to be thankful that the political thugs always overreach.

Tenn Slim| 3.6.11 @ 8:54AM

In the arcane world of Legalism, Courts, Injunctions etal, the Judge did what was proper, legal, timely and accurate.
Political appearance aside, the Judge laid down the law. APPEAL within 7 days, or the original order to cease and desist OBAMA CARE stands.
Not an easy analysis, but the spider webs of legalese are difficult.
end
Semper FI

Habu| 3.6.11 @ 11:04PM

Semper Fi

Habu| 3.6.11 @ 7:51PM

Jeremiah...kindly point out the power given in the US Constitution for judicial review? Then you may apologize for your ignorance.

I'm unsure which constitution you are reading but if you will review the U.S. Constitution Section III on the Judiciary you will search in vein to find judicial review of all laws passed by the other two branches mentioned at all. Take a look.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You may find these comments by Madison and Jefferson on judicial usurpation instructive.

http://tinyurl.com/4k2lcm3

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

Habu| 3.6.11 @ 7:58PM

Jeremiah ,
To facilitate your learning the following is offered.
It is part of the previously noted site on judicial review. Of course there is always the possibility that you are smarter than Madison and Jefferson.

"The First Test
There were, and are, scholars and statesmen who believe that courts should not be granted the power to invalidate legislation in the name of the Constitution. In reaction to Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison,1 Thomas Jefferson warned that judicial review would lead to a form of despotism.2 It is worth remembering that the power of judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. The courts themselves have claimed this power based on inferences drawn from the Constitution's identification of itself as supreme law, and the nature of the judicial office.3 Yet even if we credit these inferences, as I am inclined to do, it must be said that early supporters of judicial review, including Chief Justice Marshall himself, did not imagine that the federal and state courts would exercise the sweeping powers they have come to exercise today. Jefferson and the critics were, it must be conceded, more prescient.123

As for Marshall's ruling in Marbury, a good case can be made that the power he actually claimed for the courts was quite limited. Remember: What the Supreme Court decided in that case was that the Court itself was forbidden by the Constitution to exercise original jurisdiction putatively conferred upon it by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marshall reasoned that the Constitution, in Article III, fixed the Court's original jurisdiction, and Congress was powerless under the Constitution to expand it. According to the contemporary constitutional scholar Robert Lowry Clinton, all this meant was that the Court was relying on its own interpretation of the Constitution in deciding what it could and could not do within its own sphere. This was entirely consistent with its recognizing a like power of the other branches of government to interpret the Constitution for themselves in deciding what they could and could not do in carrying out their constitutional functions.4

However that may be, the power of the judiciary has expanded massively. This expansion began slowly. Even if we read Marbury more broadly than Professor Clinton reads it, treating it as a case in which the justices presumed to tell the Congress what it could and could not do, it would be another fifty-four years before the Supreme Court would do it again. And it could not have chosen a worse occasion.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.7.11 @ 3:20AM

Impeach and remove Obama that's the quickest way to safeguard the Constitution.

Habu| 3.7.11 @ 7:51AM

If we impeached him now the Senate would never convict him and to remove him you must have a Senate conviction on the impeachment.

I can see the impeachment working since the Reps hold the House but conviction, I don't see that. Ergo , a huge waste of time.

Better for the House not to fund any of his agenda until we start drilling and the do to him what the Dems did to Bush I when he moved his lips and increased taxes for a deal to cut spending. Taxes were increased and then the Dems thumbed their nose at the rest.

Timely Renewed | 3.7.11 @ 11:32PM

The problem Judge Vinson and other judges who respect the Constitution face is the Supreme Court precedents which have so vastly expanded the interstate commerce clause since 1937. While we all hope that the good arguments in Judge Vinson's opinion are accepted by a majority of the Supreme Court, they labor under the overweening burden of these New Deal Supreme Court interpretations of the interstate commerce clause which have expanded the reach of federal power far beyond any original understanding of the scope of that clause.

Until this fundamental distortion of the Constitution is addressed, the leftists will always find other ways to expand federal power over healthcare and every other aspect of our national life even if the litigation against Obamacare is successful, which is not certain. The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare, but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has increased its power beyond the original scope of the Constitution, is to reverse those Supreme Court cases and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, this will only be accomplished by a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:21AM

All of which begs the following question: Why, then, did he not apply the two-by-four?! It is already blindingly obvious that this particular beast does not respond to reason.

The American Spectator