Constitutional Law

Does Judge Vinson's Ruling Halt Implementation of ObamaCare?

|

The Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro argues that it does:

In discussing whether to issue an injunction – a judicial command to do or refrain from doing something — the judge determined that his declaratory judgment in this context was the same as an injunction.  That is, a federal court saying that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional is effectively the same as a decision mandating the government to act.

Advertisement

NEXT: Google vs. Egyptian Censorship

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Caveat: I am not a litigator, and the last time I saw the inside of an appellate courtroom, I was looking for the bathroom and made a wrong turn.

    But, until someone issues an order staying a lower court decision, that decision is in effect.

    Judges stay the effects of their decisions all the time, pending appeal. Its pretty routine. In fact, filing an appeal pretty much automatically stays the lower court decision.

    So, ObamaCare implementation is not going to be halted by this decision. Technically, the order staying this decision may not show up for a day or two, but it’s coming.

    1. I am not a litigator, and the last time I saw the inside of an appellate courtroom, I was looking for the bathroom and made a wrong turn.

      You sound more qualified that Kagan could ever be…

    2. the last time I saw the inside of an appellate courtroom, I was looking for the bathroom

      What would Sandi say?

    3. “and the last time I saw the inside of an appellate courtroom, I was looking for the bathroom and made a wrong turn” That’s what I said

  2. In the meantime, what are we supposed to do with all these partly-implemented bits of ObamaCare? Seems a waste to just leave them around collecting dust.

  3. Without a stay, if the government were to proceed as if the law weren’t struck down–which, for the moment, is the case–it would be acting knowingly and willfully in violation of the Constitution. That’s actionable and could result in impeachment and worse.

    Of course, a stay is pretty likely, so we’ll never get to find out.

  4. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  5. I think the administration just said that this decision violates thousands of years of jurisprudence or something. Yeah, the law is just peachy, guys.

    1. They’re even referring to it as “judicial activism” as I noticed while watching Fox News Business Channel and watching a Democrat spokeswoman deride the ruling.

      This is truly a great day, because PPACA is one of the biggest turds to be excreted by the US Congress in my lifetime, and it deserves to be flushed down the commode of history.

  6. It’s pretty clear that this law will have to get to SCOTUS before there is a final ruling one way or the other. But what is hilarious is that what has the best chance of finally killing this stupid clusterfark legislation is that the Dems “forgot” to keep the severability clause in the original legislation (yeah right) due to an “oversight”. The mandate is unquestionably unconstitutional, and if Vinson and others are held up, BOOM goes the dynamite.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11…..ealth.html

    “An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language. But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law. A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.”

    Hoisted by their own petard, one might say.

    1. And I feel just so very awful for them. How do you like them apples, bitches?

      1. Maybe Nancy and Harry should’ve read what was in the bill before passing it, instead of passing it first to find out what’s in it.

        The fact that Pelosi was able to say “we need to pass this so you can find out what’s in it” and she still has a job is pretty damn depressing, actually.

        1. We love her. Got a problem with that?

          1. As a resident in that hag’s district, yes I do.
            It’s usually obvious when she’s in town, but occasionally I’m fooled if the breeze blows the wrong way at low tide.

            1. You don’t mean to say that something about Nancy smells like dead fish, do you?

              1. “You don’t mean to say that something about Nancy smells like dead fish, do you?”

                If only!
                Sometimes I wonder if the sewage treatment plant got relocated.

        2. It’s horrible. I honestly feel that it should be an impeachable offense for failing to live up to her oath of office.

    2. That’s the only good part of the whole law.

    3. Not that they don’t want to added it in the reconciled version, but since they don’t have 60 votes to survive Republican filibuster, they have to pass whatever the Senate pass via their parliamentary trick, and are stuck with the version without the clause.

      1. Hey, hag! Thought you pulled a fast one didn’t you?

      2. Parliamentary trick…it got 60 votes…get over it.

        If the other team wasn’t playing “parliamentary tricks” (which didn’t actually exist in the founders senate) we wouldn’t be where we are…now would we?

        1. You mean like originating all spending bills in the House?

  7. It’s extraordinary and unprecedented.

  8. My guess is that they’ll continue on ahead with implementation, with the spin being along the lines of “well, it’s just one guy’s opinion”, followed by a lot of character smears against the judge along the way.

    Because they realize that regardless of what happens in the prelims, none of it really matters until the Supremes weigh in – and in the meantime, it’s easier to pretend to ask forgiveness than to wait for permission. Oh, and none of them will personally suffer for their antics, anyway, so what the fuck.

    1. After all, he was appointed by that right wing nut-job Reagan.

  9. Oh, and none of them will personally suffer for their antics, anyway, so what the fuck.

    Huh?

    Last I checked quite a few lost their jobs because of their antics.

    1. Where they will go on to become wealthy speakers and lobbyists.

      If only I could suffer that way.

    2. The ones that lost ‘their’ jobs were just stupid lemming fucks going along with the crazies running the asylum at that point. And their constituents gave the the boot not for their principles (which were non-existent), and dissed them because they were stupid lemming fucks going along with the crazies running the asylum. Simple as that.

  10. I think the administration just said that this decision violates thousands of years of jurisprudence or something.

    I skimmed through something a little while ago which boiled down to, “That judge is CRAAAAAAAZY!”

  11. I believe “He’s a Reagan appointee!!111!!1” is the Democratic talking point du jour at the moment.

    1. Which is hilarious:

      this

  12. According to AP, the “white house” (meaning some flak, I presume) says:
    “a plain case of judicial overreaching.”

    Noooooooooooooo!

    1. If any branch of the government has done any over-reaching in the last ten years, it’s been the Executive first and Congress second.

      1. You betcha.

        And Obama is working overtime to make sure the executive branch widens the lead.

  13. At this point it will probably go to the Supreme Court. How that’ll turn out your guess is as good as mine.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.