Republicans Lose Healthcare Repeal Bid In Senate

[NJ Stinks]

So much for the hot air that some Democrats were going to back off the "unpopular" healthcare reform. Every Dem voted to keep it. :ThmbUp:

From the Washington Post website tonight:
_____________________________________

Excerpt:

In the end, the repeal was defeated, 51 to 47. All Democrats present voted to keep the law. All Republicans present voted to repeal it. Now, the two parties will settle in for a year of smaller battles, both believing that time is on their side.

The link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020206620_pf.html

[JustRalph]

Why they even went through with this was a joke.

More wasted time.

Gridlock, it's the best thing that can happen to the country

[newtothegame]

So much for the hot air that some Democrats were going to back off the "unpopular" healthcare reform. Every Dem voted to keep it. :ThmbUp:

From the Washington Post website tonight:
_____________________________________

Excerpt:

In the end, the repeal was defeated, 51 to 47. All Democrats present voted to keep the law. All Republicans present voted to repeal it. Now, the two parties will settle in for a year of smaller battles, both believing that time is on their side.

The link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020206620_pf.html

Somehow I am not at all surprised that you would think this had anything to do with it possibly being repealed. It was about putting people on record for their votes....So yeah, I am with you...put all the dems on record for its support. Just add them to the list of things they will face in the next cycle of elections! :lol:

[ArlJim78]

another nail in the coffin for democrats. they will certainly lose the senate next fall.

in any case, as of this moment the law has been voided, it is not the law of the land.

[Robert Goren]

another nail in the coffin for democrats. they will certainly lose the senate next fall.

in any case, as of this moment the law has been voided, it is not the law of the land.No it hasn't. The Florida judge stayed his own decision pending appeal.

[ArlJim78]

No it hasn't. The Florida judge stayed his own decision pending appeal.
i have not seen that. do you have a link?

[prospector]

another nail in the coffin for democrats. they will certainly lose the senate next fall.

in any case, as of this moment the law has been voided, it is not the law of the land.
i want to start seeing those commercials now about the dem senators up in 2012 defying the will of the people..70% against the health bill..hurt with commercials everytime they vote against repeal..they'll get to vote again on it..hopefully the local teaparties will make up for the republicans no seizing the moment..they need another category..dem, rep, ind or teaparty..

[Robert Goren]

i have not seen that. do you have a link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103804.html?sid=ST2010121604153

Vinson stopped short of granting an injunction, as the plaintiffs requested, to prevent the law from going forward while the case is appealed.

Most of the law doesn't go into effect until 2014 and by then the Surpreme Court will have ruled.

[ArlJim78]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103804.html?sid=ST2010121604153

Vinson stopped short of granting an injunction, as the plaintiffs requested, to prevent the law from going forward while the case is appealed.

Most of the law doesn't go into effect until 2014 and by then the Surpreme Court will have ruled.
the very next sentence explains why he didn't grant the injunction.


"He said such a step was unnecessary because of a "long-standing presumption" that the federal government adheres to rulings of this type."

[newtothegame]

He also didnt grant the injunction due to the fact that the majority of this law wouldnt go into effect till 2014 and it would be heard by the SC before then.....

[newtothegame]

And if ya need more proof sluethy....

"In light of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/258514/florida-v-hhs-could-become-landmark-individual-liberty-avik-roy) that Obamacare is unconstitutional, Wisconsin’s attorney general, J. B. Van (#) Hollen, has declared the Badger State free of any obligations imposed by the law."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258639/wisconsin-ag-declares-obamacare-dead-brian-bolduc

But keep trying....lol. Sooner or later you might come up with something lol

[BlueShoe]

Most of the law doesn't go into effect until 2014 and by then the Surpreme Court will have ruled.
In 2014 there will be a Republican president and perhaps GOP control in both chambers of Congress. This, plus widespread opposition, including individual states rejecting Obamacare, means the defeat of this Marxist attempt to destroy our healthcare system and imposing even more government control over our affairs and choices.

[Tom]

In 2014 there will be a Republican president and perhaps GOP control in both chambers of Congress.

Been there, done that.
How'd that work out for ya?

[ArlJim78]

He also didnt grant the injunction due to the fact that the majority of this law wouldnt go into effect till 2014 and it would be heard by the SC before then.....
its not like nothing happens between now and 2014. there are huge decisions to be made and bureacracies to be set up before 2014, and they are already behind schedule.

[Robert Goren]

In 2014 there will be a Republican president and perhaps GOP control in both chambers of Congress. This, plus widespread opposition, including individual states rejecting Obamacare, means the defeat of this Marxist attempt to destroy our healthcare system and imposing even more government control over our affairs and choices.Don't bet all your money on that happening. As the Ecomony slowly improves Obama's poll numbers are going up.

[johnhannibalsmith]

.... As the Ecomony slowly improves Obama's poll numbers are going up.

I'm going to pin part of that polling on the fact that he, Pelosi, and Reid have basically shut the hell up for the first time in two years.

Silence is golden from liars.

[delayjf]

i want to start seeing those commercials now about the dem senators up in 2012 defying the will of the people..70%

Plenty of time for the CBO to revise their cost projections upward - yet again. Taking away any political cover the Dems thought they had.

[lamboguy]

how come ROMNEY CARE hasn't been thrown out yet?

its the spitting image of OBAMA CARE

[boxcar]

No it hasn't. The Florida judge stayed his own decision pending appeal.

No, he has not! He declared the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What part of this don't you understand? A few state AGs have already taken action consistent with him declaring the law null and void.

Boxcar

[Tom]

how come ROMNEY CARE hasn't been thrown out yet?

its the spitting image of OBAMA CARE

States vs Feds.

[boxcar]

how come ROMNEY CARE hasn't been thrown out yet?

its the spitting image of OBAMA CARE

Because the political philosophy of MASS isn't a microcosm of all the U.S. I'm sure RomneyCare would go over extremely well in CA, NY, IL, etc.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103804.html?sid=ST2010121604153

Vinson stopped short of granting an injunction, as the plaintiffs requested, to prevent the law from going forward while the case is appealed.

Most of the law doesn't go into effect until 2014 and by then the Surpreme Court will have ruled.

The Post is a joke. The injunction was understood in the ruling.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:

"...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) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

[i] 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."

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare.html

Robert, you need to listen to the Great One, too. He's a mean constitutional lawyer in addition to being a great talk show host. ;)

Now, I have zero doubt that Obama is going to do anything but ignore this ruling (as he did with the judge's ruling on lifting the oil drilling ban), which would actually put him in contempt of court. If this should happen, only one of the defendants would have to go back to Judge Vinson and file a contempt motion, I think it's called.

As I posted yesterday, Florida announced that it's sending 1 MIL back to the Feds that was sent to them to offset the law's administration costs. Florida's AG fully understands that the state doesn't have to comply with the law at all. Right now, it is null and void. End of story.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Some low level federal judge in Florida does not have final say so much as you Obama haters would want it. Even the Fox commentators doubt that the Supreme Court will toss all of the law. It is not a given that they are going toss any of it.

[boxcar]

Some low level federal judge in Florida does not have final say so much as you Obama haters would want it. Even the Fox commentators doubt that the Supreme Court will toss all of the law. It is not a given that they are going toss any of it.

Yes, we all know that. And we know how leftists like you will disparage "low level federal judges" when decisions don't go your way. But the fact remains is that the injunction is presumed and that the administration, by moving forward with the law's implementation, is in contempt of court. This is why I'm hoping that at least one state files a contempt motion with the judge; for Obama only cares about the Rule of Law when it suits his purposes.

Boxcar

[Ocala Mike]

It may never get to SCOTUS. I'm cross-posting this from another thread:

I don't know who this guy Publius is, but this discussion (rather long) seems to be very informative. If nothing else, I found out that I'm in Judge Vinson's jurisdiction (Northern District of FL).

http://www.thefourthbranch.com/some-context-to-judge-vinsons-recent-ruling/


Ocala Mike

[lamboguy]

Because the political philosophy of MASS isn't a microcosm of all the U.S. I'm sure RomneyCare would go over extremely well in CA, NY, IL, etc.

Boxcar
as far as i know the court in florida that claimed that obamacare is unconstitutional is a federal court. as far as i know a federal court overules any state court.
i guess laws work to those that pay for them to work!

[Robert Goren]

Yes, we all know that. And we know how leftists like you will disparage "low level federal judges" when decisions don't go your way. But the fact remains is that the injunction is presumed and that the administration, by moving forward with the law's implementation, is in contempt of court. This is why I'm hoping that at least one state files a contempt motion with the judge; for Obama only cares about the Rule of Law when it suits his purposes.

Boxcar When was last time a conservative ran for office without Federal Judges being a major part of their campaign. They been bitching about them since "Brown vrs the Board of Education". If Obama followed his ruling, then they would be in contempt of two other federal judges and the Va judge who ruled only the mandatory insurance part was unconstitutional . If any states decide to follow his ruling, they will be too. Battling Federal Judges, that why we have a Supreme Court.

[Black Ruby]

[QUOTE=BlueShoe]In 2014 there will be a Republican president and perhaps GOP control in both chambers of Congress.

Oh boy, more wars!!

[mostpost]

And if ya need more proof sluethy....

"In light of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/258514/florida-v-hhs-could-become-landmark-individual-liberty-avik-roy) that Obamacare is unconstitutional, Wisconsin’s attorney general, J. B. Van (#) Hollen, has declared the Badger State free of any obligations imposed by the law."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258639/wisconsin-ag-declares-obamacare-dead-brian-bolduc

But keep trying....lol. Sooner or later you might come up with something lol
Which proves Van Hollen is an idiot.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Which proves Van Hollen is an idiot.

careful, careful, careful... this one bites back...

[boxcar]

Which proves Van Hollen is an idiot.

Why is he an idiot? What legally binds WI to pay any attention to ObamaCare?

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Why is he an idiot? What legally binds WI to pay any attention to ObamaCare?
Wisconsin went to court with a bunch of other states. They won their case, the law was declared void. If the ruling means nothing, then why were they in court in the first place? The law is dead until a higher court reverses it, no? And so far, Obama hasn't filed an appeal or asked for a stay, right? So as it stands now, the law is dead, and any further attempts by HHS (also a party to the case, they lost) to enforce a law that doesn't exist would then put them in contempt of court, right? It would be outright criminal, no?

Where am I wrong?

[boxcar]

When was last time a conservative ran for office without Federal Judges being a major part of their campaign. They been bitching about them since "Brown vrs the Board of Education". If Obama followed his ruling, then they would be in contempt of two other federal judges and the Va judge who ruled only the mandatory insurance part was unconstitutional . If any states decide to follow his ruling, they will be too. Battling Federal Judges, that why we have a Supreme Court.

NO, NO, NO. Sorry to say but you're really ignorant on how this works. The administration doesn't get to pick and choose which court it wants to obey. The legal system doesn't work that way. Once something is ruled "illegal", it matters not other courts have ruled that it is "legal". The fact that one federal judge ruled the entire law null and void is sufficient to stop the law dead in its tracks. If the administration objects to this ruling, then they must appeal, which of course they will do. And now catch this very carefully: The fact that this administration will appeal the law is an admission that they acknowledge Judge Vinson's ruling and disagree with it.
If the judge's ruling essentially meant nothing,then the administration wouldn't have to appeal it! Why waste time and money appealing some decision that is irrelevant? :bang: :bang: This is what the LameStream media would have you believe, but trust me: The legal system doesn't work that way.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Wisconsin went to court with a bunch of other states. They won their case, the law was declared void. If the ruling means nothing, then why were they in court in the first place? The law is dead until a higher court reverses it, no? And so far, Obama hasn't filed an appeal or asked for a stay, right? So as it stands now, the law is dead, and any further attempts by HHS (also a party to the case, they lost) to enforce a law that doesn't exist would then put them in contempt of court, right? It would be outright criminal, no?

Where am I wrong?

I'm in complete agreement with you. And I thought the administration was going to appeal. (I think that was Gibb's position.) And I would think that they would want to get this appeal under way ASAP because soon the House is going to have to decide whether or not fund aspects of this law. As it stands right now, the House has no legal obligation to fund an unconstitutional law. And if the House should try to fund any part it, I do believe they hear the fury of The People and the STATES as never before.

But you're absolutely right: The law is dead in its tracks, no matter who likes or doesn't like it. IT IS DEAD! This is why my GREAT STATE of SWAMPLAND is also sending money back to the feds that was supposed to be used to implement the law.

And, yes, any attempt to implement this law would put the administration in contempt of court. You just can't dismiss a court's decision because you don't like it.

Boxcar

[Ocala Mike]

The administration doesn't get to pick and choose which court it wants to obey.

Boxcar


Unlike the states which brought suit; they got to pick and choose the Vinson court. Anyone for tea?


Ocala Mike

[GameTheory]

I am sure they will appeal, if they haven't already. (I heard yesterday I think that they hadn't yet.) It is interesting that it is actually hard to find news on this decision and what's going on...

[johnhannibalsmith]

...And, yes, any attempt to implement this law would put the administration in contempt of court...

I highly doubt that this is actually the case, but I acknowledge that I'm not entirely certain how it would play out.

It would (I think) be an indirect contempt, not a direct contempt, and in most cases I believe that there would need to be demonstrable evidence that the "beneficiary" of a ruling is not benefitting as ordered by the court. I'm fairly certain that in a case like this, it would be incumbent upon the justice to issue a notice of hearing to the "accused" contemnor and hold formal hearings to decide whether or not the conduct, or lack thereof, constitutes indirect contempt.

I wish that one of our more knowledgable legal eagles could clarify this, because the issue of a large body being considered contemnors usually involves corporations to the best of my knowledge. Those are generally civil cases and fines are typically levied if contempt is confirmed.

I'm not sure who you could imprison or why you would fine the taxpaying citizens that involunatarily subsidize those that were considered contemnors in this case.

:confused: :confused:

It's been a long time been a long time been a looooong time since I paid attention in class.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... It is interesting that it is actually hard to find news on this decision and what's going on...

It is very telling that there has not been a loud, defiant rebuttal to the decision and minimal mainstream attention given to the ruling.

Not that I believe that means that they have come to the conclusion that they were horribly misguided, but rather that they watched the next President to have his face put on (some currency maybe) a dollar bill lose almost all of his allure during this bill's political back and forth. Plus, plenty of their colleagues are now unemployed.

Then when they quit being belligerent and hyper-political about the bill in the last few months, that allure has risen again somewhat. Perhaps they are getting a little wiser and figure the thing to do is let the Repubs continue to politicize the issue and see if they suffer the same repercussions if they become the aggressors.

Or.... perhaps they are too busy figuring out how to revamp the bill in a way that will REALLY appeal to the disenfranchised base.

[fast4522]

It is very telling that there has not been a loud, defiant rebuttal to the decision and minimal mainstream attention given to the ruling.

Not that I believe that means that they have come to the conclusion that they were horribly misguided, but rather that they watched the next President to have his face put on (some currency maybe) a dollar bill lose almost all of his allure during this bill's political back and forth. Plus, plenty of their colleagues are now unemployed.

Then when they quit being belligerent and hyper-political about the bill in the last few months, that allure has risen again somewhat. Perhaps they are getting a little wiser and figure the thing to do is let the Repubs continue to politicize the issue and see if they suffer the same repercussions if they become the aggressors.

Or.... perhaps they are too busy figuring out how to revamp the bill in a way that will REALLY appeal to the disenfranchised base.

you suggest that someone will get bumped on a current currency denomination or a new currency denomination will be created, how progressivism of you. Exactly what have you said that actually adds up?

[johnhannibalsmith]

you suggest that someone will get bumped on a current currency denomination or a new currency denomination will be created, how progressivism of you. Exactly what have you said that actually adds up?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Put a few of those in your pocket for the next time (and the next time and the next time and the next time) you completely miss the point.

[fast4522]

Not at all, we do not care.

[ArlJim78]

They seem in no hurry to appeal, maybe that is the strategy, to delay the whole process and run out the clock.

I see that Virginia is petitioning the supreme court to take the case now and skip the intermediate appellate steps. I hope they do because the longer this debacle drags on the deeper it scars the country.

what a mess the regime has put this country into.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not at all, we do not care.

As well you shouldn't.

[fast4522]

Now you miss the point, we do not care what you want.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Now you miss the point, we do not care what you want.

What do I want?

you can wear this too but you'll have to turn it inside out.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1045653&postcount=11

[Ocala Mike]

.

what a mess the regime has put this country into.


I submit that, apropos of the subject of this thread, the mess this country is in is a "pre-existing condition."


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

I submit that, apropos of the subject of this thread, the mess this country is in is a "pre-existing condition."


Ocala Mike

You're right. And this "pre-existing" mental disorder is known as Liberalism.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I am sure they will appeal, if they haven't already. (I heard yesterday I think that they hadn't yet.) It is interesting that it is actually hard to find news on this decision and what's going on...

Astute observation! The Egypt crisis is serving as good cover for BO with this domestic issue. Gibbs did say as much after the decision came down. He even talked about how this will decided by the SC. I hope they drag their feet. I believe that would work to conservatives' advantage, especially when the time comes to allocate funds for this bad boy. God help the House if they fund so much as one dime.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

I submit that, apropos of the subject of this thread, the mess this country is in is a "pre-existing condition."

yeah but in this case the presciption does more harm than the original condition itself. it's like we had indigestion, so why are we getting a bone marrow transplant by a quack doctor?

[boxcar]

Or.... perhaps they are too busy figuring out how to revamp the bill in a way that will REALLY appeal to the disenfranchised base.

If ol' Bernie Sanders gets his way, that could happen. I love it when a socialist has a honest moment -- when he speaks from his heart. This has always been the goal of ObamaCare, but Bernie is now talking out of his frustration with current court ruling. What Bernie is essentially saying, "Let's cut through the mustard and get with it."

Bernie Sanders, the “independent” but self-described socialist senator from Vermont, told MSNBC yesterday he has a novel idea for reforming health care — get rid of all the private health insurance companies:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-bernie-sanders-get-rid-of-all-private-insurance-companies/

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:
I hate it when this happens. I consulted a lawyer (my niece) on the theory that the government cannot enforce a law that a federal court has declared unconstitutional. That turns out to be right. But as, she says, not only cannot, but will not. There is no chance the Obama administration will enforce any portion of his law until a more favorable ruling is given.

So it turns out the Wisconsin Attorney General is not such an idiot after all. (Whoever it was that said that.), but he would have been wise to include a disclaimer such as "at the present time".

My niece, the lawyer, says that injunctions are issued when there is a possibility that one of the parties may attempt to circumvent a ruling and gain an advantage in the time between the ruling and the appeal. In the case of the executive branch this is very unlikely to occur.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I hate it when this happens. I consulted a lawyer (my niece) on the theory that the government cannot enforce a law that a federal court has declared unconstitutional. That turns out to be right. But as, she says, not only cannot, but will not. There is no chance the Obama administration will enforce any portion of his law until a more favorable ruling is given.

So it turns out the Wisconsin Attorney General is not such an idiot after all. (Whoever it was that said that.), but he would have been wise to include a disclaimer such as "at the present time".

My niece, the lawyer, says that injunctions are issued when there is a possibility that one of the parties may attempt to circumvent a ruling and gain an advantage in the time between the ruling and the appeal. In the case of the executive branch this is very unlikely to occur.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Thanks to you and your niece. I retract my earlier post referencing a bite in the ass forthcoming. Good job.

[ArlJim78]

with this executive branch anything is possible. when was the last time you heard of a contempt of court ruling against the executive branch?

[boxcar]

I hate it when this happens. I consulted a lawyer (my niece) on the theory that the government cannot enforce a law that a federal court has declared unconstitutional. That turns out to be right. But as, she says, not only cannot, but will not. There is no chance the Obama administration will enforce any portion of his law until a more favorable ruling is given.

So it turns out the Wisconsin Attorney General is not such an idiot after all. (Whoever it was that said that.), but he would have been wise to include a disclaimer such as "at the present time".

My niece, the lawyer, says that injunctions are issued when there is a possibility that one of the parties may attempt to circumvent a ruling and gain an advantage in the time between the ruling and the appeal. In the case of the executive branch this is very unlikely to occur.

My talk show host, Mark Levin affirmed this for me the day of the decision.
You should listen to the Great One -- and very carefully when he talks law, especially constitutional law.

No disclaimer was needed. "At the present" time is understood. :rolleyes:

By the way, there's a Bloomberg article today that talks about the BO administration acting in contempt of the federal judge's ruling on lifting the oil drilling ban.

Boxcar

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
By the way, there's a Bloomberg article today ...

Do you have a link you can post? That sounds interesting.

EDITED: Nevermind...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

Found it... amazingly...

[boxcar]

its not like nothing happens between now and 2014. there are huge decisions to be made and bureacracies to be set up before 2014, and they are already behind schedule.

And FUNDING! Again, God help the House if it allocates one dime toward this unconstitutional law. They will get a taste of the fury of hell if they do. This is why it's incumbent upon this administration to move very quickly on its appeal.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

And FUNDING! Again, God help the House if it allocates one dime toward this unconstitutional law. They will get a taste of the fury of hell if they do.
Boxcar

Oh yea! :jump:

All those old folks in Gatorland will be having a hissy fit worrying about their Medicare. :rolleyes:

The rest of the country? Not so much.

[boxcar]

Oh yea! :jump:

All those old folks in Gatorland will be having a hissy fit worrying about their Medicare. :rolleyes:

The rest of the country? Not so much.

Tough grapes! The Dems got the country into this mess by passing a bill they didn't even read and this is currently unconstitutional. Now, let them get the nation out of the mess.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Do you have a link you can post? That sounds interesting.

EDITED: Nevermind...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

Found it... amazingly...

Glad you found this. I heard about the article on El Rushbo. This is one arrogant, defiant and lawless administration! I would love to see the Gulf states sue the Feds. Heck...I'd settle for one state. I think they'd stand a good chance of winning.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Some low level federal judge in Florida does not have final say so much as you Obama haters would want it. Even the Fox commentators doubt that the Supreme Court will toss all of the law. It is not a given that they are going toss any of it.

Were the judges on the "left" who sided with this bill "low level"??? :lol:

[boxcar]

Were the judges on the "left" who sided with this bill "low level"??? :lol:

We really need to get a lot more centrist judges on the courts. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Dick Durbin, the second ranking Dem in the Senate told CNS that the Obama administration should ignore Judge Vinson's ruling. And keep in mind this despicable character is a member of the JUDICIARY Committee! :bang: :bang: Durbin, no doubt a lawyer, essentially said the Judge didn't issue an injunction. I guess Durbin reads court rulings as about as well as the legislation he votes to pass. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://cnsnews.com/news/article/durbin-obama-administration-should-enfor

Boxcar

[Ocala Mike]

with this executive branch anything is possible. when was the last time you heard of a contempt of court ruling against the executive branch?

April 12, 1999


http://law.jrank.org/pages/5671/Contempt-Contempt-Proceedings-against-President-Clinton.html


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

The Left is infamously known for its open defiance of court rulings. Just Google the EPA and find out how many times they have been held in contempt under leftist administrations. It's mind boggling. But I'm sure glad that our government isn't corrupt in spite of all these contempt rulings. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

The Left is infamously known for its open defiance of court rulings. Just Google the EPA and find out how many times they have been held in contempt under leftist administrations. It's mind boggling. But I'm sure glad that our government isn't corrupt in spite of all these contempt rulings. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Wait...Wait...so this is a leftist mindset...!!!
Play by the rules when they suit, and if not, make your own :)

[Patrick333]

Wait...Wait...so this is a leftist mindset...!!!
Play by the rules when they suit, and if not, make your own :)That seems to be the way it works.

[Robert Goren]

Were the judges on the "left" who sided with this bill "low level"??? :lol:Yes

[boxcar]

Yes

Do you think we should do away with all lower courts?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

April 12, 1999


http://law.jrank.org/pages/5671/Contempt-Contempt-Proceedings-against-President-Clinton.html


Ocala Mike
thanks, I should have been able to guess the answer.:lol:

[BlueShoe]

Been there, done that.
How'd that work out for ya?
Next time, no mistakes.

[lamboguy]

the title of this thread is "REPUBLICAN'S LOSE HEALTH CARE BATTLE".does anyone really think that it is in their best interest not to have this thieving insurance bill? this is just another way to undo the american citizens out of any, most or all the money they have saved and keep the citizens at their knees.

one battle the republicans did not lose is in 2008 when they expanded the patriot act is to allow government agents to walk into banks and fleece the citizens out of the gold and cash that they might possibly have in safe deposit boxes of these fine institutions. they are allowed under the patriot act to seize any safety deposit box that they feel like opening up, they don't even have to open up the box to know what is in it, they have geiger counters that will tell them. from my limited knowledge of laws, whenever they make them up, they know that in the future they are going to use those laws to put a strangle hold on you. from the best of my understanding the very smart republicans do not store their gold in safety deposit boxes, they have it in places like canada, and purth australia. those places are more user friendly in these matters than the united states of america.

these changes are not without precedent, the same thing happened during the great depression when the government enacted laws to make it ilegal for citizens to own gold. at that time the citizens had to turn in all their gold BELOW market value, in turn the united states sold the gold for $5 an ounce more to european bankers. at that time gold was only $20 per ounce and the government was kind enough to pay you $15 for the privilage of keeping you broke. just for the record, this was done under a democratic president. so as you can see it really doesn't matter which side is in power, they both come to the same conclusions.

today the government will let you own all the paper gold you have money for, that comes in the form of exchange traded funds, the gold holders trust,sprott asset management, and other similar vehicles. but keep in mind you are only getting pieces of paper that represent gold. president nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, 40 years ago. in the history of the world there has never been any soveregn state or empire to last 75 years on a fiat currency basis. i bring this up because the people in the know in the government know all this. i fully expect the united states to go back on the gold standard some time this decade to add to the longetivity of this great country.

[sammy the sage]

Been there, done that.
How'd that work out for ya?

Yep...neither side worth a plugged nickel right now...well at least the pugs let us keep our guns! :lol:

[newtothegame]

Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan Needs to Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case
Monday, February 14, 2011

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Justice Department is contesting in federal court a Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com that seeks department records that could shed light on the question of whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan needs to recuse herself from legal challenges to the health-care reform law President Barack Obama signed last March.

The case—the Media Research Center v. the U.S. Justice Department—arises from a complaint (http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/MRC%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20EXHIBITS.pdf) the Media Research Center filed on Nov. 23, 2010 against the Justice Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint asked the court to direct the Justice Department to comply with a FOIA request (http://mrc.org/pdf/Kagan%20Letter.pdf) that CNSNews.com had initially submitted to the Office of the Solicitor General on May 25, 2010. CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center.

The CNSNews.com FOIA asked for three categories of records. These included records of any meetings or communications Kagan might have participated in as solicitor general that involved President Obama’s health-care reform plan, records of any meetings or communications Kagan might have participated in in which legal challenges to the health-care legislation signed by President Obama were discussed, and records of any meetings or communications Kagan might have participated in in which there was discussion of whether Kagan ought to recuse herself from involvement in any particular case in her role as solicitor general due to the prospect that case might later come before her were she confirmed to a seat on a federal court.

On Dec. 30, the Justice Department filed an answer (http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/JUSTICE%20DEPARTMENT%20ANSWER%20TO%20MRC%20COMPLAI NT.pdf) to the MRC’s complaint, asking the court to dismiss the complaint, but not citing any specific exemption in the Freedom of Information Act that would justify such a dismissal.

The Justice Department now has until March 1 to present the court with a brief asking for summary judgment in its favor.

Federal law mandates that a Supreme Court justice must recuse herself from a case if she previously expressed an opinion about its merits while in government service.

At the time that President Obama signed his health-care reform law, Kagan was serving as President Obama’s solicitor general and President Obama had not yet nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Kagan’s job as solicitor general was to defend the administration’s position in federal court cases. On March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed his health-care reform law—and seven weeks before Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court--Florida and Virginia filed suit against the law in federal court challenging its constitutionality. Also on that day, 12 states joined Florida in its suit against the law.

more at link....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-department-resists-releasing-rec#

Could be a deciding vote the libs lose in a SC battle.....!!!

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Could be a deciding vote the libs lose in a SC battle.....!!!
...

The law needs to be amended to state that if conflict of interest is found, the Supreme Court should be scrapped and started anew.

[newtothegame]

The law needs to be amended to state that if conflict of interest is found, the Supreme Court should be scrapped and started anew.

Key word there is "found"...
Ive heard that simple things like birth certificates can be lost for a long time when not want to be "found"....
And I agree with you.....any judgement the SC hands down should be without political bias.
Got to wonder why the DOJ would be "alledged" attemtping to keep from turning this info over. I mean its not like its a national security secret.
Lets see...B.O's DOJ.....
Kagan...B.O's appointee....
B.O's healthcare bill....
Hmmm kind of makes ya wonder "who" is behind this....?????

[boxcar]

Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan Needs to Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case
Monday, February 14, 2011

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Justice Department is contesting in federal court a Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com that seeks department records that could shed light on the question of whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan needs to recuse herself from legal challenges to the health-care reform law President Barack Obama signed last March.

The case—the Media Research Center v. the U.S. Justice Department—arises from a complaint (http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/MRC%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20EXHIBITS.pdf) the Media Research Center filed on Nov. 23, 2010 against the Justice Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint asked the court to direct the Justice Department to comply with a FOIA request (http://mrc.org/pdf/Kagan%20Letter.pdf) that CNSNews.com had initially submitted to the Office of the Solicitor General on May 25, 2010. CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center.

The CNSNews.com FOIA asked for three categories of records. These included records of any meetings or communications Kagan might have participated in as solicitor general that involved President Obama’s health-care reform plan, records of any meetings or communications Kagan might have participated in in which legal challenges to the health-care legislation signed by President Obama were discussed, and records of any meetings or communications Kagan might have participated in in which there was discussion of whether Kagan ought to recuse herself from involvement in any particular case in her role as solicitor general due to the prospect that case might later come before her were she confirmed to a seat on a federal court.

On Dec. 30, the Justice Department filed an answer (http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/JUSTICE%20DEPARTMENT%20ANSWER%20TO%20MRC%20COMPLAI NT.pdf) to the MRC’s complaint, asking the court to dismiss the complaint, but not citing any specific exemption in the Freedom of Information Act that would justify such a dismissal.

The Justice Department now has until March 1 to present the court with a brief asking for summary judgment in its favor.

Federal law mandates that a Supreme Court justice must recuse herself from a case if she previously expressed an opinion about its merits while in government service.

At the time that President Obama signed his health-care reform law, Kagan was serving as President Obama’s solicitor general and President Obama had not yet nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Kagan’s job as solicitor general was to defend the administration’s position in federal court cases. On March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed his health-care reform law—and seven weeks before Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court--Florida and Virginia filed suit against the law in federal court challenging its constitutionality. Also on that day, 12 states joined Florida in its suit against the law.

more at link....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-department-resists-releasing-rec#

Could be a deciding vote the libs lose in a SC battle.....!!!


If she is recused, this is no guarantee that the SC would rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Kennedy is still the deciding (swing) vote. If he votes with the 3 libs and this case has already gone to an Appeals Court and the AC ruled against the plaintiffs, then a tie on the SC would amount to a validation of the AC decision.

However, I'd still like to see this hand played out. I'd love to see on what grounds the DOJ is filing suit to block access to the requested information. After all, this is supposed to be the most transparent administration in all American history, right? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

If she is recused, this is no guarantee that the SC would rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Kennedy is still the deciding (swing) vote. If he votes with the 3 libs and this case has already gone to an Appeals Court and the AC ruled against the plaintiffs, then a tie on the SC would amount to a validation of the AC decision.

However, I'd still like to see this hand played out. I'd love to see on what grounds the DOJ is filing suit to block access to the requested information. After all, this is supposed to be the most transparent administration in all American history, right? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

No, I understand what your saying Box....
I am just saying WITHOUT kagan (who we all know how she would vote)...it makes it alot more interesting.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are conservative.....
Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and kagan will vote liberal...
That leaves Kennedy and deciding.....
If Kagan has to recuse herself, then I see it as 4-3 conservative with kennedy possibly either solidifying or knotting the court up....
This seems to be a pretty important situation coming down the pipeline for Kagan...and BO healthcare....

[boxcar]

No, I understand what your saying Box....
I am just saying WITHOUT kagan (who we all know how she would vote)...it makes it alot more interesting.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are conservative.....
Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and kagan will vote liberal...
That leaves Kennedy and deciding.....
If Kagan has to recuse herself, then I see it as 4-3 conservative with kennedy possibly either solidifying or knotting the court up....
This seems to be a pretty important situation coming down the pipeline for Kagan...and BO healthcare....

Oh, no doubt it is. I would love to see her out of the picture. It would put the odds a little more in the plaintiff's favor, most especially if an Appellate Court would side with the lower court's decision.

Boxcar