You see, Judge Vinson threw out ObamaCare, ruled it unconstitutional. That means that until a higher court rules otherwise or a temporary injunction is granted, the law is null and void and implementation of it MUST STOP.
But it hasn't stopped. In fact, the White House has said several times since the ruling that that it changes nothing and implementation of the law will continue. In other words, he's defying a court order.
Let's take a look at what happened.
Vinson made three rulings that bear on this subject. The first was that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The second was that the mandate wasn't severable, and that therefore the entire law must be pitched. The third was AGAINST the plaintiffs, when he denied their request for injunctive relief.
Essentially, they had asked that the judge issue a special injunction that stopped the administration from continuing to implement ObamaCare. Vinson declined, but he did so because he clearly viewed his ruling as injunction enough, and expected the administration to comply with it.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“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).
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.
As you can see, he CLEARLY believed that Obama would comply with his ruling, and he CLEARLY believed that his ruling constituted an injunction against continuing to apply and enforce the law.
But Obama isn't complying with the Federal Court. It will be interesting to see how quickly the plaintiffs act to bring a separate request for a special injunction against Obama's White House before Judge Vinson.
But you know, this is nothing new. Obama has displayed such disregard for courts before. Remember the off-shore drilling ban that was tossed out by the judge? Obama responded by re-issuing the ban and essentially ignoring the court. Heck, it worked then, so why not continue to try what worked?
Even though no ruling has been made to that effect, in the matter of Judge Vinson's ruling, the Obama White House is now in contempt of court. He is ignoring the judicial branch's exercise of the very power that forms part of our system's checks and balances, and he is trying to assert for himself limitless power to do what he wants. In simpler terms, he wants the power of a dictator.
Are we SURE we want a lawless President in power?
[Vinson] "has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
ReplyDelete