The administration is asking the judge who declared the health-care law unconstitutional to order it to be implemented.
I’d say good luck with that, but I’d be lying.
[Update a while later]
It’s not just the mandate. Just in case the bill survives the Supreme Court, the waivers are unconstitutional as well. These would seem to be a slam dunk from an equal protection standpoint. It’s government by fiat, and rule of men rather than law. Which is the only kind that works for the White House, because the people sure don’t want it.
It’s, um, unconstitutional. That means you can’t do it. Don’t like the decision? Then appeal it and seek a stay of the district court order.
This is easily the worst government of my lifetime.
Actually, since two judges ruled it constitutional, what we have is conflict of juristiction. It’s constitutional and valid in some Federal districts and not in others. Since that’s a lousy way to run a country, they’re trying to get him to accept the fact that, until an appeals court speaks, the law stands.
If the administration was serious, and really believed they were going to win, they’d be asking the SCOTUS to fast track a decision. Instead, they’re desperately flailing in delaying tactics.
Clearly Obama wants to implement the monstrosity as much as possible before the fateful day SCOTUS casts it down. So despite being unconstitutional in 26 states, they’re asking Vinson to stay his ruling, something he would only do if he felt he’d be overturned on appeal. I predict he will tell them, correctly, to go pound sand.
The jurisdiction in which it’s been ruled unconstitutional includes 26 of the 57 states. In how many has it been ruled constitutional?
When it is ruled unconstitutional, how will we force the states gleefully spending grant money to repay the money. It seems to me the judge needs to go further and rule no money can be spent until SCOTUS rules.
They have to appeal and get a stay. They can’t ignore the ruling.
They have to appeal and get a stay. They can’t ignore the ruling.
They aren’t obeying the ruling about granting offshore oil drilling permits. Obey court rulings is for the little people.
“Inevitably, however, it will find deserving applicants among those who have close contact with the administration, including many who are politically aligned with it.
Making matters worse, the executive tends to use waivers to co-opt political support for insupportable laws. When Americans are subject to severe legislation, they can unite to seek its repeal. All persons subject to a harsh law ordinarily must comply with it, and therefore will cooperate to fight it. Waivers, however, allow the executive to preserve such legislation by offering relief to the most powerful of those who might demand repeal, thereby purchasing their non-resistance at the cost of other Americans. ”
It is no coincidence that those who spent hundreds of millions campaigning for the Obamacare or those who stood to make hundreds of millions (AARP) from its passage, where the first to get waivers.
It would be the same situation with a one payer system, with the politically connected individuals or organizations getting the best health care options. Both parties would take advantage.
You can take the humans out of nature but you can’t take the nature out of humans.
Think like an Obama… what is the left hand doing while he’s waving with the right hand? He’s putting people in place and setting things up that the stupid party will ignore once they have some small win.
Could he be furthering his agenda even with the eventual loss of Obamacare?
Actually, since two judges ruled it constitutional, what we have is conflict of juristiction. It’s constitutional and valid in some Federal districts and not in others. Since that’s a lousy way to run a country, they’re trying to get him to accept the fact that, until an appeals court speaks, the law stands.
Chris, there is no conflict of jurisdiction and the law doesn’t stand in the district served by the court in question. While the administration is free to play this game (claiming that wholly unconstitutional law should be observed anyway, which is nonsense), it’s pretty obvious that the issue will only be settled by a higher court.
Also remember that this court’s purpose is to resolve conflicts and make sure all parties adhere to US law. Telling states that they have to comply with an unconstitutional law is not nor should be the role of any US court.