« | »

Obama Asks Vinson To Clarify His Ruling

From an approving Associated Press:

Obama admin. asks judge to clarify health ruling

By Melissa Nelson, Associated Press Thu Feb 17, 2011

PENSACOLA, Fla. – The Justice Department asked a federal judge in Florida on Thursday to tell states that they must continue to enact the Obama administration’s health care overhaul despite the judge’s ruling that the law is unconstitutional.

In a motion to clarify, administration attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to make clear that states cannot ignore the new health care laws while his ruling is being appealed.

At stake, according to the government’s motion, are provisions of the new law that would create chaos if ignored by the states.

Those provisions include 2011 changes in Medicare payment rates. Delaying those changes "could cause major delays and errors in the payment of the roughly 100 million Medicare claims processed each month," the motion states

No, the Obama administration wants the states to have to pay this new much higher mandates for Medicare and Medicaid – which could very well bankrupt a number of states –  over a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

But that won’t "create chaos."

A spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said Vinson’s ruling indeed does mean the states need not move forward with the health overhaul. Vinson "clearly stated" that the order equaled an injunction, Jennifer Meale said in an e-mailed statement

But in the filing, the Justice Department said the opposite.

Even though Vinson declared the law unconstitutional, all states in the lawsuit already have an obligation to comply with all the provisions of the Affordable Care Act while the case is being appealed, Justice lawyers argued.

"We believe it is important to put to rest any doubts about the ability of states and other parties to continue to implement these critical programs and consumer protections provided under this statute," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler

Huh? To say that the states have "the ability" to implement Obama-care in view of Judge Vinson’s ruling is not quite the same as saying that they must implement it.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, February 18th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

23 Responses to “Obama Asks Vinson To Clarify His Ruling”

  1. wardmama4 says:

    Nullification – NOW – Since apparently REPEAL has hit the spineless, gutless Senate and maybe, just maybe there might be funding in the budget approved – it is up to the States to Stop It Now.

    What is so un-clear about Un-CONSTITUTIONAL you ‘Constitutional scholar’?

  2. TerryAnne says:

    And so we now get confirmation that anything presented to the Supreme Court is DOA.

    Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

  3. BigOil says:

    So court rulings can now be ignored as long as there is an appeal? I’d like to see someone convicted in a courtroom try to walk out using this argument. If the President is not held in contempt of court, why should anyone else be?

  4. artboyusa says:

    a bit off topic but did you ever wonder how President Miracle would have fared if he’d ever been in the service? Me neither; but just in case here’s “Private Obama USMC meets… The Gunny”!

    “So – what’s your name, maggot?”

    “Um, Barack Hussein Obama, sir…”

    “Sir? SIR? Don’t you ever call me ‘sir’, you a**wipe! I’m not an officer, I’m not a f***ing knight of the realm. See those stripes? You call me ‘Gunnery Sergeant’ and you say ‘aye aye’ instead of ‘yes’ when I ask you a question. You got that?”

    “Yes sir –OOOF!”

    “Sorry; my hand slipped. That didn’t hurt you, Obama, did it?”

    “Yes… Gunnery Sergeant!”

    “That’s better. Now: what’s your name, you earth worm?”

    “Huh? But I just told you – aaaiieee!”

    “Sorry, my hand slipped again. What’s the matter with you? Are you deaf? Are you stupid? What is your f***ing NAME?”

    “Barack Hussein Obama, Gunnery Sergeant!”

    “Gunnery Sergeant Barack Hussein Obama – is that what you said? Huh? Is it? Have you just promoted yourself half a dozen grades or something, you motherless piece of s**t?”

    “No sir…I mean, no sir Gunnery Sergeant…I mean no, Gunnery Sergeant, I mean –AAARRRGGGHHH!”

    “I’m done playing with you, Obama! Next time it’ll really hurt; I guarantee you! Now, get on your damn feet and answer the damn question: what is your motherf***ing name?”

    “I…I don’t… know…Gunnery Sergeant”.

    “YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR OWN NAME? Great baldheaded North American Protestant Jesus H. Christ – and they tell me recruiting standards haven’t slipped! We got us a private here who is so damn dumb, so damn backward, so ‘challenged’ he don’t even know his own name! Can you even remember what MY name is, you nameless, motherless, fatherless piece of orphaned s**t?”

    “’Gunnery Sergeant’, Gunnery Sergeant – eeeEEEKKKKK!”

    “My name isn’t ‘Gunnery Sergeant Gunnery Sergeant’ you moron – that would be silly! And don’t you dare get your dirty blood on the beautiful clean deck of my beautiful barracks, Obama – you hear me? Now, one last time: what is your name…?”

    “O god…please don’t hurt me again!”

    “Finally! Now we’re getting somewhere! Private Pleasedonthurtmeagain – that’s gonna be your name from now on! You got that, private?”

    “Aye aye, Gunnery Sergeant”.


    “Thank you, sir…oops! O my god – no! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Obama’s fellow recruits would have eliminated him from training on the first day.

      Sorry Art…as funny as your expose’ is….I just don’t see it happening.

    • Right of the People says:

      The O’ster is the type of recruit that screws up regularly and causes the rest of the platoon to extra PT and duty. That is usually followed by having his ass kicked by everyone else in the platoon.

      He’d never make it out of basic. They’d either toss him out or he would spend his entire enlistment being “recycled” back through basic over and over and over again.

    • artboyusa says:

      The term you’re looking for , Rusty and Right is “blue falcon” and Barry is the bluest blue falcon of them all. I have to say I enjoyed writing that dialogue and I especially enjoyed imagining the great R. Lee Ermy as “The Gunny”. Ooh rah!

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Blanket Party for Pvt. Slugobama.
      All you need is one (1) bar of Dial soap and one (1) towel
      wrapped around each other tightly.
      “Let the game begin”

      (shades of ‘Full Metal Jacket’)

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    What we’re witnessing is that part of politics and human nature that I despise intently. It’s called “fanagling”. From the Urban Dictionary: 1. To Fanagle or the act of Fanagling would to be to pull an extreme hustle, to change the winds of fate into your favor.

    As we have all, at one time or another, witnessed or even been a party to, fanagling involves getting your way in by any means possible. This upstart regime has no class, no scruples and doesn’t like rules, unless those rules can be used in their favor, such as in a dictatorship or oligarchy. Manipulation, bribes, both overt and covert, overuse of the media to attack enemies and try things in the “court of public opinion” rather than by due process.

    This administration is clearly using any and all tactics to gain more and more power and it causes me to worry that there won’t be fair elections in November of 2012. It has been very notable to me that even as loud a voice as the tea party has had, lackadaisical coverage by the MSM notwithstanding, the new congress hasn’t shown me much and the general population on the conservative side seems frustrated, but that’s all. Opportunities have been missed to not only call out this small group of powermongers, but legal process is being subterfuged into anarchy. Everyone has to play by the rules if the rules are to mean anything. Clearly they mean nothing to this administration and I dearly hope someone has taken copious notes as that is the mechanism by which they must be brought down and taken to the woodshed.

    In short, we are being screwed with by a bunch of snide adolescents. They take delight in sitting around bragging about who they pissed off today, much the way a teen does about a particular teacher or other person in charge by being a petulant turd.

  6. proreason says:

    If they spent a little more time governing and a little less time gaming the system, maybe the country would be in a little better shape.

  7. tranquil.night says:

    I wonder if SCOTUS would’ve taken the regime’s behavior into account on it’s final ruling if they didn’t address Vinson’s at all. They’re already in contempt on the drilling moratorium. The blatant and illegal abuse of authority here begs a hard check from the last institution with the raw power to contain them.

    Asking for clarification is a way to untimely address the ruling, without formally acknowledging it through a request for a stay. It’s another punt. I expect punting and vetos on pretty much everything domestic as everything continues to fall apart abroad. International affairs are to where the lazer-like focus has turned, because that’s still where there’s some room left to sew more chaos.

    • proreason says:

      They jammed through what they wanted in the first 2 years: a massive new spending baseline (+ a trillion dollar pool of bribes) and the means to destroy the country’s health care and make everybody dependent on government.

      So they don’t need to do anything else and won’t do anything else legislatively. Behind the scenes, and illegally, they will expand the gains.

      For public consumption, they will paint the Republicans as the party that is defending rich white racist businessmen.

      That appears to be the final strategy.

      If they get the Moron elected one more time, game over.

  8. untrainable says:

    Clarification… Obiecare is unconstitutional. The Administration is in contempt of court. Obama has broken his oath of office. Every politician in Washington who continues to push through any action on Obiecare while it is considered unconstitutional is breaking their oath of office. Obama is a liar. Harry Reid is a liar. Nancy Pelosi is a liar.


    They should all be impeached, charged, tried and jailed for crimes against the constitution and America.

  9. Right of the People says:

    What part of NO doesn’t this group of narcissistic children understand?

    The Boy King reminds me of a spoiled 8 year old who has never in his life been told no and now that someone is finally telling him, he doesn’t like it. I’m waiting for him to start stomping his feet and holding his breath.

  10. JohnMG says:

    Maybe if Vinson had written his opinion at the third grade reading level, Obama could understand it.

    So much for being the smartest man in the room, huh?

  11. wstuga says:

    Can someone help me out here.

    I know there have been four rulings on the law. 2 upheld the constitutionality of the law, and one struck down the mandate, and Vinson struck the whole law.

    Whose ruling carries the weight and why? If Vinson’s ruling is the law, any chance SCOTUS declines to hear?

    Thanks in advance

    • untrainable says:

      Here’s an article on Obama being in contempt with quotes from the ruling itself.

      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


      As for SCOTUS refusing to hear the case… I don’t know how they could justify NOT hearing it at this point. It’s going to be an interesting appeals process though.

    • Petronius says:

      wstuga, to my knowledge there are only two decisions.

      (1) Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, filed 23 Mar 2010, decided 13 Dec 2010 by Judge Henry E. Hudson in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond). This is the suit brought by Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, against the individual mandate. Judge Hudson declared the health insurance mandate unconstitutional but did not stay enforcement of the ObamaCare statute. The case is on appeal by the US Dept of Justice to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Opening briefs are due 28 Feb. Cuccinelli has filed a petition to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which would bypass the intermediate appeal to the Fourth Circuit.


      (2) State of Florida et al. v. US Dept of HHS et al., filed 23 Mar 2010, decided 31 Jan 2011 by Judge Roger Vinson in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). This suit was brought by Florida and 25 other States, private parties, and the NFIB. Judge Vinson held the individual mandate was unconstitutional and not severable, and as a result he further held that the entire statute is unconstitutional and declared it void. DOJ is appealing to the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Vinson did not issue an injunction barring enforcement of the statute because there is a “long-standing presumption” that the Federal government would follow his ruling without need for an injunction. However, the White House announced that it is moving ahead with enforcement of the statute regardless of the adverse court decision.

      Since Virginia and Florida are in different Circuits, the possibility arises of conflicting decisions on appeal. In the event of a conflict, the Supreme Court would certainly take an appeal to resolve the difference. If both Circuits affirm the district court decisions, the DOJ would still be expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. It is also possible that one or both of the Circuits might remand the case to the district court for reconsideration, which could further delay resolution.

    • leerm8680 says:

      If the SCOTUS decides for O-care, they have to pay money. If they decide against O-care, they don’t. If they have a financial stake in the case I”m not sure they can rule on the case. Just an opinion of a non-lawyer.

    • leerm8680 says:

      If the SCOTUS decides for O-care, they have to pay money. If they decide against O-care, they don’t. If they have a financial stake in the case I”m not sure they can rule on the case. Just the opinion of a non-lawyer.

  12. canary says:

    It’s like this Obama. A judge has a temporary ban on the ruling voters in Oklahoma voted for. Ban Sharia law. The judge thinks it’s “unconstitutional” and so the new law can’t go forward until appeals & all.

    Want’s the ruling the health care is unconstitutional to be clarified. Obama was a teacher before politics and we are not his students who must prove ourselves to the puke pres.

    Criminals stay in prison waiting for their appeals.

    • untrainable says:

      Man convicted of murder. On death row. Waiting for appeal. By Obama’s logic (continuing to implement the law even though it has been ruled unconstitutional and is on appeal), they could execute the guy before his appeal goes all the way through.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »