The Florida judge who ruled against President Obama’s health care law on Wednesday ordered the administration to expedite its appeal, if it plans to, within seven days.
District Judge Roger Vinson, who issued his original decision on Jan. 31, ruled then that the individual mandate in the new law is unconstitutional, and since it is basically the entire linchpin of the law, he declared the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act void.
The administration went back to Vinson to ask for clarification of his ruling. Vinson on Wednesday responded to the request by granting their motion — and ordering the government to go either to the appellate court or immediately to the Supreme Court.
“Almost everyone agrees that the constitutionality of the act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward … as soon as practically possible,” Vinson said.
Vinson added that his summary judgment is stayed pending appeal, a small victory for opponents of the law who said the motion to clarify was an attempt to buy some time or delay the progress of the case out of Florida since many of the 26 states announced they would not proceed with implementing the law.
Vinson apparently agreed with the critics’ assessment.
“During the four-plus weeks since entry of my order, the defendants have seemingly continued to move forward and implement the act. … While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import. Accordingly, I will attempt to synopsize the 78-page order and clarify its intended effect.”
(Source: Fox News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
Unless the Federal Supreme Court agrees to hear the case in an expedited manner, it will take years.
More judicial activism of the kind that conservatives used to decry.
Is this a win-win situation?
Fox says:
…that his summary judgment is stayed pending appeal, a small victory for opponents of the law …
Reuters says:
A federal judge in Florida on Thursday refused to order the Obama administration to stop implementing its far-reaching healthcare law, a small victory for President Barack Obama in his high-stakes effort to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system…
bz_in_la,
Are you looking for the “judicial activism” that Charlie is talking about?!
Judicial activism is generally when justices rule according to political opinions and not in regard to the constitution etc. This judge ruled it UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it is not freedom and democracy that the Founding Fathers envisioned for this great nation.
Remember that two other federal judges have upheld the law. The top constitutional law scholar at Harvard holds that there is little difference between the law’s requirement that everyone purchase coverage and the requirement that everyone participate in Social Security, something the Supreme Court has upheld and almost no one wants to end.
This law has already saved many lives, estimates published in a respected medical journal are that before the law around 45,000 people died every year simply for lack of insurance and around 100,000 died every year for lack of adequate medical treatment for treatable conditions, both of which would be vastly improved by the law. Hashem yeracheim.
Two federal judges have ruled the health care act to be constitutional, while two others have concluded the opposite.
The two judges that say it IS constitutional, were Democratic appointees. The two says that it is Unconstitutional, were GOP appointees.
Our founders gave Congress the power to regulate commerce and to tax.
Our first presidents made it mandatory to buy things. (Arms and ammo.)
Our first presidents mandated that the people were taxed to give sailors health care.
AND ..
Many of our founders were enraged because of no Judge has the power to declare any law unconstitutional in the Constitution!
Some were horrified with the case Maybury v Madison. Can one co-equal branch trump the other 2 branches? The Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches. Especially by lone wolf circuit judges!
Its not “Freedom” or “democracy” … it’s about law.
MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS WERE ABOUT THE MEDIA .. NOT the law!
For some reason no one can rationally argue why the Health Care Law should be constitutional.
1)The basis is the Commerce Clause which gives the Government the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, however how is forcing meaning to buy something “regulating commerce” it’s just the opposite, it forces me to engage in commerce that I have no particular interest to engage in.
2)And if one takes the position that the Federal Government is aloud to force citizens to buy something then where does it stop.
Why can the Goverment not force someone to buy a gun?
Does no one see the basic danger of thos Law?
One would think that Liberals especially would see the inherent dangers in such powers being granted to the Government.
3) There are those who will compare this bill to Car insurance, a comparison that is flawed from the outset.
Car Insurance is a State regulation, the States do not have “Limited Powers” the Federal government does.
Another basic difference is that one is not required to have “collision” insurance rather liability the basic law is in order to protect others from you not to protect you from yourself.
4)How are insurance companies to turn a profit if one is forced to ensure people with pre-existing coditions with no string sattached a man can purposley not buy health insurance, then come down with cancer R’L and go buy insurance and the Insurance companies are forced to cover them.
Is that normal?
What happens when companies can’t turn a profit?
THey lay people off.
Those people then have no jobs and guess what after a while they are left in positions where nebech lack of insurance is the least of their problems.
This bill is not just wrong it’s CRAZY!