PDA

View Full Version : Judge Vinson slaps the regime up side the head!



LWW
03-03-2011, 03:45 PM
I have never read a decision that slapped down the federal gubmint as a bunch idjits like THIS (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_vinson.html) decision did.

LWW

JohnnyD
03-04-2011, 05:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have never read a decision that slapped down the federal gubmint as a bunch idjits like THIS (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_vinson.html) decision did.

LWW </div></div>Indeed.Excellent post.

LWW
03-04-2011, 07:01 AM
I should warn the cabal ... this one may cause you to gouge your own eyes out if you read the decision.

I can't ever remember a judge de facto calling a regime a group of de facto idiots before, couched in legalese of course.

A hilarious piece of work.

LWW

Sev
03-04-2011, 07:25 AM
The MSN tried to run in the opposite direction with it.

LWW
03-04-2011, 07:32 AM
Imagine that.

What Vinson did was force the regime's hand to either expedite this to the SCOTUS or give up.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-04-2011, 05:54 PM
The judge says the following things, which do not add up to giant smack down, IMO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For the first factor, I cannot say that the defendants do not have a likelihood
of success on appeal. They do. And so do the plaintiffs. Although I strongly believe
that expanding the commerce power to permit Congress to regulate and mandate
mental decisions not to purchase health insurance (or any other product or service)
would emasculate much of the rest of the Constitution and effectively remove all
limitations on the power of the federal government, I recognize that others believe
otherwise. The individual mandate has raised some novel issues regarding the
Constitutional role of the federal government about which reasonable and intelligent
people (and reasonable and intelligent jurists) can disagree.

To be sure, members of
Congress, law professors, and several federal district courts have already reached varying conclusions on whether the individual mandate is Constitutional. It is likely
that the Courts of Appeal will also reach divergent results and that, as most courtwatchers
predict, the Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well.
Despite what partisans for or against the individual mandate might suggest, this
litigation presents a question with some strong and compelling arguments on both
sides.

[...]

However, after balancing the potential harm to the plaintiffs
against the potential harm to the defendants, I find that, on balance, these two
factors weigh in favor of granting a stay --- particularly in light of several unusual
facts present in this case.
For example, my declaratory judgment, of course, only applies to the parties
to this litigation. The State of Michigan is one of those parties. However, a federal
district court in Michigan has already upheld the Act and the individual mandate.
See Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Can (or should) I enjoin and halt implementation of the Act in a state where one of
its federal courts has held it to be Constitutional?

[...]

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments
set forth in the defendantsí motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a
motion for stay, should be GRANTED.

</div></div>

So he himself stayed his own order, because of the US government's arguments, in great part.

Arguments that he says have a chance of succeeding on the appeal.

That's weak in terms of slapping upside the head.

wolfdancer
03-04-2011, 06:49 PM
excellent rebuttal!!.... thanks for posting that.

LWW
03-05-2011, 06:23 AM
Why didn't you quote from page #1?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 it's import. Accordingly, I will attempt to synopsize the 78 page order and clarify it's intended effect. To that extent the defendants motion to clarify is GRANTED. </div></div>

Translated that means:

The White House legal staff is apparently illiterate in the law, and for that reason I will attempt to dumb it down to their level with step one being to capitalize the word "GRANTED" to compensate for their obvious ignorance.

Next lame defense of the regime please?

LWW

Sev
03-05-2011, 08:38 AM
The regime was being deliberately dense on the matter. They will skirt legality everywhere they can.

As public unions begin to be crushed and the price of oil goes up Obama's days in the White House are numbered.

Soflasnapper
03-05-2011, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why didn't you quote from page #1?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 it's import. Accordingly, I will attempt to synopsize the 78 page order and clarify it's intended effect. To that extent the defendants motion to clarify is GRANTED. </div></div>

Translated that means:

The White House legal staff is apparently illiterate in the law, and for that reason I will attempt to dumb it down to their level with step one being to capitalize the word "GRANTED" to compensate for their obvious ignorance.

Next lame defense of the regime please?

LWW </div></div>

Vinson indeed comes with the snark and thunders his contempt, but all in a vain effort to hide how he had to climb down from his high horse, stop his resort to irregular jurisprudence standards, and finally do the standard thing.

As he admits by citing the rule in this linked opinion, by SCOTUS precedent he was required to make his ruling in the most circumspect manner possible, to give wide deference to the legislative branch's prerogative of making law. As the other federal judge did, when he ruled that the individual mandate was unConstitutional, but left the body of the rest of the law intact. Vinson here explicitly acknowledges this requirement, and then offers apologetics as to why he didn't do that.

Then, rather than put in a judicial injunction order that could then be appealed for stay, he tried to claim the whole thing had to be halted simply under his ruling, so that this non-injunction injunction could remain in place, wholly stopping the entire bill, until its final appeal at the SCOTUS took place. That is not how this works under standard procedures.

And it wasn't even possible as to enjoining the states' proceeding, as he himself now admits. For the ruling only bound the states who were parties to the lawsuit, no other states at all, with ONE of which states who WERE supposedly bound, already having had another federal judge in that jurisdiction rule the mandate was Constitutional.

So he had to clean up his act, and the difficulties he created by his non-standard judicial activism, and has done so in what must have been a humiliating climbdown for him.

So he hides his disgrace and disorderly judicial conduct by CORRECTING his omission of creating an injunctive relief (now making it, explicitly), only to within the same ruling stay his own (new, but overdue) injunction.

But to LWW, that he was aggressive in his language (to better hide his reversing himself), THAT'S all we need to see to think he authored a righteous smackdown. True, but it was really a smackdown of his prior ruling.

LWW
03-05-2011, 01:04 PM
Yer funnee.

LWW

Sev
03-05-2011, 01:25 PM
6 days for Obama to respond.

LWW
03-05-2011, 01:59 PM
I hear the Kool Ade being brewed as we speak.

LWW