(CNN) Breaking: Florida Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Parts of Healthcare Bill as Unconstitutional

[Predicto]

Me, too. I thought Appeals Court and lower rulings only applied to their jurisdiction, and only SC rulings affected the whole country. That's why I made that crack about the distance between Alaska and Florida.

In general you are correct, but it depends on the ruling, and on the issue being litigated. In the rare case where you are ordering the Federal Government to stop doing something, then things can be different.

I really should get off my butt and look at the reality of this one. ...

Ok just checked. Nevermind. The court's decision did not direct the Federal Government to stop implementation of the law in the interim of the appeal. So the Alaska governor is probably going to lose.

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

Thanks for basically admitting obamacare is a farce and those who supported it were foolish....thx....

Shh... the grownups are talking now. Go back to the little table in the kitchen. I'll bring you some juice in a minute.

[SonnySide]

In general you are correct, but it depends on the ruling, and on the issue being litigated. In the rare case where you are ordering the Federal Government to stop doing something, then things can be different.

I really should get off my butt and look at the reality of this one. ...

Ok just checked. Nevermind. The court's decision did not direct the Federal Government to stop implementation of the law in the interim of the appeal. So the Alaska governor is probably going to lose.

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

Shh... the grownups are talking now. Go back to the little table in the kitchen. I'll bring you some juice in a minute.

Nah, that's cool, your mom brought some this morning (are you finished with the silly attacks now?)

Back to the question and IF you are capable answer this SIMPLE query:

If Obamacare is so great for the country and the economy, why are there ANY waivers being granted?

[twa]

In general you are correct, but it depends on the ruling, and on the issue being litigated. In the rare case where you are ordering the Federal Government to stop doing something, then things can be different.

I really should get off my butt and look at the reality of this one. ...

Ok just checked. Nevermind. The court's decision did not direct the Federal Government to stop implementation of the law in the interim of the appeal. So the Alaska governor is probably going to lose

They seem less sure of that being fact

Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn't optional

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/144955-administration-wants-court-to-back-implementation-of-healthcare-law?page=2#comments

The Obama administration is asking a federal judge who struck down the healthcare reform law to clarify that states must still implement the overhaul as the appeals process plays out.

Some states are saying the Jan. 31 ruling relieves them from implementing the sweeping reform law because the federal judge in Florida found it to be unconstitutional.

The Obama administration, in a Thursday evening filing in a Northern Florida federal court, is asking the court to clarify that the 26 states who successfully challenged the law are still required to comply with it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the law's requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional, and therefore, the rest of the law is unconstitutional because the provision is too central to making the law function. The administration points out that the so-called individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, while other parts of the law have already gone into effect.

"[A] contrary understanding would threaten serious harm to many Americans currently benefiting from provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are already in effect and would significantly interfere with defendants’ statutory duty to implement the Act as Congress directed," the Justice Department wrote in its court filing.

[DCSaints_fan]

Dumb question, re: Interstate commerce and health insurance.

IS health insurance interstate commerce? Or does, say, Blue Cross have a subordinate company in every state they do business in, which offers insurance specific to that state, to comply with all of the state's regulations?

Insurers can do business across state lines, but they have to abide by the states laws in which they sell insurance. So Kaiser Permanente can sell insurance in Virgina and California, but they have to abide by Virginia and California's state laws. Republicans want to do away with this, saying that if Kaiser incorpoates in Virginia and sells insurance in California, they are exempt from California laws, like they did away with the finance laws a few years ago.

BCSB works differently because they aren't an HMO, for every state they have a different company although it doesn't appear they bear much in relation to one another. I used to have Blue Cross Blue Shield in Texas, when I moved to California I lost my insurance temporarily and when I got it again became Blue Shield California ( I could have also gotten Kaiser but they aren't close to me so I went with Blue Shield). I couldn't "transfer my policy" from one workplace to the other. I think its easier to do with an HMO like Kaiser if its the same one.

[twa]

The DOJ must file its reply to the plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition today (2-28).

plaintiff’s memorandum

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8ED2PB/$file/FLMemoOppositiontoMotionToClarify2-23-11.pdf

Wonder how the judge will react to the request for clarification

[Thiebear]

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell

I read that as Sarah Palin at first and had to do a double take...

Sean Parnell anagram Sara Pellen (close but no).

Obamacare might get a piece here or there kicked back for the wordsmiths to rework, but it ain't goin nowhere fast.

[JimboDaMan]

Insurers can do business across state lines, but they have to abide by the states laws in which they sell insurance. So Kaiser Permanente can sell insurance in Virgina and California, but they have to abide by Virginia and California's state laws. Republicans want to do away with this, saying that if Kaiser incorpoates in Virginia and sells insurance in California, they are exempt from California laws, like they did away with the finance laws a few years ago.

BCSB works differently because they aren't an HMO, for every state they have a different company although it doesn't appear they bear much in relation to one another. I used to have Blue Cross Blue Shield in Texas, when I moved to California I lost my insurance temporarily and when I got it again became Blue Shield California ( I could have also gotten Kaiser but they aren't close to me so I went with Blue Shield). I couldn't "transfer my policy" from one workplace to the other. I think its easier to do with an HMO like Kaiser if its the same one.

And that is the issue Democrats have with the the Republican cure-all of allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines. They already can, although there's significant red tape involved that the Republicans would do away with. But the result would effectively strip states of the ability to regulate health insuraces. Like finance companies, the likelihood is that insurance companies would rush to incorporate in the states affording them the most favorable terms, and the remaining states would be powerless to do anything about it.

[twa]

Vinson issues 7 day stay to idiots that can't understand prior ruling.

Appeal it or else:evilg:

http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Vinson+stay+order.pdf

[Predicto]

Vinson issues 7 day stay to idiots that can't understand prior ruling.

Appeal it or else:evilg:

http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Vinson+stay+order.pdf

The prior ruling was poorly written, and that is on Vinson. He really shouldn't be so self-righteous about a request for clarification. He is pretty much screaming "I'm a judicial activist" right now, IMO.

You are correct that they have to appeal it now or he will drop the hammer.

In other news, another judge last week found the healthcare plan individual mandate to be fully constititutional. Of course, that has no effect on Vinson's ruling to the contrary.

http://volokh.com/2011/02/22/another-district-court-decision-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-individual-mandate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+volokh/mainfeed+(The+Volokh+Conspiracy)&utm_content=Google+Reader

[twa]

Was it poorly written or is the govt just confused or misunderstood?....I loved that line:ols:

A judicial activist that demands you appeal his ruling?....that's a neat trick

[Predicto]

Was it poorly written or is the govt just confused or misunderstood?....I loved that line:ols:

A judicial activist that demands you appeal his ruling?....that's a neat trick

Not in the least.

Vinson knows that this issue is eventually going to be addressed in lots of courts all over the country. He wants to make sure that the first appeal comes from his decision based on his reasoning and findings, rather than being taken from all of those other judges finding that the mandate is constitutional. Vinson wants the conservative 11th Circuit to be the first one to have a crack at it, and he wants them to discuss his interpretation of "first principles" and the Federalist Papers and so forth rather than the two centuries of Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause jurisprudence that he had to downplay to get to his result.

[twa]

Is it the first appeal?

(UPDATE: Shortly after the judge issued the new order, Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler announced that the Department will promptly file an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, and will seek to have the appeal put on a fast track. Other health care appeals are proceeding on an expedited basis in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/judge-hardens-health-ruling-delays-it/

[Larry]

Not in the least.

Vinson knows that this issue is eventually going to be addressed in lots of courts all over the country. He wants to make sure that the first appeal comes from his decision based on his reasoning and findings, rather than being taken from all of those other judges finding that the mandate is constitutional. Vinson wants the conservative 11th Circuit to be the first one to have a crack at it, and he wants them to discuss his interpretation of "first principles" and the Federalist Papers and so forth rather than the two centuries of Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause jurisprudence that he had to downplay to get to his result.

Does it really make a difference who goes first? I would have thought that that when the USSC takes a case like this, where multiple judges have given multiple, contradictory, rulings, that the USSC would basically suck up all of the rulings, and then issue one ruling of their own.

[Predicto]

Is it the first appeal?

(UPDATE: Shortly after the judge issued the new order, Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler announced that the Department will promptly file an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, and will seek to have the appeal put on a fast track. Other health care appeals are proceeding on an expedited basis in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/judge-hardens-health-ruling-delays-it/

And? Vinson wants his case to be the one, and not those other cases. He wants a decision from the 11th Circuit talking about Alexander Hamilton, not a decision from the 4th Circuit talking about the Raich decision from the SCOTUS last year. So he is forcing the government's hand.

By the way, it is annoying for you to claim that that "idiots couldn't understand the prior ruling" and throw around your usual smilies. No one understood the scope of the prior ruling because it was poorly written.

In the interim, states are mulling whether the law remains enforceable and are considering a request for expedited Supreme Court review, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said yesterday in a phone interview.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

“We don’t think we can advise that this law is void,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican who opposes the act, said yesterday in a phone interview. “It will get resolved fairly quickly with a court decision. I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-01/health-care-law-goes-to-appeals-courts-as-states-differ-on-statute-s-scope.html

Those are three Republican attorney generals scratching their heads about Vinson's decision a few weeks ago.

[Predicto]

Does it really make a difference who goes first? I would have thought that that when the USSC takes a case like this, where multiple judges have given multiple, contradictory, rulings, that the USSC would basically suck up all of the rulings, and then issue one ruling of their own.

It often makes a huge difference. Appellate courts review the specific findings and decisions of lower courts, not abstract principles of law. The reasoning of the lower court becomes the template for analysis of the issue.

[twa]

By the way, it is annoying for you to claim that that "idiots couldn't understand the prior ruling" and throw around your usual smilies. No one understood the scope of the prior ruling because it was poorly written.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-01/health-care-law-goes-to-appeals-courts-as-states-differ-on-statute-s-scope.html

Those are three Republican attorney generals scratching their heads about Vinson's decision a few weeks ago.

Of course it's annoying :evilg:.....The assertion they did not understand the scope of the ruling is rather weak.

Your AG example simply illustrates the uncertainty of the higher courts future ruling (which everyone knows will occur)

The highly unusual request for clarity was not needed....it has been entertaining though:ols:

Sure didn't take long for the Govt to get clarified:beatdeadhorse:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It often makes a huge difference. Appellate courts review the specific findings and decisions of lower courts, not abstract principles of law. The reasoning of the lower court becomes the template for analysis of the issue.

Dont you think the scoots will wait until there are two adverse appellate decisions, anyway? I think they are going to wait for a split in the circuits. My guess is the scoots really doesn't want this case and would be perfectly happy if the appellate circuits agreed on it without their hearing it. No?

[Predicto]

Of course it's annoying :evilg:.....The assertion they did not understand the scope of the ruling is rather weak.

Your AG example simply illustrates the uncertainty of the higher courts future ruling (which everyone knows will occur)

No it doesn't. The AG quotes specifically say that

"In the interim, states are mulling whether the law remains enforceable and are considering a request for expedited Supreme Court review, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said yesterday"

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

"“We don’t think we can advise that this law is void,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican who opposes the act, said yesterday in a phone interview."

You aren't fooling anyone.

The highly unusual request for clarity was not needed....it has been entertaining though:ols:

Sure didn't take long for the Govt to get clarified:beatdeadhorse:

I'm glad that you know more about this legal issue than 3 Republican state attorneys general.

But you are correct about one thing. It is dangerous to ask for clarification from an activist judge. They get peevish, as we can see here.

[twa]

No it doesn't. The AG quotes specifically say that

You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm glad that you know more about this legal issue than 3 Republican state attorneys general.

But you are correct about one thing. It is dangerous to ask for clarification from an activist judge. They get peevish, as we can see here.

I'm glad you wish to try to assert it is the clarity of Vinson's ruling that is what the AG's were addressing ,when CLEARLY it was not ....even in your own link:ols:

the uncertainty was over how the appeal courts would rule and the uncertainty of how broad they would allow Vinson's jurisdiction

I'm getting worried about your reading comprehension and abilities:poke:

Funny that activist:silly: judge gave them exactly what they wished for....including the benefit of doubt that they were not idiots and simply ignoring the rule of law

[Wrong Direction]

I like NRO's take (go figure):

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261297/hands-my-mental-activity-rich-lowry

Judge Kessler, a liberal Clinton appointee, takes what has been a Commerce Clause case and practically makes it a matter for the First Amendment. It’s the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then–solicitor general Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets. Kessler, like Kagan before her, does everyone the favor of clarifying the issue.

Under the Kessler principle, there’s no non-conduct that the federal government can’t reach. Every day, most Americans engage in non-activities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler, or not to buy a Snuggie, you’ve impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We’ve gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.

[Predicto]

I'm glad you wish to try to assert it is the clarity of Vinson's ruling that is what the AG's were addressing ,when CLEARLY it was not ....even in your own link:ols:

the uncertainty was over how the appeal courts would rule and the uncertainty of how broad they would allow Vinson's jurisdiction

I'm getting worried about your reading comprehension and abilities:poke:

Funny that activist:silly: judge gave them exactly what they wished for....including the benefit of doubt that they were not idiots and simply ignoring the rule of law

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. “The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.”

[twa]

From your link

title

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

in 1st paragraph (I'll skip the threepeat for now)

after federal judges split on whether it’s constitutional, is headed to three U.S. appeals courts as states examine whether the statute is enforceable.

2nd

A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, ruled on Jan. 31 that the mandate exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce and invalidated the entire law.

3rd

one striking it down in part.

5th

In the interim...(KINDLY explain what interim means there other than the appeals)

note the break in the article and your quotes coming after 'the interim'

Supreme Court

in the 7th

I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.”

8th

While the appeals are pending, the federal government may seek to enforce the health-care law outside of judicial districts where part or all of it has been invalidated. The states involved in the Florida lawsuit discussed their options during a phone conference yesterday, Shurtleff said.

part or all to be determined by which appeal wins naturally...Vinson was clear on all

[/color]Surely as a lawyer you recognize the limits of a district courts ruling??

do I need to continue?....

[Predicto]

From your link

title

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Courts, Opposing States Weigh Enforcement

in 1st paragraph (I'll skip the threepeat for now)

after federal judges split on whether it’s constitutional, is headed to three U.S. appeals courts as states examine whether the statute is enforceable.

2nd

A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, ruled on Jan. 31 that the mandate exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce and invalidated the entire law.

3rd

one striking it down in part.

5th

In the interim...(KINDLY explain what interim means there other than the appeals)

note the break in the article and your quotes coming after 'the interim'

Supreme Court

in the 7th

I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.”

8th

While the appeals are pending, the federal government may seek to enforce the health-care law outside of judicial districts where part or all of it has been invalidated. The states involved in the Florida lawsuit discussed their options during a phone conference yesterday, Shurtleff said.

part or all to be determined by which appeal wins naturally...Vinson was clear on all

[/color]Surely as a lawyer you recognize the limits of a district courts ruling??

do I need to continue?....

Please don't, because none of what you are saying is relevant in the least.

A District Judge absolutely has the power to enjoin the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional law, and that ruling will apply to the federal government in all districts (unless a stay of the order is issued by a higher court).

Your claim all along has been that Vinson's January order was clear and immediately blocked the federal government from further implementation of the law, and that the Administration was idiotic for asking for clarification of the scope of the order.

If the Administration was barred from further implementation of the law by Vinson's ruling, the attorneys general in other states would not have been asking the same questions themselves - "what does this ruling mean? What is the national status of the law right now? Is it stayed pending appeal or not?"

[Larry]

I like NRO's take (go figure):

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261297/hands-my-mental-activity-rich-lowry

Under the Kessler principle, there’s no non-conduct that the federal government can’t reach. Every day, most Americans engage in non-activities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler, or not to buy a Snuggie, you’ve impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We’ve gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.

Well, you do have to admit that that ruling is consistent with over a century of "commerce clause" "interpretation".

[twa]

Please don't, because none of what you are saying is relevant in the least.

Your claim all along has been that Vinson's January order was clear and immediately blocked the federal government from further implementation of the law, and that the Administration was idiotic for asking for clarification of the scope of the order.

If the Administration was barred from further implementation of the law by Vinson's ruling, the attorneys general in other states would not have been asking the same questions themselves - "what does this ruling mean? What is the national status of the law right now? Is it stayed pending appeal or not?"

Your claim was Vinsons order was unclear....scope is not in question when he ruled it unconstitutional and unseverable from the whole with a declaratory judgment

Your continued ignoring of "in the interim" and it's meaning to the AG's is weak sauce,similar to the weakness in the govt's request for clarity