Obama WH to Vinson: Please tell states to obey law you just struck down

posted at 10:12 am on February 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Last month, a federal judge in Florida struck down ObamaCare in its entirety due to the unconstitutional nature of its individual mandate and lack of severability.  The ruling technically freed 26 states from compliance on ObamaCare, at least until an appeal is heard at either the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court.  Last night, however, the Obama administration asked Judge Roger Vinson to please tell all of the states to comply with the law he just threw out:

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 Henry [sic] 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.

Vinson made himself perfectly clear last month.  He struck down the entire law, which means none of it goes into effect, not unless he’s overruled on appeal.  That applies to any provisions that have already come into force, as well as those not yet triggered. In fact, Vinson declined to issue an injunction against enforcement of the law by saying that overturning it was sufficient to the task.

Essentially, the Obama administration wants Vinson to tell the states to obey an unconstitutional law.  This isn’t a necessary step for an appeal, although it might or might not be a prerequisite to an application for a stay at the 11th Circuit.  Either way, it’s a fool’s errand.  If a judge declares an entire law void on the basis of constitutionality, he is hardly likely to issue an order telling states to obey it anyway.

Assuming this isn’t fulfilling some arcane check box on an appeal, what’s the point of asking Vinson to do this?  Either Obama’s team doesn’t understand how to read a legal brief — an amusing prospect, but utterly untrue — or they’re trying to delay the appeal a little longer.  Perhaps they’re hoping for a few more decisions to go their way in circuit courts before Vinson’s ruling gets reviewed at the next level.  Frankly, though, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, either.  Except as a political pose, this seems completely futile and meaningless.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Can the White House be found in contempt?

Fallon on February 18, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Yes, and as a matter of fact … the Obama Administratio was found in contempt of court earlier this month on a completely unrelated matter.

I’m just wondering to myself … how long will the GOP House stand by and watch the White House disobey the courts before they file impeachment proceedings?

I’m serious.

HondaV65 on February 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Nobody says NO to a narcissist

Bevan on February 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM

What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL doesn’t the boy prez. understand? It isn’t LAW!

lilium on February 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM

If there is any sense in the world, judge Vinson’s ruling will be the end of Obamacare. It is so clearly a violation of the Constitution that there is no reason for it to be taken up by a higher court.

If anything, any further court proceedings stemming from this case should be the prosecution of Obama and the Dems for breaching their oaths to the Constitution. Personally, I think there should be criminal penalties.

FloatingRock on February 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I have not done too many federal appeals, but:

A party seeking a stay or injunction pending appeal must ordinarily file the motion in the district court in the first instance. [FRAP 8(a)(1); FRCP 62(a),(c)] A party who elects to bypass the district court and file directly with theCourt of Appeal must, in its motion, explain why application to the district court was not practicable. [FRAP 8(a)(2)(A)]

tommylotto on February 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Elfman wrote:

What Vinson did is brilliant. If he issued an injunction against enforcement of Obamacare, an appellate judge could immediately issue a stay of that injunction. Now, I think (but I’m not lawyer), An appellate court has to fully review the case and override his decision in order to force states to comply with Obamacare. That will probably take months. I think that the BO administration is filling this request for clarification in order to get Vinson to make a positive assertion against enforcement in order to give an appellate judge something to grab on to, a virtual injunction, in order to issue a stay.

That was exactly my take. I suspect that the Obama administration could have easily gotten a stay of any injunction from the original ruling. But now all they can do is appeal that ruling, and until an Appeals court gets around to it the entire country has an excellent legal argument for ignoring Obamacare.

So in desperation the Obama administration is trying to get Judge Vinson to say something to the effect of “No, I will not require compliance, because I’ve already ruled that the law is unconstitutional.” Then the administration will take that to a higher court and argue that it is an effective injunction, and ask that court to issue some kind of holding order, which they’ll probably get.

But Judge Vinson is smarter that Obama’s lawyers, so my guess is that he will issue a very brief ruling that says “Motion denied. The Court’s decision was clear.” That will leave the administration no better off than before.

The trap for the administration is that appealing to a higher court to require continued compliance with the law is a not-so-tacit admission that Judge Vinson’s ruling has for now stopped Obamacare in its tracks. The administration would be begging the appeals court to “say it’s not so”. All the appeals court has to do is deny the request and instruct the administration to follow the normal appeal process if it disagrees with Vinson’s decision; that’s the simplest path for the appeals court to take, rather than grappling with the messy question of how to issue a stay for a non-existent injunction. But politically, that will demonstrate to the entire country that the administration’s request to prevent Judge Vinson’s ruling from having immediate effect has been denied — the functional equivalent of refusing to stay an injunction.

I think the above explains perfectly the reason for this court filing. The administration is stuck in a bad place, and is desperately seeking some kind of traction to extricate itself.

dpwiener on February 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM

The Constitutional lawyer understands neither.

hawksruleva on February 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM

HUBRIS!

belad on February 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM

they’re trying to delay the appeal a little longer.

This is the only explanation that makes any sense. Obama knows full well that Obamacare is DOA in the federal budget, this year, let alone in 2014.

The biggest obstacle to socializing the American health care system was never the courts, or even Congress. Obama’s biggest “problem” is that Americans are overwhelmingly happy with our health care as it is.

In the short term, Obama doesn’t need federal funding or the mandate. He has 2000 pages of statutes, which will soon be 20,000 pages of regulations, that will allow him to DESTROY the private hospital and insurance infrastructure. Once he has done that, the sheeple will be begging him to step in and do something – anything – to stop the carnage he created.

logis on February 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Interesting.

crr6 on February 18, 2011 at 10:25 AM

In a meaningless, nonsensical kind of way.

Pretty much perfect for meaningless, nonsensical kind of people, ain’t it?

Squiggy on February 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I’m just wondering to myself … how long will the GOP House stand by and watch the White House disobey the courts before they file impeachment proceedings?

I’m serious.

HondaV65 on February 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

This. I’m serious, too.

CantCureStupid on February 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Maybe it was in the way Obama asked him, for example.

“It’s a nice court house you’ve got here. It’d be a shame if someone, let’s say, set fire to it.”

shick on February 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM

DESPERATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chasnleo on February 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Just one more chance for the judge to give the administration the smack down.

Thanks you sir! May I have another!

Scrappy on February 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM

…high crimes and misdemeanors…

Let’s play fill in the blank, shall we?

I M _ E A C H !!!

Subtle hint: The answer is “P”.

I know, 2/3rds…Senate… blah blah….

A guy can dream, can’t he?

hillbillyjim on February 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Delay tactic.

Political posing.

You got it.

powerpro on February 18, 2011 at 1:07 PM

My guess is that Obama has consulted with Laurence Tribe to see if he could come up with a new meaning for unconstitutional. Since he couldn’t Tribe, who was responsible for devising the Democrats filibuster strategy on Bush’s judicial appointments, probably came up with this also.

We’ll have to see how all this wisdom plays out. Hopefully Alaska has started a trend, Sarah Palin trained them right up there.

bflat879 on February 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I’m just wondering to myself … how long will the GOP House stand by and watch the White House disobey the courts before they file impeachment proceedings?

I’m serious.

HondaV65 on February 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I wish I were wrong, but I just don’t think this will happen. The new Republican House members saw what happened when Clenis was impeached and they know the Democrats own the Senate and not one of them will ever vote to impeach Obama for any reason, so why bother? They probably believe they can achieve their ends by defunding Obamacare and weakening him politically in the run-up to 2012. And they don’t have to stick their necks out to do that.

SKYFOX on February 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Frankly, though, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, either. Except as a political pose, this seems completely futile and meaningless.

If they have such trust and belief in the strength of ObamaScrooming why the delay?

They have no convictions, no spine.

If things don’t go our way
We delay

see Wisconsin too and etc.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Obama wants an injunction, and then he will order the Appeals court judges to go on strike like the Wisco Dem Senators so that he can continue to impose an unconstitutional law.

pedestrian on February 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

The Official Obama WH Motto:

DUH!!!!!

pilamaye on February 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM

No, it’s “Screw You“.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Frankly, though, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, either. Except as a political pose, this seems completely futile and meaningless.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM

But enough about Judge Vinson’s ruling!

crr6 on February 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

The writing is on the wall with this POS and has been for awhile: a constitutional crisis in our future. There can be no other end. And he and his cohort will believe they can bluff and power their way through it.

rrpjr on February 18, 2011 at 2:22 PM

I’m just wondering to myself … how long will the GOP House stand by and watch the White House disobey the courts before they file impeachment proceedings?

I’m serious.

HondaV65 on February 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

They would first have to find their spines and balls!

Esmerelda on February 18, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Frankly, though, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, either. Except as a political pose, this seems completely futile and meaningless.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM
But enough about Judge Vinson’s ruling!

crr6 on February 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

You might not have noticed this fact, but a federal judge has a wee bit of power granted by the Article III when deciding a legal controversy. He decides, issues an order and signs it. Not quite meaningless. Oh, and p.s. there is a reason it is called an “order,” cuz he can tell people what to do, in case you were wondering.

txmomof6 on February 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM

People don’t get it. Obama is basically a left-wing thug under his smooth talking, and he puts on a good act, but he’s a thug. The rule of law is only for him to obey if he likes the law. The man has proven his contempt for the people’s majority will and he is dangerous, determined to wreak things he doesn’t like, like what’s left of our non-socialist economy.

AS pointed out already, he is already in contempt of court ( http://tinyurl.com/4rv3lao ) and he should be impeached.

Chessplayer on February 18, 2011 at 5:35 PM

But enough about Judge Vinson’s ruling!

crr6 on February 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Only because federal law is superior to a federal judges’ ruling..or something.

BobMbx on February 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Curiously, the best thing that could happen to Obama is for Obamacare to be totally tossed out. Then he could run in 2012 without that turkey of an albatross around his neck. With all the hanger onners to unemployment and other Blue bennies that he’s passed out, he could have enough to cruise to re-election, even with a sour economy and unemployment.

If it doesn’t get totally tossed out, he could be in trouble. How to tell — well, if he’s hoping for Obamacare to go away, he’d be doing what? He’d be doing pretty much what he’s doing — a moderately tepid response to the court judgements, string it out for a while longer, but don’t make too big a stink about it all because that would drag him down in 2012…

Curiously, there is a way to catch his bluff, if you’re the gambling sort. Pass funding for Obamacare, attach some ‘crisis’ goodies to it like requiring all defined benefit plans insured by taxpayers to be reconstituted by 2012 as 401k plans, then eliminate or cut corporate taxation by half (to help 401ks AND the economy grow at home). He’s going to sign it if he really wants Obamacare.

If Obamacare dies in the SC, the rest stays… If Obamacare doesn’t dies in the SC, then it’s a 2012 albatross that will take Obama down and the rest will stay…

Minimally, the package of reconstituting defined benefit plans into 401ks AND dropping the corporate tax rates to help 401k growth would seem to be a winner for everyone. Except perhaps the anticapitalist extreme left wing Dems. The bazooka in their arsenal that labels capitalism and corporations are bad would be gone because the union workerbees would now have their pensions firmly invested in corporate success and growth.

Currently, with defined benefit plans typically backed up by taxpayer benefit guarantees of some sort, there is little to no connection between corporate prosperity and union/bureaucrat pensions. So they can take all the “free shots” at capitalism and corporations they want — it doesn’t effect them… Not so when they are openly vested in corporate prosperity via their pension plans.

drfredc on February 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2