Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The republicans wanted it voted on. It was. Did you think it would be a different outcome? Now they have to get to work helping fix it!
Incorrect. Now the GOP controlled House will defund the law. It will never be implemented, and the names of the 23 Democrat Senators who voted against the repeal yesterday, who are up for reelection in 2012, will be remembered. They just gave the GOP the majority in the Senate in 2012.
Healthcare act ruled -void, but all Senate Democrats voted today to keep it as if nothing happened in a court.
Yes, the Democrats voted that way.
Tell me, if the ruling in Florida actually voided the health care law, why are Senate Republicans trying to repeal the law?
Could it be that even Senate Republicans are sufficiently intelligent to know that the judge in Florida elected to deny the plaintiffs' request to stop implementation of the law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
The judge STATED in the ruling he presumes and expects the administration to abide by the ruling.
Here's the entire passage:
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”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.
Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
I find this interesting on two levels. First, that any judge in any case with the authority to issue a clear, unambiguous statement, would instead choose to "presume" that a certain action would follow his decision. Indeed, in the actual decision he said that injunctive relief was DENIED (and he used all caps for emphasis). If the presumption was that the federal government would follow his decision, why would he emphasize the denying of injunctive relief?
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief;
And second, unless the good judge is living on the Moon, he's well aware of the intense interest people have in this issue, and the other decisions already rendered by other federal judges, and the other cases winding their way through the judicial system. Given all that, his decision to frame one of the two most important parts of his ruling as basically "I'm going to assume that the federal government is going to stop the implementation of the health care" instead of simply saying "stop implementation" is bizarre.
If this decision to assume that implementation is stopped in its tracks had any merit, why are there still cases pending in lower courts? Shouldn't they be tossed out, since the law is already dead?
Certainly Senate Republicans don't think that this ruling has stopped the implementation of the health care act. I mean, they wouldn't waste their time trying to repeal something that has already been stopped ... would they?
Incorrect. Now the GOP controlled House will defund the law. It will never be implemented, and the names of the 23 Democrat Senators who voted against the repeal yesterday, who are up for reelection in 2012, will be remembered. They just gave the GOP the majority in the Senate in 2012.
The republicans are not going to do any thing and they will be replaced.
Because good reform requires intelligent input. Change needs "tweeking" not destroying. All i can see of the Republican party is "we want to get into the Whitehouse" They seem to be suffering from the action talks and Bull*hit walks syndrome and they seem to be walking.
Either they want to be part of the solution or part of the problem.... erm let me see........... part of the problem seems to be their decision
The republicans are not going to do any thing and they will be replaced.
In the few months they have been in office, they have done more in those months than the the dems have done in 2 years....you know like keep their promise....
But, thats your opinion...and I have mine....however, we see what happened last novemebr because of what the dems decided to do.....
Lets also remember, what happened last november, was just not at the level of congress...it was 650+ repubs throughout the United States....were put into office....
Incorrect. Now the GOP controlled House will defund the law. It will never be implemented, and the names of the 23 Democrat Senators who voted against the repeal yesterday, who are up for reelection in 2012, will be remembered. They just gave the GOP the majority in the Senate in 2012.
In the few months they have been in office, they have done more in those months than the the dems have done in 2 years....you know like keep their promise....
But, thats your opinion...and I have mine....however, we see what happened last novemebr because of what the dems decided to do.....
Lets also remember, what happened last november, was just not at the level of congress...it was 650+ repubs throughout the United States....were put into office....
What have they done except for the repeal that they knew wasn't going any where?
The quicker it gets there the less time obama has to add another judge in his favor....therefore complete repeal...quicker...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
