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.
I guess you don't realize this is old news. Were you unaware that the DOJ has already complied with submitting their response within the 7 day period? Do you not realize that this is a completely separate issue now? That the DOJ isn't asking for a stay?
They don't understand anything, they're just annnnnnnnngrryyyyyyyy!
I guess you don't realize this is old news. Were you unaware that the DOJ has already complied with submitting their response within the 7 day period? Do you not realize that this is a completely separate issue now? That the DOJ isn't asking for a stay?
The judge granted the stay, if obama sought an appeal, either to the appellate court OR to SCOTUS, within the 7 days.
I ignored the rest and only responding to this because I dont respond to childish attacks..
The rest? That was the whole post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You are flat out wrong.. Everytime a court hearing hits a new level, the court case begins new.
That is so breathtakingly dumb I had to open the window to allow air to rush into the intellectual vacuum that constitutes that comment.
When a case is appealed to the next level, the entire appeal is based entirely and exclusively on the decision of the prior court. That is what is being appealed. The case is not reheard. The case does not begin new. No new arguments are allowed, no discussions of issues that do not have anything to do with the decision of the lower court.
Because that is what is being appealed. The decision.
Example: There have been about 75 Birther cases. Each of them were thrown out because of standing. The only issue that could be presented or argued on appeal was standing. Even though the cases were originally about eligibility, that was not and could not be an issue in any of the appeals, or in any of the resulting petitions in front of the Supreme Court.
Only standing (i.e. the decision) could be appealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Previous rulings are NOT taken into consideration as evidence.. The Supreme Court, (or any court) is forbidden from taking evidence into account that is not submitted during hearings or in their briefs.
Another astoundingly dumb comment.
The previous ruling is not "evidence." It is the issue being appealed.
The effect of Vinson’s stay will be indefinite if the DoJ files for an expedited appeal within the seven-day limit. Therefore, there is no need to ask the appeals court or Supreme Court for a further stay.
Since we are discussing the Supreme Court, one would think that someone of even moderate intelligence would understand this statement. Apparently you do not.
Since we are actually talking about both the Supreme Court and the Appeals Court, moderate intelligence is apparently no substitute for reading comprehension.
Way to COMPLETELY MISREPRESENT what's happening. Though I shouldn't be surprised.
The Supreme Court normally takes cases only after they've been reviewed at least once by appellate judges.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is trying to CIRCUMVENT THE PROCESS by skipping over that part and going straight to the Supreme Court.
The Obama Justice Department is saying that's inappropriate and that this legislation should follow normal protocol through our court system.
And you present it as Obama wanting to delay the process, as if it were on the proper track and he was asking the court to hold off "just because".
I shouldn't let this kind of crap tick me off anymore, but somehow this level of dishonesty always does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The effect of Vinson’s stay will be indefinite if the DoJ files for an expedited appeal within the seven-day limit. Therefore, there is no need to ask the appeals court or Supreme Court for a further stay.
After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court.
So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”
The defendants have suggested, for example, that my order and judgment could not have been intended to have the full force of an injunction because, if I had so intended, I would have been “required to apply the familiar four-factor test” to determine if injunctive relief was appropriate. …
I did not undertake this four-factor analysis for a simple reason: it was not necessary. Even though the defendants had technically disputed that the plaintiffs could satisfy those four factors, the defendants had acknowledged in their summary judgment opposition brief that, if I were to find for the plaintiffs, separate injunctive relief would be superfluous and unnecessary. The defendants expressly assured the court that, in light of the “long-standing presumption that a declaratory judgment provides adequate relief as against an executive officer, as it will not be presumed that that officer will ignore the judgment of the Court,” any declaratory judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor “would [ ] be adequate to vindicate [the plaintiffs’] claims.” Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for summary Judgment (doc. 137), at 43. Consequently, there was no need to discuss and apply the four-factor test to determine if injunctive relief was appropriate becausethe defendants had confirmed that they would “not . . . ignore the judgment of the Court” and that my “declaratory judgment would [ ] be adequate.” In other words, the defendants are now claiming that it is somehow confusing that I bypassed the four-factor test and applied the “long-standing presumption” that they themselves had identified and specifically insisted that they would honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
All of this is true.
But we are not talking about the stay.
Nice attack, wrong hill.
Oh, I thought we were talking about the Obama Administration's delaying tactics and complete disregard for the court's decision declaring the law unconstitutional. I thought that was why the administration sought a "clarification" when one wasn't needed and as though they actually didn't understand the Judge's ruling. This seems to have POed Judge Vinson to the point he ordered them to request an expedited appeal within seven days or obey his decision.
"And you present it as Obama wanting to delay the process, as if it were on the proper track and he was asking the court to hold off 'just because'."
The proper track is to obey the court's decision pending appeal, is it not?
When has the Obama Administration ever cared about what the proper track might be?
The proper track is to obey the court's decision pending appeal, is it not?
When has the Obama Administration ever cared about what the proper track might be?
Moving for a stay of enforcement of a court decision is normal, and to be expected when a case is being appealed. For example, how can the Obama administration obey this court's order, when there are three other district courts that have declared the health care reform legislation constitutional? The government literally cannot obey each court's orders at the same time, therefore requesting a stay pending appeal is entirely appropriate.
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.
