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.
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.
What do they have to obey if it is found constitutional? Nothing.
Just like not getting a ticket....do not have to do anything,
However, a judge has found it UNconstitutional....Obama should obey the law....and not act like a little child....
What do they have to obey if it is found constitutional? Nothing.
Just like not getting a ticket....do not have to do anything,
However, a judge has found it UNconstitutional....Obama should obey the law....and not act like a little child....
The Department of Justice could just as easily say that they're obeying the three district courts that have declared the law constitutional, and that to "obey" Judge Vinson would mean violating the other three courts. Moving for a stay is entirely appropriate under those circumstances. Parties to litigation do that all the time when appealing an adverse lower court ruling. It's not acting like a child at all, but acting within the bounds of the law!
Your ticket analogy is false. It would be more apt if you said that one traffic court said your ticket was unlawfully given and should be torn up, but another traffic court said that ticket was lawfully given and has to be paid. You're within your rights to ask not to pay the ticket until a higher court resolves the dispute.
Well, well, this court finally got something right. Awesome news - thanks for sharing it!
They haven't gotten anything right or wrong. It would have been a rare exception for the Court to hear this case before it had properly worked its way through the appellate system. Celebration by either side would be a bit premature.
They haven't gotten anything right or wrong. It would have been a rare exception for the Court to hear this case before it had properly worked its way through the appellate system. Celebration by either side would be a bit premature.
I beg to disagree. They were right to refuse to hear this case and not skip over the Appellate Court. In essence, what this refusal indicates is that the Court doesn't find that there's anything about the Healthcare Reform Act that makes it of "imperative public importance" as to "require immediate determination" by the high court. It was the right call, and I'm free to "celebrate" that if I choose.
I'm not so uninformed as to think this has any reflection on how they might ultimately rule, so there's nothing "premature" about being glad they're following standard legal protocol here and not fast-tracking it. Fast-tracking it would have been wrong, and I'm fairly certain you'd have been decrying it, even if it is within the rules of the court to do so under certain circumstances. This case doesn't fit those circumstances and they made the right call in acknowledging that.
And for that, they get my kudos.
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.
