06 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt should be noted that social security and the minimum wage were also both declared unconstitutional, however, the Supremes overturned these decisions. I would think that the Supremes would have to rule on this for it to go forward.
Can they do so, legally? If not, no, if yes, yes.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by CliffLandinClearly that would be too logical.
3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.
Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
Seriously, though, it will "go forward" to the Supreme Court, ultimately.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by CliffLandinAny federal judge can enjoin the enforcement of the Act pending appeal; at least over the parties within its jurisdiction.
3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.
Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
Who has more judges on which side and who appointed whom could not be less relevant.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76It is only relevant in showing that the decisions in this case are political, not constitutional. The decisions have been drawn right down party lines as per the political affiliation of the one making the appointment. The question asked was "Since two federal courts have found aspects of Obamacare to be unconstitutional, should the federal government go ahead with Obamacare anyway?" I am merely pointing out that since 3 have found it to be constitutional, then 2 finding that it isn't should not trump those decisions.
Any federal judge can enjoin the enforcement of the Act pending appeal; at least over the parties within its jurisdiction.
Who has more judges on which side and who appointed whom could not be less relevant.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by CliffLandinSo what if only one federal judge finds a ruling unconstitutinal? Do you think it is OK to ignore the ruling?
3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.
Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
06 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo political appointment? What do you propose, elections? Either way its political. How could politics not be involved when the judiciary is one of the three branches of government?
Why is there no significant support for a Constitutional amendment to stop the political appointment of judges, anyway?
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by whodeyDid he issue an injunction? If not, then there's nothing to ignore until the appellate process ends or some court orders the parties to actually do something.
So what if only one federal judge finds a ruling unconstitutinal? Do you think it is OK to ignore the ruling?
06 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know. Why would someone rule something unconstitutional but not issue and injunction? Would he be saying that it is unconstitutional but does not really care?
Did he issue an injunction? If not, then there's nothing to ignore until the appellate process ends or some court orders the parties to actually do something.
06 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAsk Judge Vinson. Any injunction would have been almost certainly stayed by a higher court anyway; lower level Federal judges don't get the final say on what is unconstitutional or not. A Federal judge in Massachusetts has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional but I don't recall you or other right wingers insisting that enforcement of that law now be stopped.
I don't know. Why would someone rule something unconstitutional but not issue and injunction? Would he be saying that it is unconstitutional but does not really care?
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSo it would appear that although judge Vinson is the toast of the town in conservative corners, perhaps he should be blasted for not imposing an injunction. Why on earth would anyone declare something unconstitutional and not try to enforce their ruling?
Ask Judge Vinson. Any injunction would have been almost certainly stayed by a higher court anyway; lower level Federal judges don't get the final say on what is unconstitutional or not. A Federal judge in Massachusetts has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional but I don't recall you or other right wingers insisting that enforcement of that law now be stopped.
Anyone?