Karl Denninger responds to: Florida Judge Orders Obama Administration to Expedite Health Care Appeal
Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson, AP
The Florida judge who ruled against President Obama’s health care law on Wednesday ordered the administration to expedite its appeal, if it plans to, within seven days.
District Judge Roger Vinson, who issued his original decision on Jan. 31, ruled then that the individual mandate in the new law is unconstitutional, and since it is basically the entire linchpin of the law, he declared the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act void.
[…]
However, in ordering the administration to move quickly, Vinson added that his summary judgment is stayed pending appeal, meaning the administration can continue to implement the health law until the law goes through the court system. (Full article here >)
Now We’re Cooking: Judge Vinson
Courtesy of Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker
If you remember, I questioned whether Obama was crossing the line into sedition with his statement that he intended to ignore a declaratory judgment.
Well, they apparently (after stalling) asked the Judge for a stay, and got something a bit different than they asked for in reply.
Judge Vinson began with:
My order of January 31, 2011 (“Order”), granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs (in part); held the “individual mandate” provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) unconstitutional; and declared the remainder of the Act void because it was not severable. The defendants have now filed a motion to “clarify” this ruling (doc. 156) (“Def. Mot.”). During the four-plus weeks since entry of my order, the defendants have seemingly continued to move forward and implement the Act.
Yep. That’s exactly what Obama did – he basically gave you the finger Judge.
As Judge Vinson continues…
Even though I expressly declared that the entire Act was “void,” and even though I emphasized that “separate injunctive relief is not necessary” only because it must be presumed that “the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court,” which means that “declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction,” the defendants have indicated that they “do not interpret the Court’s order as requiring them to immediately cease [implementing and enforcing the Act].” See Def. Mot. at 4; see also id. at 6 (“we do not understand the Court’s declaratory judgment of its own force to relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Act”). They have reportedly continued with full implementation of the Act.
They sure have. How’s that middle finger look to you, Judge Vinson?
A litigant who tries to evade a federal court’s judgment — and a declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice — will come to regret it.” Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh, 620 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir. 2010).
Oh, I think I’m starting to get the picture here – you’re a wee bit ****ed. Well, I would be too.
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.”6
One sentence reduction: Up your ass with your dishonest argument, Mr. President.
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. See, e.g., NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 2005 WL 743086, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2005) (district court granted motion to stay its own ruling, “conditioned on as prompt as possible appeal and a motion for an expedited appeal”).
Reduction: You can have your stay.
But – you must either **** or get off the pot. Right now.
Judge Vinson’s Order Staying Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Ruling
